Existance of the State: Breaking the Assumptions - Essay Example

The criminals, who may be considered supporters of the group that is against having a state, ironically are used to further the proof that a state is necessary. Nevertheless, not everyone who is of the opinion that a state is unnecessary is a criminal. There are many law-abiding citizens who feel that there is way too much government and deem the state to be unnecessary. These people are the libertarians. While the existence of the state is viewed as required because this body of government serves to organize infrastructure, controls disorderly conduct, and offers various benefits to the citizens, there is the possibility that society can function just as well, if not better, without it.

Traffic jams can be a very big nuisance. They make people late, waste gasoline and can be very dangerous. The laws that regulate traffic are designed to maintain order in the streets and reduce the occurrence of traffic jams. In a place where there is no regulation to organize traffic, traveling anywhere by motor vehicle can be quite impossible. If there were no traffic lights and nobody to direct the traffic, then people would come from every direction, zooming through the intersections and, if they do not run over each other, find that they will soon have to come to a halting stop, not able to move again for hours.

The reason for their sudden stop would be because the traffic running perpendicular to them also had no signal to tell them when to stop, turn, or go. Such a situation is chaotic and just as difficult a situation as seeking to give it a description. To avoid this occurrence, the state regulates traffic and sets up laws to govern the flow of traffic. Those for the state would say that without it, the scene described above is exactly what would occur. However, even with the existence of the state, the fact is that issues in traffic flow still must be taken into consideration.

In fact, it has been reported that “traffic engineers, transportation planners, and public officials responsible for metropolitan transportation systems are frequently criticized for failing to make a dent in congestion” (Taylor, B.,2002). Agreeably, it is important that the flow of traffic in an area is organized so that drivers know what is expected of them and what to expect of all other drivers. The rules of the road help to meet this need, but this does not mean that traffic has to be organized and the rules enforced by a state.

Cars are costly and time is precious. In general, people do not want to waste their time and money, be injured, or case harm to another person. Rather, they simply want to get to where it is they need to go. They do not need a government authority telling them to behave on the road in order to avoid such troubles. The rules of the road can be generally agreed upon. In the absence of the state, the people, each desiring to accomplish their own goals, have the capacity to agree upon how traffic should be organized and what to do should incidents occur.

However, there is still the wild bunch. There are the people that always break the rules no matter who set them. Even people who normally act very well can have the occasion of doing something that is inappropriate. Those for the state claim that the state serves to deal with disorderly conduct. The state sets up law and punishes those who break it. Generally the law is to ensure that people are treated fairly and that justice is served. There is no doubt