Anarchy vs. Autocracy

Government is an essential part of civilization in modern and historic times. This crucial element of society has been observed in different forms. There are three main systems of governments: autocracy, oligarchy, and democracy. Which system a government belongs to is determined by who hold the sovereignty, meaning who has the supreme power and authority (“Sovereignty”). This leads to there being major differences between autocracies, oligarchies, and democracies.

As American essayist and social critic H.L. Mencken wrote, “The average man does not want to be free. He simply wants to be safe.” To be free is to have the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without restraint. This type of freedom can be offered in many places whether it be home, school, or work. Safety is the condition of being protected from or unlikely to because risk, danger, or injury. Safety should be seen as an advantage to have because it’s never truly guaranteed. Most people claim they are proud of the freedoms their nations offer, though many people manifest the willingness to give up these freedoms to secure personal safety.

Since the founding of the United States of America, freedom has been the basis of the governmental and ruling systems in place. Individual freedoms are protected in both the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution, and Schwartz (2009) explains that ‘public liberty ultimately enhances collective rationality—it is a path to heightening our wisdom by increasing access to pertinent information and improving decision making’ (p. 409). However, there have been many times in history when the true freedom of citizens is called into question. There has always been controversy about how much power the government should have, who is keeping the government in check, and if citizens are properly informed about what their elected governed are doing. The passing of the Patriot Act in 2001 was no exception to this controversy. The

The type of government that will fit on my island would be democracy, because it is a system of the whole population of the state. I chose democracy because I would want my island to have laws similar to the ones of the United States. The reason why I didn't choose autocracy or oligarchy is because autocracy is a system of one government which means one person makes laws and has all the power to control how things work on the island. Oligarchy is a system in which the groups are small and have little little ideas for the island. The island will need large groups with leaders that will be in charge of certain things on the island this is why I think having democracy is better than the other two. You will have more groups to help you organize

Safety and freedom are both essential components of society and many argue over which component holds the most desirability in modern civilization. Many, like H.L. Mencken, believe that humanity’s desire to be safe trumps the want to be free. This view may hold true for some but there are varying interpretations of what is means to be safe and have freedoms.

There are two sides to the answer the question: Is Security more important than freedom? On one hand people believe that getting absolute security restricts liberties,while others believe that security is more important and citizens should give up some of their rights. Looking back at the 17th century back to Hobbes belief that freedom is people victimizing each other, and security is the government's power over the citizens, preventing any crime from occurring. In other words, freedom limits security, while security can limit freedom.

Benjamin Franklin once said that those who would give up liberty for the sake of security deserved neither and would lose both. The reason for this is that it eventually could lead to having a government much like a dictatorship or a monarchy. If we allow our government to strip away our rights and freedoms we are placing ourselves at the mercy of men. As humans, we all have faults, we aren't likely to be accepting of all people. We could open ourselves up to genocide, racism, discrimination of all sorts. That would strip us not only of our rights but basic human dignityWhen we give Government absolute power over our lives, how are we to protect ourselves if something goes wrong? We must learn from history, it is the only way we can avoid tripping over the same rocks or repeating our mistakes. If this hasn't worked in the past...why do we believe that it will work now? No, security is not worth losing my liberty or potentially, my dignity as a human

Benjamin Franklin, one of the founding fathers of the United States, once said “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” In America’s society today, some are willing to sacrifice their civil liberties in order to gain protection and security over some potential threat. Especially after the events of September 11th and several attempted bombings in U.S. cities. This sacrifice of individual freedoms such as the freedom of speech, expression, the right to information, to new technologies, and so forth, for additional protection is more of a loss than a gain. Citizens of the United States deserve equal liberty and safety overall, as someone should not have to give up

In 1784, Benjamin Franklin stated, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." It is hard to say whether or not Benjamin Franklin is right due to the fact that we face different struggles in this day and age that people in Napoleon Bonaparte’s and Franklin’s era did not have to worry about. Our situations regarding security and freedom, especially after September 11, 2001, dramatically changed as citizens realized how often their everyday lives were jeopardized with each new discovery and invention concerning weapons or violence.

Those who give up liberty for the sake of security deserve neither liberty nor security

Although we live in a nation that places a premium value on personal freedom, it is also a nation whose population considers its own safety and welfare as paramount rights. This creates a need for some measure of public order. Such public order mechanisms are typically expressed in the form of laws. The laws of the United States are an attempt to balance the desire for individual freedoms with the desire for universal safety. (D'Augostino, 2008)

Finally, security loses its worth if not accompanied by rights. Benjamin Franklin states that "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither liberty or safety" Without Liberty, Security is purposeless. The entire purpose of national security is to protect the American way of life and what our nation

Security can be defined as the “freedom from danger, risk, etc. with the absence of threats to assimilated principles” or a “low chance of damage to assimilated principles.” However, the word security originates from the Latin Securus, which means “carefree”. Notice that the very definition of the word clues to the term “freedom”. The aforementioned definition of security is very general. It does not stipulate the individual whose security is at issue or the types of values pliable to being secured. The security of people (“human security”) is understood to extend beyond national security, also comprising of economic welfare, the health of the environment, cultural identity, and political rights. Security began to take on a diverse set of restrictions with the Alien and Sedition Acts of the 1790s. We would see a drastic change after September 11, 2011.

A concept of freedom (or liberty) has been the foundation of the United States since its founding in 1776. After all, its Declaration of Independence states that every citizen deserves the rights to “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”. However, “Liberty” doesn’t just mean a literal freedom from captivity, or the right to live independently from the rule of a monarch. The Constitution preserves multiple different types of Liberty, including the freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, and many more.

As anarchy is one of the most debated cases in the International Relations study, many philosopher and scientist argue about the word ‘Anarchy’. In Wendt’s journal “Anarchy is what states make of it”, Alexander Wendt conveys that anarchy does not by chance lead to a self-help system (Wendt A. , 1992). The term anarchy comes from the Greek, 'anarchia', which means 'absence of authority'. Generally, we can define Anarchy as the condition where there is no sovereignty, the rules that disappeared because of the absence of authority. The Cambridge English Dictionary defines the word anarchy as ‘a situation in which there is no organization and control, especially in society, because there is no effective government’. George C. Lewis states that “Anarchy is one of the vaguest and ambiguous words in language” .