The aim of this paper is to discuss how the absence of government would affect people`s lives, and whether it would contribute to a better and stable situation, and create the necessary environment for prosperity, or the vice versa. In this paper I am chiefly going to discuss and criticize the ideas of Emma Goldman , Daniel Burton, and Henry Thoreau about what anarchism is, why people in general, and these philosophers in particular criticize governments, and which are their solution for improving the situation, would anarchism really solve the problems or make the situation even more difficult, and what anarchists promoters fail to explain. .
Anarchism is the philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by manmade law; the theory that all forms of government rest on violence, and therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary (Goldman, 3). Anarchists are based on the belief that there is not any good government, because all governments are evil. My point of view in this paper is that the only thing worse than a bad government, is no government at all. So in this essay I am going to argue against anarchism because in that situation people`s lives and their wealth would at every moment be endangered, or as Thomas Hobbes stated that the life would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short, " and one other reason is the failure of philosophers to clearly explain how would people make decisions and coordinate their actions if they disagree, or if there is any conflict of interest. Also, the lack of government would result with a very low quality system of education, and infrastructure as well. .
In terms of solving the common problems, according to Burton the best way is to privatize the commons (p. 5). According to him, privatization is the necessary condition for improving the lives of people in general, and the quality of goods and services in particular.