The Instigator
Yarely
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
rross
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

We do not need Government

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
rross
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/8/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,230 times Debate No: 29005
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (5)

 

Yarely

Pro

I will be arguing that the government is not neccesary for our fundamental living needs.
Con will argue the opposite
Debate Round No. 1
Yarely

Pro

Physiological needs:
http://www.google.com...

Does the American Government guarantee us food or clean water? No.
In fact labor workers, produce the food while the "Capitalistic" bosses consume most of it.
In a Communist Government, food is provided equally but we don't really need a "Government" to provide food equally. The Government isn't necessary for that purpose. The people themselves can share food resources equally among themselves.
The other physiological needs obviously don't need Government for those purposes.

Safety needs:
The American Government doesn't guarantee employment. In fact the Capitalistic Government causes "unemployment."
Anybody could have a job. But it's inefficient.
Because if factories had 500 people working for not much hours, as opposed to 100 people working for ridiculous hours, than it would be less efficient as they have to build more space in the building for the extra people.
Businesses work for efficiency and profits instead of for the people.
The American Government protects this Capitalistic system.
While the Communistic Government guarantees employment, we don't necessarily need the government to guarantee everyone a job.
We don't need the government to guarantee each other jobs and employment.
Resources:
The American Government distributes resources extremely unequally.
The Communistic Government distributes resources equally to the people, but once again, the Government is not needed for that purpose.
In a Left-Anarchic society, resources can be distributed equally without the use of a Government.
When it says "property" it means "shelter"
There's a huge difference between Property and possession.
Possession would be your toothbrush and your clothes and your house, and things you actively use. But property would be things that you don't use but legally "own." Property can be used to exploit people. So humans needs shelter to live in.
The Capitalistic Government doesn't guarantee that.
Even though Communistic Government does guarantee it, it doesn't mean that the Government is necessary for shelter.
Basically in a left Anarchist society, shelter would be readily available and guaranteed to everyone.

Protection:
People are afraid that if the Government is taken away, than crime will run rampant and no one will be safe.
That isn't the case.
Why are crimes committed? Many common crimes such as theft, rape, homicide are by products of the current system. Then the current system creates laws and punishments for those crimes not realizing that it is that very system that is causing these crimes.

Why do people steal? People steal because they need food, they need supplies. How come they don't have these basic things? It is because they are poor. And why are they poor? Because in order for Capitalism to work, there needs to be people on the top and people on the bottom of the pyramid. The people on the top restrict the freedom of the people feeding from the bottom by taking most the power.
They have the "freedom" to take away the freedom of others but is that is not true freedom. It is just abuse of power which bounds freedom down.
Why do people rape? It is said that men rape women for dominance over a woman. This is caused by society and standards with gender roles. This wouldn't happen in an anarchy as anarchy wouldn't have sexual standards or oppressive gender standards. This wouldn't cause the problem of rape. Of course there are the cases of having a mental illness, which is a different matter.

Why do people kill? Many reasons. They feel wronged, or they kill to steal, or they kill in order to not get caught for rape, or kill in order to gain fear etc. If people cooperated in a equal society and had none of these oppressive things happening, there wouldn't need to be a reason to commit these crimes. http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu......

Love/Belonging Needs:
Friendship and family relationships would improve in an Anarchic society, as opposed to a society where social pressures and media influences the masses.
The Government is responsible for media and propaganda that influences people to separate and to discriminate each other.
Body image, gender roles, status, race etc. all influence society and is detrimental to friendships and relationships with other people.
In an Anarchic society, everyone would accept each other since there is no hierarchy or any governmental discriminatory propaganda that can influence relationships.
Everyone would be equal and the sense of love and belonging would be stronger than ever.

Esteem Needs:
In an Anarchic society, since everyone would be more accepting of one another, confidence and self-esteem would improve.
Everyone would respect one another more and be respected more in return.
Everyone would have a job to do to improve the community or to gain self-satisfaction and all gain a sense of achievement.

Self-Actualization Needs:'Lack of Prejudice:'
The Government is pretty faulty in encouraging prejudice in society. They encourage it all the time. When they make propaganda about fighting our "terrorist enemies" when Presidents say things like "I care about the people. I'm a Christian." When women and men are depicted in certain way on the media. When school libraries have absolutely no literature that questions the system (i.e. anarchist literature).
When truth is covered constantly by the Government in order to keep people thinking a certain way.
When certain news aren't covered, (Cambodia and East Timor)
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Without a Government doing these carefully calculated things in order to keep control over the people, we are liberated from prejudice and control.
;

The American Government basically serves the purpose of issuing laws for us to follow that advise us against killing, stealing and enslavement. Yet those are things that the Government very well does.
The Government takes our tax money to use in wars (that aren't created to 'protect our country' let me tell you that.) to murder people, steal resources, and enslave innocent people.
Yet people are afraid that if the Government is abolished, we wont be protected from murderers, thieves, and enslavement.
Which is very ironic and a certain indicator that we are brainwashed considering that that is what our "helpful Government" does to us everyday.
They are our masters.
Yet they have done a very good job in convincing us that we live under a "Democracy" and can choose our own fates.
Labor workers are practically wage slaves, which means that they are basically slaves but pass off as not being slaves because they earn a very small, meager wage.
The Capitalists then get rich off the fruits of the labor worker's labor, and are protected by the American Government.

In a Centralized Communist Government, the Government's purpose is to silence and oppress you. It's to force the people to not say anything bad about the Government, or they will be punished with violence.
The Government is there to only allow the people to have a very small minimum of clothes and food and to oppress people who say anything different.
So it sounds like to me, that the only purpose of any Government is to oppress, control, gain power, enslave, and take advantage of the people.

God save the Queen

rross

Con

After reading Pro's opening argument, I reached for Thomas Paine with the vague idea he was some sort of defender of the US government and would help me out. But no:

"Great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government. It has its origin in the principles of society and natural constitution of man. It existed prior to government and would exist if the formality of government was abolished...The landholder, the farmer, the manufacturer, the merchant, the tradesman, and every occupation, prospers by the aid which each receives from the other, and from whole. Common interest regulates their concerns, and forms their law; and the laws which common usage ordains, have a greater influence than the laws of government. In fine, society performs for itself almost everything which is ascribed to government." [1]

The important thing here is what's meant by "government". Paine's main argument was against the hereditary governments of Europe. For centuries, they justified their existence with the idea that the peasants could not rule themselves and needed the heavy hand of the aristocracy. But when Pro says "government" she means something more modern, I think. But what?

According to the Oxford Dictionary Online:

Definition of govern
verb [with object] conduct the policy, actions, and affairs of (a state, organization, or people) with authority [2]

Middle English: from Old French governer, from Latin gubernare 'to steer, rule', from Greek kubernan 'to steer

Definition of government
noun
  • the group of people with the authority to govern a country or state; a particular ministry in office
  • the system by which a state or community is governed
  • the action or manner of controlling or regulating a state, organization, or people [3]

In America, people call the government "the administration". The purpose of this, I suppose, is to make the government out to be vast secretary who is humbly and faithfully carrying out the will of the people.

Pro argues that people can distribute resources equally among themselves without a government. She didn't explain how it could work. I can only think of two possibilities:

1. People are naturally fair and take care of each other.

People will look after others and try to be fair, but, on the whole, they'll look after themselves first. As the old saying puts it:

I against my brother, my brothers and I against my cousins, then my cousins and I against strangers.

In any society, some individuals will be stronger than others. Some will work harder and think they deserve more and so on. Advantage will build apon advantage and those with advantage will have no trouble justifying it to themselves. There needs to be an objective system to ensure fairness and equality.

2. People will administer their own system to make sure resources are shared fairly.

Any system that people develop to ensure fairness is a government, according to the definition above.

Pro makes a series of claims about left-Anarchic society:

  • shelter would be readily available and guaranteed to everyone;
  • friendship and family relationships would improve;
  • everyone would be equal and the sense of love and belonging would be stronger than ever;
  • confidence and self-esteem would improve;
  • everyone would respect one another more and be respected in return;
  • everyone would have a job.
These are extraordinary, magnificent claims. I don't understand how Pro can be so sure they'll come about, though.
This style of persuasion reminds me a lot of elections in South America, where all kinds of things are promised but fail to eventuate, time after time, no matter who gets in.
Pro needs to explain the mechanism by which all this would be achieved.

I don't have enough space to address all the claims individually, so I'll just do three examples.

Firstly, there's the idea that family relationships would improve in the absence of government. This is something I've noticed myself, actually, that across cultures the strength of family relationships is inversely proportional to the strength of government. So I'm sure that Pro is right, that without government, family ties would become all-important. This is not necessarily a good thing. Without government, individuals turn to family (or "tribe") for protection and insurance. They become utterly dependent on their extended families for survival. Any sense of broader community disappears. Nepotism becomes a duty, and corruption standard. This has been my observation in countries such as Peru and Nepal where the government's grip on society has been weak. It's very unlike Pro's description of a left-Anarchic society, but it seems to me much more likely to be what would occur in the absence of government.

Secondly, Pro claims that rape "wouldn't happen in an anarchy as anarchy wouldn't have sexual standards or oppressive gender standards," and the only rape that would occur would be associated with mental illness. Even if we put aside the issue of how to deal with mentally ill rapists, this vision of anarchy is actually very menacing.
Pro herself has admitted that gender standards belong to society (i.e. people). These are attitudes and perspectives that people have. Under anarchy, people "wouldn't have" these ideas. When you consider the power, the insidious level of control that this "anarchy" must have if it can uproot something as deep-seated and personal as gender standards from our minds, well, I just shudder. This sounds much, much worse than what we have already, terribly flawed though the current system is. I have no love of oppressive gender standards, of course, but I consider the right to think what I like far, far more important.

Thirdly, Pro complains that the American government takes tax money to use in wars This is a legitimate complaint. She also makes complaints related to wages, in particular the minimum wage, inequality, education and the media. I agree with everything she has said about these issues. However, they could all be addressed if the government stopped fighting wars, raised the minimum wage, taxed the rich more and the poor less, and improved education. In other words, the problem is better addressed by improving government rather than removing it entirely. I'm not sure what to suggest about the media. How would the media work in an anarchy?

Finally, Pro said "God save the Queen". She completely lost me here. Is this a joke? Irony? Is she talking about Queen Elizabeth II? Surely she can't be arguing for a monarchy...

This round has raised more questions from me than debating points. I look forward to Pro's response.

1. Thomas Paine Rights of Man first published 1791, Penguin Classics 1985, page 163.
2. http://oxforddictionaries.com...
3. http://oxforddictionaries.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Yarely

Pro

1. People are naturally fair and take care of each other.

It's true that by natural animal instict, humans care for themselves first.
We have three brains. Our oldest brain is called the Archipallium or the "Primitive" brain. This brain deals with survival and dealing with danger. The second oldest brain is called the Paleopallium or the "Intermediate" part of the brain. This refers to the part of the emotional part of the brain. It helps animals learn from their experiences, anticipate danger and experience loyalty and a wide range of emotions. Our newest brain is called the "Neopallium" or the "Rational" brain. This Rational brain gets us humans to appreciate culture, art and self expression, logical thinking, and problem solving. People also refer to the Primitive Brain as the "Lizard Brain" the Emotional Brain as the "Dog Brain" and the Rational Brain as the "Human Brain."
We are highly developed creatures who don't give each other enough credit. The false idea that we are simply "naturally greedy, or self-serving creatures" is a dangerous idea. it's dangerous because it just encourages the Government to act as the "controllers" of society since we are too wild or greedy to help each other out on our own.
We are completely capable of caring deeply for one another and oragnizing a rational society since we have those two brains.

The Government is set up in a way where our three brains can not be unified. The Government manipulates our emotional side by propaganda, the Government blocks our much of our rational brain by covering facts and spreading lies so that we can't think for ourselves, and the Government promotes the idea that we are incapable of running things ourselves because "mankind is naturally too greedy"

This helps them control us and submit.

Our three brains would be completely unified if we worked in an equal left Anarchist society.
Since we would all get fair resources to survive, our Primitive Brain would be gratified. Since we would all be on equal grounds and no one would be starving and suffering, and we would work together as a team, our Emotional Brain would be elated as well.
Since we would also have more access to art and music without money hindrances or class division, our Human Braind would be quenched and we would experience more self-expression, art and knowledge without limits.
We would solve our problems as a team and because a stronger, happier society living in complete harmony.


http://www.google.com...

http://www.threes.com...;

We would all work as a team and work hard to not let anyone overpower each other, since taking away someone's freedom would seperate yourself from Anarchy and turn yourself into an aggressor.
We would be united and always have meetings to talk about how to improve the society etc.

2) People will administer their own system to make sure resources are shared fairly

Did you know that most of the elections in South America where all kinds of things were promised but failed to eventuate, were fake elections? Most of those elections were administered by the US Government in order to maintain control over the Latin American countries for their resources and to keep the poor and Independents from taking over.
This is all true.
Much worse than that the US Government's job is controlling the Grand Area and keeping Latin American and Asian countries under their tyrannical control.
Panama got out of their "line" so there was HUGE genocide. Same thing happened to El Salvador, to Brazil, to Guatemala, etc.
http://www.goodreads.com...

Those elections are always corrupt because they are intended to keep the people oppressed.

Government is detrimental towards the greater good of humanity.

(“But what will you do with the lazy man, the man who does not want to work?” inquires your friend.

That is an interesting question, and you will probably be very much surprised when I say that there is really no such thing as laziness. What we call a lazy man is generally a square man in a round hole. That is, the right man in the wrong place. And you will always find that when a fellow is in the wrong place, he will be inefficient or shiftless. For so-called laziness and a good deal of inefficiency are merely unfitness, misplacement. If you are compelled to do the thing you are unfitted for by your inclinations or temperament, you will be inefficient at it; if you are forced to do work you are not interested in, you will be lazy at it.

Every one who has managed affairs in which large numbers of men were employed can substantiate this. Life in prison is a particularly convincing proof of the truth of it and, after all, present-day existence for most people is but that of a larger jail. Every prison warden will tell you that inmates put to tasks for which they have no ability or interest are always lazy and subject to continuous punishment. But as soon as these “refractory convicts” are assigned to work that appeals to their leanings, they become “model men,” as the jailers term them.

http://theanarchistlibrary.org...;


Yes family relationships would definitely improve in the absence of Government. But who is to say that they would abandon their community?
Isn't community a type of family?
Wouldn't you also want to look our for your community? Community is also family. Without Government and Capitalism we would all be in the same position.
Gender standards belong to society because of Government.
Discrimination belong to society because of Government.
Class discrimination belongs to society because of hierarchy.
Racism belongs to society because of hierarchy.
The reason why we discriminate is because of these very systems.
We discriminate because we felt superiority or resentment because of society differences. Without societal or class differences, we wouldn't discriminate.
Discrimination is a product of these very systems.
Discrimination is not something you are born with! It's something you learn from the system you are placed under!
If everyone is in the same position, than there would be no discrimination.
It isn't brainwashing at all, it is the opposite. We have been brainwashed by society to believe certain things the Government wants us to believe to keep us in control. We have been taught to discriminate. But the truth is we aren't different. We are all human who breathe and bleed, cry and laugh! We all dream and care and all want to be loved!
In the society if you are a Racist, you are allowed to still think racist thoughts. But you cannot act on it to take away the freedom of people you discriminate against or you are an aggressor.

No Government will never improve. The purpose of people who run the Government is not to imrpove society (that is a lie) it is to control the people and to reap profits. It's not a conspiracy theory, its the truth. If you read anything about how US foreign affairs work you would already know this.
http://www.goodreads.com...

Lol when I said "God save the Queen" I was being ironic lol sorry if I confused you :p
It's also a catchy song! :D



rross

Con

Pro has described certain organizational processes that would occur under anarchy (described below). The existence of these processes is evidence of a government. This government would undoubtedly be different in nature to the current government. However, the existence of a government of any kind under anarchy makes the discussion of anarchy irrelevant to the resolution.

Pro said: "We would...always have meetings to talk about how to improve the society."

These meetings would be either compulsory or optional. If compulsory, it means rules for attendance and some level of enforcement, which is a clear governmental process. If optional, it means that decisions are made by a sub-group of the population, which has taken the authority to act for everyone. This is another clear form of government.

Even apart from this, a meeting with a large number of people talking about how to improve the society would have its own structure and rule system. For example, there might be rules about one person talking at a time, and rules about how decisions are made. Once decisions are agreed upon, certain people would be given authority to implement the decisions. People with authority to implement decisions is a sign of government.

Pro's description of left-Anarchic society and meetings is very positive. It may be a particularly benign form of government. However, under the terms of the resolution, all discussion of left-Anarchic society is irrelevant to this debate, because left-Anarchic society does possess a government as defined in the previous round.

Pro said: “Everyone would have a job” and individuals would have jobs that suit their leanings and temperaments.

Assigning people to jobs where they’re needed is something that requires a massive organizational effort. Also, there are some jobs that nobody wants to do, such as cleaning toilets, and giving people pedicures and enemas. Somebody with authority must be constantly deciding, persuading and bribing people to do what’s needed. This is also a form of government.

I agree the people are capable of organizing a system among themselves to share resources. Such a system is a form of government.

People need to share resources to satisfy their fundamental living needs. Therefore, a government is necessary for our fundamental living needs.

***

Pro also made arguments relating to neurophysiology and the interference of the US government in the elections in Central and South America. I have a particular interest in both those topics, but they are not relevant to whether or not we need government for a fundamental living needs, the topic of this debate.


Twice in the last round, Pro referred to people becoming "aggressors" under anarchy. If someone does become an aggressor, what happens to her? Is she shunned, banished, punished, treated or ignored? Just interested.



Rule Britannia! :-)

Debate Round No. 3
Yarely

Pro

Ah, semantics! lol

Well the word Government implies "governance" over a group of people. If everyone is governing, then the word Government would no longer apply. It's like this: If everyone has power, than nobody does.

Government always implies governance over a group of people by a class of representatives.

An organized society does not necessarily means "Government."

Simply because it's organized and systematic doesn't necessarily correlate to Government, which implies "governance."

The meetings could easily be either compulsory or optional.

If they were compulsory, than the rules would be practiced by everyone instead of being enforced toward a group of people by an authoritarian group. Everyone would agree to contribute and follow the rules. That wouldn't be governmental as it wouldn't be a "governance" over a group of people from another group of people.

If the meetings were optional, than the society would work as a direct democracy where majority amount of people who want to contribute would deliberate the decisions. The people who would implement the ultimately made decisions would be volunteers.

Anyone has the power to contribute in one way or another. The rules can always be changed since the people have the power to change them. Since everyone has the power to change things, it wouldn't be "government" as everyone would be governing directly meaning that no one would have power over one another

Organization is not Government. People get that confused too much and it does not correlate with one another.

The Anarchist society would also most likely be self-sufficient, where the people would grow their own food and clean their own houses. Most of the dirty work, or jobs that nobody wants to do will be done self-sufficiently. Since probably nobody would volunteer to do the dirty work, everyone would have no choice but to do it themselves. If anything, the hard working Anarchists who strived for this society would volunteer to do some of the dirty work.

The system would not be a form of Government as the people would decide together decisions implying no group of governance over anyone.

An organized system of sharing resources is necessary to satisfy people's fundamental living needs, not Government.

The point I made about neurophysiology is completely relevant to the resolution as the Government is detrimental for our mentality and our three brains whereas the lack of one would be completely perfect for our three brains.

Our three brains, Primitive, Emotional, and Rational all need to be satisfied and quenched for our sanity and happiness. The Government restricts this, causing our society to be full of misery, grief and suffering.

"The Government is set up in a way where our three brains can not be unified. The Government manipulates our emotional side by propaganda, the Government blocks our much of our rational brain by covering facts and spreading lies so that we can't think for ourselves, and the Government promotes the idea that we are incapable of running things ourselves because "mankind is naturally too greedy"

This helps them control us and submit.

Our three brains would be completely unified if we worked in an equal left Anarchist society.

Since we would all get fair resources to survive, our Primitive Brain would be gratified. Since we would all be on equal grounds and no one would be starving and suffering, and we would work together as a team, our Emotional Brain would be elated as well.

Since we would also have more access to art and music without money hindrances or class division, our Human Brain would be quenched and we would experience more self-expression, art and knowledge without limits.

We would solve our problems as a team and because a stronger, happier society living in complete harmony."- My Previous Argument

This points our that our well beings would be the strongest in a Left Anarchist society since all our three brains would be in harmony under this society

The US interventions point was just to prove that the Government's intentions are not positive. They constantly intervene to gain power and to control the masses. It is naive for people to think that the Government will just "suddenly become magnanimous" and that they are trying their best to help us out. They just use the population to gain power.

Why do you think there are so many countries that are in peril? Why are there so many starving people when there is no shortage of food? Why is the gap between the rich and the poor so large? Why do we always enter war? Is war meant to "protect our country?" Or is war created for profits?

Why are there genocides that are barely covered in the news? Why did the US team up with Saddam Hussein? Why does the US mass murder people and throw murderers to jail? Why?

Why?

The Government's only purpose is to enslave and oppress for personal gain. Government is horribly detrimental to our society as a whole.

It is relevant because the way fundamental living needs are distributed, (such as food) are distributed unfairly. It is not an overpopulation problem, it's a distribution problem.

Since Government is responsible for this unfair distribution of resources, than that means that Government is detrimental for our fundamental living needs.

The group would decide together what we would do with an aggressor in a cooperative decision making process. The aggressor wouldn't be punished or banished for sure because that would be against the wishes of Anarchy as Anarchists believe that punishment is not a deterrent.

Conclusion:

The Government's only purpose is to steal, enslave and oppress.

The Government isn't a friend or isn't helping society with it's choices.

The Media controls our way of thinking and makes us believe that the Government's purpose is to help us and that Anarchy means chaos.

Anarchy is freedom from oppression of the aristocrats and the elitists. It's freedom from the oppression of Capitalism and hierarchy. It's freedom from authoritarian force and legal thieves.

It's freedom from slavery and control.

It's freedom from manipulation and submission.

It is peace, it is love and it is harmony.

Government is prison and Anarchy is the row of keys

rross

Con

It would have been so much better if we could have sorted out the definition of "government" in the first round rather than the last. It's not semantics so much as making sure we're talking about the same thing.

Pro said: Government always implies governance over a group of people by a class of representatives. An organized society does not necessarily means "Government."

See, here we are in the final round, and I don't agree with this at all. Government can be a class of representatives, but those representatives can be constantly being replaced. For example, in renaissance Florence, government was selected from the citizens by ballot, so a random selection of citizens was obliged to perform governmental duty every term. [1] And there are many advantages to a transparent, formal process of election, but it doesn't need to be formal. In a casual system, there are optional decision-making meetings and anyone who has free time turns up to "form government". It could be a different group of people each time. This is still a government.

In order to make decisions for a large population, there would have to be a system of representation simply for pragmatic reasons. For example, in Miami alone, there are over 400,000 people in the city itself. If Miami became an anarchist society, it is simply impossible for every person in the city to have control over every decision made. Why, for just one decision, if every person spoke for a minute it would take nine months to get through them all.

Pro said: "If [the decision-making meetings] were compulsory...Everyone would agree to contribute and follow the rules. That wouldn't be governmental as it wouldn't be a "governance" over a group of people from another group of people."

Actually, it would. "Compulsory" means everyone has to do it whether they want to or not. This means that when people don't want to do it, they have to be forced or persuaded otherwise. They are forced or persuaded by other people who are acting on the authority of the group. This is governance.

Pro said: "If the meetings were optional, than the society would work as a direct democracy where majority amount of people who want to contribute would deliberate the decisions. The people who would implement the ultimately made decisions would be volunteers."

Yes, so we agree on this point.

Pro said: "The Anarchist society would also most likely be self-sufficient, where the people would grow their own food and clean their own houses. Most of the dirty work, or jobs that nobody wants to do will be done self-sufficiently."

This is a new idea. Again, I wish this weren't the last round because I would like to ask Pro more about this. Most importantly, why? And wouldn't that be too inefficient to feed all the people in the world? And how on earth are you going to force people back to self-sufficiency? And what if they refuse?

Pro said: "If anything, the hard working Anarchists who strived for this society would volunteer to do some of the dirty work."

So there would be "the hard working Anarchists who strived for this society" and then there would be the rest of the population. This sounds like a class division to me. Mostly, it sounds like party members and others in a communist society. Or, as in Orwell's Animal Farm: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

Pro said: "An organized system of sharing resources is necessary to satisfy people's fundamental living needs, not Government."

Yes, but this organized system needs to be administered and enforced. Even if 99% of people are naturally cooperative and generous with each other, the remaining 1% could arm up and take over resources or try and create a monopoly on some essential thing like water supply.

This would be true especially when resources are scarce.

Pro said: "Our three brains would be completely unified if we worked in an equal left Anarchist society...This points our that our well beings would be the strongest in a Left Anarchist society since all our three brains would be in harmony under this society."

I suppose I said that the neurophysiology was irrelevant because I feel that this aspect of Pro's argument doesn't really add anything. I don't think there's much difference between saying "life will be bliss under anarchy" and "life will be bliss under anarchy because our three brains will be unified and satisfied." Both statements are unsupported future projections. I have no doubt that Pro believes them to be true, but how can we be sure that she is right?

The reason why I mentioned elections in South America is because this kind of argument isn't new. It's common to hear things like everyone will have a TV under this government or everyone will be rich under this type of system or there will be no more unemployment. But these sorts of promises are never delivered on. And my concern is that Pro's promises about life under anarchy would not be delivered on either.

Pro asked: "Why do you think there are so many countries that are in peril? Why are there so many starving people when there is no shortage of food? Why is the gap between the rich and the poor so large? ...

Why are there genocides that are barely covered in the news? ...

Why?"

These are very good questions. The only time I've seen genocide in action was in the Chittagong Hill Tracts in Bangladesh. When I was there, the entire area was blocked off and occupied by the Bangladesh military, and I think that's still the case [2]. The people in the hills are of a different cultural, racial and linguistic background from the rest of the country. And they do slash and burn agriculture, which means that large parts of the hill tracts are left unoccupied and unused in between times. So it's very different from life on the plains, which is one of the most crowded places in the world, and most people are in desperate poverty.

So anyway, the government of Bangadesh had a treaty with the people of the Hill Tracts, and the military were there in violation of the treaty. And they were doing things like burning villages. And there was a lot of talk of murder, beatings and rape by the military. I believe it, but I didn't see any of that first hand. I did see them burn a whole street of houses, though. And people were definitely oppressed and scared. And the military were definitely strutting about.

But see, this is the thing I learned in Bangladesh. In the US, and in similar countries, we think of the government and the military as the same thing. So you can say the US/the US government/the US military invaded Iraq, and it all means the same. But in countries like Bangladesh, it's not the same. The military might support the government or it might not. Which means that even when it does, the government has to be careful all the time not to push the military too far.

So here are the people of the Chittagong Hill Tracts. They're being oppressed, their leaders disappear, and their land is slowly being stolen. What would happen if the government and the military left them alone? My personal view is that they wouldn't last more than a week or two. Because in Bangladesh there are over 100 million people in dire poverty. The streets of Dhaka are lined with starving homeless people. And in the Hill Tracts there's all this "empty" land. It would just be taken over.

On the other hand, the military occupation is hateful.

So to answer your question. Of course, I don't know. But if Bangladesh had a stronger government, it could keep the military more in hand. And if the economy was stronger, a lot of things would be better.

But I can't see how anarchy, as Pro describes it, would help at all.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] http://www.iwgia.org...

Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Yarely 4 years ago
Yarely
The Russian Revolution failed because of the Bolsheviks taking over, I never said it was because of Stalin. The Bolsheviks were led by Vladimir Lenin.

The Revolution had the workers finally taking command but real Communism failed since they soon began to follow the Bolsheviks (who later went for Communism under authoritarian principles.)

Russia during the revolution wasn't under a true Anarchy at the time. Russia was in chaos, obviously.
Revolutions are difficult as was demonstrated in Russia.

But the Russian Revolution failed because instead for organizing for authentic Communism, the Russians unknowingly followed the Bolsheviks who turned out to be tyrants.

True Left Anarchy protects everyone whereas the "Anarchy" that you are describing is really just chaos.

It's difficult to form an Anarchy as proven through the Russian Revolution. There are going to be issues with revolutions, but the Government is not the answer and neither is Capitalism.

The fight against authority will never stop just because it's too difficult to form a way of life against oppression and hierarchy
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
Yarely, Revolutionary Russia failed even before Stalin gained sway and then power.

The actual process of revolution was amazing and fairly bloodless as far as revolutions go. There are amazing stories, such as the Battleship Potemkin (from an earlier attempt). The Czar ordered his forces to fire on the revolutionary forces. They rose up and refused to. "We are Komrades!" Similar stories occured during the October Revolution. Leon Trotsky, their first leader, was an idealist. Most evidence supports he only took the reins to help guide his nation towards Communism.

However, in the aftermath of the revolution, there was looting. The HAVE-NOTs foced the HAVEs out of their homes in the dead of winter. They took their jewelry, their shelter, and their food--their means to survive. By HAVE-NOTs I am not speaking soley or even primarily of royalty. I am speaking of shop-owners who had toiled all their lives to gain such things, their wives, and their children. In anarchy, there is typically little protection for minorities, as in Ross' Bangladesh example.

It is interesting to note that early in the new government--after trampling on the proven administrators and skilled laborers---the country was no longer able to produce enough food for its people. What was the solution, according to Trotsky, and based on Marx's writings? Capitalism! He realized the revolution from Feudalism to Socialism to Communism was too fast, and the proper course would have been Feudalism to Capitalism to Socialism to Communism. This was the basis for his New Economic Policy.

So, I would assert, there were problems with both--

1) The lack of governance in the aftermath of the revolution.
2) The direction of the revolution itself, as later discovered by the revolutionaries.

The assassination attempts of Trotsky's life, unfortunately, pushed the country towards Stalin.
Posted by Yarely 4 years ago
Yarely
*can't
Posted by Yarely 4 years ago
Yarely
I was basically asking the question in this debate, what does the State provide that society can provide for themselves?

Government is unnecessary in that way and also detrimental as their primary purpose is to gain power.

The Russian Revolution was arguing for real Communism but failed unfortunately to the power of the Bolsheviks. What ruined the Russian Revolution was authoritarian principles taking over, not the revolution itself
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
Any non-revolutionary change is likely to be incremental anyway.
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
Pro, if I may suggest, "We don't need government" is arguing for such sweeping change and you have so little space/time to convince us. You might have more success if you focused on a subset of the issue at a time. Eg, "We don't need government.. for national defense!"
Posted by rross 4 years ago
rross
That's OK, Yarely. I forgot to say thanks for the debate. My sister was into anarchy, so I've always felt a sort of loyalty for the word, but this is the first conversation I've ever had about it. It was an interesting debate. Thank you.
Posted by Yarely 4 years ago
Yarely
@ Con
I'm sorry I didn't really clarify the definitions earlier. I always forget to do that
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Daktoria 4 years ago
Daktoria
YarelyrrossTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro has a very naive take on human nature. The laziness analogy about a "square man in a round hole" proves a lack of understanding over how social niches have to be transformed. Transformation doesn't happen for free, nor is it necessarily possible. Perhaps Pro would have had more success arguing an an-cap, rather than an anarchist, position. That said, I'm not sure.
Vote Placed by wolfman4711 4 years ago
wolfman4711
YarelyrrossTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: im not an anarchist but we honestly don't NEED government in the sense of survival. though yarely i must say your kinda creepy.
Vote Placed by youmils03 4 years ago
youmils03
YarelyrrossTied
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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: 1 point for Con
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
YarelyrrossTied
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: Yarely, kudos for undertaking a difficult topic. At the same time, I don't believe you've thought this through enough for me to vote Pro. As I read your story, I think back to Gangs of New York or the inner city street gangs when I grew up. Those were formed to provide protection when the governnment couldn't. I think back to the Russian Revolution and the problems that immediately followed the idealism. I'm not sure how you're handling national defense or border security (so Mexican drug dealers don't operate freely here) or those mentally ill rapists or the truly lazy. I thus have to vote Con for convincing arguments, but I leave most other points tied, for a good effort.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
YarelyrrossTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to present any convincing argument, and in the end tried to redefine an established definition of government rather than challenge that definition immediately after its proposed definition for the purposes of the debate. By not challenging that definition, she accepted it, but her arguments don't fit that definition that was tacitly accepted.