My proposition is to pit the idea that a society would benefit more by having no government against the idea that it would benefit more by having government.
Government being understood as an entity that that has the possibility to dictate and enforce rules. I don’t think government is a controversial term anyway.
I want to refute the idea of government as we know it, but I am ok with the use of non-existant/never-before-proposed theoretical forms of government.
If a more regular user is interested, maybe he can suggest judges.
I would want to defend Anarchism.
5 posts with three-day intervals sounds good to me but I am open to suggestions.
I think it is a generous offer, seeing as there is no one specific form of government that you would have to defend. However, I am confident in my position.
If you look through the Debates, you’ll see an ILO v. ILP Debate involving substantially the same thing. I’m sure you’ll find someone to take you up on this, though. I would volunteer to Judge regardless of who the other participant is.
Well, I figure the subject is so broad that you could do a hundred debates on it and not repeat one.
If nothing changes I’m taking you up on that. I read your debate with tabular on Inevitabilism Vs. Compatabilism and I think I would trust you as a judge.
I would challenge lack of government on the grounds that anarchy is not sustainable unless depending entirely upon a perfect human race adhering flawlessly to a universal moral code, and even then, whether or not it would be, by definition, anarchy is plagued by dubiousness. In short, I would challenge that anarchy, in its conceptual foundations, is not feasible.
Agreed. It would need to be avoided that anarchy means a complete absence of governing structures. Anarchy would need to mean a minimum or least sufficiency of such structures. It can easily be established that “pure” anarchy is impossible since humans are social creatures and would naturally form new ad hoc governing groups as soon as they were faced with their total lack - particularly if we are dealing with competition for resources, which is almost certainly the case. Debating anarchy in the conditions of either absence of competition for resources or absence of human inability to come to perfect agreement on morals, expectations and behavioral regulatory norms is in effect to margnialize the debate into a total obscurity of blatantly unrealistic and extremely exceptional, impossible conditions.
I assume the debator would like to focus as much as possible on arguing for and within a general reference to the actual characteristics of humanity and conditions of life on earth, at least as much as possible…
I would define a governing structure (and yes, I would argue for no governing structers) as one where orders and/or rules are given and compulsory to anybody residing in a specific geographical location, minus any exceptions explicitly stated, however the orders/rules are arrived at. Also, the purpose of a governing structure is to govern, so rule/order drafting must be its principal aim.
Compulsory meaning that there is some system in place designed to make sure.
For example, a school is not a governing structure because governing is not its principal aim.
I think any format will do… freestyle if you will. Intellectual honesty is the only restriction. Unless you insist on any other format.
Also, if you’re arguments are mind-blowing enough, I’d agree and shift; at which point I guess you’d win by default. I’m doing this more for the philosophical exploration than the sport. I assure you, however, that it will be tough to achieve that.
So government then is the power of force to compel obedience? Do you distinguish between various types of compulsions? Is an agrarian collective of 1000 people who all choose to follow common rules about sharing land, materials and wealth a “government” in your eyes, or does a “government” have to include possibility for physical restraint and active deployment of weaponry against those who choose not to obey? Is one leader of ten different family farms, the other farms agreeing on the wisdom of the one, a government? The leader exists to make rules for others to follow, right?
My point is this: to consider society itself, in any minimal form at all, is to also conceive of at least a functional minimum of governance. So with anarchy are you arguing that there would be NO society, no collective or communal relations at all? How does the possibility for ANY society appear toyou, in the total absence of all “orders or rules that are compulsory”? For that matter, what does “compulsory” even mean, to you? To me, compulsory includes a wide range from total police force through force of law and threat down to incentive to remain part of a collective group and continue to enjoy the fruits of that membership without being excluded or marginalized from it.
Aletheia, I’m not sure we’re supposed to do this part of the debate here. I think we agree on terms of debate and definitions.
Pezermeregild and Pavlovian (where/if applicable)
Definitions (by pezermeregild, parentheses/brackets are my interpretations where noted) Governing Structure/Government: where orders and/or rules are given and compulsory (the presence of a system to ensure cooperation/subordination [my interpretation of pezermeregild’s definition of compulsory]) to anybody residing in a specific geographical location, minus any exceptions explicitly stated, however the orders/rules are arrived at.*
Anarchy: Absence of governing structure/government as defined above.
*Also, the purpose of a governing structure is to govern, so rule/order drafting must be its principal aim.
Though I find the sentence noted with an asterisk to be dubious, as I find such drafting to be a means rather than an end (the end being an ideal society and/or social structure, whether in a utilitarian or egoist sense), but I nonetheless feel I could present a convincing argument with the definitions as you’ve presented them.
Format
I’m not sure about what you mean by “freestyle”. I am also of the opinion that intellectual honesty is not enforceable/distinguishable. As such, I can only state my intention of always maintaining intellectual honesty, but I cannot present verification.
That said, I think the Starchild Debate had an agreeable overall format.
I’m not sure how these things are supposed to proceed. Any insight would be greatly appreciated.
SIDE NOTE: I doubt if either of you would PM me, but just for the record, any PM’s sent to me by either of the Debate Participants will be ignored until the conclusion of the Debate.
Hey kiddos, I don’t mind a quick come-back for the purposes of judgement. Me and Pav will be impartial, unbiased and all those other things beginning with im, or un. Good luck everyone, mind your grammar and capitalization.