Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

1. Then It's an arbitrary rule YOU made up and didn't tell anybody. It's your own damn fault.Can a debate be sparked from a person simply stating a stance? If yes, then nothing else is necessary to start a debate. That's it, sorry to disappoint you.2. If you didn't understand what I meant and you "wondered" what I was getting at, then you should ask for clarification. Everyone else grasps this concept, I'm sure you could to.3. Then you ADMIT to using uncommon rules, especially uncommon for this site. If you have specific guidelines for your debate then it's YOUR responsibility to outline them ahead of time. It's NOT my responsibility to guess.I'd disagree that posting an argument would be a waste of your time as you may find that once it's written down that you yourself find a glaring hole in it.You assume I haven't debated this issue copious amounts of times in the past. I've written arguments for my stance so many times if there was some glaring whole that could be seen simply by writing it, I would have come across it already.So no, there would still be no point.Besides, even if there was something wrong with my arguments, it STILL wouldn't make sense to post several of them before they come up in debate. If there's a problem, naturally whomever takes issue with my stance will question me into realizes any flaw, assuming they're competent.Anyway,False. Taxation is one of the fund raising options available to a government. Other options include issuing treasury bonds, exporting resources or invading a neighbor and selling all of their resources. I'm sure you can think of many more options.Could the U.S. army sustain itself based solely on the funds it extracts from Iraq? Of course they can't, that's just stupid. Every government knows without a tax base they have no power. It takes 2 tings to run a government.1. Coercion2. Public belief in the states virtue It takes both, just one will cause you to grow less and collapse sooner. Every (half-competent) successful politician since the dawn of politicians has known this.False. No part of using taxation as a fund raising method then limits the use of those funds to providing monopolized services. The funds may be used to provide services which are not monopolized and non-government alternatives are available, they could be used to build a new palace for a king, or they could be used to find families for all of the orphans in the nation.This is just an immature point to make. O.K., so the government can also use the money to keep themselves fat and well accommodated. I'll give you that but, that's more a point for my stance, not yours. XDAnd yes, the ever gracious government allows some "competition" to some of it's services, but this "competition" is just an illusion as payment for government services are mandatory. Even if you don't want to use it and you want to use a non-state service, you'll have to pay both. Most people just aren't in that situation, or even willing. It is in this way that government can both have it's monopoly AND seem like good guys by offering us a choice.Wrong. If people chose goods and services because they are optimal then advertising campaigns would not be as helpful as they are to the bottom line. There's a little more to why people choose the things they choose than mere optimality.You're very quick to say wrong on these points. I'm beginning to think you're reading my comment with the mind-set it's wrong and just making up reasons that fit your belief.When was the last time you saw a commercial advertising a government service? They don't need to fork out the cash to advertise, they have a mandatory payment system. How do you think a company acquires the money to mass advertise? Either they lobby the state to for "regulations" that make it harder for new companies to grow, or they offer such a damn good product/service that people willingly pay them enough for them to advertise. Without government, only the later is possible.I mean, it's like you didn't even bother with a simple thought experiment before you made this point. =/Also, I'm wondering what regime you're referring to. I'm not sure when the last time a person was sentenced to death for not paying taxes.It hasn't happened in the U.S. as far as I know, but all that proves is that no one pushed the state that far, not that the state wouldn't do it.Think about it, if you don't pay your taxes what happens? Well, you get a letter, then another letter, maybe a couple more. then they send someone to collect it, if you still refuse they send a court notice. If you don't show they get police to come kidnap you. And if you STILL refuse to pay they will either have to kill you or somehow manage to throw you in prison.Even then, your only incentive to not break out of prison is that they will kill you. All the letters and court rulings in the world mean nothing if they wont kill you in the end. Usually the government only has to go as far as extracting the funds from your bank account since most people value their lives enough to live under the governments rule.Finally, it is true that taxes are legally compelled but that's no different to you compelling someone to pay rent.Not true. Rent is a completely voluntary system. You agree on a price when you move in, if you don't want to live there anymore you can leave. Taxation is something you "owe" the government for just existing on land they claim, even though most of it is vastly unused.You aren't allowed to opt out of government services. You must pay them. And there is no agreeing on "price", you pay what they want you to pay. The land lord offers you a home. The government didn't build my home, but they still want my money. You're land lord doesn't take extra money off your salary and charge you extra for everything you purchase. There are few things less similar.The premises have been disposed of so the conclusion stands unsupported. However, 'optimal' has yet to be defined.No it hasn't. By "optimal" I just mean "better than any other company is doing". This statement does not follow from the preceding argument given. It's function here is to create the sense that the preceding argument is somehow relevant to the main question by equivocating on the word "corruption". To clarify, corruption here means political corruption which is "the use of legislated powers by government officials for illegitimate private gain". Refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_(political) ) ) for further clarification.I LOVE how you always seem to bring things up after the fact, but still act as though it's something I should have just "known". XD I was using the word corruption as it is in the dictionary because all you said was "corruption". Now you mean "political corruption"? I said what I said as a summary of everything i said previous. It was a "bottom-line" kind of deal. You say you want to know if a government can exist free of corruption, I say it's very structure is one of corruption, therefore it cannot exist free of corruption. Government is set up by corrupt, for the corrupt. It's structure is based on power over the common man by monopolizing all the most necessary services an making payment mandatory. Further corruption is only a given as this set-up will attract all the most greedy and power-hungry people. A society DOESN'T need a government to sustain itself AND it works better without one. The only reason for government is to support the lifestyle of the politicians. For that to work, they have to convince the population that they NEED the Government either by creating problems only the government can solve or teach the next generation about the validity of the state by setting up government education camps and making attendance mandatory for 12 years. Is that corrupt enough for you, or do you still think further corruption is necessary for you to finally view the state as illegitimate?