On balance, a corrupt government is better than no government.

As stated by Henry David Thoreau, "Our life is frittered away by detail. Simplify, simplify." As such, I oppose the resolution, "On balance, a corrupt government is better than no government." I would like to define "On Balance" with www.thefreedictionary.com as "Taking everything into consideration; all in all." I reserve the right to clarify any other terms later on in this debate. Resolutional Analysis… 1)With on balance in the resolution, we must look towards a median for looking to see which stance of government is better. Simply, neither side should go to the extremes of saying "This government in history was almost a utopia but still corrupt," nor "This corrupt government enslaves its citizens and so on." 2)We see this debate has three different possible outcomes: corrupt is better, they are the same, no government is better. The PRO must show the first in order to win. If either of the other two are the conclusion after this debate, then the CON wins the round. Contentions Lack of Government Does Not Ensue Chaos I recall the writings of Henry David Thoreau where he ventures out into the wilderness after being fed up with his contemporary government. Living at peace with nature, Henry David Thoreau proved that man does not need government to sustain a livable live. If more people were to have joined up with Thoreau in his ventures, we would have seen a community of fellow humans, in cohabitation with nature and no government. This leads me to my second point that Government is Different from Society The PRO incorrectly analyzes the role of government. Contradicting himself throughout the way, the PRO says that the sole purpose of government is to protect natural born rights but claims, in the second point, that if people work together that they would form a government. As a college student, I help other students with their studies and they do the same for me. Does that result in me governing them, telling them what they have to do? Though the taxes from them would help my tuition, the PRO's connection cannot be made. A key difference can be simplified down to the difference between helping and ruling other people. Furthermore, the PRO claims that the government provides funds for education but were does that funding come from? The citizens. His point becomes mute by seeing that the government is nothing more than a middle man in education. Corrupt Governments Break Original Purpose The PRO has established that governments protect natural born rights, however, as by his definition of corrupt, they have "errors or alteration." Any time where a corrupt government acts immorally, some portion of someone's natural born rights have become compromised. By its very definition, a corrupt government is an immoral presence that does not protect natural rights. If you desire examples, I would be happy to provide some in my next argument. Finally, A Criterion of Moral Superiority. The term of debate in the resolution is "better." Using the Pro's definition, it means morally superior. Hence, the PRO has indirectly set a criterion for debate. Then we must ask ourselves, which is more morally superior, no government in which people can live harmoniously or a necessarily corrupt government which violates human rights? The answer need not to be restated. I will end with a quote from John Locke's Second Treatise of Government "This is the plain difference between the state of nature (no government) and the state of war (with a Government). Some men have treated them as the same; but in fact they are as distant from one another as a state of peace, good will, mutual assistance and preservation is distant from a state of enmity, malice, violence and mutual destruction. A state of nature, properly understood, involves men living together according to reason, with no-one on earth who stands above them both and has authority to judge between them. Whereas in a state of war a man uses or declares his intention to use force against another man, with no-one on earth to whom the other can appeal for relief. " As for your just for fun point, I would like to cross apply Thoreau as well as add another quote from John Locke, "For this purpose, I think it may be worthwhile to state what I think political power is; so that the power of a ï¿½government official over a subject can be distinguished from that of a ï¿½father over his children, a ï¿½master over his servant, a ï¿½husband over his wife, and a ï¿½lord over his slave."