Final answer:
The idea that society is three meals away from anarchy emphasizes the fragility of social order in the absence of resources like food. Democracy is valued in Western societies for balancing liberty with the needs of the people, whereas anarchy is criticized for the potential lack of organized structures to manage violence and disputes.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that a society is only three meals away from anarchy suggests that the absence of basic necessities like food can rapidly destabilize a society, leading to a breakdown of order and the onset of anarchy.
While many people agree that an absence of government generally does not foster a conducive living environment, opinions vary on how societies ought to be governed to maintain stability and justice. History has shown a multitude of governance forms evolve, each with unique advantages and disadvantages, and often shaped by the needs and mindsets of their respective populations.
Democracy is often touted in Western societies as the most just and stable system, providing a balance of liberty and happiness, with the understanding that some level of civil unrest or rebellion can be beneficial in maintaining freedoms.
The criticism of anarchy primarily centers around the lack of organized law enforcement and a judicial system to resolve disputes and control violence. Anarchist perspectives counter by suggesting that violence stems from socioeconomic disparities, which could be addressed through unwinding government structures and relying on community-based mutual support systems.
At the core of these debates is the challenge of defining and respecting the majority opinion, a crucial element of any democratic process, as highlighted in the theoretical choice facing three families voting on a New Year's Day menu. This example illustrates how majority opinion is not always straightforward and can be complex to navigate in the governance of society.