The Instigator
thett3
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
Zaradi
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Resolved: No government is preferable to an oppressive government

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 5 votes the winner is...
thett3
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/23/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,765 times Debate No: 28581
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (5)

 

thett3

Pro

Thanks to Zaradi for agreeing to debate this with me for the semifinal round of the DDO tournament.

Standard rules apply. No semantics, no new arguments in the last round, ect. As we're both experienced debaters I dont really think we need to worry about this coming down to a definitions or semantics war, but its always best to make sure.

Round one is acceptance and I look forward to the debate.
Zaradi

Con

I accept.

The definitions of the debate are pretty straight-forward. I don't think either of us will do something super semantical.

Bad voters, gtfo.

Let's get this party started.
Debate Round No. 1
thett3

Pro

To prefer something over another means that usually you would choose it over the offered alternative. Thus both my opponent and I must not only show specific times and places where one is to be preferred, but rather show that human nature/incentives would cause a rational person to choose our position.

Oppressive is a foggy & subjective term, however it should be self evident that governments which routinely violate rights are oppressive. Rights can be defined in many ways, but the only rational position is that people have the right to do whatever they wish with their bodies and property so long as they don't harm or devalue another persons property or person (non-aggression principle). I'll defend this position if my opponent really wants to attack it, but I aim to show that under any view of rights anarchy is preferable to oppression.


A state is defined as a compulsive monopoly of force and jurisdiction within a territory with the power to tax and legislate[1].


I. History

A. Oppressive governments


The 20th century provides us with a wealth of case studies to examine the effects of oppressive governments. Contrary to theancien regimeof kingly rule, the 20th century (post WWI to be exact) marks mankind's final transition from sovereign kings to peoples and, ultimately, dictators in charge of the state. Previously while governments could be oppressive in specific times and places (such as the first war), they generally returned to the previous status quo while retaining only a few of their new privileges. After WWI however, the age of truly big government had begun. Hoppe correctly remarks[2] that the 20th century was "the century par excellence of socialism: of communism, fascism, [and] national socialism.." It was also the most murderous and unjust period in human history. The results of the oppressive government experiment are clear and incontrovertible, from widespread war and genocide to less obvious violations such as absurdly high taxation and regulations the terrible effects of oppressive governments are clear to all. The economic devastation of Europe and Russia, almost universal conscription (slavery and murder) along with millions of deaths: the 60 million people killed in the second great war[3] 33 million of whom were completely innocent men women and children[4], the 11 million dead from the Holocaust[5], the 3.9 million murdered in the Holodomor, the 3 million dead in Stalin's great purge[6], and the 45 million in Mao's "great leap forward"[7] being but a few examples of the victims of oppressive governments. Moreover there are countless nameless victims of these slaughters: survivors or family members and conscripted soldiers who are forced to deal with psychological trauma and injuries sustained from oppressive government. The era of oppressive governments represents one of the greatest social upheavals ever; most if not all of our present day disorder: social decline, and cultural degradation can be attributed to the destructive effects of oppressive or semi oppressive governments (such as redistributive democratic-socialist states like the US and Europe). The post WWI regime of oppressive governments must be regarded as a social catastrophe the likes of which the world has never seen.

My opponent has a mountain to climb in order to prove that any other form of governments including a complete lack thereof could outweigh these in destruction and any other metric of evil. Automatically you presume an affirmative ballot because an examination of historical and contemporary oppressive states gives strongly negative results. Reject out of hand any theoretical arguments my opponent proposes that contradict history, and while I know not what arguments he will make, it's incredibly doubtful that any historically observed stateless or, more likely, pseudo stateless catastrophe will outweigh the effects of oppression.


B. Stateless societies

We have good examples of stateless societies for analysis, such as feudalism. Robert Nisbet[8] explains that feudalism was "an extension and adaptation of the kinship tie with a protective affiliation...Contrary to the modern political state with its principle of territorial sovereignty...rights, welfare, authority, and devotion inhered in a personal, not a territorial tie. To be the 'man' of another man, in turn the 'man' of still another man and so on up to the very top of the feudal pyramid, each owing the other either service or protection, is to be in a feudal relationship." Indeed, despite the orthodox historical beliefs of feudalism being a form of slavery, feudalism was virtually always a contractual/kinship tie. Serfs could negate their obligations by leaving the manor for over a year (see the year and one day rule), and feudal kings totally lacked ultimate jurisdiction, and had to get their nobles agreement before implementing taxation[9] and the approval of the nobles was needed to legitimatize virtually every decision a king could make[10]. Thus for most of a thousand year period in Western history there was the complete lack of a state (monopoly of ultimate jurisdiction), and nowhere near the negative impacts coming off of oppressive governments. The early British colonies were also typically characterized by the lack of a state. This shows us that a lack of a government is not incompatible with human nature, so you affirm right here.

I already know what my opponent is going to say. Ignore any attacks he makes on feudalism, because my job isnt to prove no government is ideal just that its preferable. Ignore also any critique he makes regarding feudalism's incompatibility with the status quo--the point isnt to say feudalism is good, but rather to illustrate that when we had no state is was over all an acceptable state of affairs especially when compared to oppressive governments. There is no inherent need for a state to keep people "in line".



II. Theoretical implications

A. Inevitable effects of oppressive governments

Oppressive governments and the rise of absolutism have destroyed much of civilization. As Bertrand de'Jouvenel aptly points out (during WWII)[11]: "We are ending where the savages began. We have found again the lost arts of starving non-combatants, burning hovels, and leading away the vanquished into slavery. Barbarian invasions would be superfluous: we are our own Huns." Even without looking at history, its clear that rights violations and warfare from oppressive governments is virtually inevitable since these governments are definitionally suppressive. An oppressive government will not cede power without a fight (as can be seen extensively from King George's England all the way to modern Syria) so even if an oppressive government somehow avoid external war it still faces internal conflicts and this coupled with the rights violations definitionally associated with oppressive governments strongly disconfirms the hypothesis that they are better than no government. Oppressive governments are far more decivilizing and deadly than anarchy.

B. Feasible stateless societies

There are feasible alternatives to the state. There is literally no service provided by the government that can't be provided by the private sector and/or communities. Even law and order can be provided by the same kind of private security firms already used by governments throughout the world[12]. All that needs to be abolished is the compulsorily monopoly. Before we even come CLOSE to negating we need strong proof that any state at all is advantageous. Given the historical decivilizing and brutal effects of governments, especially oppressive ones, my opponent has a huge mountain to climb.

My opponent must prove that both

A state is needed to provide some essential service, and that this service is so essential that its necessity outweighs genocide, war, and cultural and economic destruction. Before then, you affirm.


For all these reasons the resolution is affirmed.

Cites

http://goo.gl...


Zaradi

Con

Let's get started. I'll start with establishing my case before critiquing my opponent's.

Observations:


Before we even begin, though, I'd wager that the resolution cannot be affirmed. Why? Because true anarchy, where there is no state ruling and either a) no one is in charge or b) everyone is in charge, is impossible to actually form. As Robert Upshaw[1] correctly notes, "actual anarchy never truly exists . . . [it presupposes] that all can rule at once, a supposition that directly contradicts human nature". We can find the truth in that statement simply by examining the dicotomy of ruling: one either leads or is lead. If all lead, there is no one to actually accomplish anything, and society never actually forms. If we all seek to be lead, there is no one to lead us, and society, again, never actually forms. This means that you instantly negate the resolution, as anarchy cannot actually exist in the material world, and thus cannot be something we would prefer to have.

But moreover, a true stateless society can never really exist because there will always be decisions to be made, and thus always some person or group that will be in charge. The mere fact that there is no fancy title for the people in charge isn't a valid reason to call something 'stateless' if it's a de facto state. My opponent may try to argue that there does not need to be someone in charge, but if no one is in charge then there is no collective society as men then act in their own self-interest. This means that since a stateless society cannot actually be formed, you negate right here.

But if you do not buy those arguments, I will establish why any sort of state, regardless of it's oppressive or non-oppressive nature, is always better than no state at all. My argument is split up into two parts: the beginning and the end.


Part I: The Beginning . . .



In the beginning, before any sort of state is formed, we exist in a state where there is no form of law, no form of control, no form of peace or tranquility. There is only self-want and desire for self-gain at any cost, regardless of harm to other people. Philosophers describe this state as a state of "perpetual and unavoidable war", and call it the State of Nature. As Celeste Friend[2] explains for the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Hobbes concludes that the State of Nature would be unbearably brutal. In the State of Nature, every person is always in fear of losing his life to another. They have no capacity to ensure the long-term satisfaction of their needs or desires. No long-term or complex cooperation is possible because the State of Nature can be aptly described as a state of utter distrust. Given Hobbes’ reasonable assumption that most people want first and foremost to avoid their own deaths, he concludes that the State of Nature is the worst possible situation in which men can find themselves. It is the state of perpetual and unavoidable war."

Since this state is a horrible place to be with untold numbers of people dying, it's obviously something we want to avoid. But how do we actually avoid it?

Part II: The End . . .




These same philosophers also agree that in order to escape from this State of Nature and to prevent it from returning again, society forms the Social Contract to create a societal state. Friend[2] continues on to explain, "Because men are reasonable, they can see their way out of such a state by recognizing the laws of nature, which show them the means by which to escape the State of Nature and create a civil society. The first and most important law of nature commands that each man be willing to pursue peace when others are willing to do the same, all the while retaining the right to continue to pursue war when others do not pursue peace. Being reasonable, and recognizing the rationality of this basic precept of reason, men can be expected to construct a Social Contract that will afford them a life other than that available to them in the State of Nature. This contract is constituted by two distinguishable contracts. First, they must agree to establish society by collectively and reciprocally renouncing the rights they had against one another in the State of Nature. Second, they must imbue some one person or assembly of persons with the authority and power to enforce the initial contract. In other words, to ensure their escape from the State of Nature, they must both agree to live together under common laws, and create an enforcement mechanism for the social contract and the laws that constitute it."

Examples of these states are all around us. Any sort of government is a form of the social contract. The mere proof that this is working is that our world has not devolved into absolute anarchy. The government retaining control of the populace by enforcing laws and regulations upon activities we once had the right to in the State of Nature is what is keeping the State of Nature from returning. And as the State of Nature is an impact that outweighs all other impacts, as even the millions of people who died under my opponent's case don't come near enough to even compare to the impact of devolving into the State of nature, this is the ultimate reason why any state, even an oppressive one, would be better than having no state and devolving into the State of Nature.

Insofar as my case stands, the resolution is clearly negated. But let's address my opponent's case now.


The Pro Case . . .

As a brief overview to my opponent's case, there's one glaring flaw that I feel must be pointed out: my opponent gives you no actual reason why a stateless society is to be prefered. He lists a bunch of reasons why states are horrible and kill a whole bunch of people, but he never says anything about the benefits of a stateless society. Since he does not, you prefer my impact of a stateless society leading back to the State of Nature, which outweighs the negative impacts of enacting a Social Contract and the creation of a state by a longshot. This means that the resolution is affirmed easily. My opponent might try to extend out the feudalism point where he claims that feudalism is an example of a stateless society that works, but lets take a closer look at that point...


Feudalism: A Stateless Society? . . .

My opponent gives the example of feudalism as a stateless society and justifies it by saying that the King didn't actually have all that much power and had to get consent from his nobles and lords before any taxation could occur and thus there was no ultimate jurisdiction here and it does not meet the definition of a state. Let me introduce my opponent to the concept of an Aristocracy, which is where a group of powerful people rule over the majority. This type of state is exactly what my opponent is describing as feudalism, which would actually make this a state. This means that you can extend this out not as pro evidence, but as con offense to show why a society run by a state can work better than a stateless society.

My opponent also gives the examples of the early british colonies being stateless, but those were either run by different charters or the royal crown themselves in the end, which means they were not stateless. Because of this my opponent actually has no examples of how stateless societies are beneficial, so you can easily negate as I'm the only one with an actual beneficial impact, i.e. preventing the state of nature from returning, being extended out.

His front-line responses don't apply to my attacks as I'm not making any of those claims.

His contention about how benefits can be provided by stateless societies just as well as states isn't relevent as a) this doesn't prevent the return of the state of nature, as only some form of state can do so via the Social Contract, and b) if my opponent's argument is true it's at best non-unique since we both provide those benefits.

The resolution is affirmed.

Cites:

http://debate.org...;
Debate Round No. 2
thett3

Pro

I'll refute Zaradi's case, then go back to mine.

General critiques

My opponent failed to even define a state. This means that you prefer my definition automatically (he didn't dispute it). More importantly, he doesn't quantify any of his impacts. He just asserts that a return to a "state of nature" somehow outweighs everything else but he doesn't tell you when/where a state of nature occurred so that we know what to expect, and obviously he doesn't apply this history to the modern world.

Observation

My opponent observes that the resolution can't be affirmed because "a true stateless society" can never be formed because anarchy somehow means everyone rules. First of all, this is just false. You can look to all stateless forms of association like corporations, colleges, or clubs and see that the lack of a state doesn't mean there's no hierarchy or person in charge, the only difference is that these things are contractual and non-monopolistic (stateless) relationships. A stateless society would just replace the mechanisms run by the state with competing jurisdictions. Secondly, my opponent commits the fallacy of redefinition. His interpretation of Upshaw redefines a state to mean a society where "there is no one to lead us", but a lack of a state merely means no one has a compulsive monopoly. If everyone in a given society chooses to follow one leader/organization than that's fine, it still isn't a state. A state needs to be compulsory and have the power tax and legislate without consent. If a whole society chooses to voluntarily pay an organization to perform a certain service, that would be a corporation.

Third, my opponents claim can easily be thrown out considering that almost every aspect of society is not controlled or monopolized by the state, and yet progress still is made.

Remember the burden I put on Con? He has to show that the state is necessary to perform some task, but his only justification is it keeps us out of some generic "state of nature"--not even an explanation why a state is the only thing that can perform this.


The beginning

My opponent is fundamentally wrong about the nature of mankind, but more importantly is that his proposed solution is incredibly flawed.

First, there's no warrant on law and order being synonymous with a state. This is an assertion, experience in every other sector tells us that a compulsive monopoly is not needed to produce a good.

Second, if mankind is naturally aggressive, then how is giving coercive power to a government the solution to anything? Surely humans would be even MORE aggressive if they can act on their aggressive impulses while making others (taxpayers) pay for it. Hoppe rightly notes[1] that if a state was a solution to this issue we should should be observing: "just as much war and aggression should exist between the private citizens of various states as between different states. Empirically, however, this is not so. The private dealings between foreigners appear to be significantly less war-like than the dealings between different governments..." And this is obvious, because naturally one will be more aggressive when they can shift the costs to others. Giving power to a state, ESPECIALLY one that definitionally cares not for its citizens rights doesnt solve.

Third, Con can't or doesnt cite what the "state of nature" actually is and how long it occurs and how modern society would collapse back to it. His entire argument is built around the assertions of Hobbes. Primitive man, the closest to a "state of nature" we will ever observe didn't live in some kind of "war of all against all", it lived in kinship tribes that evolved into societies (note that society =/= a government). There is also no warrant on how anarchy in the modern world would bring us back to this point especially given the widespread existence of non governmental non-violent agreements.

This whole argument is an argument for civilization, not for the state and thus you turn it because oppressive governments decivilize and bring us back to barbarianism.

Hobbes is wrong about widespread death. Man inherently desires not to kill, as many other animals do. This is why, even in the face of enemy fire, firing rates were as low as 15%[2] during WWII, because mans animal mind (the one that takes over during stress) does not want to kill. It was only state military training during Vietnam that brought these firing rates up and overrode the antikilling instinct.

The "state of nature" is just a fiction, that never truly existed. Con cant provide any real example of deaths/harms from anarchy.


The End

Con basically argues the social contract theory. Many problems with this:

First, this doesn't justify an oppressive government. No Jews signed a contract to be exterminated.

Second, there is no social contract. Tacit consent does not exist. The social contract theory basically operates under an incredibly perverted view of consent where using services provided by the monopoly (when in many cases there is literally no competing alternative, the state has destroyed them all) somehow means you signed away your rights to the state.

Third, there is literally no warrant on how only a compulsive monopoly can provide law and an escape from the "state of nature". Even if he proves a state can do it better it doesn't justify the destruction of an oppressive state.

Fourth, a social contract to a state is a contradiction in terms. Hoppe explains[3] that if a contract with a state actually existed: "every private property owner had surrendered his right to ultimate decision making and the protection of his person and property permanently to someone else. In effect, in transferring this right onto someone else, a person would submit himself into permanent slavery...any such submission-contract is from the outset impermissible (hence null and void), because it contradicts the praxeological foundation of all contracts, i.e., private property and individual self-ownership."

Fifth, even under the social contract governments have obligations (protect rights). The citizens have an obligation to abolish the state. His entire justification for a state just doesn't apply to the kind of states he's advocating.

Sixth, oppressive states routinely invade other countries and impose their will onto/kill people who didn't sign any contract with them.

Seventh, Cons case lacks clear impacts. Baselessly asserting that a "state of nature" will return without explaining how and how bad that return will be isn't an impact.

Eighth, Con fails to show how a state, not societal pressures and negative incentives, keeps man from being violent. What specific mechanism from the state keeps man in line, and how can that mechanism not be provided by the private sector or communities? An "enforcement mechanism"for law is not something that can only be provided by the state, historically it was not and my case shows that it doesn't have to be.

Ninth, Con has 0 warrant on how private enforcement of law leads to a state of nature.


My case:

Con says that the greatest flaw in my case is that I don't cite advantages of anarchy. The advantage to anarchy is that it avoids the negative impacts coming off of oppressive states, or states in general.

His only other critiques come from a misunderstanding of what a state actually is. A system where there is no state apparatus and power is contractually derived (serfs could leave the manor and the kings power came from actual,not implied consent of the ruled) and divided between church, king, nobles, and the freehold rights of the serfs is certainly NOT a compulsory monopoly of ultimate jurisdiction. It fails to meet a single requirement of the definition. Same with the American colonies, while they were de-jur under state control, the actual situation of these initial pioneers lacked a state. Yet these were people were not at each others throats like Hobbes says they would've been. Thus, my opponents impact fails.


The resolution is affirmed.

Sources:


http://goo.gl...
Zaradi

Con

General Critiques

My opponent claims that I have no impacts, and that the impact of returning to the state of nature is insufficient to be an impact since I didn't explain when are where the state of nature has occured in history. However, this is clearly explained in the Friend evidence that explains the warrants behind the State of Nature and exactly what we can expect to happen if we return there. The refutation to this is weak at best, non-existent more realistically.

Observation

My opponent here is abusively shifting the goalposts on the definition of what qualifies as a state and, thus, what qualifies as affirmative ground. An anarchy would represent no such heirarchy or chain of command as my opponent is advocating for. He's claiming that anything that is not controlled by a single person who controls literally everything is not a state, thus excludes things like groups in complete control from being a state. This is highly abusive as that leaves me literally no ground to work with under this resolution. I ask that you refer back to the actual wording of the resolution and hold my opponent to government, and not advocating that the local country club or state college is an example of a stateless society that works. His definition works as a way to exclude most states from actually being qualified as states, as if someone chooses to work under that state willingly it isn't a state according to his definition. But first, that's insanely abusive as it rules out almost every governmental structure from being classified as a state, which gives me literally zero ground for this debate. Secondly, it's not even in line with the resolution as my opponent must be defending that the lack of GOVERNMENT is better than an abusive government. A compulsive monopoly is not required for the formation of a governmental state. This is evident from the very dictionary definitions of what a government and state are[1][2]. But thirdly, his definition actually precludes the formation of any state if true, because no state can actually be compulsary. If I do not wish to follow the rules of a state I can simply leave the state, which violates it's compulsive nature. This is why my opponent must stick to the resolution and why you prefer my definitions of government and state provided in this round.

My opponent references the burden placed upon me, a burden that I am fulfilling: A state is necessary to keep us from devolving into the State of Nature, which has only been refuted insofar as my opponent is only asking for when this has happened but that can't be proved insofar as the Upshaw analysis proves that statelessness is really non-achievable. If my opponent wants to return us to a true form of statelessness, we will end up in the State of Nature, which was clearly explained in the Friend evidence. This is a burden that only a state can provide. So I'm fufilling his burden.

My observations stand. You can extend the Upshaw analysis and instantly negate on the fact that statelessness is actually impossible to truly achieve, and thus there is no reason why we would give it preference.

The Beginning

My opponent claims there's no warrant for law and order being synonmyous with a state. Yet that's the very definition of what a state is. You prefer my definition over my opponent's abusively extended one. He then claims that a government doesn't actually solve back, yet he doesn't touch on the Friend 2 evidence that explains exactly how forming the social contract and creating a state solves back for it. His assertion that mankind is naturally aggressive is a claim I never made. His claim that I don't explain the what and how of the State of Nature is entirely false, and explained within the very contention he's attacking. The Friend evidence clearly explains what the state of nature is and I clearly explained that the only thing preventing the state of nature from returning is the social contract. By dissolving the social contract, which is my opponent's inherent advocacy by negating, he's advocating for the return of the state of nature, which is worse than any other impact. Non-governmental non-violent agreements don't solve back as that's not a social contract. The only thing preventing the State of Nature's return, which my opponent has not addressed, is the Social Contract.

My opponent is mistaken that this argument is for a civilization instead of a state, as a social contract is exactly what creates a state. The turn doesn't apply to my argument. But even if you don't buy that, there's absolutely no warrant as for why a) the turn is true or b) how the turn links to the affirmative case. So you can ignore it pretty easily.

My opponent claims that I'm wrong about man's inherent desire to kill, which is a claim I never made. Friend is clear in that it's man's constant distrust of one another and their desire to preserve their own lives that creates the chaos and disorder in the state of nature. His argument has no link to my case.

My opponent claims that the state of nature never existed. That's true. Why is it true? Because in order for there to be a state of nature, there must be an example of anarchy first before the state of nature can begin. If there is a governmental structure or state, then the state of nature is prevented from returning. My opponent, thusly, implicitly concedes to my observational points that anarchy cannot be achieved by making the claim that there is no historical proof of the state of nature ever forming. This is reinforced by the fact that he has still not provided a single example of a historical benefit coming directly from anarchy being established. This means that you give massive weight to the observations and can easily negate off of them.

The End

I'm going to keep this short since my opponent provides no warrant for most of the actual refutations here. Only the first few have any actual warrant, and thus are the ones I will address.

The first one is simple enough. The Social Contract justifies the creation of a state (or government mind you, the terms are synonymous). As the creation of a state is in direct opposition to a stateless society, it perfectly affirms the resolution.

The second one is also easily refuted with a more in-depth look at what the Hobbesian social contract implies. The mere fact that we follow the law(s) is consent to the Social Contract. As Christine Travis explains[3], "He believes that the will is ... the last thought a person has before making a decision, and that consent therefore can be given under coercion because a person has still willed to consent to whatever action they are being coerced into. ...a person consenting to a government or to a law out of fear of the state of nature is still giving consent."

The third argument relies on his definition holding as non-abusive and sustained throughout the debate, which is addressed previously.

His fourth argument has literally no warrant to it. Even under the governmental structure there are still Stand your Ground laws and rights to self-defense and such, which completely negate his argument that people don't have the rights to private property and self-ownership under the state.

There's no impact to his sixth argument or his eigth. Men always being violent is not my claim, which is clearly explained in the Friend evidence.

Affirmative Case

My opponent's escape from having to provide historical examples of benefits coming directly from anarchy being established is humorous. He does nothing to try to outweigh the state of nature, and shows no actual benefits coming off of establishing anarchy. This means I best fulfill the BOP, as i'm showing a direct benefit from establishing it, while my opponent has none. And his linking out of the harms of a state has no warrant to it at all, he just asserts that no government doesn't have the same harms. So he has no actual benefits coming off of the affirmative case at all.

Resolution negated

http://debate.org...;
Debate Round No. 3
thett3

Pro

Thanks to Zaradi for the debate.

I'll just go over the major arguments in the debate.


What is a state?

Most of the confusion regarding this debate centers around what actually qualifies as a state. My opponent calls my definition "abusive" because it "works...to exclude most states from actually being qualified as states, as if someone chooses to work under that state willingly it isn't a state according to his definition." However, he is mistaken as to what actually is compulsion--that is, all that is required for compulsion is that the person has no other choice than to submit to the state; that they may choose to do so willingly is irrelevant, because if they choose not to submit to the state they will be violently supressed.

His only other argument is that a monopoly isnt required; his arguments are that first, people can just leave a state, which we all know is not true, people are still subjects of the state until they go through complex citizenship renounciation measures, and leaving simply is not an option for many people. Moreover he misunderstands that the monopoly is within a certain territory, as indeed all states are. Second he links you to the webster definitions of government and state however if you actually read the definitions they refer to entities that have the sole control ("continuous exercise of authority").

The definition isnt absuive as he claimed, in fact its entirely reasonable, it just clashes somewhat with his arguments. After all, what is a government if not an entity that exercises sole control of the laws within a given territory? You cannot have two absolute authorities, thats a contradiction in terms.


What is statelessness?

Anarchy is simply the lack of a state. That is, the lack of an entity that exercies legistlative and taxation powers and has the sole authority over the law. Con chose to strawman anarchy, claiming that "An anarchy would represent no such heirarchy or chain of command " but this is on its face absurd because we can see literally hundreds of thousands of non state organizations such as companies, colleges, families, clubs, ect that have heirachies and chains of commands. All that anarchy is advocating is an abolition of the state mechanism, not the abolition of society.


My case

My case has astonishingly been almost entirely dropped. Other than his brief arguments against it in his second round, his only further critiques are that I dont try to outweigh the "State of nature"--indeed, I do not try to outweigh a situtation in which everyone kills everyone else, instead I've shown that such a state doesnt exist and never has-- and that I don't give any example of the benefits of statelessness, and yet my entire argument was that it was preferable to oppression because it didnt have the same negative effects.

1. History

Con literally drops all of the negative impacts from oppressive governments and the analysis that you presume a pro vote unless con gives you historical examples of stateless catastrophes. So you extend that.

He made some attacks on my feudalism example, but all of it is based off of misunderstanding what statelessness actually entails. De'Jouvenel explains[1] that in the ancien regime power was: "shared, limited, and above all it was not sovereign." He goes on to explain that "The distinguishing characteristics of a Power which is sovereign are: its possession of a legistlative authority; it's capacity to alter as it pleases its subjects' rules of behaviour...Power in medieval times was very different, it was tied down, not only in theory but in practice..."

Thus you can affirm. You have for most of a thousand year period of western history a system where there was no sovereignty and yet society still existed and the negative impacts coming off of oppression were not felt, nor were those from the fictional "state of nature". Con also fails to respond to the example of American colonists living initially in stateless societies. The clear implication of course being that the state of nature impact is unwarranted and that oppression, with its historical failings is worse than anarchy.

2. Theoretics

Con drops entirely the decivilizing impact of oppression.

Con almost completely drops the counterplan of replacing the state mechanism with competing private organizations. Literally his only offensive response is that it doesnt solve for the state of nature (which doesnt exist), and yet he doesnt explain how. My system provides for law and order without decivilizing and genocidal effects of oppression.



Con case


"State of nature"?

Con repeatedly tries to give some apocalyptic sounding nightmare where everyone kills each other ("even the millions of people who died under my opponent's case don't come near enough to even compare to the impact of devolving into the State of nature") without a state. Despite his failure to respond to the sociological objections to this (Grossman), the emprical objections (Hoppe), historical indicators against his point (Nisbet) or my point about how if mankind is naturally aggressive than giving ultimate power to a state is not a solution (he only says that he didnt claim that, but the obvious implication of man "always in fear of losing his life to another" is aggression) and his failure to give a single example of a return to a "state of nature" after a government collapse despite thousands of states collapsing throughout history he still claims that the state of nature is an important impact.

Cons major argument is another fallacy He says that because a state of nature never occurred in reality we know that anarchy is impossible and never happened, because without a state we have a state of nature. But this is clearly absurd, not only do we KNOW that primitive man lived in anarchy yet still had social groupings we also know that the state is just one of the many institutions in some socieites. Con, and his philosopher Friend, is just making a bare assertion. There is literally 0 evidence that without a monopoly of ulimate jurisdiction (a state) these impacts happen; history and everything we know about sociology and psychology strongly indicate otherwise. Hobbes was simply inncorrect.

His entire impact is nothing more than a fiction, Con can't give you any empirical examples and doesnt even apply this to definitional states (voluntary societies are not states) let alone oppressive ones.


Social contract


He drops lots of my attacks because they lack "actual warrant" so extend all of the ones he drops. Con also gives no example of a social contract that existed in anything other than the abstract.

He gives no explanation as to how the social contract if it even exists justifies oppression, he just claims it justifies the initial forming of a state. Great, but that doesnt explain how governments that exterminate their populace maintain legitimacy.

In response to the fact that the social contract doesnt exist Con cites a card that makes the breathtakingly ignorant argument that consent under coercion is still consent. It is consent only in the barest sense of the word, as in I choose to do an action because my rights were violated and I was forced to do so or face worse consequences. Rape is not consenual sex, it was forced. If someone chooses not to do drugs because they dont want to be imprisoned they arent consenting to the state, they are just being forced to give up their rights in the face of a superior force (like a million man army). Sounds quite similar to the survival of the fittest Hobbes so clearly derided.

Con minunderstands Hoppes argument-- that the state chooses to let people keep some rights doesnt mean that when submitting to an entity that can alter any law or previous agreement they arent waiving all their rights. By giving this power they submit themselves to slavery, but this violates the very basis of contracts! Thus the social contract cannot exist.

I also urge readers to re read all of my attack that Con dropped.



The resolution is affirmed.

Citations:

http://goo.gl...
Zaradi

Con

Zaradi forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by royalpaladin 4 years ago
royalpaladin
I never forfeited anything. I have no idea what you guys are talking about. I submitted a challenge to imabench and he declined, so if anything HE was the one who forfeited.

http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
I thought that RP forfeited it and Airmax gave the win to imabench.
Posted by thett3 4 years ago
thett3
Tell me that isnt awesome!

And thanks! Bench and RP arent going to have a debate first, right?
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
xD wtf?

Anyway, good luck against imabench.
Posted by thett3 4 years ago
thett3
:(

If it makkes you feel any better, heres a wordle of our debate: http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
......totally thought I had an extra day -.- damn procrastination.
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
So much for no new argument in the final round xD
Posted by Discretion 4 years ago
Discretion
In my opinion, there's no 'absolute' oppressive government because if there is, we can no longer call it a government. If we look at the picture of leadership since the ancient times, power starts with influence before it becomes coercion. Therefore, one could not call it governance if the institution can no longer portray power over their subordinates. Another side of this issue is fear. The feeling of threat has a limitation. If the people finally consider the government as a very oppressive sector, they will no longer see it as the ruling power but an enemy that they have to eliminate.
Taking a side in this debate, I would prefer an oppressive government than to have no government at all, having these principles as support, and at the same time considering the decision made by the Greeks and Romans during their time when dictatorship was very evident. They preferred to switch to a new type of government, when the previous one seemed to make them downtrodden. And it gave them a new beginning.
Posted by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
If anyone is interested, I'll debate somebody on this topic (I'd be pro).
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
Ohshi---

Just lost S/G. HOBOY!
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
thett3ZaradiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
thett3ZaradiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for forfeit. I might vote on actual arguments later but I fear I'd be too biased.
Vote Placed by DoctorDeku 4 years ago
DoctorDeku
thett3ZaradiTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit :(
Vote Placed by royalpaladin 4 years ago
royalpaladin
thett3ZaradiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by emospongebob527 4 years ago
emospongebob527
thett3ZaradiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: idk