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

We don't need a government

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
Down_with_the_government has forfeited round #4.
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: 5/19/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 698 times Debate No: 114063
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




We are forced to pay them for basic public services, their priorities then become that of those who willingly pay them, expecting something in return. Because the government continues to receive money regardless of their quality of service.

Reasons why we would be more successful without a government.

1: There wouldn"t be any taxes meaning everything around the globe would be cheaper and everybody would have about twice a much money

2: We"d have no foreign wars Canada spends billions dollars a year on military defenses and weapons. If we shut down the whole government then that would be billions dollars going towards computers, housing and food. Instead of being spent of bombs to kill people.

3: We'd have no corporate welfare (which is giving money to people who need it, basically free money.) "That means no more banker bailouts,( I know it is only in the states but it doesn't matter it is still a fact,) "no more handouts to the health insurance companies and big pharma, and no more subsidies for connected special interests. That translates to lower prices and more competition. Health care costs would drastically fall and housing would finally be more affordable.

4: We"d have no more drug war. The miserable drug war would come to an end and we would stop wasting trillions of dollars on keeping drug prices high.

5: There wouldn"t be any more police. This means instead of the government running a billion dollar industry with people getting abused left and right, we would hire private bodyguards at a mere fraction of the cost. Another positive about doing this is they wouldn"t have to enforce any of the ridiculous drug laws which account for the majority of the time. "


Even before making your points, you seem to miss out on a basic fact: if there was no government, who would take care of the roadways and ensure that everyone had access to safe routes of travel? If it was privatized, you could expect far more tolls than your standard taxes pay... after all, private companies would own the road. Without a government, who's to guarantee a fire department will put out your house if it is on fire or that you'll have access to an ambulance if you suffer an emergency? Maybe someone will help, but who's to say their help will be enough? What about public hospitals? How will they stay open without the money they get fed from the government? Do you want everyone to have to pay exponentially more for such basic services that are offered to all citizens no matter what their race/ethnicity, sex/gender, or creed? How about all the schools in the country that are only open because of government funding? Or do you think the country is better off without the ability to read unless they are lucky enough to be born into a family that can and will teach them or has the money for them to be taught?

While I agree the quality of service for certain services such as education should be improved, that is something that should be taken up with your local school district and the associated government. If you can't show ideas for ideal, progressive change, then what right do you have to say the system as it is doesn't work? If we were in swapped roles, I'd be able to point out each flaw of the education system. For example: The majority of the US doesn't know their internationally protected rights. Sure, some schools teach it. Most don't. They know their US rights, but what good does that do when the US doesn't dictate what rights the rest of the world must honor? Anyhow, onto your actual points...

1: Taxes, while also used to fund politicians paychecks, are used to pay for the services you enjoy and take for granted: roads, school, ambulance, fire, and in most cases police... these are all examples of services most citizens enjoy having as guarantees. If we didn't have taxes of some form, we couldn't have these services. Additionally, the only citizens who would have twice as much money without taxes, both in theory and principle, are the 1%. They are the ones who suffer an upwards of 50% tax, and even that is in EXTREME circumstances. The average person sees far lower taxes than that, so your belief that you'd have twice the money without taxes is either inflated or you are rich enough you have no reason to legitimately care.

2: Ah, so you're Canadian... Cross out what I said about you having police... I should have said "mounties", eh? Anyhow, yeah, you'd have no foreign wars... but you'd also have no unified, large-scale defense force for if/when a hostile force such as ISIS attacked. Sure, you might be able to gather an impromptu militia, but they're an organized fighting force with proper training. As for that money going towards computers, housing, and food, sure... ideally, that is what happen. But reality doesn't follow ideals. But let's say for instance that was what happened... The money was evenly distributed... Who'd accept the money? Money has value because the government says it has value. If there is no government, your dollars will be worthless. Suddenly, you're not just back to where you began, but, rather, you're setback even further because now NOBODY has the money they need for food or other resources because nobody has reason to accept money. The people who are producers (ie companies) will now control all the power. Farms are mostly owned by companies or people supporting their families. While there are some exceptions, it's not enough to keep people who live in the cities from being out of luck. The only way to survive would be to produce things people want, but not everybody can do that. Or do the sick and elderly not deserve to eat just because they can't make things anymore? As for the bombs that kill people: yeah... It sucks, but their production is a side effect of insuring your freedom and their use, ideally, is for guaranteeing it if something happens. Then again, real life is rarely an ideal.

3: Let's assume magically money maintained value somehow, which is a de facto impossibility, but let's assume anyways... Sure, no corporate welfare which sounds great at first... but then you consider pharmaceutical companies are the people we trust to properly produce the medicines we need. If they go under, then how are people going to be able to reliably get the medicine they need and how are we going to be able to develop new, life-saving medicines? Costs wouldn't fall. They'd rise because it would go from multiple companies to few companies until there is nothing but a monopoly. Once one company wins big, they never again have to be concerned about competition. From then on, they can charge whatever they want and nobody can complain because they are now the only guaranteed safe producer.

4: The drug war isn't about keeping drug prices high. It's about, supposedly, stopping the illegal use of drugs which can result both in self-harm and harm towards others. That said, it is wildly out-of-control and doesn't serve that purpose, but that is the ideal behind it. The street cost of drugs is high because they're not legally obtained. If a person needs a drug, ideally they should be able to legally obtain it, and that's where I somewhat agree with you, but only your ideal, not your statement. There should be no such thing as an illegal drug (unless it is reasonable to suspect an average person may hurt someone else by being under its effects as is the effect of some psychotropics), merely a list of activities in which being under the influence during is heavily punishable.

5: You think everyone hiring bodyguards would be cheaper? Well, considering money in the way we think of it right now would no longer exist, so I guess in a way you're right. But your sentiment? That's way off-base. Bodyguards aren't cheap. The better your bodyguard, the safer you are, but if something happens to your bodyguards? You're S.O.L.. What if you can't afford a decent bodyguard? What if they refuse to work for you for whatever reason? Police are there to insure private security forces don't act like samurai in feudal Japan... In theory, it gives EVERYONE security. Sure, there are cases where officers fail their civic duties, but that doesn't change the fact that they are a general benefit to society as opposed to a detriment. What you are suggesting is that we allow those with power and resources to have more power and resources while the common person is used as a punching bad. You seem to think you're advocating for a utopia, but the future you preach for is nothing more than a dystopian hellscape ripped right out of some futuristic horror fiction.
Debate Round No. 1


Well as you said before who will take care of the roadways, I am having a good laugh because I am think what is going to happen to them. Of course they are going to need to be repaved after a while and anybody who drives will want them repaved. So we would set up a system, if you wanted to road repaved then you would put in a little bit of money. Then we would give that money to people who are going to repave the roads. If you walk, and don't care if the roads get repaved then don't worry we aren't gonna give you jail threats for not paying money for something that doesn't affect you.

Moving on to my second argument, people would wake up after a day, or two, or ten and find out that the world didn't collapse because there was a secret government base in Northeaster Nowherestan monitoring communications. It's no secret that the government is stalking us. They listen to our communications they look at our pictures and look at us through computers phones and tablets. What people think is that without that the world would totally shut down well they are wrong. The water and electricity would still flow the roads would still be there and the sun would still shine.

Sure in some ways the government has served it's purpose. It has allowed us to build an infrastructure on this planet where we can travel where ever we want as long as it won't expose the government. It has also built schools, hospitals, and allowed for basic public services, and public entertainment. While it has done all these things it wasn't the government who went out and built these things. It was citizens. People who made the choice to wake up and go out there and work on what they are building. What makes you think that this wouldn't happen with out the government?

Going back to what you said about the schools here is a little something a wrote. The school system is very bad these days. We could fix the school system, by making voluntary. The government wouldn't force you to attend. They base everything on test's. No if you get a bad score on a test later on in life they are going to look at that and be like "this person if a very dumb for not getting a good mark on a test."

Oh and remember what you said about hospitals. There wouldn't be any because nobody would want to fund them. Citizens would fund them. Also who would run them normal citizens with medical training. But some people like you might said oh it might be too expensive. Well without a government there would be more competition which means health costs would fall. Even if you still can't afford it right now you could do something called an IOU. Where you get life saving medical treatment now and pay later.

I think I know what you might put next. There is going to be crime all over the place. But let me ask you this question would you do that? What's that oh you said no, but why there is nobody going to stop you. I know why because it is stupid so what makes you think that other people who do that. Also you can't really use that excuse because that happens all the time even with the government. I mean look at what happened in Toronto, a man got in his car and killed all those citizens on the street. What did the government do to protect the citizens there? Oh ya nothing.

While we made need some of the services they offer but there are far better entities and ways to provide everyone of those services voluntarily. Without threats to prison for not doing what you are supposed to. Without having more and more of the money we pay for civilization getting sucked up by the government.

To me the government hasn't earned it's "cut" out of my money and I would be much better without getting most of it taken away. What worse is instead of giving it to the less fortunate people who need it, they spend it on themselves and start stupid wars with countries I have never heard of

Please use the formation I have used to it is easier to read


Here's the thing, I now have reason to believe you are a Poe. Unfortunately, since this is supposed to be a debate, I'm forced to take your answers to me seriously...
"So we would set up a system, if you wanted to road repaved then you would put in a little bit of money. Then we would give that money to people who are going to repave the roads." So... taxes. You're countering the need for taxes by saying we would have taxes to make up for the lack of taxes if there was no government. At which point, the individuals in charge of collecting said tax would be the new government. That's part of a government's duties after all.

"If you walk, and don't care if the roads get repaved then don't worry we aren't gonna give you jail threats for not paying money for something that doesn't affect you." This is called "Tax Exemption". It happens when an individual does not qualify to owe a certain tax or set of taxes.

As for your second point, you're not arguing against government there, but, rather, arguing against unethical practices done by corrupt individuals in the false name of civil defense. Not every government does that and, honestly, this works better as an argument for government reformation as opposed to government elimination. Besides, do you think that even if the government was gone public surveillance would stop? No, it just means there would no longer be laws restricting what those people could tap, study, and survey. If anything, it would give them MORE power instead of less because now they don't have anything restricting them. As for water and electricity still flowing: that may be true for a time, but is not an assurance for all people in the nation, particularly in rural areas where competition over such resources is tough even with laws to protect those in less-advantaged positions. Sure, if the government were to shut down for a week or so, things would still run... but shut down versus removed? There would be no laws. Basically, you'd be looking at The Purge to a minor degree.

"where we can travel where ever we want as long as it won't expose the government." How can traveling expose the government? Please, don't just say things at random. Clarify your meaning so that not just I but the readers as well are able to understand you.

Sure, citizens built these things... because the government paid them to do so. There were construction contracts, teaching contracts, and so forth. You act like people chose to go out and just build these things because it was what they wanted to do. No. They built these things because they were paid to do so. The government paid the companies who employed the workers who did the job. So, what makes me think that this wouldn't happen without the government? The fact the government had to pay for these things to be built and bankrolls their maintenance.

Yes, education is mandatory, but it is also NECESSARY. We have seen that by making education voluntary, parents who aren't educated or aren't looking out for their children's best interests will bar their children from attending school past whatever point is mandatory if possible. So, by mandating education, the government actually ensured many kids the ability to be successful individuals. The real problem is that people don't realize you don't have to go to a school to meet the requirements for mandatory education. There are so many exceptions and variations. Furthermore, your complaints against it are not arguments for the deletion of the mandatory education system, but rather for a reformation of public school policies and the priorities of our testing system. It's worth noting, testing does NOT have to mean the Standardized Testing we have all become used to.

Do you know how much it costs to run a hospital? Doctors aren't cheap. The supplies are expensive. Medicine isn't cheap. You seem to think people would group together to fund this, but when hospitals try to get donations to cover what the government's allowance doesn't, they often struggle to get what they need already. Without the government funding? It's questionable if they could be self-sufficient. At best, private practices would dominate, but a private practice rarely has the technological bells and whistles of a real hospital. The real hospitals would be far more necessary and valuable, but as a resort more expensive. And you can hardly have competition when hospitals are often too far apart from each other to do so. Besides, the government isn't restricting competition of hospitals. Nothing is keeping private hospitals from being built aside from the sheer cost of doing so. As for citizens funding hospitals, they'd treat it like they generally treated insurance prior to Obamacare mandating it legally: Pay for it if they think they may need it or otherwise not bother. As for paying with IOUs... what incentive would someone have for repaying? As of now, it is *technically* the law, but hospitals often make exceptions for those who can't afford to, thanks to the government payrolling them. But if hospitals can't just bill the government for the IOU service, how will they recoup the money from those who can't (or choose not to) pay? It's not like the people who skip out on the bill can be arrested... No police. You'd result in hospitals refusing to treat people who don't pay up first (resulting in emergency cases dying en masse) or keeping people prisoner until they paid the bill in some manner.

As for your crime all over the place crack: No, I wouldn't but not for the reason you seem to assume. My moral compass is far skewed from the "morally right" compass most people seem to claim to follow. But I have seen what these "moral" people do when they don't like something. They riot. They vandalize. They loot. They commit crime because they think they are in the right and are owed it. That is what will happen. People acting in their own self-interest because they think they are the rightful arbiters of good.

As for the Toronto incident: the government isn't some omnipresent force. It can't outright stop a person from doing something, but it can enforce punishments on people committing what it lists as crimes. What you are talking about is removing the safety bubble that de-incentivizes commission of crime. No law means no crime. No such thing as crime means no reason not to do things you were dissuaded from. A lot of psychopaths play within the bounds of the law to avoid the consequences. No law means no consequences. Gangs could act more openly and free. Crimes of passion would be more frequent because there's not the ever-present reminder that you can go to jail for your actions. Crimes of stupidity, negligence, and so forth would increase (i.e. drinking and driving, leaving children in cars, and so on). If you want a perfect example of what no government would mean: Look at Somalia and tell me if that is what you really want the US/Canada to be like.

"While we [may] need some of the services they offer[,] there are far better entities and ways to provide everyone of those services voluntarily." What are these ways? Everything you are suggesting is a childish ideal that I have so far easily poked holes in and shown your lack of knowledge and understanding of the topics. You assume money would even hold value, but we'd more likely be a bartering society or using gold as currency once again. Canadian/American dollars will be worthless because there would be no government to say the money has value. Your dream world relies on generosity from others, but without any backup plan for if people aren't as generous as you seem to unrealistically believe them to be.

"To me the government hasn't earned it's "cut" out of my money[.]" To be honest, you sound like a high school student (at most). If you are older, you're showing the very failures of your public education system that you commented on and that I acknowledged. I don't for a moment believe you are old enough to be paying taxes, but even assuming you are: if you upset that the government isn't doing enough, fight for reform, not upheaval. Fix what is broken, don't throw away the entire system just because it has flaws that need fixed. It is better to have a rundown car that gets you where you need to go than it is to not have any realistic means of transportation. Fix the car (read: your government) instead of scrapping it, leaving you with nothing which honestly is far worse.

If there was no government, your money would be worthless scraps of paper, so you would actually be worse off now than you were before. As for your complaints about lack of welfare: the poor in the US and Canada are far better off than the majority of people in much of the world. They can go to superstore dumpsters and get food that hasn't even really expired, and that is assuming there aren't any soup kitchens, shelters, or food pantries for them to get food from. In regards to your comment about your country starting wars with countries you haven't heard of, I have to question how many wars you think Canada has been in. Even then, Canada's involvement is relatively minor. Sure, no war would be better, but it's better to solve the problem than complain that it is a problem. Removing the government doesn't fix the fact your larger community is in conflict. If anything, it will increase the conflict, just on a domestic front instead of an international front. This, in turn, will make the conflict you see seem even larger and more devastating than how it looks from a tv screen.

Your "solution" just creates new and, at times, worse problems.

Don't gripe about my formatting when your writing is barely legible half of the time.
Debate Round No. 2


Well I am laughing as you said my new solution only creates new and at times worse problems.

Here is more arguments that support my idea

No TSA! Let the companies themselves decide how to protect their passengers. If people want to fly in a jail cell and go through naked body scanners, so be it. If there is a market for it, the airliners could make special flights with extra security. As for the rest of us, we'd like to keep our clothes on, thanks!
Everyone could get a job in private industry. With private industry finally being able to keep the entirety of their earnings, everyone across the board would have more money. All corporations, big and small, would have double their current income, that means they can hire more people and put people back to work. Even a politician with absolutely no skills could get a job!

No more Federal Reserve. That means no more fiat money, no more business cycle, and no more inflation. Private industry could coin the money and have full reserve banks. We could move towards a %100 gold backed currency globally and give people truly sound money. No more devaluation of our money through the printing press, and no more silent corporate welfare through inflation.

No more artificially induced bubbles. Without the fed inducing the business cycle people would be able to invest wisely and the market could adjust faster to changes in the economy. Companies would be forced to adapt to serve consumers instead of merely adapting to gaming the system to get corporate welfare.

No more entrenched elite. The government's illegitimate monopoly on force is the only thing with allows a tiny group to stay in power perpetually through gaming the system and profiting off government handouts and grants of monopoly privilege. End the government, and you destroy their tool of conquest.

Freedom. What more is there to say? Without a government there can be no ruling class which claims powers over others. People can organize themselves voluntarily in their own self-interest, the same way we do now in almost every sector of our lives. Our nanny state system is what keeps people hobbled and dependent, remove the rules and restrictions and give people freedom and you'll see a complete societal turn around, just read this!

I will be arguing that Government is not necessary for our fundamental living needs.

I always forget to provide definitions in the first round which always set me back so this time I won't forget.

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."

I will be arguing for a Left Anarchic society which is freedom from both Government and hierarchy.

I will be arguing against the notion that we need a Government for our benefit as a society and that it is not only unnecessary to our living needs, but detrimental towards our functioning as a society.

Con will argue that we do in fact need a Government for our living needs


"Well I am laughing as you said my new solution only creates new and at times worse problems." Why? I have shown the problems your short-sighted and myopic suggestions create. A good solution minimizes the number of problems, not creates more. This is the reason why war is supposed to be one of the last solutions to a problem between countries: it creates more problems in the attempt of solving one or two other problems. By laughing at the fact I point this out, you're stating that you don't care about actually fixing problems, but rather that you just have a blind hatred towards government without any care for the damage your ideas would cause if implemented.

"No TSA!" The "jail cells" you're calling the economical seating are that way because the airlines chose to design them like that. TSA generally stops being directly involved after you get on-board. As for the security procedures, yes they are overly thorough, but that's a case for reformation not removal. 30 April 2018 through 6 May 2018, TSA caught 90 guns that people were trying to bring on board. 73 were loaded. 35 had a bullet in the chamber. Sure, there are times where they get excessive, such as when they get overly-concerned over replicas, but that's because an untrained eye can't tell the difference between a replica and the real thing most of the time and that uncertainty can allow someone to hijack a plane. As for your comment "we'd like to keep our clothes on, thanks!" TSA policy does not allow agents to even ask you to undress. Strip-searches are against TSA protocol. If an agent tries to make you do so, then you should refuse outright and demand to speak to their superior so you can report them immediately for violating procedure and for inappropriate behaviour.

"Everyone could get a job in private industry." Like everyone can already do? Besides, there wouldn't be any more public service as the government, which is responsible for paying public workers, would no longer exist. Also, companies would have more money, but money in and of itself would lack all value. Do you remember History class when they discussed Germany's 1923 hyperinflation? Imagine that. No government means that money is nothing more than scraps of paper unless you could somehow convince everyone to still agree the money has some sort of value... which it wouldn't. A good example of this is Somalia. Once it lost its central government, its currency's value plummeted. While it is the official currency of the nation still, it's less than worthless to the point that transactions are basically done with US money because our currency still holds value. Even then, anyone who didn't have US money before the transition would have been screwed.
As for your claimed benefits in your point "No more Federal Reserve"... There is just so much here that is wrong. First, the gold standard doesn't remove inflation. If anything, the low quantity of gold in the world makes it even easier to manipulate the inflation/deflation of the currency's value. Next, seeing as there would no longer be a central entity printing money, if we assumed a gold standard were to be used and private industries printed money, then that means there would be dozens of different currencies in place in a given city and you'd have to be able to trust their currencies held the stated value. The sheer exchange rates you'd have to deal with would be excessive and basically divide those cities into various corporatocracies in the end... meaning in your attempt to get rid of government, you'd just be creating MANY more smaller governments. And do you really think companies would be honest when there is no reason to be?

"Without the fed inducing the business cycle" You clearly don't know what you are talking about. The business cycle is a naturally occurring thing in business that the Fed does not "induce". It happens and the Fed merely can have some minor sway over aspects of it, but doesn't control the whole. "People would be able to invest wisely" With what money? The money printed by a bunch of mini-governments? As for the rest of this section, you're obviously just spewing words with no understanding of what you are talking about. If you are going to make arguments, make arguments that you actually understand.

"No more entrenched elite." This is a fact of life. There will ALWAYS be elites entrenched in the upper echelons of society. Even in Somalia, the elites are those who can gather the most power fast. "The government's illegitimate monopoly on force is the only thing with allows a tiny group to stay in power perpetually through gaming the system and profiting off government handouts and grants of monopoly privilege." You are literally just saying words that don't really connect. Government officials in the US and Canada are ELECTED into power, meaning the people choose them either directly or indirectly (choosing somebody else who they know have the power to seat people in specific positions.) Aside from that, nothing you said in that holds together as even an idea in order to refute... Stop trying to be fancy and show off. Just speak like a normal person you daft child. "End the government, and you destroy their tool of conquest." Yeah... Canada has been doing a whole lot of conquering.... like... and... oh and let's not forget when they conquered...

"Without a government there can be no ruling class which claims powers over others." Somalia is once again proof you are wrong.
"People can organize themselves voluntarily in their own self-interest, the same way we do now in almost every sector of our lives." So then what is the problem? If people can already do this in almost every sector of our lives, why would we need to change things?
"Our nanny state system is what keeps people hobbled and dependent," How so? Don't just say meaningless words. Explain them and why you are saying them.
"remove the rules and restrictions and give people" 1) the chance to kill you and everybody you love, 2) conquer, rape, and pillage as far as the eye can see without concern for consequences, 3) a slow painful death as nobody has a means of buying anything since all money would have lost value so food and water is now inaccessible.
"and you'll see a complete societal turn around," for the worse.
"just read this!" I did and it is full of inane rambling without any kind of coherent thought put behind it. I regret every word of yours I was obligated to read.

'I will be arguing that Government is not necessary for our fundamental living needs." For the fundamentals, absolutely. The problem is everything past that seeing how much the government has influenced people. Once money no longer works right, most people will be lost and confused, and that's the first and simplest thing that will go awry.

"I always forget to provide definitions in the first round which always set me back so this time I won't forget." You should explain your meanings as you're saying them, not in footnotes.

"The word Government implies "governance" over a group of people." Congratulations, you're 2 rounds behind me on this.

"If everyone is governing, then the word Government would no longer apply." No, it means that we are in a "pure" democracy.

"If everyone has power, than nobody does." Tell the ancient Greeks that seeing as the first half of this defined their system of government's political theory.

"Government always implies governance over a group of people by a class of representatives." No it doesn't. Again, have you heard of "democracy"? The US and Canada are both partly this thing you seem to not have heard of before.

"An organized society does not necessarily means "Government."" In order to have an organized society, you need to have order, which heavily implies laws. If you have laws, you have a government that placed those laws and is supposed to be responsible for enforcing the punishments for violating those laws.

"Simply because it's organized and systematic doesn't necessarily correlate to Government, which implies "governance."" Clearly you don't know what you are saying still. How can you have an organized society without a government of some form, whether explicit or implied. An explicit government is one where people know there is a government. An implied government is one where it exists even without people having to say it does. For example, a man commits a murder. The locals rally together and hang the murderer. That is still implied government because that shows a clear system of law and punishment established by a governing collective. Just because everyone is part of the governing body, that doesn't mean it isn't still a governing body.

"I will be arguing for a Left Anarchic society which is freedom from both Government and hierarchy." Actually, you are arguing for corporatocracy and/or traditional democracy which was a failed system of government because it gave unilateral power to those who had the majority ideology.

"I will be arguing against the notion that we need a Government for our benefit as a society and that it is not only unnecessary to our living needs, but detrimental towards our functioning as a society." Actually your entire argument was that we need a different, more easily exploited government system where those who already have resources and power would have exponentially more and those who don't will hold exponentially less.

"Con will argue that we do in fact need a Government for our living needs" Oh, no. I could probably make a great case for why we don't need government. The fact of the matter is, having a government provides to many benefits to large societies such as full-on nations like the US and Canada that getting rid of government altogether may be enough to destroy these countries for various aforementioned reasons.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 0 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.