The essence of Henry Thoreaus essay, Civil Disobedience, is that the USFG is an artificial institution that commits to an unprecedented

immorality shown through the poor treatment of Mexico, the action of slavery in the South, and the poor treatment of its citizens Smith 2011 (Nicole Smith is an author for Article Myriad. Analysis and Summary of Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau.
Date made December 11, 2011. Date retrieved October 19, 2012. http://www.articlemyriad.com/analysis-summary-civil-disobedience/)

In his essay Civil Disobedience, Henry David Thoreau opens by saying, I heartily accept the motto, That government is best which governs least ( ), and then clarifies that his true belief is That government is best which governs not at all ( ). In Civil Disobedience, Thoreau evaluates the federal government critically, contending that it is an artificial institution created by the powerful while acknowledging that it is believed to serve a purpose and is likely to remain a feature of American life. Given these circumstances, in his essay on civil disobedience Thoreau encourages, in one of the important quotes from Civil Disobedience by Thoreau that, every man make known what kind of government would command his respect *as+ one step toward obtaining it ( ). Civil disobedience is the strategy for articulating ones beliefs. As this thesis statement for Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau suggests, the author defines the act of civil disobedience by explaining the thoughts and emotions that should guide it, and these include having a sense of rightness and moral conscience. A number of social as well as historical conditions provoked Thoreaus thought and resulting essay on the subject of civil disobedience. One of the factors that influenced Thoreau to consider civil disobedience as a method of resistance was the poor treatment of Mexico by the United States. In Civil Disobedience Thoreau is also disturbed by the way that the United States fails to take care of vulnerable people and why it embraces Christian ideals of sacrifice but excommunicates Copernicus and Luther, and pronounce*s+ Washington and Franklin rebels ( ). Still more alarming to Thoreau in Civil Disobedience Thoreau, however, was the institution of slavery in the South; Thoreau declared in one of the important quotes from Civil Disobedience I cannot for an instant recognize that political organization as my government which is the slaves government also ( ). In fact, the practice of slavery in the United States is the single most hypocritical aspect of the government as far as Thoreau is concerned. He remarks in one of these particularly succinct quotes from Civil Disobedience: *W+hen a sixth of the populationhas undertaken to be the refuge of liberty are slaves I think that it is not too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize ( ).

In Thoreaus Civil Disobedience, he imparts on the reader the notion that the best government is that which governs least. He goes on to state that the government is corrupt before the people can use it to their benefit and that the concept of democracy is nullified because the government allows a small group of people using the standing government, and by extension, the standing army as a tool for its own use. The people of the United States are a standing army. We are simply used by the government for whatever purposes like machines and we are stripped of our ability to make moral decisions. And, allowing a government that is corrupt destroys those who are truly good and seek morality. Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience, 1849
I HEARTILY ACCEPT the motto,"That government is best which governs least";(1) and I should like to see it 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. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it. Witness the present Mexican war,(2) the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool; for, in the outset, the people would not have consented to this measure. This American governmentwhat is it but a tradition, though a recent one, endeavoring to transmit itself unimpaired to posterity, but each instant losing some of its integrity? It has not the vitality and force of a single living man; for a single man can bend it to his will. It is a sort of wooden gun to the people themselves. But it is not the less necessary for this; for the people must have some complicated machinery or other, and hear its din, to satisfy that idea of government which they have. Governments show thus how successfully men can be imposed on, even impose on themselves, for their own advantage. It is excellent, we must all allow. Yet this government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way. It does not keep the country free. It does not settle the West. It does not educate. The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way. For government is an expedient by which men would fain succeed in letting one another alone; and, as has been said, when it is most expedient, the governed are most let alone by it. Trade and commerce, if they were not made of India rubber,(3) would never manage to bounce over the obstacles which legislators are continually putting in their way; and, if one were to judge these men wholly by the effects of their actions, and not partly by their intentions, they would deserve to be classed and punished with those mischievous persons who put obstructions on the railroads. But, to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it. After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule, is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest. But a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government

in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience?in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? 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. It is truly enough said that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation of conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience. Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice. A common and natural result of an undue respect for law is, that you may see a file of soldiers, colonel, captain, corporal, privates, powder-monkeys, and all, marching in admirable order over hill and dale to the wars, against their wills, ay, against their common sense and consciences, which makes it very steep marching indeed, and produces a palpitation of the heart. They have no doubt that it is a damnable business in which they are concerned; they are all peaceably inclined. Now, what are they? Men at all? or small movable forts and magazines, at the service of some unscrupulous man in power? Visit the Navy Yard, and behold a marine, such a man as an American government can make, or such as it can make a man with its black artsa mere shadow and reminiscence of humanity, a man laid out alive and standing, and already, as one may say, buried under arms with funeral accompaniments, though it may be "Not a drum was heard, not a funeral note, As his corpse to the rampart we hurried; Not a soldier discharged his farewell shot O'er the grave where our hero we buried."(4) 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,(5) 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 as 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 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 consciences also, and so necessarily resist it for the most part; and they are commonly treated as enemies by it. A wise man will only be useful as a man, and will not submit to be "clay," and "stop a hole to keep the wind away,"(6) but leave that office to his dust at least:

An example of modern immorality of the government comes from its drone attacks on the innocent people of Yemen Lydon 2012 (Timothy Lydon is an editor for The Depaulia. U.S. Foreign Policy is immoral. Date made July 30, 2012. Date retrieved
October 20, 2012. http://www.depauliaonline.com/opinions/u-s-foreign-policy-is-immoral-1.2882436#.UIIhVfVQjAG)

In the July 15 edition of The New York Times, national security reporter Scott Shane wrote an article titled The Moral Case for Drones. He questions the widely held assumption that since drones are a more precise, efficient way to target terrorists they are morally superior to other forms of warfare that kill more civilians. However, he neglects to mention the only obvious moral choice: not using violence at all. It is impossible to know how many civilians are routinely killed by drone attacks. Shane writes, Any analysis of actual results from the Central Intelligence Agency strikes in Pakistan, which has become the worlds unwilling test ground for the new weapon, is hampered by secrecy and wildly varying casualty reports. Eight Yemeni civilians were killed as a result of U.S. drone strikes, May 15. The murder of these civilians will be justified by the U.S. government like this: Al Qaeda is an enemy of the United States. Al

Qaeda happens to be in Yemen. Therefore Yemen (and anyone who lives in Yemen) is fair game. This willfully immoral rationale does nothing to address the root causes of terrorism, or attempt in any way to reach some sort of conflict resolution. As far as we know the only is plan is to bomb Al Qaeda from one country to the next.

Thus, the impact is twofold. By supporting the Federal government in their actions, whatever they may be, we dehumanize ourselves as part of an unidentifiable mass known as the standing army, and we dehumanize others through our actions in war. Our ability to justify killing in other countries or in our own makes us into immoral monstrosities that continuously seek violence. We dehumanize those who we perceive to be different in an effort to justify our violence. Pollick 2003 (Michael Pollick is a part time writer for WISEgeek.com, he owns the blog, Accelerating Future, Founded the Immorality
Institute, worked for the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence, Methuselah Foundation, and is currently Fundraising Director for the Lifeboat Foundation. In May 2007, Michael was profiled for Psychology Today magazine. Michael also serves as a director of the World Transhumanist Association. What is Dehumanization? Date made 2003. Date retrieved October 20, 2012. http://www.wisegeek.com/what-isdehumanization.htm#)

During times of conflict or war, conventional moral and ethical codes concerning the treatment of others are often challenged. Political leaders often seek out methods to override their citizens' objections in order to gain support for their cause. One such method of public manipulation is called dehumanization. Dehumanization is the deliberate removal of sympathetic human traits when referring to members of an opposing ideology, race, political party or other source of conflict. Adolf Hitler's references to Jews as 'vermin' or 'rats' is one example of dehumanization in action. Convincing an average citizen to commit a violent act or to murder a fellow human being is extremely difficult. Our moral code tells us that such acts are immoral and indefensible. However, through the skillful use of dehumanization, leaders throughout history have succeeded in doing just that. Once the enemy has been stripped of humanity and becomes an object worthy of punishment, the idea of mistreating or even destroying this threat becomes morally justifiable. Dehumanization often begins with the removal of personal identification. A convicted criminal is issued a prison identification number, for example. This form of dehumanization allows the guards and other authorities to maintain an impersonal relationship with inmates. This practice of dehumanization is also used by military prisons to maintain a feeling of superiority over captured enemy combatants. Viewing the enemy as a human being may compromise a soldier's ability to interrogate him or her later. Dehumanization methods can also be seen in other controversial areas. Those who support the rights of women to seek abortions, for example, rarely use the words baby or child in their literature. Using more clinical terms, such as fetus, could be seen as an effort to dehumanize an important element of the issue. Conversely, pro-life supporters may use dehumanization methods to reduce the staff members of a health clinic to uncaring baby killers. Dehumanization as a propaganda tool can work both ways. Another example of dehumanization in action occurs during media coverage of wars or conflicts. The enemy forces are often described as extremists, rebels or terrorists, while friendly forces are described as troops or freedom fighters. Dehumanization allows the public to override their natural aversions to conflict by perceiving their enemies as inhuman. Dehumanization tactics also tap into a person's innate prejudices, such as by creating the character of the "Muslim extremist" or the "Jewish threat". It is far easier to justify the annihilation of a caricature than an actual race or religion. Dehumanization is an effective propaganda tool when used skillfully. In the case of capital punishment, for instance, details of the convicted prisoner's crime are often given more media attention than details of his or her personal life before the

act. As long as the public continues to view the Death Row inmate as an inhuman monster, it is relatively easy to permit the execution to occur. Dehumanization succeeds when average people with average morals and ethical principles no longer see the person behind the label.

Current US policy in other countries has been increasingly immoral, especially the drone strikes. This is just another example of the governments corruption and ability to dehumanize Naiman 2012 (Robert Naiman is Policy Director at Just Foreign Policy. Mr. Naiman edits the Just Foreign Policy daily news summary
and writes on U.S. foreign policy at Huffington Post. He is president of the board of Truthout. Naiman has worked as a policy analyst and researcher at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch. He has masters degrees in economics and mathematics from the University of Illinois and has studied and worked in the Middle East. US drone strike policy is immoral: Analysis. Date made October 1 2012. Date retrieved October 20, 2012. http://www.presstv.ir/usdetail/264373.html)

An American foreign policy analyst has described U.S. assassination drone attacks in other countries as immoral, saying that he is joining a delegation of activists who are travelling to Pakistan this week to reveal the true reality of the policy to Americans. Drone strike policy is immoral. Most Americans dont know what drone strike policy actually is because U.S. officials have given a misleading impression that its all about hitting top level terrorist leaders, Policy Director of Just Foreign Policy Robert Naiman told Press TVs U.S. Desk from Illinois on Sunday. Citing a recent study by the Stanford and New York University law schools, Naiman said that the number of high level militants killed as a percentage of total casualties of U.S. drone strikes is extremely low, estimated at just 2%. The rest of casualties have been civilians or low-level fighters with no significance to the United States, he added. This drone strike policy for the majority of Americans is a black box and I want to help open the black box, so Americans can see what the true reality of the policy is, Naiman said. The law schools study slammed the targeted killing practices as counterproductive, saying they undermine respect for the rule of law and international legal protections. It also questioned whether the strikes have been effective in making the U.S. any safer.

Thus, our alternative is to commit to civil disobedience and disallow the federal government to gain more power by doing the plan. By doing what is our duty as American citizens, we hope to change the government, but to not abolish it entirely Smith 2011 (Nicole Smith is an author for Article Myriad. Analysis and Summary of Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau.
Date made December 11, 2011. Date retrieved October 19, 2012. http://www.articlemyriad.com/analysis-summary-civil-disobedience/)

Thoreau considers civil disobedience a moral and social duty of American citizens. He defines civil disobedience as an act of willful resistance, achieved by not obeying laws he considers to be hypocritical. One act of civil disobedience may be not paying taxes. Another act, and one he deems more important still, is to avoid colluding with the government by refusing to play an active role in it. It is important to point out, though, that civil disobedience is, as its name suggests, peaceful. It does not involve taking up arms or using any other methods of violence to achieve its ends. Dehumanization outweighs all other impacts Berube, 1997 (Berube, David. Professor. English. University of South Carolina. Nanotechnological Prolongevity: The Down Side. 1997. http://www.cas.sc.edu/engl/faculty/berube/prolong.htm.) Assuming we are able to predict who or what are optimized humans, this entire resultant worldview smacks of eugenics and Nazi racial science. This would involve valuing people as means. Moreover, there

would always be a superhuman more super than the current ones, humans would never be able to escape their treatment as means to an always further and distant end. This means-ends dispute is at the core of Montagu and Matson's treatise on the dehumanization of humanity. They warn: "its destructive toll is already greater than that of any war, plague, famine, or natural calamity on record -- and its potential danger to the quality of life and the fabric of civilized society is beyond calculation. For that reason this sickness of the soul might well be called the Fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse.... Behind the genocide of the holocaust lay a dehumanized thought; beneath the menticide of deviants and dissidents... in the cuckoo's next of America, lies a dehumanized image of man... (Montagu & Matson, 1983, p. xi-xii). While it may never be possible to quantify the impact dehumanizing ethics may have had on humanity, it is safe to conclude the foundations of humanness offer great opportunities which would be foregone. When we calculate the actual losses and the virtual benefits, we approach a nearly inestimable value greater than any tools which we can currently use to measure it. Dehumanization is nuclear war, environmental apocalypse, and international genocide. When people become things, they become dispensable. When people are dispensable, any and every atrocity can be justified. Once justified, they seem to be inevitable for every epoch has evil and dehumanization is evil's most powerful weapon.