Is a destructive government better than not having a government?

Asked by: Shabazz
  • Yes, it is.

    A destructive government can eventually be changed if the people have the strength of will and conviction to do it. A lack of government is a far more difficult thing to put in place. Most people underestimate just how hard it is to set up the initial infrastructure that forms the government body.

  • Anarchy is a beautiful thing

    In Africa, their is a form of society called Xeer, in which their are no law's except don't kill unless in self-defense, and even that law is enforced directly by the people, not by any law enforcement. All disputes are settled by an elder, as well as reparations. Their is no capital punishment unless you violate that one law, and their is no imprisonment either. Their is nobody forcing you to get a job, and each person gets the fruit's of their own labor, without a boss. Anarchy is beautiful even when compared to a fair government, much less a destructive one.

  • No, a destructive government is not better than having a government.

    No, I do not believe that a destructive government is better than no government at all. Some anarchists may argue that the government we have now is destructive, if not restrictive. A government's sole purpose should be to IMPARTIALLY and FAIRLY govern its people, but the way most governments right now work is to only provide the impartiality to society's wealthiest citizens, which makes the government partial, and no longer capable of remaining fair and impartial to all its citizens. In cases where this is true, no government may be better than the destructive government, but the citizens would still need some kind of governing body for things like criminal behavior, otherwise society may quickly devolve into an immoral, dangerous place.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.