The Contender
Open Debate
The best form of government (or lack thereof)
Debate Challenge Expired
Nobody accepted the challenge for this debate. If you are m93samman, login to see your options.
| Started: | 6/22/2012 | Category: | Politics |
| Updated: | 11 months ago | Status: | Challenge Declined |
| Viewed: | 2,495 times | Debate No: | 24203 |
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (52)
Votes (0)
 Pro Greetings fellow debate.org members. After a long disappearance from the site, I've undergone some serious changes in my beliefs in politics and would like to debate my stance versus that of anyone out there. The way this debate will work is as follows: Format Round one will be for the acceptance of the debate, introduction of my opponent's most preferred system of government, and other pre-debate customs (observations should wait until round 2). Round two will be the presentation of the individual cases for a particular form of government (con may NOT offer a rebuttal during the second round). Rounds three and four will be where clash between the cases are made, and round five will be left to summarize key voting issues and clarify on any arguments a debater may find ambiguous. Introduction Given the current state of affairs in the world, I find the countries that dominate the socio-economic realm as well as the global political atmosphere to be quite repugnant in their choice of government. The structure allows for brutal exploitation of the third world, the accumulation of wealth and power in the hands of the few, and the unfortunate generational transfer of said wealth and power through generations. Being a genuinely concerned for humanity, I advocate a revolution of global politics beginning with a mass re-education of the human population. The system I advocate is a system of communism, but this is too broad of a term to defend. Moreover, the common conception of communism is forced labor and tyrannical rule by an oligarchy. The position I defend is the following: I am an advocate of Islamic-communist anarcho-syndicalism. Quite a mouthful; I will take the time to define it. For the sake of the debate, the "Islamic" portion of the label will be disregarded because this is not the part of the political change I am concerned with. Definitions: 1. Communism[1]: A political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs 2. Anarchism[2]: Belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion 3. Syndicalism[3]: A movement for transferring the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution to workers' unions. Influenced by Proudhon and by the French social philosopher Georges Sorel (1847 - 1922), syndicalism developed in French labor unions during the late 19th century and was at its most vigorous between 1900 and 1914, particularly in France, Italy, Spain, and the U.S ______________________________________________________________________________ I look forward to hearing from my opponent, and to a great debate. Sources [1] https://www.google.com... [2] https://www.google.com... [3] https://www.google.com... This round has not been posted yet. |
 |
|
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet. |
 |
|
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet. |
 |
|
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet. |
 |
|
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet. |
 |
This debate has 10 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.
I haven't decided on an opponent yet anyways.
Is the desire to own personal property hard wired into our DNA? This is an appeal to nature. Murder is hard wired into our DNA. Murder is not good. It is possible that we evolve further. A person may take comfort in knowing that food, water, shelter and more are available. I will evoke Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Self actualization is as important as the other more basic needs, just not as time urgent. Does each person need to consume endless amounts of personal property to be self- actualized? Do they need to compete to have comparatively more than another to be happy? I would say no. Even if this desire is partially of evolutionary background it is still not the key to happiness. What if each person owned enough to have personal space health and above all efficacy? The point of human contracts is to protect all of us from each of our bad natures.
I would love to debate this with you. I suspect that we will not be able to avoid the topics of human psyche and religion were we to do so. I would argue for anarcho-syndicalist communities protected by treaty and convention. The protective governments would be at the whim of the communities as a whole by democratic process. The only role of the protecting government would be to prevent harm and litigate disputed between communities. Each community may choose whatever mixture of shared or personal property they desire. A spiritual understanding and attainment should be propagated throughout. It should be poly-religious in nature. Choosing one religion for everyone is a sign of domination. That religious intolerance is antithetical to the mindset needed to live in peace with others under the anarcho-syndicalist model.
That's a total straw man.
Incentive structures? Like what?
Yeah it's much more probable that once we immerse the State with unprecedented amounts of power it will naturally wither away. The Marxist political program fails to take State incentive structures into account when formulating a plan for revolution brah.