Oppressive government is more desirable than no government.

My opponent"s rebuttals essentially take 4 forms; oppressive governments are better at defending from foreign invasions, oppressive governments are more peaceful than stateless territories, utilities are better provided in an oppressive government, and socio-economic inequalities are corrected in oppressive governments. I shall refute these points and make clear that between no state or the total state, the average person would be best off in a case of no state. First, Pro contends that foreign invasions are stopped by oppressive states while anarchy does not repel foreign invasion. He uses Nazi Germany in an attempt to show why people would give up rights, argues that China did better than India because of it"s central state, and stated Ireland would not have had to fight at all if it had a central state. First, Ancient China had a war with the Moguls, that they lost. Second, just because a single attacker may be dissuaded does not mean all attacks will be forever dissuaded; an Alliance of state militaries took down Nazi Germany, and while no single european (or american) power has yet to enter single state v. state conflict with China (the closest perhaps being America"s and China"s proxy war in Korea), many european powers and the U. S. were able to practically partition the country to itself so long as the Chinese emperor maintained his new-found subservient nature to the europeans. Third, the concentration of the command structure in oppressive states means that the sacrifice of the rest of the territory is always preferable to the sacrifice of the capital; an Anarchic Ireland where Dublin was taken by the British is just Anarchic Ireland and the Resistance of Dublin, while a Nazi Germany without Berlin is a failure. Hence, where the Irish could afford the loss of many battles and still maintain more control over themselves than a conquerer, the Germans had to sacrifice a lot of men and a lot of ground to keep foreigners as far from a single point on the map as possible for as long as possible. Next, that oppressive governments are more peaceful. If that is true, then the "rarity" of Libya (where multiple groups claim to be the state and have people believing their side to be the "one true state. ") shows just how much violence is actually repressed in oppressive states. This is not because of human nature itself, but because of the nature of oppressive states; the need to control means attempting to bring more and more people of disparate beliefs into a single belief system (the oppressive state). Oppressive states take formerly Heterogeneous populations (the Prussian states, the Iraqi partition after the British left, Libya after the French) and attempt to create single populations out of them. The loss of this oppressive state would be similar to the dead body of Jesus being found during one of the Crusades; order in oppressive societies is based on a single entity surviving. In contrast, Anarchy requires nothing more than an attitude of "do not aggress" and "take no aggression (and if you must, then not forever). " Indeed, where clans are in agreement on this issue (and agreeing tot he xeer), Somalia is relatively peaceful. [1] Pro contends that utilities are better provided in oppressive governments and that these things are more important than mere human rights. Well, obviously Pro would be wrong to state this as an absolute, as North Korea, China, and the Ukraine under the USSR all prove that not every oppressive government does great. Further, as Pro again neglects to address from CR2 and CR3, and is being re-addressed now, is that Somalia has done better in statelessness than its neighbors in the Horn and in West Africa and compared to it"s time under the Barre Regime. Perhaps a follow up debate on economics would be better at addressing this point, but following from my opening arguments, if the human rights to esteem, food, security from thugs that will imprison you for saying something they don"t like, are not met, then no healthy life can be found. Lastly, Pro wants to argue that the Oppressive State is better for equality, and that equality is better for economic reasons and reasons of peace. It is far too late in the debate to bring in economics, so I shall focus on reasons of peace. It follows, according to Pro, that inequality will make people envious and create conflict. In essence, the Marxian social class theory. First it should be noted that there are many inequalities that go without much issue every day in all societies; doctors have, besides wealth, an aura of respectability granted by their knowledge. Athletes are respected monetarily and otherwise for their unequal superiority in their physical bodies and performances. Most "inequalities" stem from work. Even in the case of someone inheriting wealth, someone worked first to create that wealth. Essentially, inequalities are generally just differences; as Durkheim stated (and I referenced in CR2), these inequalities actually help with social cohesion. Rather, what the oppressive state does is engage in a far worse inequality, the inequality of power over others that results not from legitimate trade but by demanding all one has to justify existence. I too would like to bring Somalia in on the discussion of foreigners; according to Pro"s opening post, an oppressive government is a government that directly fights against the rights of its people. Both the Barre regime and the TNG of Somalia fulfill this requirement. Pro has stated that the civil war in Somalia is primarily a local affair from competition of resources and the power vacuum no one could fill; however, most resource conflicts are occurring now because of Barre"s land-grants to allied clans, especially true in the North where Barre transported allies to weaken the northern power base, relying on the foreign Ethiopians to "help" put their mutual rivals in place. And now that war is occurring over what used to be common watering holes, Pro wants to blame anarchy for fighting over the chaotic mess left by the oppressive state! And the TNG asking for foreign relief to subjugate "it"s" people is not yet refuted. Miscellaneous Notifications: "All states want a government. " This was in reference to Somalia and Libya. A state is a territorial monopoly; just because some Somalians want a state does not mean all Somalis want a state, nor does it mean that, even if all Libyans want a state, all Libyan"s want the same state. Also, my opponent claimed polycentric law can be made by the powerful like legislatures do in states. Allow me to reiterate that polycentric law is little more than case law; multiple judges make multiple decisions, and those not in line with what the people consider just are ignored. Hence, the law cannot be made to favor a group; it is either considered a "just discovery" of an eternal law, or it is the act of a rogue oday. I look forward to our closing rounds. [1]. http://www.independent.org...