As humans we have shared fundamental needs. Take personal survival as an example. To meet this need we must ensure our safety from the violence of each other and from the violence of people who are not members of our society. The mechanism to serve . . . this . . . goal is a government.' Because I agree with Thomas Attig, I must affirm the topic that 'an oppressive government is more desirable than no government.'
Before I continue, I'd like to define a few key terms in the topic. [All definitions are from American Heritage.]
Oppressive is defined as unjust or difficult to bear.
Government is the exercise of authority in a political unit.
Desirable is defined as worth having or seeking, as by being useful or advantageous.
Since the topic asks us to evaluate the most desirable situation for humanity, my Value Premise is Individual Welfare. In order to achieve individual welfare, my criteria are
1)The preservation of social order
2)The fulfillment of fundamental needs.
The only way in which to ensure individual welfare is to maintain societal stability while at the same time protecting the individual.
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 nature to provide.
(1)First of all, a government provides individuals with external security. 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. The absence of a government, however, would leave individuals defenseless from outside aggressors. Any government, oppressive or not, provides for this basic external security, which is a prerequisite to securing fundamental needs.
(2)Secondly, government possesses the ability to maintain order within society. As Austin Fagothey states 'Anarchists...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document