Governments are inherently immoral and illegitimate

Thank you for hosting this debate. I hope that after this encounter, both sides can learn something from one another. Based off of your title, here are the terms in which our arguments will revolve around: Government - the system by which a nation, state, or community is governed. (govern - control, influence, or regulate.) Immoral - not conforming to accepted standards of morality. Illegitimate - not authorized by the law; not in accordance with accepted standards or rules. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- One of the most amazing and sophisticated things that distinguishes us humans from animals is our ability to function within an intricate and comprehensive system. And the fact that our current nation of the U.S.A. has not fallen by domestic, foreign, or chaotic threats (yet) since its inception proves that we as a species can achieve this method of societal development. We have existed with governments for a very long time, and under governments, people have been able to do many things that benefit the world without being interfered by danger or other disturbances. So to say that governments themselves are innately immoral is too broad of an accusation. This generalization that you have made is false in my eyes and it will be addressed as such. There are multiple ways in which governments are made to be. In ancient times, the most typical ways were through royalty or divine right. In feudal China, emperors were permitted to rule out of cultural and religious context. Chinese people believed that the emperors were descendants of the dragons. There was also the belief that the Chinese emperor acted as the "Son of Heaven" and held a mandate (The Mandate of Heaven) to rule over everyone else in the world; but only as long as he served the people well. In the west, political legitimacy for medieval rulers was also acquired through religious context. During feudal times in Europe, kings were permitted to rule by the divine right of kings or God's mandate. This point is most likely the cause for peoples' disapproval of governments. By ruling with divinity, these hierarchs did not hold themselves accountable for anyone except for their respective higher beings. However, the morality of a government cannot be judged by its attainment of power alone. The intentions and character of the government must be assessed as well. Of course, with all their power and without being questioned, there's bound to be rulers that abuse their power. But with the same authority, there have also been multiple benevolent rulers who used their power to serve and protect their people. They ruled with justice and fairness, and it was mostly caused by their moral and religious upbringing, listening to the divine, and adhering to tradition. (Christianity, Chivalry, Daoism, Confucianism, Buddhism, mention: Bushido) Sounds too good to be true? Take Chinese Emperor Wen of the Han Dynasty, for instance. Emperor Wen quickly showed an aptitude to govern the empire with diligence, and appeared to be genuinely concerned for the people's welfare. Emperor Wen governed the country with the general policies of non-interference with the people and relaxed laws. His personal life was marked by thriftiness and general willingness to forgive. In 179 BC, he abolished the law that permitted the arrest and imprisonment of parents, wives, and siblings of criminals, with the exception of the crime of treason. In 178 BC, after a solar eclipse (then viewed as a symbol of divine displeasure), he requested that officials give him honest criticism and recommend capable individuals for governmental positions. He also tried to decrease mandatory taxes and hard labor. To condemn the sovereignty of a government, you would need the approval and support of the people who actually lived under those governments for it to be effective and legitimate. If you stated your argument in that time, crimes and decapitation aside, you would be greatly ridiculed and contradicted. People during that time accepted this kind of sovereignty because they had faith in their religion, and they followed their religion with the utmost belief. Sure you could say they were to wrong in risking to suffer under tyranny, but you can't say they were living under mass delusion. And good luck in saying the sovereignty of modern governments are illegitimate. FYI, Democracy is a form of government.