Final answer:
The lack of laws and government in an ideal state of nature may lead to violence, oppression, and a survival-of-the-fittest scenario. Resolving disputes and protecting natural rights could become problematic, leading to a society where the weak are unprotected and societal progress is hindered without the collective efforts of governance.
Step-by-step explanation:
The idea of having no laws or government, often associated with the state of nature, presents several drawbacks. Philosophers like Thomas Hobbes and John Locke have offered differing views on human nature in absence of governance. Hobbes painted a bleak picture, suggesting that life without laws would be 'nasty, brutish, and short,' due to a Darwinian struggle where only the strongest survive. In contrast, Locke believed that people are capable of self-governance based on reason and morality. However, even Locke acknowledged that conflicts over life, health, liberty, and possessions could arise, necessitating some form of government to protect these natural rights.
The absence of laws and government could lead to an environment where there is no formal structure to resolve disputes or protect individuals from harm. This could result in violence, oppression, and a perpetuating cycle of retribution as individuals take justice into their own hands. Without legal frameworks, there would be no agreed-upon rules for ownership or rights, resulting in confusion and conflict over resources. Moreover, societal progress may be stifled without the infrastructure and collective efforts a government can provide, which are essential for health, education, and welfare systems.