The Pizza Pie

In my previous post, I kind of skimmed over my objections to anarchy. In this post, I will delve into them a bit more. I should state that, if we lived in a "perfect" world, I would probably be a strong proponent of anarchy; but we don't live in that kind of world!

In fact, the very idea of a perfect world already exists -- it's what Christians call heaven. Ya know, the land of milk and honey, where everybody gets along and all needs are taken care of. Since I don't believe in the heavenly concept, I neither believe in the anarchic ideal.

For me, the biggest problem with living in a society in which everyone gets to do what they desire PROVIDED it doesn't trample on anyone else's desire is bound up in the ever present problem of definition. Who gets to decide what a desire or need is? Who gets to decide what is too much or too little? And that's where government always comes in -- the people who get to define things are those who wield power.

Let me try to illustrate my chief objection to the concept of anarchy by employing a pizza pie as a visual aid.

Let's say we have a large pizza cut into 10 slices to be divided amongst 10 people. On the surface, it would appear that each person is entitled to one piece. But if each person is given the authority (for lack of a better word) to determine their need, then this whole situation may become murky.

Bob immediately announces that he's been toiling away in the fields all day and must return to tending his crops after the meal. His work has produced a strong hunger and, he says, he needs the extra calories to sustain him. So, he takes 2.5 pieces from the pizza and walks away.

Henry tells the assembled that he too has been toiling in his fields all day and, like Bob, will be working this evening too. Unlike Bob, who only has a wife and one child, Henry must toil each day to feed his wife, 4 children and his in-laws. He says his caloric needs are twice that of Bob's. So, he takes 5 pieces of pizza and leaves.

Nancy and Jeremy next announce that they only want what they are entitled to, nor more and no less. Each takes one piece of pizza and leaves.

So now, we have 1/2 slice of pizza left and 6 hungry people. The more aggressive members of the group have, by their actions, altered the definition of how much pizza is available to the remaining members of the community. If these 6 people are community-oriented, they will probably allow each person to have an equal bite of the remaining 1/2 piece.

However, if this same scenario has played out meal after meal, all 6 are probably starving. When people become desperate, they tend to take desperate measures. So the more likely outcome is that the remaining 6 will fight over the last morsel of pizza with the strongest among this group getting something meager to eat, while the rest starve.

Some of you might respond that all the 6 people needed to do was to make another pizza. This is a possible solution UNLESS the same scenario has played out in the divvying up of resources (materials and foodstuffs needed to make pizzas). If that is the case, then these folks won't have enough wheat, tomatoes, cheese, etc. to make one.

This is why I favor the need for government over the concept of anarchy. The strong and aggressive will always impact the weaker or less aggressive members of any group. It's not that the former group will have publicly stated that they will define criteria for the whole community; it's more that their individual actions will indirectly alter the definition that most people will be stuck with.

Thus, in my mind, one of the chief roles of government is to protect the weak from the strong, the have nots from the haves and the minority from the majority.