For Thoreau the action of the man while it has asked for of the social break-head must be molded by the concincia, not for the law. It is in the choice between motivating its acts for the conscience or respectively molding them for the law that the man decides itself for the disobedience or the civil obedience. It arrives to affirm, as a good radical, that no matter how hard a law was edited on gide of a democratic government, such norm would not be necessarily a law joust, exemplificando in its text that the masses, for obeying the law of the convenience, tend to prefer the comfort of bearable injustices, to the discomfort of the conflict proceeding from the revolution. According to it, for the masses, the act of weighing the existing losses and profits in these two options is that it determines the process of choice between acting, going of meeting the laws and practising the civil disobedience, or forbearing, obeying them. 2? Breaking the law of the convenience: of the conformismo to the revolution Leaving of this bias, we can complete what it was said by thoreau in the passed topic, affirming that if the option of a people, at a first moment, ahead of a ditatorial system is to be satisfied it optanto for supporting it, its trend is, with elapsing of the years to breach with the same. Such process of rupture would function as a natural social EVOLUTION, politics, cultural and economic of any people who is submitted to one sitema politician-administrative. The conflict that permeia the disruption with the emergency state will be so next to the revolution concept, the more next will be such government of the concept of a dictatorship. With this it can be perceived that it is not necessary to be imprisoned a ditatorial government to breach with it, or to breach, at least, with inherent unjust characteristics it.