In class, we
talked about four visions of anarchy, life without government, and the origins
of government -- this included Aristotle, Hobbes, Locke, and Kropotkin.
Kropotkin
offered one vision of anarchy. For him, life without government would be far
less coercive and far more cooperative. For example, we can see examples of
this kind of anarchy in the case of Belgium, which has been without a
government for around 500 days [read about it here, here, and here].
Also, the wild west during the
American frontier days was
anarchical and apparently less violent than some American cities today. There are also a number of anarchist communities that have existed. Radical Christians, for instance, peacefully and voluntarily live in anarchical communties today.
Hobbes
offered another vision of anarchy. For him, life without government was nasty
brutish, and short. It was men against men in an all out struggle to survive --
and because of this constant struggle, there would be little wealth, little
learning, few grand structures, little clothing, and no commerce. For example,
we can see this vision of anarchy played out in places like Karachi,
Pakistan. Somalia is another example. It has been without a centralized
government since 1991 and is consistently ranked as the worst failed state in the world with 20% of its
population living as political refugees. Like slum lords building houses in
Karachi or the businessmen opening hospitals in Somalia, some people are making
money and benefiting from
the lack of government, but
life is pretty hard for a large number of people.
What do you think?
Which vision of anarchy do you think is most likely to occur? Are people likely to voluntarily cooperate, as in Belgium? Or, do you think that people are more likely to engage in an all out struggle, as in Somalia? Or do you think something else? Tell me: What do you think life without government would be like? Does life without government have something to offer that a governed life does not?
Sadly, I think Hobbes' vision of anarchy would be most likely to occur. Our country depends on the government and laws. There is already so much violence in our country. Maybe not as much as Somalia, but it seems to me there is rarely a news report that doesn't contain some type of violence. I think more illegal acts would occur, such as robberies. I would personally be in fear everyday of what might happen. People react strongly when they are afraid. I think more people will start using weapons to protect themselves. When I think of our country being in an anarchical situation, I see chaos. I could imagine gangs and drugs taking over because no one will be there to stop them. With the amount of people robbing stores or banks with the security we have now, I can't imagine they'd stop in a place with no security. I think the trouble would start in larger cities that already have gang activity. But eventually, I think the chaos of having no rules to live by would spread throughout the whole country. There are a lot of people would help others in need, but again, sadly, I think most of the time evil overpowers good. We would be in a state of war.
ReplyDelete^ Hannah Piper
DeleteHannah, what class section are you in? Sign all posts with your name and class section.
DeleteI would picture life without government much like Hobbes- a "survival of the fittest," all-out power struggle. I think that without a common leader or group of leaders to keep things in order, everyone would live in fear. Without government, people could commit crimes, because without government, there would be no rules, and without rules, there would be no justice for irrational, violent acts.
ReplyDeleteAlso, as we've discussed in class, having a government provides security. Just from reading the beginning of The Road, I can say that I, personally, wouldn't want to live every second of everyday in fear. It's nice to know that I'm protected at all times, and that if something were to happen to me, justice would most likely be served (and I only say "most likely" in consideration of rare instances, such as the murder of Caylee Anthony).
If we had free range to act however we wanted to get anything we'd want, I'd have no doubt that it would be pure chaos.
Brittany Custer PSCI 100:04 ^^^
DeleteLife without government would be much like Hobbes. There criminals all around the world already breaking the law every single day with the government in tact. Without government it would be even worse. Without a common leader there would be like brittany said above a "survival of the fittest" type of action taking place. No one would trust one another and everyone would be battling each other to get what they want for them and their family. It would be complete and utter chaos. I dont see how life without government would work whatsoever. Without goverment jobs would most likely be worthless as well because the money would not be controlled by the government which would cause people to go out and get money any way they could which would not be good. There would be zero security and everyone would be living in a constant fear. Life would be terrible without government.
ReplyDelete-Tim Hoover PSCI 100.04
I believe that life without government would be much like Hobbes. Our life in the United States depends on the government's authority. Without government, it would be an all and out war between people and people doing whatever they want. I agree with Tim that jobs would be pointless because people would be out getting money whichever way possible instead of doing it the right way. There would be constant fear that something would happen to you or your family. Life without government would be horrible and there would be no control over anything.
ReplyDelete-Tyler Messersmith PSCI 100.03
I think that the ultimate outcome of anarchy depends a lot on the circumstances and environment that said anarchy is occurring. Just taking two examples Belgium and Somalia geographically and historically these 2 places couldn't be more different. I think that the outcome of "lawlessness" depends wholly on whether you are in a land of plenty or a land of perpetual want. Survival of the fittest is already an everyday life experience in a place like Somalia where you have to fight for every bread crumb. Not to say that either place is individually any more developed than the other but geographically and socially they aren't equals. I think that I have to say that either scenario could occur depending on how socially and economically prepared the area was that embarked on such an endeavor. Also I feel that the manner in which the "lawless situation" occurs must be taken into consideration too. If it happens because of some cataclysmic devastation like in "The Road" then the fear driven instincts humans innately have would impact the success of any region that would attempt such a regime change; mostly because it had been thrust upon them unplanned. We must not automatically assume that the lack of government would be a bad thing simply because we don't know any other way. I think that too often we are easily impacted by the bleak picture that post-apocalyptic movies/TV shows paint; believing that this is the only way we as human beings will react to such an occurrence. Don't be so quick to jump to the conclusion that government is the only way we can succeed as a species.
ReplyDeleteDiana Everhart PCSI 100.05
I believe that if humans are placed in an anarchic setting, daily life would be more like the description posed by Thomas Hobbes. Unfortunately, because there would be no governmental regulations, humans would attempt to gain as much personal power as possible. This, in turn, would pit every man for himself, and I believe society would be much like "The Road." Humans would be unable to like without being under control of the authority of a government.
ReplyDeleteTrevor Phadden- PSCI 100.04
To be honest, I think that all of the theories have some sort of merit to them. However, I think the circumstances that surround the lack of government are important to determining what would likely happen. In Belgium, there was a highly functional government before and right now its' in a state where people can't get together to form a cohesive governing body. However, government services are still functioning and things are still being done. People are just doing what they would be doing. However, in Somalia there was not a stable government to begin with. The geography makes it hard because there is a major class between different tribes, religions, and foreign influences. The lack of a group identity makes it somewhat impossible for them to come together in a cooperative manner.
ReplyDeleteI tend to think that Kropotkin might have had the right of it. Yes, we are born into a state of freedom and anarchy. However, life in nature is not just a struggle of life and death. Animals do cooperate and help each other out, or at the very least live in a kind of non-aggression pact with most other creatures. Humans are the same. We tend to come together as a group in times of struggle or conflict. finding some common purpose or security in working together. We are not all out to get each other... people would much rather prove trust to each other and work together than have to fight an equal enemy and not have someone to watch your back.
Andrew Seaman --PSCI 100.03
I think that because we are used to living with a government that it is difficult to in-vision anarchy and what life would be like. Possibly because of this, I think that Hobbes' vision of anarchy is more likely to occur. It depends on the situation, however. If we were to just go from our democratic government to having none within the next few days it would cause complete and utter chaos. People would most likely become very destructive and violent; robbing banks and stores because they can't get in trouble, destroying buildings, etc. There would be no set structure and people would feel no reason to do anything productive. Therefore, I think things would be an all out war like Hobbes' said.
ReplyDeleteIf the scenario were different, and government had never existed in a certain society I think there is potential for the society to turn out okay and cooperate with one another like in Kropotkin's vision. I feel as though anarchy would be somewhere in-between Kropotkin and Hobbes' visions. I don't think it would quite as violent as Hobbes' in-visions but I also don't think it would be as cooperative as Kropotkin in-visions. I feel as though there are some cases in which people would begin to cooperate with one another and create alliances or partnerships to help out each other out with things like trading of food or other resources. However, I feel as though if it came down to yourself or your alliance/partnership you would choose to look out for yourself over the others and this is where Hobbes' "survival of the fittest" theory comes into play. Therefore, I believe that an anarchic government would be a little bit of both what Kropotkin and Hobbes in-vision.
Michelle Sentinella PSCI 100.03
I tagged this wrong it should actually be:
DeleteMichelle Sentinella PSCI 100.05
I actually tagged this incorrectly, it should be:
DeleteMichelle Sentinella PSCI 100.05
I think the type of anarchy that is most likely to succeed depends on the culture that existed before anarchy. If our government no longer existed, our version of anarchy would be more like Hobbes.
ReplyDeleteKimberly Clegg PSCI 100.03
In my opinion i think that i agree with Hobbes more than any other the others. You can apply all the other ways of government but it depends on the way that you perceive government. Hobbes showed that fear and death are the main passions in our society and you can relate that to the world that we live in today. We need government authority for have people in fear beacuase without that we would be living in a world with no rules and morals and it would be crazy.
ReplyDeleteAndre' Makell 100.03
I believe that life without government would not work out that well, but it all depends on the situation too. People that are used to government and society works smoothly under that government will look to someone for leadership. Comparing this to a society of people that pretty much already fend for themselves they'd be fine with anarchy but when you mix those kind of people then that's probably when the violence will start to take place because people will do anything to survive.
ReplyDeleteSkyler Bartles 100.03
In America I think that both would take hold. In some places where the crime rate is low there is already an understanding among the residents that this is how we need to act to get things done in our society. On the other hand where the crime rate is high the criminals would take advantage of the lack of forced rules and take/do what they want. For America as a whole Hobbes anarchy would rule but you would have some place that would maintain Kropotkin's view, for a while. As soon as the big towns were cleared the violant anarchy would spread into the calm towns and continue their reign if they were to survive long enough to make it to the peacefull towns. Assumeing the criminals would be as violant as they are now then many might not live long enough to take over, as it were.
ReplyDelete-Sarah Barry PSCI 100.04
I beileve that what anarchy looks like is totally dependent on the country, society, goverment, and situations surronding the fall. You could live in a goverment that was more tolitatrien and then when it dissolves people may be bitter and angry and kill one another. In a counrty like Canada if the goverment resolved the people would probably be more like Kropotkin and help one another strive and live in harmony. I doubt that any one veiw is correct.Just like I beileve humans were created in the image of a god but that we are evolving as well. I like grey, it is totally possible that the outcome is a direct impression of the people before anarchy.
ReplyDeleteJoan Conte PSCI 100:05
i believe that anarchy in todays soicety would be complete caos and absolutly no order. based on the four views we looked at in our previous class, i think Hobbes view was the most believable. this is unfortunate but i do believe that every person would be out for themselves without any regaurd for others. but it may also depend on the region and culture, but in the United States i think it would be everyman for themselves.
ReplyDelete-Amanda James 100.04
its frustrating because your asking such an acute answer to a very generl question. i imagine i would all depend on how much is affected by a lack of government. the road is based in a post apocoliptic world, most of the time i imagine that wouldnt be the case, peoples mannerisms are subject to change depending on circumstances, if u put people in an area with very little food, they would probably spead out in search of food and eventually progress to hobbe's theory of man versus man. givin adequate resources i image they would initually do as kropotkin implied until lockes thory of selfishness came into play an forced a kind of government to come into play. michael ray farris 100.3
ReplyDeleteI agree with Hobbes idea that life without a governement would be completely chaotic and barbaric. Without the government there would be constant struggle for power and people will always live in fear. A government provides security, order, and some form of guidance which a anarchical society could not provide.
ReplyDelete-Bianca Redmond
I would have to agree with Hobbes theory of anarchy. He is right i think in that we are born into the state of anarchy. In this world it is man vs man are constantly defending themselves now in this day compare to the old days. The Beligum thing with over 500 days without an government dosent really seem to hurt this country because they just do there everyday normal thing and it dosent really seem like the government effectment is hurting this country. Life without a government would suck. We would have no security to our on personal selfs and protection to the USA from terriorsm. I also believe with Hobbes along the lines is true and thats we invented the government to protect the citzens. This is so true
ReplyDeleteBrennan Fanning PSCI 100.03
I believe Thomas Hobbes offers the most realistic approach about the idea of anarchy because there is a lot of man vs man crime or violence that takes place in the world today even though Government tries to control it, their is only so much that they can do. Because at the end of the day people are going to do what they want regardless. If the world was without Government in todays society I believe there would be much more crime and murder rates would be way higher just of the simple fact people would know there wouldn't be any consequences. I also feel without Government being present there would be a life where you wouldn't know what to expect and there would be no rules or regulations so people would be running around doing what ever they wanted or felt right in there eyes.
ReplyDeleteWilliam Mckenzie
Political Science 100.03
I believe that Kropotkin is more realistic when it comes to the thought of life in an anarchist world, in my opinion. I deffinately believe, man is not naturally selfish. It is although depend on how one is raised up from birth to adult-hood. For example a vegitarian does not eat meat because of one's beliefs and or up bringing. A belief is something that you have to gain from example of a role model. Government is not something that someone came up with in a day dream. It took time, effort, thought, and enthusiasm. Kropotkin believed in summary that we are born in this stated of Nature. Life is all about freedom. Everyone is evolutionalized. We are like domesticated animals. We are trained in the world to act, speak, and think as the world would like us to. We cooporate with the world and each other not only socially but primarily as well. I dont believe we are born to be "politicians." We are raised up to be who we are. "It takes a villiage to raise a child."
ReplyDelete-Jane Cowen-Fletcher
Latavia D. Smith
PSCI 100.05 9:35am Class!!
I feel aspects of all of them are correct and are present today. Aristotle believed that men are in charge of the family; today many people would say that men are still in charge of the household, however, some would also say that men and women are equal in the household. From the position of Hobbes, men are equal. All men have the capability of taking out another man regardless of their own strength. As long as their determination is their anything is possible. Locke proposed that man is selfish and loves themselves. Everyday you can see that humans, unless governed by a law, i.e. Road laws in Alaska, do not help other people unless they are compelled in someway by a positive outcome. Finally, Kropotkin says that men help other men. It is only likely for this to occur if an outcome is accomplished which helps the group of people helping/ being helped.
ReplyDeleteLife in anarchy would be utter chaos in larger cities of the country. Crime would possibly increase and the fight for ones own territory would probably be greater. A scared world, full of the unknown.
Blaine G Gibson
PSCI 100.04
Im going to go out on a limb here and say I think our society will of course break out into chaos and disaster at first. A lot of crime will be committed in that time but I think once anarchy has sort of "settled" in with America I think we will take over Locke's view of anarchy. There is complete freedom but after time we will look for some sort of order and judge to decide what we will do and who will win this argument or dispute. I believe the beginning of anarchy people will be scared and man will be willing to fight any other man. But I also think people will get tired of fighting each other and just settle out to their own lives and perform as there was some sort of government.
ReplyDeleteJenny Cavey PSCI 100.04
Much as I agree with the idea we discussed in class about each of the philosophers having a piece of the puzzle, I'm inclined to think that Locke had the most accurate idea. Part of this stems from my own belief in a creator God, which of course aligns nicely with Locke's religious take. However, I like to think that mankind is essentially good (after all, if that wasn't the case, where would the most fundamental concepts of goodness, compassion, etc. come from?); and if that is true, then people in a state of nature - or anarchy - would tend to hold on to their reason. As evidence, one could point to Belgium. From this, I'm sure you all can gather that I am also a supporter of less government...
ReplyDeleteHowever, all this aside, I am still a staunch supporter of both the concept of government and our own government specifically. Even in a state where people are essentially good, there are those few that will cause harm to everyone else (not to mention that even the best person has a dark side). Government is still needed to give the people security. As for our own: yes, it is flawed. However, again we can point to our many, MANY liberties and the fact that we don't get mugged on our way to class. As Winston Churchill said, "Democracy [although not just American democracy] is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."
Ian: What class section are you in?
DeleteOh right, I'm sorry. Ian Karraker PSCI 100.05
DeleteI do not think that our country will ever have this problem with anarchy in general. With all the military people that are and did serve, and the many different crime organizations it would not take long for many small governments to pop up. Wars would began and eventully everything would start over again.
ReplyDeletecody whetzel 100.05
I think that it would be an all out struggle as in somalia. It is easy to say everyone will cooperate as in Belgium, but that's also easy to say now. If we went without food or water for a few days I think that people would have to do what is necessary to survive. For some of the people that live in Somalia I think that is exactly what they are trying to do. Therefore I think that most people would definately go on about an all out every man for themselves type of living.
ReplyDeleteTyler Beard 100.04
I think that our country would turn into an every man for themselves type of living over time. I think that people can say that we would cooperate like the people of Belgium but over time people are greedy. Therefore they will want more than enough for themselves and revert to a man vs man style of living.
ReplyDeleteTyler Beard 100.04
Being that the whole idea behind Government comes from the idea of setting up a hierarchy with someone on top and someone on the bottom, and the coordinated action of the group is to simply establish some form of control and order over others makes me feel that Thomas Hobbes had the right general idea of how human internationalism works. Some people are always going to be stronger or smarter than that of others, thus creating a sense of order. Although who is to say that just because you are a weaker individual you will never have any rights. This is where some will argue that Hobbes created the idea that humans made up a God to serve as a sort of ruler of the synch while the state keeps from people doing any bodily harm to others. This is where my ideas differ though. I believe that God does in fact exist and this is where the idea came along and people fear that they should keep themselves from harming others. Who is to say that if other country’s believed in God they too would follow this form of government thus created no anarchy?
ReplyDelete-Hayley Glover PSCI 100-03
Personally, I believe that all the visions of anarchy are somewhat correct. Aristole stated that men just naturally created government and state because it puts reason and order into their lives. Hobbes stated that state and God were created to keep men in check. Without some form of punishment, individuals would have no reason to follow laws of government or morale and the world would turn to turmoil. Locke stated that a radical person would obviously love himself more than another which is why order requires humans to give up their personal freedoms. Not so much that we live in a communistic society in which the price of efficiently was freedom, but just enough to maintain order. Kropotkin suggested that humanity at the roots is good and that in times of anarchy, men are cooperative and work together in harmony. In conclusion, I believe that government will always exist and that people naturally flock to 'the circle' as Aristole suggests. The moment people gather together and assign jobs is the moment the bar jumps up to hierarchy.
ReplyDeleteSlade McDowell
PSCI 100-03
I do believe in Hobbes theory of how government came about. When we are born there is a certain amount of freedom that we feel we inherit. Being born into a physically equal state barring a birth deficiancy, causes a mental process of wanting to get ahead in life and attain a higher lifestyle than those around us in society. Hobbes stated that in an anarchist environment that men cannot survive due to the lack of security and man's nature to dominate what's around him. I don't agree that he "invents" God but rather that they use Him as an explanation for the things in this world left to reason.
ReplyDeleteAaron Hylton
PSCI 100-03
I think Hobbes has an accurate description of what anarchy would be like. It is human nature not to help eachother out anymore like it used to be. Now we have a free-for-all instead of a golden rule mentality. With out government in our lives today I believe things would be very bad since all of our lives we have had a government tell us what to do. We are used to structure you take away structure and we are left with nothing but chaos. I think life without government has nothing to offer us. Sometimes the world gets crazy but at the end of the day I think we will always have the belief that government is here to back us up and that is comforting.
ReplyDelete- Ellen Sassaman PSCI 100:04
I would have to agree with Hobbes. I am able to relate to his quote of man being born in anarchy and pretty much summing up that everyone is born equal. Without influential outside relations such as family, friends, or society, I believe that we would each exhibit the same wants and needs. This would either create an equal common ground between each person or a constant power struggle. But as Hobbes said, man created two things to keep us all in check; Government and God.
ReplyDeleteKyle Perrella
PSCI 100.04
Alex Garten:
ReplyDeleteI believe Hobbs is right in some instance of brutish behavior yet Like Belgium when they had no government thinks went smoothly for 500 some odd days. Also anarchy is not corruption or necessarily bad it just means no government exsists.
I agree with the statement above in that a world in anarchy could go either way. I feel that most of the world would follow the Belgium example for just the fact that it was what they were raised / "trained" to do and respect, but there are always the criminals who would jump at the chance to do whatever they wanted and get away with doing some horrible things. Pretty much what I am saying is that it all depends on the number of people willing to help or hurt each other witch will determine if Locke or Hobbs version of anarchy stands, in which part of the world, and for how long.
DeleteStephanie Camacho PSCI 100.03
I believe 100% that people will cooperate together without a government like in Belgium... until the money runs out. once people stop being paid for showing up to work or doing things I believe a struggle will occur where people will do whatever it takes to survive. I think the instinct for survival is much greater than the love for fellow man. If a person are starving to death and sees someone else with food that they are not willing to share, they would steal from them to survive. I believe it could become like "The Road" as we talked about in class, when the Soviet Union starved (can't remember which country at the moment) 2600 people were tried and convicted of cannibalism and that doesn't even factor in the people who weren't caught. Even the children had that basic survival instinct as was written in the nun's diary where she had rounded up children to keep them safe and they were playing in a room then suddenly got quiet as two children were eating a baby. I am not saying everyone would become cannibals because the government collapses but if I am starving to death and have some vegetables growing in the garden and others come by who want some of them, I am not as likely to share when there is barely enough for my family and I. When people don't have their basic needs they will resort to theft to obtain it, when the people catch these thieves and there is no government to punish them, that is when the killing starts. At this time "good" and "bad" people no longer exist, just people trying to survive.
ReplyDeleteHarry Coates (Trey)
PSCI 100:05
I believe that Kropotkin had the idea somewhat correct about people in anarchy, such as the case in Belgium, where business is going along as usual. The citizens are behaving as expected by some, but not by all, in that they are "inherently good" working peacefully, although they are poor and steadily going into more debt. The same can be said that Locke was correct in saying that men are inherently selfish and out to improve their own lives and nothing else, which is the case in Somalia. It seems as though it definitely depends on the individual, as in "The Road" where the main characters as the "good guys" and the cannibalistic blood cults being the "bad guys," the intent of the people could go either way depending on desperation and many other variables. In America with so many radical groups facing each other, Anarchy may very well be the absence of government turning into chaos, as people that are against immigration, for example, would be killing all those assumed to be "illegal." The case can be argued either way, I definitely believe that it depends on the group involved, but each philosopher was correct in their own right.
ReplyDeleteBrittney Mercer PSCI 100:03
I would have to agree with Hobbes. I feel like if we did not have an anarchy then everyone would go crazy. I would believe that everyone would have to protect themselves. Government pretty much controls are life right now by having rules so people would obey by them. I think if we don't have a government, we would be a crazy country.
ReplyDeleteBeth Ann Haymond
PSCI 100.05
As most are, I would have to go with Hobbes. You look at places like Somalia and you just can't imagine. But if it were to happen on our soil, people's automatic response would be to protect themselves. Arm themselves from people trying to hurt you. I have a friend who lived in Somalia, and he said basically your neighborhood is what you protect, and thats all you can trust. Everyone carries guns, and its just chaos. I feel with the gangs we live with already, this would be an easy takeover for a society such as that.
ReplyDeleteBrandon Coffey PSCI 100:04
I'm going to start by being very Aristotelian in my argument, but I hope to be able to use this as a springboard into the other concepts/philosophers discussed.
ReplyDeleteIn the interest of full disclosure I will express what my sociocultural status is:
I am Roman Catholic-Christian, politically listed as an Independent but am still forming my political views, in part by using this class.
I think humans have an inherent desire or instinct at some point or other to categorize, control or order our environment in some way. Whether that be obedience to a Higher Authority or establishing ourselves as an authority over others, power dynamics have always been a part of humanity, and I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. This recognition/creation of power has had mixed results, as evidence by the many varied forms of government and cultures. It makes great sense to me when Aristotle represents government as an extension of the basic family unit. If we take a from-the-ground-up approach, assuming that man has always recognized power and implemented or submitted to in some way, then it is logical to conclude that the basic governmental unit of the family (regardless of how you view the hierarchy of a family, the adults usually are governing the children in some way) would give rise to larger governing bodies as the "family" grew larger.
This being said, I think the state of the nuclear family has a lot to do with how a country would behave if the larger family disintegrated. What works in the family will on some level work in government. If the family cannot co-operate or work together, then society as a whole will be pretty lousy at it too. This is not an alien or purely idealistic notion, the whole purpose of statistical analysis' sampling techniques is predicated on the concept that if you sample a portion of the population you can make generalizations about the population from the results. So, since every person who ever has the opportunity to govern must have at one point or other had a family/caretaker/up-bringer, what works on the low level can work up high, conversely what breaks at the lower level will cause breaks up high.
So, if our future politicians are raised in an environment that promotes the Hobbesian view that it will be "every man for himself" then that's the sort of dysfunctional governing family we may be left with, and in the case of government collapse, the kind of situation we would have to stomach. Whether that would include people literally stomaching each other I don't know.
I do want to make a side comment here, about our country specifically. I found it disconcerting how many people on this post sided with Hobbes' view, this to me implies that we as classes and perhaps as a country feel basically out of control and mistrusting. However as a corollary I found it ironic that the solution to combat this "survival of the fittest mentality" was to maintain government control, but in class there seemed to be a general dislike of how much control government influenced us. Are we trapped between an invented God and the State, or are we using the State to attempt to protect us from an invented God-lessness? I leave it to you to debate...
Building on the Aristotelian concept, I think Anarchy in America could go one of two ways, the Hobbesian way, or the Locke-ian way, depending on the state of our basic beliefs in ourselves, in what authorities purpose is, and about how we should treat each other.These basic beliefs are a byproduct of our upbringing, of our original "government" coupled with our inherent God-given natures. Since we have free will, we can choose either to trust or mistrust our fellow men/God this will determine whether we become Belgium, Somalia or something else entirely.
Thank you,
Nathaniel Warburton PSCI 100:05
A thoughtful, analytical response. Well said.
DeleteThere is something to be said about the general popularity in our class and in western philosophy more generally of the Hobbesian view of anarchy. I would agree that the popularity of Hobbes is indicative of a sense of insecurity and lack of control; similarly, this is the sort of world we are making through various institutions that contribute to the "raising" of Americans and westerners more generally.
I disagree with Kropotkin's vision of anarchy. I do not believe Americans could live peacefuly and cooperate without governent. Governent regulates alot, including our behavior. Without government there would be more violence because there would be no security. People would do whatever they wanted. I think life without government would be more like the situation in Somalia. It would be a constant struggle to survive. Every man would be against every man.
ReplyDeleteAmber Ugorji
PSCI 100.04
I believe that there is not one specific picture of anarchy, as is demonstrated in the difference between anarchy in Somalia and anarchy in Belgium. The result is truly dependent on the culture in which it comes to exist within. I imagine that if anarchy existed in the United States, the result would look more like Hobbes’ vision of anarchy because our culture is immersed in social stratification and ruthless schemes to attain wealth and power. As a capitalist society, people are constantly struggling to attain more and more capital. They are not concerned about others and would not naturally cooperate in order to provide mutual aid as Kropotkin envisions. However, other nations that are more egalitarian, such as Sweden, may be much more likely to provide mutual aid because they are more accustomed to this mutual cooperation. I guess the ultimate question is this: are humans naturally violent and power hungry, or are humans naturally willing to cooperate with one another for the good of the group? I would argue that human beings are more likely to be selfish rather than cooperative. So, in a sense my vision of anarchy would relate more to Hobbes; however, I truly believe this is dependent on my cultural upbringing in a capitalist society.
ReplyDeleteHeather Webb PSCI 100.03
I think life without government would at first take on Kropotkin's view becuase people would try to prove that we did not need a government, but then if things did not work out, which they probably would not, people would then turn to violence. Hobbes is right when he says it will be man against man because when you have no authority telling you what to do, obviouly there are going to be arguments and this I think would still lead to who ever is stronger.
ReplyDeleteI think that if we did not have a government, there would still be people who were more powerful than others becuase I know that if a really strong person told me to do something I would be doing it so they did not hurt me. I know that does not stop me from pulling out a gun a shooting him, but I have morals not to do that.
If we did not have government, I think that people would change their morals from not wanting to hurt anyone to getting tired of other people and wanting to fight for themselves.
Shelby Knepper PSCI 100.04
Anarchy. The absence of government. There are many ways that man would divert to if the government failed or "ceased to exist".
ReplyDeleteOne group may follow Hobbes in that they would all revert to self protection and basically go to war with each other; either in a struggle of survival or the struggle to regain control. The first will happen in the areas where major cities are abound, but in the rural parts of America it would be tense in the beginning but eventually the governing body at the time would probably institute some sort of "marshal" law to regain & maintain control.
On the left hand, Anarchy to some extent, exists every day, every where, all around us. We see this in on our news. We see this in television programs. We see this in certain parts of the towns we live in.
On the right hand, there is government. It controls what we see, what we read, and tries to align us with other countries that would "pretend" to be a fellow protectorate against those that would raise up and try to inflict anarchy.
Each of those men, Aristotle, Hobbes, Locke, and Kropotkin, all had it right to some extent. If you blended the ideas of these three, you would have a very unique and somewhat accurate description of what life would be like if government were to fail and anarchy is considered the ruling force.
Gary Fry
PSCI 100.5
I think that life without government would be similar to what Hobbes pictured. He said it would be "every man against every man" and I think if it came down to that it would get out of control. People will do anything to be on top because today’s society is so competitive and when that occurs it can turn into absolute violence and chaos.
ReplyDeleteJordan Dixon PSCI 100.04
I think that the way people would react to an anarchy depends on the situation. In Belgium, for instance, even though there is no central government running everything, the society is still intact. People still have jobs to go to, and life pretty much goes on. If, however, everything collapsed after some kind of catastrophic event, people would react much differently, and probably violently.
ReplyDeleteDaniel Huffine
PSCI 100:03
I don't believe that anarchy starts out with bad intentions. But Hobbes' idea of life without government will be sure to occur. With our government now there is still rebellion from things and we have ways to punish those people. If one does not fear that their actions will cause them to be punished they will disorderly.
ReplyDeleteLauren Tyree
PSCI 100.03
I feel that it is possible to live without a government in place as the Belgians have, but in order for the anarchy to be cooperative and stable it would have to be formed under peaceful circumstances. Belgium isn't a war torn country. Everyone is continuing to live their every day lives as if nothing was wrong. I think it depends on the state of mind of the society. I am not sure of what would happen in the US if for some reason we were without an acting government. I'd like to believe that Americans would come together to make the best out of whatever situation we were in. Hurricane Katrina could be an example of what happens when people are abandoned or feel abandoned by their government, some people when faced with one of the deadliest hurricanes in US history turned to violence and looting. I think it could really go either way. If we were without government because of an election process, I believe that we would be ok until everything was ironed out. If we were without a government because of a natural disaster or a nuclear bomb it would be complete chaos but there would still be those who banded together after the dust settled so to speak to protect the people and country they believe in. Although I do believe that it’s human nature to be selfish, I don’t believe that we are inherently evil, not as a whole. There are those who are but the good out weighs the evil. I think that Americans prove their selflessness everyday by serving the people as police officers, fire fighters, the military, etc. These people choose to risk their lives everyday to protect and serve. Knowing there are people like that in our world makes me believe that life without a government can be peaceful.
ReplyDeleteDanielle Francesconi-Wolford
PSCI 100.3
Well, looking at the two examples that are posted - Belgium and Somolia - I try to look at the history and culture of the people in those states in considering which type of anarchical system would thrive. Belgium has a history being a less violent state, as exemplified by their lack of interal conflict in Belgium's past. Somolia, on the other hand, has had a long history of internal conflict even before the fall of the government in '91. Looking at this, I think one can not generalize how anarchy would work without taking into consideration the people that it is actually going to be affecting.
ReplyDeleteI also think the situation in which the anarchy will occur needs to be taken into account. Whether or not there is a mad dash for power over a failed government or if there is still structure and cooperation in society is a defining factor. I think that Kropotkin and Locke are exemplified in the Belgian state by cooperation and reason of the people involved, and Hobbes' idea of anarchy can be seen in Somolia's violent and chaotic system.
I think, since America has a history of internal conflict - for example: between liberals and conservatives, religious differences and conflict, the Civil War and racial differences, etc. - anarchy would not be successful in the U.S. and would probably lead to a violent, chaotic state such as Somolia and Pakistan.
Socially, I do not think there are any advantages to having an anarchical state in America. I think it would be completely detrimental to any idea of society for the U.S.
Alex Bentley PSCI 100.03
I believe that it would be an all out disaster and people would have little cooperation. I believe that Hobbes has best outlook on Anarchy. I like the statement that Hobbes states saying we are born in a state of Anarchy (hell). it would be Everyman vs. Everyman
ReplyDeleteAron Shiley PSCI 100.03
I'm not really sure to be honest. I feel like in America for some reason, people would be more prone to the man v man approach. I feel like, because we do raid shops and stores when a natural disaster occurs, that people will do anything they need to to survive. Much like during a zombie apocalypse. To me, other countries would have a better chance at having a peaceful anarchy.
ReplyDeleteholly nichols PSCI 100.05
I feel like America would follow an approach similar to Belgium because of the fact that Somalia faced massive drought before it succumbed to the fate its facing today, while Belgium is in a relatively good situation. I don't think America would face any disasters that would cripple the entire nation and could survive without a government for a while.
ReplyDeleteNick Mullican PSCI 100.04
Life without government would start with good intentions, but would quickly change to Hobbes' view of anarchy. Most people need government to control their lives, without government there would be no security which would lead to violence and chaos.
ReplyDeleteJoseph Waters PSCI 100.03
I agree with Hobbes. I don't necessarily think that the society would be in chaos but it would pretty much be a dog eat dog type of society. Every man would be against man and only the strong would survive. Life without government would make it hard for a large number of people due to the lack of resources. I feel that man loves himself more than the next man so they are going to do what they have to in order to survive.
ReplyDeleteDeandre Montgomery PSCI 100.03
I believe Aristotles vision of anarchy is most likely to occur. Goverment supplies us with our needs:Air, Water, and Food. When you take that away we turn into political animals. We then do what it takes to survive, and there will be the strong and the weak, which creates a natural heiarchy.
ReplyDeleteCody Barreyy PSCI 100.04
I feel that the Kropotkin view is the one that is most desirable, and currently in this society I think that we would be fine without a government and life would go on just as it is now. I also think that if something major were to happen like in the road, human kind would eventually destroy itself.
ReplyDeleteGreg Woodward PSCI 100.04
I also beleive an anarchy similar to Hobbes would be most likely to be played out. This is because our society now a days is always competing to be on top. Every man is struggling for their position. In the begining it wouldn't be as rough but i beleive with time people will have issues amongst themselves that they would need a third party to resolve. Otherwise who would help resolve problems. It cannot be other men because everyone has their own opinion, therefore as humans we need a strict code of what is right and what is wrong to guide us throughout life.
ReplyDeleteMaryam Khan PSCI 100.04
Both freedom and surveillance are needed and the balance between them are very important. If you give people too much freedom, then they will do what they want. But if surveillance is too extreme, then people feel like they have no privacy. as a democracy, the people should draw the line but that is not how things work. This makes people police themselves and also makes them appreciate the privacy they do have.
ReplyDeleteDeandre Montgomery
PSCI 100.04