290: Civil Disobedience by David Henry Thoreau

Summary

Classical Stuff You Should Know

Episode 290: Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau

Released: December 16, 2025
Hosts: A.J. Hanenburg, Graeme Donaldson, Thomas Magbee

Overview

In this episode, A.J., Graeme, and Thomas dive into Henry David Thoreau’s influential essay Civil Disobedience. They explore Thoreau’s biography, the political context surrounding the essay, the work’s central arguments, and its legacy. Throughout, the conversation is marked by humor, critical engagement, and a clear-eyed look at the tensions between moral conviction, practical life, and political engagement.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Who Was Henry David Thoreau? (02:55–09:21)

• Background & Personality

  • Born as David Henry Thoreau; switched name order later.
  • Family were pencil makers; grandfather led Harvard’s first student protest ("Butter Rebellion").
  • Never married; lost siblings early; self-reliant, but also relied on others for support.
  • Close connections with influential literary figures, thanks to Ralph Waldo Emerson.
  • Noted transcendentalist: believed in intuition and personal spirituality over doctrine.
    • “Basically, it means that your ideal spiritual state transcends the physical and empirical, and that personal intuition should be followed over religious doctrine.” — Thomas (05:23)
  • Lived at Walden Pond for two years, then stayed with Emerson; later settled in his own house.
  • Passionate naturalist, made contributions to the understanding of forests (discovered the role of squirrels in forest regeneration).

• Social Critique

  • Commentary on privilege: the hosts discuss how Thoreau’s philosophies were partly enabled by family support and relatively few personal responsibilities.
    • “There’s nothing more horror than that, though, boys just, like, taking on social causes but getting funded by family.” — Graeme (06:21)

2. The Political Context of Civil Disobedience (10:08–13:35)

• Key Historical Backdrop
  • Fugitive Slave Act of 1850: Required Northern states to return escaped slaves.
    • Thoreau was an abolitionist and participant in the Underground Railroad.
      • “He actually did help to free the slaves, which is kind of awesome.” — Thomas (11:00)
  • Mexican-American War: Viewed by Thoreau as an unjust land grab. (13:00)
  • Disillusionment with government over these profound injustices led Thoreau to his theory and practice of civil disobedience.

3. Main Arguments of Civil Disobedience (15:06–33:22)

• Thoreau’s Core Thesis

  • “That government is best which governs least ... finally amounts to this, which also I believe: that government is best which governs not at all. And when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.” — Thoreau, as read by Thomas (16:28)

• Critique of the State

  • Government often hinders trade and personal freedom.
  • Majority rule not automatically just; might simply be “physically strongest.”
  • Duty lies with conscience, not blind obedience:
    • “I think that we should be men first and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law so much as for the right.” — Thoreau (16:56)
  • Most citizens are “machines” who do the state’s bidding unthinkingly.
    • “The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines with their bodies ... They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs.” (17:03)

• Sheeple Critique and Rantiness

  • Thoreau’s writing style is “ranty,” brow-beaty, and frequently returns to the idea that the government destroys individual virtue by demanding conformity.
  • Hosts humorously compare Thoreau to the “sheeple” argument and liken his tone to “hippie nonsense,” though with a recognition of real injustices at stake. (19:07)

4. The Practice and Limits of Civil Disobedience (23:09–43:49)

• Hypocrisy and Practicality

  • Thoreau abstained from paying the poll tax as civil disobedience—primarily in protest against slavery and the war.
  • He explicitly prioritized not funding evil over active eradication: “You don’t have to eradicate evil... but you should at least not contribute to it.” — Thomas (23:14)
  • Selective payment: fine with highway tax (roads benefit community), but not with taxes supporting war and slavery. (25:03)

• Critique from Hosts

  • If everyone followed this principle, could society function? (26:27)
  • Debate over where to draw the line: What if one’s objections are merely preferences, or even immoral by broader standards?
  • Thoreau’s theory works better as personal witness than as generalized policy:
    • “If we took Thoreau seriously and we said, okay, we’re gonna have this be the operating principle of society ... at some point you don’t have society.” — Graeme (26:27)
  • Recognition of moral gradations: “In every government there is going to be injustice, but then there’s also going to be structure that makes our lives better.” — Graeme (26:47)
  • Thoreau labeled as “proto-anarchist” (26:35), but his government experience was largely negative.

• Privilege and Sacrifice

  • Thoreau’s relative lack of family/property made protest easy; hosts speculate on his philosophy's viability for those with deep social ties (28:43).
    • “He can be thrown in jail without much loss ... He doesn’t really have property that they can take.” — Thomas (28:43)

5. The Influence and Legacy of Civil Disobedience (47:19–62:32)

• Agitating Classes

  • Is the agitation of privileged voices helpful (to challenge government wrongs) or tone-deaf?
    • “Is having that kind of class in a democracy a helpful thing ... Or does it exacerbate class problems?” — Graeme (47:19)
    • The hosts weigh whether protest movements (even those from privilege) actually benefit society by forcing moral issues onto the public agenda.

• Nature of Civil Protest

  • Thoreau’s influence on nonviolent protest (e.g., Gandhi) noted.
  • Distinction between personal, civil disobedience and mass, disruptive protest discussed: Thoreau favored the former.
    • “He seemed to want to be a good neighbor ... more the kind of ... passive disobedience.” — Thomas (55:24)
    • “The point is for it to be civil.” — Thomas (55:55)

• Great Men and Virtue

  • Debate over whether systemic change is best achieved by great individuals or by widespread movements for virtue.
    • “Any student that loves the good and loves virtue is a great man, but at some point, history may call on him and her to be public in that good.” — Graeme (59:28)
    • “There are people who are powerful people, but I wouldn’t call them great because they’re not wed to a great purpose.” — Thomas (59:46)

• Critical Reflection on Thoreau

  • Thoreau’s stand is both admirable and privileged; his lack of real risk and support from others muddle the purity of his civil disobedience.
    • “I really wish that he had written this, you know, that he was a Boethius, that he had written this from jail where he was, you know, actually facing some serious consequences.” — Thomas (61:26)
    • Thoreau’s position forces us to consider conscience when engaging in civil society, but the gradient between minor and major injustices remains unclear.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

On Thoreau’s Pronunciation

• “Apparently we’ve been pronouncing a gentleman’s name wrong for like 100 years ... It’s not pronounced that way. It’s emphasis on the first syllable ... Thara. Henry David Farah.” — Thomas (01:23)

On Majority Rule

• “The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right.” — Thoreau (as read by Thomas) (16:56)

On Passive Citizenship

• “The mass of men serve the state ... not as men mainly, but as machines ... They have the same worth as horses and dogs.” (17:03)

On the Limits of Protest

• “If we took Thoreau seriously and we said, okay, we’re gonna have this be the operating principle of society ... at some point you don’t have society.” — Graeme (26:27)
• “I think the big question is when does that point happen? ... He can get thrown in jail ... he can not pay his taxes because he’s unmarried ... doesn’t really have property.” — Thomas (28:11)

On Greatness and Virtue

• “I think that it is part of the teacher to create as many people who love virtue as possible. So that if the accidents of history bring that person into a position where they are called upon to make decisions at critical moments in a nation’s history, they have the moral conviction to be able to do it.” — Graeme (58:36)

On Privilege and Protest

• “For my own part, I should not like to think that I ever rely on the protection of the state. And I think that is naive.” — Thomas (46:44)

On Civil Protest

• “He seemed to want to be a good neighbor. ... I think he was more the inspiration for Gandhi and that kind of passive disobedience.” — Thomas (55:24)

---

Important Timestamps

• 02:55–09:21: Thoreau’s biography, personality, and privilege
• 10:08–13:35: Historical context—Fugitive Slave Act, Mexican-American War
• 15:06–19:47: Thoreau’s thesis and style in Civil Disobedience
• 23:09–25:03: On not paying taxes and selective support of public goods
• 26:27–28:43: Discussion: Would “universal Thoreauism” destroy society?
• 33:22–44:43: Where are Thoreau’s moral lines? Engagement versus withdrawal
• 47:19–50:14: The value and risk of privileged agitators in society
• 55:24–56:52: Civil, not violent, disobedience; legacy for modern protest
• 58:36–59:46: Teachers, virtue, and preparing the next “great men”
• 61:26–62:32: Frustration with Thoreau’s degree of sacrifice

---

Tone and Style

The conversation is witty, often irreverent, and self-aware, combining intellectual depth with approachable banter. The hosts challenge Thoreau’s ideas, reflect on their contemporary relevance, and acknowledge the tensions inherent in mixing high principle with lived experience.

---

Summary

This episode offers a rich, critical, and entertaining study of Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience. The hosts probe not only the historical and philosophical substance of the essay but also its application—and limitations—in real life. Thoreau is both lauded for his moral courage and critiqued for his privilege and impracticality, with the hosts ultimately drawing broader lessons about conscience, virtue, and the ongoing task of balancing moral conviction with social obligation.

Transcript

[A]

Foreign. Hi and welcome to Classical Stuff. You should know. A podcast about literature, sometimes philosophy, Christian classical education and just, you know, that kind of stuff.

[B]

Cool.

[A]

My name is Graham Donaldson and I am joined by. By. I always do this. Joined with Amy Hannenberg.

[C]

That's.

[A]

That's Amy and Thomas Magbee.

[B]

Hello.

[A]

And fellas. Sometimes I just. I just want to rage. I just want to just flip tables and tear things up. I want to rip some systems. Hanneberg.

[B]

But.

[A]

But I feel like I don't really have like a set guideline for my system. Ripping is if I really wanted to be. To really channel my KMFDM energies.

[C]

Were they. Were they Rip the system? I thought KMFDM was just like let's make hard hitting house music.

[A]

Yeah, no, they did. And then Renner songs was Rip the System, which is the only KMFDM song I know of because it makes me giggle every time.

[B]

That's fine.

[A]

But anyway, it's an anti racism song too, which is good anyway, I think. Or it may be. Hopefully it's an anti racism.

[B]

So you're gonna find out something terrible on this podcast.

[A]

Exactly. Anyway, but Hanneberg, we are going to learn a couple of things today. One is that apparently we've been pronouncing a gentleman's name wrong for like 100 years.

[C]

Long time we're talking about. I was actually really hoping when I started reading this that it would. That would be the source of Rage against the Machine's name. But yeah, it's not. Sadly, I'm disappointed. So today I'm talking about an essay called Civil Disobedience by a fellow named Henry David. We would all say Thoreau. Everyone says Thoreau. Apparently one of his best buddies, Ralph Waldo Emerson, said it is not pronounced that way. It's emphasis on the first sybil syllable. And you say it kind of with that thick accent. Thara. Henry David Farah.

[A]

You were talking to Emerson.

[B]

I called him up. Yeah.

[C]

Yeah, he wrote it down for posterity, which I plan to do about your name so no one pronounces it Gray.

[A]

Emmy. I appreciate that. Yeah. As a kid growing up in French immersion classes where all my teachers were French Canadian, the eme ending the French is. Is like Emma. And so I was for my whole life growing up.

[C]

Good.

[A]

Yeah. Cool.

[B]

Are you going to pronounce Thorough's name that way?

[C]

I'm going to avoid saying it as much as possible. Wonderful. So I feel like we have to say Thoreau because everybody buckle up for.

[A]

Mocking if you don't.

[C]

Yeah, okay.

[A]

All right.

[C]

I'll say Thoreau. So let's. Here's how today's episode is going to go. I'm going to talk about Henry David Thoreau. I'm going to talk about the context for his little essay, and I'm going to read a little bit of his essay and talk about his essay. And you guys can chime in. Have you guys read Walden?

[A]

I read Walden.

[C]

You guys read Walden?

[A]

I've also read this one a long time ago.

[C]

It's a short little thing. It's like 17 pages. It's a pretty fun read if you are looking for something to do on an afternoon. So Henry David Thoreau. He was born David Henry Thoreau.

[A]

What?

[C]

I know, he flipped it up on you. Into a New England family of pencil makers. His maternal Scottish American granddad, Asa Dunbar, led Harvard's 1766 Butter Rebellion, the first recorded student protest in. In American history.

[B]

Wow, that's.

[A]

This is. Sounds awesome.

[C]

Yeah. At Harvard, apparently it was really hard to get fresh food and they kept on serving them stinky butter. And he was like, excuse me, sir, my butter stinketh. Bring me butter which does not stink it. And then Harvard. At Harvard. And then first rebellion was about.

[A]

Was about butter from like Harvard.

[C]

And they all, they all left the. I think the next day he like, made a stink about it. And then everybody else was like, yeah, this butter sucks. And then decided to go and eat in town the next night.

[A]

Oh, this.

[B]

That was their protest.

[A]

Bougiest rebellion ever.

[C]

We will go and eat at restaurants. And that was kind of the deal.

[A]

We will pay money.

[B]

Unreal.

[C]

Okay, so he had two older siblings, one younger. None of them ever married. Helen, older sibling died at 37 of tuberculosis. John Jr. At 27. He got tetanus from shaving. He cut himself while shaving. Oh, I got tetanus from tetanus.

[A]

Oh, I mean, you got to like, that means you have an old blade. Old rusty, rusty blade.

[C]

Yeah, you gotta keep your stuff sharp.

[B]

That's right.

[C]

David Henry David thoreau died at 44 of tuberculosis. Little spoiler there. And Sophia, the youngest, died at 56 of. You guessed it, tuberculosis. So three of the four, and none ever married, he studied at Harvard between 1833 and 1837. He had a brief leave of absence from Harvard, during which he taught at a small school in Massachusetts. But after graduating, he got another job teaching. But he refused to give corporal punishment to the students, like, you know, whack them with canes and stuff. So he resigned after a couple of weeks and then started a grammar school. In Concord in 1838 with his brother. The school closed when his brother died of that shaving accident. And apparently his brother died in his arms, which is pretty rough. After that, he met Ralph Waldo Emerson. They became Fast friends, and Mr. Emerson introduced him to a bunch of writers and literary types like Nathaniel Hawthorne, who he got kind of involved with. And then he got published a little bit. These aren't his great publications. There were a few poems here and there. He was a transcendentalist, which I had to look up and learn what that meant. But basically, it means that your ideal spiritual state transcends the physical and empirical, and that personal intuition should be followed over sort of religious doctrine.

[A]

Sounds like hippie nonsense.

[C]

Okay, great.

[B]

Awesome.

[C]

We're already on in the right. Going in the right direction in 1841.

[A]

So is this just. Sir, like, like, follow your heart? Is this basically just like a follow.

[C]

It's kind of like follow your heart.

[A]

Okay.

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

It's very American, right?

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

That's okay. And it just lines right up with everything I remember reading in Walden.

[A]

Yes. And, like, and being kind of oblivious to the fact that, like, you've got your family's money to back to, like, fall back on.

[C]

Yeah, we can talk about Walden in a minute. It is. That book is like, if people read it and they're like, oh, my gosh, this is the secret to life. And I'm like, yeah, well, he was squatting on somebody else's land. And he definitely could have done. Couldn't have done that in any other context.

[A]

Like hard working, pencil making father.

[C]

Yeah, exactly.

[B]

He's like, funding all of this. Is that. Yeah.

[C]

And. And there's a lot of funny stuff.

[A]

Oh, there's nothing more horror than that, though. Boys just, like, taking on social causes, but getting funded by family.

[C]

Yep. It's great. And I remember there's a chunk in Walden where he talks about how old people suck. And he's like, they have nothing of value to say to the young except that they're just not as young as they were. He's. He's so cranky. It's fun. Okay, so in 1841, he moved in with the Emersons and tutored their kids. He did briefly return to help with his family's pencil factory. He sort of restarted their practice of making good pencils with bad graphite. He figured out a way to sort of graph it all together, make some good pencils. In 1845, that's when he went and did his thing at Walden Pond, which was actually a two year stint he sort of wrote about it as if it were a one year stint. So he used the four seasons as sort of like development of, you know, your human spirit. In 1846, he ran into the local tax collector, Sam Staples, who requested the poll tax that he owed. You guys know what poll tax is?

[A]

I do not.

[C]

Okay. I had to look this up too. Poll tax is not quite like income tax. It's like a flat tax on just you being in America. It was the same for everybody. And so it was like a reverse helpful tax. The poorest people it hurt the worst, and the richest people it hurt the least. So that was the poll tax. So he hadn't paid it in like six years. And so this guy's like, bro, you owe me six years of poll tax. He did not want to pay and went to jail. We'll talk about that in the episode.

[A]

So I don't want to give, like for polling, like that kind of thing.

[C]

Like, yeah, you're just, you're just in America and so you have to pay it. He went to jail and I will talk about that later. So in January and February, he delivered lectures on called the Rights and Duties of the Individual in Relation to the government. These lectures he would later turn into an essay published in 1849 called Civil Disobedience. After he left Walden, he moved back in with the Emersons, still not paying for his own house. He moved out in July in 1848.

[A]

He's a social revolutionary. You can't expect the social revolutionary to, you know, like, get a job.

[C]

Okay. So he eventually did move into his own house at 255 Main street where he stayed till his death. He only ever traveled to, I think Boston, Montreal, and Quebec. I think he traveled around the States a little bit, but out of the country, it was pretty much just to Canada. He didn't really go anywhere else. He was obviously real into nature. He eventually became a land surveyor and kept copious notes about what happened in nature. He would find eggs and donate them to museums. He actually comes home.

[A]

What the heck.

[C]

Yeah, he actually contributed really heavily to our understanding of what happens in a forest after a fire and how it a tree that wasn't previously dominant can come to dominate an area. Turns out it might be squirrels. They'll take nuts and things and then bury them and then go off and die or get killed by an owl or something. And then those nuts will take root and grow into trees. And so they can spread trees into new areas. And this, this is the kind of thing that he contributed to the whole understanding of nature and forestry with. He actually had lots and lots of journals on this subject.

[A]

So he's. Follow your heart.

[C]

Follow your heart.

[A]

Dodges taxes.

[C]

Yes.

[A]

Really into nature. Yep.

[C]

Squats on other people's land.

[A]

Squats on other people's land. Gotcha.

[C]

And lives with people to tutor their kids.

[A]

Cool.

[C]

Never married. Although he did once proposed to a woman. I don't know how old he was, but she was 18 when he did it. She said no under advice of her father. Yeah, that may have been good advice. And then somebody else proposed to him and then he said no.

[A]

Oh yeah, buddy.

[C]

So there have actually been theories about his sexuality. About like is he asexual or you know, people just wonder. I don't think it was ever really established. And so my guess is that because he proposed to a lady, I'll find.

[A]

A grand thesis somewhere.

[C]

Yeah. Okay.

[B]

Grandma's on fire today. He's grumpy.

[C]

Grandma's a little sick. I'm a little.

[A]

And so it's affecting my. I'm just. It's. It's turning down Majali. Yeah.

[C]

Okay, so context for the essay. The two big things happening in the background of this essay are the fugitive slave act of 1850. Do you guys know what that act is and what it means?

[A]

I can't remember precisely. It's. Yeah, runaway slaves can go. Can be moved across. Back across state lines.

[B]

Is that it returned. Right?

[C]

Yeah. It was a compromise between the northern non slave owning states and the southern states. And it was. If a slave is escapes from the south states, the north has to return it. Actually Mr. Thoreau himself was a. Was it a conductor? I don't. I forget what they called him. But on the underground railroad system.

[B]

Oh cool.

[C]

Yeah. So he actually did help to free the slaves, which is kind of awesome. So that is one thing that's happening in the background. He is an abolitionist. He thinks it is ridiculous that we are a slave owning country. He is absolutely against the slave trade and good on him. And he. So that's one thing that's happening in the background is this whole new slave act of 1850 that he thinks is the stupidest thing ever. That we should participate in returning men to their captors. The other thing that is happening in the background is the Mexican American war. Do you guys know anything about that?

[B]

I think it might have been between Mexico and America.

[C]

That's a great guess. Cool. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[A]

That's all I know.

[C]

Okay. So it followed. It was an invasion of Mexico by the United States. It followed the annexation of Texas. Mexico still considered Texas to be Mexican.

[A]

Territory for not knowing this.

[C]

I know, I know. None of us actually were born in Texas.

[A]

Oh, you know, you were born in Georgia. The Peach place.

[B]

I was born in the Peach place. Yep.

[C]

Yeah. So Mexico still considered Texas Mexican territory because it refused to recognize the treaties of President Velasco. Who signed. Who signed or, sorry, the treaties of Velasco, who was signed by the Mexican president after he'd been captured by the Texian army during the Texas revolution. So this president had got captured. They forced him to sign these things that basically said, we don't belong to Mexico anymore. But Mexico was like, that doesn't count. You know, he was under duress or whatever. The border was disputed. The US invaded and eventually, like, pushed their way all the way to the Mexican capital. And then after some back and forth because it was like actually signing a treaty was harder than just taking the capital. They did sign the treaty of Guadalupe and Hidalgo. And. And Mexico recognized the cession of Texas, California, Nevada and Utah, as well as parts of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Wyoming. This was a huge land deal where it kind of established probably a lot of the borders that we still see today. The US paid 15 million in damages, which, even adjusted for inflation, really still isn't that much. And then they forgave three and a quarter million in debt that Mexico owed to US citizens. So tried to sort of smooth things over. Thoreau saw this as just a blatant invasion of Mexico by America. Kind of like a. Just a land grab. Right. Which he was against. And he didn't want to go fight in it. He didn't think people should go fighting it. He thought that that was a bad thing happening. And so because of this ridiculous slave act and the invasion of Mexico, he saw the government as an unjust one. And so that is the soil out of which his essay grows with me so far.

[B]

Yes. Okay.

[C]

The essay is short. It's maybe. I think it's like 17 pages. It's. It's really not a long read, which is great when you're coming to the end of a semester and you have a stack of essays to grade. I'll be honest. Yep. So I. I read it. I enjoyed it.

[A]

What's the essay on?

[C]

Civil disobedience?

[A]

No, no, your essay is for your kids, if you're new freshmen.

[C]

Oh. There was a couple different prompts, but it's the Iliad. Iliad essay.

[A]

So do you think there's going to be a follow up to Christopher Nolan's the Odyssey? Did you do an Iliad.

[C]

I. Man, we really need a better one than Troy.

[B]

Troy, you watch that every year with your students, right?

[C]

Yeah, but it's so bad. We watch it to, like, point out the differences and what they miss and what they get wrong. It's really fun. And also Brad Pitt's in it, which is great. And Peter o', Toole, who.

[A]

Yeah, Lawrence himself, crushes it.

[C]

Yeah, he does a great job. Okay, so the essay isn't very long. My favorite part is the little stint about him in jail, which I plan to read because it's very cute. And the rest of it is. It's a little ranty. It doesn't seem to be very well organized. He talks about being a man a lot. He's like, real men do this. Like, is the government ever supported by a man unless you can say no to things? And most men are just machines. It's very ranty, which I thoroughly enjoy. But I get it. Like he was going up against a war that he thought was unjust. And the slave trade, which he thought was unjust and was unjust. And even the Mexican American War. I mean, I would have to know more about that than to take, you know, to take a side on what was happening there. But from the little I know, it seemed unjust. And so he was very much against it. But man, he doesn't pull any punches. And he's not slowly trying to convince you. It's kind of brow beaty and wonderful, which is standard Thoreau style. Right? He doesn't really pull any punches ever. Okay, so here are the opening lines. I heartily accept the motto the government is best, which governs least. And I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly acted up to more rapidly and systematically carried out. It finally amounts to this, which also I believe that government is best, which governs not at all. And when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. In the next few pages, he proceeds to pretty much say that the government itself is mostly useless and is a hindrance to trade and is ruled by the majority. And it's there, the majority just ruled by a few people. And they are the rulers because they are mostly physically the strongest. And if you cross them, they will hurt you. And that's not great. And most men sort of pay homage just passively to this thing and are functionally machines in there. And if you were actually to be yourself and, and stand up for what's right, you would like maybe try to treat the government as, as the government that you want and that like, demand the government that you want. And that would be this first step towards getting it. So basically our relation to its law is that we should, you know, we are bound to do what is right, not necessarily provide ourselves as machines for the government. So for example, must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience then? I think that we should be men first and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think. Right. So tough. Yeah. So less law, more right.

[B]

Do what you want. Yep.

[C]

Okay. And this is about men as machines. The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines with their bodies. They are the standing army and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus, etc. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense. But they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose well, such command no more respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and. And dogs. Yet such as these even are commonly esteemed good citizens. Others, as most legislators, politicians, lawyers, ministers and office holders, serve the state chiefly with their heads. And as they rarely make any moral distinctions, they are as likely to serve the devil without intending it as God. A very few, as heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great sense. And men serve the state with their conscience also, and so necessarily resist it for the most part. And they are commonly treated as enemies by it. So, yeah, he's not a huge fan of governing. I think this stands kind of in stark contrast to the social contract that we read earlier. Like, that seemed to be kind of a level headed. Here is what we are giving up to the government so that we get a very specific thing back. He doesn't see himself as receiving a lot of those things.

[B]

Correct. Right. Something being taken away from him. Right. Like he has these rights, he has these things he wants to do. All he's done is told what not to. And I don't know what to make of this part of like. And there's this like, amorphous body of people who enforce these laws and are not like they're like the material of the state. Right, right. So. And which then puts him in a position above that. Right. Like he is Better than these people who are just automatons or material of the state.

[C]

Yeah, exactly.

[A]

This is the. The sheeple argument, right?

[C]

Yes, I know it is the mo. It's. It's very. It's. It's like. And I hate to dunk on thorough and I. Thorough.

[B]

It's thorough.

[C]

And I know that we are going to comments about this, but it is a very like hippie dippy. Like when you boil the argument down, it's like these people are just. Yeah, they're sheeple and they're not thinking for themselves. And he sort of unlike me. Unlike me, who is refusing the state.

[A]

I should. I should be able to like use my, like live out of my conscience.

[B]

Unlike these other people.

[A]

Unlike these other people. Straw, wooden, stone men.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

And I think. And we get to it later, maybe I can't remember if I wrote down whatever.

[B]

We've all.

[A]

We've felt that we've. Everyone has felt that way at some point in their youth. Right.

[B]

I still feel this, like, as you're reading it, I'm like, yeah, I want to be like the person in charge of my destiny. Like, yeah, I want to rise above the conditions of my time. And like, this doesn't awaken anything.

[A]

But you want to. But to do that, you need to like fight against your state, man.

[B]

Just gotta like rise again. No.

[C]

Okay, but so I. Even as I criticize Thoreau for being kind of hippie dippy in his arguments, he. And nothing against hippies. Like, I had dreadlocks for a while. So it's just a very. Covered all my base. We're getting a lot of bad comments lately. So I'm trying to like hedge my bets.

[A]

We haven't got. You got one bad comment and then.

[C]

You got one whatever and then zero for me. I'm just like living the dream over here. Okay. So even as I criticize him, like, I do recognize that the government he is criticizing is unjust. Right? There's. There are definite injustices happening. And so. So that is kind of where this is coming in is like, yeah, you can say his. His arguments are not the strongest thing ever. And he doesn't really kind of tackle the philosophy of what a government actually is or does, but there is real injustice happening. And so he does have a lot of the moral right on his side, at least in some ways. So he says, how does it become a man to behave toward the American government today? I answer that he cannot, without disgrace, be associated with it. I cannot for an instant recognize that political organization as my government, which Is the slave's government. Also, all men recognize the right of revolution. That is the right to refuse allegiance to and to resist the government when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable. But almost all say that such is not the case now. And he says, he makes finally his big claim. This people must cease to hold slaves and to make war on Mexico, though it cost them their existence as people. We got to do it like it's we. I cannot abide a government who's doing these things. And if we are to rescue ourselves as real citizens and free people, we have to resist this. And he actually indicts those who are patrons of the good and do nothing. So people that are like, I would vote for a good president if I simply had a good candidate, he's like, that's not gonna happen. You are taking what's available, but you're basically just being a free vote for this guy that you don't actually like. Voting is not going to do it. It's essentially like wishing for change. The wish isn't going to get us there. You can vote all you want, but the time that voting will actually get rid of slavery, there will be very little slavery to actually get rid of. It'll be done somewhere else by somebody else. If you want to do something, it's not voting. You cannot just sit by and be a patron and say, if they send me to Mexico, I won't go. Or if they try to get me to, like, give a slave back, I won't do it. He's like, yeah, that's not good enough. You can. You can't just be a sitting patron of the good and not actually do something about it because you are, with your dollar, supporting it. Right. Every dollar you pay in tax is going to send a soldier to Mexico. Or it is like funding a policeman to take a slave back to the southern states. You can say all those things about not going to Mexico, but when I give my 10 bucks for tax, I'm sending another soldier in my stead. He says, that is not a tenable position.

[A]

So the civil disobedience is to not pay taxes.

[C]

It turns out to be that. Yeah.

[B]

Is that okay?

[C]

Yes. So he says, you don't have to eradicate evil. You've got other stuff to do, but you should at least not contribute to it. And the contribution that people are generally making is taxes. He says, we have to resist unjust laws now. We cannot wait for the majority to eradicate them. So let me read a quick Quote, 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. Basically, we have to get rid of the law, and then I will resist the unjust law. Like, that's how I resist is trying to get the majority to agree to get rid of it. He's like, that's not how that works. It's an unjust law you should resist right now.

[A]

So he doesn't believe in, like, the process of electing representatives who are going to advocate for the passing of just laws. He doesn't. He doesn't think the system works.

[C]

No. And it's. I think partially it's because the majority is not necessarily trustworthy in following.

[A]

Because we're all dummies.

[C]

Good conscience.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

May. May. Not because we're all dummies. It's just that he's got to convince everybody. And when he knows what's right, which is being against the slave trade and the war in Mexico, he's not going to wait for the majority to kind of catch up.

[B]

Because that's. I mean, taking his issues. Like, the majority could be wrong.

[C]

Like.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Is wrong probably at that point.

[C]

They were.

[B]

Is wrong at that point. So.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And that's the. So then what do you do about that? That's where I'm curious how we. Yeah, I want to hear more about. I feel like I'm with them. Right. Like, if there is something that is evil, you should not contribute to it. Now I'm curious how we get from. Like, the government does lots of things. So I'm curious how he thinks about that or if he kind of introduces like any tax dollar that goes.

[C]

He actually does introduce that. He says, I will pay the highway tax because I like roads and I want to support my friends and I like doing those things. And I'm a good neighbor and I want someone to actually build a road for me, but I won't be paying the one to the state that I disagree with or the federal government that I disagree with. Not going to do that.

[A]

Yep.

[C]

I kind of. I don't.

[B]

I don't hate that it makes sense. I want to hear more about it.

[C]

And I have, I have.

[A]

How do you have a society? Doesn't everything just sort of then just fall into. Everyone's atomized. Like, you know, I'm only going to. I'm only Going to interface in society on the things that I like. So clear. Like when we're talking about slavery, we're talking about a war. That makes a lot of sense. But you could have somebody stand up and say, like, well, I, there's all sorts of things I don't want to pay taxes for, or there's all sorts of things that I am, that I'm against, which are like, not cut and dry, right and wrong moral issues, but are in fact just like preferences or, or they may, or they actually may be on the wrong side of the moral issue, but they're like, I just don't care. Like, and then they would be thrown in jail for not paying their taxes or not. So, like, if we took Thoreau seriously and we said, okay, we're gonna have this be the operating principle of society. Like, you at some point don't have society. They don't have, like any sort of rule of law.

[C]

But remember, this is what he wanted. The best government is one that rules.

[A]

Okay, so he's this little like, primitive anarchist.

[C]

They actually called him maybe a proto anarchist.

[A]

Okay, there you go.

[C]

So the rule of law is not helpful. The governments aren't really doing anything for us. And so I shouldn't pay for things I don't want to pay for. And especially when it doesn't help. But here, remember, his government wasn't doing.

[A]

Good things and, well, let's not reduce it down. Like, he's reducing everything down. He's talking about these two issues. That's like, in every government there is going to be injustice, but then there's also going to be structure that makes our lives better. Right? And so those two things are mixed together. So, you know, you run the risk of throwing the baby out with the bath water if you say, I'm going to rip this whole thing down. It's like, okay, well, now you have nothing. Now you've got nothing. And now it's just, now it's just the, the most violent person is going to be able to be, like, successful in getting food.

[B]

Right.

[A]

Like you. Like I do, yeah.

[C]

Oh, totally. And I do have my criticisms of him when we get to the end. Like, I have my own thoughts about why his, his particular position doesn't work.

[A]

I'm going back to Thomas Moore's point where we talked about in the man for All Seasons where he says, if you rip down every law in England to get at the devil, and then the devil turns around, where are you going to hide then? And it's that kind of thing, giving the Devil. The benefit of the law.

[C]

So you just. You don't want to rip a system.

[A]

I want to mend the system.

[C]

You. You're a. Yeah. You're a seamstress for the system.

[B]

Because there's a. Because there are things that need to be.

[A]

You fund the police.

[C]

Oh, cool.

[A]

I'm just kidding.

[B]

Because there are things that need to be fixed and changed, and it's a question of, like, when and how. Right. Like, one end of that would be you build positions, you vote for it, you make change over time, and the other is you just disengage or don't support the parts that you don't agree with.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

And I. I think the big question is when. When does that point happen? Yeah. At what point do you. And I think there's other considerations about. About priorities here. Right. He can do that. He can get thrown in jail. He cannot pay his taxes because he's unmarried. He doesn't have a family. He doesn't really have property that they can take. And he even talks about that. He says that's hard. It's hard that they can take your property and stuff. But there is no. Let's see if I can find the quote. I didn't bring it in here.

[A]

It's hard not to project onto him that he is kind of like either through his own decisions or through the sort of the accidents of his life. He is like a disenfranchised member of the society. Doesn't own land, doesn't have children in like some sort of education system. Doesn't have.

[C]

But he was a teacher.

[A]

Was a teacher, you know, but doesn't seem to want to be engaged in the political system in any way and can. And, you know, can meagerly survive on either his family's money or the. What he's earning as a teacher. Like he is. Yeah, he's that. That like Plato talks about. When you have a society of people that don't seem to have anti. Inter. That don't that themselves feel like they have no meaningful interface in society, they are going to be the ones that, like, bring it down. I think he calls them the drones in book eight. So, I mean, it's. It's hard not to. You wonder if that. If Thoreau had some kind of stake. Yeah, maybe it's just that he. He feels like he doesn't have a stake in America or a stake in society.

[C]

He does because that's what.

[B]

That's why he's doing this. Right. Like, it's because he cares about what the Government is doing that. He wants it to be fixed. He wants it to be right. And so instead of like passively going along.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

He's like, this is wrong and we the people need to do something about this.

[A]

But his, his solution is to transcend the society somehow. Right. Like, like not pay his taxes. Not.

[B]

They destroy the society.

[A]

Yeah. Also. Yeah. Is to. Is to. Yeah. Again, if everybody did what Thoreau did, like, how do you. What would Thoreau say to somebody who's like, I read your book. I totally agree. I'm not going to pay taxes because I disagree with like, and like eating animals or something. You know, like it's. Or like if, if everybody just is going to pick and choose, or if everybody is going to say we need to bring this down because of an issue that is wrong, like you're going to find those issues in a society all day long. I'm not saying that. Then everybody should have this sort of like, well, Mexican American war and slavery. Like, what are you gonna do? I guess nothing. Rules have to go along. It's. It's just. I don't know if Thoreau's like, I feel like we, we still need to believe that the mechanism of, of an elected body that, that passes laws and listens to the people is still needed.

[C]

I'm all for legislation. I'm also.

[A]

In the end, it was law that ended slavery. It wasn't people opting out of society. Like, it was a law that got then enforced through a war.

[C]

Right.

[A]

Or it was. Or there was. It was, it was. It was the south seceding and then the north saying that you can't secede. And then it was the society itself sort of duking it out on the battlefield.

[C]

But his position was that if enough people stop paying their taxes, the government's gonna shape up real quick.

[B]

He has to do something.

[A]

Right? Yeah.

[C]

If it's throwing like 60% of his citizens in jail, it's gonna figure something out. That was his position.

[B]

Cause I guess, weirdly, if there are these smaller issues, there would be a smaller number of people breaking laws and it wouldn't gum up the works of society. And so it's like a weird, like a democracy of civil disobedience that you're kind of voting with your civil disobedience. There has to be enough opting out for it to matter. And if it doesn't matter, then things go on as they are, but at.

[C]

Least you aren't complicit. Yeah. And I'm sort of sympathetic to that position that like. Yeah, There are issues that I should work to change from within, but there's also. I don't. I'm with him. And that I don't know that I could shake the feeling that if I'm paying taxes and that is funding the actual slave trade, that it would be harder to live with myself.

[B]

And I think it's probably helpful to keep. Like, I'm glad you opened with. He's writing about war and slavery, and I think that might. Does he handle, like, what issues that are more minor than that? Nope. Okay.

[C]

Those are the two that he talks about. Slavery and the Mexican American War.

[B]

That's why you probably should have that in mind if you're like, I'm gonna rip the system. To your point, Graham, like, you probably should think about, like, what is the thing? Is what I'm fighting against at that same level, or is it my kind of pet project that I get worked up about?

[A]

Maybe your point maybe is a good one, which is like, well, if it's someone's pet project, like, then you're just going to take your grand moral state. Like people who protest fluoride in the water, right. And like, refuse to pay taxes because we fluorinate the water or whatever. Like with Thoreau, if that person was arrested for not paying their tax, their poll tax, like, would Thoreau champion their cause because they were operating out of their. Their free moral conscience? Or would he sort of say like, you know, F A F O. Like, would he just sort of. You know what I mean? Like, we just sort of say, like, well, you just went. You. Like that's. That's the very in vogue kind of response that people have, which. And to moral. Sort of the troubling response that people have to sort of like people taking moral. Moral stances on things as. I don't know, it's. It feels like Thoreau's civil disobedience works when you have already a cohesive society that agrees in moral direction. Right. Like, so, so much of the. Of the abolitionist movement was trying to cause people to. To grow, to have people be aware of what was happening in the south, because once they were aware of sort of the horrors of slavery, it awoke within them like a moral conscience, you know, like Uncle Tom's Cabin and these. And some of these works and the abolitionist writers and. And having these town hall meetings where people were discussing what was happening. Like you. But the thing is, you needed a unified moral conscience in society to be awakened. But if everybody, I guess Thoreau believes in like a sense of human unity of Conscience.

[B]

Yeah. Because you're saying what he's proposing may not actually help his cause. Right. Like, it may. I guess they're both at the same point of whether you're telling stories, whether you're trying to.

[A]

I guess what I'm saying is if this methodology of. Of gumming up the system, like you said, only works when you have a majority of people willing to gum up the system. But. So that creates sort of two problems, like, you either then need to go and convince a bunch of people that they should be gumming up the system. And that's good insofar as the thing they're. They're fighting against is a great moral wrong.

[B]

Right.

[A]

But it's not so good if you can just win a propaganda war and get people to. To be fired up about something that is ultimately like a lie or not a moral wrong. Yeah.

[B]

I don't know.

[A]

There's a political. Is a political point.

[C]

I don't know where you draw the lines. I think him retreating to Walden Pond was its own sort of little bit of protest about modern society, but it wasn't like an actionable, like moral, civil injustice. Whereas the things he was protesting, slavery, warfare, those things probably raised to the place where he's like, okay, I'm definitely going to stop paying taxes. I did look it up, though. He wasn't paying taxes before the Slave Act. Like, he stopped in 1840.

[B]

Did he have income? Like, he did make money. I guess he was teaching, so he would have.

[C]

Well, in Walden Pond, he wasn't really making a whole lot of money. But this was even before Walden, he stopped paying his poll tax. And, and he. This, this speech comes, as far as I understand, after Walden Pond, when he's, like, living and hanging with the Emersons. So I think it's kind of funny that it's supposed to be in protest. I mean, slavery was definitely still happening, but the Mexican American War started in, I think, 46. And that. That law that came into it, it's called the law of 1850. So I don't know if it was established before then, but that's kind of funny.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

That if he's saying he's doing this because of those things, but he just wasn't paying tax otherwise.

[A]

I guess my point is injustice and corruption exist in all halls of power. How does any. What is. How does any thinking, feeling person engage in society then? Like, I'm trying to. I'm trying to defend in my own heart why Thoreau is not right and everybody should just, like, throw up their hands there's got to be some sort of belief that the system can right itself. Because the throws is basically saying like you essentially need to gum up the system until you. Until you what? Until you twist the arm of the government to. To make the moral move. Is that what he's saying? But you can't do that through voting. You have to do that from opting out of society, man.

[C]

But there is a section where he talks about like, okay, if there is, if there are basic small injustices, then you can just like they'll eventually wear themselves out, right? Those cogs will wear themselves smooth. But when it raises to a certain like, then you actually have to do something. I think it's when you are like, it's when you are implicated in an injustice. The moment when I am like having to participate, I have to say no.

[A]

So I always think about this whenever there's some sort of protest, often is either for global warming or maybe it was recent protests in the United States over immigration policy or any of this kind of stuff where you get people that are like blocking traffic and people can't get to work. And I remember there was this one video where this guy and there was unpro. I don't even remember what the protest was about, but it was a bunch of people blocking traffic. And this one girl, she was sort of screaming at them saying like, I gotta get to work. Like I'm gonna get fired if I don't get to work. I need to get to my job. And the guy kind of looked at her and said like, oh no, not work. Kind of like whatever we're protesting is much more important than like going and being part of your capitalist system, lady. And she was just sitting there, this like 24 year old woman or whatever, and she was just like, this is ridiculous. Like I have to get to my job, you're not letting me go through. And this guy was like, you know this. Cause my, this, this me. He was trying to gum up the system in a much more. Not in a personal way, but in like a way that was sort of forcing the gumming up of the system for other people. And she was so upset that she can't get to work and just sort of relive her regular life. And he's standing there saying like, no one should be able to live their regular life because of the injustice that exists in this particular thing. And the question is like, you can have sympathies on both sides of those issues. You could maybe even agree with a guy that was like protesting, but then you also like, humanely feel bad for this poor woman that's like her day is ruined. And maybe even like, she's got to explain to her boss why like, she couldn't go open the store she worked at because she was stuck in this thing. And the boss may be understanding, may not be understanding. And there's a whole level of sort of interpersonal difficulties there. And it's just like, really, this is like what Thoreau is saying is like, this is the kind of, that's the process through which we need to affect change is like gumming up the system. It's a profound belief in like the functioning of our legislative system.

[C]

Okay, so I, he, Thoreau wasn't saying, I'm going to gum it up for everybody members. He said he was going to pay the, the like highway tax and make roads. He's like, I want to be a good neighbor.

[A]

He wants to pick and choose.

[C]

Yeah, yeah, yes. I'm not going to fund the people that are doing the slaving, but I will fund roads is what essentially he said. And, and we, we now have the, the benefit of looking back and saying, yes, slavery was abolished. He didn't know that was going to happen. He was in a system that was pro slavery, that was pro warfare. And at that point, when you look at like maybe losing faith in the legislation was what actually needed to happen, like there are empires that have fell. There are governments that have fell because. Or fallen, have fell, have fallen because. Because there was grand injustice and those systems needed to be ripped. They needed to be gone. And for him to say, I'm not going to participate in this system that is pro slavery and is pro warfare, unjust warfare. I mean, it is easy to say now that he is being kind of uppity, but is probably much harder to say then when slavery was happening.

[B]

Does he acknowledge other things, other outside of not paying taxes, or is that the main civil disobedience, like Graham's example of the stopping traffic?

[C]

This is his main civil disobedience. He seems to center it around not paying taxes. Like it's civil. He is not, it is not violent. He is not saying go out there and kill the cops. He's not saying we should do anything else. I mean, he did personally participate, participate in the underground Railroad, but it is, it is paying taxes. He's like, I will not fund a system that is slaving and we should, none of us should, none of us should be paying taxes to this corrupt government.

[B]

Because that feels more direct almost than Graham, your example of like by stopping people from going to work, I'm going to change.

[C]

And that's just being not neighborly. Like, that's. He is encouraging his neighbors to, to stand with him. That would be like standing on the side of the road and saying, hey, you should stop. Please, please everybody. Like this is happening. I need your support. Not, you know, he's not digging holes in the middle of the highways to mess everybody up.

[B]

Because you're probably also not winning people over to your cause if you're, you're not.

[A]

But I guess that's just the thing. It's like, is then winning people over to your cause the business of the moral person? Like, is it just the sort of like industry of activism to fight the power or is it to try to like be the power? You know, like what I mean is like run for office as a like morally centered person.

[C]

So yeah, I mean he was like, he gave these as a series of lectures.

[A]

Why not? He went to Harvard. Why not like run for Congress?

[C]

I think he didn't want it. But he is like, he is participating in the lawmaking machine in like he's giving speeches, he's publishing essays. He is, he is trying to encourage people to do, to like live for the right and do the right thing. If he had just stopped paying taxes and it wouldn't have said anything like even that is a one step in the right personal direction. But it's, but I think a step in your direction saying why not participate and change it from the inside, be a seamstress. Instead of ripping the system like he is, he is also participating on that front as well.

[A]

Yeah, I'm, I have no grand thoughts.

[C]

I'm not sure, I'm not sure his, his like tack is wrong. I like reading this. I think, you know what? I would also probably felt, have felt weird about paying taxes to a system that was slaving.

[A]

Yeah, but you feel weird paying taxes to things. Now you disagree with like so many Christians feel bad about paying taxes to the federal government when we have a system that allows abortion. And that's a contentious issue that, that on the in, in the Christian ethic, we believe that that is like a wrong thing. But that is a contentious issue. And so like, so would, would Thoreau then advocate that, advocate that every. That we should gum up the system and all be thrown in jail for it?

[C]

And that's the thing is I don't know where he draws his lines. And here's where I think his naivety lies is that he is, he can be thrown in jail without much loss.

[A]

Yeah, right.

[C]

He's got no property. Oh, no, not family. Right.

[A]

He can be.

[C]

Yeah, exactly. There's no work really, beside beyond writing for him to go back to and I mean, and some tutoring that he was doing in someone else's home. But if he had had property and a family or if he was like me and you, where. When I come to work, I am educating the youth, like I am trying to help the system, I feel like the things that I'm doing are actually worthwhile. When I go to jail, those things stop happening. And so I have to weigh my paying of taxes, which makes me complicit in perhaps ills. I don't know where my tax dollars are going. Right. With. Okay. I do have a responsibility to the people that have hired me. I have a responsibility to the students that are looking up to me. I have like, I, I have other things that may outweigh that paying of taxes, which is a. I don't think that's math that he has to do. And I think that's because he comes from a very, I hate to say privileged, but he's got a privileged position where he doesn't, he doesn't have to worry about those things. Right. And maybe that's just because he has gone full RIP the system. And I know people that did that back in Washington that were just like, I'm not going to engage. I'm going to dumpster dive for everything I need. I'm not going to have a cell phone, I'm going to travel. I'm not going to do a thing. But at the same time that they're criticizing something, they are benefiting from it. And this is the other piece of his. His naivety is I actually, I have the quote. It's kind of funny. Oh, actually, I actually copied it over. Let's see. When I converse with the freest of my neighbors, I perceive that whatever they may say about the magnitude and seriousness of the question and their regard for the public tranquility, the long and short of the matter is that they cannot spare the protection of the existing government and they dread the consequences to their property and families of disobedience to it. For my own part, I should not like to think that I ever rely on the protection of the state. And I think that is naive.

[A]

Yes. I mean, that's. That is, he says, an unmarried man without property and without children. Right.

[C]

Well, and even if he is unmarried, without property, without children, he still lives in a state that isn't being currently Invaded. Like he is. His borders are protected. He is. Like there is civility because there are police there. Like he is being protected from being beaten and robbed and thrown in a ditch for no reason. Like he is, even as he criticizes the protection of the state, living under the protection of the state and they are going to do it for him even though he is not paying taxes.

[A]

I guess I'm going back and forth and saying like, is the moral agitation of the privileged class in a weird way a, like a benefit to the state? Like, is it good to have. Okay, let's just to, for the sake of clarity, let's just be a little like blunt with it. Like people for whom they are like Thoreau, highly educated, has a refined moral sensibility and can exist without being beholden to a lot of the, the like bending of the knee or the kissing of the ring that needs to happen in a modern society, the state. He's an independent person. He's got independent means. He can basically like run his mouth if he wants to. Is having that kind of class in a democracy a, a helpful thing that we should have? Because they can, without fear of letting, of having their stuff taken away can be this sort of like loud, agitating, gumming at the system voice. Is that a helpful thing for, for the system or is it like a, does it exacerbate sort of like class problems? Because now you've got like, you've got sort of people who can be outside the system, finger wagging the system, but the people who are in the system, they can't, they can't do anything from about it. Like ultimately are we do, do the, are we benefited from, from that sort of moral class of, of Thoreaus who, who can agitate somewhat insulated from the problems of agitation or are they just sort of like tone deaf and you know, this sort of like hippie counterculture that needs to be endured, not revered. Do you get my point? Like maybe, maybe they're useful.

[C]

I think it's a positive thing and I think it's provided for in the Constitution. We have freedom of speech for a reason.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

I think we need people who are able to say this is not a right thing and you can take my property, but either I don't have any property or I don't really, I don't have to fear you. And I think that's really important. And Thoreau I think is from the wealthy class. I knew people who weren't, they just refused the trappings of society. And I, I think just, maybe just Doing that and then not being vocal about it. Your point where it's just like, just withdrawal, but not actually trying to do anything to change the system may not do the job, especially now that we have such a huge population. It was probably more effectual back when the states were smaller.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

But I think it's probably an important thing and I think it's. I think it is good that people are vocal about the. The things that matter to them and that they are cranky about paying taxes to things that don't matter. Like, I'm sympathetic there.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

I'm less sympathetic in that he talks about, like, the only. There's another long quote that's really good where he talks about the only good, like the only house worthy of a man who is living free in an unjust state is prison. That's the only house where he should be living because he shouldn't be complicit to an unjust state. I'm sympathetic to that. But I think he is also uniquely able to say that because he only spent like a day or two in prison because somebody else paid the tax for him. Like it was like an ant. Yeah. And he said, I didn't want them to. I didn't ask them to, but they did. And then he was free. And he's like, ah, my. My perspectives have changed because my neighbors didn't. You know, my view of my neighbors has. Has changed. I don't see them as the same as I did.

[B]

And weirdly, that's the benefit of having people like Thoreau to make these points because they can suffer the consequences and become examples for their movement. Right.

[C]

But the other thing is, like.

[B]

And if he's in a just cause, I think he's. He describes a just cause at the beginning of this.

[A]

Right.

[B]

Like, I think we were sympathetic to the ends that he's going after. He can bear the cost. And there's a reason we're still reading him 200 years later or whatever. Right.

[C]

And one of those reasons is because somebody bailed him out of jail. Right. If he had stayed in jail, he wouldn't stayed there. And they had denied him paper and pencils and he didn't have any, but.

[B]

They weren't going to kill him. Like, he would have written it after he got out.

[C]

Yeah, he would eventually come out for sure. And so I guess. And we talked about that other guy who. What was it, Britain? That Bunyan.

[B]

John Bunyan.

[C]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Where he stayed in jail for what, like 12 years?

[B]

12 years, yeah. Because he wouldn't Relent. He could have gotten out anytime before.

[C]

That, but he wasn't willing to cross his principles, which I admire.

[B]

I'm mixed. I don't know. You gotta take care of your family too.

[C]

I know it's tough. That's. This tough thing is he can advocate for doing it, but, I mean, are we just advocating for moral compromise here?

[A]

But no, maybe that's the fear.

[C]

Would your kids look up to you more if you just stood your ground?

[A]

The Socrates question, right? Like, take care of my. You know, he gets criticized for leaving his boys, but he's like, yeah, but if I stay with my boys, my boys be raised by someone who did injustice.

[C]

Yeah, exactly.

[A]

But it's like, I guess I chafe at the idea that, like, from Thoreau's principled stand, there's also now kind of like a protest industrial complex that exists. Like, I'm gonna give you example. When I was in Toronto in the early 2000s, there was a G20 meeting happening, and the black block showed up in Toronto. And these were people that weren't from, like. And it was in my neighborhood, like, where I lived, downtown Toronto, and buses and buses of people who weren't even Canadian or who weren't even from Toronto came in wore black. The black block was up and down the streets burning cop cars, hucking bricks, like, just wrecking stuff. And it was in protest of the G20 and the globalization and bringing, you know, basically having rich countries, you know, then in their framing of it, having rich countries sort of like band together at the. At for the, you know, the downside of the global south and South America and these countries that were now going to be beholden to the. The big rich countries. And China was being inducted into the. The G20 anyway. But it was like a well mobilized, well organized protest movement that came in that was, I guess, like, they weren't doing what Thoreau does, which is not paying taxes, but they were like, wrecking stuff. And I guess it's like, is that the legacy of Thoreau is that we. We realize the utility of. Because we live in a democracy where the government can yield to the pressure of the people, as opposed to like a totalitarian regime where the government gives two craps what the people think. Because we, like, is that a. Is having that kind of agitation and gumming up the system, should that be seen and celebrated as a welcome thing or should that should be. Should that be seen as like.

[C]

A.

[A]

Is it like. Like a virus that healthy states can. Can endure and unhealthy states get sick from you know what I mean? Like, it's like is, is that the legacy of Thoreau is that. That we now have a, a, it is, we have a, a mobilization and protest like arm of society that can try to enact policy change through more aggressive gumming the system. Do you get my point? Like, Thoreau wants to have it be a personal moral conviction, but at some point the line gets crossed from personal moral conviction to political movement of more extreme people. What would do you think Thoreau would champion that and say, like, ah, the moral people are rising up and, and, and exit, you know, exhibiting their will while the sheeple, you know, put her off to work?

[C]

I don't think so. He, he seemed to be, want to be a good neighbor. I think he is more the kind of. I know he was inspiration for Gandhi and that kind of passive disobedience more than I'm gonna huck bricks and burn some cars. I don't think Thoreau was about that. I think he would not pay taxes and go to jail or be very vocal and go to jail, but I don't think he would be the guy out there burning people's houses and burning people's stuff and breaking things because that's not, doesn't seem to help. Like it's, it's uncivil disagreement.

[B]

Yeah. The point is for it to be civil.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Right.

[C]

And I don't think that's the issue, man. It is, it is tough to sort of figure out where, like, I wonder if you have to look at the state like an organism.

[B]

Right.

[C]

An organism is going to make some mistakes, gonna get some things wrong. It might have a few sins here and there, but when the, the sin has crept into the very core of it, at some point you have to say, this is not the state that we want and this is the state that I won't engage with.

[A]

Yeah. It needs to be seen as like a spectrum as opposed to a binary. Right. Like you can't just have a state that never makes mistakes or never does morally wrong things. That's impossible. But there is a material difference between the levels of corruption that exist and the levels of sins that get. And you know, and even just sitting listening here, like I would argue that yes, the slavery was a thing that men of good conscience should die to abolish. I don't know enough about the Mexican American War to, to put it in the same category.

[C]

Right.

[A]

My suspicion is that it's not in the same category.

[C]

But slavery should be enough.

[A]

But slavery should be enough. But yes, I guess then it behooves any listener to go through and read the history and say, like what, what were the mechanisms that actually ended slavery? Was it, was it Thoreau's, Was it people? Was it like men like Thoreau and their principal stand of opting out? Or was it, or was it something else? Was it people working? Basically? Was people working within the system or people working outside of the system? And I don't know what the answer is. I don't know if it's people working within the system or outside the system.

[C]

Well, Thoreau was to an extent working within the system. I think there's a lot of speeches, I think there's, I think he was probably, I can't say that he did give speeches, he did write essays. William Wilberforce legislated from the inside. Obviously he was a lawmaker. So I think it's both. I remember one of my students said there's no great men, only great ideas. We, you know, when we talk about things like from Kymer, punishment. Right. His idea was that there's great men who make, who change the side of history. I think the abolishment of slavery is one of those things that men rallied behind. And so it was a great combination of.

[A]

Yeah, I think I disagree with your student. I think there are, I don't know if there's great men, but I think, and this is something that animates my. What I think about in terms of teaching. I think that it is part of the teacher to create as many people who love virtue as possible. So that if the accidents of history bring that person into a position where they are called upon to make decisions at critical moments in a nation's history, they have the moral conviction to be able to do it.

[C]

So Hamlet would say, the readiness is all correct.

[A]

We need to like seed the world with as many virtue loving people as possible. Because it just may so happen that the accidents of history choose you to be the person that has to make the right, the, the judgment call. And if we're just like surrounded by self serving, corrupted, like pleasure seeking, money seeking people, then, you know, then occasions will present themselves that demand greatness and there will be nobody there to seize them. And so I do think there are great men. But what, but I. The thing is like, I think any student that loves the good and loves virtue is a great man. But then at some point, like history may call on him and her to be public in that good. And then we hope that they do the right thing and they do the virtuous thing.

[C]

Yeah. And There are people who are powerful people, but I wouldn't call them great because they're not wed to a great purpose. So I think it's, yeah, a moment in history where a. A great virtuous purpose must be served, and a person is going to be tested to see whether they are the tool for that, to carry out that thing.

[A]

Person and context come together and you.

[C]

To do a great deed.

[A]

And the thing is, we as, as people cannot control context, but we can control the production of control, but we can influence the production of virtuous citizens. And so, like, you know, yeah, that's kind of. That's why. What I got to get back to when I think of, like, if. If Thoreau is. Is so convicted, why not. Why not work. Try to work to. To affect that change from the inside. Nij, I take your point in saying that he is. He's writing essays, he's trying to be influential. He's trying to be an intellectual. He's trying to put things out there in the world to sort of shake the moral consciences of people. And to his credit, he is also, like, taking it on the chin by being thrown in jail for it. Although there was a question to be paid to be asked about, like, when you don't pay, when you don't have to pay taxes, getting to dress it up as, like, a moral. As. As a moral virtue is always a little bit questionable, right? Like, it's like.

[C]

And that's. That. That's what. Like, that's what frustrates me about Thoreau is he talks about living simply and, like, returning to the land, but he was squatting on someone else's property, and he talks about being thrown in jail for this great purpose, but he was bailed out, like, a day later by his aunt. I mean, this.

[A]

It has this idea of, like, you know, like, boomer mom and dad asking their millennial kid, like, so what are you doing in New York City? And they're like, well, I'm really, like, advocating for, like, a workers union at my coffee shop. And they're like, okay, cool. Well, you know, we're still subsidizing your rent. And. And so this is.

[C]

This is my hard, hard thing. Like, I really wish that he had written this, you know, that he was a Boethius, that he had written this from jail where he was, you know, actually facing some serious consequences. It's just a slight frustration I have because I don't know that he's necessarily wrong. I do think there is a place where, like, you have to Let your conscience take work in your civil participation.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

But I do admit there's a gradient there. There's like. And just like with a kid who acts up at school, some you send to detention, some you expel.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

And so you have to figure out where that line is.

[A]

Any thoughts, Thomas?

[B]

I'm sold. I don't know. I, like.

[A]

Thomas is all about revolutionary.

[B]

Yeah. Rip the system, sign me up. All that whatever band you referenced before. Big fan. Yeah. I have no idea who that is.

[C]

Like a German electronica band?

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

Were they German?

[A]

They were German. Cool. Any final thoughts, aj?

[C]

No. It's a fun. It's a fun book. I think there's definite lessons to be taken here. I. I think Thoreau is right, but also kind of funny.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

All right.

[A]

Well, this has been classical stuff you should know with Graham, AJ and Thomas. You can find us. You can patronize us at patreon.com backslash or/classical stuff, wherein we have in between episodes where we have monthly AMAs where just recently we have been recontacted by the Oracle. So if you want to ask the Oracle questions, the way it works is this, is that you ask the Oracle questions. I take the questions to the sacred tree on campus. I whisper your questions to the tree.

[C]

The knothole. Right. Yeah.

[A]

I take the nap underneath the tree. The wind blows through the leaves and whispers the oracular pronouncements, and I bring them back to you a month later. And so ask your Oracle questions. Patreon subscribers, what else we got? We got. We have a lively chat wherein we share books for reading or just send pictures of each other's dogs and keep you up to date on stuff. And you can find us on Twitter, where I will sometimes like your comment.

[B]

Awesome.

[A]

And you can email us at the guys@classical stuff.net and we will maybe get back to you. We will maybe get back to you. All right, well, this. Yeah, we love you. Bye.

[C]

I love you.