'Oppressive Government Essay\r'

'As humans we have shargond natural needs. Take personal survival as an example. To chance this need we must(prenominal) hold in our safety from the military unit of each separate and from the force of people who argon not members of our parliamentary procedure. The mechanism to serve . . . this . . . goal is a government.’ Because I agree with Thomas Attig, I must affirm the topic that ‘an heavy government is much desir fit than no government.’\r\nBefore I continue, I’d like to define a a couple of(prenominal) key terms in the topic. [All definitions are from Ameri weed Heritage.]\r\nOppressive is defined as un incisively or difficult to bear.\r\nGovernment is the exercise of authority in a political unit.\r\nDesirable is defined as worth having or seeking, as by macrocosm useful or advantageous.\r\nSince the topic asks us to gauge the most sought after situation for humanity, my Value forego is Individual Welfare. In order to achieve var ious(prenominal) welfare, my criteria are\r\n1)The preservation of social order\r\n2)The fulfillment of key needs.\r\nThe only way in which to ensure individual welfare is to maintain societal constancy while at the same clipping defend the individual.\r\nMy first line is that an autocratic government is to a dandyer extent desirable than no government because government, in every form, provides certain advantages that are impossible for the state of personality to provide.\r\n(1)First of all, a government provides individuals with external security. In other words, the mere existence of a government allows for decree as a whole to have a defense mechanism against foreign powers because a government must provide such protection in order to preserve itself. The absence of a government, however, would fo chthonic individuals defenseless from let onside aggressors. Any government, oppressive or not, provides for this basic external security, which is a prerequisite to secur ing essential needs.\r\n(2)Secondly, government possesses the ability to maintain order inwardly society. As Austin Fagothey states ‘Anarchists think that society groundwork get along without authority, but this opinion is to a fault optimistic; for what is socially good for us is not acknowledgen equally for all; benefits and burdens must be distributed to all, and someone must choose among various doer the ones to be cooperatively used.’ thusly even if a government is oppressive, it still acts as an enforcement mechanism by regulating interaction between individuals and preventing them from encroaching on each other’s rights, accordingly securing a greater degree of freedom for individuals.\r\nGeorge Crowder concurs that ‘Government is able to deposit an area of free choice by forcibly preventing others from encroaching upon it.’ In contrast, the state of temperament lacks this commons judge to settle disputes and is thence perpetually insecure for individuals. Even if some order exists without government, it cannot be maintained for any significant period of time because conflicts will inevitably devolve over mortal resources. Thus oppressive governments provide for the protection of fundamental needs that individuals lack in the state of reputation due to the lack of adjudication.\r\n(3)Third, individuals are generally guaranteed a minimal protection of life under an oppressive government. Oppressive governments are not primarily touch on with taking away life because by systematically killing all of their subjects, such governments would be fall their have power. A. John Simmons agrees that ‘the attempt to get some other(prenominal) in one’s power indicates scarce an intention not to kill but or else only to control or use another in some way . . .. [This attempt] shows a stick out only on their freedom, not on their lives (since [individuals] are valueless without their lives).’ \r\nAlthough oppressive governments have been known to break out life in certain instances, individuals can bend such persecution by not speaking out against the government. Thus individuals at least know how to secure their rights under oppression whereas in the state of nature, no such method to protect rights exists. Oppressive systems therefore generally ensure protection of life because individuals know how to avoid any governmental encroachments. Thus society under an oppressive government is much desirable because it ensures a minimum protection of rights that the negative can in no way ensure.\r\nMy second contention is that an oppressive government is more desirable than no government because society with an oppressive government is more conducive to rectify. If we examine the topic, oppression is going to occur on both sides. Thus it’s definitive to weigh the risks involved.\r\n(1)First of all, an oppressive system possesses more authority for reform. Under an oppressive government, all individuals know who their common enemy is, and they are aware of the origin of the little terror to their liberty. Simply because of this awareness, individuals are able to mingle more effectively against this one consolidation of power. Vicente Medina explains that in an oppressive government, ‘we would be able to appeal to those [established] rules without resulting to violence, whereas under an uncontrolled state of affairs the actual threat of violence would undermine the development of an ethical and legal community, and thence the development of our moral capacities.’ [Moreover, the oppression invoked by a government may be merely curtly term.] Thus more potency for change exists under an oppressive government because it would be much easier to reform the existing system than it would be to create an solo new system.\r\n(2)(2) Secondly, the state of nature, in contrast, has more potential for oppression. The absence of a governme nt allows for conflicts to exist on many levels. Individuals, groups, and organizations would constantly be involved in variety of struggles, and each group would be vying for its own selfish interests. The state of nature is therefore characterized by a lack of unity. Because individuals are so separate in this state of nature, it becomes virtually impossible to unite and achieve a consensus on establishing a government. Thus the lack of unification hinders the pursuit of establishing a just system. Individuals’ needs and the social structure are therefore best protected under an oppressive government, which possesses a greater possibility for reform, therefore ensuring a great degree of individual welfare.\r\n'