Week 2 - LGHiskas vs. Matt Fox

Discussion in 'Cigar Lounge Debator's League' started by FromTheSouth, Apr 4, 2010.

  1. FromTheSouth

    FromTheSouth You don't want it with me.

    Mar 18, 2008
    Likes Received:
    LG will affirm the topic, TM will judge. Thread will be open for a week.

    Resolved: A state of anarchy is preferable to a state of totalitarianism.
  2. lghikas

    lghikas Occasional Pre-Show

    Jan 17, 2010
    Likes Received:
    A state of anarchy is preferable to a state of totalitarianism.

    Alright I feel a bit more comfortable with this topic than the last one. Also this should be pretty fun, at least for me, each state is on the complete opposite of the other. Good Luck Matt Fox.

    Anarchy isn't no rules, it is just simply no rulers. Instead of a group or a single person, like in a Totalitarian government, those that live in an Anarchist state decide on the rules. And generally the main principle of Anarchy is generally the principles of the individual or person and not trespassing on other. Just keep it simple and don't violate other.

    Another thing is people in Anarchist states all by into the local custom laws. Therefore Anarchy isn't like some of the ways it portrayed on TV. Anarchy isn't confusion and mass chaos, it almost the exact opposite. With everyone buying into the laws, unlike Totalitarian States there is very little need to force people or coerce people into following something they don't want to. Instead persuasion and cooperation, along with voluntary exchange are much more preferred and acceptable.

    Unlike in Totalitarian people in general have much more freedoms and less restrictions. People are free to pursue that elusive pursuit of happiness. You can associate with who you want to. Do business and contract people you want to.

    Anarchy is just being Free, unlike the evils and controlling Totalitarian governments.
  3. Spaceman Spif

    Spaceman Spif Getting Noticed By Management

    May 18, 2007
    Likes Received:
    Good luck to you as well and good debating.

    One could say though that without rules, chaos and anarchy does ensue. Anarchy can be loosely translated and each translation worded differently. I agree with what you said, I feel it is the closest translation that is the truest. However still the fact remains that if each individual retains the right to make their own rules, then it is a given they will do whatever they please. You can not expect a person to not trespass on another if there will be no one to stop him because there is no law or people to uphold the law. Every person has a right to certain privileges, but they do not have a right to make their own rules because they do not believe in the laws that are in place already.

    No there are no laws in the strict sense of the word when it comes to Anarchy, however there are unwritten rules if you will. Anarchy isn't always confusion and mass chaos, but it can be and it can have very deadly consequences.

    August 18, 1995 | By JOHN BALZAR, TIMES STAFF WRITER

    A drunk staggers through a vegetable market and squashes some tomatoes. Shoppers drop their packages and kick him to death. In the same week, a man is accused of trying to steal a goat. Neighbors pounce and kill him with clubs. Elsewhere, a pastor argues with his sister, uproots plants in her garden and knocks her over with a hoe. Local residents track the cleric down, tie him with ropes and stone him to death.


    Long before 24 men in the Pena family were gunned down in a gruesome ambush last week, Mayor Pedro Moreno Chapa had complained to state authorities of the murder and lawlessness in his mountain town. The Pena murders may be the worst case of revenge to hit this heavily armed farm community in the southern Sierra Madre, but it is certainly not the only one.

    That's just two stories, two stories of people acting outside the law, acting on their own accord because they did not agree with the laws, the rules, and look what happens, death. Granted these people may not be model citizens and may have been breaking the laws themselves, but you can not justify what happened to them, because the offenders where following their own rules.

    It is true that Anarchists have more freedoms and less restrictions or at least they believe they do. Yet how can you still stand by a ideal that has long since been corrupted from it's original purpose? Anarchy has been manipulated and it's views distorted for so long, that you you rarely see a true Anarchist anymore, what you see is thugs in bandannas throwing rocks, molatav cocktails and whatever else they use at innocent people and officers trying to enforce the laws of whatever country they are in.

    When it comes down to it, Anarchy is not preferable to totalitarianism. Yes you have less freedoms and more restrictions, but that is the price we pay to know that we have a governing body who will take care of us, who will watch over us and who will step in and keep us safe in times of danger or threat. I know I'd much rather not be able to walk down the middle of the road, or not run a red light just because I can, if by not doing so, means I have people protecting me. I mean really they truly don't try to run every aspect of your life in a Totalitarian system, they only try to run what is feasible for them to run and that is fine by me, because that means, there will not be people able to walk around doing as they see fit, following no laws, because they don't feel they have too.
  4. Mr. TM

    Mr. TM Throwing a tantrum

    Mar 16, 2007
    Likes Received:
    LGHiskas told us what Anarchy was, but he hardly even touched on the surface of why it is preferred. I can hardly give him 15 points for that. Matt Fox just needed to say why Anarchy was worse than totalitarianism to tie him up there, yet he proved some examples, and told us all what was better about it. I give him 30.

    MF 30-15 LGH

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"