Debate Info

Corrupt government Anarchism
Debate Score:10
Total Votes:10
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 Corrupt government (3)
 Anarchism (5)

Debate Creator

PolicyDebate(116) pic

Which is better- a corrupt government or no government?

Which is more morally justified?

Corrupt government

Side Score: 3


Side Score: 7

There is no room for improvement in an anarchist society. People can change the government through revolt and civil disobedience under a corrupt government- something that cannot be done with no government. Some people might say that something similar could happen in anarchism, by creating a government. But I ask, who is going to do that? Moreover, how is society going to accept that leader? There is no 'higher authority' and no one within the society will ever be more qualified to run the government their way than the next person.

Also, a government's job is to protect its citizens. Even if they are corrupt, something needs to be done to prevent killing and foreign threats. Otherwise, total chaos will erupt.

While corruption is bad, it is better than nothing.

Side: Corrupt government
ta9798(316) Disputed
2 points

It is difficult to know for sure since every attempt at creating an anarchist society has been destroyed by some opposing military power(Catalonia Spain in the 1930s), but anarchy appears it would be better. Just because their is no government does not mean that an anarchist society would be in chaos. Anarchist societies still have organizations, but everyone in them has an equal voice and status. organizations do not reign power over others but help to organize to create a fair society that produces what it needs for everyone. if a state of anarchism could be reached then little improvement would be needed and adding government would not be an improvement to anarchists in the first place.

A government's job is to protect its citizens but that doesn't mean it will. Take for instance the recent disaster in Burma, the military dictatorship didn't feel an obligation to protect its citizens. only after several weeks has limited aid been allowed in and distribution is still strongly controlled and monitored.

In an anarchist society there would be no government to hand out aid but communities could. because communities of equal status are more important to an anarchist society there would be greater incentive for them to help out other communities in danger or after mass disasters.

Corruption is bad (especially in dictatorships) and it creates suffering and mass loss of life; it is not better than nothing, and anarchism isn't nothing it's just not government.

Side: Anarchism
Bradf0rd(1431) Disputed
1 point

How do you suppose an organization would operate well without specialization and a hierarchy? Who will decide on what to do in difficult situations? It will likely be few of them, overlooking many... that's where you lose your individuality and a new government forms.

Side: Corrupt government
1 point

Depends on what exactly is corrupted in the government. If it still secures domestic peace it still serves it's basic function... Why not?

Anarchism is a man's dream to return to nature... and it's nothing more than a dream. As soon as you have anarchy, people start setting up a new hierarchy... So basically, it would be, one single corrupt government, or no government for a while and many smaller corrupt governments...

Also, when a government goes corrupt, it's usually straightened out by revolution which leaves government intact via tyranny, but then later reforms into a more stable government.

It's a long and difficult process, so how many of them would you like to work on? One big one, or thousands of smaller ones?

Side: Corrupt government
2 points

Most of the things in our daily life are anarchistic in nature. Government doesn't get involved in EVERYTHING we do. To eliminate government from a few more places in our life would not harm us.

To put it in perspective, someone in a communist of socialists country probably gets most of their everyday things from the government, including food. If you were to suggest to them that private industry handle the way food is made and distributed, people in such countries would think you were insane. They would say that people would be starving in the streets and all food would be poisonous and inedible, but we know this is untrue. The same goes for people who get services from their country, in any country.

Most people are afraid of anarchy because they went to schools run by, you guessed it, the government! It's really no wonder that the public schools teach us that government is necessary, it would be stupid for the government to not have it thoroughly permeate our curriculum. Next time you say that anarchy is chaos, think about why you say that. Chances are, you are just thinking the way public schooling taught you to think. It's not your fault.

"Liberty is the Mother, not the daughter, of Order"

Everyday Anarchy
Side: Anarchism

First off, just because there is no government does not mean that there is chaos. There can be several political organizations that could rise in power, creating a balancing force of power- just enough to prevent chaos.

Plus, there is freedom in an anarchist society. With anarchism, moral codes, as well as the desire for the greater good, prevent prevent people from doing certain things (like killing someone). However, in a corrupt government, there are necessary laws like killing someone (which most people won't do anyway), and also unnecessary laws to stuff politician pockets. These laws take away basic freedoms and rights.

Finally, corrupt leaders can destroy governments for good. They can rig elections so they return for life, only to oppress people for decades. At least with anarchism there is room to make a government.

Side: Anarchism
1 point


Side: Anarchism