In other words, when a sixth of the population of a nation which has undertaken to be the refuge of liberty are slaves, and a whole country is unjustly overrun and conquered by a foreign army, and subjected to military law, I think that it is not too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize. When the friction comes to have its machine, and oppression and robbery are organized, I say, let us not have such a machine any longer. But as to what constitutes injustice, Thoreau is clear: It is radically democratic, that we know.

“To speak practically and as a citizen,” he wrote, “unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government.” He does not go to great lengths, as classical philosophers were wont, to define the ideal government. He also denounces the use of a standing army by “a comparatively… few individuals.” And yet-despite these radical positions-Thoreau has been enshrined in the history of political thought both for his radical tactics and his defense of preserving government, for the present. Like many utopian theorists of the 19th century, Thoreau saw this as the inevitable future: “when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government they will have.” Thoreau laments all restrictions on trade and regulations on commerce. “I heartily accept the motto, ‘That government is best which governs least,’” wrote Thoreau, and ultimately “’That government is best which governs not at all.’” It lies instead at the watering hole where right libertarianism and left anarchism meet to have a drink. Thoreau’s political philosophy is not passive, as in the phrase “passive resistance.” It is not middle-of-the-road centrism disguised as radicalism. This is an essay we have become all-too familiar with by reputation rather than by reading. Neither, of course, did Henry David Thoreau, author of the 1849 essay “ Civil Disobedience,” a document that every student of Political Philosophy 101 knows as an ur-text of modern democratic protest movements. But I see no moral reason to condemn people for fighting injustice, provided their cause itself is just. The question that presents itself to any opposition is what is to be done? Go underground? Sabotage? Take up arms? The likelihood of success in such cases-depending on the belligerence of the opposition and the capabilities of the government-varies widely.

The present is rife with examples of oppressive governments. History is rife with examples of oppressive governments.

Thoreau essay on civil disobedience