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 intentional anarchist communities. Radical Christians live in some US cities today. Similarly, the autonomous neighborhood (Freetown Christiania) in Copenhagen is another example.
Hobbes offered another vision of anarchy. For him, life without government was nasty brutish, and short. Because of scarce resources (e.g. food, water, shelter, mating partners, etc.) and man's desire to obtain possessions, anarchy would be an all out 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?
What do you think?
Which vision of anarchy do you think is most likely to occur? Are people likely to voluntarily cooperate and mutually aid one another? Or, do you think that people are more likely to engage in an all out struggle? Or perhaps people would do both, they cooperate and conflict? 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?
I believe that if all forms of government were to vanish tonight, the area of the world you are in would have an affect on what vision of anarchy occurs. Here in the U.S. people would easily be able to carry on their daily routines without having to murder someone, although some violence would most likely erupt. Where the most problems would occur are areas where there is already a power struggle. While I feel there would be some violence, I believe that after a period of time a government would be formed. Once the power hungry group either obtained power or are defeated, people would settle back into their old habits and some type of government would arise. I think people would want government or a form of power back in their lives because it not only gives them security, it makes guidelines for us to follow. I don't feel that life without government would offer anything special. Sure it would be nice to not have laws, but if that were the case we'd lose our protection.
ReplyDeleteAustin Cline PSCI 100.04
Society with no law cannot survive. Without any government, order would quickly disappear. Government provides leadership, without which there is no direction. While some may think this is preferable to intrusive laws, without those laws communities would revert to survival of the fittest. It has little to do with location, although those societies currently based on law may survive longer than those that are not. There will always be someone with more strength and determination without a moral compass that will try to elevate himself above the rest.
DeleteN.Francesconi 100.04
Survival of the fittest and natural selection already exist in our current "working" government system....... Just look at all the homeless people and the basic attitude that if someone is having a hard time in life they're not working "hard enough". Our society is closer to anarchy than most would like to admit. The only thing keeping people from doing some disturbing stuff are policeman with guns. So basically, a society held together with fear and intimation, that sounds great.
DeleteNathan Lewellyn 100.04
Personally, I tend to align with the idea of anarchy turning into political and societal disorder. Everyone likes to criticize the government but without it we wouldn't have public roads, state-widely accepted currency, or regulations. This is all fine and dandy for, you know, 500 days. For 500 days the roads won't need repaired, people will probably still accept money, and the majority of food organizations won't turn to cheaper or unsafe business procedures or ingredients. In a number of years though all of this will deteriorate and without incentive, people will resort to only using their time and talents to benefit themselves. This will destroy everything in our society that runs on cooperation like public roads, a currency, and even peace. So, does government have something to offer us? Absolutely. Everything that we couldn't accomplish without collective action. And when considered, this is quite a lot of things.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I believe it's important for me to mention that I agree with Austin in that anarchy will result in government. It's happened a million times before in human history and history repeats itself. We can't live without banding together to make something greater happen. If you haven't watched the show Revolution, check it out. The formation of the Militia is a good example of this.
Cassandra Nipe PSCI 100.05
I agree with both Austin and Cassandra, after stopping to think about what exactly did government contribute to our society: currency, roads, rules...
DeleteI don't think we as a nation would last without those for very long. Without roads, how would we get food, for example? How would we be able to transport it.
And how would we be able to pay for it, if we did get any?
Too many things to worry about when anarchy occurs, and that's where I agree with Austin, in the fact that a new government will come out of anarchy.
Jessica Ott, PSCI 100.05
My opinion on anarchy tends to relate more with Hobbes's vision simply due to the society that we live in today. As a society I believe that we are programmed to do things a certain way, and to behave a certain way. I tend to agree with an example that we talked about in class, when we mentioned why people don't go around shooting one another whens there's not authority figures around such as cops. I believe its because we live in fear of what could happen if we disobeyed the "system" and acted out of the norm. We tend to look at these things as taboo. So i believe that if there was no authority figure, or government to tell us what to do that people would riot. It may seem like a sense of freedom but in the long run the dangers of people roaming without a government would come back to bite us in the butt.
ReplyDeleteHussam Ouri PSCI 100:05
I agree with Hussam in his opinion of anarchy relating to Hobbes' vision of a war of all against all and that with a degradation of government society would be complete chaos. You can see the slightest bit of panic when the news informs the public of a horrible storm that is coming, and everyone rushes out to the nearest Walmart with people fighting over the last package of bottled water. In my opinion order is maintained through societal factors reiterating what is "right" and "wrong" and without these factors there would be panic and chaos. Man is complex in rationalizing and might be okay without government for a small period of time, but when resources run out and there is a shift in thinking to survival mode, man is just like any other organism in natural selection.
ReplyDeleteKaitlin Drake PSCI 100:04
I completely agree with Austin, If anarchy would occur i believe that there would be a period of complete panic.Without any sort of government people would freak out and people would begin to do things that they wouldnt normally do.However after awhile it is inevitable that some people would band together to make things happen and create some sort of order. Thus a type of government is formed. People need order, people need to feel secure, and because of these needs there is no doubt that a government would form naturally.
ReplyDelete- Katie Seese PSCI 100:04
I agree completely, I think if anarchy continued though, and our opinions on the topic are wrong, people would really end up acting like animals if they didn't have any source of right and wrong from a higher power, yet I think no matter what, order would be attained, and a government would be put back into place, even it's a slow process and only happens from community to community.
DeleteI agree with most of what others said before me, so I apologize if it what I say is a repeat of past posts. I feel we need the government in order to have structure, rules, and protection of everyday life. Though we may not always agree with the laws that are passed we must obey them and realize they are simply in place for our own protection and security. In the day to day world individuals like to have a set schedule, list of what they can and cannot do, and know when these deadlines need to be met. A world without government, I feel, would lead to chaos because individuals day to day routines would fall out of place, thus leading to lack of structure. There would be a constant struggle to figure out what is considered “right” or “wrong” which could lead to many feuds, deaths, and complications.
ReplyDeleteThough I completely disagree with the thought of having no government if I had to chose an approach I would say a combination between Aristotle and Locke. Aristotle’s approach showed hierarchy between man and the family. This approach lead me to think that there is somewhat of a hierarchical setting being placed by Aristotle which is a good concept in placing structure in day to day life. Locke believed that the man was selfish but also rationale. A third party judge could decide what rightfully belongs to man and what is not theirs. This also provided structure in the world because two individuals weren’t fighting it out for what was said to be theirs. Instead, a third party figure was in charge and ruled out the decision. Both Aristotle and Locke showed structure and a form of a hierarchy system in their reasoning and this lead me to believe that would be best for individuals.
The government is a large, complicated, and highly judged part of our day to day lives. Many individuals are very critical when it comes to the government. I believe that though it has flaws the government is always trying to put the citizen’s best interest at hand. Though it can be frustrating at times the government only wants to protect us from harm and secure a better future ahead.
-Shelby Pendergraft PSCI 100.04
Take today for instance if there was to be no more governement or any kind of structure in our country, I feel that the world would turn into complete chaos. Many people now have their opinions about the government and how they don't do this or how they don't do that however does anyone really take the time to just stop and think what if there was no government? I believe that if our government was to collapse or just to dissolve all together our country would be in a state of anarchy that Hobbes describes. Whether people want to think it or not the government really does keep regulation and help to assist many aspects of our day to day life. Hobbes states that life without government is nasty and harsh, and I feel that would be how our country would turn too. Many of the resources that we use in our day to day life is possible because of government may it be national, state or local. Hobbes states how scarce resources would be such as water well what would we do if there was no City Water workers to make sure our water was there. Hobbes also states that man has the drive to want possessions. I cannot begin to imagine if there was no government and the lengths that people would go to for the ability to obtain the possessions that they desire.
ReplyDelete- Cassiana Roby PSCI 100.04
I really agree the most with Locke's viewpoint. I do think man is selfish, and if anarchy were to occur, man's selfishness would be so much more evident, yet I do believe there is a God who has laid out right and wrong, so I definitely don't believe that every person in an anarchal society would act as a lawless, violent, and chaotic person.
ReplyDeleteI think a good majority of society would mutually cooperate, I realize it's hard to see because of what occured in New Orleans, however the problem would be on a much larger scale then just a city. I think if it was a world-wide ordeal, after a short period of time people would come together to rebuild. Society can't be without a government forever, people want order, and people want to feel safe, and not have to be constantly on their guard.
I think life without government could have benefits, however it's impossible. Worldviews such as a radical marxist eventually see no need for government, however the means to get there are near impossible. I think people would quickly realize that they want what they work for, they want their "stuff," and comfort.
- Kyla Seaman PSCI 100.04
I think the vision on anarchy that is most likely to occur is Kropotkin’s view. I believe most people voluntarily would cooperate and give voluntary or mutual aid to each other. There will always be bad people who do bad things, but eventually I think most of the good people would end up together helping protect each other against the bad people. I still think in some places there would be some struggle of violence and people killing each other because even with government people are still killing each other everyday in the US.
ReplyDeleteI feel like life with out government would be much harder. We would not have anyone to fix the roads that we travel on or to set laws that all should follow to keep us safe. We also would not have a court system to punish the criminals that deserve to be punished. We would have to rely on punishing the criminals are self with are own ways to keep our selves safe. If there is no police force to protect us, we would have to be watching are backs and possibly be armed at all times to stay safe. The thing life with out government would offer is more freedom and fun for people because there are no laws to keep them from doing what they want to do. Even though we have more freedom I believe life with some government would be best because the government keeps us safe.
-Blake Hoffman PSCI 100.05
I would have to agree with Hobbes’s opinion on anarchy. I don’t believe the people of a nation as large, technologically advanced, and corporatized as the United States would last very long living in anarchy. I believe there are two versions of anarchy the citizens of the United States would partake in depending on the way the version of an anarchical society was thrust upon them. If the US government were simply to collapse, or essentially be destroyed by outside sources such as nuclear warfare, an EMP strike, the power grid goes out, etc. I believe people would no longer act “civilized”. If you make people scared, hungry, and turn off the power, they will turn on their best friend to ensure their own survival. When there is a dense population with very limited resources, and no authority position to keep them in line, it becomes a survival of the fittest, dog eat dog kind of world.
ReplyDeleteNow if this anarchical society was simply just given to us, because lets say government officials just somehow decide to disband all government funding and agencies so the entire US is an anarchical society; I believe the outcome may be different. Things such as public schools, roads, and many other things would no longer be funded. With such a strong political foothold large corporations have in today’s society, I see no reason why they wouldn’t capitalize on this new free market with no regulations. With no government limiting the growth of major industries, large corporations will simply own everything and become monopolies. I believe in this society you will only have two classes, the super elite running the corporations, and those that work for the corporations; the elite rich and the poor. With no government mandates, there are no rules saying these corporations have to pay you a minimum wage, provide safe working conditions, etc. I believe if this type of anarchical society were to exist, over the years it would be as bad if not worse than the sweatshops in China.
Matt Santmier PSCI 100.05
First the differences in anarchy that we are discussing are just pictures in time. Kropotkin’s version is just his vision of how he would want it to be based on his current condition. Kropotkin has government and doesn’t like it. He envisions anarchy as better than what he has. Hobbes’s version is based on his current condition as well. His government has failed and he perceives his surroundings to be anachronistic. It’s an ugly picture for him. So he envisions government as better than what he has.
ReplyDeleteI skimmed through all the posts and the common theme seemed to be government or anarchy. In our class discussions we talked about mutual cooperation without government as also being an option. I believe this too would just be a snapshot in time on an idea that is always changing due to the dynamics of the process. We live 24 and 7, 365 days a year. What we haven’t talked about much is when a person or group within society choose not to cooperate. Depending on the level, this type of action can become critical to the established hierarchy. In the Belgium example, the article I read offered two snapshots, current and future. Currently everything is fine without government and they lead the rest of the Euros in economic growth rate .7%. The future snapshot talks about the rich north wanting to remove their subsidy of the poorer south now that there is no governmental control. Apparently they don’t feel they should support the poorer people. One other point, while there is no formal government there are people in charge and they are still waging war on the issues. I wonder what the snapshot will look like if the rich north does stop subsidizing the poorer south?
Joe Woodburn PSCI 100 (40800)
If there was no government, life in the United States would be complete chaos. As much as many have major issues with the government we have today, ultimately it does create order and control throughout the nation. In an anarchy, people's ideals and values would be argued as much as they already are. The only difference would be that there wouldn't be a buffer zone (the government) to create somewhat of the idea of a happy medium. Ideas would be thrown about, argued, and even fought over with no outcome. Government controls these ideas by taking each one into consideration and making decisions based on them. They try to create a situation where the majority of the population will be pleased. Complete happiness throughout the nation is impossible. Government is the closest thing we have to creating overall happiness. In an anarchy, more anger would arise due to constant battle of ideas and no compromise, which government takes control of. Therefore, I agree more with Hobbes' theory on anarchy and how ultimately, without government, the nation would be in very bad shape due to mans naturally aggressive behavior.
ReplyDeleteOlivia Amorati PSCI 100.04
I believe all four men were correct about their presumptions about anarchy during their own times. they each had an opinion drawn from their knowledge of what politics was during their time. Anarchy is just the absence of government because without government no one knows what to do without the rules and laws that govern our actions.
ReplyDelete-- Jessica Fry 100.04
The type of government, or non-government, that one desires is directly related to the type of society in which one wants to live. The question should be, which type of government provides the best opportunity for growth, the best safety for its citizens, the most challenging and available academics for those pursuing an education, and other things that make life more livable. Government cannot actually provide most of the things for which we seek in our lives: it is up to us to find ways to be successful. However, government can provide ways in which these things can be more accessible to a wide range of its citizens. In the case of Belgium, while it is true that it has been without a formal government for nearly 500 days, this primarily affects decisions made on an international scale. For example, the interim Prime Minister has no authority to bind Belgium to treaties or agreements with foreign nations. On the other hand, Belgium still has laws which are in effect and enforced, which means that even though there is no formal parliament in place, there is still enough of an infrastructure to provide services and safety for the citizens of Belgium.
ReplyDeleteGovernment cannot have absolute power. The more power the government has, the more its citizens become subjects. Conversely, government cannot be so small as to disappear completely or be ineffective. Some form of government is necessary if there are to be enforceable laws that protect its citizens, provide for national defense, and continue to provide international agreements that keep the country competitive. A government that is checked at regular intervals by its citizens through free elections, is a critical element of any free society.
--Nicole Francesconi 100.04
I believe our current society could not function in a condition of pure anarchy. We just are not programmed to be able to function without direction. Anarchy in our current state would be a disaster. That does not mean however, we shouldn't work towards a more anarchist type of civilization.
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to imagine, but eventually anarchy could be a peaceful compromise with humans working and moving forward as one human race instead of multiple governments that separate us. Red anarchism and green anarchism are some examples of different ways anarchy can be presented.
Red anarchism supports the demolition of social hierarchies and is best social system for the realization of individual freedom. Red anarchism runs on the statement of: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Everyone is equal in a red anarchism society.
Green anarchism puts emphasis on environmental issues and the critique of institutions that are exploitative to humans. Green anarchists believe that institutions such as capitalism, the state, globalization, and many more are taking advantage of humans and the environment. They suggest that such institutions are responsible for destruction of human freedoms and the environment.
Though the two presented types of anarchy could also be taken to extremes(as with anything), they are examples of what a post-governmental society could become. If humans weren't so greedy and self-entitled, it's amazing to imagine what we could accomplish.
--Michael Skaggs 100.04
"In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people." 1776
ReplyDeleteThe American people would absolutely collapse without a form of government. Like every great Batman movie when the villain creates a state of anarchy, the general public gets drunk off the "liberty" kool-aide and they become barbarians who pillage and murder with no remorse. Those who keep their sanity then have to keep themselves and those they love safe which creates both sides fighting for their rights to "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness". Usually the Educated ban together and restore order/government.
We need to be educated; I do not know nearly as much as I should about the government. Every shareholder of America (tax-payer) should have some basic understanding. All I know is it’s not working. Any private shareholder will tell you, when an organization is consistently performing poorly, you start by reviewing the business plan/practices and replacing managers (politicians).
We need government but the current one is far too big to be regulated. This recent election was a prime example of how ridiculous our political system is. The commercials, the lies, all of the littering along highways.. I didn’t care who won, I just wanted it to be over. These same people who can’t figure out how to cut spending and find better ways to allocate money for America, raised a combined total of $1.2 billion dollars to campaign for their own personal benefit. A month later words like fiscal cliff and depression are thrown around. Middle class Americans taxes are raised; we bring home less money and Obama announces a salary increase for Congress.
“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.” – Thomas Jefferson
I think if we live in a society without government, we would be in complete fear and utter chaos. We wouldn't know what to do, where to go, and who to trust. So basically, helping/assisting old people that fall down on the side of the road, doesn't exist anymore. We would be so afraid of everything we wouldn't be able to trust an old person let alone anyone. Our main concern is suvival, so we would do everything we can that will help our well-being and not anyone else's. I agree with Hobbes because he believes that life will be a struggle. Everyone will be looting stores and homes just to protect themselves. We live in a world where there are limited resources and unlimited wants and desires. Once there is no government the wants and desires will increase rapidly which will cause the rapid decrease in limited resources. I believe that in a society without government we will have absolute freedom to do whatever we want, but this absolute freedom comes with a cost, our safety. Because it is every man for themselves we give up our security the government provides for the absolute freedom we get without a government.
ReplyDelete--Keani Chinn PSCI 100.05
I agree with Michael Skaggs that we should strive for a somewhat more anarchical system, but only to level hierarchies. Ultimately we need government for security and progression. I found Belgium's story intriguing. I looked up some more recent articles and discovered that they have reestablished a government that is democratic with a socialist leader that is so far working well. What’s interesting is that they broke the record (a little over 540 days) as a state without government, and no outrageous acts of violence or destruction occurred. People were even amused by it, but that may be because almost immediately they collectively had the mind set that a new government would one day be created. Plus, they already had a stable routine and order brought on by their past government. People weren’t confused because no one was telling them what to do every single day. They just did what they knew would work like they always had. I think much of the reason it worked out like this rather taking on a Hobbesian form of anarchy is because resources weren’t limited by war or natural disaster. Once people are scared for their lives perhaps more like the situation in Somalia, anarchy becomes less about cooperation and more about defending individuals.
ReplyDelete-Emily Jones 100.04
The effects from a collapse of government, it seems to me, would be dependent upon the society upon which it occurs. Most importantly, the degree of separation between classes. If a well defined upper (i.e. wealthy) class coexists with a equally well defined or greater lower (i.e low or moderate income) class, it seems that a violent sort form of anarchy (most similar to Hobbes view point) would prevail over a communal or productive form of anarchy. An example of this would be the United States. However, the vast size and diversity of the U.S., I believe, would prevent anarchy from prevailing in all regions. Most regions would quickly aggregate to a common interest and more importantly a common belief of how to govern (ex. Shepherdstown familial system of township), thus reestablishing or maintaining a system of governance.
ReplyDeleteIn 'communities', or nations that are small in size and more equal in class structure, it seems that a more communal form of anarchy would prevail in that common interests, sacrifices and rewards would be shared by the masses. With all that said, it is arguable whether a system of anarchy is even possible in any group of people, including bands, tribes, clans, or nations, i.e. when any three or more people come together, it is only natural for sides to be taken when disagreements occur, thus a natural governance of the 'other', thus a form of power, or government. An example could be the expelling of 'hard drug' dealers from the community of Christiania. It seems that at least a few people of the community would be against the actions of the whole, thus Christiania might better be called a commune system rather than an anarchic system.
-Severin Condon PSCI 100.05
I think one of the biggest factors that affect the outcome of an anarchic nation is demographics. With the example of Belgium, I noticed a lot of students think the reason that the country still maintained so well is because of the previously instated government and the fact that most inhabitants within Belgium assumed a new government would soon be in place. However, while these factors definitely play a part, I feel as though the physical area of a nation affected by anarchy is the biggest contributing factor. To elaborate, Belgium is surrounded by other European countries that are NOT currently in a form of anarchy and in fact have an organized government in place which, therefore, essentially creates a political "fence" around Belgium. If, hypothetically, every form of government within the entire continent of Europe suddenly collapsed, I would assume the effects would be much more catastrophic. During Belgium's recent length of anarchy, the people of Belgium realized that, for the most part, the entire world's population still had organized government. In conclusion, the only way I can see anarchy having a truly devastating effect is in the event that the majority of organized governments across the many worldly nations collapse almost simultaneously. Otherwise, as humans, we still have this governmental/societal frame of reference engraved within our very nature to act a certain way under "normal" conditions.
ReplyDelete-William Slifer PSCI 100.04
The vision of anarchy that would most likely occur would be Hobbes's vision. In today's society everyone depends on the structure that the government offers us so if it completely disappeared life would be chaos. People are so use to the laws the government has created for them so if they didn't have them to abide by then everyone would be struggling. No one would know what to do because of the change. Their natural routine would be ruined so the only thing they would know to do is fight for themselves to survive. There is no trust in the world today so for one to aide another would never happen. If the government crashed, many would not be willing to aide for another because they would be selfish and believe they need those resources to survive.
ReplyDeleteShanan Plunkett PSCI 100.04
I like the quote from Peter Kropotkin and I quote " Cooperation is more natural than coercion". The belief that people can voluntarily cooperate to meet everyone's needs, without bosses or rulers, and without sacrificing individual liberties. The main purpose of government and laws are to keep most of us under obedience of laws and order. With exception of small number of people. Most of us are able to avoid harming others and resolve our disputes without resorting to the authorities.I believe Aristotle, Hobbes , Locke and Kropotkin knowledge were drawn during their political era.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with Hobbes that our society needs a government in order to function. In a state of anarchy it would be a day to day struggle to survive. It would not make people cooperative but do the exact opposite and make everyone selfish. Our society would turn into a state of war and violence, making people live in complete fear. Our society needs laws and some kind of authoritative figure to keep it from turning into complete chaos. No one in a state of anarchy can be trusted because people will be violent and dangerous due to the fact there is no punishment for their wrong actions. People will not help others because they will only worry about their own needs and survival with limited recourses. One of the governments main function is security, and in an anarchy security is completely taken away leaving people to protect themselves. Without government our society will completely crumble which is why I agree with Hobbes and his theory about anarchy being a daily struggle to survive.
ReplyDelete-Georgia Karr PSCI 100.04
I think that in a state of anarchy people would be thinking about themselves first and formost simply because that is an instinct in order to survive. However, I think that people would be capable of, and would participat in,cooperation if presented with the benefits of it.For instance, if security/protection would result from cooperation with other people then, because it aided in survival, people would work together.
ReplyDeleteChloe Powers PSCI 100-05
Hobbes had a good idea I thought on how things would pan out if we had no gov. I think it would be survival of the fittest in this world. People in my opinion would kill for food, shelter, and water. Yes, I also think that some humans would stop and think about helping others in need if they saw something happening but if it would but them in risk they would leave. It would be a violent place because people would be running wild. I think someone would try to form a type of dictatorship with a main powerful guy at the top. Naturally someone will become a sort of leader I think but they would be a ruthless ruler.
ReplyDeleteJeffrey Martin PSCI 100.04
I am going to have to agree with Hobbes. In America a lot of people are greedy and with no government, that would play a major role as to the way life would be. I feel that everyone would feel like the have free rain to do whatever they want. Everyone would feel like they would have to fend for themselves. In America no one seems to trust one another, unless its your family, but even then families do not trust one another. This would most likely cause mass struggle. Then again, you cannot judge a book by its cover. The country might unite in a way and try to worl together to survive.
ReplyDeleteAnthony Sealock PSCI 100.05
I believe hobbes had a good a good idea of how govenment should be. I do believe if we had no government that all chaos would break out! Hobbes states that life without government is nasty and harsh, and I feel that would be how our country would turn too. Many of the resources that we use in our day to day life is possible because of government. I can't imagine life without democracy.
ReplyDeleteJohn Keener PSCI 100.05
I believe there is a chance of both visions happening. I think that when it ultimately comes down to it is the people's choice on whether it will become chaotic or if they will cooperate depending on how much they appreciate the sense of peace and security. On one side, following Kropotkins vision, the people will cooperate with one another keeping some sort of peace among them, but that also means that people that want to commit crimes are able to do so without any restrain. This will threaten the security of all the peaceful people and if they are a majority I think they will realize that a form of government is necessary in order to ensure everybody's safety and to provide security for the weak; with this being said in order to establish a government this majority needs to hold more power over their rivals. On the other hand we have Hobbes vision, stating that people will go back to their natural state which is that of a selfish being, I believe this would only happen in two cases. First one would be if the resources are very scarce and sharing would only endanger your own life, then it would make sense.The second situation would be when the people are on that brink of deciding wether they want a government or not, if the majority are people that are more prone to committing crimes, then they will not care for it and would not be concerned of the way this affects them in a long run. Again this will only be possible if this majority holds more power than the opposing side.
ReplyDeleteFernando Velez 100.04
If our government were to collapse, there would likely be a combination of cooperation and crime that erutps. I think the amount of either would depend on the area of the country - the amounts of resources and the preexisting crime rates. Areas that are economically unhealthy to begin with would likely erupt in more violence than a priviledged neighborhood would. Ultimately though, I lean the most toward Kropotkin's theory on human behavior in an anarchical situation: that man would be more cooperative than destructive. In the past, catastrophic events have tended to inspire people to help one another more so than commit crime. After Hurricane Katrina, there was a large surge of crime in the area affected, but there were many more cases of people who volunteerd to help those affected by the disaster. I think that human behavior in an anarchical situation largely depends on their condition before anarchy. As with the case in Belgium, people who have lived in a governed society, and already have their lifestyles and habits ingrained in them, are likely to continue living similar to the way they had been before anarchy.
ReplyDeleteStephon Hummer 100.04
I believe that a combination of cooperation and conflict would occur. I do not have so little faith in my fellow man that I think everyone would turn on each other but I can also see the crimes that people commit against one another and do not not think that would change would the government to collapse. If anything, I feel that people would again try to erect a sort of government and that communities of cooperating peoples would elect a sheriff or something of the sort to protect them against outsiders. But that is a very rough guess on my part.
ReplyDeleteAs I am right now I cannot decide if anarchy has something to offer that the government cannot. I have tried to think of an answer but one does not come so easily. People would have more freedom without government but I do not see how any particular freedom that we do not have under the government would be a benefit if the government were to collapse.
Ashley Loggins 100.05