Certain people are against the promotion of liberty for particular groups. Ideas such as voting rights, affirmative action, and the current debate of gay marriage all extend freedoms to minority groups. The people who are against these laws believe the minorities do not deserve the same freedoms they themselves deserve. However, those laws were created to implement that all people are “created equal”, as according to the Declaration of Independence. Because the Constitution claims …show more content…
that all citizens should be provided the same protections, these laws ensure the public recognizes that. The ability to then retaliate against these laws proves the furtherance of freedom, because the ability to speak thoughts aloud within hearing distance of the government proves a degree of freedom in that the government is not absolutely supreme and overbearing on the people. Using the right of protest openly acknowledges that it is a freedom given to the people and only extends the more it is used. Any kind of resistance to power suggests there are methods the people have to reach to the top of the power chain, meaning they are a part of a free society. No matter the kind of resistance, the act of resisting in itself proves the existence of a free society and positively furthers it.
Any time a country stands up against its government, it is dangerous to the people and the leaders. Just like in any disagreement, if someone believes very strongly in their case, they may be willing to go to great lengths to implement their ideas. A lot of damage can be done without violence, by people publicizing retaliatory attitudes and the government instituting restricting laws. The current law legalizes abortions, but the states can have certain restrictions. Many people disagree with this law, and have initiated the Pro-Life campaign. This campaign discourages abortion because babies are human beings “from the moment of conception” and should not be killed, no matter what stage of life they are at. Essentially, Pro-Lifers blame Pro-Choicers for “murdering” the baby humans (Payne). Arguments such as this rely on deep concepts, such as murder, and debates may become very heated, with potential for offense and hatred, which may not always manifest in violent ways, but create huge disturbances in society and spur arguments on other topics. However, arguments stem from humanity’s ability to think and explore freely. The presence of opposing ideas are the footprints of freedom to sway from the common path, meaning there is no extreme government limitations on society. The fact that arguments can grow so intense is due to the natural instinct for people to consider ideas deeply, finding support for their opinions, and pitting against others who have done the same in an attempt to understand the world and one of the greatest questions: how should people be governed? The human quest for understanding appears in resistance and either finding new roads or solidifying old ones. Each of these actions pursues a free society by following a path that requires freedom at every turn, and creates more freedom as it goes along.
The greatest potential threat that peaceful resistance poses is a crackdown by the government that removes freedom from society.
If the government feels that the people are too powerful in their freedom, they may try to augment federal power to keep control of the citizens. While peaceful resistance does not physically hurt people, the spreading of ideas is powerful and could potentially gain enough support to be a full threat to the government. However, peaceful resistance is a product of a balanced government that gives people a say in their country, which should inherently protect against an uprooting of the government. That kind of accommodating government allows for freedoms that the people would not want to sacrifice by completely remodeling the government for a single altered ideological viewpoint. Peaceful resistance is a simple but influential way that citizens can express their opinions and concerns without fear of the government punishing them merely for having a voice. If in the case a government repressed freedom of speech, the peaceful resistance that would be bound to continue, even away from prying government ears, would promote the freedom that had been taken, both by discussing the ideas of a free society, and by simply speaking against the government, which, even if it is technically against the law, would be forcing freedom, by people taking their choices and voices into their own
hands.
Peaceful resistance can only promote a free society; without freedom, there would be nothing to say at all.