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

Society will eventually devolve into a totalitarian regime

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/4/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 950 times Debate No: 66343
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




The debate topic is rather simple to understand. First round is acceptance. Failure to abide by that rule or the forfeit of a round will result in overall forfeit.


I accept and looking forward to a mutual learning experience.
Debate Round No. 1



Impersonal forces over which we have no control seem to be pushing us all in the direction of the Brave New Worldian nightmare; and this impersonal pushing is being consciously accelerated by representatives of commercial and political organizations who have developed a number of new techniques for manipulating, in the interest of some minority, the thoughts and feelings of the masses. For the moment let us confine out attention to the impersonal forces which are now making the world so unsafe to democracy, so very inhospitable to individual freedom.

On the first Christmas day the population of our planet was about two hundred and fifty million, less than half the population of modern China. Sixteen centuries later, when the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock, human numbers had climbed to a little more than five hundred millions. By the signing of the Declaration of Independence, world population had passed the seven hundred million mark. By the time of 1950 the world population had reached up to two billion five hundred million. Today, only sixty-four years later, there are seven billion one hundred twenty-five millions of us. And tomorrow what? Pesticides, antibiotics, and clean water are cheap commodities, whose effects on public health are out of all proportion to their cost. Even the poorest governments are able to provide some form of death control. Birth control is a very different matter. Death control is something which can be provided for a whole people by a few technicians working in the pay of a government. Birth control relies on cooperation of the entire people. It must be practiced by countless individuals, from whom it demands more intelligence and will power than most of the world’s teeming illiterates possess, and an expenditure of more money than most of these millions can afford. Moreover, there are nowhere any religious traditions in favor of unrestricted death, whereas religious and social traditions in favor of unrestricted reproduction are widespread. Death rates have therefore fallen in recent years with startling suddenness. Birthrates, on the other hand, have remained at their old level or, if they have fallen, have fallen very little and at a very slow rate.

This population problem is not being solved. On the contrary, it is becoming graver and more formidable with every passing year. It is against this grim biological background that all political, economic, cultural, and psychological dramas of our time are being played out. The problem of rapidly increasing numbers in relation to natural resources, social stability and to the well-being of individuals, this is now the central problem of mankind; and it will remain the central problem certainly for another century, and perhaps for several centuries thereafter. Even if, at some future date, emigration to Mars should become feasible, even if any considerable number of women were desperate enough to choose a new life, what difference would it make? In the course of the last five centuries quite a number of people sailed from the Old World to the New, but neither their departure nor the returning flood of food and raw materials could solve the problems of the Old World. Similarly the shipping of a few surplus humans to mars will do nothing to solve the mounting population pressures of our planet. The conditions will create a situation in which individual freedom and the social decencies of the democratic way of life will become impossible, almost unthinkable. Not all dictatorships arise in the same way. There are many roads to tyranny; but perhaps the straightest and broadest of them is the road we are travelling today, the road that leads through gigantic numbers and accelerating increases.



Thank you Pro for bringing an important subject to the debating floor.

The title of this debate and Pro's position is, “Society will eventually devolve into a totalitarian regime.” Where Con's position is, society's evolution is based on the natural cycle between Liberty and Tyranny. Although these positions may sound similar, the machinery of this process is vastly different between Pro and Con.

The variables of Social evolution is large but ranked. Con will demonstrate the two most important variables are Freedom and Morality. A proper understanding of these variables are key in understanding this cycle in social evolution.

Freedom and Morality are part of the physical Laws of Nature, not man-made; they are an outgrowth of Unalienable Rights, which is an outgrowth of the Constructal Law, which is an outgrowth of the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Please bear with me in covering the traceability path from Thermodynamics to Morality, an important background to understand the “invisible hand” of nature. Thermodynamics deals with the direction of energy flow. Constructal Law deals with patterns and systems generated by this energy flow as a function of optimization relative to resistance, in the evolution of biology, physics, technology and social organization. At the biological level once alive, “Life,” must have the freedom (“Liberty” or optimization relative to resistance), in “the pursuit (energy flow) of ” survival; otherwise, there is no life. Since we have life, survival is a form of positive-feedback and a prerequisite for human “Happiness.” Hence, Thomas Jefferson's discovery, which he declared “self-evident” and used the labeled Unalienable Rights representing a polished version of this biological energy flow in the following celebrated statement, “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Here is a video overview of the Constructal Law:

Morality is an outgrowth of life's Unalienable Rights in group formation. The binary values of morality is Right (moral) or Wrong (immoral). The objective of morality is doing Right keeping a group alive. That is, when two or more humans form a group, the group becomes alive. The life of the group is sustained through goodwill and kindness leads to a mutual moral respect for embracing the Unalienable Rights of the members within the group. Goodwill promotes order, stability, and harmony through the pursuit of group-wide positive feedback. Over time, group-wide positive feedback is the genesis of traditions, social values, beliefs, language, etc., the norms of society. These norms are tried and tested, and conservatively pass down from one generation to the next establishing its culture. A moral order guides an individual in the prudent exercise of judgment relative to those norms, going with the social flow minimizing civil resistance (Constructal Law). The individual in a civil society strives, albeit imperfectly, to be virtuous; that is, restrained, ethical, and honorable, respecting and embracing the Unalienable Rights of others relative to those tested norms.

The empirical evidence of the diversity of language and culture throughout history and today demonstrates the universality of morality in group formation.

Morality simply refers to the binary state of Right or Wrong. These states generate mutual positive- or negative-feedback, relative to the Unalienable Rights of another. Mutual positive-feedback, in group creation, is found throughout the spectrum of life in the beneficial formation in schools of fish, flocks of birds, packs of wolves, tribes of humans, and in addition, inter-specie relationships, such as those between humans and their pets.

Getting back to governance. Jefferson's discovery of Unalienable Rights found its way in the design of the US Constitution. The prime objective of the US Constitution is to embrace and protect the individual's Unalienable Rights from the crimes of others and from the crimes of government, no more, no less. The state governments did all the rest. This event set off a social experiment, where in just a short period of 200-years, changed the world like no other society in recorded history, through the fruits of technology, food production, and medicine, the stables of human existence throughout the world today. A compelling example of what happens when our Unalienable Rights are morally free to flow, having minimal resistance (Constructal Law), within the awesome machinery of nature, the “invisible hand.”

A good overview of the US system of government relative to others, is in the following:

Combining the background from the above Constructal Law overview with the overview of the US system of government and its presentation on Capital and market-systems; in the following presentation, it all comes together starting with the familiar pattern of a tree (Constructal Law), ending with the “invisible hand” representing Freedom and Morality, all guided by the Laws of Nature, absent of a human “mastermind.”

Getting back to the cycle of Liberty and Tyranny, all life has Unalienable Rights including all social entities, for they too are living-systems. One may treat Unalienable Rights as a bio-program, where once alive, or a social entity comes into existence, there is a natural desire to grow, improve and prolong “Life,” craving more freedom (“Liberty” or optimization relative to resistance), “the pursuit (energy flow) of ” an objective; once accomplished, positive-feedback (“Happiness”).

At this point it should be clear there is a constant struggle between the Unalienable Rights of a social institution as in a government, relative to the Unalienable Rights of the individual. That is, the more freedom a government has, the less freedom for the individual and vice versa. This push-pull between government and individual is a constant struggle throughout the ages, and there is no reason why this social cycle will ever end.

However, throughout the ages this social cycle is on a slow uphill evolutionary course on the road to utopia, a road seemingly having many potholes.

Relative to Pro's vantage point everything seems to be “devolving” not evolving. We have been in a natural cycle of what appears to be a move towards tyranny. This is natural when the institution of government controls education pushing persuasive ideology that will subtly benefit the government, unbeknownst to the individual, restricting their Unalienable Rights in the outcome. This is reflected in most of Pro's talking points, of population, environmental issues, etc., dogma found in most government controlled educational institutions.

Such dogma gives the illusion government needs to grow, receive more freedom (aka money from taxes) to solve all those problems with public pleasantries, having the unannounced side effect of less freedom for the individual. In the US this process started about a hundred years ago, and continues today as the populist are starting to question while they feel the pain from tyranny. As in the example of the above youtube presentation of the natural migration from a republic, to a democracy, to an oligarchy. For the most part the US is in a post constitutional era---no longer a republic, currently transitioning from a democracy to an oligarchy. For example, many would be surprised to learn that we lost our freedom years ago. For example, if the oligarch in DC wants to incarcerate, or spoil one's day, or freeze one's bank accounts, etc., they could because there are so many laws on the books, on the average we commit 3 felonies a day.

As Lavrenti Beria, chief of Josef Stalin's secret police, once stated, “You bring me the man, I'll find you the crime.”

In time, groups of individuals wakeup; hence, unrest, revolutions, economic collapse, etc. In the case of the US, there is a group objective to restore the US Constitution---fix DC, via the State governments.

Such efforts to restore the US Constitution is a clear demonstration of the next cycle-phase of Tyranny moving towards Liberty.

It is not that “society will eventually devolve into a totalitarian regime,” today many societies are moving in the direction of liberty, and starting to understand a set of totalitarian “masterminds” are inferior to the benefits of the “invisible hand.”

Here is a 1980 classic set of series, with commentaries from elites between the series. Interesting and constructive dialog between elites who support Liberty with those who embrace Tyranny. A microcosm of the cycles between Liberty and Tyranny.
Debate Round No. 2



If you and I are arguing about something and I reply, "It is obvious that I am right," I have added nothing to our dialog. I may as well have said, "I declare victory." If Jefferson in the Decleration of Independence--so often a golden-tongued hypocrite--was not consciously engaging in a debater's trick, he was taking an intellectual short-cut, using a tautology: "It is true is true."

How can there be "self evident" rights? Had Jefferson written, "We want the following rights," he would have been making a simple, clear statement easy to understand. Language allows us to construct phrases which are grammatically correct but which do not mean anything (or do not mean what they appear to). Does the statement "We hold these rights to be self-evident" in fact mean anything more profound than "we want them?"

Jefferson's and the other framers' views on natural rights were derived from John Locke's highly influential Second Treatise of Government, first published anonymously in 1690. In Chapter 2, "Of the state of nature", Locke describes the "state of nature" in which men exist before forming governments:

....a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons as they see fit, within the bounds of the laws of nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man.

A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another; there being nothing more evident than that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection....

The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one; and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it that, being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions....

Permit me an "aha!" Is not this prose exactly the kind Hume was thinking of in his famous condemnation of deriving an "ought" from an "is"?

In every system of morality which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a god, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find that instead of the usual copulation of propositions is and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought or an ought not. This change is imperceptible, but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought or ought not expresses some new relation or affirmation, it is necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason ought to be given for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others which are entirely different from it.

Now note what Locke did: In the state of nature, "all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal" and therefore all men "should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection...."

And he does it again: "The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it" which teaches that "no one ought to harm another".

Locke's view of the state of nature is more placid than that of Thomas Hobbes, who believed that all men begin in a state of war of "every man, against every man." Locke by contrast could imagine men living together "according to reason", that is, peacefully, "but without a common superior on earth with authority to judge between them."

OK, lets watch Hobbes conjugate an ought from an is.

To this war of every man against every man, this also is consequent, that nothing can be Unjust. The notions of Right and Wrong, Justice and Injustice, have there no place. Leviathan, ch. 13

Seeming to say that there are no natural rights, just a state of chaos before government. In the state of nature, "Force and Fraud" are the two cardinal virtues; "there be no Propriety, no Dominion, no Mine and Thine distinct."

But then we make the rough transition to Chapter 14, "Of the first and second Natural Lawes, and of Contracts":

The Right of Nature, which Writers commonly call Jus Naturale, is the Liberty each man hath, to use his own power, as he will himselfe, for the preservation of his own Nature; that is, of his own Life; and consequently, of doing any thing, which in his own Judgement, and Reason, hee shall conceive to be the aptest means thereto.

Hobbes starts by saying that in a state of nature, there is no Justice, no property, etc., therefore no possible founding of "rights"; but in his next chapter he appears to say that without human rulebooks we each should have the right to do whatever preserves our life and our enjoyment.

Hobbes (and many others) seems to me to confound three concepts: what we physically can do; what we desire, which may be different; and what we ought to do, which again may be entirely distinct from the first two categories.

Looked at this way, Locke and Hobbes commit very different versions of Hume's fallacy. Locke reverse engineers the way things are from the way he believes they ought to be: people should be peaceful and respectful of one another, and therefore are this way in a state of nature, which exists only because they lack a common judge. Hobbes goes in the other direction and elevates the way he believes things are (nasty and brutish, constant war of all against all) to a moral imperative, that we (ought to) have a right of mutual destruction until we adopt rules which say otherwise.

What we physically can do

This seems to me to be the single most dangerous foundation for a claimed "right", as we have the physical ability to do all the things we make rules against (there would be no point in banning them if we couldn't do them.)

If we regard rights as a human-generated rulebook, not engraven in the fabric of the universe, we can analyze many circumstances in which the rule-makers must mediate between conflicting interpretations. For example, our courts answer questions like the following every day: Does your right of free speech trump my right of privacy? In this scheme of things, rights are a binary switch, and the rulemakers simply decide which way to set the switch. If you have a right to do something, I have an obligation to respect it and not to interfere with it. It would be illogical to say you have a "right" to do something which I have a "right" to prevent.

But this is exactly the case in the Hobbesian state of nature. I have a right to kill you if you get in my way, but you have an equal right to kill me. If I am stronger and I succeed, your family nonetheless has a right to take revenge, and so forth. ("An eye for an eye," said Gandhi, "makes the whole world blind.")

But if we think strictly in terms of language, what do we add by speaking of rights in this context? When we are speaking of human rulebooks, it is much easier to answer that question. A right can be defined as a rule which protects you in taking an action and prevents me from interfering with it.

But in a Hobbesian state of nature, the word "right" seems to be stripped of any content not already contained in the word "can". Compare these two statements:

In a Hobbesian state of nature, I can kill you.

In a Hobbesian state of nature, I have a right to kill you.

I have a pet dog named Daisy, who lives in my home and eats a kibble and wet food mixture. I walk her about 3 times a day. Does it make any sense to you, if instead of saying that Daisy eats food, I say "Daisy has a right to food"? Does she have a "right" to be walked? If "Daisy has a right to food" has no more meaning than the statement "Daisy eats food", why does "man has a right to self defense" mean anything more than "men defend themselves"? The answer can only be in a tautology, a prejudgment of our conclusion: that there is something special about man which dictates that natural rights exist (essentially because we want them to.)

This is why rights language is not only fuzzy but dangerous; for many of us the word "rights" communicates an imprimatur of moral authority, causing us to behave respectfully even in contexts where it is completely meaningless. Like an automobile, we should never buy a right until we have looked beneath the hood.

In a debate with gun rights people several years ago, I rapidly discovered that they all believed that the right to bear arms was a natural right, engraved in the fabric of the universe, and merely affirmed, not created by their beloved Second Amendment. For these people, Locke and Hobbes are living philosophers (and more particularly Hobbes, I think.)

The concept of natural rights was used by many of my gun rights correspondents both as a club and a credit card on which to charge up selfishness. Club: "I have a natural right to self defense, so therefore I win this argument," was the gist of many of the messages I received. Credit card: When I proposed that we sit at a table together to make a rulebook about guns, accomodating the interests of those who do not want them along with those who do, many people responded: "My natural right to bear arms trumps your desire not to have guns around. Therefore there is no basis for discussion."

You hear in such debates not only that it is "natural" for us to defend ourselves but that animals are equipped with claws, horns and teeth to do so. Somehow this fact, that people and other animals defend themselves when endangered, is extrapolated into a "right."

Here is the answer: We believe there is a natural right to do anything which we think should be permitted (or mandated) under a human rulebook. Anything which should be forbidden under a human rulebook therefore cannot be a natural right, even if it is physically possible and can be justified by the same arguments used to support the idea of natural rights.

For the above reasons, inalienable rights don't exist. I would write more but have run out of characters.



Thank you Pro for sharing the philosophy of Lock and Hobbes, in addition, your distain for Thomas Jefferson.

Lock and Hobbes, like all of us, are philosophers. Every one of us, maintains our own philosophy. Also, there is an element of science in all of us. Science is about studying repeatable patterns in nature and trying to understand our place in the universe, while using those patterns to advance our standard of living from the fruits of technology, food production, medicine, economics and social development. These patterns are known as the Laws of Nature where these Laws are independent of, and existed long before the evolution of philosophy. Take social development for example, group formation is found throughout the spectrum of life from schools of fish, to flocks of birds, to packs of wolves, etc. Therefore, these Laws of Nature transcends human philosophy.

It is true Jefferson, during the enlightenment era, was well read (over 6000 books in his library) and inspired by the giants in science, mathematics, and philosophy. Whatever one thinks about Jefferson and his personal habits is unrelated to his discovery of life's bio-program, which he only equated to the scope of humanity and selected the term “Unalienable Rights.”

Relative to this bio-program---Unalienable Rights---is a manifestation of the physical Constructal Law, that is, once inanimate matter becomes alive, its “Life,” must have the freedom (“Liberty” in the optimization minimizing resistance), in “the pursuit (energy flow) of" survival; otherwise, there is no life. This is a Law in Nature, not some philosophical ideology.

Again, survival is positive-feedback and a prerequisite for human “Happiness.” Hence, Jefferson's discovery, which he declared “self-evident” and used the labeled “Unalienable Rights” representing a polished version of this biological energy flow in the following celebrated statement, “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

It seems Pro also has an issue with Jefferson's term of “self-evident.” An axiom is a premise so “self-evident” as to be accepted as true without controversy. From a logical point of view, the event of survival or death, or success or failure in the pursuit of positive- or negative-feedback, when interfacing with nature, presents a self-contained system of binary outcomes. In the field of mathematics and logic, such a closed system of propositions brings into existence a proof.

From a binary standpoint, notably, it would be impossible to take away any one of the Rights while leaving the other two intact, as all of the Rights are dependent on one another. Without Life, one cannot enjoy Liberty or pursue Happiness. Without Liberty, one cannot pursue Happiness, and as this pursuit overlaps with the pursuit of survival, one is unable to continue Life. Without the pursuit (energy flow) of events leading to survival (positive-feedback, Happiness) one cannot continue Life or enjoy Liberty. Because of their interdependency and tendency to wane simultaneously with various degrees of obstruction, the three Rights define a spectrum of positions. The binary positive end of the spectrum is a position of Life, Liberty, and Happiness (positive-feedback), while the negative end is a position of death, tyranny, and distress (negative-feedback).

Now that we understand life’s bio-program---Unalienable Rights are part of the physical Laws of Nature, not some human philosophy, Con will focus on the freedom factor (“Liberty”), a part of all life.

As stated previously, life's bio-program---Unalienable Rights maintains, once alive, or a social entity comes into existence, there is a natural desire to grow, improve and prolong “Life,” craving more freedom (“Liberty” in the optimization relative to resistance), “the pursuit (energy flow) of ” an objective; once accomplished, positive-feedback (“Happiness”).

In a civil society, freedom, in part, is also a function of money, the more money one has, the more one can do and buy things. According to the Nobel laureate in economics Friedrich Hayek once stated, “Money is one of the greatest instrument of freedom ever invented by man” (

Liberty is on the move with the fall of the Iron Curtain in the late 1980s, Red China engaging in free-market principles, etc. In general economic freedom is on the increase throughout the world ( At the same time, tyranny is also on the move with the spread of dogmatic theocracies from the Middle East, and big government welfare states. Hence, the natural cycle between Liberty and Tyranny in the evolution of social systems.

Con demonstrated, the drive for freedom in living-systems is part of the Laws of Nature. Freedom is the driving force that presents an everlasting cycle of Liberty and Tyranny, or war and peace between different living-systems in social evolution.

Social evolution is about “good ideas” according to Adrian Bejan (

Good ideas travel and persist. They keep on traveling. This is why culture is a constructal design [Constructal Law]---a tapestry of morphing linkages in our minds and on the globe---all superimposed on the same area (the globe) and in the same volume (the brain). As such, culture is the same kind of design as the tapestry of vascular architectures, animate and inanimate, all superimposed on the Earth’s surface.”

Con demonstrated freedom is a driving force in evolution and part of the Laws of Nature. Pro has yet provided the Burden of Proof (BoF) that “society will eventually devolve into a totalitarian regime.”
Debate Round No. 3



Freedom is subjective to one's viewpoint. One can think themselves to be free when they are actually not. It is true, as you have said, “...the drive for freedom in living-systems is part of the Laws of Nature.” I shall explain in my argument how freedom can be redefined in the eyes of the masses.


What defines the enforcement of strength in individuals also defines its enforcement in the morals of societies, and that is will to power. The will to exert one's power over another individual or society of the individuals. Some systems promote will to power more than others, like the Nazi system which attempted to exert it’s specific principles over other groups of individuals which it would virtually enslave in the thirst for Lebensraum[1] for the German people. This requires that power is exerted over its own citizens. This is the very nature of a totalitarian regime, the putting of all power and strength under the control of one individual.

At his trial after the Second World War, Hitler’s Minister of Armaments, Albert Speer, delivered a long speech in which, with remarkable acuteness, he described the Nazi tyranny and analyzed its methods. “Hitler’s dictatorship,” he said, “differed in one fundamental point from its predecessors in history. It was the first dictatorship in the present period of modern technical development, a dictatorship which made complete use of all technical means for the domination of its own country, Through technical devices like the radio and the loudspeaker, eighty million people were deprived of independent thought. It was thereby possible to subject them to the will of one man… Earlier dictators needed highly qualified assistants even at the lowest level--men who could think and act independently. The totalitarian system in the period of modern technical development can dispense with such menl thanks to modern methods of communication, it is possible to mechanize the lower leadership. As a result of this there has arisen the new type of the uncritical recipient of orders.”

Since then technology has advanced far beyond the point of Hitler’s day; consequently the recipients of orders are and will be far less critical than their Nazi counterparts, far more obedient to the order-giving elite. This conditioning of the “lower leadership” has already occurred in communist dictatorships to a startlingly successful degree. It has only been the failure of the order-giving elite that has caused the destruction of these societies. The Chinese and the Russians did not merely rely on the indirect effects of advancing technology; they worked directly on the psychophysical organisms of their lower leaders, subjecting minds and bodies to a system of ruthless and, from all accounts, highly effective conditioning. Many a man has been haunted by the nightmare that one day nations might be dominated by technical means. That nightmare was almost realized in Hitler’s totalitarian system. Almost, but not quite. The Nazis did not have the time and perhaps did not have the intelligence and necessary knowledge to brainwash and condition their lower leadership. This, it may be, is one of the reasons why they failed, but now the means exist and nothing is in existence to prevent their use.

Introduction of a New Moral into a Preexisting Moral System

Strength is the exertion of one's will to power, and it is almost impossible to calculate somethings strength as it is proceeding. How would one know the results of World War II in 1940? One could make predictions, but as one might know in this case, it was a very different situation in 1940 compared to 1945.

How exactly is a moral system changed though? There are two ways in which a moral system can be changed: acceptance and strength.

Acceptance is the simplest of all methods in the changing of moral systems. Acceptance occurs when an idea is introduced to a new moral system and it is acceptable to it in a way that it is easily receivable. This follows the simple process of going from introduction to acceptance. Examples of this can be seen in such situations as the abolition of slavery in the Northern states of the US prior to the civil war or the banning of harmful drugs also in the US[2]. This principle is much more simple than the process of the eventual acceptance of a moral introduced by strength.

Strength works through the powers of propaganda, fear, and hatred. They are all used together for the common purpose of increasing the strength of a newly introduced moral until it is accepted.

The principles of hatred and fear are so interlinked that I shall discuss them together. Hatred is caused by fear and disgust. Disgust is simply the revoltment at that which you believe is below you. This can be seen in the dislike of other races by the German populace under Nazi Reign. The introduction of this notion of German superiority was introduced by propaganda, which I shall discuss later. Fear is either the fear of defeat or the fear of pain, both of which can be seen during war. The fear of defeat is simply the fear of loss in some variety. This has inspired nationalistic attitudes, which can cause major change as the United States does with the suspension of Habeas Corpus in times of revolt or war. Fear caused by pain is a much more complicated matter psychologically. Some studies report the existence of “Stockholm Syndrome” where one can actually become attached to ones torturers, but in most cases it still appears to inspire hatred. These tools of hatred and fear are used in the next for of enacting moral change, and that is propaganda.

Propaganda is the chief means of changing a moral system through strength. It uses all available technological means in order to influence the ignorant masses. People are put into large crowds, which have no purpose of their own other than that told to them, where individuals are inspired to do anything except intelligent action and realistic thought. Speakers follow the lead of the great masses in such a way that from the living emotion of the hearers the apt word which they need is suggested to them to sway the mass. Among the mass instinct is supreme. Speakers tell blacks or whites, there is no gray area to speak of if you want to influence that which can’t think. Propaganda is confined to bare necessities to be expressed in a few stereotyped formulas that make use in order to create hatred and manipulate it for its own advantage. Through the force of this great power single individuals can influence the masses to be shifted from traditional loyalties to the point where they can impose their chosen order and destroy the morals of the past.


If morality can be shifted with the strength of words how can all men be resistant to the destruction of their own freedom and how can they possess inalienable rights? People are bent to the will of that which is more powerful than them, limiting the freedoms of the individual to that which is most powerful. Even if an individual has the right to own a small group of particular views they are still subject to the the totalitarian regime that will inevitably be above them.

[1]the territory that a state or nation believes is needed for its natural development, especially associated with Nazi Germany. It was specifically farmland in the Nazi case.

[2] Though some consider it unsuccesful it was introduced via acceptance

I thank Con for this debate and look forward to his rebuttal



Thank you Pro for the overview on the rise of totalitarian regimes, with little discussion of their fall, their demise, their self-destruction, etc. Their self-destruction is simply because they went against the Laws of Nature, mainly going against the physical Law known as Unalienable Rights.

In Round 2 Con presented the traceability path from the Laws of Thermodynamics to Unalienable Rights. Such traceability may have caused an odd sense of stress for those who have a different perception of social reality. For those trapped in the classical social view, the natural tendency may be to dismiss the magnitude of this linkage between the physical Laws of Nature and social systems.

Again, life's bio-program (Unalienable Rights) is the interface between an individual and nature in the progressive evolution of life, civil society, technology, etc. Evolution is a slow process with occasional spontaneous events. Here are some evolutionary examples of life's bio-program interaction with nature starting with one of Pro's favorites, “Adolph Hitler:

1) Adolph Hitler exercised his Rights to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of his Happiness," his perception of a totalitarian utopia, by obstructing the Unalienable Rights of others. This obstruction went against the Laws of Nature, causing distress, death, and a global nightmare. Nature fought back, for humans are part of nature. Hitler, who had an ideology that opposed nature, became history upon his demise, well before his natural time.

2) Relative to evolution, life operating within the matrix of the Laws of Nature and navigating throughout nature in general, species ("Life") depends on "Liberty" to avoid resistance, and expend energy in "the pursuit of" positive feedback. The result is adaptation and evolution. Species who lack the Liberty to avoid resistance and/or the energy to pursue positive-feedback, follow a path towards extinction. Extinction is part of evolution as in the examples of “totalitarian regimes,” come and go throughout the ages.

3) Before the invention of the airplane, man historically exercised his Right of freedom in the pursuit of attempting to fly like a bird by attaching wings to his limbs, resulting in endless negative-feedback in death or failure. Over the ages man was only able to achieve his flight objectives when he morally complied with nature's Laws of Aerodynamics through positive-feedback, then humanity safely took to the sky.

4) Cancer cells attempt to exercise their Right to Life and Liberty by surviving and multiplying, which destroys humans' Right to Life. Man (Life) exercises his Right of Liberty by pursuing medical research and treatments that kill cancer cells and prolong the lives of cancer patients (Happiness).

5) The Laws of Nature bestow the Right to Life---which includes Liberty in the pursuit of survival, positive-feedback and growth from conception, to birth, to cradle, to grave. However, man-made laws allow people to pursue death of others through totalitarianism, abortion, euthanasia, war, etc., going against life's Unalienable Rights, the Laws of Nature, hence, death, tyranny or the pursuit of failure.

For example, a night time satellite image of South and North Korea (, is a visual presentation of the difference between Liberty and Tyranny, the difference between a free regime and a totalitarian regime, the difference between the forces of light relative to the forces of darkness; respectively.

Take down the wall between North and South Korea, and guess what direction the population will flow? The Second Law of Thermodynamics, in part, deals with the direction of flow. That is, the natural flow of heat moves from high temperature to a lower temperature. When dealing with pressure, there is a natural flow from high pressure to a lower pressure. The flow of electrons takes the path from high resistance to low resistance. In general, life exercise its freedom taking the path of least resistance in the pursuit of food. Humans have a tendency to flow from the high resistance found in tyranny to the low resistance dominated by freedom. Why should human nature behave any differently, for we are a product of the Laws of Nature? Empirically one will find symmetry throughout nature both inanimate and animate (Constructal Law).

When humans morally follow the Laws of Nature advances the evolution in technology, food production, medicine, etc, advancing the standard of living by improving, “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” The symmetry in social evolution is no different from the evolution found throughout nature both inanimate and animate for it all follows the Constructal Law. Propaganda from the ignorance and greed of an oligarch embracing totalitarianism cannot change the Laws of Nature, for their regimes are self-destructive. Destruction, not from the glut of enjoyable perks for the tyrannical oligarch, but from putting their serfs into bondage violating their Unalienable Rights. Tyrannical oligarchs generally leave a trail of blood in their wake, for example, the former USSR murdered many of its own citizens ( Over the last century, excluding wars, Marxist governments murdered about 95,200,000 of their own citizens. Clearly a mode of self-destruction, needless to mention the standard of living in “a totalitarian regime” compared to a freer society.

When the masses seeks social happiness, the oppression from totalitarianism vanishes; hence, the endless cycle between Liberty and Tyranny on the evolutionary road to utopia, optimizing “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness,” for all.

In this social evolutionary process, something new has been added to the equation; the internet. Today, the internet opens information channels between the global masses under many different forms of governance, including most, not all, totalitarian regimes. Many governments control their educational system, a platform to expedite propaganda. One can only assume, such a debate between Pro and Con today on DDO over some topic pertaining to “a totalitarian regime,” is only a nightmare for those tyrannical oligarch's slowly losing their dominance over propaganda. “Life” on the internet, is simply freedom (“Liberty”) of information flow by taking the path of least resistance, “in the pursuit of” knowledge, entertainment, commerce etc, and once accomplished, positive-feedback (“Happiness”).

Perhaps, one's most stressful event of the day in freedom, is losing one's charge on their smart-phone; oh, the humanity. In tyranny, the stress may be one of losing one's head. My Friend Pro, and for those reading this debate, what stress aligns best with your comfort-zone?
Debate Round No. 4


1. Adolph's failure wasn't due to his removal of unalienable rights in the German people, it was due to his challenging other nations with conflicting ideals.
2. The fact that the rise of a perminent totalitarian regime may cause an extinction isn't pertinent to this debate. Extinction is inevitible of all species.
3. Totalitarian regimes make use of the organizational abilities of the masses and breaks them from their individuality, allowing them to have certain freedoms but training them into thinking with a set of government supported ideals.

It matters not that man seeks liberty and happiness, a capable totalitarian regime can regiment what people believe this be. I have explained the means of doing this in previous rounds through the use of strength. I await con's rebuttal and thank him for the debate.


Thank you Pro, for your response.

It is clear Pro still believes a totalitarian regime could change the Laws of Nature, more specifically, life's Unalienable Rights (the physical Constructal Law). The simple fact is, no human mastermind, who lust for power over others, can change the Laws of Nature.

Con will address Pro's three points:

Pro stated, “1. Adolph's failure wasn't due to his removal of unalienable rights in the German people, it was due to his challenging other nations with conflicting ideals.”

Adolph removed the Unalienable Rights of about 6,000,000 Germans, by taking their Right to "Life" away in the ovens of Adolph's concentration camps. Rumor has it, Adolph had a thing for those Germans with Jewish ancestry. Again, an idiot mastermind who went against the Laws of Nature in a mode of self-destruction. The US, a freer nation at the time, felt bad for the Germans who were conned by such an idiot, and after the war, rebuilt Germany. Today, the Germans are enjoying their Unalienable Rights and the most prosperous country in Europe.

Pro stated, “2. The fact that the rise of a perminent totalitarian regime may cause an extinction isn't pertinent to this debate. Extinction is inevitible of all species.”

Relative to this debate, the term “devolve” is in the title. Therefore, “devolve” and its counterpart evolution, both depend on extinction in transformation from one form to another.

Devolve: "to gradually go from an advanced state to a less advanced state" (

Life's Unalienable Rights is part of evolution, to evolve to a more advance state not to “devolve.” By the mere title of this debate, implies “a totalitarian regime” goes against evolution, against the Laws of Nature. The fact that “a totalitarian regime” goes against evolution, its life span will be relatively short.

Pro stated, “3. Totalitarian regimes make use of the organizational abilities of the masses and breaks them from their individuality, allowing them to have certain freedoms but training them into thinking with a set of government supported ideals.”

Organizational abilities ... government supported ideals” are simply the con of a mastermind, or an oligarch, who are also fallible humans. Again, the propaganda from the ignorance and greed of an oligarch embracing totalitarianism cannot change the Laws of Nature, for their regimes are self-destructive---“devolving.” Devolving by the glut of enjoyable perks for the tyrannical oligarch, while they put their serfs into bondage violating their Unalienable Rights, retarding social evolution.

With the evolution of the internet, the propaganda from tyrannical oligarchs will fade in time.

In a free-market civil society, who includes the study of morality as a subject in science, will become a society guided by the “invisible hand” (see Con's presentation in Round 2), while the role of government evolves to a level with the sole purpose to embrace and protect the individual's Unalienable Rights from the crimes of others and from the crimes of government, no more, no less.

The nineteenth century German poet Holderlin once said, “What has always made the state a hell on earth, has been precisely that man has tried to make it his heaven.”

Relative to the individual's Unalienable Rights, the proper response to Holderlin is: What has always made the state a joy on earth, has been precisely that man has Liberty in the moral pursuit of his own heaven.

With that said, and in closing, I wish Pro a long and healthy “Life,” having ample freedom (“Liberty”), in the moralpursuit of ” Pro's heaven, aka “Happiness.”
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.