The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Government is a Protection Racket

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/7/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 868 times Debate No: 35367
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




In this debate I intend to show that Government is the destroyer, not the protector of society.


Government seeks not to destroy society, for what benefit would that yield? Your position is quite vague to challenge, but I will argue my position in a mirrored general manner.

Society created government for the sole purpose of protection – law is an invention to prevent the decay of structure. Especially from a post-enlightenment perspective, government was created by society to maintain order.

The Chronological Formation of Government:
1. With the invention of agriculture, humans learn that working together will produce a more bountiful harvest than solitary farming.
2. Humans gather in villages and interaction brings to light the need for moral code.
3. Humans realize they need an authority to enforce that moral code: government.

This is a simplification of how government formed, but as you can see, common sense argues that government was formed to protect society. And if the government were trying to destroy society, then who would it govern?

Debate Round No. 1


My position, as a Libertarian, is that government-all governments-are simply parasitical protection rackets who have dressed themselves up in the finest propaganda for the sake of being accepted by society.

My opponent is correct that civilization needs a legal system to protect property and settle disputes, but he is incorrect in saying that only government can establish an accepted legal system. Law in Pre-Medieval Western Europe consisted of local, voluntary groups pooling their resources for the sake of ensuring protection from and restitution for criminal invasion. There were no taxes or standing armies to speak of but law and order was maintained. This same system would be very much desirable for today. But I digress, this debate focuses on the myth that government creates order, or at least prevents disorder from breaking out in society.

My opponent says that government was formed to protect society. Protect? Doesn't government precisely fit the definition of a protection racket, "protecting" those who pay and killing those who do not? Does government not derive its tax-funding through the use of violent force? Don't government wars, from both sides, slaughter numerous innocents? Aren't many of these innocents forcibly enslaved into the ranks of government armies? For those who fear chaos, shouldn't they be working very hard to abolish the institution that has shown itself to be the most violent, the most fraudulent, and the most chaotic institution of all time?

Government maintains a monopoly on violence, a monopoly that is said to prevent abuse. But simple economics explain that whoever controls a monopoly will do their best to raise costs and decrease the quality of the service of product. In other words, government only receives a pay-raise when it expands. This is a built-in incentive for government to perpetuate the problems it is called on to solve. Government will seek to breed long-term dependency on their aid for the treating of only the symptoms of social issues without fixing the problem. For if the problem were fixed what use would the bureaucrats of that government department be? Government needs chaos and destruction in order to survive and expand. These incentives are very dangerous because it means that government has enormous motive to intentionally harm its populace.

This pattern of thievery and murder has only been able to persist because of the elaborate use of establishment propaganda by intellectual leaders. These intellectuals, in exchange for wealth and privilege, use their influence in the classroom, the pulpit, or the news studio to beam messages of submission and admiration for the state and its existence. Today this propaganda comes in the form of government-licensed TV and radio, government compulsory education for the youth, and government-accrediting of colleges and universities. These institutions spread the message that government is natural, traditional, even divine. Given the wide-spread devotion to accepting the state as a given, they apparently have been quite successful.

Removing the monopoly on violence would give law and order (and in turn all other government functions) over to the accountability and transparency of the free-market. An era of peace and prosperity never seen before can be reasonably expected to emerge in such an environment.

If we look at the state for what it truly is, we come to see it as what the mafia could only aspire to ever be; a protection racket that the population welcomes.


My opponent's allusion to law in Pre-Medieval Western Europe is still government. Government is a body which enforces the law and protects its citizens. This allusion is inaccurate because it still provided a protection racket: the feudal system. In exchange for protection, serfs were required to work for the local king. Governance is voluntary even in modern America -- not one leader was forced into his or her position.

Government, in its ideal form as well as in the United States, protects those who pay and legally prosecutes those who do not. Government derives its tax-funding not through violent force, but of the consent of the governed in a post-enlightenment nation. Wars do slaughter the innocent, but the innocent are assets to the enemy governments. And in the United States, because government is derived from the people's consent, those people wage the war, not the governments. "Many of the innocents are forcibly enslaved into the ranks of government armies." No, the U.S. constitution has established a draft in time of need. Government is no where near the most violent, the most fraudulent, and the most chaotic institution of all time because without the current government, chaos would occur, and in chaos brews extremist groups such as Al Qaeda. If the position is available in an ungoverned territory, then whoever gets there first will take it and defend it with force.

The solution to the government's "monopoly on violence" is not ridding us of government but finding genuine leaders and placing them in positions of power. The institution cannot be corrupt because the institution is not human. Only those in power can be corrupt -- utilizing their position to ascertain political gain. Once we notice this corruption, we must fight the corruption through peaceful aggression. If nobody is paying taxes, then the government cannot arrest all of its citizens. Because in a Democratic-Republic, the citizens are the true leaders.
Debate Round No. 2


From the years of 650-1650 Celtic Ireland maintained a stateless system of private law that kept the peace and ensured that criminals paid restitution to their victims. While this system was led by "kings" they were in no sense the royal Monarchs that brutalized the rest of Europe. No Celt was bound to follow or pay taxes any particular King, he could pick and choose any at his own will. This is truly a system of self-rule and consent.

A Democratic-Republic is simply tyranny by the majority, the 51% force their particular leader on the 49%. If a Republic really gathers its taxes fully by consent then anyone who believes this is welcome to cease paying their taxes and see what happens as the government kicks down their door and shoots them if they resist arrest. Republics such as Rome, France, and the US have gained reputation for having hostile foreign policies that cause much chaos; and would a constitutional amendment really stop this? And if elections prove consent then the Jews murdered in holocaust were not really murdered but simply "committed suicide". As for the Constitution, how does it apply to anyone but those who signed it? If it really is a mutual insurance contract then parties should be allowed to leave it at any time. And will anyone really argue that the US constitution has restrained government power? Even if politicians wanted to "properly" run their government, they could not possibly do so; since government property unsaleable and no market signals exist for politicians to follow to know that they are using their resources properly. In addition to this, they have much incentive to squander as many resources as they are able to as quickly as possible, for whatever they do not use during their temporary time in office they will not be able to use later.

Voting is popular because while it is often called "self-governance" in reality it is a means to "others-governance", a way to easily acquire your neighbor's property. If a law or Constitutional restraint is in the way then the majority will simply ignore the law or vote in a new one. What is to stop the majority?

Governments are able to wage the conflicts that they do because they have the unique abilities to tax and conscript armies for long-term conflicts. A land without law (public or private) would still be better off than a land with state government because petty, local gangs would have no way to amass the huge troop levels and funding that government is able through its mechanisms of violent force. There would be no "total wars" involving millions in single conflict. Two gangs in the same city could not use WMDs on each other without blowing themselves up in the process.
But this concedes too much, if private individuals bore their own cost for wars and violence they would be far less likely to commit violence beyond what was absolutely needed for self-defense.

Common gangs and even terrorist organizations have not achieved even close to the level of death and destruction that Nation-States have been able to dish out. A system of private protection companies competing for voluntary customers would work to minimize violence for the sake of protecting profits. Cooperation is affordable; war is very expensive.


Jmax8910 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by ararmer1919 3 years ago
Could you be a little more elaborate? What exactly is the point you want to make? What is it that the Government is they claim to fight?
No votes have been placed for this debate.