Oppressive government is more desirable than no government.

Sorry for the late response; I was on a camping trip. I affirm the resolution: Oppressive government is more desirable than no government. To clarify the resolution, I will provide the following definitions: An "oppressive government" is one that actively works to harm the natural rights of its citizens. Please note that a lazy government that is merely incompetent at performing its duties does not qualify as an oppressive government. "No government" is the absence of a formal institution that acts as a third body which is outside of the populace; however, it may be made up of members from that populace. Lastly, when the resolution states "more desirable," I believe it is the people whose desire we are discussing. For a given people, is an oppressive government more desirable than no government? I believe that is the question my opponent and I must answer. In this debate, I value societal welfare since we are discussing whether an oppressive government is more desirable than no government for a given society. We are debating which scenario would better benefit a society. Therefore, my criterion is utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is the doctrine that actions are right if they benefit the majority of a society. This develops societal welfare because society should be based upon the interest of the most people within it. Hence it is the underlying criterion for the debate. Contention One: Government is needed to create order in a society. Although an oppressive government harms the natural rights of its citizens, people still feel somewhat safe and secure because they know who"s in charge, and they are aware of laws that prevent people from doing anything they want with them, such as murdering them for their assets. However, in the absence of government, people naturally feel they cannot trust others and thus they fend for themselves by acquiring limited resources at the expense of others. As John Mearsheimer states, "anarchy leads to uncertainty about other"s intentions and fear about one"s survival. " With no government, people don"t know who to trust but themselves. This leads to a competition that relies on the concept of the survival-of-the-fittest, and such a competition will result in multiple groups in a society fighting each other for resources and power. According to Thomas Hobbes, this could potentially lead to a civil war: "man in the state of nature seeks nothing but his own selfish pleasure, but such individualism naturally leads to a war. .. The State determines what is just and unjust. .. " As stated in the excerpt, when people are unaware of who"s in charge and what laws exist, they don"t know who to depend on; they can only trust themselves. On the other hand, an oppressive government can at least efface such fear and societal dysfunction by declaring power and making the public aware of what actions are "right" and "wrong," even if those dictations are not always justified. This theory of humans becoming deplorable in the absence of government has even been proven by countries that have recently faced anarchy. According to the New York Times, "For weeks, rival Libyan militias had been pounding one another"s positions with artillery, mortar rounds and rockets in a desperate fight to control the international airport in the capital, Tripoli. " After overthrowing Gaddafi"s oppressive regime, Libya did not become a lawless yet peaceful utopia, but instead another civil war erupted. People fought each other in order to acquire power and resources (in this case, Tripoli"s international airport), and they did this because survival-of-the-fittest is something that is hardwired into all animals, including humans. And in the absence of government, there is no bulwark against this human failing. Thus, an oppressive government is more desirable for a society because at least it can channel order, even if it is at the expense of some of the people"s basic rights (ie. Freedom of Religion, Freedom of the Press, etc. ) On the contrary, no government results in chaos which does not create societal welfare since the majority of the population are negatively impacted by the fighting. Contention Two: Government is needed to provide public services. Subpoint A: Properly distributing standard resources. Main services that only a government can provide include law enforcement, social services (roads, education, health care, etc. ), and distribution of money supply. These three services cannot be provided in a society run by anarchy because self-interests would be prioritized. As John Mearsheimer states, "Without a sovereign, surplus goods are obtained by those most powerful. " This is a result of the survival-of-the-fittest concept, stated in my first contention; those able to have a more victorious stance in the competition end up with excessive goods and services, while the rest of the population is deprived. Sharing these resources with those less fortunate would not occur because as stated in my first contention, people would be too busy fighting for the surplus goods and services. Thus, it is up to a government to properly allocate these resources. Oppressive governments can more easily subordinate individual liberty to the pursuit of public services and, as a result, uphold them in even the most difficult of instances and in the face of tons of opposition. This upholds by my criterion, utilitarianism, since the majority of the population benefits from the proper distribution of resources. As a result of the majority benefitting, societal welfare is fulfilled. Subpoint B: Protecting the society from foreign threats. As stated in my first contention, in the absence of government, chaos will ensue since different groups of people are fighting each other in order to acquire resources and power. If different people of a society are fighting each other, this makes the entire society more vulnerable to foreign attacks, such as invasion. This is precisely the problem that occurred in India two hundred years ago: "British control of India was largely brought about by the fall of the Mogul Empire and the subsequent division of India. " As stated by the excerpt, different empires within India were too busy fighting each other in order to acquire the entire state of India. As a result, the British could easily enter India and make alliances with several groups in order to conquer the entire country for its resources. If India had a federal government, this procedure would not have been nearly as simple since the country could unitedly build a strong defense. An oppressive government can properly defend its society as well since its incentive is to not allow a foreign state to steal its power. Not only can an oppressive government defend itself from invasions, but also the exploitation of its resources. With an oppressive government in charge, foreigners cannot simply enter the country and freely take away its resources; certain regulations would be enacted. On the other hand, an anarchy would enable foreigners to simply join the civil war. This is a problem Libya currently faces: "The al-Qaeda clandestine network may also be utilizing tribal and ethnic divides to gain access to artillery, especially southern Libya. " As stated, foreign groups are able to obtain some of Libya"s goods since there is no federal government to stop them. Invasion and exploitation damage the welfare of any society, thereby violating the value of this debate. I now await my opponent's opening statement. Sources: . http://www.e-ir.info... . http://www.spaceandmotion.com... . http://www.nytimes.com... . http://www.victorianweb.org... . http://fas.org...