Friday, February 5, 2010
ANARCHY OR GOVERNMENT?
As I began to take notice to the extensive conversation that was taking place under my last note on “Societal values and the law” A thought came to mind; a thought in the form of a question, “Anarchy or government?” To what extent are those who are excluded from government recognition are willing to continue on with the current system? When will those who have been excluded finally break away from the system? There seems to be a heavy need for defiance against the system for some, but the question is why don’t they rebel? What is it about this current system whereby some folk are actually being oppressed rather than being included? The Civil Rights Acts were supposed to bring Black Americans into mainstream involvement, however, the broader question to that alleged goal is simple, can that be seen today? Are Black Americans truly apart of mainstream society? How many of them own houses in the suburbs and are actually making it to levels in this society that has been historically unseen. What are the demographics looking like in terms of state and federal congresses—something isn’t right! How about law school and graduate school admissions? As my favorite legal scholar Michelle Alexander would say, this is The New Jim Crow age. However, surprisingly, the act of being left out of government can now be directed to all members of this society, the Patriot Act being the number one reason to that.
Is it better to chose anarchy over government? After all, suffering has been instinctively attached to some persons within this society and only a present thing for others, and even though certain laws were passed to fix such suffering, the suffering remains alive. Will there ever be a change, or will the system continue to go through periods of backwards evolutionary change to give off a visual effect of change, while never succeeding with the actual change that is needed to rectify the mishaps. After boundlessly seeing the failure of the system to commit to change, one may seek to adopt the concept of anarchy. At least under anarchy he isn’t bound to rules made up by another. He isn’t a slave to a system in which he has no say so within. There are no structural barriers in place that purposely have him in bondage while the rhetoric is that he is indeed free. When a person’s back is against the wall and the very system that claims to protect him is holding him back what choices does he have? Although anarchy may appear to be uncivilized to most, to many others the grass on the other side is much greener compared to the usual. To the readers who may be reading this note the question for you is clear, anarchy, government or other?