Imagine yourself living in a community where ALL order and authority have broken down. violent lawlessness is widespread. Do you think ANY government is better than none? Defend your answer and respond to the comments of others.
30 comments:
Anonymous
said...
If I was in such a community, i feel as though even the worst of governments may be better than continuing on without a government. If ALL order and authority had broken down and mentioned, and violent lawlessness was widespread, the only way to regaain or may be in government. I believe a government, even if it is one I disagree with, would still be better than continuing on because the problems would only get worse. A government would be able to stop those committing unlawful and violent acts and regain some order in the community. Of course, an unjust government that would be unhealthy for the community would be an exception, but i believe most governments would be better than having none and continuing on in a chaotic, harmful environment.
I don't feel any government would be better because if the government was more abusive than the mayhem of anarchy previous to it. Chaos is when the worst tyrants can seize control, because they can flat out lie to the citizens, they don't care, they'll do anything to get into power and they'll do anything to keep their power, even kill the people that gave into the tyrant's control. But there is a chance that the government won't take advantage of the people, in which case i would agree with freejack. But i don't believe that ANY government is better than none.
i agree with my man slappy because i too believe some governments would not be better than an anarchy. if the new government was worse than the anarchy, then no government would be better than that government. i state this in my last post..... Of course, an unjust government that would be unhealthy for the community would be an exception, but i believe most governments would be better than having none and continuing on in a chaotic, harmful environment.
i do have to agree with freejack as long as the government protected its people, personaly i only really believe in the first 2 natural rights of John Locke. I do like to think that a more communistic government would be better for society, but not like any that have been implemented in the past.
i have to diasgree with slappy there because all three of the natural rights are each crutial to survival. Property and pocessions are a huge part of freedom. even in a society without capitalist, it is still necessary to define who's is who's becuase of our greedy and possesive nature. last, a communistic government would not be necessarily the best choice. all you need would be enough protection to maintain peace and stability. you don't need to go the whole nine yards and start taking away personal freedoms like th first two natural rights that you supposedly agree with.
on this point, i agree with the cap'n... all 3 natural rights should be protected. you should have the right to possessions and property. just taking things from people because you think it might help other people might not be fair, like communism. a bully in the lunch room has the ability to take the rich nerd's money and give it to other kids so they can buy more food, but that certainly doesnt make it right.
I can see where freejack is coming from, but it wouldn't be like a bully taking money from rich and giving it to people who need it, it would be more like everyone just gets what they need, of course as long as they all worked hard to help each other.
It's difficult comparing the bully in the lunch room scenario with real life. I think you could have the bully take the rich nerdy kid's extra money and give the rest to the kids who need it, but leave the rich kid enough to buy lunch of course. You would have to trust that the bully have his morals in the right place. There are a lot of "what ifs" and "depends" in this question. Like, what kind of government takes over?, what kind of people are we with here? Educated people? Thugs? Where are we in this break down? Are we in Rhode Island or the middle of the desert in Arizona? Are there resources? I think if it were here in Rhode Island I might just take my friends, family and a survival book and head out to the Great Swamp if town was getting too dangerous. I think we might start to see who the really leaders were among us. Really, it depends. There are some instances were I would say some form of government was better than none, and other times no.
An ideal communist society is one where everything is equal and there is no government at all, but someone has to get the ball rolling. Not everyone is going to come together and be willing to share everything they have. Someone has to step up to organize everybody and set up the system. Once the communist community is set up and the leader steps down to let the people run themselves, then it's very possible the system will collapse and chaos will resume. It's like a card castle. After it's set up it looks wonderful, but one little sneeze could send it back to square one. I think that, while a communist system seems great, it is very fragile and probably won't last with a bunch of people used to lawlessness, chaos, and violence. There has to be some group who will, at the very least, be there to protect all three natural rights.
Woah tough question! If he hadn't added that "ANY government" this would be much easier to digest. However, it is as it is so would i rather chance my survival in a community of violent mayhem and chaos or risk my survival under a corrupt and selfish government? Slappy made a great point that the government could make matters worse if a tyrant was in control. Freejack also made a good realization that the only way to regain a peaceful society may be in government. However, I must conclude that no, not every government is better than none. In an "every man for himself" community of violence I believe that Darwin's idea of survival of the fittest would apply. To many this is fair and to others it's outrageous - all people should be protected. Yet, without a government this is the obvious result. On the other hand, I feel that with a corrupt government it no longer is survival of the fittest, but surivival of those they want to survive. When this is the case, I'd rather try to be the fittest with no government at all. But, if the government could be righteous, lawful, honest, and in order I would definitely rather give my consent to be ruled by them and follow all rules enforced to ensure my safety.
No, I do not think ANY government is better than none, because in my personal opinion, I believe that it can be more mentally scarring to humans for the government to be corrupt than it is for there to be no government at all. Though there might be less violence, and your natural rights might be a bit more secure, there is also a great possibility that they will not be with ANY government. I would rather let people figure it out for themselves than see a generation come to believe that the government is not here to protect us.
However, when you look at the governments of the world, most are not the barbaric anarchy that I am imagining in this situation.
Perhaps the community would be better off because then they will get used to the idea of actually having a government, and when it came time to improve the government, (which would inevitably happen because of trial and error and general human nature in governments)people would be less likely to rebel, because they would be happy for the improvement.
If i was in this sort of environment, i feel that some sort of government would be more useful than none at all. If anarchy and mass chaos arose, then the only way to restore such instances is to have a government form. we have to consider that sometimes not having a government does not mean chaos, and that the government doesn't control everything we do, therefore losing it would not be all that horruble.
I think that alot of people are confusing Anarchy and chaos. Anarchy is by definition a situation in which a community is concieved without rule by government. Harmony is attained not through submission to authority or obiedience to law but by agreements reached between seperate groups of a community. Chaos however, is the abscence of order, and is not a form of society but more a de-evolution from society. A return to the survival of the fitest so to speak. We have all seen, (if not first hand, then on the news) the damage that tyranical forms of government can and most often do, inflict upon people. I believe that in interest of upholding Locke's "natural rights", it is better to live outside the confines of government and have to fight for your rights, than to have some one else decide which rights you can and cant have. I vote no government!
A strong government can thrive in places of chaos. Any form of government, even one that violates Locke's "Natural Rights" can be an improvement to a lawless society. This is going to sound terrible, but sometimes the most right-violating government leaders bring great reforms and though they may hurt their country, they also can create progress. Look at Adolf Hitler. Yes, he caused the greatest genocide in history, but some of his education reforms are still in German schools. I by no means support the work of Hitler but when it comes to getting a nation to come together (mind you it was through propaganda and threats) he pulled Germans together. I know dictatorships and evil regimes are usually frowned upon, but I'd prefer unity under an evil government over complete chaos.
When you are living in a society where violence breaks out in some ways having a government would be better than none. If you have a government whose main goal is to protect everybody's rights it is better to have one. If the government had a leader that only looked out for themselves then having no government might be just the same as having one in that case. Such as having a tyrant. If you had no government it would definetly make it harder to stop the violence.
If I were living in a community, such as this, where all order and authority had boken down, then I would think having some sort of government or ruling class would be needed in order for the community to thrive and live on. If chaos continued like this throughout the town, then someone would eventually take over by taking everyone else's money and possessions and eventually killing them. This would very quickly lead to the demise of the town. In this situation, I do believe that ANY government form would be better than none because almost every form of government has some sort of organization in it, which is exactly what this town needs. Even some of the worst government forms, such as communism and dictatorships, have some kind of order in them. By having order put into this community through some form of government, it would at least solve some of the problems that the community is currently facing, and hopefully would bring it back to peace.
Its hard to imagine total anarchy...i think it would be better to not have a government at all then to have someone who misuses their power. Even if there wasnt a formal government, people would still take charge. People would either accept a leader to make things better, or lead themselves. There might be a big group of leaders who all work together. But no goverment is definately better than a world where the government takes away your rights.
If truely ALL order and authority had broken down, any government even the worst govenment, would have the ability to regain some order. If a any government is able to regain control over the republic then it is worth withstanding any disagreements one has with it. Now this agreement to have a goverment over anarchy has its limitations. If the goverment was overly oppressive to the society then one can not live and stand it. Yet a govenment that will truely aid and benefit the area is 100% better than widespread mayhem of a govermentless society. This new government should be able to protect all and must have the best interests of the society in thought and hand.
When all order in society is broken down, it is time to start fresh, something new. However, it is extremely difficult to try and work this out because the people of the societies are going absolutely crazy. When there is no order, chaos is created. If it comes down to the point where nothing can move forward until the decision is made, it must happen fast. There may not be enough time to ask each and every person and let them vote upon it. Someone needs to be brought up to tell everyone to calm down. That way order can be brought upon again. It is no use letting the chaotic, ungoverned states continue because only more problems occur. Think of it this way: 2 sons and a father. The 2 sons are rough-housing and the father is telling them to quit it. But the boys don't listen. He says to stop louder and the boys still don't listen. They continue to ignore their father until he screams at them to quit it. They listen because they are scared, but the father doesn't take his control too far.. an example of a good government, ha.
I believe that althogh there have been many horrible cruel governments, there have also been some really awesome ones, that have done great things! And i like to give the people of the colony the benefit of the doubt and think that a smart leader would step up. I think there are natural born leaders who will natuarlly take charge and i think this colony will beneift from having some sense of order!
Cutlass Jim Breakman got bumped on the head and posted under some other name... his insane ramblings are posted below:
I believe that people must be governed. People cannot be allowed to live without laws and regulations because it would be unjust. Imagine you are born into a society without law or sense of right and wrong, wouldnt you steal, wouldnt you sin and even kill because it is just easier than earning what you need. There has to be people to say that such an act is wrong, there must be government. However there may be wrongful governments that rule to harshly, but its better than not enough.
If there was no government where i lived then that would be terrible. Even a little government is better than nothing. Even if nobody was a leader and only some people stepped up to others and created a government that would be fine. No government would create a chaotic world, one we as people may not be able to survive in because some people would be out of their minds and start really bad criminal activity and not be punished for it. The only time that i would not want a government would be when the government that we lived in was too powerful and dictating the way we live out our lives.
I believe that some form of government, in a world of chaos, would be better than no government at all. People not only need, but want their natural rights protected. You have a better chance of that happening with a government than without. Even if it wasn't great, there is always room for improvement.
personally, i don't think either option is good. instead of forcing a government upon the community, one will naturally arise unique to its community. those who are natural leaders will rise to the occasion and make some order out of nonsense, and those who don't shouldn't anyways, if they aren't willing to help their community in its time of need.
To be quite honest, I cannot fully answer this question until more details about the situation are given. For example, how many people live in the community? What are their temperaments, their histories? Would the group be prone to adopting a mob mentality, if things did not go their way? All this information is vital; a tyranny can work for some people, but will do nothing but enrage others. However, a democracy with the same people may not work, if there are only a few natural and willing leaders. For myself, I would hope that the community would band together, and create a good government that benefits the people. That being said, I do not believe that would actually happen.
Agreeing with tax-evadin, neither option is in the least bit desirable. But in general, I would have to go with some form of government because at least it is a shot at some form of organization. There are to many people to take into consideration to hope that a few good leaders would be about to tie them all together in a decent society. To get everyone to agree on anything would be basically impossible, and although that's how our world seems to run now, it took such a long time to start to smooth out. If there was a stable government where the people's rights were being ignored, there would be an organizational base for reform, started by the people directly to the government, instead of starting from scratch.
I believe that in a completely broken community, any government would be better than nothing. Even if it was a group of the most sick people in the world controlling the community, at least there would be the smallest sense of order. And if most of the people didn't like that particular type of order that was being established, they would want to change it. If enough people wanted change, maybe a better government could be created. However, if no government at all was ever established people wouldn't want to even bother creating one, because the situation looked hopeless.
To this question, I can't find an answer of my own that is set in stone. So many good points have been brought up already! I feel that out of many important details, the size of the community is a huge deciding factor in what (if any) form of government "should" and could arise. I'm longwinded, so I'll sum up my personal response here: I'd rather live under some government, hoping they will protect the ones I love, than live under no government. An unorganized community can't be overthrown, per se, but a government can (though it isn't pretty). Then is the time to learn from the mistakes of the ill-suited government. It's probably not the best idea, but is there even a best choice?
I feel violent lawlessness all over can become more dangerous for everyone living in the area the longer it is left that way. With no authority, there's no one to protect the metaphorical "little guy" down on his luck - he'll be preyed on, being an easy target...actually, with no guardian figures in place, everyone's a target, and lacking laws, some guardian figures could easily be bribed. Of course, people with morals still exist, so the community will have some good things going for it (some people are born hard workers).
A well-applied government (good or bad) should be able to organize the community (or force it to be organized), whether it's a good one or not. Black Lizzy made an excellent point about Hitler; his dictatorship wasn't pretty in many aspects, but at least SOME good came out of it. It doesn't nearly counter the harm he caused, however, which is a point to keep me on the fence. Even an oppressive government can give something good to a community, but is it worth it? I don't know, but I do feel that SOME (any!) type of government is inevitable, because I agree with Sweet Mary; natural born leaders will eventually surface and some others will begin to follow. The power of suggestion can be effective in very small numbers; sometimes all that's needed is a little luck or attention to get a snowball effect going.
I like this question because it directly implies to Locke's Natural Rights Philosophy. Many posts have already mentioned many good ideas. The most popular being that some form of government is better than none. Others say that this scenario needs more detail. This is true, questions such as this are quit difficult to reply to with such little information given. I believe good answers come from questions just like this though. The less information given the deeper you have to think thus better answers are given. Locke used 6 basic guidelines to help later write documents such as the Constitution and The Bill of Writes. If such a community ever happened to lose all authority I'm sure a John Locke would eventually come to the surface. With him he would bring his ideas that would help mold that communities government back to order. So I believe that no government is impossible to have because there is always someone brilliant enough to help stir the minds of others such as John Locke did with our government.
30 comments:
If I was in such a community, i feel as though even the worst of governments may be better than continuing on without a government. If ALL order and authority had broken down and mentioned, and violent lawlessness was widespread, the only way to regaain or may be in government. I believe a government, even if it is one I disagree with, would still be better than continuing on because the problems would only get worse. A government would be able to stop those committing unlawful and violent acts and regain some order in the community. Of course, an unjust government that would be unhealthy for the community would be an exception, but i believe most governments would be better than having none and continuing on in a chaotic, harmful environment.
I don't feel any government would be better because if the government was more abusive than the mayhem of anarchy previous to it. Chaos is when the worst tyrants can seize control, because they can flat out lie to the citizens, they don't care, they'll do anything to get into power and they'll do anything to keep their power, even kill the people that gave into the tyrant's control. But there is a chance that the government won't take advantage of the people, in which case i would agree with freejack. But i don't believe that ANY government is better than none.
i agree with my man slappy because i too believe some governments would not be better than an anarchy. if the new government was worse than the anarchy, then no government would be better than that government. i state this in my last post.....
Of course, an unjust government that would be unhealthy for the community would be an exception, but i believe most governments would be better than having none and continuing on in a chaotic, harmful environment.
i do have to agree with freejack as long as the government protected its people, personaly i only really believe in the first 2 natural rights of John Locke. I do like to think that a more communistic government would be better for society, but not like any that have been implemented in the past.
i have to diasgree with slappy there because all three of the natural rights are each crutial to survival. Property and pocessions are a huge part of freedom. even in a society without capitalist, it is still necessary to define who's is who's becuase of our greedy and possesive nature. last, a communistic government would not be necessarily the best choice. all you need would be enough protection to maintain peace and stability. you don't need to go the whole nine yards and start taking away personal freedoms like th first two natural rights that you supposedly agree with.
on this point, i agree with the cap'n... all 3 natural rights should be protected. you should have the right to possessions and property. just taking things from people because you think it might help other people might not be fair, like communism. a bully in the lunch room has the ability to take the rich nerd's money and give it to other kids so they can buy more food, but that certainly doesnt make it right.
I can see where freejack is coming from, but it wouldn't be like a bully taking money from rich and giving it to people who need it, it would be more like everyone just gets what they need, of course as long as they all worked hard to help each other.
It's difficult comparing the bully in the lunch room scenario with real life. I think you could have the bully take the rich nerdy kid's extra money and give the rest to the kids who need it, but leave the rich kid enough to buy lunch of course. You would have to trust that the bully have his morals in the right place.
There are a lot of "what ifs" and "depends" in this question. Like, what kind of government takes over?, what kind of people are we with here? Educated people? Thugs? Where are we in this break down? Are we in Rhode Island or the middle of the desert in Arizona?
Are there resources? I think if it were here in Rhode Island I might just take my friends, family and a survival book and head out to the Great Swamp if town was getting too dangerous. I think we might start to see who the really leaders were among us. Really, it depends. There are some instances were I would say some form of government was better than none, and other times no.
An ideal communist society is one where everything is equal and there is no government at all, but someone has to get the ball rolling. Not everyone is going to come together and be willing to share everything they have. Someone has to step up to organize everybody and set up the system. Once the communist community is set up and the leader steps down to let the people run themselves, then it's very possible the system will collapse and chaos will resume. It's like a card castle. After it's set up it looks wonderful, but one little sneeze could send it back to square one. I think that, while a communist system seems great, it is very fragile and probably won't last with a bunch of people used to lawlessness, chaos, and violence. There has to be some group who will, at the very least, be there to protect all three natural rights.
Woah tough question! If he hadn't added that "ANY government" this would be much easier to digest. However, it is as it is so would i rather chance my survival in a community of violent mayhem and chaos or risk my survival under a corrupt and selfish government? Slappy made a great point that the government could make matters worse if a tyrant was in control. Freejack also made a good realization that the only way to regain a peaceful society may be in government. However, I must conclude that no, not every government is better than none. In an "every man for himself" community of violence I believe that Darwin's idea of survival of the fittest would apply. To many this is fair and to others it's outrageous - all people should be protected. Yet, without a government this is the obvious result. On the other hand, I feel that with a corrupt government it no longer is survival of the fittest, but surivival of those they want to survive. When this is the case, I'd rather try to be the fittest with no government at all. But, if the government could be righteous, lawful, honest, and in order I would definitely rather give my consent to be ruled by them and follow all rules enforced to ensure my safety.
No, I do not think ANY government is better than none, because in my personal opinion, I believe that it can be more mentally scarring to humans for the government to be corrupt than it is for there to be no government at all. Though there might be less violence, and your natural rights might be a bit more secure, there is also a great possibility that they will not be with ANY government. I would rather let people figure it out for themselves than see a generation come to believe that the government is not here to protect us.
However, when you look at the governments of the world, most are not the barbaric anarchy that I am imagining in this situation.
Perhaps the community would be better off because then they will get used to the idea of actually having a government, and when it came time to improve the government, (which would inevitably happen because of trial and error and general human nature in governments)people would be less likely to rebel, because they would be happy for the improvement.
If i was in this sort of environment, i feel that some sort of government would be more useful than none at all. If anarchy and mass chaos arose, then the only way to restore such instances is to have a government form. we have to consider that sometimes not having a government does not mean chaos, and that the government doesn't control everything we do, therefore losing it would not be all that horruble.
I think that alot of people are confusing Anarchy and chaos. Anarchy is by definition a situation in which a community is concieved without rule by government. Harmony is attained not through submission to authority or obiedience to law but by agreements reached between seperate groups of a community.
Chaos however, is the abscence of order, and is not a form of society but more a de-evolution from society. A return to the survival of the fitest so to speak.
We have all seen, (if not first hand, then on the news) the damage that tyranical forms of government can and most often do, inflict upon people. I believe that in interest of upholding Locke's "natural rights", it is better to live outside the confines of government and have to fight for your rights, than to have some one else decide which rights you can and cant have.
I vote no government!
A strong government can thrive in places of chaos. Any form of government, even one that violates Locke's "Natural Rights" can be an improvement to a lawless society.
This is going to sound terrible, but sometimes the most right-violating government leaders bring great reforms and though they may hurt their country, they also can create progress. Look at Adolf Hitler. Yes, he caused the greatest genocide in history, but some of his education reforms are still in German schools. I by no means support the work of Hitler but when it comes to getting a nation to come together (mind you it was through propaganda and threats) he pulled Germans together.
I know dictatorships and evil regimes are usually frowned upon, but I'd prefer unity under an evil government over complete chaos.
When you are living in a society where violence breaks out in some ways having a government would be better than none. If you have a government whose main goal is to protect everybody's rights it is better to have one. If the government had a leader that only looked out for themselves then having no government might be just the same as having one in that case. Such as having a tyrant.
If you had no government it would definetly make it harder to stop the violence.
If I were living in a community, such as this, where all order and authority had boken down, then I would think having some sort of government or ruling class would be needed in order for the community to thrive and live on. If chaos continued like this throughout the town, then someone would eventually take over by taking everyone else's money and possessions and eventually killing them. This would very quickly lead to the demise of the town. In this situation, I do believe that ANY government form would be better than none because almost every form of government has some sort of organization in it, which is exactly what this town needs. Even some of the worst government forms, such as communism and dictatorships, have some kind of order in them. By having order put into this community through some form of government, it would at least solve some of the problems that the community is currently facing, and hopefully would bring it back to peace.
Its hard to imagine total anarchy...i think it would be better to not have a government at all then to have someone who misuses their power. Even if there wasnt a formal government, people would still take charge. People would either accept a leader to make things better, or lead themselves. There might be a big group of leaders who all work together. But no goverment is definately better than a world where the government takes away your rights.
If truely ALL order and authority had broken down, any government even the worst govenment, would have the ability to regain some order. If a any government is able to regain control over the republic then it is worth withstanding any disagreements one has with it. Now this agreement to have a goverment over anarchy has its limitations. If the goverment was overly oppressive to the society then one can not live and stand it. Yet a govenment that will truely aid and benefit the area is 100% better than widespread mayhem of a govermentless society. This new government should be able to protect all and must have the best interests of the society in thought and hand.
When all order in society is broken down, it is time to start fresh, something new. However, it is extremely difficult to try and work this out because the people of the societies are going absolutely crazy. When there is no order, chaos is created. If it comes down to the point where nothing can move forward until the decision is made, it must happen fast. There may not be enough time to ask each and every person and let them vote upon it. Someone needs to be brought up to tell everyone to calm down. That way order can be brought upon again. It is no use letting the chaotic, ungoverned states continue because only more problems occur. Think of it this way: 2 sons and a father. The 2 sons are rough-housing and the father is telling them to quit it. But the boys don't listen. He says to stop louder and the boys still don't listen. They continue to ignore their father until he screams at them to quit it. They listen because they are scared, but the father doesn't take his control too far.. an example of a good government, ha.
I believe that althogh there have been many horrible cruel governments, there have also been some really awesome ones, that have done great things! And i like to give the people of the colony the benefit of the doubt and think that a smart leader would step up. I think there are natural born leaders who will natuarlly take charge and i think this colony will beneift from having some sense of order!
Ahoy! Focus yer comments on the original questions, you scurrvy dogs! Yer Admiral is gettin a headache!
Cutlass Jim Breakman got bumped on the head and posted under some other name... his insane ramblings are posted below:
I believe that people must be governed. People cannot be allowed to live without laws and regulations because it would be unjust. Imagine you are born into a society without law or sense of right and wrong, wouldnt you steal, wouldnt you sin and even kill because it is just easier than earning what you need. There has to be people to say that such an act is wrong, there must be government. However there may be wrongful governments that rule to harshly, but its better than not enough.
If there was no government where i lived then that would be terrible. Even a little government is better than nothing. Even if nobody was a leader and only some people stepped up to others and created a government that would be fine. No government would create a chaotic world, one we as people may not be able to survive in because some people would be out of their minds and start really bad criminal activity and not be punished for it. The only time that i would not want a government would be when the government that we lived in was too powerful and dictating the way we live out our lives.
I believe that some form of government, in a world of chaos, would be better than no government at all. People not only need, but want their natural rights protected. You have a better chance of that happening with a government than without. Even if it wasn't great, there is always room for improvement.
personally, i don't think either option is good. instead of forcing a government upon the community, one will naturally arise unique to its community. those who are natural leaders will rise to the occasion and make some order out of nonsense, and those who don't shouldn't anyways, if they aren't willing to help their community in its time of need.
To be quite honest, I cannot fully answer this question until more details about the situation are given. For example, how many people live in the community? What are their temperaments, their histories? Would the group be prone to adopting a mob mentality, if things did not go their way? All this information is vital; a tyranny can work for some people, but will do nothing but enrage others. However, a democracy with the same people may not work, if there are only a few natural and willing leaders. For myself, I would hope that the community would band together, and create a good government that benefits the people. That being said, I do not believe that would actually happen.
Agreeing with tax-evadin, neither option is in the least bit desirable. But in general, I would have to go with some form of government because at least it is a shot at some form of organization. There are to many people to take into consideration to hope that a few good leaders would be about to tie them all together in a decent society. To get everyone to agree on anything would be basically impossible, and although that's how our world seems to run now, it took such a long time to start to smooth out.
If there was a stable government where the people's rights were being ignored, there would be an organizational base for reform, started by the people directly to the government, instead of starting from scratch.
I believe that in a completely broken community, any government would be better than nothing. Even if it was a group of the most sick people in the world controlling the community, at least there would be the smallest sense of order. And if most of the people didn't like that particular type of order that was being established, they would want to change it. If enough people wanted change, maybe a better government could be created. However, if no government at all was ever established people wouldn't want to even bother creating one, because the situation looked hopeless.
To this question, I can't find an answer of my own that is set in stone. So many good points have been brought up already! I feel that out of many important details, the size of the community is a huge deciding factor in what (if any) form of government "should" and could arise. I'm longwinded, so I'll sum up my personal response here: I'd rather live under some government, hoping they will protect the ones I love, than live under no government. An unorganized community can't be overthrown, per se, but a government can (though it isn't pretty). Then is the time to learn from the mistakes of the ill-suited government. It's probably not the best idea, but is there even a best choice?
I feel violent lawlessness all over can become more dangerous for everyone living in the area the longer it is left that way. With no authority, there's no one to protect the metaphorical "little guy" down on his luck - he'll be preyed on, being an easy target...actually, with no guardian figures in place, everyone's a target, and lacking laws, some guardian figures could easily be bribed. Of course, people with morals still exist, so the community will have some good things going for it (some people are born hard workers).
A well-applied government (good or bad) should be able to organize the community (or force it to be organized), whether it's a good one or not. Black Lizzy made an excellent point about Hitler; his dictatorship wasn't pretty in many aspects, but at least SOME good came out of it. It doesn't nearly counter the harm he caused, however, which is a point to keep me on the fence. Even an oppressive government can give something good to a community, but is it worth it? I don't know, but I do feel that SOME (any!) type of government is inevitable, because I agree with Sweet Mary; natural born leaders will eventually surface and some others will begin to follow. The power of suggestion can be effective in very small numbers; sometimes all that's needed is a little luck or attention to get a snowball effect going.
I like this question because it directly implies to Locke's Natural Rights Philosophy. Many posts have already mentioned many good ideas. The most popular being that some form of government is better than none. Others say that this scenario needs more detail. This is true, questions such as this are quit difficult to reply to with such little information given. I believe good answers come from questions just like this though. The less information given the deeper you have to think thus better answers are given. Locke used 6 basic guidelines to help later write documents such as the Constitution and The Bill of Writes. If such a community ever happened to lose all authority I'm sure a John Locke would eventually come to the surface. With him he would bring his ideas that would help mold that communities government back to order. So I believe that no government is impossible to have because there is always someone brilliant enough to help stir the minds of others such as John Locke did with our government.
Post a Comment