Henry IV

Is government necessary for the existence of peace?
Haven't seen that one in awhile.
Shakespeare's play is founded upon exposing the workings of government. England lays divided between the King's supporters and the infamous rebels who want to depose him. Henry, throughout the play, struggles to maintain power. He is constantly threatened by hostile factions who not only disagree with his policies but also condemn his "unlawful" ascendance to the thrown. Government in this situation can be seen as King Henry IV's rule. Undoubtedly, it is an ineffective one which does not preserve the peace. In fact, it provokes it. The resistance Henry's regime encounters has all to do with his government and the way it came about; it is unable to prevent the battle that occurs in act 5 and actually partakes in the bloodshed. Is government necessary for the existence of peace? Not in this case. England is too split for one government to even encourage peace. With headstrong faces like Hotspur knocking on the King's back door, war is a kind of inevitability. Government could not do much to stop the conflict.

Oedipus Rex: Relation to big question

In some situations, government can be the driving force behind madness. Oedipus, the protagonist in the play that bears his name, is certainly no stranger to this concept. As a newborn, he was banished from his native city after prophecy foretold he would murder his father and sleep with his mother. The boy was to be killed, yet he survives at the Mercy of a local Sheppard. He later ventures on to become king of Thebes after killing his father, Leios, who formerly held the position. This unleashes a string of ironic events which uphold the prophecy in every way. He marries his mother and even conceives a few children. Towards the end of the play, he finally realizes he is at fault and proceeds to brutally stab his eyes out. A broken man, Oedipus insists on his own banishment.

His mental state can be equated to a form of government. It leads him to question those around him and provoke animosity when confronting others about the death of the late king Leios. His own decisions are the reason that the reader witnesses chaos at the end of the play. Oedipus' mentality is to blame and for this reason, it may be concluded that government is not necessary for the existence of peace. Rather, it may provoke the opposite in such a context.

Homer's Odyssey-- relation to big question

Homer's epic tale describes little peace. The story is filled with gore and struggle, Odysseus' homeward journey a constant battle. To answer my question using The Odyssey, I assume the Greek gods to be in full control of human events. They may therefore be seen as a form of government. There are instances where the gods help foster peace and others which challenge it. On the crew's first stop, a giant Cyclopes is encountered named Polyphemus. Trapped in his lair, the men will surely suffer horrible ends (and some are unlucky enough to actually meet this fate). Odysseus and his crew eventually stab the monster in the eye, blinding the Cyclopes so that they can escape undetected. Poseidon, the father of Polyphemus, unleashes a series of adversities which inhibit Odysseus' homeward journey in response to what the Greeks have done. From this, it may be concluded that government can actually foster conflict. The peace is not kept with Poseidon's involvement in earthly affairs. On the other side, Athena provokes the establishment of peace once Odysseus and Telemakhos start the fight against Penelope's insolent suitors. The goddess aids father and son in their quest to drive out the men who have plundered Odysseus' estate. Although she does not partake directly in the battle, she helps Odysseus disguise himself so that he can infiltrate his home and destroy the opposition. These actions create a peace that Ithaca has not witnessed since the return of all the other Akhaens from Troy. From this perspective, government may play a key role in in the creation of peace. Like Rand's Anthem, The Odyssey supports both sides to my big question. We must see that government has the awesome power to both create and destroy peace.

Ayn Rand's Anthem-- Relation to big question

Ayn Rand's famous anti-Soviet novel, Anthem, discusses my big question pretty thoroughly. From the start of the novel, a future world is portrayed bleakly and in a negative light. Inhabitants of this new society resemble those who have existed in B.C years; the apparent lack of progression can be attributed to the culture's tight government. This government rules all equally and its main function is to preserve the ignorance in its inhabitants. Among these oppressed individuals is Equality 7-2521, the novel's protagonist who eventually defies the harsh regime. He seeks solitude in a local hole (once a modern coal mine) and reflects on his life during these intervals of seclusion. Government has done its job by keeping the peace; he is the only "cursed" individual that he is aware of-- the only one who seems not to fit in. It also imposes harsh sanctions on those who are discovered nonconformists-- something Equality will later experience as his new concepts are rejected by the world's "greatest" minds. Government's influence over its subjects is severe-- a limiting force that succeeds in keeping order in practically everyone. Equality, upset with the poor reception of his new discovery, breaks free from the governmental force which binds him to society, escaping into the wilderness. He finds rest in a pre-war home (presumably one left from this day) and proceeds to gain the knowledge books in this house contain. In the final chapter, he vows to avenge the destruction of our advanced age, planning to insinuate another revolution--this time against the former victors of "The Great Rebirth." Rand's government has done its job in conforming the masses, however in Equality 7-2521, it provokes an opposite response. From this, I conclude that too much governmental influence does not keep peace. Rather, it provokes it. Many notorious revolutions and military conflicts have arisen from this concept. When government becomes too large, it is unsustainable-- people will respond accordingly. In this sense, Anthem supports both the pro and con sides to my big question. Government is necessary to some extent to prevent wide scale chaos, however when it becomes too large, it actually may provoke resistance.

First Impressions

The universal question that I will be focusing on in this blog: "Is government necessary for the existence of peace?"
I am interested in this question because it addresses societal order and what happens when nothing is left to organize society-- topics which intrigue me. It is pertinent to many novels and has been debated between anarchists and large-government supporters forever. Both sides have well founded and compelling arguments; the challenge will be to prove who's right. On a personal note, I would like to relate this question to my own experiences. When I was a young child, I attended a day care which prohibited bringing toys from home. I always adhered to this rule until the day when our supervisor left. I broke the rule by bringing a personal possession to class the next day while under the impression that our supervisor had left permanently. The substitute teacher was unhappy with my actions. In the absence of a ruling body, or government, I had succeeded in breaking the peace. I defied the norm, creating a non peaceful situation. This example may seem inapplicable as it addresses an event which unfolded when I was probably 5 years old; through other textual examples, I will seek to expose the truth (or lack thereof) in the necessity of some form of government (whether it be tangible or not) for the existence of peace.