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

Is the government needed to protect the people?

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
DubiousCeaser has forfeited round #1.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/26/2018 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 245 times Debate No: 116863
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




I believe that the pros of government can be achieved just as well if not better without government. The government is just a minority of people no better than you, Except they have power. I believe the most capable person/people to protect YOU is YOU. Without government YOU would be able to defend yourself and your property without their interference. As for the lack of law enforcement, Private police have been proven to be better in most cases and could be paid by the community to help ensure no one and no one's property are harmed. Law enforcement today may claim to protect and serve you, But they really protect the laws the government pass and serve them. Private police would actually work for the community, After all they wouldn't be paid by your forced tax money either way like they are now, They would rely on your voluntary payment for their service. The people may pay the modern law enforcement with their taxes, But taxation is involentary and technically you have to pay them whether they serve your community well or not. They don't rely on you, They only rely on the currupt state which takes from you and gives to them. Police brutality, Unnecessary police harassment, Being arrested for little things like loitering, Ect. Would be a thing of the past when the private police rely on you to pay them.

As for laws, I believe the Non-Aggression Principal would be the only one needed to prevent chaos within society. People have freedom as long as they don't harm another, And I think if people can defend themselves and others against criminals who choose to harm, It would be less likely to happen and crime would decrease. That's to say if it could happen. I wouldn't rob a store if the store owner has a gun and is willing to protect their property and self. That would be a suicide mission, Even if I had a gun. Plus, There's no way the store owner would ever goes as far as to open the register for some criminal they can shoot back at. Guns are proven to save more lives in self-defense or defending others than kill or harm others. Point is, Criminals will always have access to guns from the black market. If the good guys have their own guns to keep the criminals away, The good guys tend to win. If that weren't the truth then defense cases with guns wouldn't triumph murder cases with guns.

I'm not saying there wouldn't be criminals who go out there and mage to kill or Robb people even though they can defend themself, But I think people are more capable of defending themselves than law enforcement which will take around 15 minutes to arrive and outline your body in chalk.

If that wasn't enough government creates chaos of it's own, Providing society with more harm in order to push it's selfish agenda.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by felixmendelssohn 3 years ago
hm good thing nuclear power is controlled by the gov and not popular opinion
Posted by MagicAintReal 3 years ago
Yeah, I'll just fight off a nuclear power with my licensed hand gun. . . . Should go well.
Posted by felixmendelssohn 3 years ago
i think the government can help in deciding what is good for the nation i nthe long run. People consensus about what should be done might have unforeseen consequences. Ultimately because the majority is by definition average and some are not capable of thinking long-term. Its like letting the orchestra players come to a consensus about how they should play. Imagine what if mob ruled during the cold war, I believe it would be much more llikely that the pp would want to preemptively strike which could have been the end of civilization.
This debate has 4 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.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.