Thoreau is GENIUS!
“If the alternative is to keep all just men in prison, or give up war and slavery, the State will not hesitate which to choose” (1546).
This quote is an example of why we should not have government. Either consequence of the State’s actions is negative, so given this point, I see no point in a system of government. Applying this to modern times, it’s easy to see that, in fact, just men are kept in prison and war and slavery are still an issue around the world (not so much slavery in America, but in the rest of the world.)
What is X? X is a passage that gives two side effects of government, both negative and real. It states that in ‘choosing’ between these two horrors, government must make a decision despite the fact that both are bad.
What does X do? X illustrates the way in which government is, in a sense, a bad thing. Either way the state must choose between negative effects of their policy and actions. It also proves a point about why there is no need for government, in this case, for obvious reasons.
What does X mean? X means that, at least in this case, government is a bad thing. When the state is forced to choose to put innocent men in jail to avoid something equally as bad (war and slavery), they will choose with the ‘least’ consequences, yet there are terrible consequences no matter what.
“Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it” (1539).
Considering that Thoreau points out that government should be obtained more according to the say of the people is a valid reason of why there should be people, however this idea is unfortunately not really a part of American government today despite the idea of ‘democracy’.
What is X? X is a passage that gives somewhat of reason for having government, but it also sets forth somewhat of a ‘criteria’ in obtaining it, that is, government should be obtained through more consent of the people rather than the State.
What does X do? X makes the reader aware that the basis for government should be based on more just principles -- that the people should have more of a say in the creation of government through even the idea of direct democracy.
What does X mean? X means that, in a sense, our government has too much power and should have been (because it wasn’t…) based more on the say and ideas of the people rather than the State or a legislative body.
“It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right” (1539).
This passage illustrates that government, in terms of law, is unnecessary considering that man is perfectly capable, in most cases, to guide his actions through simply morals and common sense.
What is X? X is a quote that directly states that man himself should have rights rather those governed/enforced by law.
What does X do? X, at least to me, illustrates a point that people are perfectly capable of governing themselves through their own ideas and morals rather than those dictated by the ideas of the State, which are translated into laws that they set forth.
What does X mean? X, again, means pretty much the same as what X does. (I’m having a hard time distinguishing my ideas here!…) To me X means that people don’t need government and law to tell them what to do because through human nature, morals, and community, people can govern themselves.
-Erica
the right
I think I'm too much of a cynic to think that humanity is capable of the Marxist anarchy that would call for a withering of the state. The big problem is that it doesn't take a lot of people to make an otherwise workable situation go bad. What Thoreau doesn't acknowledge is the way John Locke's state of nature has to work in order for there to be minimal or no need for government. I would agree, though, with those who think government has become too invasive or intrusive. In some ways we can argue for it. If someone doesn't wear a seatbelt and they bash their head in, but live, someone has to pay for that. There are plenty of people like that in various situations who fob off their responsibility, through lack of education, lack of smarts or just plain selfishness (that's the Puritan side of me speaking). They leave the mess for others to pick up. Would we just rely on right thinking people to make this right in the end? Let these people suffer the consequences if no one wants to help? and this doesn't go to the issue of infrastructure--assuming we still want roads, fire protection and the like. How does that sort of thing come to be without government or some sort? Bradley
....
Well I think that most people would work toward the common 'happiness' and well being of their fellow man.
It follows that one would generally contribute to society simply because their quality of life would be negatively affected, somewhat, if they didn't.
I also think that less goverment would promote and invoke a sense of community in people and it would definitely even out to a huge sense of equality among people.
-Erica
hard to say
I agree that most people will do what's right. If I didn't think that, I could be a teacher at any level. Now, I have a chicken and an egg question. I would like to agree that it follows that people will do the right thing because it will enhance their life. That's reasonable and rationale, but I don't know that enough people are actually reasonable and rationale. If we don't know them yet, we all will know the drug addict or alcoholic or meth tweaker who is destroying themselves and many of those around them. There will always be people seeking an easier, softer way to happiness, unwilling or unable to accept the pains of living. How might we address that sort of thing? Also, in Locke's state of nature, he allows for people to, in essence, get rich as long as they don't unfairly exploit others. What do we do when people don't adhere to this?
This is a chicken and egg question because maybe we have addiction problems because of the way society works, and if we could get people to care more about others, we'd have less addiction, but that genie is already out of the bottle. Bradley
your first quote..
So in your first quote you say how we the quote proves we shouldn't have government... But without government we wouldn't really have a mediator in things. So crazy people would be free to run. Do you think you would feel more safe like that? Another thing too is sex offenders wouldn't be required to register as one. What if your neighbor was one, wouldn't you like to know?
And yes, the government does bad but without it where would we be? and yes, just people get kept in prison which is not good but bad people are there too. Would you rather it be a few good people left in there or all the bad ones out? I know its like you would want all the good people out and all the bad ones in but our system sometimes gets screwed up. We must find ways to make both work. what do you think?
-Alyssa
but
If you look at all of the happenings involving today's government, you will also see what Erica was saying by no government. They are not so much as mediators today, but rather dictators: the government oppresses Americans not living by example of the "American Dream" and going against their beliefs. Without government, we wouldnt be fed the lies we are today.
---Katelyn Eyford
Representative
Despite its faults, our government is hardly a dictatorship. We have a representative government that the people of America vote for. It is our duties as Americans to vote for the people who best represent our interests.
Joy Clark
No one said that...
No one really referred to the government as a dictatorship, although sometimes I feel like it could be headed that way...
-Erica
Bright Idea
I think its interesting how even though they had the "criteria" to make a government by the people they still choose to ignore that. Why would they keep a governement by the state when so many people objected to it and there were so many people with really good ideas?
.::Joanna::.
chaos?
I also get the sense that you think that people can be just fine without government. I think that could cause a lot of chaos and disorder,and i think we would loose a lot without a government. People would be in a constant state of fear because there is no one in control and there would be fear of what could happen tomorrow. I can't imagine what it would be like without a government.
Nope
Well if there was never American government, like Thoreau talked about, how would we know that it would be chaos?
It would be accepted as the way of life just as we accept our government as a way of life already.
-Erica
Look at the Indians
I would say that the indians are a good example of a civilization without the American government. I agree that it was hardly chaotic, but it was also hardly without government. Each group governed themselves and followed a leader who they put their trust in simply because they were the strongest one. I can see several severe faults in this type of living. They were all disbanded, with no real unity. They were not a country or even close to a country. Also, there was quite a bit of fighting between tribes. That worked for that time. But if the increases in the people of the tribes and the increases in technology that have advanced our society today would have come among them, then chaos probably would have ensued.
Joy Clark
What About Africa
There are still tribes in Africa and many other places all over the world that have never had any sense of government yet still belong to a country and they seem to be getting along as well as they were thousands of years ago. For instance do you think there aren't tribes in Kenya and Botswana and even the Indigenous Aborigines people of Australia that don't have a set of laws and guidlines, a voting system, and government regulations, but have managed to stay out of "Chaos" and "Disbandment"
Sometimes its as though the simplest group of people can teach the rest of the world a thing or two.
-Danny Syme
Umm... no offense, but do
Umm... no offense, but do you have any idea what your talking about?
Africa is known throughout its history for being a prime example of tribal warfare and tribes not getting along. As for your example of Kenya, recent elections have produced conflict between tribes, a quick search on the web found this article..
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/06/AR200801...
And the tribal conflict goes deeper than just electoral upsets.
Another good example is Nigeria. There is alot of tension between ebos and yorubas, yet they have little to no government...
I could list off numerous other countries in Africa that have little to no government and arent all hugs and kisses, but sadly I need to do the current journal and go to bed, maybe tomorrow.
Also, I dont proclaim myself as an African historian but I have been there twice and am going again this summer, know/have friends there, and have gained my share of knowledge while being there to make these arguments.
None Taken.
Has the fighting and country developmentcaused the native tribes to quite living tribal life? Fighting is part of nature and you can never really escape it, think about the gangs here, are they no more than a tribe with firearms as opposed to traditional weapons.
My goal wasn't to say that everyone in Africa or Elsewhere lives happily ever after, it wasn't to point out that they don't fight, but it was in fact to prove that peoples with no government can and do survive in the modern day world.
tribal governance
While I think we can say that some indigenous cultures lack a government as we know it, they don't lack governance. They have live by a set of rules or a code, they may defer to a village elder when questions are beyond the individual to solve. The same is true with gangs: there will be a hierarchy of sorts, a set of guidelines and rules that govern behavior. Bradley
could it exist?
Webster defines government as "authroitative direction or control...moral conduct or behavior..."
It is hard for me to imagine having a group of people interacting without any rules, which could also be interpereated as codes or morals to live by. With that in mind, do you believe it is even possible to have a society without government?
source:www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary
Government
You say that you see no point in a system of Government after reading this essay. Is that just the feeling you got from the essay or do you actually believe that? Personally, one of the greatest things I fear is anarchy in a country and that is what we would be plunged into if the government were abolished.
Joy Clark
Well I guess this scares you,
Joy,
Yes, I do believe in anarchy, for the most part. Why is it something that you fear so much? To be more specific, how would you know what would happen if America were an anarchy, considering it never really was? I jsut don't really see a logical 'basis' for your 'fear'.
-Erica
Anarchy
I just consider everything that is governed by the government and think of what would happen if they were gone. For instance, the government issues money. This allows our economy to thrive. If the government were obliterated, then the value of the dollar would crash especially with regards to foreign trade. Then, without an economic base, the people of the U.S.A. (who are not agraculturally based) would have to find some other means of support. Many people would lose their jobs. Also, police would lose their authority. This would cause sex offenders and thieves to be able to ravage the cities at their free will. Of course, honest citizens would not stand for this, and would probably take the criminal justice into their own hands and go after the offenders possibly executing them through their own means (since there would be no more prisons or jails). I also forsee alcohol abuse increasing since there would no longer be any more age restrictions on alcohol (not that people under 21 can't get it, but it is controlled to some extent) as well as the fact that the crashing economy and lack of criminal justice would depress people and drive them to drink. There would also be no more laws about drinking and driving which would result in more car accidents. There would also be no more traffic laws so that everyone could drive as fast as they wanted to, and probably faster than they are able to control their cars which would also result in more traffic fatalities and accidents. As you can see, my ideas about anarchy are not very appealing, so this is why I fear it. Now your second question. How would I know what would happen if America were an anarchy? Through educated postulation. Now I have some questions for you. How do you know that an anarchtic America would turn out to be good? Do you trust the whole American race as a whole to maintain perfect law and order after there is no more law and order? Don't you think that faced by anarchy the whole country would be fragmented into small groups of people trying to survive and doing so without regards to the people around them? And finally, wouldn't you prefer the government we have, with all its faults, to a government, or lack of government, that could take a terrible turn for the worse at any moment?
Joy Clark
To answer that, generally...
I have very little trust in the intentions of the American government. Yes, the do have good regulations, don't get me wrong and think I'm saying it's all bad.
Furthermore, I don't know for sure that anarchy in American would be good, I'm just basing my ideas off of my beliefs and opinions about the country, as are you, which is perfectly acceptable.
Have you thought about some of the terrible infringes on, per say, human privacy, that the government thinks is ok? The patriot act!?!?!?!
I think what Dan said about you 'committing' the slippery slope fallacy is a little true, in this case...
-Erica
The American Government
When you talk about the American government you lump all of them into one catagory. It seems to me that the government is hardly one person. It is a representative group of people that we, (or at least our parents have voted for). And honestly, if there is really that much strife against the Patriot Act, the people of the U.S.A. will get mad and this November elect an overwhelming majority of people into congress who do not like the Patriot Act and they will appeal it. The U.S.A. has a system of checks and balances for that reasons: so the people of the United States can take action against parts of the system that they don't believe in.
Joy Clark
How can you say that?
Congress were the ones who have more power from the patriot act so why would they not support it?
-Erica
it's happening
Many in Congress who initially supported the USA PATRIOT Act are now working to weaken or eliminate it, so it's a reasonable thing to say. Given the trend, many of the more conservative members of Congress who were behind it are less likely to have the necessary support in Congress, and quite possibly the White House, to stem the tide. So, while I think it safe to see the errors of the Act, and even many conservatives (such as Idaho representatives, believe it or not) are going to do what they can to at least weaken the more unsavory elements. Joy is right in this aspect, though it would have been nice had it never happened.
By the way, here's the full name of the act, which we know by its acronym: Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism. I can assure you a lot of thought, too much thought, went into this name in order to enhance the palatability of the legislation. Bradley
This would be a good thing...
You said, "Also, police would lose their authority."
Do you even know how much they ABUSE that authority? It's disgusting.
-Erica
Police
I don't really considering that I have always respected police officers. Why don't you enlighten me about all of the things Police officers do to abuse their authority?
Joy Clark
the man
I think the police are pretty much like any group, be it teachers, students, government officials and the like. We hear more about the abuses than the good things, but that doesn't excuse the abuses. One example that backs up Erica's claim is the recent release of video tapes of the events of the last fourth of July, when police were heard making comments about going down to beat up the protesters (who, and this is great irony, were protesting police brutality). We can ask whether the protesters, or anyone for that matter, should be the object of videotaped surveillance at a public gathering, especially one that celebrates our breaking away from a tyranny--again, for the, the irony is glaring.
The flip side of this is I have worked with the police on somethings and they are just people trying to do the best they can. I have a friend and I suspect he would never whack someone who didn't deserve a whack, and not because he disagreed with his politics. I know some, second hand, who were as corrupt as the day was long, partly because they were part of a corrupt department (not Spokane's). The same dynamic will come through in protesters. Many will be their exercising their rights while others will come to create trouble, to create a confrontation, thinking they have the right to do so. We can all exercise our rights and responsibilities (that second part is often lost) without being jerks about it, without crossing the line from asserting ourselves and our rights to being aggressive just to pi** someone off with hopes of provoking a response.
But I grow old, I wear my trousers rolled. (Kudos to anyone who catches the literary allusion.) Bradley
Yes
Yes, I'm glad you pointed out both sides of the argument because I don't want to be misunderstood and for people to think that I'm generalizing all police officers to be bad, but there is definitely a lot of abuse that goes on. It's a double edged sword, so to speak.
-Erica
That is common, no one sees
That is common, no one sees all the good things you do. Kids see a video of a police officer hitting someone on youtube and automatically become police brutality activists.
While were talking about fallacies... it is a fallacy to make a generalization. It seems that there have been numerous generalizations here..
Derek Mickelson
Misunderstanding...
You may have took my words the wrong way (as a generalization), but I was definitely making a point about one side of things. I guess I should have been more specific.
-Erica
Ass U Me
You sure seem to be assuming an awful lot about something no one really knows. Since anarchy has never presided predominately in any country, how can you decide what would happen and what wouldn't? Creating a series of events based on assumptions is fallacy known as a "slippery Slope Fallacy" It starts with one point that may or may not be true, then it continues to exaggerate more and more. It would be like me saying,
Some police misuse their powers, because they seem to get away with it alot, police all over the country will start to misuse their powers also. Eventually America will become a police state in which we will live our lives, according to how police want them. Because it is in people nature to rebel, people all over the country will panic and revolt, and everyone will kill everyone.
I mean I know what you said wasn't as exaggerated as my example, however I feel that if you're going to make a claim that strong, to maybe provide evidence?
just food for thought =]
-Danny Syme
a slippery slope
I took Philosophy 201 so I am well aware what a slippery slope is. However, she asked me why I fear anarchy so that long paragraph was why I fear anarchy regardless of whether it was logically sound or not. I then answered her last question, (how am I supposed to know that anarchy is not a good thing?) by replying with a second question, basically the same question you posed: How am I supposed to know that anarchy would turn our out to be better in our country? There is as much ambiguity in that question which would lead to as much wild out of the way postulation as my answer provided. Thus my conclusion was actually the last question I stated: Wouldn't you be more willing to trust the government we have now, with all its faults, because we know it works to govern our nation today, as opposed to a government that we do not know and that could turn out for either good or worse depending on the way you look at it?
Joy Clark
Like Joy adressed (and the
^ This applies to both sides...
Like Joy adressed (and the list goes on), I dont think most people (you) understand how much the government and government affiliated businesses positively affect our daily lives. I dont know if you just dont acknowledge it, or truley believe the government doesnt, but until you distinguish which one, its hard for anyone to make an argument...
Derek Mickelson
I like to think
that I have a pretty good idea of how much a role the government plays in our everyday lives. If you are a conscious human, than it's not too hard for anyone to understand. The point I was making is Without Something to go off of, nothing can be determined, only assumed.
I do suppose it applies to both sides of this argument though, I guess Joy's comment was the only side of the argument I saw though haha.
-Danny Syme
My comment wasnt directed
My comment wasnt directed towards you, looks like we posted at the same time. I later added the part about it applying to both sides.
oh haha
Honest Mistake. It's always good to be ready to argue, just keeping sharp!
Yeah I didnt think he wanted
Yeah I didnt think he wanted to abolish government... I think that he was smart enough to know the issues that come from a lack of government. This goes back to the fact that abolishing government may fix certain issues but the overall affect is negative.
"..then perhaps you may consider whether the remedy will not be worse than the evil;" Thoreau
Derek Mickelson