Henry David Thoreau, in his essay “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience” wrote:

“How can a man be satisfied to entertain an opinion merely, and enjoy it? Is there any enjoyment in it, if his opinion is that he is aggrieved?

If you are cheated out of a single dollar by your neighbor, you do not rest satisfied with knowing you are cheated, or with saying you are cheated, or even with petitioning him to pay you your due; but you take effectual steps at once to obtain the full amount, and see to it that you are never cheated again.

Action from principle, the perception and the performance of right, changes things and relations; it is essentially revolutionary, and does not consist wholly with anything which was.
…
Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men, generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But is is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse.”

What do you think? Is it enough for us to complain among ourselves, to blog, to listen to the talkers, to stand with the Tea Partiers, and then to submit to injustice? Do we believe these timidities can halt the charging lion, or turn the juggernaut from its course?

Are we hindered in our action against unjust government by fear of men’s opinions or fear of retribution, loss of goods, or loss of personal freedom for a season?

Or do we quaver within, doubting the voice of conscience, denigrating our own wisdom or humanity? Is it sincere humility that restrains our arms, leaving them limp at our sides, or do we, ultimately, proclaim that we value liberty less as we suffer its theft?

How will we know when we have reached the threshold of “the times that try men’s souls”?

What do you value more than liberty?