Domanic Asmar

Period
Adler vs Casey Essay Prompt #2
4/24/2014

Allow Us to Understand
Have you ever questioned why we have or need our government? Most people
do not usually ask themselves this question because having a source of government is
something already in effect when we come into the world. Two authors by the names of
Doug Casey and Mortimer Adler had this question in their mind and have written about
their perspectives on the necessity of government. Doug Casey, an American born
libertarian economist explains why we don't need a government. On the other hand,
Mortimer Adler, an American philosopher explains why government is a necessity in
life. Based on Adlers strong use of supporting evidence and clarification to what the
function and purpose of government is, he has the more compelling argument
compared to Doug Caseys lack of those factors.
One of Adlers strengths in his writing, besides his logical point of view on the
necessity of government, is his well explained supporting evidence. Having good
supporting evidence helps the readers understand what he is trying to say, it lets us into
his head and get a better grasp of what hes thinking. For example, before he goes into
what the actual necessity of government is, he first explains the two uses of the word
necessity, one being natural necessity which occurs due to the forces of nature, and
the other being practical necessity which never needs to happen but most likely does
because it has a favorable outcome. Using these two definitions, he reminds us that
government is a human creation and is not something that just naturally occurred.
Casey, on the other hand, just refers specifically to the US Government, while Adler
doesnt talk about any government in particular,but about government in general. Adler
writes that without government people would live in isolation, which isn't what people do
naturally, people live in groups. He then explains that people who are in those groups
follow certain rules that the group needs to follow and that in itself is government. He
then again has supporting evidence of what the other side of that would look like. To
explain the other side of it he asks, Is it possible for people who live socially in groups
to live completely autonomous? What he does to answer his question is he gives a
scenario about three scientists who set out to explore a part of the amazon forest. He
then gives examples of what would happen if one out of the three scientists made a
separate decision than the other two, it would cause confusion on what the final
decision should be. This caused different alternatives to help decide what to do:
everyone making a unanimous decision, choosing a leader to make all the decisions, or
having each decision come down to a 2-1 vote where majority rules. This scenario he
created helped form a visual example of why we must give up being autonomous to an
extent in order to come to conclusions. These are just few ways Adler uses strong
supporting evidence compared to Doug Casey who says factual things that actually
happened but then doesnt back up to how it relates to his argument, therefore leaving
the reader hanging and with a confused thought on what he meant.
Another factor that plays a major role in Adler's argument to why government is
necessary in comparison to Caseys argument is Adler's explanation of what the
function and purpose of government is. He states that government is necessary so that
a group may achieve a common goal and, secondly, to maintain peace. He then
explains a way to understand the second function of government by creating another
scenario like the one he had before, but with a community of people living under civil
governments. The way a government maintains peace is sort of obvious according to
the two alternatives he gives. One alternative is for the group to do whatever they want
which ultimately leads to each individual wanting different things. The second alternative
is having the group work cooperatively and use some sort of governing rules which sets
a law that each group must follow. What Adler says is quite opposite to what Casey
says in his writing. Casey compares the KKK, the IRA, the PLO and any type of lynch
mob to governments. One thing Casey does not do is go into depth of what he means
and how it all fits together like Adler does in his argument. In summary, Adler's
explanation of what the purpose and explanation of government helps make his
argument more compelling and easier to understand.
Adler's use of strong supporting evidence and how he explains his terms with
clarity is important to use when writing a persuasive essay because it allows the readers
to understand what point the writer is trying to get across. If Adler tried to explain his
points how Casey did, which was illogical and unclear, his essay wouldn't be the more
compelling one due to the fact that the readers would not understand what he was
trying to explain. We do not have the ability to magically read the writers mind therefore
the writer needs to go into depth of what he is thinking which is what Adler did very well.