Anarchy is the Way Forward
Debate Rounds (3)
I open my case with a definition, namely that by anarchy, I am talking about a system without a State or Government, but with local communal discussion that enables the people to run themselves and own the means of production as a community. Naturally the system advocates the freedom of the individual, and the equality of the people, which leads me well onto my first point.
Throughout history, liberty and equality have been the two factors of change in society. The freedom of the individual has shaped our society, and has been eroding the despots and dictators of the old worlds. This force of freedom is seeping its way into every country without fail, from Canada to China. Where there are shocking inflictions on a person's liberty, the world fights back. Equality has also been a vital force for change. Even to this day we see equality fighting discrimination. Equality has invaded race, gender and class, with mixed results. Where there are inequalities, we see them slowly fizzling out, and becoming scowled upon by many.
So what am I trying to say by this? I believe that the perfect utopian world would be a world of perfect freedom and of perfect equality. This may not be entirely attainable, but anarchy is the closest system we can find to this. A system without the restrictions of a government, and with the equal class of all, is surely a step forward to any society?
I await your response eagerly.
I am interested to see what they are...
Ultimately, Anarchy comes down to the freedom of the individual. Freedom is arguably the greatest possession of anyone, more valuable in itself than any security. It allows the individual to reach his or her potential, or be able to express their emotions passively without fear of pain or imprisonment. Freedom is an inherently good thing.
Anarchy also stands against the power of an individual over other people. This relationship is often exploitative, as power corrupts. It rots a person, and tempts them to abuse what power they have. Such a hierarchy has been shown time and time again to fail us as a whole. And whereabouts on such a hierarchy is the most power based? In the State, naturally.
How can a State abuse its power? By enforcing controlling laws and taxes that make the people suffer. While democracy claims that the people have a say in how they are governed, it is too often a decision between two or more undesirable parties, and once a party is elected, the people must settle with the decision made until the next election, in which time they may be imprisoned by a power driven State that denies the people freedom of expression.
So what is the answer to this restrictive force? Anarchy. Not the scary unshaven Anarchy that the State would have you fear, but a fair system in which we discuss, co-operate, negotiate and barter in peace on a local level. Such a system is the way forward.
So if you believe in peace, harmony, equality and liberty, I can be confident that you will vote for Anarchy. Vote for the Instigator.
"When there is state there can be no freedom, but when there is freedom there will be no state."
This ultimately is the quote which Cloud is basing his argument on. But we have to ask ourselves, is this word 'freedom,' being used correctly? There are many things which the state provides that is not 'oppression'. The state is there to look after the most vulnerable in our society. Organisations such as a National Health Service are a great symbol of what successful states can achieve. I don't think that the heavily pregnant homeless woman who relies on it necessarily views it as oppression. I dare say she will not view it as 'freedom,' when it has been disbanded and she will have to find another way of delivering her baby. Anarchy is idealistic because it would only work in a society where everyone is responsible enough to make their own decisions and no one as any ambition at all.
This brings me nicely onto my second piece of rebuttal.
"A fair system in which we discuss, co-operate, negotiate and barter in peace on a local level."
Does Cloud really think this will ever work. That no one will ever have ambitions to become leader of this equal utopia? That everything will be resolved without certain people becoming more respected. That respect then transforms into power and that certain person decides to use that power for their own benefit because this is a society with no leaders and so imagine the status you'd have if you were respected and were able to sway public opinion. Do you see how quickly the 'social utopia' can fall apart. It is simply unrealistic to assume that a) no one will try and take charge and b) that the society will function for more than a week.
I have proven that Anarchy is ideologically flawed and will not work in practice.
You said, I believe, that the State has benefits. I would first like to agree. Naturally, a State isn't there for oppression alone, but you seem to have missed the point. While the State may provide the National Health Service, which I am glad you brought up, this system is not impossible to provide by the community. For thousands of years, people in the community have delivered babies without requiring the NHS to help them. All it would need is skilled members of the community to have compassion, which to me is not a distant hope. People are better than you think. Do not underestimate them. Besides, while there would be no States, there would be a communal obligation to help people.
It is an interesting point that you make, as this is a potential hazard of Anarchy, but I think you're missing the point. I cannot stand up and say that Anarchy has no faults, or that there would be no problems. I am in fact arguing that a society of Anarchy is a preferable one to our current politics, which I believe stands at the pinnacle of this debate. We aren't arguing over the bits and pieces here, we are looking and the simple philosophy of a system without a government, which I believe if you cannot give reason to reject, is a sign that you are losing. I would request your response to this point of the debate. But nevertheless to stoop to the bare practicalities, I have faith in humanity. Think about what our simple people have done over the years. You'll no doubt point towards the buildings that governments have commissioned, or paintings sponsored, or any number of things, but I am not talking about things you can sense. Every day of our lives, we depend on kind people, who do good out of their own will. I find people lending me books, or helping older people cross busy roads. This may seem clich�d, for which I apologise, but it's true. Perhaps I didn't make this clear enough, but I am thinking about anarcho-syndicalism, with local communities who work for a collective good. So long as people have the bare minimum to let them live, I have faith that there will be some stability. Okay, you may call me na�ve, but surely it is better to have faith in the future than to be cynical of reform.
So to conclude, what have I told you in this debate? I have told you that the power of people over themselves is necessary, but over others is a bad thing, as power is abused, and as the State has power over a nation it ought to be abolished. I have also tried to show you that the only way for a free and equal society is also known as Anarchy. I cannot put any pressure on your vote, but I can ask you to exercise the freedom you have to vote for the Proposition. Thank you.
newspapers_are_cool forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Double_R 11 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had the burden of proof but failed to fulfill it. He simply claims that people are good as support for why anarchy should be the way forward. Con responds by demonstrating that while people are generally good, there are also flaws which are inevitable and cause for great concern. Pro had no way of dealing with this and instead just repeats his claim that people are good. Normally the forfeit is enough for an auto victory, but Con already had the debate won by that point.