Resolved: That an oppressive government is better than no government at all.

"What your point in contention 1 is, is that without a strong government, people will basically "go nuts." First off, you have to prove that the United States's government is a strong government or even an oppressive government for this part of your contention to work out in your favor. Like before, this is a big assumption. The assumption here is that people can not act civilized on their own, and that they need a "Big brother" figure in order to do right. Can you prove this? Can you prove that without a government, people won't be able to have fire fighters, policemen, etc.?" What I'm saying is that without a government, these fire fighters, policemen, etc., won't be as effective. Quite frankly, how much money does a country with no government make and spread in a way that it will provide municipal services to its inhabitants? None. In an oppressive government, we have money being spread to places like fire departments, police, etc. This is because oppressive governments know that they have to at least take some care of its people, to ensure prevention of rebellion. Without this funding, government services will not be as effective as if they were in an oppressive government. Sure, we can have a vigilante police force, but how does it compare to a fully armed police department. Yes, groups of people will always rise from the ashes, but they are not as effective without a government. "Would they need one? If they aren't attacking anyone, and if they aren't putting their nose in anyone's path, is that bad? I haven't heard of them going into an external war anytime recently [...] so why do you feel it is a necessity to have troops?" Government ensures that the status quo is maintained. If government collapses, there will be no one to keep this status quo. People will compete for resources, and it will be violent. Also, radical groups from neighboring nations often take the chance to seize control in a country in turmoil. (Hitler after the fall of the Wiemar Republic, Al-Qaeda after the turmoil in Afghanistan...) Oppressive governments can keep violent or revolutionary organizations down, while weak government/no government is a breeding ground for violence and more turmoil. "Now against internal issues... They don't need troops in order for this to be corrected. All they need are police officers/Vigilante types. Use the U.S for example, we don't send in our troops everytime we have a dispute, we use officers." See the two points above. "John Locke (the person who holds the ideals by which all modernized governments are based) even brings forth the theory of administrative justice. Essentially what the theory of administrating justice is, is that a legitimate government has the responsibility to uphold the law. However, a government that doesn't fulfill its responsibility is not a legitimate government, and citizens aren't obligated to recognize its legitimacy. The citizens can therefore up rise and overthrow their government." What is the meaning of law in the paragraph? I would agree that John Locke believed that governments that didn't uphold the law should have been overthrown. What law in particular? Each country and government has its own distinct set of laws. Some oppressive governments have very strict laws, but may not break them. "So, in conclusion, having an oppressive government is the same as having no government at all, by the simple fact that if your government is oppressive then they are to be overthrown. If something is to be overthrown, the statement made is that is might as well not be there. Which equivalates it to not having a government in the first place." There is a difference between oppressive government and no government. As a matter of fact, they are polar opposites. Just because oppressive governments can be rebelled against, doesn't mean that they will. Oppressive governments have the power to keep the status quo and prevent rebellion. Now, my other point. Let's take a look a the rule of Joseph Stalin in Soviet Russia. He ruled with an iron fist, and replaced a weak and unable government and replaced it with a strong and able one. In the past, oppressive governments have always made it their priority to make their country more and more powerful, which is a benefit. The USSR and Communist China was an especially interesting one. Following the Communist takeover in the USSR and Communist China, both Mao Zedong and Joseph Stalin created economic growth plans for their countries, coined the name "The Five-Year Plans" The Five-Year Plans of China, the USSR, and pro-Soviet India generated impressive results for their country. http://www.geni.org... http://upload.wikimedia.org... So I would like to say that oppressive governments have the power to enforce law, arm officers, provide government services and help the economy better than any lack of government could do. Humans need organization to survive, and government provides that. In anarchy, mankind cannot thrive.