Anarchy: Law, Order, and Authority
Anarchy: Law, Order, and Authority
By Punkerslut
The Beginning
If a group of people were to live on an island, who would
govern who, how, and why? If person A suspected person B of
possessing a deadly weapon (if this were a crime), then how
could we justify person A searching person B? Whatever reason
offered for justification of search and seizure, it aso
justifies person B searching person A. On this island, who would
be the government? Who would rule? Whatever can justify the rule
of person A can also justify the rule of person B. If one person
is elected on the island, through some sort of Republic process,
how is he justified in passing and enforcing laws? If an elected
ruler passes a law that anyone to wear a hat is killed, would it
not be equally justified for one dissident to make their own
government, passing legislation that wearing hats is acceptable?
A government may be defined as a person or a persons trying to
enforce a rule or regulation. And if one government can be
formed by one person, with legislation passed that possessing
head fashion is illegal, so another one is not more wrong in
making it legal. By what right would one government have the
right to tell one person to do, any more than the one person
would have the right to tell what the government to do? Is there
anything intrinsically distinctive of either the individual or
the government that allows one to control the other without
restraint? If this individual opposed the state's regulation as
much as the state opposed the individual's actions, how is one
more justified in controlling the other? There can be no appeal
to one being intrinsically right and one being intrinsically
wrong: there have been just as many bad governments as there
have been bad rebels. So, if a party of people lived on an
island, who would govern who, and how could it possibly be
justified?
Take into consideration the lack of justification for
government to rule anyone on this island, as for the United
States to rule anyone on this land. Just as a government on the
island can oppose an individual's actions, so does our United
States government oppose some of our actions, as they carry out
their regulation. Use of Marijuana, a harmless practice, has
been banned by the state. By what writ can the government jail
Marijuana users, any more than Marijuana users can enforce their
own regulation allowing Marijuana? If a police officer is
justified in arresting members of society who do no harm but
just commit a crime, then a citizen must be justified in
arresting the government equally. There is no divine mandate
given to anyone to rule, control, and kill others, be it any
populace member or any government. The similarities between the
hypothetical island scenario and the United States government
are undeniable. The United States government has no right to
rule me any more than I have a right to rule those people who
make up the government. Nor ar they justified in any of their
legislation, and enforcing their legislation, whether it is
outlawing murder, wearing hats, or believing what you want. The
government has no right to pass such laws any more than I have
the right to pass such laws.
The Middle
The Republic is a type of government where the people vote for
one person to rule all. This varies from other types of
governments where, more or less, a ruler maintains their power.
By maintaining power, I do not mean by campaigning, but rather
by an army theratening the populace. Such a ruler may be known
as a dictator or a monarch. However, there are some who
stipulate that a king's rule is tryanny to the rule of an
elected official. What can there be, honestly, to separate the
rule of a dictator and the rule of an elected official?
Historically, both are prone to commit the most atrocious acts,
often defending themselves with the idea that they are defending
their land. Furthermore, both presidents and kings have accepted
bribery and corruption. What can there be to separate a
Dictatorship and a Republic? It still gives one person, out of
thousands, possibly millions, it gives this one person control
over the rest of the populace. And whether or not a Constitution
exists in this Monarchy or Republic, kings and presidents have
both trampled them to pieces in the wake of their search for
power and wealth. There is one solitary difference between a
dictator and a president: one is elected, one is not. The
similarities between these two, though, is endless: their cruel
search for power, the history of their relentlessness in
eliminating enemies, they rule a population without restrain or
control, save the remnants of their conscience.
The United States' administration differs from that of a Latin
Dictatorship in one way: how they are chosen. The United States
goes through the process of election where we choose our
president, but even this failed, as the majority voted against
the president who seized power. If there is any proof of
corruption of power, of how a president is nothing more than a
dictator, then let it be this: our current president was voted
against by the people, but he rules us anyway. His laws control
our bodies, even though we did not choose him. George W. Bush is
not in power because he was elected. He is in power because of
his army, because of his secret, underground spy network which
keeps tabs on +300 million American suspects. The difference
between a Republic and a Dictatorship is election, but both
governments give unfair power to one person to rule all people,
and both are productive of heartless, cruel atrocities.
The Ending
By what right does a police officer have to detain me, anymore
than I have the right to detain the police officer? How isa
president more qualified to rule a populace than a dictator? Why
is it so impossible to imagine a society that rules itself, with
Direct Democracy, and no leaders or police officers?
www.punkerslut.com
For Life, Punkerslut