CreateDebate


Debate Info

8
6
Less Government, More freedom! We need Government!
Debate Score:14
Arguments:9
Total Votes:18
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Less Government, More freedom! (5)
 
 We need Government! (4)

Debate Creator

TyTheTiger(104) pic



Anarchism

I almost fee like taking down this debate after seeing how perfectly retarded some of the comments are.

It's really depressing me =(

 

http://fringeelements.ning.com/page/series-1

Less Government, More freedom!

Side Score: 8
VS.

We need Government!

Side Score: 6
2 points

We need government, no doubt about it. We did fine with much less government and never went to anarchy.

Having just enough government is where it's at.

Side: Less Government, More freedom!
1 point

Minarchism is way better. Anarchism can only function for a short period of time before someone else takes over so in reality it is more of a transition then an actual form of government.

Though libertarianism is way better then what we have right now.

Side: Less Government, More freedom!
1 point

I wonder which would be harder, shrinking government or making it more transparent.

Anarchy is an ideal. Less government, more freedom is a nice way of putting it. But I would add that it is more about changing the nature of government institutions from authoritative to negotiative, rather that the abolition of governmental institutions altogether. (which is totally unrealistic if you ask me).

Certain things require our attention however... and when we can ignore them no longer?...how do we act with even a semblance of unison without authoritarianism? Representative government at least addresses (albeit imperfectly) this dilemma. I hope we are entering an era of insubordination. (human dignity)

I will stop my incoherent rambling now. :B

Side: Less Government, More freedom!
2 points

With less government would come much less order. I recently came up with a huge debate for some relatives, but I haven't time right now.

Side: We need Government!
0 points

Anarchy doesn't work. It is human nature to band to a pack, whether it be their family or their direct community. It is a fallacy. If all were truly on their own, all the youth would die and latter would the remaining population. It is a selfish jest to claim it could ever occur. We are advanced today because we came together and worked for the benifit of eachother.

Side: We need Government!
atypican(4875) Disputed
2 points

Banding together as a pack does not require authoritarian rule. Working together for the common good does not require hierarchal social structures. What prominent anarchist thinkers' writings do you base your rather clichéd narrow view of anarchism on?

I would bet none.

“Anarchism is not a romantic fable but the hardheaded realization, based on five thousand years of experience, that we cannot entrust the management of our lives to kings, priests, politicians, generals, and county commissioners.” ~Edward Abbey

Side: Less Government, More freedom!
1 point

I will admit that my disposition on the matter was determined void of any writings but was rather based on my conversations with self-proclaimed anarchists whom, upon reflection, had no basis either. As you could imagine, they didn't exactly explain their belief well. So was my understanding of anarchy.

-

it is my nature to keep an open mind, so I will listen to reason.

Side: Less Government, More freedom!
0 points

First of all, anybody with any form of authority would be brought down. This would include, but is not limited to, the following:

Teachers

Police officers

Lawyers

Judges

Fire fighters

While I understand that the reason for no government is to have no (or few) laws, anarchy also means a total lack of authority. Anybody that is considered to be an authority figure (such as those named) would be booted out.

However, we would still get all the psychos out there wanting to kill for the fun of it. But without authority, we would not have police to investigate these crimes, or the judicial system to try these crimes. However, what we would have is a bunch of lynch mobs, out to kill any and every suspect.

People would become lazy. They would have no incentive not to steal, and without any form of figurehead, wealth would be irrelevent: as I just stated, we would steal our way to wealth.

I agree that the government in this nation (America) has gotten out of hand, trying to impose laws on everything imaginable. Britain is trying to criminalize and make jailable minor offenses such as noisy music (or sex) or spitting (see ASBO or Anti-Social Behaviour Order). They also got Sharia Law, which will allow Muslims to do anything they want according to their laws rather than Britain's laws making them, in essence, above the law.

WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD GO FOR THAT?

I suppose that no government is in their right mind, but you must remember that anarchy not only means a lack of government, it means a state of confusion and discontrol.

I consider myself both a monarchist and a libertarian. Monarchist because I believe that George I (or any other monarch) ruled with much better discernment than any parliament or Senate or Congress ever could.

I consider myself a libertarian because I believe that if only a few essential laws were made, and the government spent more time trying to tackle major problems (like a $55T debt or enhancing the police force/technology) we would eventually eliminate almost any need for them. Note that I said 'almost'.

Side: We need Government!

Don't you dare give me a down vote without a reason! Joecavalry also says that (at least, I think it was him).

Side: We need Government!