Anarchy is Preferable to Totalitarianism

Dropped Arguments My opponent dropped quite a few arguments. He conceded the following: - That personal autonomy allows human beings to be distinct, moral, and valuable individuals. - That totalitarian states put flawed humans in positions of immense power. - That totalitarian states have a greater potential to cause greater harm to citizens. - That individuals can create the same results law does without public reinforcement. - That totalitarianism undermines individuality. - That totalitarianism undermines humans as independent, individually valuable, and moral agents. Human Nature Psychological Egoism My opponent argues in favor of Freud, who believed that human beings were inherently selfish beings. Although Freud did not personally advocate psychological egoism, my opponent puts forth psychological egoism as a rebuttal to show why an anarchic state cannot work. Psychological egoism is the idea that humans are motivated solely by their own welfare. There are two main problems with this using this argument to discredit anarchy. The argument does nothing to harm an anarchic state, and the idea of psychological egoism applies universally regardless of the society. A successful anarchic state does not require humans to be altruistic; a successful anarchic state is a state in which human beings can exercise personal autonomy without having their rights violated. Selfishness can then motivate human beings to achieve their own personal goals as long as they do not violate the rights of others. Selfishness can also motivate humans to come together to achieve a greater good. Therefore psychological egoism does not harm the concept of anarchy. Since psychological egoism universally applies to humans, it also applies to a totalitarian state. In fact, psychological egoism is more dangerously applied to totalitarianism since a totalitarian state requires that citizens give up their individuality for the greater good of the society as a whole. According to CON however, psychological egoism makes this notion unlikely, if not impossible. It is even more dangerous when applied to totalitarian dictators. Dictators who get too caught up in their own personal welfare may very well jeopardize the safety and well being of an entire nation. Though it should be noted that just because Freud believed that human beings are motivated only by their own selfish desires, does not mean this notion is true. My opponent did little to advance the validity of psychological egoism, so the argument cannot be taken as a serious rebuttal to anarchy. Thomas Hobbes CON also advances the philosophy of Hobbes, who had a negative take on human nature. He believed that humans required law and punishment in order to keep society from reducing to social and moral chaos. There are three main problems with this argument. It assumes humans will not abide by NAP or act morally good simply for the sake of societal well being, the social contract is unnecessary, and Hobbes’ negative take on human nature also applies to totalitarian dictators. CON’s assertion that human beings, unless governed, will commit atrocious acts rests on nothing except a claim. Humans naturally desire peace, justice, and security, which are preserved through upright action. Thus it is logical to believe that in order to preserve these things, humans will generally act morally good. In addition, anarchy should never result in chaos if NAP is properly followed. Since every man seeks to preserve his own rights and doing this means not violating the rights of others, it is also logical to believe that men will be curved from violating others’ rights. If any man violates NAP, then others have the moral right to punish him. NAP allows for “law and punishment” without a publicly enforced government. Thus this moral code keeps an anarchic state from degrading into social chaos. The social contract is unnecessary because the same principle can be applied to a society without a publicly enforced government. In the social contract, humans possess the liberty to make personal decisions only insofar as they do not violate the rights of others. If a person violates the social contract, then the government may punish that person. NAP is the exact same as this without a publicly enforced government. In NAP, humans have full control over their personal autonomy as long as they do not violate the rights of others. If any person violates NAP, then others have the moral right to punish that person. Hobbes’ negative take on human nature applies to all humans, including totalitarian dictators. This becomes problematic, because as mentioned earlier, to place a fallible human into a position of immense power jeopardizes the well being of the society. In addition, totalitarian dictators can make themselves exempt from their own laws, which would mean that they can commit atrocities without fear of immediate lawful punishment. Finally, just because Hobbes believed human nature has a tendency towards evil, does not necessarily make this the case. My opponent offered no arguments supporting this notion, and thus it cannot be taken as a serious argument against anarchy. Fear of Death and Animalistic Instincts I did not understand what exactly CON was trying to say here due to poor writing. He started off talking about humans’ fear of death, then somehow connected it to how humans are inherently evil, which he then somehow followed with humans needing to be controlled by the government. Of course, if humans are inherently evil, and the government is made up of humans, then it would logically follow that the government is evil also. Non-Aggression Principle CON is right to state that NAP is only as good as whether it is followed or not. Since NAP is not publicly enforced, every anarchic society runs the risk of NAP being ignored. However, this should be unlikely since humans naturally desire self preservation and freedom, and NAP offers this. At any time where NAP is ignored, human beings still possess the moral right to defend their rights from aggressors. Idealized and Realistic Society In an idealized anarchic society, the society would allow both total freedom and security. In an idealized totalitarian society, the state could only allow total security. In a realistic anarchic society, individuals may be thrusted into social turmoil, but would still possess the freedom to make personal and moral decisions. In a realistic totalitarian society, individuals would be completely oppressed and probably abused. Any individual who opposed this oppression would be punished. - In comparison, an idealized anarchic state is preferable to an idealized totalitarian state because it offers both freedom and security. In the realistic version of both societies, both generally incite social turmoil, but only the anarchic state still allows freedom. Personal autonomy is very important because it makes human distinct, valuable, moral agents. In a realistic anarchic society, humans can still achieve an idealized version of an anarchic society through their own voluntary acts, unlike the realistic totalitarian society. Something About Religion Again, I am not exactly sure what CON is trying to say here due to poor writing. I do not see how religion is relevant to the topic at hand. Authority CON argues that the duty of the government is to protect its citizens. This however, ignores my argument that authority is unnecessary; humans are capable of protecting themselves without a government. It also ignores the fact that totalitarian dictators can easily be corrupted and thus harm the citizens of a totalitarian society, which is the exact opposite of protecting the citizens. USSR and Nazi Germany These Totalitarian states were not using NAP because they directly violated the rights of others without proper justification. Realism Realism is not a proper example of anarchy because it includes nations with publicly enforced governments.