Coercion, and subsequently the right to use violence, is the state’s sole method for functioning and existing. Without it, the state is powerless to exist credibly. Thus, at the core of political theory is the argument to justify the state’s use of coercion; without this, the state cannot be ethically justifiable. However, can a violent, or otherwise morally dubious act such as coercion, ever be truly justified? If enough good comes of it, surely it could be mitigated, but how much ‘good’ is enough? And can we really ever justify the indefinite use of coercion based solely upon favorable outcomes that have occurred in the past? If we cannot, then the only option that may be justified could be anarchy.
Begin by examining the laws of different countries: we find that the ways in which these laws vary depends largely upon lawmakers in said countries. Often, these lawmakers propose legislation that is most appropriate given their citizens’ behaviors and needs. Ultimately, we end up with different laws in different countries; however, none would make the argument that the laws differ because the people are inherently unequal, with perhaps the superior people requiring less laws while the inferior require more. Yet, how can this different treatment be morally justified?
Traffic laws are an example of this difference: in the USA, traffic laws are generally enforced quite religiously: drive down most any highway during the day for any lengthy period of time, and one will most likely see one, if not multiple traffic stops. In contrast, in China, one could try the same method for days and not see a single stop. People frequently use their own discretion when encountering red lights, and otherwise generally drive considerably more erratic...
... middle of paper ...
...t any time whereas under a state opting for anarchy is generally a crime.
Though effective (and desirable) anarchy may be a rarity thus far though mankind’s history, this does not mean that it must continue to be. Anarchism as an actual way of life may be far off into man’s future, but this writer believes that it is nonetheless there, and that it will be the pinnacle of man’s political evolution. Until then, taking ‘baby steps’ in that direction is an acceptable start; simply understanding that the state is an unjust means of society is already a great beginning. Even if it is impractical in modern society, we should not reject it as a goal on that basis alone. As we are all equals, the Golden Rule demands that we treat others reciprocally and respectfully; how can we as a race hope to achieve this, when the supposed flagship of humanity, the state, cannot do so?
Ayn Rand's classic story of one man's desire to become an individual in a nameless society presents a compelling refutation of collectivism in all forms. The hero, labeled "Equality 7-2521" by the State, chooses to challenge conventional authority as he learns the joys of experimentation and discovery, the ecstasy of human love, the challenge and fairness of liberty, and the happiness of self-interest. Equality 7-2521 writes three unique phrases in his journal: 1. "My happiness needs no higher aim to vindicate it. My happiness is not the means to an end. It is the end.", 2. "We know that we are evil, but there is no will in us and no power to resist it.", 3. "The word 'We' . . . must never be placed first within man's soul.". These phrases will be discussed individually in the remainder of this essay.
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.” Revolutionary Thomas Paine describes the government, which may seem evil at times, as a necessity for becoming a functioning society. A lot of responsibility is entrusted onto today’s government to create a safe, law based environment in which everyone can live and prosper. Although without the structure of a government to create laws and have the authority to enforce them, society itself would become chaotic. If a strong government ever became corrupt, it would have the ability to keep control on society by creating laws that limit people’s free-will. This creates a dystopian society for every person living under that government.
Thomas Paine begins his article by first exploring the differences between society and government. He explains that, “society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil.” (Frohnen 179) What he means by this is that to have society and community is a privilege, because we as humans are designed to have a need for human interaction, while government on the other hand is only a necessary evil, simply because we as humans are also designed to be inherently evil, and therefore government is a necessary evil to have in order to monitor wrongdoing, or to keep us from our own vices in other words. This emphasizes the Classical Christian Anthropological principle of duality, which is the inner struggle that we as humans have between amor sui, the love of self, and amor dei, the love of God. This struggle springs from the fact that evil is found within man, and we must mak...
A well founded government is one which has the consent of the people it governs. This system is used to protect its people and provide them with the necessities to prosper. But, many individuals have believed that majority of the time government should not interfere in economic and political affairs. This type of government is known as an active government which can be referred to as a “large government.” Transcendentalist Henry David Thoreau, Civil Rights activist Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and political anarchist Emma Goldman argue the right to break unjust laws that the government up holds for the public. Although some are more radical than others, each thinker asses their idea in a different way. Thoreau and King both believe that the best way to rid an unjust law is by performing acts of civil disobedience. Goldman on the other hand, believes in complete obliteration of the government thus becoming a state of anarchism. All three thinkers have made it clear in their arguments that it is justified to break an unjust law.
During this time, in 1910, one of her most distinguished pieces of literature was published. In Anarchism: What It Really Stands For, Goldman begins with a quote about anarchy from John Henry Mackay, a Scottish-German anarchist author and philosopher. This quote ends with a notable bit, in which Mackay declares, “I am an Anarchist! Wherefore I will not rule, and also ruled I will not be.” Goldman continues in, saying that the main issue the masses have with anarchism is born out of ignorance on the topic. Most people who are unfamiliar with this ideology peg it as being focused on violence and chaos. Goldman refutes this untrue claim, saying that the very thing anarchism is looking to combat is ignorance and nothing else. By its definition, anarchism strives to allow people to think for themselves, to break free from societal restraints, and unlearn the lies that have been spoon fed to us. Goldman says that anarchism is special, in that it is the only ideology that encourages humanity to think for themselves, and the only one that insists God, the state, and society are, and should remain, non existent. The only thing worth relying on to bring people together as a collective whole is anarchism, and it cannot and should not be ignored any longer. Further in her piece, she alludes to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon’s piece on property, and
When one thinks of Anarchy they will immediately think of destruction and chaos. Of course, one who knows the beliefs of Anarchy will know otherwise. Anarchism is a political philosophy that upholds the belief that no one should be able to coerce anyone and no society should contain a wide variety of groups who coordinate social functions. It is the opportunity to live the life that you decide is best for you. In the eyes of Anarchy, government is corrupt and the people of society should govern themselves. There should not be any rules, laws, or police officers to chastise or enforce anything on any individual. Anyone who knows Greek will know that the term Anarchy means no rulers; so an anarchist society is a society without rulers, not a chaotic society. Anarchy believes in liberty, solidarity, and equality.
Philosophers have struggled with determining the proper role of government. In the absence of government and laws, people could do whatever they wanted, and some of them would try to slaughter others and steal their property. This is the state called anarchy. People have realized that the safety of the people and the country would be in jeopardy in such a state. Thus, it is necessary for a country to have a government and/or ruler. However, a ruler must not have absolute power nor lack authority. But the protection of the people and the country alone is not enough for a country to prosper. The property and the natural rights of the people and the government must also be protected. Thus, the proper role of government is to protect the people’s natural rights, their property, and the people themselves.
Undoubtedly, the thought of living in, or forming a utopian society has flashed through nearly every person’s mind. A few people have even tried to make this ideal dream society a reality. Unfortunately, within the pursuit of these societies the leaders become corrupt and begin to become paranoid with the fear of rebellion. Hundreds of people were murdered during the reigns of Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin in what they considered measures to maintain peace and stability within their respective “perfect” society. One must also consider the hardships that the citizens were forced to endure while living under these oppressive governments.
From the American Revolution to independence movements in Latin America, the forming a commonwealth free of vice, tyranny, and inequality has always been one of man’s greatest intentions. In this commonwealth, everyone’s needs are met, society is free of all hierarchies, and everyone works for the common good. However, history has proved that this commonwealth can never truly exist. On a rudimentary level, it is impossible for any large group to properly function without someone or a group of people creating and enforcing the necessary laws and customs. On a deeper level, it seems impossible to eschew avarice, inequality, war, and many other aspects commonwealths face. Sir Thomas More, a lawyer, statesman, and philosopher imagined this perfect commonwealth and dubbed it, Utopia. In Utopia, Sir Thomas More describes a place where all citizens are content with their lives and there is no social inequality. However, readers easily notice contradictions that are present in this seemingly perfect place. In their treatment of gold and iron, slaves, and gender roles, Utopians prove to readers that a commonwealth free of hierarchies, vice, and tyranny can never truly exist.
In his famous writing, “The Leviathan”, Thomas Hobbes explains that the natural condition of mankind is when a society lives together without the rule of a common authority or power; this creates a “dog-eat-dog” world in which the citizens live in a perpetual state of utter chaos and fear. The fears experienced by the citizens are not only of the unequal distribution of the power of others, but also fear of the loss of their own power. In Hobbes’ state of nature there is complete liberty for society in the idea that each member may do whatever he or she pleases without having to worry about infringing upon the rights of the rest of society; in other words, one is allowed to do whatever necessary to pursue their own happiness. Ho...
Laws are implemented to enforce civil proceedings in society, thereby enabling individuals to operate and function within a morally stable population. But there is a delicate and uncertain balance between doing so and restricting personal freedoms--for though individuals should not be wholly free to conduct themselves as they please (for fear of anarchy), neither should they be confined to a level by which they are unable to direct their life’s course and pursue personal betterment. When citizens feel this to be the case, they have the right to peacefully display their grievances with enacted law for the advocation of positive change in the society. For if a society is truly free, the government
I stayed in China for more than 20 years, and then came to the United States last year. During the last year, I kept comparing the two countries and found both similarities and differences.
The focus of this paper will be on criticizing the argument. He effectively explains what justifies the authority of the state by giving reasons that anarchy is better for autonomous nature of man. One might agree that the state can command an individual to obey the rule even if it is against the person’s moral beliefs. His argument, however, seems to undermine the
Dictators of totalitarian states use terror and violence to force obedience and to crush opposition. Normally, the police are expected to respond to criminal activity and protect the citizens. In a totalitarian state, the police serve to enforce the central gover...
the six statements, while “The Anarchic Structure of World Politics” discuss the nature of anarchy, and