Echos of the opening statement are resounding today. Calls for less government, or defiance in protest of what is seen as ineffective and corrupt government are in effect following the fundamentals written in this book by Henry David Thoreau.
HDT had a direct and unfiltered boisterous manner of communicating his point-of-view. Speaking out against self-indulgent, inept, or ineffective, and abusive government. He presented no uncertainty that his attitude was to stand up against such control over his livelihood. He defined good government that which is acted out by men of good conscience.
By that very point, it is noted that he operated on some assumptions which were probably not largely true then, and very clearly questionable now. His promulgations are premised upon the idea that there are corporate or government leaders who are of good conscience.
While I believe that his principles, such as .... are sound and respectable, I do not believe that they take into account issues or complications which have grown in proportion to his time. Issues and complications which exponentially magnify the difficulty in finding common ground solutions to the mounting issues surrounding our complex society today. For example, He does not seem to account for the cases where there are multiple 'good' men standing on multiple sides of an issue, all assuming that they are right while they are in polar disagreement with each other.
HDT was a proponent of the school of the "unbending will." And, not only was he a member, he was the 'Hair Club' President. Just kidding. His presentation did not appear to be one that promoted discussion of government issues as much as standing against the government that he believe was generally faulty. I did not feel that his considerations were inclusive, they appeared to be exclusive to his own ideals, and his own concerns. Essentially, I suggest, his philosophy was one of 'every one agree with me regarding the government and what is righteous, or you are a slave or follower of that which is lame.'.