But what if your friend had liked to beat people? Or did you think your watch looked better than yours and just took it with you? While your friend thinks these things are fine, you probably wouldn`t agree – and if there weren`t rules, then there would be nothing to stop them from beating you or stealing your stuff. And nothing to make sure they were punished for doing these things. But even if we admit that we need certain rules, does that mean that these rules must take the form of laws? As we have already seen, laws are rules passed by a government that everyone in this country must follow and that there are significant penalties for violations. And that`s the standard way most people work – the world is divided into countries and they each have their own government and laws. Take a look at these books to see how different authors imagined the world if we had a completely different set of laws – or even no laws at all. Thus, an ideal anarchist society would be more communal – power would be distributed and not everything in a central government, and smaller groups of people would make decisions and rules for themselves. There would still be basic agreements about what is right or wrong – it wouldn`t suddenly become acceptable to steal things or murder people – but there would be no real laws. And people would choose to follow these rules instead of being forced to do so. It would be up to each person to take responsibility for their own actions, not a government, to legislate to control people`s actions. The good news is that the vast majority of people, businesses, businesses and governments follow the law. If they didn`t, our society might not function properly. There would be no laws, rules or regulations concerning the environment, road safety devices or the repair of roads and roads.
Sidewalks would not be shoveled and open to the public. Crimes would be committed and there would be no punishment or rehabilitation. Car accidents would occur, probably more often without traffic laws, and a person injured in an accident would have no recourse to receive damages, including payment of medical bills, from the person who caused the accident. So anarchists don`t believe at all that we can live without rules – they just think we should have fewer of them and that they should be made fairer. They think we can rely on people`s individual sense of duty and their natural understanding of what is wrong or right to follow a few rules instead of forcing people to follow a long list of laws. Some – Lewis Carroll, for example, in his poem Jabberwocky – have made a certain degree of literary anarchy a success. But overall, breaking with the rules of my language doesn`t make me as unleashed as it is incoherent. And finally, feel happy to live in a country where laws are pursued by lawyers, judges and especially by you. The problem with anarchy, however, is that it is inherently unstable – people constantly and spontaneously generate new rules for behavior, communication, and economic exchange, and they do so as quickly as the old rules are dismantled. But as a behavioral scientist, I believe that it`s not really the rules, norms, and customs in general that are the problem – but the unjustified ones.
Perhaps the tricky and important part is figuring out the difference between the two. If you drive your car, be grateful to other drivers for following the law and, for example, don`t text their friends while driving. Be thankful that there are rules and regulations for worker safety equipment, traffic lights, building codes, and environmental protection. Be aware that various government agencies, such as social services and schools, follow the law to protect children and vulnerable adults. Restrictions on the renovation of older buildings can be so strict that no renovation is possible and buildings collapse. Environmental assessments for new forests can be so rigorous that planting trees becomes almost impossible; The regulation of drug research can be so cumbersome that a potentially valuable drug is abandoned. The road to hell is paved not only with good intentions, but also with rules that enforce those good intentions, regardless of the consequences. Think of the different communities in which young people find themselves: school, youth centre, friendship groups or gangs, families. Who sets the rules there? Also think about how rules are the essence of sports, games, and puzzles, even though their purpose is supposed to be fun.
Chess rules, say, can trigger a tantrum when I want the “lockdown” to get out of hand, but I find they say I can`t; or when I find your pawn that comes from my side of the board and turns into a lady, a tower, a jumper or a bishop. Similarly, you will find me a football fan who has not gone on a rampage against the offside rule at least once. The idea was born because I couldn`t imagine that many events would take place when people didn`t follow traffic rules, didn`t have tickets for games or shows, or even followed the basic rules of courtesy. How would people drive safely? How would the University of Minnesota Duluth or someone else pay the cost of renting a facility? Would the facilities have safe entrances and exits? Would security be a top priority for site managers? Would people want to attend events if they knew that others weren`t playing by the rules? Menstruation also prevails in humans at an early stage. Experiments show that children at the age of three can learn completely arbitrary rules to play a game. Not only that, when a “puppet” (controlled by an experimenter) appears on the stage and begins to break the rules, the children will criticize the doll and protest with comments like “You`re doing it wrong!” They will even try to teach the puppet to do better. What do you think of these ideas? Do you agree that we need at least some rules to manage the coexistence of people, or do you think we could do without them? Do you think people could be trusted to make good decisions if there were only social rules, but no government making and enforcing the appropriate laws? Of course, there has long been an appetite among some people for a less formalized society, a society without government, a world where individual freedom prevails: anarchy. Humans can be quite complicated creatures – we all have very different personalities, different ideas about what is good or bad, and different things we love and love to do. But that`s okay – the difference can be good.
Maybe you like hot dogs while your friend prefers burgers, or maybe you like sci-fi movies, but your beast likes to watch comedies. No harm done – you can enjoy all the things you love. Some of the rules we have are just that – rules. Like the one you get at school or in your sports team. But some rules are laws – like not being able to steal a business, or having to pay taxes, or having car insurance if you drive a car. Most laws apply to an entire country, not just an organization or small group of people, and you get a much heavier penalty if you violate it – like paying a hefty fine or even jail time. Rules and regulations can be quite frustrating. They prevent us from doing exactly what we want. The good news is that they also prevent others from doing exactly what they want. That is probably to our advantage.
There would be no justice. If a family member were murdered, there would be no one to turn to. The government enforces laws, such as . B do not kill people. In this kind of society, the people who would flourish would be out of control. For example, the law requires people to report to their work, otherwise they will be fired. These jobs provide us with a basic way of life. If one day, when the laws were abolished, people simply wouldn`t have shown up for work, we would lose all the things that are vital to our daily lives. These are food, transportation and education. Without the laws that control these people, they simply wouldn`t be able to show up for work, and we`d be without the farmers who grow our food, the urban transportation workers who take us from one place to another, and the education that prepares us for life. .