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
The British recognized american independence and handed over majority of its territory east of the Mississippi River which doubled the size of what new America was becoming
ANSWER IS A. Old Spanish trail
Hope this helps
The Mongols were an empire that succeded in preservating their culture and their ways thanks to the comercial spirit they had.
They traveled all around Asia conquering territories and using their abilities for diffusing their culture by the means of selling and offering their products.
They were a culture opened in the sense that everyone could chose what to believe and how to live, this was a way of showing Asia how they lived and inspiring millions of people to be part of the culture.
This characteristic has made the mongols remain as a culture and it continues the enlargement of their followers.
Answer:
For one it could be seen as undemocratic, For example if a candidate loses the popular vote, the electoral college could still let that candidate in even if they lose the popular election. It also has a winner-takes-all approach which cancels the votes of the losing candidates in each state.
Explanation:
