An unjust government is better than a state of anarchy.

I apologize for my untimely response. I foolishly started this round during Spring Break, and the only time I've been home is in the few hours before my argument was due. Oh well, lets get this thing going. The freedom of anarchy may seem appealing prima facie, but it would behoove oneself to dig deeper in to the issues with this ultimately lawless system. I will begin by outlining my contentions, and from there I will expand upon each one. 1st) Justice and fairness (as stated in the definition of unjust) are completely arbitrary[1]. 2nd) Unjust government allows for progress. 3rd) Anarchy's inefficiencies are its downfall. Now to expand upon the first argument. The definition that was agreed upon in the first round said that unjust is lacking in fairness or justice. Look around at other definitions of unjust. Do they not contain the same arbitrary terms? If an individual is able to speculate as to what is fair and just, then can we not call the United States government unjust? What about Germany? Japan? Any country? The reality of it is that any government can be defined as unjust in some way due to the arbitrary definition of unjust. At this point, I have shown that all government can be considered unjust. Therefore the case is now transformed in to "A Government is better than a state of anarchy". Though it isn't necessarily representative of the whole, I would ask if anarchy is better than the United States government? If all government is unjust government, then it is true to say there is no absolute in what an unjust government lacks. The lack of arbitrary justice and fairness could be the new health care bill in the United States, or it could be anything that someone considers unfair, or unjust in any government in any country. It is important to recognize that unjust governments do not often share whatever unfair or unjust qualities they posses. Because of this, my opponent cannot generalize any negative aspects of unjust government as they are likely not representative of the whole. Unless my opponent intends to prove that anarchy is better than any government, he now specifically has to defend anarchy. The second contention is that unjust government still allows for progress. Despite a lack of justice or fairness existing in the society, the human race still advances. We can in fact look at numerous governments throughout the ages that could be considered unjust. Social evolution and scientific progress throughout United States history is just a single example. I don't believe it necessary to cite any specific examples of progress from a country such as the United States, unless my opponent wants some. The technologically advanced world we live in is a direct result of progress that came from unjust governments. Anarchy on the other hand stifles progress. The concern does not lie with progress as much as survival. Though I wouldn't necessarily cite the Somalian anarchy as a true anarchy, they were eventually ruled by piracy[3]. Even after the introduction of a centralized government, piracy still thrived. The people of the Somalian anarchy had reverted back to tribes, or clans if you will [4]. Using Somalia as an example, not only was progress halted, it was reversed. The people of the country reverted back to tribal communities. Due to this inherent lack progress in anarchy, it is certainly not superior to unjust government. Lastly, the 3rd contention. As I stated in the brief introduction, anarchy has nothing more than cover appeal. "no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."- Thomas Hobbes [2]. Anarchy promises nothing to the individual. Though people have the ability to join together, that is when anarchy is no longer truly anarchy. Anarchy was defined as a society without government or law. The definition does not call for centralized government, so true anarchy is the state of complete lawlessness. What are the means of survival? Anarchy lacks any means of suppressing violence. The constant need for resources, and the obvious lack of law calls for a society that run off of fear and violence. As stated in contention one, all government is unjust. These governments (though lacking in some arbitrary quality) can still promise rights. Do they promise all rights? certainly not, but they promise more than anarchy can. Anarchy lacks both municipal and federal services that are necessary to maintaining a desirable society. In lacking these services, I will say again that anarchy has no means of suppressing any internal or external threats. My opponent must prove that a system such as anarchy is better than any government. To conclude, my case has shown how anarchy is: inefficient, violent, lacking in progress, and ultimately detrimental to the people involved. The 1st contention was able to prove through definitions that all government can be considered unjust. With the ability to provide rights, progress scientifically, socially, agriculturally, and the ability to protect people; it is obvious unjust government is better than a state of anarchy. I now give the stage to my opponent. Sources: [1] Definition of arbitrary: subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion (from dictionary.com) [2] http://plato.stanford.edu... [3] http://news.bbc.co.uk... [4] http://news.bbc.co.uk...