Oppressive Government Essay

As humans we have shargond profound needs. Take individualized survival as an example. To meet this need we must ensure our prophylactic from the force of each other and from the violence of people who are non members of our ships company. The mechanism to serve . . . this . . . goal is a brass. Because I agree with doubting Thomas Attig, I must affirm the topic that an autocratic governing body is much wanted than no authorities.Before I continue, Id interchangeable to define a few key terms in the topic. All definitions are from American Heritage. tyrannic is defined as unjust or toilsome to bear.Government is the exercise of authority in a political unit. preferred is defined as worth having or seeking, as by organism useful or advantageous.Since the topic asks us to evaluate the most desirable situation for humanity, my Value Premise is Individual Welfare. In order to bring home the bacon individual welfare, my criteria are1)The preservation of loving order2)The fu lfillment of fundamental needs.The only way in which to ensure individual welfare is to respect societal stability while at the same time defend the individual.My first contention is that an tyrannical politics is more desirable than no government because government, in any form, provides certain advantages that are impossible for the put forward of nature to provide.(1)First of all, a government provides individuals with external security. In other words, the mere(prenominal) existence of a government allows for society as a complete to have a defense mechanism against foreign powers because agovernment must provide such(prenominal) auspices in order to assert itself. The absence of a government, however, would leave individuals defenseless from outside aggressors. Any government, despotic or not, provides for this basic external security, which is a prerequisite to securing fundamental needs.(2)Secondly, government possesses the ability to maintain order within society. A s Austin Fagothey takes Anarchists opine that society can get along without authority, scarce this opinion is overly optimistic for what is socially good for us is not comen as for all benefits and burdens must be distributed to all, and some integrity must choose among dissimilar means the ones to be cooperatively used. hence even if a government is heavy, it still acts as an enforcement mechanism by regulating interaction amid individuals and preventing them from encroaching on each others rights, therefore securing a greater layer of freedom for individuals.George Crowder concurs that Government is able to secure an neighborhood of free choice by forcibly preventing others from encroaching upon it. In contrast, the state of nature insufficiencys this common judge to settle disputes and is therefore perpetually unsettled for individuals. Even if some order exists without government, it cannot be maintained for any large period of time because conflicts will inevitab ly occur over mortal resources. Thus oppressive governments provide for the protection of fundamental needs that individuals lack in the state of nature due to the lack of adjudication.(3)Third, individuals are in general guaranteed a minimal protection of manners under an oppressive government. Oppressive governments are not primarily concerned with taking away life because by systematically killing all of their subjects, such governments would be fall their own power. A. John Simmons agrees that the attempt to get another in ones power indicates precisely an intention not to kill but rather only to control or use another in some way . . .. This attempt shows a design only on their freedom, not on their lives (since individuals are valueless without their lives).Although oppressive governments have been known to split up life in certain instances, individuals can avoid such persecution by not speaking out against the government. Thus individuals at least know how to securethei r rights under conquering 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 more desirable because it ensures a minimum protection of rights that the negative can in no way ensure.My twinkling contention is that an oppressive government is more desirable than no government because society with an oppressive government is more conducive to reform. If we examine the topic, oppression is going to occur on both sides. Thus its pregnant to weigh the risks involved.(1)First of all, an oppressive system possesses more authorisation for reform. Under an oppressive government, all individuals know who their common enemy is, and they are aware of the line of reasoning of the threat to their liberty. Simply because of this awareness, individuals are able to unite more efficaciously aga inst this one consolidation of power. Vicente Medina explains that in an oppressive government, we would be able to pull to those established rules without resulting to violence, whereas under an anarchical state of affairs the actual threat of violence would undermine the development of an ethical and legal community, and consequently the development of our honourable capacities. Moreover, the oppression invoked by a government may be simply short term. Thus more potential 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 entirely new system.(2)(2) Secondly, the state of nature, in contrast, has more potential for oppression. The absence of a government allows for conflicts to exist on many levels. Individuals, groups, and organizations would unceasingly be involved in variety of struggles, and each group would be vying for its own selfish interests. The state of nature is therefore chara cterized by a lack of unity. Because individuals are so divided in this state of nature, it becomes roughly 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 structureare therefore best protected under an oppressive government, which possesses a greater possibility for reform, therefore ensuring a great degree of individual welfare.