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

Government needs to be abolished

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/9/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 380 times Debate No: 77465
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)




Government is by definition the right to rule. We as a society understand its wrong to steal, murder, kidnap etc yet the government has a pass on this as well as a monopoly on all the things we as humans condemn. We need to remove government from our lives. 200+ years of more and more tyranny is not a "failed" experiment. It is intentional! Anything a government runs is driven into the ground. "We the people" no longer control how we live. Just about every aspect of our lives are affected by some "ABC" agency, (FCC, fda, Dec, FFA, IRS, dot, TSA, blm, etc etc). Government is the opposite of peaceful voluntary interactions. It is the gun in the room. It is the largest slave owner. It is immoral. It needs to be abolished.


I accept the debate. I will be arguing that the entirety of government does not need to be abolished and will be a great detriment to humanity if it is. I await your response.
Debate Round No. 1


Awesome! I'm new on so I want to thank you for being my first debate!

I guess I will begin!

I do not argue what would happen after government is abolished as I am not in the business of predicting future. People realized that slavery is wrong and needs to be abolished, regardless if it harms people by removing it. Same goes for someone with cancer. If a surgeon removes the cancer (government) the patient (people) may die, leave the cancer (government) and your guaranteed to die.

With that opening statement said I must ask a question and then give my points.

Question: is using force and corecion wrong for people to use on other people to get what they want?

I will now give 3 points.

1. Government has a monopoly on everything we deem in a society as bad. Theft, murder, kidnapping, etc are things peaceful people find to be wrong. We are taught this in elementary. Government is a concept. It's not real. It really is a group of individuals who claim to be morally justified in doing what anyone else would find immoral.

2. "For the people by the people?" We claim we are a democracy. Where majority rules. Yet of the entire u.s. population, only around one third vote. So in reality the minority rules over the majority.

3. If the rulers are removed we still have rules.
If I don't want to be killed, I shouldn't go kill someone. These are principles and rules everyone can understand (minus those in office).

By abolishing government we allow the people to "vote" with their medium of exchange. We wouldn't have police. We would have peace keepers. We could still have fire fighters, roads being built, businesses thriving, poverty dropping, (no need for a poor person to spend hundreds of dollars for permits or licenses etc).

On top of all that, your argument is that removing the government would be detrimental to humanity. Government itself is the largest (unnatural) killer of humanity! Therefore government IS detrimental to humanity itself.

I hope I am doing this right. If I am playing this wrong please let me know.


I shall give my first argument.

You state that without government, we will still have rules. Leadership is a human trait, and there will always be some sort of coalition. With that coalition, more people will join, and it will eventually evolve back into a government, albeit not a Democracy for the most part.

What you state is what I agree with, I find government to be inefficient with its money, I find government to be stupid and corrupt, and that we should limit it, but not abolish it.

Businesses absolutely do require governments to operate in the modern era. Who do you think ensures their contracts? Who protects them from angry customers? Who sets regulations that everyone must follow, to keep the immoral business-folk from winning (which they will)? Who protects their assets from their competitors? Who ensures the value of currency? Who guarantees banked assets? Who teaches their employees the skills they need to succeed? Who builds the unprofitable roads that bring goods to market?

To be specific, let's pick one industry: Tourism. It depends on a safe transportation system (government). It depends on people having vacation (most places, government) and days off every week (government). It depends on people being able to leave their home and expect it to still be in one piece when they return (government). It depends on subsidies and advertising (government). It depends on reining in unruly visitors (government), and keeping places clear of undesirables (government). It depends (in most places) on a large mass of people who can speak foreign languages (government).

Private defense agencies? If you can't afford it, then what? On your own? If you have the time... and a bunch of friends or family to fight with you.

Private fire departments? Crassus, one of the original Roman triumvirate, was perhaps the wealthiest man in history. "How is this relevant?" you ask? He owned a private fire department. Fire breaks out, here they come to save your house, with a catch: You have to sell it to him at whatever price he feels like offering. Don't wanna move? No problem: He'll rent it back to you. Using these not-illegal techniques, Crassus quickly amassed such a large property base that he was able to finance governments and wars (One of which he led, but he got captured and killed. Just goes to show, massive success in one area of business doesn't guarantee success in any other).

Now, look how quickly that descended into required violence. Just to save your burning house. That savagery is to be expected, because history is clear: In government-free societies (hunter-gatherers, gangland, boom-towns in the "Wild" West, extremely isolated areas, tribal areas), violent death is hundreds of times more frequent than it is in government-run societies. The reason is straightforward: When there is no third-party deterrent and no third-party justice system for recourse, the only way to hope to prevent wrongdoing is to inflict swift and overwhelming violence. Self-help justice, if you will. Coupled with a quirk of human psychology whereby we minimize the wrongs we do to others while inflating the wrongs done to us, self-help justice leads straight to cycles of revenge killing. Vendettas. Blood feuds. Range wars.

Worse, a culture of honor develops, where people become ultra-sensitive to the slightest insult, treating them as attacks as vicious as any violent blow. This leads to the same kinds of revenge-fueled violence. Some places ritualized the violence into dueling, in the hopes of reducing it. Eventually it was banned, because it is savage... and also because morals have changed over the last 200 or so years rendering honor and pride things not worth spilling blood over. But all that required government intervention.

Read Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan, which lays out the philosophical foundation of the social contract.
Basically, he argues that human nature and scarce resources guarantee that without some kind of governance, anarchy and "war of all against all" are the inevitable outcomes: "In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently, not culture of the earth, no navigation, nor the use of commodities that may be imported by sea, no commodious building, no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force, no knowledge of the face of the earth, no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society, and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
Then look at nations around the world without effective government, like Somalia. Seems to be pretty much dead on.
Debate Round No. 2


I apologize for taking so long. Work has kept me away from my computer.

Of course leadership is a human trait. However, government is a monopoly on force, and there is no problem if people can voluntarily choose to follow people, but that is not what we have. Today around 1/4 of the population actually votes. Causing the majority of people who didn't vote to live under forced leadership (we must reasonably assume they didn't vote because they don't want a "leader").

Yes government is inefficient with money. Multi trillions of dollars in debt can really drive that home. Now lets look at the constitution (which I am not in favor of). The constitution was put in place to limit government. Over the 230+ years how well do you think it has don't in keeping the government in check? It utterly failed. No if's, and's, or but's about it.
I encourage you to read Lysander Spooner's The constitution of no authority. A very good read that uses logic, common sense, and reason to show how the constitution fails to do anything at all. Including binding anyone to a contract. Regardless, if a small government is given the ability to use force to collect taxes, no paper (the constitution) can or would stop them from raising taxes and growing to a gigantic government. If it does not have the ability to use force then it is not a government. For example I can voluntarily follow rules and pay for services in a community. However if the "leaders" want to raise the prices I can choose not to pay and go to someone else. Therefore it cant be a government. It can be leadership but I don't argue that as I don't see a problem with leadership.

Your correct about how businesses need government. Without government who would steal the tax payers money to bail out failing corporations? The largest immoral business owners ARE protected by government. Look at the housing bubble. The credit crisis, the failing car industry etc etc. The list can go on and on. See, when a government bails out a mortgage company, there is no risk. To make things easier imagine I have $1,000. I go to a casino and lose everything. Well if someone says don't worry, I will rob someone (government), and give you another $1,000 there is NO risk anymore. There is no incentive to do moral business practices. Now If we had a free market, big bad business owners who take immoral risks would fail. Allowing smaller competition to rise in its place.

Who ensures the value of currency? Obviously not the government. Logic and reason will show that it has not protected the value of our currency. Just look at the purchasing power of our dollar. The fed reserve (a private bank not owned by the government), was given control of our currency. So no the government does not have any say on our currency. This would not be a big issue if we were not forced to use it, and actually were able to have competing currencies, something that Ron Paul agrees with. At minimum, the government disregarded their "obligation" to protect the value of currency when they removed the gold and/or silver standard. Making money backed by the faith and credit of the united states. Which looking at ever increasing debt mountain will prove "faith and credit" means absolutely nothing.

Who guarantees banked assets? Not the government! Have you seen whats going on in Greece? People are only able to take 60 euros out per day. That of course is if the banks are even open. Lets use logic and reason for this. I will not go into all the details of Greece, but basically the Greek government is asking for another bailout. Now why do they need another bailout? Well, we both know how horrible government is with money. So lets look at us. If I am in a ton of debt, and am not handling my debt well as it continually is growing, is it logical for you to bank with me? Is it safe simply because I use the word "guarantee"? Absolutely not. The second you hand your money to me, is the second I became a bit more wealthy. Not you. Now this would not be a huge issue if we didn't have government around. Because if one bank screws its customers, that bank would go under. It wouldn't get any more customers. It benefits all if good business practices are upheld.

Who teaches their employees skills? Who will build the unprofitable roads? Ok, lets look at what government is. Government is in all actuality, a concept. Using logic and reason its not real. It is just people. So we can then logically conclude that people build roads, people teach, people protect, etc, etc. So if people build roads now and teach skills now, without a government people still do it. Because remember, government does not actually exist. People do. So roads fall into the same category as the other services you listed (protection, fire, hospitals etc). Regardless of the service, You and I both agree government is horrible at allocating money (remember the giant debt) to market services. The free market would be so much better for many reasons! The top two reasons would be: The market is made up of the people who want the services. The market has accountability built in. While the government has ZERO accountability. After all, if they need more money they will just point guns at people.

Now many people are concerned about affordability. However lets first look at how efficient government is in poor areas. Public schools in poor areas are horrible. Many police forces don't even go into poor areas because its too dangerous. These accusations are not far fetched. Now lets remove government from these poor places and allow someone to build a business without having to spend thousands of dollars on licenses and permits. I cant even open a lemonade stand without talking to at least 3 different government alphabet groups (DOT, FDA, DHS). Look, even in poor areas most people have a cell phone, which at one point was very expensive, so to think the private sector cant come up with ways to defend poor areas better than the government is an irrational thought. Your example Crassus was a roman politician. Working within government. That is how he was able to get away with what he was doing. Remove government and allow competition to flourish. The only way someone would have a monopoly is if the market loved the price and the service!

Do you know the biggest unnatural (not to be confused with natural) killer to people? Government. As shocking as it sounds, government is the biggest one. That brings us to your claim about there is more death in a government-free society than in a government run society. Your statement is false. History proves that. See people ( this may be hard to believe) are not interest in killing people. If we were, we really wouldn't care about cops and rules. We would just kill if we didn't get our way. You know who does that? Government. Now lets talk about Thomas Hobbes. A man who believed that people are inherently evil and needs to be controlled. Using logic, is it safe to say that the people put into power are evil as well? Since we are all humans? Or does using an imaginary concept called "government" automatically make a person good. Do we see how using reason and logic proves this to be a confusing way to think?

I am running out of characters but I need to touch on Somalia. Everyday People tell me we need government or else we would fall into terrible "anarchy". People get their definition of anarchy from movies. Anarkos means "without rulers". Not "without rules". The majority of Somalia is run under the Xeer judicial system. There is no one government running the judicial system. Also we need to understand that foreign aid and weapons are being sent there by our government (which we cant stop), to the wrong hands over there. We have the technological advancement. They are practical 3rd world country. We are a robust nation. Apples and oranges my friend. However I would love to debate their growth without government at a later time!

I wish I knew I could add more rounds.


I recognize your argument, and know that I agree with much of what you are saying. I am a Libertarian myself and frankly, I find all politicians to be lying pigs.

I believe that most of government needs to be abolished, but for the sake of this argument, I will, once again, go along with the idea that government itself needs to be abolished. I will touch on the following aspects that government is used for: Crime, currency, and defense.


Without government, we will have rampant crime rates. What you state is very idealistic, and you cannot be idealistic. You have to be realistic. Without government, we have no law. We have no order. You cannot trust that every single person in the world will respect your life, liberty, and property. You cannot. That is why you must rely on a police force. You cannot trust that people will use their best moral judgement. You also have to realize that there are many, many laws that do very specific things that you cannot get rid of. There are certain things that you cannot make for profit, and that you have to have for the good of the people and the country.

There can be private currencies, but currency is backed up by the government. They are the ones that control the gold which backs up monetary currencies, such as cash. A private currency can destabilize very quickly, and the problem with private currencies is that other governments will not trade with a private currency. Also, with private currencies, it will create even more division, as there can be multiple private currencies. This is no good for a country.
If you have no currency at all, which is even worse, then you get into a resource based economy, which is all based on demand. This economy would marginalize the helpless, the weak, children, elderly, etc. Without a proper currency that everyone can fall under, we will live the same way savages do in Africa (I am not stating Africans are savages, I am merely stating that some tribes and factions in certain remote African locations are filled with savages).

If you want to shut down government, you will also shut down the military. In your previous argument, you state how we need to stay out of wars. Without a military, it will be kind of hard to stay out of wars if we are the ones being attacked. If we were to shut down the military, we would be wiped out immediately. There would be no order! The second we lay down our arms, there will be no more Americans in this country.

The bottom line is, even though government is filled with corrupt officials, lobbyists, and economically illiterate Democrats, there are still some things they do (although inefficiently) that we could not go without. Roads, public parks, fire department, police force, postal service, military, national guard, airport systems, public schools, etc.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Sgt4Liberty 8 months ago
I was liking Con's first post until I got to last paragraph and "Social Contract"! Please prove where this contract exists first, and second, in order for there to be a legal contract in place, both parties must agree, otherwise no such contract exists.
Posted by parkerg27 1 year ago
Yeah I'm down. Just respond by comment on this page when you set up the debate page so my email will let me know. Or however else works (I only signed up yesterday so still working on learning the ins and outs of this website).
Posted by Thefightforfreedom 1 year ago
Parkerg27- I would love to debate you on if the constitution is even valid. But remember the voting should not be based on belief systems or your "feelings" for OR against government. That goes to all who vote.
Posted by parkerg27 1 year ago
A little back ground on myself though, I'm a 22 year old (white male, as if that really matters here). When I was in elementary school I was totally politically-ignorant (thanks, modern education system), when I was in middle school I had somewhat anarchist beliefs, by 13 I considered myself an independent constitutionalist (something I considered myself for quite a while), and now I'm what I can only describe as a independent-constitutional-republican-meritocratist. To break that up a bit:
Independent: I subscribe to no party/faction affiliation
Constitutional: I believe the U.S. Constitution is the best legal foundation in the world today, but I believe that it should be updated for modern times, but only in ways which support the increase of individual rights while restricting those of government and public officials
Republican: I believe the best basic form of government is a republic. Where as in a democracy 51% can vote to kill the 49%, in a true republic even the top 0.01& must follow the same laws as the bottom 0.01% (what we have today is largely a fascist oligarchy based on the standard definition of oligarchy and the definition Mussolini stated for fascism being "the merger of state and corporate powers")
Meritocratist: I believe in a civilization, not where power distribution is based on merit (who ever is considered worthy to judge, I don't trust them with my life), but where opportunities and welfare are given based on merit. Examples: Government has resources to hand out, should they go to A) money-shuffling/siphoning banking corporations, B) someone who wants to build a larger house, or C) Someone who wants to develop/advance a certain technology? In a society where handouts are determined by merit based on what will most likely do the most good for the overall population, people will actually be rewarded for doing things that make the world a better place rather than being punished for them (i.e. fined for giving food to the homeless)
Posted by parkerg27 1 year ago
I know the debate is over, and while I don't particularly agree with the accuracy of either person's arguments, I don't believe all government should be abolished, but most of the current national and international systems need some drastic improvements if we hope to form any kind of civilization with widespread prosperity and super-advanced technological and scientific innovations, not to mention elevating the average level of consciousness of individuals.
Posted by Thefightforfreedom 1 year ago
To Pericles- Thanks for voting. While I expect most people to agree with you (due to emotional attachments), I can't make a debate on the style of government since every government claims the right to rule over humans (slavery). I find it idealistic to think changing a government to a different government (still slavery) would fix anything. I rebutted my opponents arguments with facts. This leads me to think you use emotions to draw your assertions. It's all good though. I had a blast and I hope my opponent did as well!!
Posted by Thefightforfreedom 1 year ago
I would also like to extend an invitation to bballcrook to join me on my podcast. Anyone open to the ideas of libertarianism, liberty, free markets, etc I would love to pick your brain. We would do it over Skype. Please let me know if you are interested my friend!
Posted by Thefightforfreedom 1 year ago
I want to thank my opponent and have finished my first ever debate! I truly wish I could add more rounds. Unfortunately I don't think my opponent refuted any of my arguments. In fact agreed government is terrible. Yet keeps saying we need it saying we can't have roads without government (while I already addressed this saying people, not government build roads, and he has not given a rebuttal). Simply stating we can't have roads or schools without government and not giving proof is insufficient (we do have privately build roads and schools) All is well though and again I thank him for his time.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by PericIes 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: My opinions on the subject are irrelevant, because I am looking at the debate objectively, so I don't have to explain the first two points. Conduct was even; both players were cordial and respectful. Aside from a few insignificant typos made by Pro, spelling and grammar were even. No sources were used, unless you count allusions to various texts, which both debaters made. Con had more convincing arguments, by far. Pro and Con both show very good ability in arguing for specific points, but Con had Pro beat at the foundation, which led to Pro having an inadequate base for his quite logical minutia. Pro was, in short, too idealistic when considering anarchy and not idealistic enough when considering government. He was debating as though anarchy could be nothing but the ideal and as though government could be nothing than what we have now. If the argument had been "the style of government that most countries have now needs to be abolished" then Pro may very well have won, but it wasn't.