Resolved: Oppressive government is more desirable than no government.

Definitions A government is oriented towards a public purpose, not a private purpose, and has a monopoly on violence. This means that in order for a regime to be a state, it must claim to have a public function.. An oppressive state is one that claims to be oriented towards a public purpose but possesses a systematic, institutional failure that causes it to oppress at least a part of its citizens. ‘Desirable’ is defined as ‘worth seeking or doing as advantageous’ [1]. The resolution is asking which state of affairs is more advantageous. We must therefore consider a consequentialist normative outlook since it would permit us to select the option that is more practical. A deontological outlook is unacceptable because deontology does not consider impacts, but rather discusses whether something is good in itself independently of its practical advantages. Case First,anarchy is generally unviable. Philosopher Arthur Ripstein extends Immanuel Kant’s analysis of the failures of the state of nature to explain why the state of nature is undesirable in terms of promotion of freedom. [2] First, Kant explains that property is a morally necessary extension of freedom, but it is impossible to acquire anything in the state of nature [2]. According to Kant, the acquisition of property requires that one take control of a resource that is commonly owned and provide an identifiable social signal that one possess the resource and plans to continue to possess it. However, these acts are not enough to stake a claim on property; rather one must obtain the property in light of a publicly conferred power such that others in society agree to my acquisition of the property. In other words, private property requires public right in order to be legitimate because the state acts as an omnilateral power that authorizes us to unilaterally acquire resources, which begin as common to all. My opponent may claim that such agreements are conceivable under anarchy, but the problem is that without an enforcement mechanism, the arrangements would be purely voluntary, and participants would be capable of withdrawing consent and using force to back this withdrawing whenever their ends shifted [2]. Thus, the government makes the contracts binding and creates a set of universal principles for the acquisition of property and the maximization of freedom. Second, rights must be enforceable, but it is impossible to legitimately enforce them in the state of nature [2]. As Ripstein explains, rights are “titles to coerce and a part of a system of rights under universal law” that can can only exist through public assurance. As Kant explains in his work, Private Right, without a system through which rights are assured, humans cannot possess an obligation to refrain from violating the rights of others because there is no assurance that others will not violate their rights. [2] Thus, Kant furthers, rights arise when a collective power provides people with the conditions for possessing them. The universal law that stipulates that rights cannot be violated only comes into play through assurance; without assurance, choosing not to violate another individual’s rights is permissible but is not required since doing so would allow others to treat one as a means to an end and violate one’s interests. [2] Third, rights require the adoption of universal standards that are not the result of unilateral decision making on the part of one party in an agreement, which is impossible in the state of nature [2]. In a state of anarchy, moral judgments are entirely contextual and will vary from agent to agent because there is no enforceable, universal standard by which to judge behavior. This prevents the formation of any form of moral contracts since there is no standard by which to claim that contracts must be binding, and the meaning of contracts can be skewed according to the beliefs of each party [2]. Ripstein contends that objective standards of conduct require a basis for equal freedom, “in which no person’s entitlements are dependent on the choices of others” [2]. This means that government is good because it provides us with a basis for resolving moral conflicts through mutual understanding, something which cannot be guaranteed without a state. An oppressive government would be able to serve all of these functions, which are impossible in a state of anarchy. The oppressive government serves to provide us with a universal standard of conduct that governs our behavior, provides a basis for stable contract formation, provides assurance that rights will be supported (at least for some), and provides for the protection of property. By creating these standards but simultaneously violating them, it further serves to lead to its own downfall and the creation of a just government. This leads to my second contention, namely that oppressive governments are more desirable than anarchies because they are more likely to lead to just governments. By creating a set of standards that it itself does not follow or that it allows certain people to circumvent, the oppressive government marks itself as an enemy of the people and creates a large target for the people to overthrow. In contrast to the systematic political violence of an oppressive regime, anarchic societies do not present any state and thus provide no common enemy. Anarchic societies are lawless and chaotic precisely because every individual is in constant competition with everyone else in order to survive. Philosopher Thomas Hobbes explains while discussing the anarchic State of Nature, “During the time men live without a common power . . . they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man.” [3] Since Anarchy is a state of constant struggle for individual interests, and there is no common power that dominates the populace, Anarchy does not present any common target. Common enemies serve to bolster social cohesion. In a society in which people are constantly competing without a common enemy, it is functionally impossible for them to put aside their differences and unite into a community. This is because, instead of a repressive overlord blocking their political and social ambitions, their prowess is stifled by others. So, the constant competition that exists in anarchy provides the people with no incentive to unite. However, the presence of a repressive third party in the form of a state causes people to overcome their differences and unite to topple a common enemy that is preventing them from achieving their self-interests. German sociologist Georg Simmel explains, “The unificatory consequence of subordination under one ruling power operates even when the group is in opposition to this power. . . . Discord, in fact, perhaps even more stringently than harmony, forces the group to "pull itself together." In general, common enmity is one of the most powerful means for motivating a number of individuals or groups to cling together. This common enmity is intensified if the common adversary is at the same time the common ruler.” [4] Thus, the common enmity presented by oppressive regimes causes society to unite against the oppressive government. Dealing with a common enemy provides a basis for establishing a set of principles that a new government must abide by and creates a platform for revolution. Absent this platform, it will be difficult to establish a just government. Somalia fell into disarray, for example, when the US prematurely toppled the unjust government, creating a power vaccuum that sparked the rise of warring drug lords. The anarchy has not been resolved to this day. In contrast, the Slovaks and Czechs united against their repressive communist government in the Velvet revolution and mutually agreed to split into two autonomous nations after the war ended. Oppressive government is desirable because it ultimately leads to a more just system. Sources: http://www.debate.org...