The Instigator
AltecRadion
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Serac
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The government should value Political Stability than Personal Freedoms

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 1/2/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 713 times Debate No: 43272
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

AltecRadion

Pro

Political Stability is much more important than personal freedoms. Political Stability is fundamentally what enforces that personal freedoms are met. Without a stable government of sorts, personal freedoms would be tossed away and we would never have the chance to voice ourselves. Should we enter that vicious cycle, we would never be able to achieve true political stability ever. Political Stability is what enforces law and order, where as whiteout laws, freedoms are abused. Abusing these personal freedom means that no personal freedom and or political stability can be achieved later on in life. Political Stability also ensures safety. What good does freedom mean to a dead man? Freedom without Political Stability also creates chaos, a world without control. Economy would also benefit from a government in power as they would be able to ensure a chance for business to invest into a safe stock market, not one that has little to no government protection. Should the market crash, a Stable Government would be the fail safe of many large corporations.
Serac

Con

To begin, let it be stated that a government should be a representation of the people, assuming we are looking at democracy. As such, if a government ceases to represent the will and whim of the people, then it fails in its primary objective. That must be understood for us to continue this analysis.

With that in mind, let's move on to your point. For you, the stable government is what maintains economic success, for the purposes of the people, and thereby is in the position to defend people's rights. Here, we have a problem: your argument relies on these not being opposites. That is, that if we strive for a stable government, then the option to protect rights becomes available. But, this is a self defeating statement, if we consider the government as independent from the people it protects. If the government is independent, and supporting a capitalistic economy, it will support the capitalists, which are, as capitalism requires, a minority. If the government is supporting a minority, this sows discontent above the majority who voted in the government. Therefore, the government and the people become separate, and, to protect itself, the government must, one way or another, limit the freedoms of its people. So, the idea that a truly stable government that prizes stability above freedoms is found to be impossible, as when stability becomes the objective, the only goal is self perpetuation.

On the contrary, for a government to be stable, the majority must support it, and the only way for this to occur, in the long run, is to have the will and freedom of the people at the forefront, at least from the outset, or the population will become discontent and, like the Russians in the 1900s, be under constant fire from the people, and eventually mainly serve itself in maintaining itself.
Debate Round No. 1
AltecRadion

Pro

AltecRadion forfeited this round.
Serac

Con

Serac forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
AltecRadion

Pro

AltecRadion forfeited this round.
Serac

Con

Serac forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
AltecRadion

Pro

AltecRadion forfeited this round.
Serac

Con

Serac forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
AltecRadion

Pro

AltecRadion forfeited this round.
Serac

Con

Serac forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.