The claim that anarchy would give people freedom and liberty that would be unobtainable in a society with an oppressive government is false. With no government and no restraints, the majority of the population would always dominate the minority, giving the country even less freedoms than any other fathomable regime. Many political philosophers, including Thomas Jefferson, believed that without proper restrainment, there would emerge people groups that would threaten individual freedom.
The claim that countries without a government will have a longer lifespans is incorrect. According to the New York times, in every country, especially America, there is a heterogenous population of citizens with different viewpoints. Groups with opposing viewpoints can resort to violence when not under the control of an established authority, according to the US State Department. The Sunni-Shia divide in the Middle East has been an ongoing conflict as a result of a weak government. James Madison, the author of the US Constitution, believed that in Ancient Athens, the direct influence of the majority on the country’s actions led to an unstable and short-lived state.
Without a set government, the society will fall to ruin and chaos under the law of entropy. Government services provide solutions to everyday problems that we tend to overlook, and without one, society will suffer from horrid living conditions. In Somalia’s society with no central government, Joseph Winter of the BBC reported that life in Somalia is “poor, nasty, brutish, and short”. There are no government services, such as healthcare or education or road maintenance due to no public spending. Kidnappings for ransoms are rampant without an established force to prevent this.
Anarchism is a bigger threat to the basic human right of privacy. In a society in which the people decide what is lawful and what isn’t, the right of privacy can be immediately annulled. An oppressive government, on the other hand, may also be a threat to privacy, but nonetheless be a contained threat, since the government always places restraints on anything.
The principle of anarchy is not a safe alternative to oppressive government. An anarchist country, which is dictated by mob rule, has more capability to oppress her citizens than any regime. James Madison warned against the tyranny of the majority and that every minority would be under constant threat without a stable government. Colin Jenkins, founder and editor of the Social Economics Department, believes that a state without authority, structure, or control, leads to confusion, wild behavior, and disorder. Jenkins believes that human beings are incapable of controlling themselves, maintaining order, or coexisting without a structured government.
A a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a aa a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
A a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a aa a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
With oppressive government, someone is in charge, unlike anarchy. Also, oppressive government must care about their people, so they'll enforce laws that help the safety of the people, and prosecuting the guilty ones. Not all people have good morals, you know. This is why I strongly think that oppressive government is better than anarchy.
Lets be real, oppression doesn't sound fun to anyone and honestly it doesn't sound fun to me. However there comes a point where you must think of the greater good and honestly, it would be more beneficial to have an oppressive government than no government at all.
Reason is that, if you take into account how many people just want no government so that they may do as they please (most likely drugs and drinking related activities). But when you look deeper and take into account all the negative results that would come from anarchy like the murder and robbery it would be significantly worse than oppression. People look at their own positive agendas with little or no thought of the negativities that would come from that very situation.
Thomas Hobbes was a philosopher for the idea that a "free" people group would lead to absolute war and ruin. He argues that "in a state of nature", men are obliged to do everything in their power to preserve their own lives. In essence, it is every man for himself. In this state, anything a man does to preserve his life and property is right and good. Each individual is the "best" judge of how to accomplish this all important goal. However, since not everyone will not agree on this person's judgment, a state of war or conflict would ensue. If there is no powerful, central authority, human beings are doomed to live in a constant state of chaos and war.
Without any government, it would be disaster, chaos, everybody fighting for themselves. Billions would starve, dehydrate, or be killed over resources. The mentally and physically disabled would be screwed. New oppressive governments would inevitably show up anyways as some look for protection and others look for power, a shift back to feudalism of the middle ages. Maybe no government might have been ok two milleniums ago, but there are too many people today. I know many people would think without government, they can be to do what they want and live a happy life in the wild without obligations such as jobs and provide for themselves, but its way too crowded for that and making a living in the wild with so much competition and not a huge supply of wild animals, thanks to us, nobody would be making a living out there. Lets face it, no government is a terrible idea.
Complete anarchy is a radical thought simply from looking in the past. No we are not animals meaning we are able to have some order, but what will be seen in the future will be utter destruction. No one will be sympathetic towards anyone, all thinking for themselves. A free enterprise government is usually seen as absurd ,so how would no government be seen? Everyone envisions individually, meaning everyone will have, in some ways, different ideas. These idea may sometimes clash to one another causing chaos. There will not be any constitution or any sort of rule to guide into a final decision. Everyone supporting their beliefs will eventually cause a great dilemma.
As Thomas Hobbes states "You conceded your rights to the government, in return for your life." As humans, we want to feel secure so we group together. Every government is similar to a feudal society where we exchange some rights for our natural rights. People living under oppressive government are not under fear of being harmed whenever they step out of their house. Without a government at the very least doing something for their people. Furthermore, the one topic both Locke and Hobbes agreed on is that humans
This is important because without government there is nothing restricting individuals from doing harm to others. There will be no rules, balance, and no order. Daily life will be a struggle to stay alive. Even though no one agrees with oppressive governments and the way they are run they are still a lot better than no government at all. There are justice system and services even in oppressive governments. With out the government who will you turn to if you or your child are sick or if you were just robbed?
Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were not sponsored by Walmart. Even the biggest corporations don't coerce free people into slavery or theft.
A government forcibly steals money from the citizens, regardless of whether that citizen gets something in return or not. It is collectivist and parasitic.
A tax is what you pay if you do something good, and a fine is what you pay if you do something bad. You are always paying the government, unless you do nothing. Then they pay you, from stolen money of course.
The smallest parasite allows the host to flourish the most, and this in turn grows the parasite as it feeds off those resources. The parasite becomes so crushingly large it kills the host- civilization. The smallest government always ends up the largest, and crashes the hardest.
This is the cycle of abuse. The government is an abusive parent to its citizens. Citizens who are abused in childhood are likely to accept government control, and thus freely and morally participate in an abusive relationship with the gov't. This makes it hard to catch gov't in immorality. They know if they can trick and hit us into compliance it becomes a "moral relationship".
Citizens whose parents do not abuse them are abused by government schools.
School might have told you that government is justice.
Would you trust a cigarette company on objective facts about the health value of cigarettes?
If you do not trust people with freedom, why would you trust them with power?
Freedom and responsibility go hand in hand, this is the definition of autonomy. If you take responsibility for someone, you are taking their freedom. We are always negotiating various levels of responsibility and freedom to reasonable ends. The only time it gets bad is when it isn't voluntary, then you are STEALING their autonomy, and thus enslaving them. This is the definition of government.
Organized gang under the illusion of "justice". The police are the gov't endorsed gang, hence why they are the most powerful. The government doesn't produce any of its own goods, by definition it steals from the citizens it threatens and controls. All governments are oppressive, because by definition they are parasitic. The smallest gov't allows the greatest freedom in the beginning, and the people flourish, causing their parasite to grow so large it suffocates them, and then the parasite dies with no host to feed off of.
This would be obvious to everyone if not for the propaganda that leads the host to accepting its parasite, as it has done thousands of times over in history.
Oppressive governments have killed over 100 million people in the last century, caused mass starvation and killed the economy. Forcefully controlling an individual is immoral as no such thing as a collective exists. Absolute Anarchy doesn't instantly mean disorder, because rules and order have nothing to do with the state. You won't murder someone just because it's illegal, you don't do it because you think it's immoral and feel bad for it. Same goes with other things. Morality is not that subjective and we are definitely not savage animals. It seems like a lot of people who support big government are narcissists because they look down to other people as filthy animals. Economic freedom is the reason for our high living standards and you can't really exploit people for their work because if you don't pay your workers a fair wage they won't be able to consume products, which would hurt the economy and they would not work at their full potential because of lack of motivation. Many of the public systems like roads can be replaced by competing private companies who have many ways to profit from owning those roads.
We can give it another whirl and create a new govt just like 1776.
Look back at past experiences and use what we have learned to elect leaders. Put the SUPREME LEADER of the universe in command. A moral people are the only people capable of running and preserving a
Land of liberty.
If there is no OFFICIAL government. There will still be some type of order within the people. It's in the nature of the majority of people to compromise. For example, In a meeting, if the head leader is absent, does everybody leave? No, another person steps up and takes on the role.
An oppressive government is still a government and provides a launching point for political reform and new leaders who are more sympathetic to the populace. No government is not even an option. Even pirates who attach ships for profit still have a visible leadership structure. Government is a sad necessity.
Oppression is the tool of tyrants and, as such, should be avoided at all costs. People should be free to make their own voices be heard and make their own choices. Without a government this can happen, but is exceptionally unlikely under an oppressive regime. In order for people to be safe under a tyrant, they have to follow the rules for fear of imprisonment or death; under an oppressive government one is not free. With no government the key concern is safety. People can come together and protect one another's shared interest without imposing their views on others in such a society.
Government is not something handed down from a higher power. Given a choice between oppression and anarchy I would take anarchy any day. Give me liberty or give me death, as a famous man once said. Government will emerge anyway from isolated groups and eventually grow. It is human nature to form ways of co-operation. Our options are not limited.
Oppressive government results in awful failure or destruction but having no government can end in anarchy or creation. When the Americans separated from Great Britain they didn't all of a sudden have a government set up because that takes time. They had a form of leadership that helped bring some order in the midst of the problems and they were eventually able to set up a better government then what had been there before. Many people think that having no government immediately means either anarchy or a complete, start from scratch, state of nature which is not always the case. I've both seen and heard the argument that if you get rid of government then you'll have a whole bunch of murderers and robbers running wild but you see that even with government because the people who do those things will do them whether or not it's against the law. While having no government isn't a good option, it is definitely better than an oppressive one.
The Declaration of Independence calls them "Unalienable Rights," but the United Nation lays them out on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Both specifically mention the rights to life and liberty, and unfortunately, oppressive governments take those away. Whether it's Holocaust-style genocide or even the internment camps erected by the US in WWII, oppressive governments strip humans of their basic rights of life and liberty. It is for that reason that I must argue that having no government is better than having an oppressive government.