The people, as Thoreau argues, have made the government “[There] only mode which [will] execute their will” (lines 14-15), but with that decision the government is prone to “... be abused and perverted before the people can act through it.” (lines 15-16). Since that makes government able to abuse the people, Thoreau also states that because of that “government is best which governs not at all and when [people] are prepared for it that will be the kind of government which they will have.” (lines 5-7), though he is just asking for a better government, not the ultimate termination of one. But this overall idea of “government is best which governs not at all” has significant pro’s and con’s to it, present in both Thoreau’s writing and in modern times.
Pro’s: Thoreau writes, “I think we should be men first, and subjects afterward.” (lines 37-38), people should put their human obligations and wants above the political obligations their government wants from them. If the people have a government that does not necessarily govern they can do that, people can be free to be men or women first, before being a subject. In this sense, when the government governed less and people could put their needs first, people choose to experience a greater sense of religious freedom. Every culture has their own practices and morals they live by, but some are restricted to those values by their government. For instance, in Western Europe, during the 16th and 17th century, the only acceptable religion was Catholicism, which was enforced heavily by the king and church. People had no choice but to obey the church or else face persecution for their beliefs; when government enforced religion there was no real religious freedom. Now in modern history when a government doesn't really regulate religion, people have the option to worship whoever or whatever they wish; whether it’s Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, or even if they chose to follow no religion at all, it’s the people’s choice. They have no government influence on what they choose to believe all because there’s little regulation on religion, which makes little government in this case a pro in the defense of religious freedom.
Con’s: Thoreau writes, “The government itself… is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it.” (lines 13-15). He states that the government can be used to hurt the people before they even have a chance to use it for their own good. In this sense, having a government that does little governing can indeed be used to hurt the people. For instance, in the ‘Gilded era’ of history around the 1800’s, there was little government presence in the country. With no real government influence people could run their own lives,but they had no protection really from outside influences. Without the safety of government protection, big businesses were able to form into monopolies and take over the economy. When monopolies formed it became very hard for other businesses to compete with them, as they usually controlled all aspects of the manufacturing process (i.e. transportation, raw materials, labor force, etc…) and would partner up with other monopolies to ensure they both stayed up top, either by making deals to help each others business or running other competition out of business. This made it difficult for people to compete with big business but to also have an independent job, with monopolies being the main source of labor most people had to work there because of economic necessity. But with a growing labor force and little jobs available, wages were extremely low and safety precautions for employees were non existent; but because there was no real government influence businesses could get away with it and they would do anything to save money. If today’s modern world went by the theory “government is best which governs least” big businesses could still have been controlling the economy, without government aid child labor laws wouldn't be active, employee benefits and safety would be a joke and workers would be vulnerable to the employer.
