Government should be abolished

English philosopher Thomas Hobbes , articulates most clearly what can be expected when Governments are abolished: " In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short (1). " The philosophers refer to the condition of people who have no governing authority over them as the "state of nature. " For Hobbes, this is the worst possible condition, because the nature of man is such that peaceful society is only possible where people have a "common power to keep them in awe. " The Con would like to expand the definition of government as follows: Body of people that sets and administers public policy, and exercises executive, political, and sovereign power through customs, institutions, and laws within a state (2). The organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises authority and performs functions and which is usually classified according to the distribution of power within it (3). The Con would like to make the following observations that will help limit the scope of this debate: Observation 1: The question of government cuts directly to the heart of human nature. To ensure that the debate is meaningful, the debate should be confined to real world situations involving real people. We should not imagine this to be a question of whether perfectly trained and reasonable people would need to be governed, but whether actual humans need it. The view of human nature advanced should be consistent with what we find in the real world. Observation 2: The resolution states that "Government should be abolished. " It does not specify a specific government or form of government. This means that, in order for the Pro to win, he must demonstrate that ALL government must be abolished. Replacing the nation-state with some other governmental form, such as a local co-op, is not sufficient for to meet the burden of proof in this case. The Pro MUST advocate the abolition of any and all government to win. Observation 3: The human need for social interaction is assumed not to be in question. It is acknowledged that government is unnecessary in situations of solitude. Also, for the purposes of space, the terms human and man will be interchangeable throughout the debate. No disrespect is intended to female readers. The Con will negate the resolution through the following 2 contentions: 1) Government is necessary and 2) Government is desirable. Contention 1: Government is necessary. James Madison wrote: "It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary (4). " The fact is, although man is social by nature, yet he is also extremely selfish in his needs and desires. Hobbes, again, writes: "From this equality of ability ariseth equality of hope in the attaining of our ends. And therefore if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and in the way to their end (which is principally their own conservation, and sometimes their delectation only) endeavour to destroy or subdue one another. And from hence it comes to pass that where an invader hath no more to fear than another man's single power, if one plant, sow, build, or possess a convenient seat, others may probably be expected to come prepared with forces united to dispossess and deprive him, not only of the fruit of his labour, but also of his life or liberty (1). " The truth of these statements can be clearly seen throughout history. Somalia, which languished in anarchy from 1991 until 2006 provides a unique real world view of the condition of people without a government (4). In the absence of a common power, a multitude of warlords arose, destroying infrastructure, industry and agriculture . Contention 2: Government is desirable Government provides the peace necessary for man to survive and thrive. This is desirable in itself. However, more than just limiting our ability to destroy one another, government provides the means to achieve greater liberties and provide for the establishment of humane justice. John Locke writes: "So that however it may be mistaken, the end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings, capable of laws, where there is no law there is no freedom. For liberty is to be free from restraint and violence from others, which cannot be where there is no law; and is not, as we are told, "a liberty for every man to do what he lists. " For who could be free, when every other man's humour might domineer over him? But a liberty to dispose and order freely as he lists his person, actions, possessions, and his whole property within the allowance of those laws under which he is, and therein not to be subject to the arbitrary will of another, but freely follow his own. (5). " The Pro argues that anarchism allows people the choice of their own governance. But this is not an affirmation of the resolution. This is only government of another form. A people could choose to be governed by a parliament or a dictator or a corporation and they are still choosing government. Whatever governance they choose will execute more or less the same functions that define any government. They will still insist on a monopoly of force. They will still govern the people. This argument is defunct as an affirmation of the resolution. Again, the contractual system envisioned by the Pro is essential what Hobbes and Locke proposed that all states consist of. This is not an affirmation of the resolution. Private police are still government actors enforcing the rules and regulations of whatever power is employing them. The Pro tries to shrug the burden of proof by stating that I must show why law enforcement and justice ought not be privatized. While this is not my burden, I can answer that in one word: Somalia. When competing laws attempt to govern the same people, and no agreed upon judiciary is present, chaos ensues. Having a monopoly on law creates a level playing field wherein people can flourish. That some governments create unfair playing fields is irrelevant. Imagine trying to play chess against an opponent who's playing checkers by the rules of twister! Even if your opponent is Bobby Fisher, the chess match is more productive (indeed is only possible) if both of you are playing chess. The law is the same. If one player is trying to build a reputable business and another is trying to run an extortion racket, who or what decides between them? The answer, government. Going forward, a few challenges for my opponent: How do you propose to address anti-social behavior in the absence of any government (use your definition as well as mine)? How do you address violations of the rules? How do you ensure the warlord from the next city doesn't decide to overrun your homeowner's association? How do you secure the rights of the individual against the majority's decisions? (1) . http://oregonstate.edu... (2) . http://www.merriam-webster.com... (3) . http://www.businessdictionary.com... (4) . http://allafrica.com... (5) . http://libertyonline.hypermall.com...