The most reasonable conclusion to a study of the individual's obedience or disobedience to the state is that the individual has a moral duty to disobey the state if the state is itself immoral, but that individual also must be willing to pay the legal price for that disobedience. There is, of course, the more extreme view which would give the individual a moral right to disobey the state and to evade paying the legal price if possible. This extreme view would be an anarchic one, and the individual would remain true to his view if he were totally against any government whatsoever. The anarchist would have to be willing to do for himself what non-anarchists have done for them by the government. None of the writers/activists considered here---Socrates, Thomas Jefferson, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King, Jr.---can be considered anarchists. They all believe in government, and, as a result, they believe in relating to that government as a force which can be both positive and negative. They all believe in the right of the individual to disobey the state, but they also believe that there are consequences which they must be willing to pay as willing citizens of the state. My own position coincides with the views of the five writers. I do believe that the individual has a moral duty to the truth, to God, to a higher authority than the state, and that when the state runs counter to that higher authority, the individual has the right and the duty to disobey. At the same time, I am not an anarchist, and therefore I believe that the individual who disobeys the state must be willing to pay the legal price for that disobedience. The point of disobedience in such a philosophy is not simply to declare one's own moral beliefs through action, but also to change the state itself and the laws of the state. If the disobedient individual did not believe that his or her actions would have some changing effect on the state, its laws, or th...