Oppressive Government is preferable to no government
Debate Rounds (4)
No semantics. The meaning of everything is pretty obvious.
I thank my opponent for accepting this debate, and would like to welcome him to DDO and to his first debate. Without further adeiu, I'll get started.
Inevitably, what this debate will end up coming down to is safety and, grotesquely, body count. Which one is safer for people and which one piles up more dead bodies in the long run. I'm here to explain why having no government is worse in both catagories.
C1: Safety under an oppressive regime
My opponent has voiced concern over how I would define an oppressive regime. The examples I planned on using were the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, and I hope we can agree that those were fairly oppressive governments. Anyway, back on topic. During a general oppression, you're told where to sleep, where to eat, what to eat, who to sleep with, what you can like, what you can't like, what you do for a living, and all sorts of things that control your life. But the one good thing about this is that you know they're also doing this to the guy next to you, and the guy who lives down the street from you, and everyone around you is under the same conditioning as you are. This makes it so that the only person you need to fear for you life against is the government themselves, which makes it a lot easier when you pass buy a big, buff guy rippling with tattoos on the street going to work everyday since you know he won't attempt to kill you.
In an anarchy, however, there is no such conditioning. If you felt so inclined, you could go and firebomb the home of the guy next door and not have to face any sort of punishment from a governing party. Of course, no one would also be blaming if the people of the now burnt down house came into yours in the middle of the night and murdered you while you slept. This is the conditions of general anarchy, meaning everyone is free to do as they wish to whom they wish, so long as they possess the ability to do it. Your life would be constantly in danger if you had to walk past the big, buff guy rippling with tattoos on the street if you gave him so much as one wrong look.
So now that we understand that even during an oppressive government, one is more safe in it than with no government, we must adress the elephant in the room: the actual government itself.
C2: What Government?
I know that my opponent will inevitably bring up the point about the massive bodycount of oppressive governments such as the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, but again we have to be looking at this from a long term view to accurately compare body-counts and general safety. The main problem with oppressive governments, such as the two examples, is that they never really last, The Soviet Union only really lasted from it's formation in 1922 to around the 1990's, where the bulk of it's killings happened under the short reign of Stalin from 1928 to 1941. The reign of Nazi Germany didn't even last half as long, only from it's take-over in 1933 to 1945 at the end of World War 2. So even if they have short spurts of mass genocide, those short spurts are likely to be the only events of killing before it inevitably falls apart for whatever reason.
Anarchy, however, does not know such a time limit. Even if the killings happen slower with anarchy, it will be for a longer time, potentially for a boundless amount of time. The killings will pile up higher and higher with time, and eventually overtake the body count of the now probably collapsed oppressive government.
In conclusion, I have just proved two things: 1. That during an oppressive government regime's reign, you're still more safe than in a general state of anarchy, and 2. That even if you are in danger from said government regime, that said regime will probably not last that long, and will be gone before you know it, relieving you of your danger, whereas the danger is a constant factor in a situation of general anarchy.
The resolution is affirmed.
I would also like to thank my opponent for continuing this debate, as I think this is a very interesting topic.
I disagree with my opponent that this will come done to safety and body count. When looking at which is preferable, oppressive government or no government, you have to consider the fundamental human needs, which include subsistence, protection, affection, understanding, participation, leisure, creation, identity and freedom . I will address these in the next round, and hope you will as well, but first, I will focus on your points.
I am willing to concede that one is more safe during a time of no government. According to Benjamin Powell in his article about Somalia  "...a relative peace developed in Somalia. Crime and violence persisted, but not at the levels seen during the civil war. Various clan elders, warlords, and Islamic courts had power, but none were strong enough to impose themselves as the new government, and most of the fighting stopped."
During the regime of an oppressive government, the people are orderly, yes, but why can't the same be said of a state without government. Humans inherently strive to be orderly. Even without government, there can be civilization, and order, with little to no harm done to civilians.
What Government? No Government
What my opponent says is true. There was a massive death toll in both of the oppressive governments of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, and his argument as to why this is preferable to the body count caused by states with no government, and this is false. While there is no set time stamp as to how long an oppressive government can last versus how long a a state with no government, a country without a government is more likely to instate a central, non-oppressive (or oppressive, even)faster than an oppressive government due to the simple fact the people without a government are free to do so. Somalia's anarchy state only lasted for 21 years, and it is drafting its constitution and drawing nearer to a non-oppressive government everyday , while Soviet Russia took 74 years to do so, and Nazi Germany took 27 years to make the change .
I conclude by restating my points.
a. A state with no government is just as safe, or safer, than an oppressive government.
b. The time period where a state would have no government is shorter than that of one with an oppressed government.
No government is preferable to an oppressed government.
I accept the concedence. It's a shame that you can't participate any further.
Zaradi forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years 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:||0||1|
Reasons for voting decision: Hurr
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.