When they both decide to go against the government, it is solely because both think that government prevents the Transcendentalist lifestyle. This lifestyle, means that one is exempt from taxes or any other enforced laws and regulations, as a Transcendentalist disagrees with the very core of the state. So, under the guise of moral responsibility, civil disobedience is a way to act for their own personal gain. McCandless has a distaste for government, having strong views on various politicians, many of which he dislikes. His political leanings are reminiscent of Thoreau’s essay ‘On Duty of Civil Disobedience’, and can be summed up with, “ ‘I heartily accept the motto - ‘That
In fact, the Constitution as how it’s right now it does not meet the need of the country right now, due to many issues that the nation is facing and because of the constitution said can’t do much. It’s a really good book to read, because it will change the view that we have as citizens, living us with many questions without answer for the
For example, immigration reform has been being considered since past President Barack Obama was reelected in 2012, as stated by The Washington Post (Nakamura, O’Keefe 4). In the past six years the progress in advancing immigration reform has been miniscule because the drastically different opinions on how severe the reform should be. Some people, mainly liberals, disagree wholly with immigration reform because it contradicts the American ideal of all people, no matter their race, religion or gender, being welcome in the country, as well as, the distinction between refugees and immigrants. Others believe that, to continue to prosper, America can only solve American problems and to take on the responsibility of more people is detrimental to America’s wellbeing. And despite immigration being considered a “national crisis”, the Senate still, through a vote, prevented the progress of a bill that
On the other hand being a bystander or being neutral is letting thousands of innocent lives die at your hands. This inaction by the decisions of a country influences people to deem their self interests more important than the unity and prosperity of the human race as a whole. Neutrality is a very hard decision and can have a number of different impacts both positive and negative, which is highly controversial but neutrality should not be used as a decision for a country.
On the other hand, media censorship is also used for wrong motives, mostly by the government who is trying to protect themselves from anti-politics ideas or any other movement against them. Censorship became at some point a weapon apply to keep citizens ignorant, by denying the entry or spread of sensitive information inside the country, authorities assure the status quo remaining, prohibiting to their nation the opportunity to learn more and to think differently, all because this could cause the loss of their power. Media censorship is a delicate matter where there is not a perfect position about it. As is known, media is one of the most important instruments use to communicate opinions in a short period of time to a big part of the world, this makes it a very power device with the capacity to change everything just with one word and give to the society great benefits, but it can also be used in negative ways, affecting directly the good relationship between communities, all critical aspects that make you think it is imperative to establish rational basic rules and boundaries to avoid the media become a dangerous threat to
We should protect everything that people say because it's their right to say what they believe and if we take that away we are no different from North Korea or Cuba. Depriving people of what they can or can't say takes away the whole ideology this country was born of people started a revolution for what they believed so we shouldn't take it away. The only time that we should stop protecting people of what they believe is when there is a violent outbreak like the attack in Charlottesville. James Alex Fields, Jr is a prime example of what free speech isn't because speech is not going out in your car and ramming it into a group of people this when the government should step in because that is no longer speech in a peaceful way you are harming people for stating there own opinion(Pearce). Some people try to take justice into their own hands like Based Stickman AKA Kyle Chapman who went to a Trump rally and starting assaulting people with a flagpole and he was then taken to jail on suspicion of a felony with a deadly weapon(Chang).
The public are banned from owning or reading books, there are many reasons for why people are so averse towards books and submit to the government. Entertainment such as, tv and radio play a big part in why most people do not independently think for themselves.The bigger reason is the sensitivities towards the “offensive” opinions written in these books that makes people submit to the goverments rules. This makes one either obey the authority and seeing what can happen to the world if they chose to let it stay the same or disobeying authority for change. Very much alike the recent occurrences where some college students have been rejecting the books they were given and are requesting new books and passages that are not offensive for the end result of softening and changing dated learning. On the other hand, there are new rules that are trying to make penitentiary’s “safer”, though adding specific approved “respectable” books for the prisoners to read and taking away their personal input on information.
In many ways their rights are being disregarded and threatened by visions congress on certain things, this is not a good thing for citizens. Most Americans have not even paid attention to this, and that is not a good thing for the United States. Citizens should realize if they don’t keep up with politics, it is easier for the government to get away with things the United States citizens disagree with. Religion is a choice in the United States, and if an American citizen wishes to speak about it, they should be allowed to if it offends somebody else or
Since, it isn’t justified for America to give us this right of speech, when they knock us down for using it. The Black Lives Matter Movement is proof of this, they protest over and over but the government doesn’t want to take responsibility or change for the better of the community. As a community we need to see actions taking place, not only just words. I think they are right for opposing the dominant culture, since it is going to take a lot of work for America to socially change, and we have stick up for what we believe in or them would never been any change in America. America has become a better nation with time, protests and the power of a counter culture always existing to fight for equality, no matter the gender and race.
2. Disadvantages of regulations/censorship 2.1 compromising the freedom of speech Censorship compromises the freedom of speech in many different ways. Freedom of speech refers to the right to speak without censorship or being restraint by a higher authority of the organization or country. For example, Compromising the freedom of speech will not allow the society to voice out their negative thoughts or to protest at a government or a government-related event. This example clearly shows that freedom of speech is being compromised as people are unable to voice out what they truly feel and are mostly forced to keep their opinions to themselves as voicing these opinions will make the rest of the society think in a different way and steer them away to generate other ideas or thoughts.
This quote shows how some people don’t care about other people or their opinions if it gets in the way of their goals. They insult and threaten people to try to scare others into listening to them and to prevent them from opposing their beliefs. Although some might object that these ideas and plans should be supported, I maintain that it is a threat to people if it continues to get out of hand. Therefore, I conclude that politicians need to have their power limited, as well as language, to prevent them from becoming a negative
From past experiences we know that appealing to the people doesn’t get far because the publics’ opinion on, if we go to war or no, isn’t worth anything compared to the Presidents. The president has a trend of making decisions on their own without seeking advice from any other source. The threat of a draft would possibly hinder the rush to war because of the human cost but attempting to change how the president makes decisions is a better solution because it does not have as many negative effects as that of a