The Instigator
Harlan
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
lvisman96
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points

Topic: Anarchy

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/14/2007 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,362 times Debate No: 75
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (7)

 

Harlan

Con

I would otherwise think this would be a silly thing to even bother saying, but looking at people's profiles, there is actually a surprising number of anarchists.

The concept of anarchy being beneficial is na�ve and reckless. Governments are in place for VERY important reasons. People are violent. It is true. It is part of human nature to kill other Humans. This may seem strange to us, but that is only because we have been conditioned to suppress this violent nature.

"During the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man"
-Thomas Hobbes

There is a lot of wisdom to this. Without a government we would be in a constant state of war. I can guarantee you, that if people had no rules to govern them, the rate of death would SORE, resulting from murder being a regular thing, lack of protection, lack of organized and government funded medical institutions (disease), etc. To be in Anarchy is to be in complete chaos and un-organization.

There would not be any significant advances in humanity, if there was not a government to organize it. We must have government. It is one of the things that make the human race so powerful. To have this mass organization, is an amazing feat for a species to accomplish. To remove the government is to put your own, individual self in danger.
Though it sounds great to have freedom, people would abuse this freedom horribly.

"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil"
-Common Sense (by Thomas Paine)

By the way, I recommend Common sense. It is a good book to read.
lvisman96

Pro

As we have spoken before, Harlan, thanks for reposting this topic. It is important to note that, to DEBATE something is not necessarily proof that one believes in it. I ask the readers not to vote their conscience, but rather to vote on who had the best 'argument' in stating their case. For that is the true measure of a debater's skill. Without further ado,

Anarchy has it's value. Look at nature. Are there laws in place ? Do they have a system of government ? Nature polices itself. It is 'survival of the fittest'. You said it yourself, "we have been conditioned to suppress this violent nature". So, the 'violent' are being discriminated against, which is then deemed that the "strong" are discriminated against because in a violent society, it is the strongest (physical OR mental) that survives. An anarchist society could function and even thrive, because if you are NOT strong, you will NOT survive. It would make people tougher, stronger and smarter to outwit the other humans.

So, anarchy has it's attraction; just not to the weak.
Debate Round No. 1
Harlan

Con

Hello,

I was working on a rsponse, but that is on a different computer than I am currently using. I am about to go on a trip, tomorrow, that will last until sunday, when I will get back. I will not have internet access for this duration of time, so I cannot post anything here. It is saved on a different computer, though, and I SHOULD be able to post it in the next round.
lvisman96

Pro

I waited to give you more time, Harlan. I won't post any argument here. Look forward to Round 3 ! ooga booga ooga booga--I needed to post more characters as it wouldn't let me post with what I had.
Debate Round No. 2
Harlan

Con

Very, very good point, ivisman!:

"If you don't agree with me, then you are a weakling!", is basically what you were saying it seems like.

I can see that you obviously don't understand, or are ignoring how, government started in the first place.

"Would make people tougher, stronger and smarter to outwit the other humans"

Key concept: "outwit other humans". Did government not start off by people overpowering other humans? Could it be said, then that government is inevitable of Humans when they are intelligent enough. As circular as it may seem, would anarchy not through a subtle process create government, if at least a despotic one?

Breaking away from the philosophical reflection,

"An anarchist society could function and even thrive"

I do not know what you are imagining. A "society" would be tense and unstable without laws. Murder would be a regular thing. I do not know what you think it is to "thrive", but I can assure you the world would not be pretty, if people were set free like that.

Without government, where would we be? Whether it be a council of the people, a full-blown democracy, a commune, a kingship, or a tribal chief; We NEED government.

In fact, without government, there would barely be any "society" at all. You say the "society" would thrive, because people are stronger. If the reason they are stronger is because they must kill (or "outwit") other humans, how is that a thriving society?

A society will NOT work in any way if there are no rules. I would actually like to post the full quote to which I earlier only posted a portion of:

"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one"

Before it is even brought up, governments can be "bad" sometimes. They can be generally negative to their population sometimes, but the concept of it in general is important.

Your argument seems to revolve around the strength of the population. The government, who organizes medical institutions, would not be in place, and the health would not be as good. They would use this strength to kill others.

Quite personally, I would prefer a population of governed weaklings who get along together than a population of barbarous, reckless strong people
lvisman96

Pro

Going back to my first argument, you'll see that I don't necessarily agree with anarchy. However, I though it would be fun to defend it. The 'Strong' is only the first of my arguments. You stated that my first argument inferred "If you don't agree with me, then you are a weakling!" To which I reply "Are you saying that all STRONG people (mental AND physical) are evil and wouldn't use their attributes for good ?" My stepson so thoughtfully reminded me that I have forgotten 'more than any teenager will ever know', so I'll ignore your flame.

I actually do know how and why government got started, and it wasn't only to protect people from being murdered. It was to facilitate commerce, provide for the common good, divy up the spoils on raids. Government (tribal councils, etc.) had their origins in the most powerful among them being their leaders. It wasn't that long ago that the kings in Europe were being assassinated by their rivals. Indeed, it still happens today. The case for anarchy can be made utilizing your own points:

"Without a government we would be in a constant state of war"--I contend that throughout the history of government there has ALWAYS been some country at war. Our own country is an example. Governments ORGANIZE armies whose sole purpose is war. And if there were no 'organization' (going back to your first argument), there would not be any 'armies' to go to war.

"There would not be any significant advances in humanity"--please define 'advances'. If you mean society as it stands now, I could point to numerous studies that show suicides, murder, lying, cheating, stealing, etc. in the pursuit of the 'advances' humans have made.

Also, pollution, man-made climate change on a global scale, mass extinctions, all are a consequence of human 'advancement'. A current panel of scientists has just put out a report that 'global warming' is an 'unequivocal fact' and that if we don't make drastic changes in the next three years, we are doomed. All due to human 'advances'. Anarchy has an attraction to the environment and other species on our planet.

And since you DID bring it up, take a look at all the governments throughout history...despotic kings, Hitler's regime, pol pot, etc. There have been as many 'despotic' governments as there have been 'benevolent' ones.

"As circular as it may seem, would anarchy not through a subtle process create government, if at least a despotic one?"--and therein lies the greatest attraction of all. 'Anarchy' leads to government, if only by the righteous taking up arms. With anarchy, the slate is wiped clean. A time of renewal. Anarchy, as a GOVERNMENT form cannot exist indefinitely. For alliances will be made eventually.

A recent example is the Wild West in America. Murder and other crimes were rampant. Although, there was a 'government', it often was too far away or relied on one person in a town who commanded respect of the township, or the might of their gun for criminals. Fear of someone 'stronger' (or faster with a gun) had people reluctant to do wrong. There are just as many 'strong-good' people as there are 'strong-bad' people. It gave way to arguably the greatest nation on the planet today.

A more recent example is the Soviet Union. They had a government. Which gave way to anarchy. Which allowed them to start over and build something stronger.

So, you see, anarchy has some attraction. And history has it's share of 'poor' governments. GOOD governments are only as good as the people who run them. And anarchy can be good as well, if the good are the stronger.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Harlan 8 years ago
Harlan
Not that I don't appreciate it and everything, but I did forfiet everyone...It seems a little odd that almost all of you are voting for me...vote for the best debate.
Posted by lvisman96 9 years ago
lvisman96
I've got a lot of respect for you Harlan. Keep searching. You've got a lot of good things ahead of you !
Posted by Harlan 9 years ago
Harlan
Becasue, it suddenly seems as if all of my other beliefs can agree with anarchy (following instincts and what not). I am now a little confused. I lost the will to keep debating this. I'm sorry.
Posted by lvisman96 9 years ago
lvisman96
Harlan, what's up ? Why'd you forfeit ?
Posted by RepublicanView333 9 years ago
RepublicanView333
I like this debate it is one when you can go on the debate rather than your beliefs
Posted by gonovice 9 years ago
gonovice
I'm not for or against the Anarchy. I used to think that it was a good thing. But then I got realistic and realized that this WILL not happen so I should'nt be wasting my time trying to support something that isnt going to happen. This is a good debate but I have no clue who I'm going to end up siding wtih.
Posted by lvisman96 9 years ago
lvisman96
I also meant 'mental' strength as well as physical strength. Remember David and Goliath ?
Posted by PreacherFred 9 years ago
PreacherFred
anarchy, lawlessness: a state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government). While I do not believe that man is violent by nature, it certainly is not wise to believe in the survival of the fittest. Were that true there would never be any peace until only one person survived...the fittest! There has to be a balance between braun and brains. Society teaches us to be self-centered and violent. Government serves to help counterbalance that.
Posted by masterdebator 9 years ago
masterdebator
It is hard to debate about a subject you believe in. It is even harder to debate about one you don't believe in. Kudos Lvisman96!
Posted by iamsano 9 years ago
iamsano
Yes Harlan you right.. without government we will just be at wars... good point
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by erick1 8 years ago
erick1
Harlanlvisman96Tied
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 
Vote Placed by gogott 8 years ago
gogott
Harlanlvisman96Tied
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:03 
Vote Placed by easy2know 8 years ago
easy2know
Harlanlvisman96Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Harlan 9 years ago
Harlan
Harlanlvisman96Tied
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 
Vote Placed by vohne 9 years ago
vohne
Harlanlvisman96Tied
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:03 
Vote Placed by PreacherFred 9 years ago
PreacherFred
Harlanlvisman96Tied
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 
Vote Placed by RepublicanView333 9 years ago
RepublicanView333
Harlanlvisman96Tied
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