There is an old saying that one should not build a house on sand; instead, a house should always be built on solid ground. By using this phrase as a metaphor to discuss the foundations of government, one can allude to the fact that citizens prefer to trust in a government whose foundations are firmly embedded in a solid moral framework. In his work Civil Disobedience, Henry Thoreau presented his arguments in support of his general distrust of the concept of representative government in general, citing the American government as his example. Reading Thoreau forces one to ask the question: How should a population react if its members fulfill their civic obligations, but the government, in return, fails to respect the rights and privileges of all citizens? Would a nation sink like a house built on quicksand if its politicians did not have the trust of their voters? In 1837, the American government's attitude toward slavery and the Mexican-American War convinced the reclusive Thoreau to cease fulfilling his civic obligations to politicians who did not adequately represent the American people. Thoreau, in this light, followed his conscience and tried to demonstrate to the American people that we should all have a say in political matters, which is a very nice manifestation of Thoreau's ideas regarding individualism, which remain appropriate today in he political arena of 2016 in which the American people struggle to make their voices heard. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay As an individual thinker, Thoreau wanted to follow his own conscience and analyze his personal ethics more deeply, which he said can be "seen from a somewhat higher point of view; seen from an even higher point high, and from the highest” (Thoreau, 194). Thoreau's reflections on his own personal ethics lead him to think about the reasons behind laws and to consider the impacts they create rather than blindly following them they disagree with the effectiveness of the countless laws that exist in society. In some communities, the majority of people may disagree with the existing legislations that regulate social obligations and individual rights. Just like these individuals, Henry Thoreau possessed an ethical dilemma in this regard: “There are unjust laws: will we be content to obey them, or will we try to amend and obey them until we succeed, or will we break them immediately? ?” (184). Thoreau firmly believed that if individuals refused not to think for themselves, the government would think for them, which would not necessarily be in the best interests of the general public. Thoreau asks, “Why does every man have a conscience, then?” (178). His belief was that human conscience is designed for each individual to follow their own instincts and that laws often prevent this freedom of moral choice. If a needy man found a briefcase full of money and his friends tried to convince him to keep the money, but he, instead, found himself driven by conscience to look for the owner to return the found goods to the rightful owner, this would be an example of man's natural individualism. Likewise, Thoreau's opposition to the American government's ethical views regarding slavery and the Mexican-American War was an exercise of his individualism. This can be perceived in the line: “If injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machinery of government, let it go, let it go”(Thoreau, 185). This injustice that Thoreau was referring to was the institution of slavery. Thoreau further discusses the lack of upright moral character in government by writing, “Witness the present Mexican War, the work of comparatively few individuals using permanent government as an instrument; for in principle the people would not have consented to this measure" (177). To Thoreau, the laws and attitudes within government that supported slavery were the most unjust of all. Furthermore, Thoreau states that his conscience guided him to exercise his own voice by separating himself from mainstream society and refusing to pay taxes to a corrupt institution: a government built on sand, not stone. After losing her husband to isolation, Henry Thoreau expressed frustration with the corrupt policies of the American government, which spurred her withdrawal from society. Although these realities troubled him, Thoreau wanted to make his voice heard. Thoreau's first step in protesting America's moral corruption was to spend his life isolated in a desert cabin. Thoreau writes: “I saw the barriers between me and my neighbors and especially between me and the state. My perspective on my city became that of a stranger…” (25-37). The barriers that Thoreau refers to in this quote are the differences between his personal views on government and those of contemporary society. Thoreau felt as if he lacked roots in this society, which alienated him emotionally from his “home.” When an individual expresses discontent with their situation, they have the opportunity to put the situation behind them. For example, the recent Brexit referendum results demonstrated British dissatisfaction with the EU and called for the UK to withdraw from the European Union. According to Thoreau, a physical fight against corruption in a political system whose main characteristic is authoritarianism and oppression is completely useless. Thoreau writes: “Those who fail to oppose wrongdoing by action, but merely express or vote their beliefs, leave justice to chance. A true man refuses allegiance, at any level, to a government that pursues immoral policies” (7-15). Refusing to vote was, therefore, Thoreau's second step toward protesting a corrupt government. Thoreau envisioned a society in which everyone was more participatory, stating that “we should be concerned with living justly and not with reforming government” (16-19). From the following words we can deduce that Thoreau only wanted a just government that represented the interests of all Americans: “I ask 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 this will be a step towards obtaining it” (178). Thoreau's third step in the protests was his refusal to pay taxes: "I have not paid any poll tax for six years" (189). Thoreau was well aware that his taxes financed the Mexican-American War and defended the practice of slavery, two institutions he fiercely opposed. If he had paid for such a corrupt system, Thoreau would have been complicit in the existence of these institutions. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay Many of Thoreau's concerns regarding governmental shortcomings remain relevant because, although Thoreau wrote his works in the 19th century; his observations resemble many of the contemporary issues that exist in government today. Although slavery was dissolved as an institution, today we are enslaved, at least metaphorically, because of.