Anarchy is something that ought to be implemented in law school. Contrary to the belief that anarchy often leads to chaos, anarchy reduces conflict and leads to harmony, since everyone acts in his/her own interest, and since interactions with others might harm one's personal interest, there becomes a neccessity to eliminate animosity for at least self interest, if not with good motive. Moreover, anarchists do not believe in siezure of power, but just dissolving it. Allowing people to act on their own, out of free-will. Enabling peace. Gandhiji staunchly believed in anarchy and went to the extent of opposing the state. He believed that the State represents violence in a concentrated and organized form. He said, "The individual has a soul, but as the State is a soulless machine, it can never be weaned from violence to which it owes its very existence. " In other words, he simply believed that the state symbol implied despotism, and concentration of power, which led to conflict, violence and other means of corruption that could easily percolate through channels. Eschew the fallacies and misconceptions we have lived with so far, why is it that there is hierarchy instead of democracy in educational institutions, especially law school?
We live in the epoch of democracy, a democratic nation, run by the people and for the people. Yet, even in law school, where democracy ought to be the strongest, there exists a hierarchy, an uppper hand that decides what you do. In law school, you don't get to choose what you want to be. You have a certain 'hierarchy' to do that for you, slap a label on your head and brand you. And you remain stuck with that brand, whether you like it or not, until you get hold of the power, that power which caused people to vy for each others blood.
In educational institutions, especially law school, anarchy and autonomy would hold best. We, the people ought to be allowed to decide for ourselves and to live by our own rules, and not ridiculous preposterous rules laid down by the 'upper hand', who often assumes the role of a harsh dictator, even at his very best. Then again, too much idealism was never good. Anarchy is one of the things that will never be accepted.
In a 'democratic nation', we will always be ruled by a Prime Minister and a President.
Likewise, wherever we go, whatever we do, we will be compelled to bow down to the force that will decide what we want to do, or who we want to be.
We do not live in a democratic nation. Today, there is no room for democracy. People's beliefs, people's necessitites are somehow never reflected even when legislations are enacted. Right up from the parliament to educational institutions, even law-school, which is to produce platoons of highbrows and future parliamentarians, perhaps, there only exists dictatorship.