Pros And Cons Of Anarchy

1859 Words8 Pages
Over the course of human events, philosophers have presented their ideologies about what roles a government should have as well as what are the functions of that said government. At many times, these philosophers have clashed in their ideologies however, each philosopher recognizes one possible state of being; anarchy. Anarchy is a state of disorder in which there is no official form of a systematic government rule. Philosophers such as Aristotle, Hobbes, Locke, Mearsheimer, Ikenberry, and Gilpin all acknowledge and agree that a state of anarchy can exist but they disagree in whether anarchy is good or bad. Anarchy in a state of nature is conflictual, thus it is a problem. Politics in a state of anarchy is either conflictual by nature or can lead to prospects for cooperation. Aristotle argue that anarchy, in a state of nature, is conflictual, and Locke argues that anarchy can lead to cooperation. In an anarchic society there are no laws, limitations, or regulations and as a result there is chaos which lead to arguments and disputes. In a systematic government, there is stability and security; you have someone of a higher status to go to find a solution to your troubles but when you get rid of the hierarchy people lose that sense of security and stability and as a result are forced to provide these securities form themselves. From what Aristotle states “Hence it is evident that the state is a creation of nature, and that man is by nature a political animal. And he who by
Get Access