English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I know it sounds stupid, but I’m such a grade-A moron when it comes to politics… anybody can help me on this, please?

BTW, is anarchy is a good stuffs? Will we ever have such anarchy in USA? Is anarchy as good as democracy as governmental system?

Besides democracy, what is the best system for American people? What about the others (outside America)? If democracy were the best system ever, why then it didn’t work in some part of this world?

2007-01-03 00:09:00 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

12 answers

Advantage to anarchy is total freedom to do whatever, whenever you want.

Disadvantage to anarchy is total freedom to do whatever, whenever you want, in particular to other people.

People are basically greedy and wicked. There is a contention that people know internally what is proper and just for themselves and others. In fact, I wish I could remember what the author's name is, but he was on The Dennis Prager Show, saying that our understanding of ethics is evolving, and becoming more precise, but it is internal. But I think it is society's understanding of ethics that is evolving. Society is an agreement on moral values and a contract that the members of the society will follow those rules on ethics. For example, as a society, people, in at least western civilization, have agreed that murder is unethical, but killing someone, when the other person means to kill you or others, is just, unfortunate, but just. So we have these informal rules for moral behavior. But we need a system to enforce these rules. Enter government. One of government's roles is to impartially enforce the rules, thus the need for laws. Laws and the government, therefore, limit freedom. But the option is total freedom to disregard the rules.

Of course, the rules change over time. This comes from the modern debate which is founded in the ancient Socratic Method.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method

Now this is just formation of government. There are varying degrees to the influence of government. In true democracy, people directly rule, with people voting on laws themselves. This is cumbersome, due to the minutia that people would have to decide in a big country, like the US. To my knowledge, true democracy has only been practiced in ancient Athens, and it was only open to wealthy landowners. In our representative republic, which we euphemistically call "democracy", we elect people to decide what the laws will be, and they are accountable to us if we don't like the laws. In this manner we give up some freedoms of decision, for practicality, and social order. It an autocratic system, people have limited to no say in their government and laws, but there is absolute order, and very limited freedom.

The reason our "democracy" doesn't allows work in other countries, is social structure. Not every culture defines it values on morality, but some define it on honor, where face value is more important than ethics. For example, as we see in Iraq, sectarian rule is more important than stability to the people that are fighting the civil war. They feel that their sect is more important than cooperative rule and peace. They are fighting for the whole political pie, rather than living peacefully within Iraq, with a piece of the pie.

More on honor vs. morality based culture, an answer I just gave:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AhpqvE.0ovKJZ6c6YI9MxzXsy6IX?qid=20070102064325AAzBRsv&show=7#profile-info-b6f8289d037a50c2fa2976cf19355670aa

For the question of what is best. Our system of government. It is a balance of "democracy" and practicality and freedom. Considering the broad scope of government structures, I don't understand why today's Democrats and Republicans don't get along better, because their views aren't that different. In reality, it is a question of details in government and social structure.

2007-01-03 03:11:32 · answer #1 · answered by robling_dwrdesign 5 · 0 0

Well, I think anarchy is actually better than democracy. You get to choose everything. A republic/democracy is the best type of government DISCOVERED. In a democracy, the majority rules, and usually, one little vote counts really little. It won't make a difference unless it something is evenly tied or a candidate is one vote behind another. So basically, democracy has its flaws. On the other hand, if a place was an anarchy, too many people would do bad things. People would do bad things to other people.

In my opinion, anarchy is better. There will never be a perfect government, but there will never be an anarchist country either.

2007-01-03 16:13:09 · answer #2 · answered by Vladimir Lenin 3 · 0 0

With the real world that we have today, there would be no advantages with no government. Anyone that believes so is just a person that has a problem with authority.

Anarchy in a pure form is a really good idea and concept. I say idea and concept because when applied to the world and civilization that we live today, it just could not work. We would end up killing each other off.

Sure, not having a government or people ordering us around would be a nice thing. If humans were peaceful caring creatures that could co-exist without disagreement, then yes it would be okay to not have governments because we would not need them. Men must be governed. Anarchy is flawed.

Think about how things would be if we applied the theory of no government whatsoever to humankind today. Humankind just the way it is today. One of the bigges problems with humans is greed. One person wants something another person has who stops him from taking it from the guy and maybe killing him over it? Then the brother of the dead guy wants revenge so he kills him and so on and so on. The whole point is that the flaw with anarchy is humans and human nature.

If there was nothing set to govern or enforce rules and regulations, the world would just be a chaotic place. There would be no utopia that some mislead people think there would be if all the governments of the world were to just stop working immediately and left everything up to each person to fend for themselves.

2007-01-03 10:09:03 · answer #3 · answered by deftonehead778 4 · 0 0

I do not know of anywhere that Democracy has not worked. I know of countries wher it was overthrown by people wanting to be dictators, but overall it works better than any other form of government. Socially and economically. All the top countries in the world have some form of Democracy or capitalism in place. Even China is moving towards a capitalistic society.
Anarchy-I and everyone else can do as they please? Lets see I like your house I throw you out and take it. No law to stop me. I want your wife I shoot the husband and take her. Who cares if she is not willing. There is only the law of survival.

2007-01-03 08:16:30 · answer #4 · answered by mark g 6 · 0 0

The concept of countries came into existance because some group of people or a strong individual took and held power over a piece of land and he people living there. If we have no government at all, there would always be someone trying to take all or a piece for himself. Lebanon for the past 30 years or so is a fair example.

The existance of a government insures the existance of the country. If the U.S. had no government, Mexico and Canada might start fighting over parts they think should rightfully belong to them. Spain would want Florida back, the Cherokee might want their ancestral lands back . . . . . . It could go on forever.

Having a government that is based on democratic principles, as designed in the U.S. means that the people have a means of getting rid of a leadership that does not serve the needs of the nation.

Bullets or ballots is the choice.

2007-01-03 08:31:26 · answer #5 · answered by John H 6 · 0 0

That’s just it, it not a government system.

Anarchy itself is without governments and higher power.


It may sound good, but it would transform a highly industrialized country like the United States into Somalia in the terms of morality and economics within months.

Not to mention the lack of:

* Public Education
* Social Security
* Military
* Corporate laws and regulations

2007-01-03 08:19:12 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

anarchy, THE LORD OF THE FLYS' did you read it? Rule of the strongest. No good at all ever.

2007-01-03 09:58:24 · answer #7 · answered by swamp elf 5 · 0 0

We had anarchy during Katrina.

Anarchy isn't all it's cracked up to be.

2007-01-03 08:16:28 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

disadvantages: without a government you could run naked and free through your town singing "I want to break free", and drink shampoo whenever you feel like it.

advantages: protection against the demon bananas

2007-01-03 08:15:16 · answer #9 · answered by Melvin the retarded emu 4 · 0 0

Advantage? No one to waste the money that YOU EARN!

Disadvantage? None

2007-01-03 09:24:00 · answer #10 · answered by junglejoe 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers