Anarchy is not a practical solution to our modern age of civility. It doesn't matter how you define it - be it no rules or no rulers - society cannot thrive if there are no people who are generally accepted as the rule makers/intrepreters and the rule enforcers.
To say that there should be no law except the general rule of don't hurt your fellow man is fine and dandy - but being too generalistic is a quick recipe for disaster. I could intrepret that to mean that I can't hurt anyone on a physical level - but I can steal, lie, cheat, or trespass all I want. In an anarchy, who would intrepret the specifics of acceptable behavior? Who would enforce it? Who would punish violators?
One of my favorite philosophers, an ancient American Indian, once said: "And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not, there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away."
Now weither you accept the religious aspects or not, without the law and those who interpret/enforce it we have no justice. If you can't keep the law you can't break it. And if you can't break it, you can't be punished (nor condoned for keeping it).
I'm proud of our form of government. It's not perfect, but it could be MUCH worse. IMHO it's the best system on the face of this planet (currently). It sucks that the citizens of Afghanistan are more democratic than us, in that they have a direct vote in thier Commander-in-Chief whereas ours is picked thru electorial vote (I feel bad for all you Democratic-Party Texans!). But I do live in the most 'free-est' of nations on this planet. How cool is that?
|
Threaded Mode
