The institution of anarchy upon America would wreak greater havoc than any politician.
Yes
Side Score: 16
|
No
Side Score: 23
|
|
|
|
We didn't spend the last many thousand years clawing ourselves out of a state of anarchy because it was so great there. Of course it would. Institute anarchy and kiss all the following goodbye: Transportation infrastructure Coherent national military Justice system National power grid Public utilities Any effective higher education etc... Side: yes
2
points
2
points
1
point
2
points
The government does so much to ensure that things run smoothly in the country. With Anarchy there is way to effectively make sure that these manners are taken care of. Imagine this; there are hundreds of government agencies out there. Each one does something to ensure the public good. Without these all hell can possibly break loose... which is something that is not needed. Keep in mind that it is pretty much impossible for a single politician to influence any change in our government. Along with this goes the idea that it takes much more than one branch --or even level-- of government to influence a change upon society. We have government for a reason. Side: yes
1
point
There is no way a politician wreaks more havoc than anarchy. Anarchy has hardly been truly practiced at any time, so the practicalities are impossible to anticipate and tangible even in the worst imaginable atmosphere. In the a list of anarchist communities, they mostly consist of economic anarchy rather than law free anarchy or ungoverned. [2] However, there has been ungoverned communities, which was only after the failure of government. [3] Without government, chaos and lawlessness would reign supreme over the land. Ever see a post apocalyptic movie. Pick from of these media and then think 10 times worse. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Side: yes
Those on the no side do not seem to have a proper understanding of anarchy. It means everyone for themselves, and is actually virtually impossible for humans since we are social creatures. Even without laws officially all but the most sociopathic in society would have and follow some basic form of self-government - not to mention friends and family which would form mini-socities and it would in no way even remotely resemble anarchy anyway. Literally the only difference, if our official form of goverment were to somehow topple, is all the anarchists would be following slightly different rules, but without life's luxuries like roads and food. Have fun with that. Side: yes
|
2
points
Of Course Anarchy can't cause as much disaster as a politician. At a certain point Anarchy balances itself. Those that are weak are killed off and those that are strong reach a point of self interest that allows them to maintaing their own little fifedoms but not interfere in each others worlds balance is acheived. Our goverment has no such checks. They keep weakening the strong to support and prop up the weak. There is no balance because at a certain point the constant support of the weak dis-incents the strong to support themselves and so comes a sudden shift to everyone wanting support. As everyone knows from buildng houses of cards without someone doing the supporting everything comes crashing down. Side: No
You do understand WHERE anarchy balances itself right? I'll give you a hint. It's not at a point where there are functioning public services and a national power grid and an organized national military and a functioning justice system and maintained transportation infrastructure and well established education systems... Side: yes
There is no such thing as "strong" or "weak" person in a general sense. A person who was born into a wealthy family and had therefore better chance of entrance into ivy league schools, and better chance of getting a position in society - is that person "stronger" in any real sense than lets say somone born in worse circumstances. The problems we face in life are too complex that there can be a quantifiable measurment of general strength and weaknesses of people - You always have to take such measurements in context. Our environment is not a level playing field, and therefore you cant say that winners (in the game of life) are neccesarilly stronger (although sometimes they are) Side: yes
It could, right now the country of Somalia has a weak national government and the result is that various warlords run certain regions. Seeing as they don't care all that much about the people living in those regions the standard of living is rather poor. On the flip side, a self-righteous politician can cause far more damage. Example, Hitler, need I say more? Side: No
1
point
Hitler came to power through a democratic election. I suppose it is possible for a psychopath to come to power by uniting people during a state of anarchy, but it is also possible to for a person to use demagoguery to rise to power over an unpopular leader as well. The difference would be that the elected person would have more power and authority seeing as both the people and the army would be on his side. Meanwhile in a system of anarchy the leader would be competing against other factions would have their own armies and supporters. Though I am mostly basing my answer on the the question which asked is "The institution of anarchy upon America would wreak greater havoc than any politician." Keyword here is "any", while I think that anarchy would cause greater destruction seeing as America has yet to have our own Hitler I find that it would be foolish to rule out the possibility. Side: No
|