I please myself with imagining a State at last which can afford to be just to all men, and to treat the individual with respect as a neighbor; which even would not think it inconsistent with its own repose, if a few were to live aloof from it, not meddling with it, nor embraced by it, who fulfilled all the duties of neighbors and fellowmen. A State which bore this kind of fruit, and suffered it to drop off as fast as it ripened, would prepare the way for a still more perfect and glorious State, which also I have imagined, but not yet anywhere seen.
This paragraph strikes me as one that all permies will probably agree with. We all hope to live in a State that is "just to all men" and women. We look to treat each other (and nature!) with respect as a neighbor, and in many ways we do seek to be "aloof" from the system, or rather, the systems of dependence that most American's are umbilically linked to, such as the food system, energy system, etc. Does the government stand in the way of people producing their own food? Or creating their own energy? Is the government comfortable with people being able to take care of themselves, or does it crave dependence of the citizenry as a justification for its existence? Some would say yes, and others would say no. Thoreau would say it doesn't matter, that whether or not the government is standing in your way it is your personal duty to pursue that which you think is right, whether it be energy independence, food independence, or anything else... even at the risk of being imprisoned or persecuted!
"Civil Disobedience" was written 160 years ago, but it still makes poignant points about how people should live their lives today. Putting conscientiousness ahead of personal wants or the demands of government strikes me as a very "permie-esque" way to think about things. Right livelihood, appropriate technology, fair share; all of these paradigms are built around ideas that I believe Thoreau would've wholeheartedly embraced. I also think that civil disobedience does not always have to involve breaking the law. Simply refusing to participate in activities you deem as unjust is a form of civil disobedience, especially if refusing to do so is considered "outside the norm." Some see designing your life to be in harmony with nature, designing your home to produce for you and others, growing your own food, refusing to eat GM foods, refusing to be a "typical" consumer, storing food, learning primitive survival skills, seeking personal energy independence, producing as much as I can for myself so that I can be taxed less by not having to buy so much, bartering, and many of the other things I am doing or learning in pursuit of my homestead, as odd or outside the norm (or even illegal). But to me, pursuing this type of life is simply living the way I think I'm meant to live, and I suppose in some cases they could be considered civil (or social) disobedience. I like to think that Thoreau would approve.
When discussing permaculture, homesteading, or self-sufficiency, if Thoreau comes up I know most people would probably assume Walden would be the book that's being talked about. But I think "Civil Disobedience" carries a lot of important ideas that can be carried into permaculture and homesteading. Do you agree that permaculture can be considered civil or social disobedience? In what ways do you think you civilly disobey?
Thanks for reading!
Posts
5 comments: