?Debate: An Oppressive government is more desirable than no government at all Argument: An oppressive government provides safety and asylum while man in a natural state without government is not assured these things, and is also therefore denied peace. A government, however oppressive, provides safety and justice. Man is in a natural state of war and, as Hobbes said, "In a state of nature there are continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
" By this and former evidence it is clear that the human race, when without government, is also without peace, but a government provides a common power that can protect and mollify its citizens, and provide justice to them. Facts: If a government is not powerful and strong, it will not have the capacity to rule its citizens and enforce the law to prevent crime. According to the United Nations World Crime Survey, countries entrenched in turmoil like Columbia and South Africa have homicide rates 63 and 51 per 100,000, respectively.
Compare this to the homicide rate of the US, "5. 5 homicides per 100,000 people. " Countries that are in turmoil obviously do not have a strong government that can enforce the law and bring safety to its citizens. As you can see, lack of a government means that there is no law to be enforced. This puts the lives of a country's citizens in danger. However, an oppressive government will be strong enough to enforce the law and ensure the safety of its citizens, making an oppressive government more desirable than no government when it comes to assuring safety and stability.
---A country with no powerful government cannot provide municipal and federal services, such as hospitals, firefighting services, etc. , and must rely on other countries, becoming a burden to the world. In fact; uncontrolled Somalia piracy of the Coast of Aden has already cost the world $150m in bribe money and over 95 attempted attacks on freighter vessels. ---A country, such as Somalia, with no central government has no federal military to defend itself, both from internal and external threats.
According a 2008 survey by the CIA, Somalia has, "No national-level armed forces. " This lack of a military has led to uncontrolled internal conflict in Somalia. A government like Somalia's would have been unable to control the revolution, but the USSR, whose oppressiveness has given it power, was able to suppress both Hungary and the Revolution within days. Therefore, we can see that a country with no government is a breeding ground for rebellion, which can harm both a country and its neighbors.
My opponent may claim that such agreements are conceivable under anarchy, but the problem is that without an enforcement mechanism, the arrangements would be purely voluntary, and participants would be capable of withdrawing consent and using force to back this withdrawing whenever their ends shifted. Therefore, the government makes the contracts binding and creates a set of universal principles for the acquisition of property and the maximization of freedom. Second, rights must be enforceable, but it is impossible to legitimately enforce them in the state of nature.
The universal law that stipulates that rights cannot be violated only comes into play through assurance; without assurance, choosing not to violate another individual’s rights is permissible. The oppressive government serves to provide us with a universal standard of conduct that governs our behavior, provides a basis for stable contract formation, provides assurance that rights will be supported (at least for some), and provides for the protection of property. Anarchic societies are lawless and chaotic precisely because every individual is in constant competition with everyone else in order to survive.
Since Anarchy is a state of constant struggle for individual interests, and there is no common power that dominates the populace. Things they might say; -- The assumption here is that people cannot act civilized on their own and that they need a "Big brother" figure in order to do right. Can you prove this? Can you prove that “We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness?
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness. " without a government, people won't be able to have fire fighters, policemen, etc.? Reply: without a government, these fire fighters, policemen, etc.
, won't be as effective. Quite frankly, how much money does a country with no government make and spread in a way that it will provide municipal services to its inhabitants? None. In an oppressive government, we have money being spread to places like fire departments, police, etc. This is because oppressive governments know that they have to at least take some care of its people, to ensure prevention of rebellion. Without this funding, government services will not be as effective as if they were in an oppressive government. What about welfare?
Without the tax money, etc. government won’t be able to provide people with these services. --"Would they need one? If they aren't attacking anyone, and if they aren't putting their nose in anyone's path, is that bad? I haven't heard of them going into an external war anytime recently [... ] so why do you feel it is a necessity to have troops? " Reply: Government ensures that the status quo is maintained. If government collapses, there will be no one to keep this status quo. People will compete for resources, and it will be violent.
Also, radical groups from neighboring nations often take the chance to seize control in a country in turmoil. (Hitler after the fall of the Weimar Republic, Al-Qaeda after the turmoil in Afghanistan... ) Oppressive governments can keep violent or revolutionary organizations down, while weak government/no government is a breeding ground for violence and more turmoil. -- "Can you actually prove it will be more violent? I'm 100% sure when you add a misguided leader, and an army that goes to war [... ] that surpasses the dangers of competing within a country.
What makes you think they will compete within the country in a violent manner anyways? " Reply: Okay, first off, an oppressive government does not equal a corrupt government. While it can be possible in an oppressive government, it can be just as possible for a corrupt leader to gain power in an anarchist state. How? Logically, in times of strife, humans will looks towards a leader who can promise security and safety. If a leader can convince people that he or she can bring peace and stability to an anarchist state, people will want them in power.
In a state of anarchy, moral judgments are entirely contextual and will vary from agent to agent because there is no enforceable, universal standard by which to judge behavior. This prevents the formation of any form of moral contracts since there is no standard by which to claim that contracts must be binding. --Freedom. What more is there to say? Without a government there can be no ruling class which claims powers over others. People can organize themselves voluntarily in their own self-interest, the same way we do now in almost every sector of our lives.
Our nanny state system is what keeps people hobbled and dependent, remove the rules and restrictions and give people freedom and you'll see a complete societal turn around. Reply: Freedom you say? Sure YOU would have freedom... But don’t forget that everyone else will too! No laws? Now we have to define exactly what a law is. By the basic definition, no laws would simply mean no rules or guidelines for the general populace. This isn't even remotely possible with the human species. I can't think of any culture that we know of that hasn't had rules or guidelines, laws and boundaries.
Even chimpanzees and gorillas have their own forms of common place rules that are enforced within their communities. Or what about a less strict sense of the word law? What if we just meant to say legislation, interpretation through courts and enforcement? How do we realistically rid human society of these practices? Would that truly be 'freedom'? Freedom from legislation, interpretation and government enforcement maybe, but what about all the other things that would take their place without those securities in place?
The obvious reality being that we are the product of our environments, and that true freedom can only be obtained in a world of infinite possibilities where you are the only one pulling the strings in your reality. This is not how it works. We are very much bound to everything outside of us, whether that be the government, other people, or even the dirt we walk on and the air we breathe! http://www. debate. org/ http://shatteringthelens. com http://nsdupdate. com.