A World Without Government
Could "we" survive in a world without government?
We could survive in a world without government. Whether or not we would be civilized, progressive, and intelligent is another question. Without the structure of some form of government--whether it be big or small--it would be difficult to ensure that every individual will treat the environment and each other with respect: or basic humanity. Even with the limiting laws we have now, most to protect other citizens, there are people who do not acknowledge them or respect others with humanity. However it is difficult to judge if the lack of laws would change the way we behave. There have been few societies that I have learned about that have absolutely no government or laws, making it difficult to determine if no government would be more beneficial. With the deep rooted desire to rebel, it is possible we break the rules because rules exist in the first place. It is also possible that without government or laws, then people would not feel the need to commit what we consider crimes. In the lawless land Caliban lives on in The Tempest, he feels no need or desire to commit crimes. However when Stephano and Trinculo visit, they bring with them their desire to break the law. Caliban was rather isolated in this utopia, but still can demonstrate how a society free of rule can succeed; most especially where "crime" has never existed before. It is in a society free from previous ideas of crime and desire to break the rules that we would best survive in a world without government.
We could survive in a world without government. Whether or not we would be civilized, progressive, and intelligent is another question. Without the structure of some form of government--whether it be big or small--it would be difficult to ensure that every individual will treat the environment and each other with respect: or basic humanity. Even with the limiting laws we have now, most to protect other citizens, there are people who do not acknowledge them or respect others with humanity. However it is difficult to judge if the lack of laws would change the way we behave. There have been few societies that I have learned about that have absolutely no government or laws, making it difficult to determine if no government would be more beneficial. With the deep rooted desire to rebel, it is possible we break the rules because rules exist in the first place. It is also possible that without government or laws, then people would not feel the need to commit what we consider crimes. In the lawless land Caliban lives on in The Tempest, he feels no need or desire to commit crimes. However when Stephano and Trinculo visit, they bring with them their desire to break the law. Caliban was rather isolated in this utopia, but still can demonstrate how a society free of rule can succeed; most especially where "crime" has never existed before. It is in a society free from previous ideas of crime and desire to break the rules that we would best survive in a world without government.
You brought up an interesting point, and I wanted to respond to this post because it almost changed the way I viewed this question. I was considering "survival" without government to be the survival of our institutions and current life, however, you interpreted it as the survival of the human species. Without a government, could we exist? Perhaps, but as you say, what sort of life would this be? Without the safety and security of government life could devolve into a much more primal, yet still conceivable, hierarchy of survival of the fittest. I question the idea that people will not commit crimes simply because they do not know what a law is. Stephano and Trinculo were exposed to government, corruption, and social orders of their home land, so this they did bring with them to the island as you say. Without consequences for their actions they are more inclined to break crimes that exist back home. However, I also think that people have this natural inclination to gain an advantage. Without government we might not have the motivations to commit certain crimes (ones that might benefit a social or political situation in a country but not in the wild), yet people would also might be more inclined to commit violence against another human being if it pertained to their survival. If they had more food or a better area of resources, there is nothing stopping a physically stronger group or individual from simply taking it. So, I believe that government is not the only reason that humans commit atrocities that are now called "crimes." Why have laws at all if there was no precedent before they existed? Why have a government if humans were simple beings who did not have any motivation to harm someone else?
ReplyDelete