Resolved: That an oppressive government is better than no government at all.

>"Can you actually prove it will be more violent? I'm 100% sure when you add in crooked cops, a misguided leader, and an army that goes to war [...] That surpasses the dangers of competing within a country. What makes you think they will compete within the country in a violent manner anyways?" Okay, first off, an oppressive government does not equal a corrupt government. (see definition below) While it can be possible in an oppressive government, it can be just as possible for a corrupt leader to gain power in an anarchist state. How? Logically, in times of strife, humans will looks towards a leader who can promise security and safety. If a leader can convince people that he or she can bring peace and stability to an anarchist state, people will want them in power. >"True, doesn't mean that they will. But what it does mean, is that the people are better of without the government that is order, and that it might as well not be there." But you have yet to shown WHY people are better off without oppression. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... opï¿½presï¿½sive (-prsv) adj. 1. Difficult to bear; burdensome: oppressive laws. 2. Exercising power arbitrarily and often unjustly; tyrannical. 3. Weighing heavily on the senses or spirit: oppressive weather. See Synonyms at burdensome. In one of your previous debates, you said that: >"John Locke (the person who holds the ideals by which all modernized governments are based) even brings forth the theory of administratove justice. Essentially what the theory of administrating justice is, is that a legitimate government has the responsibility to uphold the law. However, a government that doesn't fulfill its responsibility is not a legitimate government, and citizens aren't obligated to recognize its legitimacy. The citizens can therefore uprise and overthrow their government." Meaning that if a country didn't uphold a law, it would be okay to overthrow it. But let's look at an example of an oppressive government that did uphold the law very well, and is very successful today: Singapore. In Singapore, it is illegal for more than five people to gather in protest except for designated areas, without a police permit. (the government gets the final say in whether or not you can protest) http://news.sg.msn.com... The punishment for petty crimes such as thievery is caning, which is very painful. http://www.corpun.com... The punishment for possession of drugs, among other crimes, is death. http://en.wikipedia.org... Yet, Singapore has the lowest homicide rate in the world, at only 0.95 per 100,000. That is about 1 person per 1,000,000, or statistically, about THREE AND A HALF MURDERS PER YEAR. And although Singapore's laws may be oppressive and harsh, they do a good job of keeping crime down. Singapore has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. http://www.nationmaster.com... WE need laws to protect our citizens, and stricter laws keep crime rates down. Why? As Philosopher Thomas Hobbes said best, "Life in the state of nature is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short." Obviously, there is a reason why we have laws, because they work to prevent crime. My opponent says that in an anarchy, everyone will get along, but then why would we need laws? There are always people there who will take advantage of a lack of government to commit crimes. Otherwise, why would thieves, murderers, rapists, etc., exist? According to Thomas Hobbes, men are inherently evil, that government exists to create cooperation and peace. That is Hobbes's social contract. Humanity does not work together because they are good, it is because they know that every other man is bad. Even John Locke advocated for government. Why? Because he knew that without a controlling power, people would still go out of control. Again, that is why there are theives, robbers, murderers, etc. Why not everyone is a criminal, some are, and that is why government needs to be there to moderate the law. In an oppressive, government, we have a law system , with lawyers and judges and law people. In an anarchy, we have vigilante police forces, that may only exist to seek revenge. Remember how when the French Revolution was overthrown, the peasants killed thousands for no reason? > that before the oppressive government came into order, there was a weak one in place. MEANING THERE WAS SOME TYPE OF GOVERNMENT THERE THAT THE PEOPLE DIDN'T LIKE IN ORDER FOR THEM TO LET THIS OPPRESSIVE ONE COME TO POWER. On my stance, there is NO government AT ALL! This is untopical for to reasons." However, this government that people didn't like was not an oppressive one. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... opï¿½presï¿½sive (-prsv) adj. 1. Difficult to bear; burdensome: oppressive laws. 2. Exercising power arbitrarily and often unjustly; tyrannical. 3. Weighing heavily on the senses or spirit: oppressive weather. See Synonyms at burdensome. Just because people don't like a government, doesn't make it oppressive. For example, if somebody lived in a democracy, and they hated it because they didn't agree with it's laws, that doesn't make the government oppressive. Besides, oppressiveness is not always bad. Sometimes, it IS a good thing, as I have shown. >Because you STILL have not yet proven to me that the society of the non-governmental people will be weak and in need of reform. In a society of non-government, people are not unified. If what you say is true, then why do people band together in anarchy? Because humans need a ruling group to keep control! When citizens form their own groups in anarchy, that is government, and people need government! Sorry if this sounds PFish, my teacher gave us an LD topic to debate PF style. :X Regardless, this has been a good round, and my first. I do believe it has been of great help to me. I eagerly await your response.