Thoreau believes that people should not participate in injustice but that they are under no obligation to promote a more just world.  What is the difference between these two concepts?  Why does Thoreau make this moral distinction?

Is Thoreau’s conception of civil disobedience compatible with democratic government?

What is Thoreau’s opinion on wealth and consumption?  Why does he say that the rich are less likely to practice civil disobedience?

What might Thoreau think about the role of government in our society today?  (Think about the welfare system and the military complex…)

Thoreau asks the reader, “Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator?” How would you answer this question?  Is compromise on moral issues a necessary part of living with other people?

Many leaders (Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr.) have used Thoreau’s ideas on civil disobedience as the guiding force of their political movements. Is such a use of these ideas consistent with Thoreau’s skepticism about politics? Which (if any) of his ideas are valuable in the context of political activism? Which are not relevant?