The opening lines of Henry David Thoreau’s essay Civil Disobedience encapsulate Thoreau’s view of government. He says,

I heartily accept the motto,—“That government is best which governs least;” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically.

Thoreau would like to see a government that embraces laissez-faire policies and does not intrude into areas where it should not. Moreover, he notes that “unjust laws exist” and that he believes that it is incumbent on citizens to try to resist and overturn them.

Neither people nor governments should “wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter” these unjust laws. Thoreau says that citizens do not act against unjust laws, because they fear that the “remedy is worse than the evil.” By this, he implies that private citizens do not protest through civil disobedience and other measures, because without the support of majority rule, they fear the consequences.

If private citizens act through civil disobedience, the remedy often is spending time in jail. This is what happened to Thoreau himself. Thoreau protested a poll tax that he thought was unjustly levied by not paying it for several years. Eventually, Thoreau was placed in jail, and he wrote that he was happy to spend the time there because he was exercising his right to protest through civil disobedience. If the remedy for private citizens is worse than the evil—in his case, a night in jail—Thoreau notes that it is the government’s fault.

He condemns men who do not take action when they believe laws are unjust, because they are not acting as agents of change and they are resigning their “conscience[s] to the legislator.” In other words, rather than acting as their consciences dictate by protesting unjust government initiatives, they dodge responsibility. They point to the facts that the majority rules and that the majority therefore must believe that such initiatives or laws are just.

Thoreau takes issue with the concept and practice of majority rule. Just because, he argues, a majority agrees upon something does not make that the right or just choice. A majority of people can certainly vote for something that is unjust, and just because a majority of people have chosen that unjust thing does not suddenly make it a just or wise choice. It upsets Thoreau that people tend to think that they need to persuade a majority of people to be on their side before they can do anything about an unjust law. They may not want to break the law; rather, they want to change the law. That is, however, not the most expedient or surefire way to thwart an unjust law. Perhaps a majority of people support that unjust law, so it will not change; ought one who disagrees with it continue to abide by it simply because it is the law? No, is Thoreau's resounding answer. A just man might conclude that breaking the law is worse than obeying the unjust law, because if he breaks the law, he will go to jail and his status as a lawbreaker might have material affects upon his family, etc. Thus, the government makes it seem as though the remedy for an unjust law is worse than the unjust law itself, compelling people to conform against their consciences. One must take action against an unjust law by refusing to follow it—even if that means jail time—whether one is in the majority or not; one cannot wait for the majority to be on one's side. We should not obey the unjust law until it changes but, rather, break the law and work to change it at the same time.

This phrase appears in the 16th paragraph of the essay:

Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse. Why is it not more apt to anticipate and provide for reform? Why does it not cherish its wise minority?

Take, for example, Thoreau’s personal experience of being put in jail for non-payment of the state poll tax. He wanted to protest not only the fugitive slave laws but also the beginnings of the war with Mexico. He never intended to vote in an election, so he felt he shouldn’t have to pay a tax in order to be allowed to go to the polls. He made a quiet one-person protest. He didn’t wait for a large group of people to join him so they could launch a large-scale rally and have relative safety in numbers. He didn’t think a group was necessary. He knew that non-payment of any tax could lead to arrest. “The remedy” would be the arrest and night spent in jail, following your principles. “The evil” would be to support with money those government activities that you don’t agree with. Is it better to just send in your money and be angry and frustrated about it, or to serve some time to prove your point? Thoreau is making the case that, in a so-called democracy, some other outlet should be provided for individuals to disagree and to protest without being subjected to jail time, merely for finding fault with the rules. He looks down on anyone who doesn’t stand up for himself in this fashion, especially if the person is afraid to protest on his own without other folks to back him up. He encourages individuals to act in line with their own beliefs.