Anarchy, no overseer, is a deadly dangerous state of affairs. The overseer can be also equally dangerous, but that need not be the case. My optimism assumes it will be better than none.
Anarchy is dangerous to the people. It would bring us back to Rome, where there was no police force, as the Romans could not imagine who could be trusted to oversee them. People thus had either private protection or none. Are you sure you want to live with that state of affairs?
Replace one overseer with a worse overseer. How is that beneficial?
If the recourse is no overseer, it may be a good start, even if it leads to a bad end.
Sorry. I am not interested in something that would likely end badly for me even it it entertains you to see it happen.
Anarchy, no overseer, is a deadly dangerous state of affairs. The overseer can be also equally dangerous, but that need not be the case. My optimism assumes it will be better than none.
anarchy is only dangerous to the State, certainly not the state of affairs.
Anarchy is dangerous to the people. It would bring us back to Rome, where there was no police force, as the Romans could not imagine who could be trusted to oversee them. People thus had either private protection or none. Are you sure you want to live with that state of affairs?