|
Anarchy: Law, Order, and Authority
|
By Punkerslut
[Hits: 19747]
|
|
Anarchy: Law, Order, and Authority
By Punkerslut
The Beginning
If a group of people were to live on an island, who wouldgovern who, how, and why? If person A suspected person B ofpossessing a deadly weapon (if this were a crime), then howcould we justify person A searching person B? Whatever reasonoffered for justification of search and seizure, it asojustifies person B searching person A. On this island, who wouldbe the government? Who would rule? Whatever can justify the ruleof person A can also justify the rule of person B. If one personis elected on the island, through some sort of Republic process,how is he justified in passing and enforcing laws? If an electedruler passes a law that anyone to wear a hat is killed, would itnot be equally justified for one dissident to make their owngovernment, passing legislation that wearing hats is acceptable?A government may be defined as a person or a persons trying toenforce a rule or regulation. And if one government can beformed by one person, with legislation passed that possessinghead fashion is illegal, so another one is not more wrong inmaking it legal. By what right would one government have theright to tell one person to do, any more than the one personwould have the right to tell what the government to do? Is thereanything intrinsically distinctive of either the individual orthe government that allows one to control the other withoutrestraint? If this individual opposed the state's regulation asmuch as the state opposed the individual's actions, how is onemore justified in controlling the other? There can be no appealto one being intrinsically right and one being intrinsicallywrong: there have been just as many bad governments as therehave been bad rebels. So, if a party of people lived on anisland, who would govern who, and how could it possibly bejustified?
Take into consideration the lack of justification forgovernment to rule anyone on this island, as for the UnitedStates to rule anyone on this land. Just as a government on theisland can oppose an individual's actions, so does our UnitedStates government oppose some of our actions, as they carry outtheir regulation. Use of Marijuana, a harmless practice, hasbeen banned by the state. By what writ can the government jailMarijuana users, any more than Marijuana users can enforce theirown regulation allowing Marijuana? If a police officer isjustified in arresting members of society who do no harm butjust commit a crime, then a citizen must be justified inarresting the government equally. There is no divine mandategiven to anyone to rule, control, and kill others, be it anypopulace member or any government. The similarities between thehypothetical island scenario and the United States governmentare undeniable. The United States government has no right torule me any more than I have a right to rule those people whomake up the government. Nor ar they justified in any of theirlegislation, and enforcing their legislation, whether it isoutlawing murder, wearing hats, or believing what you want. Thegovernment has no right to pass such laws any more than I havethe right to pass such laws.
The Middle
The Republic is a type of government where the people vote forone person to rule all. This varies from other types ofgovernments where, more or less, a ruler maintains their power.By maintaining power, I do not mean by campaigning, but ratherby an army theratening the populace. Such a ruler may be knownas a dictator or a monarch. However, there are some whostipulate that a king's rule is tryanny to the rule of anelected official. What can there be, honestly, to separate therule 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 defendingtheir land. Furthermore, both presidents and kings have acceptedbribery and corruption. What can there be to separate aDictatorship and a Republic? It still gives one person, out ofthousands, possibly millions, it gives this one person controlover the rest of the populace. And whether or not a Constitutionexists in this Monarchy or Republic, kings and presidents haveboth trampled them to pieces in the wake of their search forpower and wealth. There is one solitary difference between adictator and a president: one is elected, one is not. Thesimilarities between these two, though, is endless: their cruelsearch for power, the history of their relentlessness ineliminating enemies, they rule a population without restrain orcontrol, save the remnants of their conscience.
The United States' administration differs from that of a LatinDictatorship in one way: how they are chosen. The United Statesgoes through the process of election where we choose ourpresident, but even this failed, as the majority voted againstthe president who seized power. If there is any proof ofcorruption of power, of how a president is nothing more than adictator, then let it be this: our current president was votedagainst by the people, but he rules us anyway. His laws controlour bodies, even though we did not choose him. George W. Bush isnot in power because he was elected. He is in power because ofhis army, because of his secret, underground spy network whichkeeps tabs on +300 million American suspects. The differencebetween a Republic and a Dictatorship is election, but bothgovernments 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, anymorethan I have the right to detain the police officer? How isapresident more qualified to rule a populace than a dictator? Whyis it so impossible to imagine a society that rules itself, withDirect Democracy, and no leaders or police officers?
www.punkerslut.com
For Life, Punkerslut
|
|
|
|
