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

This has turned out pretty interesting... >>>>>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. Why do you assume that they will be unable to have money, and even more so, why do you assume money is necessary. There are many different versions of currency exchange. They could just go into the bardering system for example. Isn't this what they did before "money" was present? In other words, prove that they won't be able to have money, and that them not having "money" is a bad thing. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>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. You see, the main problem here is your assumptions. If the government is made up of "individual citizens," then why do you assume that these individual citizens can't funtion without the government? Would it actually be plausable to say that without government people are "nutz" and can't function? The native americans were functioning quite well without a government. It is because people are the way they are that governments work, not the other way around. Plus, can you actually prove it will be more violent? I'm 100% sure when you add in crooked cops, a misguided leader, and an army that goes to war [...] That surpasses the dangers of competing within a country. What makes you think they will compete within the country in a violent manner anyways? >>>>>Also, radical groups from neighboring nations often take the chance to seize control in a country in turmoil. As I stated before, what makes you think they will be in turmoil? Plus, does this statement say something about having no government, or about the malicious behavior of the terrorist groups. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>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. True, doesn't mean that they will. But what it does mean, is that the people are better of without the government that is order, and that it might as well not be there. >>>>Oppressive governments have the power to keep the status quo and prevent rebellion. Great, they hold the power to make nothing change even though the people don't like whats going on...THAT MAKES IT WORSE! >>>>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. The problem with these few sentences and the many that follow, is that before the oppressie government came into order, there was a weak one in place. MEANING THERE WAS SOME TYPE OF GOVERNMENT THERE THAT THE PEOPLE DIDN'T LIKE IN ORDER FOR THEM TO LET THIS OPPRESSIVE ONE COME TO POWER. On my stance, there is NO government AT ALL! This is untopical for to reasons. 1) Because you are talking about an instance where there is SOME type of gov. and 2) Because you STILL have not yet proven to me that the society of the non-governmental people will be weak and in need of reform. Resolution NEGATED