Civil Disobedience - Henry David Thoreau

[iOWNme]

You can get this book for less than $5 on Ebay here:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Civil-Disobedience-and-Other-Essays-by-Henry-David-Thoreau-1993-Paperback-/321314144416?pt=US_Texbook_Education&hash=item4acfd0c0a0

This book contains 5 of his essays:

"Philosopher, naturalist and rugged individualist, Thoreau has inspired generations of readers to think for themselves and to find meaning and beauty in nature. This representative sampling includes five of his most frequently read and cited essays: "On the Duty of Civil Disobedience" (1849), "Life without Principle" (1863), "Slavery in Massachusetts" (1854), "A Plea for Captain John Brown" (1869) and "Walking" (1862). Reprinted from standard editions.

Thoreau has inspired generations of readers to think for themselves and to find meaning and beauty in nature. This sampling includes five of his most frequently read and cited essays: "On the Duty of Civil Disobedience" (1849), "Life without Principle" (1863), "Slavery in Massachusetts" (1854), "A Plea for Captain John Brown" (1869) and "Walking" (1862)."



I HIGHLY recommend this book to all GSUS members!

http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lljyow0c0l1qg81iwo1_500.jpg

[palani]

Thoreau would have done better to concentrate on what laws actually are and rather than concentrating on breaking law he should have looked at ignoring laws that don't apply. Laws don't apply because
1. they aren't reasonable, or;
2. they are foreign laws

If a law is reasonable you obey it, if a law is domestic you obey it or, while under the principle of necessity, you do what you need to do to survive.

[horseshoe3]

Or you can get it here for free.

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/71

The Gutenberg project has a lot of old (out of copyright) books available for free.

[iOWNme]

Thoreau would have done better to concentrate on what laws actually are and rather than concentrating on breaking law he should have looked at ignoring laws that don't apply. Laws don't apply because
1. they aren't reasonable, or;
2. they are foreign laws

If a law is reasonable you obey it, if a law is domestic you obey it or, while under the principle of necessity, you do what you need to do to survive.


If you 'ignore' a 'Law' that says YOU MUST do XYZ, arent you 'breaking the Law'?

No 'Law' EVER applies to ANYONE. If you choose to not steal, good for you because stealing is immoral. But the 'Law' is not why it is immoral. If a 'Law' is reasonable you still dont obey it because it is 'Law', you appear to obey it becaue your free will and conscience says you should do what you think is right. If that just happoens to fall into what is 'legal' or 'lawful' then so be it, but neither 'leagl' nor 'lawful' have any bearing on human morality. EVER.

[iOWNme]

Or you can get it here for free.

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/71

The Gutenberg project has a lot of old (out of copyright) books available for free.

Yes i have this on PDF as well. This is for people who enjoy holding a book in their hands, and flipping real paper pages.

[horseshoe3]

If you 'ignore' a 'Law' that says YOU MUST do XYZ, arent you 'breaking the Law'?

No 'Law' EVER applies to ANYONE. If you choose to not steal, good for you because stealing is immoral. But the 'Law' is not why it is immoral. If a 'Law' is reasonable you still dont obey it because it is 'Law', you appear to obey it becaue your free will and conscience says you should do what you think is right. If that just happoens to fall into what is 'legal' or 'lawful' then so be it, but neither 'leagl' nor 'lawful' have any bearing on human morality. EVER.

People don't understand how I can be against seat belt laws, but wear a seat belt. I try to explain it like this but they can't comprehend.

[palani]

If you 'ignore' a 'Law' that says YOU MUST do XYZ, arent you 'breaking the Law'? I ignore the laws of Mohamed all the time. Same with the laws of Panama. Doesn't bother me in the least to not observe laws that are not domestic to me.

I know I am supposed to come to a stop at all STOP signs but yet these signs have a border around them making them advisory in nature and there is no authority posted. Does it stand to reason that just because someone saw fit to place a sign on an intersection on an open plain where you can see for 5 miles in any direction that you must obey that sign? A sign is a thing, a rem. When you start obeying things like signs then next you might start worshiping stones or images too.


[/B]No 'Law' EVER applies to ANYONE. If you choose to not steal, good for you because stealing is immoral. But the 'Law' is not why it is immoral. If a 'Law' is reasonable you still dont obey it because it is 'Law', you appear to obey it becaue your free will and conscience says you should do what you think is right. If that just happoens to fall into what is 'legal' or 'lawful' then so be it, but neither 'leagl' nor 'lawful' have any bearing on human morality. EVER.
You become a creature of a particular law (a person) when you join a society. Each society has their own laws. These are for the benefit of their own citizens. Visitors have no duty established by oath to obey any of these laws. Your birth certificate places you in a particular place at the time of your birth. Quite possibly that place is a city, a municipal corporation. This BC then becomes your ticket to all of the benefits and obligations of that place where you were born. You still have the option of not producing a BC at all or even disclaiming that you have one or you might decide you were born in some other place and give notice accordingly. You also have a common law right to be identified by whatever name you choose. But if you produce that original BC on demand then by your action you are consenting to be subject to all the laws of the place shown on that BC.

[Ponce]

The law created under the power of a gun can be broken by a gun because "real" laws can only be created by the full members of congres, not even the president can break those laws........which of course ours will.

V

[Silver Rocket Bitches!]

Also available here (http://www.booksshouldbefree.com/book/on-the-duty-of-civil-disobedience-by-henry-david-thoreau)if you enjoy listening to books on audio.

[iOWNme]

The law created under the power of a gun can be broken by a gun because "real" laws can only be created by the full members of congres, not even the president can break those laws........which of course ours will.

V


What is this 'Congress' thing you speak of? Do they have the ability to alter human morality?

Your beloved 'Congress' passed 'Laws' that said Black pople were only 3/5th human. Should those 'Laws' have been resisted and disobeyed? Your beloved 'Congress' passed 'Laws' that said Japanese American Citizens were to be rounded up in concentration camps. Should those 'Laws' have been resisted and disobeyed?

I just proved to you that it does not matter in the slightest WHO proclaims they can pass 'Law', all that matters is human morality which existed long before 'Government' was ever even concieved.

Why do you keep IMAGINING that this thing called 'Congress' is anything other than just humans? Can you make a 'Law' that 'Congress' will be forced to obey? Why not?

It doesnt matter WHO claims to be a 'Lawmaker', if what they proclaim is in direct conflict with human morality their decrees are to be RESISTED AND DISOBEYED.

[Ponce]

Even if some of the laws that congress comes up with are illegal all laws have a start or a point of departure.......what we do with it is something else.

V

[Jewboo]

http://www.concordma.com/magazine/mayjun01/helen.gif


FACT: Every Sunday, Henry walked from Waldon Pond to his mom's house for dinner and free laundry.




:rolleyes: Henry was a pussy in real life

[Shami-Amourae]

http://www.concordma.com/magazine/mayjun01/helen.gif


FACT: Every Sunday, Henry walked from Waldon Pond to his mom's house for dinner and free laundry.




:rolleyes: Henry was a pussy in real life



You mean sitting on the computer all day posting on forums about how we will take back America isn't manly?
:rolleyes:

[iOWNme]

http://www.concordma.com/magazine/mayjun01/helen.gif


FACT: Every Sunday, Henry walked from Waldon Pond to his mom's house for dinner and free laundry.




:rolleyes: Henry was a pussy in real life




Ah yess.....A man's entire life's work summed up in 1 single sentence by the all powerful JewBookJew.

But dont worry, at the time there was no 'Law' against him doing his laundry at his mothers home. So according to your STATIST mentality, it was perfectly MORAL for him to do so, because his Master did not forbid him from doing it.

LOL

All you have is a LABEL. You relish the word. You have no intellectual acumen. You have no gravitas. You do this so inside your mind you can obnoxiously tell yourself that you are somehow better than him in some weird childish way.

You have NO ability to actually rebut ANYTHING using reason, logic and evidence. You bring up strawman arguments to try and sway the discussion away from individuals who may find virtue and morality in his writings. YOU are SCARED TO DEATH of the thought of having to actually think for yourself and figure out the world on your own. You NEED to be told how to think, what to do, what to say and how to live.

And when someone like Thoreau comes along and says "individuals should not permit governments to overrule or atrophy their consciences, and that they have a duty to avoid allowing such acquiescence to enable the government to make them the agents of injustice", you CRINGE at the thought of having to actually take on the ONE single responsibility of being a human being: To judge right and wrong for YOURSELF and to act accordingly.

Both Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr both stated that it was Thoreau's book 'Civil Disobedience' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Disobedience_%28Thoreau%29) that directly influenced and motivated them to DISOBEY and RESIST 'Government'. Im just glad they focused on his writings and what his message stood for, instead of focusing on his laundry habits.


Oh and last thing: In 1845 Henry decided to experiment with simple natural living and moved into the wilderness into a hut he built by hand. He lived out there for 2 years, living 100% sustainable on his own. He wrote this about his experiment:


"I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived. I did not wish to live what was not life, living is so dear; nor did I wish to practise resignation, unless it was quite necessary. I wanted to live deep and suck out all the marrow of life, to live so sturdily and Spartan-like as to put to rout all that was not life, to cut a broad swath and shave close, to drive life into a corner, and reduce it to its lowest terms, and, if it proved to be mean, why then to get the whole and genuine meanness of it, and publish its meanness to the world; or if it were sublime, to know it by experience, and be able to give a true account of it in my next excursion."


I dont know to many 'pussys' that would be able to live and support themselves in nature like Thoraeu did. Could you?

[7th trump]

Ah yess.....A man's entire life's work summed up in 1 single sentence by the all powerful JewBookJew.

But dont worry, at the time there was no 'Law' against him doing his laundry at his mothers home. So according to your STATIST mentality, it was perfectly MORAL for him to do so, because his Master did not forbid him from doing it.

LOL

All you have is a LABEL. You relish the word. You have no intellectual acumen. You have no gravitas. You do this so inside your mind you can obnoxiously tell yourself that you are somehow better than him in some weird childish way.

You have NO ability to actually rebut ANYTHING using reason, logic and evidence. You bring up strawman arguments to try and sway the discussion away from individuals who may find virtue and morality in his writings. YOU are SCARED TO DEATH of the thought of having to actually think for yourself and figure out the world on your own. You NEED to be told how to think, what to do, what to say and how to live.

And when someone like Thoreau comes along and says "individuals should not permit governments to overrule or atrophy their consciences, and that they have a duty to avoid allowing such acquiescence to enable the government to make them the agents of injustice", you CRINGE at the thought of having to actually take on the ONE single responsibility of being a human being: To judge right and wrong for YOURSELF and to act accordingly.

Both Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr both stated that it was Thoreau's book 'Civil Disobedience' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Disobedience_%28Thoreau%29) that directly influenced and motivated them to DISOBEY and RESIST 'Government'. Im just glad they focused on his writings and what his message stood for, instead of focusing on his laundry habits.


Oh and last thing: In 1845 Henry decided to experiment with simple natural living and moved into the wilderness into a hut he built by hand. He lived out there for 2 years, living 100% sustainable on his own. He wrote this about his experiment:




I dont know to many 'pussys' that would be able to live and support themselves in nature like Thoraeu did. Could you?

Now theres an idea....I said to get on a boat and be your own king of the sea, but maybe you can build a shack and live in the woods so you don't have to be bothered.

[mick silver]

hell i have a few shack to hide in if needed . lots of country boys have a few places out of the way if you know what i mean

[palani]

lots of country boys have a few places out of the way if you know what i mean

It's knowing that your door is always open
And your path is free to walk
That makes me tend to leave my sleeping bag
Rolled up and stashed behind your couch
And it's knowing I'm not shackled
By forgotten words and bonds
And the ink stains that are dried upon some line
That keeps you in the backroads
By the rivers of my memory
That keeps you ever gentle on my mind

[iOWNme]

"Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men, generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse. Why is it not more apt to anticipate and provide for reform? Why does it not cherish its wise minority? Why does it cry and resist before it is hurt? Why does it not encourage its citizens to put out its faults, and do better than it would have them? Why does it always crucify Christ and excommunicate Copernicus and Luther, and pronounce Washington and Franklin rebels?"

HD Thoreau - Civil Disobedience, 1849