Why not let the people govern?
2006-11-25 05:21:27 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
On definition of anarchy is: political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control.
So people wouldn't govern... no one would.
2006-11-25 05:25:40 · answer #1 · answered by hungryhart 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
By definition in a state of anarchy no one is governing. That is why it is called anarchy. The idea of people governing themselves directly would be closer to Socialism.
2006-11-25 05:24:41 · answer #2 · answered by Bryan 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Not too sharp.
The people do not govern in anarchy.
2006-11-25 05:53:53 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
because society would tear itself apart. that's why.
ok let's say we overthrow the government through anarchy and all police forces are toppled and there are no rules or laws and power is given to the people.
what do you think happens next? welfare and social security vanishes and the recipients run out of money and food. so they take to the streets and the crime rate rises. you'll have to learn how to protect your home by yourself since there is no police force to protect you and people are trying to break into your home daily to rob you of all you have.
then with no military to protect our country, how long do you think it would take before we are invaded and taken over?
use your head!!!!
2006-11-25 06:27:28 · answer #4 · answered by locksmithite 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
anarchy is resistance to government. So that means no government. Which is pretty much what we have now.
Think we lost our federal government it is in the middle east.
2006-11-25 05:58:25 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Anarchy is absence of government.
The people could govern if they wanted to.
But there are those who wish to be controlled and those that refuse to be controlled.
Who's your daddy?
2006-11-25 05:36:17 · answer #6 · answered by Rob in NY 2 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Laws govern. Some body politic must make the laws.
People look for ways to avoid being governed by the laws.
People in general are basically selfish.
There is nothing special about rebellion.
2006-11-25 05:36:06 · answer #7 · answered by ? 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Isn't it nothing more than a transition; interim time of no government until the next mob takes power. Who will protect the nation from foreign forces that come in to take your stuff? Who will protect your home from hoodlums that come in to take your stuff? Who will enforce your contracts when -- say the bank -- take your car b/c they can resell it again to somebody else?
2006-11-25 05:41:41 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
"Let the people govern."
^ A democracy, not anarchy.
Anarchy would be chaos. That's why not. We need a SMALL but still an existing government.
2006-11-25 05:40:57 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I believe in minimalist government, that is, just enough government to secure the natural rights of the People and to enforce the Law of the People (i.e., the Constitution). Anything more than that is excess government.
2006-11-25 05:32:06 · answer #10 · answered by Paladin 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋