LD 2013 NFL Nationals - Oppressive Govt - Neg ideas

 

Resolved: Oppressive government is more desirable than no government.


For part 1 - click here

Negation

The case of no government stirs images of chaos and disorder.  In fact anarchy, the condition of no government is often depicted as an unruly, lawless existence and the common perception of anarchists as counter-cultural hooligans, prone to destruction and violence is perpetuated in the media.  However, as I pointed out in previous analysis on this site, there is no reason to assume the anarchical state is not orderly or particularly dangerous.  Hobbes and other philosophers speak of the state of nature where life is brutish, nasty and short and surmises the formation of government as a means to avoid the brutal conditions.  However, this is not entirely consistent with the empirical evidence seen in history of societies which exist sans government.  Human beings are, after all, intellectual and capable of reasoning.  The philosophers are no doubt correct, humankind will tend to seek strategies which maximize their survival, and formation of societies offers advantages.  However, the formation of a government is another stage of societal development which is not necessarily the inevitable end-point of civilization.

Hasnas 2008:
"I am presenting an argument for anarchy in the true sense of the term; that is, a society without government, not a society without governance. There is no such thing as a society without governance. A society with no mechanism for bringing order to human existence is oxymoronic; it is not “society” at all.
One way to bring order to society is to invest some people with the exclusive power to create and coercively enforce rules which all members of society must follow; that is, to create a government. Another way to bring order to society is to allow people to follow rules that spontaneously evolve through human interaction with no guiding intelligence and may be enforced by diverse agencies. This chapter presents an argument for the latter approach; that is, for a spontaneously ordered rather than a centrally planned society."

For the purpose of this debate, there is no need to argue for the desirability of anarchical society as an alternative to a well-ordered, properly limited government which carries out its duties without significant infringement on the private freedoms of the constituents.  For this debate it is not necessary to present an anarchical existence as an ideal existence free from problems or coercion.  The Neg must only show that no government is at least as desirable as life under an oppressive government and perhaps even significantly more desirable under certain conditions.

Order in Anarchy

It is appropriate to begin this analysis with a look at an essay on the subject of statelessness, by David Friedman the self-described "anarchist-anachronist-economist" scholar who is currently Professor of Law at Santa Clara University.  Friedman provides some useful definitions:

Friedman (undated):
"An anarchy is a society without a government, so a discussion of anarchy requires a definition of government. Government cannot be defined by what it does, because all functions of government, including making and enforcing laws, have been, and most are, performed at some times and places by organizations that almost nobody would call governments.[1] This is a point I will discuss in more detail in parts II and III of this essay. So it makes sense to define government not by what functions it provides but by how it provides them. Weber famously described the state as “a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.” If we omit the word “legitimate,” no states exist, since no state succeeds in eliminating all use of physical force by others, whether muggers in Chicago or the Mafia in Sicily. But including “legitimate” raises difficult problems. If we “legitimate” with “legal” the definition is circular, since until we know what organization counts as the state we do not know what rules count as laws. Further, there are societies in which law is not viewed as the creation of the state at all–including all traditional Islamic societies–hence where some use of physical force by the state is seen as illegal and some use by non-state actors as legal. Defining “legitimate” in normative terms raises another set of problems. My preferred solution is to define rights in terms of the set of mutually recognized commitment strategies by which individuals constrain how other individuals act towards them, and to then define a government as an institution with regard to which those strategies do not apply, an institution which can violate what individuals view as their rights with regard to other individuals without setting off the responses by which such rights are normally defended."

While the balance of Friedman's essay is not necessarily useful for this particular debate it does provide some interesting insight into the theoretical issues and challenges facing an anarchical state.  This debate, however, is not arguing for an anarchical state as a desired alternative to say, a normal democratically governed state.  It needs to focus on the desirability of no government as an alternative to oppressive government.

The Value of Merchant Rule

Economic studies conducted by Delon and Shleifer of Harvard University, support the contention that oppressive governments of the kind typically associated with despots and autocrats suffer with respect to economies which operate under properly constrained government authority or oversight by a merchant ruling class.

Delong and Shliefer 1993:
"One of the oldest themes in economics is the incompatibility of depotism and development.  Economies in which security of property is lacking - because of either the possibility of arrest, ruin, or execution at the command of the ruling prince or the possibility of ruinous taxation - should experience relative stagnation. By contrast, economies in which property is secure - either because of strong constitutional restrictions on the prince or because the ruling elite is made up of merchants rather than princes - should prosper and grow."

Their research strongly suggests that oppressive governments tend to stifle their economies.  This is contrasted with the unoppressive governments and societies whose economies are managed, not by governments, but by a powerful merchant class; the kind of economy which can emerge in a society which lacks government. Libertarians have seized this research to illustrate the importance of market economies unfettered by intrusive governments and have turned it into an argument for less government with respect to the economy.  Despite its potential for politicization, the research very clearly describes a reason why no government may be more desirable that an oppressive one.

The Case of Somalia

Somalia lends itself as a of model of the development of an anarchical society.  While the recent history of Somalia is marked with war and suffering which has been more than visible in the news media, researchers have taken an interest in how the economy of Somalia evolved during the period.  Following the collapse of the central government in the late 1980's until recently, no single faction has held a monopoly on violence in Somalia.  Essentially, the Somali society has been ruled by rival warlords, and other factions and though conditions for the citizens have very difficult due to poverty, disease, droughts, etc. some researchers have gained insight into how a society can survive without a ruling central government.

Leeson 2007:
"The data depict a country with severe problems, but one which is clearly doing better under statelessness than it was under government. Of the 18 development indicators, 14 show unambiguous improvement under anarchy. Life expectancy is higher today than was in the last years of government’s existence; infant mortality has improved 24 percent; maternal mortality has fallen over 30 percent; infants with low birth weight has fallen more than 15 percentage points; access to health facilities has increased more than 25 percentage points; access to sanitation has risen eight percentage points; extreme poverty has plummeted nearly 20 percentage points; one year olds fully immunized for TB has grown nearly 20 percentage points, and for measles has increased ten; fatalities due to measles have dropped 30 percent; and the prevalence of TVs, radios, and telephones has jumped between 3 and 25 times."

The Neg Position

Finding real-world support for the Neg position is not that easy.  There are few if any practical, real-world examples and no examples of long term survival in the modern era.  The threat of take-over by other nations is great in situations where the formerly oppressive nation is resource rich.  The example of Somalia is the closest we have to a modern, real-world somewhat long-term (20 years) example and Somalia is not particularly resource-rich or strategic.  Most modern-day oppressive regimes which collapse are quickly replaced by other forms of government or regimes which meet the definition of governments.  For the Neg, the debate will be mainly theoretical and philosophical.  This should not be viewed as a weakness, however.  In fact, it allows the Neg debater to make claims which are not necessarily empirically denied.

For a practical point of view, I think of the nation of Syria.  Here was an allegedly oppressive regime, which was rejected by enough of the populous the central government lost its grip on the monopoly of violence.  At this point, we find a nation which I would argue, is already without an effective government thus the nation is in anarchy as factions vie for control.  The people could stop their revolt at any time and reestablish the former regime to power, but they have chosen to live with no government rather than an oppressive government and so it will continue until a new government is established, if ever.

This resolution does not imply that the anarchical state must permanently replace the oppressive one.  Neg must show it is better to live with no government than an oppressive one and implies it better to live without a government at least until we can replace it with a better one.

Princes and Merchants: European City Growth Before the Industrial Revolution
Journal of Law and Economics, vol XXXVI (October 1993)
J. Bradford DeLong and Andrei Shleifer, Harvard University
http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/shleifer/files/princes_merchants.pdf

John Hasnas. "The Obviousness of Anarchy." Anarchism/Minarchism: Is a Government Part of a Free Country?. Ed. Roderick Long & Tibor Machan. : Ashgate Press, 2008: 111-131
http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/Obvious.pdf

Better off stateless: Somalia before and after government collapse
Association for Comparative Economic Studies, 2007
Peter T. Leeson, George Mason University
http://usu.kochscholars.usu.edu/files/2012/11/Better-Off-Stateless.pdf

Order Without the State: Theory, Evidence, and the Possible Future Of
David Friedman, Professor of Law, Santa Clara University
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Order_without_the_state/Order_Without_the_State.htm

LD 2013 NFL Nationals - Oppressive Govt - Aff

Resolved: Oppressive government is more desirable than no government


For part 1 of this analysis, click here.

Affirmation

For the purposes of the this blog and the work I have been doing for the last 20 months, I think it is important to provide the debate community with some analysis of this particular topic, over and above the previous analysis I have contributed recently and last summer.  But I confess some reluctance to take it too deep mainly because I will be in Alabama in June, judging this very debate.  This topic in particular is complex in my estimation and I do not feel the need to assist novice debaters this late in the season.

For the Affirmative position, I want to give you some ideas and at the same time project some of the issues which I think contribute the complexity of this topic.  While I may not load you down with quotations, sources and evidence, I am hopeful you will find these posts useful to your research.

Oppression

Institutional Oppression is the systematic mistreatment of people within a social identity group, supported and enforced by the society and its institutions, solely based on the person’s membership in the social identity group.
Institutional Oppression occurs when established laws, customs, and practices systematically reflect and produce inequities based on one’s membership in targeted social identity groups. If oppressive consequences accrue to institutional laws, customs, or practices, the institution is oppressive whether or not the individuals maintaining those practices have oppressive intentions.
Institutional Oppression creates a system of invisible barriers limiting people based on their membership in unfavored social identity groups. The barriers are only invisible to those “seemingly” unaffected by it.
The practice of institutionalized oppression is based on the belief in inherent superiority or inferiority. Institutionalized oppression is a matter of result regardless of intent.

Src:
http://www.pcc.edu/resources/illumination/documents/institutionalized-oppression-definitions.pdf

The Social Work Dictionary, ed. Robert L. Barker defines oppression as: "The social act of placing severe restrictions on an individual, group or institution. Typically, a government or political organization that is in power places these restrictions formally or covertly on oppressed groups so that they may be exploited and less able to compete with other social groups. The oppressed individual or group is devalued, exploited and deprived of privileges by the individual or group which has more power." (Barker, 2003)

Oppression (Deutsch 2006: 10): “Oppression is the experience of repeated, widespread, systemic injustice. It need not be extreme and involve the legal system (as in slavery, apartheid, or the
lack of a right to vote) nor violent (as in tyrannical societies). Harvey (1999) has used the term “civilized oppression” to characterize the everyday processes of oppression in normal life. Civilized oppression “is embedded in unquestioned norms, habits, and symbols, in the assumptions underlying institutions and rules, and the collective consequences of following those rules. It refers to the vast and deep injustices some groups suffer as a consequence of often unconscious assumptions and reactions of well-meaning people in ordinary interactions that are supported by the media and cultural stereotypes as well as by the structural features of bureaucratic hierarchies and market mechanisms” (Young, 1990, p. 41). We cannot eliminate this structural oppression by getting rid of the rulers or by making some new laws, because oppressions are systematically reproduced in the major economic, political, and cultural institutions. While specific privileged groups are the beneficiaries of the oppression of other groups, and thus have an interest in the continuation of the status quo, they do not typically understand themselves to be agents of oppression.” (Deutsch, 2006)

Src:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mdover/website/Oppression%20Compendium%20and%20Materials/Definitions%20of%20Oppression.pdf

The Magnitude and Limits of Oppression

Getting a handle on oppression is not easy.  There are many kinds of oppression and no practical way to measure the level of coercion which constitutes, ordinary or necessary coercion from excessive or oppressive coercion.  We may be able to understand that government oppression (as specified by the resolution) is a form of institutional oppression which may only effect certain groups within the society.  Certainly, anarchists within the society may see any kind of governmental coercion or control, such as by law enforcement, as oppressive.  I think, however, we cannot define the kind of structural oppression defined by Deutsch (see above) as relevant to the resolution.  If the oppression cannot be eliminated by changing the leaders and the government, then it would likely continue even with no government.  Nevertheless, it is not easy to identify political oppression which can simply disappear by a regime change except perhaps in cases where despots and dictators are instituting oppressive policies in order to strengthen and entrench the control and rule of the one or few.  At this point, the ruling government is no longer expressing the common will which defines a government in the worldview of philosophers such as Locke and certainly Rousseau.  In effect there is no government so on some levels, a universally oppressive government is an oxymoron, whereas, a government which is oppressive to segments of society may still be expressing the common will.
For the purpose of this debate we must reach some kind of understanding of the scope, magnitude and limits of oppression.  Otherwise, we may be able to just blow it off and assume the judge knows what an oppressive government means but I don't think your opponent will allow it.

Berlin 1958:
"The criterion of oppression is the part that I believe to be played by other human beings, directly or indirectly, with or without the intention of doing so, in frustrating my wishes. By being free in this sense I mean not being interfered with by others. The wider the area of noninterference the wider my freedom. This is what the classical English political philosophers meant when they used this word. They disagreed about how wide the area could or should be. They supposed that it could not, as things were, be unlimited, because if it were, it would entail a state in which all men could boundlessly interfere with all other men; and this kind of ‘natural’ freedom would lead to social chaos in which men’s minimum needs would not be satisfied; or else the liberties of the weak would be suppressed by the strong. Because they perceived that human purposes and activities do not automatically harmonize with one another; and, because (whatever their official doctrines) they put high value on other goals, such as justice, or happiness, or culture, or security, or varying degrees of equality, they were prepared to curtail freedom in the interests of other values and, indeed, of freedom itself. For, without this, it was impossible to create the kind of association that they thought desirable. Consequently, it is assumed by these thinkers that the area of men’s free action must be limited by law. But equally it is assumed, especially by such libertarians as Locke and Mill in England, and Constant and Tocqueville in France, that there ought to exist a certain minimum area of personal freedom which must on no account be violated; for if it is overstepped, the individual will find himself in an area too narrow for even that minimum development of his natural faculties which alone makes it possible to pursue, and even to conceive, the various ends which men hold good or right or sacred. It follows that a frontier must be drawn between the area of private life and that of public authority. Where it is to be drawn is a matter of argument, indeed of haggling."

Many philosophers, such as John Stuart Mill believed a government must reserve some minimum level of freedom in order for civilization to flourish and while this thinking seems intuitive, it is contradicted by the historical fact that even within extremely repressive societies, genius, innovation, ideas, and ingenuity continue to flourish as an irrepressible by-product of simply being human.

One should also realize the limits of freedom will vary by culture and the type of government. In fact, one of the principle issues of government is who to include.  I admit, this is something I only realized after research but it makes sense. The government seeks to limit its constituent membership to those who adhere to the common will.  Additionally, the limits of freedom will vary widely depending on the structure of the government.

Song 2012:
"Even on more minimal accounts of democracy, there is a basic set of rights that are taken to be constitutive conditions of democracy. These rights are, in Dahl’s words, ‘integral to the democratic process, sysubstantive rights, goods, and interests that are often mistakenly thought to be threatened by it’ (1989, 175). By ‘integral’ Dahl means something that is ‘an essential part of the very conception of the democratic process itself’ (1989, 167). On Dahl’s aggregative conception of democracy, the rights integral to the democratic process are the ‘liberties of the ancients’ – political rights such as the right to vote, freedom of political speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of the press (2006, 8–15). These political rights are constitutive of the democratic process."

It seems reasonable to me, a general limit for oppression arises at the boundary of private freedom tolerated by the common will and when that is infringed, the government is declared oppressive and this provides a good working definition for us which allows all manner of governments; democratic, monarchy, autocratic, etc. to exert oppressive coercion while continuing as a functional and effective entity in the terms of its international presence.  One can establish some legal criteria for the boundary of personal freedom, such as the US constitution or the International Declaration of Human Rights and somewhere between the infringement of those freedoms, and final dissolution of the common will where the government ceases to exist in the classic sense, we establish grounds for the Aff side of this debate.

The Necessity of the State

The entire concept of the natural and necessary formulation of government as an antidote to the state of nature is conceptually simple to grasp and well accepted in the category of Lincoln-Douglas debate.  It thus seems, even if individuals are capable of functioning within the state of nature for a time, they will eventually move toward government as the natural state for rational and intellectual beings.  Certainly, many political and moral philosophers recognize a "necessity of the state" as the only way to achieve justice.  Mere agreement to cooperate or consent to allow authority is not enough until that authority if given coercive power.

Christiano 2002:
"The trouble with consent theory as a theory of political authority is that it fails to come to terms with the moral necessity of the state. It seems to allow for too many forms of unwillingness to obey as bases of defeating authority and obligation. It seems to permit someone who just does not want to do what he knows to be right to opt out of the arrangements that may be necessary to ensure the right thing. The main purpose of the state is to establish justice among persons within a limited jurisdiction. And justice is something we owe to one another on a constant basis."

Philosophers from Hobbes, to Kant to Rawls see the state and its legal institutions as the mechanism for maintaining and distributing justice.  This justice spans the routine principle of giving each her due to the egalitarian concepts of Rawls' distributive justice as espoused in the difference principle.

Nagel 2005:
"The issue of justice and sovereignty was memorably formulated by Hobbes. He argued that although we can discover true principles of justice by moral reasoning alone, actual justice cannot be achieved except within a sovereign state. Justice as a property of the relations among human beings (and also injustice, for the most part) requires government as an enabling condition. Hobbes drew the obvious consequence for the international arena, where he saw separate sovereigns inevitably facing each other in a state of war, from which both justice and injustice are absent.

The issue of justice and equality is posed with particular clarity by one of the controversies between Rawls and his critics. Rawls argued that the liberal requirements of justice include a strong component of equality among citizens, but that this is a specifically political demand, which applies to the basic structure of a unified nation-state. It does not apply to the personal (nonpolitical) choices of individuals living in such a society, nor does it apply to the relations between one society and another, or between the members of different societies. Egalitarian justice is a requirement on the internal political, economic, and social structure of nation-states and cannot be extrapolated to different contexts, which require different standards.

...Hobbes construed the principles of justice, and more broadly the moral law, as a set of rules and practices that would serve everyone's interest if everyone conformed to them. This collective self-interest cannot be realized by the independent motivation of self-interested individuals unless each of them has the assurance that others will conform if he does. That assurance requires the external incentive provided by the sovereign, who sees to it that individual and collective self-interest coincide. At least among sizable populations, it cannot be provided by voluntary conventions supported solely by the mutual recognition of a common interest."

The Affirmative Position

At this point, by establishing a good working understanding of oppression and recognizing how an oppressive government may continue as a viable government one establishes the premise necessary for understanding how it is possible an oppressive government may be more desirable than no government.  This is even before we consider such basic ideas of protection from outside enemies and other such global dealings which ultimately affect the lives of citizens.  In addition, we can make the reasonable argument that statehood is the natural culmination of the desire of people to band together against the dangers of the state of nature.  Also, there is plenty of philosophical support for the necessity of the nation-state as the means for upholding justice.

Certainly, the Negative side will show successful, non-state, non-governed societies which have flourished in history and still exist on the fringes of our so-called modern society.  No doubt, for example, the case of Somalia will be presented as a sort of model for society without a central government (It is important to see that today a central government is arising in Somalia) but a very strong and compelling case can be made for the advantages of government, even oppressive governments depending on the boundaries one choose for definition.


Click here for Neg ideas.

Sources:

Two Concepts of Freedom
Isaiah Berlin, 1958
http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/walton/Berlin2Concepts.pdf

On Global Justice, Chap 1, The Grounds of Justice
Mathias Risse, Harvard University, 2011
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/mrisse/IntroductionForWebsite.pdf

The boundary problem in democratic theory: why the demos should be bounded by the state
International Theory (2012), 4:1, 39–68 & Cambridge University Press, 2012
SARAH SONG, Department of Political Science, U.C. Berkeley School of Law, Berkeley, CA, USA
http://polisci.berkeley.edu/people/faculty/SongS/Song%20-%20Boundary%20Problem%20in%20Democratic%20Theory.pdf

The Authority of Democracy
The Journal of Political Philosophy: Volume 11, Number 2, 2003
Thomas Christiano, Philosophy, University of Arizona
http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/faculty/rarneson/thomaschristianoauthorityofdemocracy.pdf

The Problem of Global Justice, Philosophy & Public Affairs (Spring, 2005)
THOMAS NAGEL @2005 by Blackwell Publishing, Inc. Philosophy & Public Affairs 33, no. 2
http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/faculty/rarneson/NAGELglobaljustice.pdf