Oppressive government is more desirable than no government.

Voting audience, our debate has been about whether, for a group of people within a given area, the would be better off under an oppressive state or in anarchy. This debate has focused on defense from invasions, public utilities, the social cohesion of society, and on a degree of equality. A heavy center was Somalia. In terms of defense from invasions, Pro brought up the point of India being quickly taken because it was not a centralized state. I argued that the existence of a state order was the reason for ease, considering the anarchic Irish lasted centuries longer against a common enemy to the Indians. They lasted so long because of a lack of command centers. Pro brought up Ancient China as an example of a State no one wanted to attack; I brought the Mongols up, as well as pointing out the splitting of China by European powers. Further, I pointed out how Nazi Germany gave up on most all the rest of Germany to keep the capital intact, whilst an Anarchic Ireland without Dublin was not so different from an anarchic Ireland with Dublin. Pro also attempted to skirt a large, overriding issue; an oppressive State is at all times an invasive force against the people it rules. In terms of public utilities, Pro has argued that the State needs to properly allocate resources to prevent the strong from oppressing the weak. I pointed out that the primary use of resources under oppressive regimes is to oppress, and provided several examples of disastrous government misallocation. I also pointed out that it is more than a little difficult to be a "might is right" wealthy person in a society that values peace and reduces your wealth for every crime you can be prosecuted with, and pointed out that no person survives without cooperating with some people, unless of course people believe they have a legitimate right to another's service and/or goods. In terms of social cohesion, Pro believed a centralized monopoly on law is necessary. I argued that polycentric law was better in that it was decentralized but conforming to the will of the people within a given area. Pro stated it could not end civil war; I pointed out that Civil War is a departure from Polycentric law and towards a State. Pro attempted to drive the Civil War point almost to the point of dullness, but this again neglects the nature of the oppressive government as constant invaders of the people. An earlier point by Pro was that people do not know who to trust without a central government; I readily pointed out Nazi Germany, China, and the Soviet Union. Pro brought up equality, stating it was better for economic wealth and social cohesion. I pointed out that not all inequalities are inherently unjust, such as athletes and doctors, who each spend time on different specialties, gaining wealth and esteem from society. I also pointed out that an oppressive state creates the largest kind of inequality in power (and, concurrently, wealth) over others, and that this inequality was the most dangerous to a society. Further, I pointed out that just inequalities actually work to make society more cohesive a la Durkheim and his theory of the division of labor in society. A large focal point has been Somalia. I argued that the common law, the xeer, was of better use to Somalia than the governments they have overthrown or are currently fighting. Pro claimed the civil war made all points moot, where I pointed out that the Somalia civil war showed aggression towards foreign intervention, as well as invasions done under the Barre regime. I also claimed that the largest cause of full-on war was the U.N. offer of troops and aid to whomever brought democracy to Somalia. Pro stated that the war was domestic in origin; while with one group (the remnants of Barre's regime) that is possible, most other conflicts were little more than attempts to return to an ex ante state before the barre regime had caused so much chaos. Lastly, I pointed out that the TNG was acting as an oppressive State, and that it constantly asks for foreign intervention to help it, while continuing to cause chaos and disrupt rights, social cohesion, exacerbate inequality, and essentially help foreigners invade. The debate could well have been formed under this question; are rights necessary for a healthy society, or are they merely nice amenities? Going back to CR2, security in rights is the foundation of order, not the child of it; an oppressive government cares not for security in rights because it is little more than robbers and bullies. Pro, this has been an enjoyable debate, and I believe I have improved my own skills regardless of the outcome. Thank you. As for the voting audience, the choice is yours with ample information from both sides; please make your decisions just and your reasons clear, and thank you all for the time it has taken to read this debate and any time you may spend on a vote and RFD.