States are fundamentally immoral

Pro's argument is horrible, and I will use this round to demonstrate how this is the case. Pro's entire argument is based upon the idea that one immoral act makes the entire concept of a state immoral itself. Pro cannot make this link; I could lie to a friend once, which is immoral, but that does not make me an immoral person. A single action does not, and cannot, demonstrate the overall morality of a collective entity like a state. Pro, repeatedly, misses the point and, more importantly, conflates people acting within the state and the state itself. The state itself is the philosophical conception which I am defending here, and I cannot protect against every negative act. Immoral actions by individuals within the state does not make the state immoral, and Pro cannot make that link. Morever, these sort of actions are not inherent within a state; that is, by nature, immoral violence is not encoded in the DNA of a state. I. ConstructiveA, The State of NaturePro claims that states are immoral. What, then, could be the alternative to the state? The state of nature. The state of nature is the hypothetical premordial state in utter anarchy and absense of governance. In the state of nature, people are generally presumed to be equal, fairly preoccupied with self-preservation, and have several innate rights claims. One of these includes an innate right to punish those who infringe on the rights of yourself and others [1]. We gather that this is a fundamental right because it is necessary in following the law of nature, which commands that we preserve ourselves and, if not conflicting with our own safety, others [2]. In order to ensure the survival of a premordial society, then, it was necessary for a sort of vigilantism to occur, to deter, incapacitate, retribute, and rehabilitate. Leaving this state of nature, of course, has obvious benefits. The main impetus, however, for doing so revolves around several inconvenienves present in the state of nature: 1) Lack of a tangible, universal law, 2) Lack of ability to enforce puishment, and 3) Lack of an impartial adjudicator in conflict [3]. To avoid these difficulties, men banded together and transferred some of their natural rights, including a right to punish, to the government in a social contract, which outlined the rules of society and the obligations of the government. The central role of the government, then, is to enforce the social contract and to punish those who go against it. If a government fails to do this, then, depending on which philosopher you prefer, the people have a right to revolt against the government, or the government fails to even be a legitimate government in the first place. Thus, we can see that any state, including the United States, has a moral obligation to its constituents to enforce the social contract and punish those who go against this, including murderers. Failure to do so involves, in effect, a lie and a betrayal of trust. This state of nature could range from a toxic society marred by vigilantism and prejudice to a outright destructive one rife with crime, in which no productive societal growth would take place. Thus, massive rights violations would take place in the state of nature, which surely amounts to vastly more immorality than could possibly be perpetuated by a legitimate state. In this constructive, I have demonstrated where the government derives its monopoly on force. What is important to note here is that Pro completely misunderstands what this means; this right revolves around the right to punish offenders who pose threat to others. This is self-defense. This ability to monopolize force allows for the maximization of rights and utility for all members of society. This, therefore, is moral, especially when weighed against any alternatives which Pro must defend. RebuttalPro begins by claiming that nonviolence is preferable to violence. This is, of course, generally true. However, many times a state must engage in proactive measures that fall outside the bounds of self-defense to ensure the protection of its citizens' rights. For instance, taking part in World War I was not a result of self-defense; however, fighting in it protect American interests and, by extension, the rights of its citizens. Engagement within led to economic gains, the protection of allies, and the rise of peace. This peace is preferable, of course, to war in any moral system. Offensive actions, however, were required to end it. Thus, under a utilitarian calculus, this is preferable. Pro badly misunderstands this argument; I am using a utilitarian moral scale, since Pro has provided no alternative, to weigh this round. I demonstrate that positive action CAN, sometimes, be moral under this. Pro fails to respond. Pro next attempts to demonstrate that even Switzerland engages in violence for reasons other than self-defense. An example of police brutality is cited. This, of course, is not a moral action. However, this is not indicative of the state; the state specifically provides against this sort of brutality in its laws. When an actor like a policeman engages in this sort of brutality, he is acting OUTSIDE the state by breaking the social contract. Whenever any actor does this, he is not acting as the state. Again, Pro has to somehow show that one immoral act by one member claiming to act on behalf of the state is an indictment on the morality of the state in general. This cannot be done. I have already addressed the idea that the state has a monopoly on force. Pro does not understand what this means. Remember: Pro's BOP is to show that, by its nature, the state is immoral. Not that some states can do immoral things. That all states innately are immoral entities. Pro cannot, and has not, done this. Anecdotes about brutality are not sufficient to meet the BOP. Sources1. https://www.law.upenn.edu......2. http://facedownphilosophy.wordpress.com......3. http://www.iep.utm.edu......