People will compete for resources, and it will be violent.
If government collapses, there will be no one to keep this status quo. Any government, oppressive or not, provides for this basic external security, which is a prerequisite to securing fundamental needs.
Now we have to define exactly what a law is. Simply because of this awareness, individuals are able to unite more effectively against this one consolidation of power. Individuals, groups, and organizations would constantly be involved in variety of struggles, and each group would be vying for its own selfish interests.
The obvious reality being that we are the product of our environments, and that true freedom can only be obtained in a world of infinite possibilities where you are the only one pulling the strings in your reality. Desirable is defined as worth having or seeking, as by being recyclable or advantageous.
My second contention is that an oppressive government is more desirable than no government because society with an oppressive government is more conducive to reform.
Oppressive governments are not primarily concerned with aging away life because by systematically killing all of their subjects, such governments would be diminishing their own power. Naturally, people seek organization in their entropic world, meaning a government is logically sound.
In an oppressive government, we have money being spread to places like fire departments, police, etc. This is my most general contention of the three, and it will not only sum up the reason why governments are better but also provide a well-defined link among them.
Some people receiving benefits versus everyone constantly struggling, constantly fighting — Inch is what will happen if there is no government — is indeed a better comparison. Under an oppressive government, all individuals know who their common enemy is, and they are aware of the origin of the threat to their liberty.
The mechanism to serve. In other words, the mere existence of a government allows for society as a whole to have a defense mechanism against foreign powers because a government must provide such protection in order to preserve itself. This is not how it works. Security is NOT reached in this system.
The claim that countries without a government will have a longer lifespans is incorrect. Without a set government, the society will fall to ruin and chaos under the law of entropy.
An anarchist country, which is dictated by mob rule, has more capability to oppress her citizens than any regime. Since the topic asks us to evaluate the most desirable situation for humanity, my Value Premise is Individual Welfare. A general government could mean a hypothetical perfect government.
The only federal power in which to ensure somebody welfare is to maintain social stability while at the same time shelter the individual.
Virtually half and half, and if there were no government or leading figure, people would fall straight back into the state of war and kill each other for conflicting opinions. Kidnappings for ransoms are rampant without an established force to prevent this.
The absence of a government, however, would leave Individuals defenseless from outside aggressors.
If we examine the topic, oppression is going to occur on both sides. In other words, the mere existence of a government allows for society as a whole to have a defense mechanism against foreign powers because agovernment must provide such protection in order to preserve itself.
Oppressive governments give at least some part of this value, and therefore, should be considered. The state of nature is therefore characterized by a lack of unity. This perfectly coordinates with my value, as social welfare and system benefits are needed to maintain life.
Despite a government placing unfair restrictions on certain groups, a social welfare is still upheld. If a leader can convince people that he or she can bring peace and stability to an anarchist state, people will want them in power. Government ensures that the status quo is maintained.
Individuals, groups, and organizations would constantly be involved in variety of struggles, and ACH group would be Wing for its own selfish interests.
The oppressive government serves to provide us with a universal standard of conduct that governs our behavior, provides a basis for stable contract formation, provides assurance that rights will be supported at least for someand provides for the protection of property.
Because individuals are so divided in this state of nature, it becomes virtually impossible to unite and achieve a consensus on establishing a government. What more is there to say? Things they might say; -- The assumption here is that people cannot act civilized on their own and that they need a "Big brother" figure in order to do right.An oppressive government is more desirable than no government at all.
Hello everyone, my name is Christopher Denq and I am the affirmative side of this debate. An oppressive government Is more desirable than no government at all - Speech on Oppressive Governments vs.
No Government at All introduction. Hello everyone, my name is Christopher Eden and I am the affirmative side of this debate. I would like to firstly provide two basic definitions relevant to this topic, followed by the value.
Check out the online debate Oppressive government is more desirable than no government. May 21, · My first contention is that an oppressive government is more desirable than no government because government, in any form, provides certain advantages that are impossible for the state of genius to provide.
] Thus more potential for change exists under an oppressive government because it would be much easier to reform the existing system than it would be to create an entirely new system. (2)(2) Secondly, the state of nature, in contrast, has more potential for oppression.
?Debate: An Oppressive government is more desirable than no government at all Argument: An oppressive government provides safety and asylum while man in a.Download