Aliza Brownell                                                                                                                        AP Government 5^th

 

Government: authoritative direction or control; the

organization, machinery, or agency through which

a political unit exercises authority and performs

functions and which is usually classified according

to the distribution of power within it.

 

            Anarchy: absence of government ; a state

             of lawlessness or political disorder due to the

absence of governmental authority; a utopian

society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom

without government.

 

             In reality, civilization requires a well-balanced government to exist. If government disappeared, “disorder takes the place of regularity, force and will no longer act together, and the State is dissolved and falls into despotism or anarchy.”[i] Life as we perceive it exists not without government. The human mentality resembles that of a pack animal, natural leaders keep the rest of the herd safe. This ingrained instinct can not simply be bucked off at the first whim of displeasure with the governing sovereign or body; the animalistic, mid-brain neurological pathways need the presence of a wiser being to trust; to follow; to lean on. We simply can not give up these desires for safety anymore than a horse gives up the opportunity to drink; these instincts exist to preserve our bodies and further the human race. Simply put; Anarchism clashes with the most basic of human survival instincts.

            The commonly held perception about anarchism differs from what most anarchists actually believe in. "Anarchism does not mean bloodshed; it does not mean robbery, arson, etc. These monstrosities are, on the contrary, the characteristic features of capitalism. Anarchism means peace and tranquility to all."[ii] In publications all around the world, the term “anarchist” is synonymous to terrorist or even “political nutcase”. Few so-called “anarchists” fit these descriptions, yet they don’t quite understand what life would be like without consequences to one’s actions, or a set of regulations for all to live by. Ideally,  since  humans have over-developed frontal lobes, functioning on a moral standard in a utopian society should be possible. Life would be rather similar to the idealistic view of Communism; Life would be good, everyone would be equal, plenty of food and the workers are oppressed no longer. Further more, life would resemble pure hedonism as “Anarchists believe that the highest attainment of humanity is the freedom of the individual to express himself, unhindered by any form of repression or control from without.” [iii]

            Onto a more personal and realistic view, life without a governing body (anarchy) would be exactly what the anarchists deny; pure chaos. I think our society would erupt into a hedonistic riot similar to a Jerry Springer episode. While the theory of free expression is to be desired, a lack of outward controls would result in a lack of control on the behalf of one’s self. If there are no consequences to smacking your neighbor on the head with a big stick, since of course you were expressing yourself in the process of bludgeoning him to death, there is nothing to stop you from killing your neighbor, or indeed to stop someone from similarly killing you. All the anarchist literature I read suggests that the right of self-control only exists if one avoids violating the rights of those around them, yet if the self-control doesn’t work, that right of self control will be taken away. My question is: Who then takes control? Doesn’t that directly violate everything said about anarchy? If anarchy in the idealistic state exists, a need for a secret police would arise, one thing leads to another, and another Stalin arises, with another Yagoda[iv] or Beria[v] carrying out his nasty purges. Inherently the problem lies with human nature, not anarchy itself; therefore a lack of government can not exist.