Democracy is the Most Desirable Form of Government
KC had asked me to debate this topic with some time ago, and has promised to debate me on homophobia subsequent to the conclusion of this debate. I think these will be two intriguing and informative debates, and I look forward to getting them underway!
On balance, democracy is the most desirable form of government.
The voting is set to "select winner." I have nominated 10 judges for this debate. I selected them based on my past experience with them and their voting habits. I trust each of them to leave detailed, unbiased, cogent RFDS, and to engage in a close reading of the debate. The judges I've nominated are: Phantom, Wylted, Romanii, Whiteflame, Beverlee, Bladerunner060, Raisor, Thett3, Airmax1227, and Ajab. If KC objects to any member of this panel, he should PM me, and we can amend the debate parameters appropriately.
1. No forfeits
2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final round
4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. For the purposes of this debate, "democracy" means "a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free [and fair] electoral system." It may also be some combination of both the former and latter forms (Dictionary.com).
6. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss
R2: Constructive Cases
R5: Rebuttals, Final Focus
...to KC for accepting this debate--I hope he enjoys it! :)
I HONORABLY ACCEPT THIS DEBATE. GOOD LUCK TO THE OPPONENT AND JUDGES.
HAVE FUN BSH!
Thanks again to KC. In this round I will define some terms and present my constructive arguments.
Most - "greatest in quantity, extent, or degree"
Desirable - "worth seeking or doing as advantageous, beneficial, or wise: advisable"
Government - "the complex of political institutions, laws, and customs through which the function of governing is carried out"
All definitions are from Merriam Webster. 
Therefore it is my job to show that on balance, i.e. generally speaking, democratic governments are the most beneficial forms over government out there. This means that Con cannot negate the resolution by providing a few individual examples of successful nondemocratic governments, because that does not negate the resolution from an "on balance" perspective. In other words, a few examples of failed democracies or a few examples of successful nondemocratic regimes do not disprove that generally speaking, democratic governments are the most beneficial forms of government.
Con needs to provide evidence that analyzes democracy in general, and that can impact under a cost-benefit analysis.
Contention One: Democracy is the best way to Maximize Human Rights
Firstly, what are human rights? “Human rights exist as norms accepted in all or almost all actual human moralities. If almost all human groups have moralities containing norms prohibiting murder, for example, these norms would constitute the human right to life. Human rights can be seen as basic moral norms shared by all or almost all accepted human moralities.”  We can understand that there a few basic rights that all citizens should have, ranging from due process of law, to access to food, to equal status under the law. Many of these rights can be found in the ICCPR, and it provides a good reference point to begin any discussion of human rights, though I certainly don't agree with all of the document. 
Regardless, their are certain basic rights, like life, liberty, property, due process, and equality that should be accorded to every human being. Democracies have, both theoretically and empirically, the best chances of maximizing these rights within their societies.
“Democracy provides the best institutional arrangement for holding rulers accountable to the people. If leaders must compete for popular support to stay in power, they will respond to their citizens’ preferences. Rulers who do not need popular support to gain or maintain power will likely be more responsive to whatever group--the family, the military, the mullahs, or the communist party--controls their fate. The larger the number of people needed to elect a leader, the more inclined that leader will be to pursue public policies that benefit the majority. Not surprisingly, therefore, democracies ‘have consistently generated superior levels of social welfare’ compared to autocracies at similar income levels. Second, the institutions of democracy prevent abusive rule, constrain bad government, and provide a mechanism for getting rid of corrupt or ineffective leaders. Truly oppressive leaders cannot remain in power for long if they must seek the electoral mandate of those being oppressed. Autocrats face no such constraints. Mass terror and genocide occur in autocracies, not democracies. Democracies do not prevent all abusive behavior, but over the centuries, democratic leaders have unquestionably inflicted less pain and suffering on their people than have autocratic leaders.” 
This analysis is easily backed up by empirical analysis. If we look at the world's democracies  and compare them to the world's most free nations [5, 6], we can see that there is a positive correlation between democracy and freedom, and a negative correlation between authoritarianism and freedom. When examined by economic freedom, 31 out of the 34 most free nations or self-governing regions are democratic in nature.  Finally, when examined by levels of corruption, democracies also outperformed other nations in that democracies tended to have less corruption. 
Contention Two: Nondemocratic regimes have killed millions
"The more power a government has, the more it can act arbitrarily according to the whims and desires of the elite, the more it will make war on others and murder its foreign and domestic subjects. The more constrained the power of governments, the more it is diffused, checked and balanced, the less it will aggress on others and commit democide [government mass murder]. At the extremes of Power, totalitarian communist governments slaughter their people by the tens of millions, while many democracies can barely bring themselves to execute even serial murderers…more people died from democide in the 20th century than from all its wars combined...To this I would add that the less democratic two states the more likely that they will fight each other...They create an oasis of peace...In total, during the first eighty-eight years of this century [millions of] men, women, and children have been shot, beaten, tortured, knifed, burned, starved, frozen, crushed, or worked to death; or buried alive, drowned, hung, bombed, or killed in any other of the myriad ways governments have inflicted death on unarmed, helpless citizens or foreigners. The dead even could conceivably be near 360,000,000 people. This is as though our species has been devastated by a modern Black Plague. And indeed it has, but a plague of Power and not germs. Putting the human cost of war and democide together, Power has killed over 203,000,000 people in this century. As the arbitrary power of a regime increases massively, that is, as we move from democratic to totalitarian regimes, the amount of killing jumps by huge multiples.” 
If we look at the worlds current dictatorships today, excluding transitional governments which are oftentimes in the process of shifting towards democratic rule, we can see that in the majority of them, human rights abuses are occurring. This map displays authoritarian nations in orange and red [10, 11]. Just looking at it, we can readily identify a variety of state that abuse human rights: Russia, China, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Afghanistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, Laos, Myanmar, Sudan, Eritrea, Chad, CAR, DROC, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Zimbabwe, Angola, Burkina Faso, Bahrain, Libya, Egypt, and North Korea. Of the 50 or so nations labeled "authoritarian," I can easily identify 28 that have had significant human rights abuses in the last year or more. If Con wishes, I can provide sources to corroborate any country that I've identified which he believes has not significantly violated human rights.
We can also compare that map, to this one [12, 13]. This illustrates just how much authoritarianism correlates with human rights abuses. The more nondemocratic a regime becomes, the more likely it is that people in that country will have their human rights infringed.
Thus, we can clearly see the major downsides to living outside of a democracy, particularly electoral democracies [5, 14].
1 - http://www.merriam-webster.com...
2 - http://plato.stanford.edu...
3 - http://www.ohchr.org...
4 - McFaul, Michael, 2010 [Hoover Senior Fellow, Professor of Political Science and Director of the Center on Democracy, Development, and Rule of Law at Stanford and nonresident associate at Carnegie] “Advancing Democracy Abroad,” p. 35-37
5 - http://www.ask.com...
6 - http://en.wikipedia.org...
7 - http://www.heritage.org...
8 - http://cpi.transparency.org...
9 - http://www.scribd.com...
10 - http://en.wikipedia.org...
11 - http://www.ask.com...
12 - http://reliefweb.int...
13 - http://reliefweb.int...
14 - http://en.wikipedia.org...
Thanks! Hopefully my pictures displayed as pictures instead of links, lol. Over to Con...
Democracy is the worship of jackals by jackasses
H.L Mencken, American Political Satirist
Today, we talk about a democratic future. The word democratic has even been labeled into the rhetorical vocabulary of even the most undemocratic leaders. But why democracy? Why not anarchism? Why not monarchy? That is the question that we are here to discuss.
The Rarity of “Good” Democracies
Good democracies are hard to establish, hard to maintain, but easy to theorize. The 1932 Thai Revolution initially had a well planned origin, but clearly, a good democracy in Thailand was never established. Firstly, to understand the establishment of a “good” democracy, we must find a measure of “good” for democracies. A good democracy is defined as a democracy in which the people have equal rights (in voting), corruption is non-existent, and the stability of the system is not threatened.
“Good” democracies barely exist; the dream of a “good” democracy, however, is universal. The Democracy Index, albeit its method for calculating the democracy scores can be objected, lists 15.3% of the world’s countries as a “full democracy” However, the population represented in this category represents only 11% of the world’s population 
If we were to take that seriously, 15 out of 100 revolutions or rebellion would result in the creation of a “good democracy” Apart from this, if we were to take the quantifiable measures right now, 32 of the 100 revolutions/rebellions will result in the creation of a “flawed democracy” and 53 of 100 revolutions/rebellions will result in the creation of a “hybrid regime” or an “authoritarian regime” 
Even in good democracies, the state exercises complete control over decisions in which the state has no moral obligation to intervene in; a homosexual person wanting to marry his spouse may be barred from doing so in some conservative democracies (India), whilst abortion, a clearly individual decision, is outlawed. A good democracy, albeit being the supposedly “most ethical and realistic” form of governing, will turn into a rule of the majority, where each individual’s rights are not taken into account.
Good democracies are rare; a good democracy requires leading elite who will stay true to their ideology and a lot of mass support. And how does this make a system such as democracy “undesirable” Firstly, that is not what I’m arguing. However, if we are to look at it, we may summarize this with John Adam’s quote:
“But while I do live, let me have a country, and that a free country.”
And what is freedom?
I argue we go back to the state of nature, or a state in which all the rights of mankind to do whatever he wants as long as he does not violate the rights of other. And this state is an minimalist state.
Alternative #1: Minimalist Government
A free country possesses a free people, whose interest is the pure tranquility and liberty of the people. In this, we enter the realm of those with a minimalist persuasion, namely philosopher Robert Nozick. A minimalist state is not democratic in the sense that there is no executive branch to elect, as the opponent has defined in his R1 opening statements.
The minimalist state is the only moral and justifiable state; moral in the sense that all of the natural rights are preserved, i.e rights to property, rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness so forth, and justifiable in the sense that it will keep law and order.
The logic of minimalism is to find faults in our state of nature, and address those faults. The logic of a democratic state, however, is to impose the rule of the majority. The minimalist will reform the state of nature, whilst the democrat will replace the state of nature. In forming a democracy, some men’s rights would be violated for the opinion of the majority. A minimalist state is a night-watchman state, whose roles are :
1. To protect the rights of every individual, as apart from the majority
2. To enforce contracts between two parties
3. To instill law and order into the citizens of the government
4. To protect property rights and defend citizens from theft and fraud
Note that whilst minimalism may sound like a state, every individual man’s moral worth and individual decision are respected; every man makes his own decisions without the interference from the majority.
Humans have individual moral worth; even if the majority agrees on something, that is the majority, not the people. The minimalist state is the people’s state, because people are free to pursue whatever careers they like, and make whatever individual decisions that affect them and are in the limits of the law. All rights are therefore respected in the minimalist state; a mother thinking of abortion is no business of the government, or the majority. Minimalism is the only morally justifiable form of government, as the people will be free from other interferences.
The opponent may argue that if a system is more practical, then it is more desirable. However, I have to desires; to earn $3 or to earn $3 million. Earning $3 is definitely more practical; a day’s worth of work earns me that much, but $3 million is definitely more desirable.
But if we were to look at this from an empirical perspective, then we are to take another alternative.
Alternative #2: Monarchism
The Monarchist cause is a dying cause; all over the world, people are turning to the republican institutes that would strangle monarchism. But it is still a force to be reckoned with, and will be presented as my second alternative to the tyrannical rule of democracy.
We must firstly define the monarchism we are looking at; it is not the monarchism of Sir Robert Filmer’s Patriarchia, but it is a monarchism of the French Legalists; a constitutional executive monarchy, where the monarch holds considerable power, but is still under the regulations of a written constitution. Therefore, the monarchy we talk about has a legislature, whilst the executive power lies solely in the hands of the monarch and his subjects.
The justification of the monarchist form of government is this; providing that a monarchy protects his people’s rights, i.e liberty and equality, the nation can be prosper and stable. In this type of state, politics would be limited to a sizable elitist group and the people could be apathetic without any direct consequences. Such is what happened with Thailand before 1932; the farmers and peasants did not have any opinion, as long as the king was able to govern the country with just rule. 
Another justification for this is the fact that democracies are built for rhetoricians, whilst monarchism are built for statesmen. Winning a democratic campaign means that the candidate is a good persuader. In reality, the candidate might be a corrupt mastermind. This happened with Adolf Hitler; his usage of oratory persuasion remains unparalleled to this day, but yet his mind was oriented into a bigotry way that led Germany to failure. Monarchies, on the other hand, are built for those fittest to rule; the kings who have gained power often do so as a result of some sort of armed struggle. Such is the case of the House of Tudors, who after a long war, took power and propelled England into a period of enlightened thinking. 
In forming arguments for monarchism, we take a look back at Sparta. Sparta had a quartcameral (is that even a word?) governing system, in which two kings ruled the executive, two kings managed the legislative, a council managed the kings, and the legislative is democratically elected.  Let us note the differences between power in Sparta and its more democratic Athenian friends. Sparta ended more powerful than Athens; this was due to a combination of superior military tactics, but more so to the mixed monarchist system that was present. The executive branch excelled in administering the state; effective ministers were always installed.
Apart from this we must mind the fact that democracy is very unstable. Athens, often times, found it hard to find stability in the democratic system; the Coup of 411bc showed that democracy can be susceptible to coups.  Athens is not the only case of this; Thailand, with over 80 years of democratic “governing”, has experienced 18 coups! Coups happen when power becomes decentralized and when a leader’s control of the population deteriorates; under a monarchy, this is less likely to happen. Firstly, a monarchy is always centralized; his palace would be considered the center of authority. Secondly, a monarchy is coercive; authority is often always abided under monarchism.
Apart from this, under a monarchy, if the state holds absolute authority, then the state could be prosper and powerful, as well as being stable. Prussia proves this amazingly well; the strong and authoritarian minded military junkers, for over 600 years, controlled and managed the Prussian state with excelling power! Prussia went on to defeat Russia, Austria, and France; three immensely powerful European states. How did they do this? Because of the monarchist form of government that was present.
With this said, we can come to a conclusion that monarchism can be more desirable than democracy because it installs effective ministers, is stable, and can become a very powerful state.
The resolution is negated; minimalism and monarchism provides us with two more desirable forms of government, from a both theoretical and practical point of view.
 Democracy Index: http://en.wikipedia.org...
 Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia: http://www.colorado.edu...
 Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org...(1932%E2%80%9373)
 Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org...
I thank KC for this debate! I shall now respond to Con's case.
Firstly, "democracy" has been defined as "a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free [and fair] electoral system." Therefore, if power is not vested in the people or if elections do not occur in a free and fair manner, a nation is not a democracy. Therefore, I am not called upon to defend the illiberal pseudo-democracies that Con discusses; rather, I only have to defend the type of government found in the "full democracy" category, since it is in these nations where free and fair electoral systems are present.
Secondly, even if you don't buy the above analysis, the more democratic you are--as I have shown in the pervious round--the better of a country's people tend to be from a general point of view.
Thirdly, Con makes an error in his estimation, namely that because 15.3% of countries are democracies, that only 15.3% of "revolutions" must succeed. That's a non-sequitur as one statistic does not imply the other. Additionally, it can be argued that revolution is not necessarily the best way to bring about democratic reforms--perhaps the ongoing transformation in Myanmar can be an guideline of how to effect such change, sans "revolution." 
Fourthly, Con argues that the imposition of moral values is (1) somehow unique to democracies, and (2) overly majoritarian. This is false. As to the first point, I will endeavor to show how both the minimalist state and the monarchist state "exercises [sic] complete control over decisions in which the state has no moral obligation to intervene in." In other words, I will show how this harm is not unique to democracies and that both of Con's alternatives experience the exact same harm. I will do this later on in the round. As to the second claim, I would question whether majoritarianism is any better than tyranny by the elite, which, as I shall discuss, is always a risk in a monarchical state. Additionally, I would point out that democracies as such include protection for minority groups--while these protections aren't always effective, they at least exist and have proven to be oft-valuable tools in ensuring minority rights. For instance, in the U.S., dissident groups like the KKK are free to protest peacefully. However disgusting the group may be (and it truly is loathsome), it has a right to express its views--and, despite overwhelming public sentiment against the group, its right to protest has been upheld in the courts.  Cases like this can be found the world over, where minority groups use due process of law present in democracies to ensure that the threat posed by majoritarianism isn't realized.
ALT 1: MINIMALIST STATE
Con is specifically arguing for the minimalist state advanced by Nozick, a renowned libertarian thinker. Let me briefly outline the basis for Nozick's beliefs. Nozick is neo-Lockean in the sense that he largely accepts Locke's arguments regarding the state of nature and the natural rights present therein, but disagrees with Locke's theories as to how society would emerge from said state. 
Nozick felt that natural rights were so strong that they led to humans being self-owners, or, to put it simply, having absolute property rights over themselves. Humans could do whatever they wanted to their bodies or with their talents and abilities. Taxation, for instance, would be a form of slavery since it unjustly coerces individuals to part with their self-earned money. What was won through a person's ability or labor could not be justly taken away through force. As Con himself writes, "every individual man’s moral worth and individual decision are respected; every man makes his own decisions without the interference from the majority." This conception of the ultra-free individual led Nozick to write his the "Utopia" portion of his book, which suggested that humans were complex agents, unable to be satisfied by any one kind of state. Therefore, they were free to "consider many different societies and critique them, eliminating some and modifying others. In this process, we can imagine people trying out societies as a sort of experiment, leaving those they find hopeless or altering those they could find acceptable with some tinkering. As we might expect, some communities will simply be abandoned, others will flourish, and some will continue on but not without struggles. So, this meta-utopia would serve as a framework or platform for many diverse experimental communities." 
Since the minimalist state grants people such large amounts of freedom, it cannot prevent them from creating mini-states within the larger whole. For instance, "those sympathetic with trade unionists could elect to develop a community where ownership groups consisted only of workers. In fact, Nozick was surprised that this sort of arrangement had not already evolved from vocal members of the political left who argue that the only just notion of property is one held by all in a classless society...Just so long as all agree to the rules of the group, they could agree to form a society that looks much like the social democracies of Scandinavia. Likewise, it seems possible that individuals could join to form quite illiberal communities." 
This line of thinking has two key impacts: (1) It does not rule out democracy, thus it is a non-unique counterplan, and I can implement democracy just as easily through a minimalist state as in the world of realpolitik; and (2) the minimalist state could yield illiberal or violent societies as well, thus Con is incurring some of the very harms he attempted to pin on me.
Additionally, consider that even in a minimal state, there are going to be encroachments on to rights. Note that Nozick believed in a natural conception of rights, including the right to life. The main argument of pro-life supporters is that a fetus is alive, in which case, it would be a violation of rights to abort. So, the minimalist state is still going to have to make a moral judgment call about the status of a fetus--some such states may side with the pro-life faction, in which case, to use Con's own language, the state would be going where "the state has no moral obligation to intervene."
Finally, Con makes an additional fatal error. Democracy was defined as "a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them OR by their elected agents under a free [and fair] electoral system." Thus, no elected branch of government is necessary for a nation to be a democracy. Con's whole argument is that the minimalist state is good because it invests power in the people and that they are the primary directors of their own destiny. Certainly, such a minimalist state is "a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly." Why wouldn't it count as a democracy?
ALT 2: MONARCHISM
Let's dissect Con's claims here carefully.
Firstly, it is dubious that Con's suggested state is indeed nondemocratic, since he proposed to constrict the monarch with constitutional rules and proposed a legislature which I assume is elected.
Secondly, Con is outright arguing for elitism, which seems no better than majoritarianism, which is bad, to use Con's terms, because "each individual’s rights are not taken into account." An elitist government seems no more apt to favor equal rights. Surely if a small minority is running the country, such as the Alawites in Syria or the Shi'ites under Maliki or the whites in apartheid South Africa, that minority can use its control of government to benefit its own faction. Just as the majority seeks to benefit itself when it is in power, so too does the minority when it is in power.
Thirdly, the rhetorician-statesmen dynamic falls apart. In modern monarchies, succession is based not on ability, but on bloodline and birth-order, most commonly in the form of primogeniture. In which case, an 18 year old might inherit the throne--not something I care to think about in the age of nuclear weapons. And who is too say that the person first in line to the throne by birth is necessarily a competent leader; certainly, someone ill-fit to rule could easily inherit. Next, Con proposes the following: "the kings who have gained power often do so as a result of some sort of armed struggle." I sincerely hope that Con isn't suggesting that we have a war every time a new head of government must be selected--that would only add to the body count my constructive case wracks up and it implies that your monarchist state isn't that stable.
Con offers no credible evidence that Sparta's success was more so do to its government system than it's military culture. If this becomes an issue, I can debate it further.
Finally, as to the evidence about coups, all Con has shown is that coups happen in democracies. Well, as the 1913 Ottoman Coup illustrates, coups also happen in Monarchies.  Con has utterly failed to illustrate that coups happen more often in democratic states than monarchies. Unless he can do that, this point is non-unique, and is not an argument against democracies.
Oh, and here again Con falls into the pitfall of his own words. He suggests that "under a monarchy, if the state holds absolute authority, then the state could be prosper." This implies that Con wants the monarchy to have absolute power, where it could "exercises [sic] complete control over decisions in which the state has no moral obligation to intervene in."
1 - http://www.ask.com...
2 - http://www.nytimes.com...
3 - http://www.iep.utm.edu...
4 - http://www.ask.com...'%C3%A9tat?o=2801&qsrc=999&ad=doubleDown&an=apn&ap=ask.com
I would like to thank bsh for doing this debate with me!
Responding to my opponent semantics play, democracy has indeed been defined as a “form of government in which supreme power is vested in the people, or exercised by them or by their elected agents under a free and fair electoral system” Note the words electoral system. This implies that this definition talks about democracy as the process of voting and electing, rather than the democratic government that would be established after the elections. Therefore, the conditions for coming as a democracy in this case would be clearly to have a free and fair electoral system; this electoral system may not have to be efficient, but it must be “free and fair” What do we mean by free? Does it mean freedom other interferences? Free in this case means the freedom to choose who they vote for, even if the vote is influenced. Fair, in this case, means equality of every person to choose. The conditions of “free and fair” can be, therefore, placed upon every flawed democracy, making it the opponent’s burden (or if you would like it, duty) to defend both categories.
1R2NRC: The Maximization of Human Rights
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49." Thomas Jefferson, Third American President and the Author of the American Constitution
It is quite ironic for the third president of a very well oiled democracy to say this, but it does represent a very important dilemma in democracy. Democracy, in a non-semantic manner, means the rule of the people; but how are we to judge what the will of the people is? What it is not is clearer to understand, however.
The will of the people is definitely not the will of the majority; many times, a politician in a democratic society would look to appeal to a class of people. This creates class conflict within a nation; if we were to look at this from a nationalist point of view, then class conflict will inherently lead to the weakening of central authority. Nevertheless, democracy is the war of the classes; if the majority working class elects a Socialist/Populist government whose aim is to implement progressive tax on the nation, then the minority middle class/elitists would have their own rights violated. This was what happened in India regarding gay marriage; when the Indian Supreme Court ruled that homosexuality was a crime, the minority liberal-minded elites and middle class started protesting. However, since the majority of the Indian population is highly conservative (as the election of the BJP shows), the minority cannot do anything against this so called “acts of injustice” Is this what we call the best and most “desirable form” of government?
After this, chaos would be existent, and the democracy would either fall into the hands of an autocratic military government or anarchy. The former was the case of Thailand; when the ruling populist party, the Pheau Thai Party, played the class card by putting tariffs on the rice market and by introducing a campaign of strict government regulation in the market, the middle-class and the higher class, a ever growing class in Thailand, started to launch a six month campaign of disobedience. This disobedience led to many deaths and the eventually military coup that led to the installation of General Prayuth as de jure prime minister. This comes, of course, with implementation of military law and huge strings of mass arrests. 
Apart from that, the opponent’s argument on corruption, freedom and democracy are (more or less) objectionable. CPI scores could be considered proxy-based; for example, the 13 external sources that Transparency uses are based upon many proxy factors, like economic freedom and press freedom. The Freedom Index also uses many proxy factors; proxy factors are assumption that x would necessarily lead to y being either higher or lower.  For example, if one country’s economic freedom rate was low, one would automatically assume that the GINI (Social Inequality Index) would also be low (the higher the better, if class equality is “better”). However, Equatorial Guinea has an EF score of 50.1, an average score, but yet has the highest GINI coefficient in the world. Causation is not necessarily causation. 
With this said, we can turn to our first alternative government; although this minimalist government exists only in theory, one may assume (and with a really real assumption) that the minimalist government will one day be achieved. Supposed this minimalist government has already been achieved; people would lead a happy and fulfilling life. In this, the adoption of the Christian view of politics (it is a necessary evil) would be needed; if politics is a necessary evil, then abolishing it would be beneficial. Politics, in the modern and conventional sense (politics is how we are governed, politics is how our lives work), does not exist in a minimalist state, because as stated, there would be no need to legislate when the state has no moral obligations to legislate for each individual. Therefore, the full liberty to do anything that one might desire to do is present.
At this point, I would like to note that I am arguing from a practical and theoretical point of view.
1R3NRC: Non Democratic Regime and the “Deaths”
The opponent brings up a figure, 360,000,000, of the number of lives that were lost because of a autocratic non-democratic regimes have caused. However, I would like to state that they did not do this in the name of anti-democracy. The Nazi Genocide, an incident also known as the Holocaust, killed subhumans in the name of the highly Darwinist racial characteristics that the Nazi government believed in. The Khmer Rouge killed 25% of the Cambodian population, not in the name of anti-democracy, but in the name of the communist regime. Therefore, we cannot say that non-democratic regimes are genocidal in nature because of the fact that they are not a democracy; how do you account for Lee Kuan Yew’s soft authoritarianism, which led to the creation of one of the world’s richest nation-state?
Nevertheless, democratic regimes also caused the death of at least 380,000,000 people. Over the last 60 years, America has intervened in many wars in order to establish human rights, or should I say “human rights” In Iraq, they intervened for the good of the “world”; however, they caused huge instability in the nation and installed a sectarian government in a multi-religious country. This conflict alone has led to 17,000 deaths.  Other conflicts in this area have resulted in the deaths of 225,000 lives; all this was done in over a period of ten years.  Many more examples could be raised; American intervention in Latin America has led to 6,300,000 deaths, both directly and indirectly.  American funding of both Iran and Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War led to the deaths of 1,000,000 citizens. However, the United States has never succeeded in creating a well oiled democracy like itself; instead, in the name of the ideology, it ought to represent, it has killed 30 million more people, alone. The figures presented by the opponent would be, I am assuming, of the many non-democratic regimes throughout democracy.
This is the true cost of spreading democracy; if democracy was desirable, then why has it caused the many deaths that it has done so? There are two explanations that make it seem true.
The first explanation is the concept of corporation control; democracies often come with the need for economic development and “modernity” The people find this only in the seeds of capitalism, not in the burdens of socialism or any other odd economic model. But with capitalism comes multinational corporations, who fund the democratic government in whatever they do. Therefore, democratic governments will gladly serve the interests of the corporations; for example, an arguable alternative explanation for the 2004 Invasion of Iraq was to secure oil for American companies; most notably Halliburton. Perhaps this also explains America’s presence in the Middle East, one of the most oil rich regions in the world. This new form of imperialism, called neo-imperialism, has been present in the United States for many years. Belgium is also another example of this; since the creation of Belgium as a nation-state, the nation has been a constitutional monarchy with a well functioning democracy. Belgium turned Congo into a literal private company for Belgium, with the citizens of Congo slaves to the Belgian elite.
The second explanation is more of a historical explanation into the spirit of democracy; since the beginning of democracy, democracies always got itself in wars, often against other non-democratic regimes (but sometimes with democratic regimes too) in order to show the superiority of the democratic institutions over autocratic regime or to implement a democracy over them. From the Peloponnesian Wars, in which Athens got itself into complicated alliances which soon broke, to World War One, when the want for America to gain something from the losing German forces led to the US clearly aiding the imperialists, we can see that democracy will get itself into wars often with enemies of its system. These wars are often caused by national interests and reasons that would relate to diffidence; a pre-emptive strike against one’s enemy would be better than waiting for them to strike first.
In the case of the US however, the first explanation stands out; the capitalistic foundations of America causes the government to seek wars to create new markets for American corporations.
Conclusion: The Resolution is Negated
Kc1999 forfeited this round.
No votes. Good luck to bsh in the WODC!
|Who won the debate:||-||-|
|Who won the debate:||-||-|
|Who won the debate:||-||-|
|Who won the debate:||-||-|
|Who won the debate:||-||-|