Matías Uhart Mascheroni
Essay- Not Too Much, Not Too Little, Just Right
To preserve liberty, is it better that a government be weak to avoid tyranny or that it be strong to avoid anarchy?
Not Too Much, Not Too Little, Just Right
Throughout history, with hopes of preserving liberty, many governments have varied in their methods. Allegedly having the amelioration of the lives of their people being their primary goal, these forms of governments have mostly varied from being absolute and oppressive, to having an outright deficit of government. As the two most abundant forms of governing, history has shown that Tyrannical and Anarchic governments usually go two ways. One resulting in chaos and disarray in social order (Anarchic), and the other in the deprivation of that same liberty they allegedly aim to preserve (Tyrannical). Since the two are so common, both historians and politicians have often asked a grand question; which is better in the sense of preserving liberty? Must a government be strong and risk resulting in a tyranny, or must it be weak and undergo the risk of anarchism? The conclusion that can be drawn from their results so far is that they are both disastrous for a people and the truly best form of governing is in between them. In other words, for preserving liberty, it is best a government aim for a balance between a strong and weak form.
Many strong governments in the past and today avoid(ed) anarchy. To do that, they often create(d) constitutions and/or laws that are enforced by the government while also giving up certain rights to allow more important ones be assured. But it is when these rights are “ensured” too tightly and strictly controlled that these governments no longer preserve liberty. Thus, by controlling too much, they still prevent anarchy, but at times lead to tyranny. In the modern world, this can be seen with a period that recently occurred in Venezuela known as “El Chávizmo”. For...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document