One presumes that the state and federal governments perfectly channel what their constituents desire and know what is best. Our democracy rests upon the assumption that no human knows what is best for the nation without the influence of that nation. By resisting against laws, we remind our representatives of our needs in a direct, loud way. Robert Goldwin in “The Case Against Civil Disobedience”, argues that civil disobedience is ultimately ineffectual, that it is impossible to change a system from within. It is true that peaceful resistance to laws is ultimately not concerned with radically changing the system, but protesting laws that are at discord with the principles of the …show more content…
In the Soviet Union, speaking out against the system was uncommon at best. In Egypt, there are laws prohibiting protesting, which ironically people protest. These societies are far from free; these governments assume they have the consent of the people to do anything, or otherwise do not care at all. If the people do not have any say whatsoever in how they are governed, then they do not live in a free society. The foundation of our free society is delineated in the Constitution, from the right to practice any religion, to the right of assembly and free press. Protests remind us of our commitment to the principles the Constitution espouses, it forces our representatives to reconsider whether the laws they have made and will make truly uphold this image of the society we want. Protesting does not just positively impact a free society, it is the essence of free