Both Thomas Jefferson and MLK argue that when certain unalienable rights have been withheld from a group of people, said people have not only the justification but the obligation to combat the injustices. But where is the distinction between a personal opinion, or that of one group, and a true case of injustice? These men both argue that political and moral offenses must be remedied; in each case the result is an ideological, controversial revolution which resulted in physical confrontation. They argue that the rights of man supersede the rights of an unjust government, but where is the boundary between an act that is offensive and one that is oppressive? Further, should there even need to be distinctions? Or should any feelings of mistreatment justify the need for reform?

This is simply the result of pondering in my dorm, obviously the causes championed by Jefferson and King were some of the most prominent and warranted in the recent history of humanity. However, what causes now warrant action, and how does one decide which causes deserve more immediate action? While democracy and civil rights in America have developed quickly compared to the rest of the world, and continue to attempt to keep up with hot button social issues, other countries are still struggling with basic human rights. Do we put precedence on those countries before we concern ourselves with the social struggles of other groups? How does one categorize and place scale on the suffering of some groups compared to others?