Tournament III: On balance, living in a society of anarchy is better than living under a dictator

*Security is an important need* Besides the essentials for survival, security is the greatest need of humans. Security cannot be provided in anarchy. However, as long as one abides by the laws in a dictatorship, security exists in a dictatorship. *Dictatorships are not responsible for human atrocities* >Slavery It is pointless to debate whether the US government was a democracy. It was not a dictatorship that enforced the ownership of people >Genocide of the native populations Smallpox was inflicted on the native populations, as a form of biological warfare. Wikipedia writes: "The first, during a parley at Fort Pitt on June 24, 1763, Ecuyer gave representatives of the besieging Delawares two blankets and a handkerchief that had been exposed to smallpox, hoping to spread the disease to the Natives in order to end the siege"[1] >European exploitation of African resources Yes, I was referring to colonization. Colonization continued and expanded until the 20th century. European countries had either limited monarchy or their monarchy completely removed during the time frame. >Rwandian Genocide I am uninterested in the details of what caused the genocide. What's more important is that it occurred without a dictatorship to cause these killings. >Holocaust It is very likely that the holocaust could have occurred even without a dictatorship. Still, >Anwar El Sadat and Juan Carlos were dictators This source is not marked. These leaders were certainly dictators, just benevolent. They were unelected and had complete control of their government, thus dictators. *Anarchy is intrinsically evil* While it is true that most people are cooperative, there will always exist others that will choose to defect in order to improve their life. Sociopaths do exist in the world. Without a systematic way to punish these defectors, cheating will become positively reinforced. People will more likely to cheat if their peers do it. A study was done on cheating. In a study done at Duke, test subjects self-reported how many questions he or she answered on a test and received a monetary prize for each correct answer. It was discovered that if a cheating actor answered all the questions, then others were more likely to cheat.[2] Thus cheating is self-reinforcing, and even those born with a conscious would become uncooperative in an anarchy society. It should also be worth noting that social dynamics consist of in-group and out-groups. In-groups are those we have social relationships and are more likely to have high respect for, while we are more likely to be hostile towards out-groups. It turns out, that the maximum amount of social relationships that can be maintain until social cohesiveness breaks down is 150.[2] This number is only stable if there is strong external pressure to remain together. A modern society cannot remain competitive with only 150 people. Due to economics of scales, some businesses require thousands of employees to remain competitive. A tribe of 150 can easily be taken over by even the most primitive military. PRO states that with have lived for centuries without a government. This is just false. Humans have always lived with government. Even tribal societies have tribal council and a tribal leader, which is a form of government. Even primates have a form of government. Primate societies have a dominance hierarchy with a top leader, the alpha male. Members defer to their rule.[3] http://tinyurl.com...[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...[4]