Absolute chaos is what we would define as anarchy; it is essentially the reverse of order. What makes an anarchy worse would be the shocking lack of a robust legal system because there can be no laws in a society built on complete chaos, but if you're talking about a government based on anarchy, it would be a system where there is no state identity and no real central government. Somalia, to some extent, serves as the most prevalent illustration of why a government founded on anarchy is a horrible concept. Although there is a central government, its power over its territory varies. Certain sections are under the influence of the militant group Al Shabab, and the Somaliland region is attempting to declare its independence from the federal government. The country is rife with a milder but no less deadly type of anarchy due to the absence of a strong central leadership.
Anarchic societies where every individual is equally empowered are unsustainable. The individuals quickly cluster into tribal units, and without some overriding authority, it’s impossible to stop that from happening. The tribal units (or gangs, if you prefer) are run by warlords who keep each other in check until one of them gains a decisive advantage over the others, and then you’ve got the beginnings of a state.
This drama has played out countless times in the course of human history, and is still playing out in the criminal underworld to the extent that it can. That extent is limited by the fact that now there is an overriding authority with enforceable power, the legitimate state.
Thank you,
Eddie
Answer:
Ethiopia
A border incident between Ethiopia and Italian Somaliland that December gave Benito Mussolini an excuse to intervene. Rejecting all arbitration offers, the Italians invaded Ethiopia on October 3, 1935.
The Seventh Amendment was part of the Bill of Rights that was added to the Constitution on December 15, 1791. This amendment protects the right to a trial by jury in civil court cases.
The writers of the Bill of Rights wanted to make sure that the government would not do away with a trial by jury. They were concerned that if trials were only decided by judges, the judges would side with the government, giving the government too much power. This happened to the colonists when judges, who were appointed by the king, would always side with the king. They felt a jury of local people would be more likely to provide a fair trial.
John Locke left his legacy on the United States of America.
I don’t know this give me some details
