Total Control (pro) is Better Than Free Will (con)

==Rebuttals== I have been chosen to prove why total control under the universal principles: -Concern for the well-being of others -Respect for the autonomy of others -Trustworthiness & honesty -Willing compliance with the law (with the exception of civil disobedience) -Basic justice; being fair -Refusing to take unfair advantage -Benevolence: doing good -Preventing harm Is better under total control rather than free will. ===Personal ethics: Just because there is proof that the free will world has ethics, does not mean that the world perfects those ethics and perfects justice. Example from round 1 (there is good in everyone): Since there is good in everyone, it does not mean that everyone has perfected it. ===Anarchy: I said that in a world of free will, anarchy is disorder. My definition of disorder is crime. Then, I said that in a world of free will, anarchy is not logically possible. Thus comes to my next point my opponent has misunderstood my argument. My argument was that total control is not determined by the type government. Nor does total control come from the type of government. ===Examples that claim bluesteel needs to reevaluate arguments: R1) -This is my establishment of right. We would only be controlled to follow these Principles. (Under the principles says nothing about eating different types of steaks.) R1)-In a world of free will, without someone steering the wheel of the car, the car is not in control. Free will for one person can prove to be detrimental to someone else. "It is all fun and games until someone gets hurt." Total control under the universal principles mentioned would drive the car and the car would be humans. (If I gave total control to government, then humans would be in charge of humans. Meaning I am letting humans drive humans. This is not the case, I established from the beginning that humans are not in charge. It is proven that I meant this by the statement above.) R1)-With humans living according to the principles, this society would work. (I said humans... meaning all humans, not humans controlling other humans.) ===Bluesteel’s arguments that need revision: The Statist society mentioned does not practice the principles mentioned. If they did, this proves that humans should not rule over other humans under free will anyway. Humans should not live in anarchy under free will as well, it is not logically impossible. All of his arguments about people controlling other people are moot for my opponent thinks that power only derives from the government, and that he thinks that I am actually debating this point. My opponent's other points about Somalia do not count for humans under total control, power does not derive from humans, humans do not have the ability for total control. Especially under the set universal principles so that argument is void. ===Car analogy: Systematical error, my opponent states that cars can drive themselves effectively... Under the world of free will, humans cannot drive themselves in compliance to the principles. We can draw up semantics but the execution is not always there. ===bastardizing free will: My opponent is stating that understanding right is better than doing the right thing. "Having a conception of ethics, like the nonaggression principle, solves my opponent’s objection. People can have free will and yet live by certain norms of behavior. In fact, studies at the Infant Cognition Center at Yale show that even babies know right from wrong, meaning acting morally, such as respecting someone’s right to life, is an innate attribute. [3]" In this statement, it does not say anything about doing the right thing. Instead he talks about understanding the right thing. ===There is good in everyone: There is good in everyone, so everyone should want to do the right thing. The problem with people is that all people do not do the right thing. ===Communism is good: When my opponent said, that has nothing to do with free will, he was thinking that total control of humans had something to do with the government controlling humans. By the way, bluesteel is wrong, true Marxist communism has never been practiced. Why has it not been practiced one asks? The reason why is because no government has successfully went from capitalist to socialist to communism ever. In fact true communism is extreme left. Yes, free of government, free of class. This is exactly what it sounds like, anarchy. This is the reason why true communism has never been practiced, because it is not logically possible in a world with free will. This is what free will has to do with true communism. With free will, true communism has never been attempted. Since true communism is anarchy, Stalin’s Russia never practiced true communism, Cuba nor has China ever practiced true communism as well. ===Stalin is not Marxist Communism No it is not, my opponent’s statement still comes from a confused opponent who thinks that I would put humans in total control of other humans. This is laughable. ===Free will the ability to choose: Yes, under free will, people have the ability to choose what they want. My world sort of works the same. In the world of total control, you are controlled to do everything as long as it follows my principles. Concern for the well-being of others Respect for the autonomy of others Trustworthiness & honesty Willing compliance with the law (with the exception of civil disobedience) Basic justice; being fair Refusing to take unfair advantage Benevolence: doing good Preventing harm Now, my opponent brings up a good point that he wants to eat a juicy steak, then bam he is forced to eat chicken. Hedonism- On one view, human beings always act in pursuit of what they think will give them the greatest balance of pleasure over pain. http://plato.stanford.edu... This falls under concern for well-being. If one desired steak, he would eat steak as long as it fell into compliance with the other rules. Such as, one can have the steak as long as it is not the last piece of steak. Bluesteel has to prove that taking the last piece of steak in a world of free will, is better than living in compliance to total control. He would have that explain why greed would be the better choice. Going to work for 16 hours and sleeping in is the same thing. Let us say that one wants to sleep in (well-being) but cannot, because everyone is counting on that person to wake up at 6 (compliance with the law). Or working that 16 hours you cannot work 16 hours, (well-being) unless your job is short on people(being fair). ===Existentialism “According to Derrida, political and moral responsibility only exists where one has to go through the confusion to get to the truth of the undecided . . .” It was hard to establish universal right and wrong, but we did it. Now I think it was already decided that basic humans know morals, what is the good in just knowing the truth. Shouldn’t we just go all the way into doing the right thing all of the time according to the principles. The principles are not demanding, one is controlled to do what he desires unless it interferes with the other principles. Who cares about credit for doing the right thing? One should do the right thing because it is what one is supposed to do not because one gets rewarded for it… can I get a hell yeah for that one. ===who will be in Control My opponent asks who as in person. There is no person in control of controlling humans in total control.