Anarchy is Preferable to Totalitarianism

Alright, I'm crunched for time so let's get this crazy train moving. I appologize if I drop something as I'm trying to get through this under the time limit. Contention 1: Humans are Selfish in Nature and thus couldn't work together. Sigmund Freud has stated that humans are selfishly aggressive. Let me give you an example. Say you're walking down the street and you see a homeless man begging for change. You give the man change. You feel good knowing that now he has money to get some food into his stomach, but Freud has agrued that this was only done, because you want to save the genes of the human race and you want it to continue. Also that you now get a feel good feeling and if you didn't you would feel guilty and ashamed. You could have easily done it just so you can feel good about yourself. Here he is quoted."I have found little that is 'good' about human beings on the whole. In my experience most of them are trash, no matter whether they publicly subscribe to this or that ethical doctrine or to none at all. That is something that you cannot say aloud, or perhaps even think."Thomas Hobbes has also shown that humanity, by nature, is rotten. That we will rape and pillage everything unless we have a threat. This of course being laws and punishment. Otherwise we would end up in chaos and anarchy. (http://www.iep.utm.edu...) I added the raping and pillaging parts as I was, once again, speaking about the Human Nature. (http://oregonstate.edu...) Hobbes has stated that human nature is poor, nasty, brutish, and short. This is how we argued that we have governments via the Social Contract Theory. For an example I would give up my right to kill Pro and Pro would, in turn, give up his right to kill me. If he were to denies it and kill me and say, "Meh, one less Ginger," the government would punish him. See we don't violate the law, because of either religion or pure fear out of the government taking away our rights or the death penalty. (http://philosophypages.com...) “one, the postulate of human greed by which each man insists upon his own private use of common property; the other, the postulate of natural reason, by which each man strives to avoid violent death” (De Cive, Epistle Dedicatory).We can see here above that simply we go to avoid death and we all know that one of the leading fears is death. Why do we fear death? What will happen to our families when we die? How will I be remembered? Could I have done better? What's next? Am I going to heaven or hell? These are all questions that we ponder when it comes to the afterlife. We simply fear the unknown. You can see that Humans are selfish evil creatures by nature and if we are not controlled then the animalistic instincts of humanity would reign and we would see the exact opposite of what Pro is stating. You see It would work in an idealistic society, but not everyone is fitting for that ideals and wth humanity being evil in nature you can see that we need to be controlled or have to face utter destruction as depicted in the Movie Road Warrior. THe problem with NAP as like I stated above can easily turn into an almost popularity contest. Let's say in Philidelphia where there is still firebombings of blacks homes is in this setting. People and minorities could easily be scratched out with the support of the public. We can observe that my opponent had stated that If someone is not following the right moral code then they are to be punished, but under anarchy there is no one to set forth a moral code. We can look at any topic area like Abortion. Abortion doctors would be targetted and killed by anti-abortionists for simply violating this "moral code" in their own eyes. Though Totalitarianism underminds individuality and civil rights it is simply better to be safe and oppressed then free but living everyday in fear. Contention 2: Authority is problematic? Under this contention I will show that authroity is needed outside of what was already said in the first contention. Firstly I bring up how the philosophy of Voltaire. THough Voltaire would disagree with NAP as he states that religion is horrendous and using it to determine morals has corrupted humanity and because of that we need a King. (http://www.the-philosophy.com...) “Men are blind and very unfortunate to prefer one sect absurd, bloody, supported by executioners and surrounded by stakes, a sect that may be approved only by those to whom it gives power and wealth, a sect that n is received in only a small part of the world, a simple and universal religion, by the admission of Christ-was the religion of the human race time of Seth, Enoch and Noah "Animals have these advantages over man: they never hear the clock strike, they die without any idea of death, they have no theologians to instruct them, their last moments are not disturbed by unwelcome and unpleasant ceremonies, their funerals cost them nothing, and no one starts lawsuits over their wills." As you can see by the above quotes that I have given you from Voltaire show that religion is something that one shouldn't follow as he stated that an intelligent person should not accept religious beliefs and that the religious ceremonies should be ignored. Hobbes as I showed in my last contention showed that humans are brutal and that we actually need a strong monarchy to keep us in line. A government's first duty is to protect its people and their freedom's come afterwards. Voltaire believed that generally humans were ignorant and needed an enlightend King in order to control and protect their people. I'll leave you with a small humorous quote to show what I mean. "The only way to comprehend what mathematicians mean by Infinity is to contemplate the extent of human stupidity." My opponent brings up the greatness of the United States, but many can actually argue that the US is actually Totalitarian as they control our everyday lives by regulating the media, limits on speech, and invasion of our privacy to control our everyday lives. Contention 3: The USSR and NAZI Germany My opponent argues that the USSR and NAZI Germany were terrible as the elite control the system and they killed tons of people, but the funny thing is that they were using NAP to justify their killings. The USSR was cleaning all political enemies while the NAZI GErmany actually applied this same theory to all non-Ayrans. Now if we apply the theory of Realism, which is anarchy on the global scale expect the nations are almost like people and there is no rule elsewhere we can actually see that my opponent is actually attacking himself by using these two as an example as under REalism we can see that these two were only acting under anarchy on the global scale we can see that they were only doing what they thought was morally correct, as applied under NAP, and committed these attrocities to help their nation. (http://en.wikipedia.org...(international_relations)) Since I'm running out of characters I have no choice, but to pass it back off to my opponent.