Anarchism has failed to supply an adequate reason for abolishing the state.

Before I go into detail about my opponent's argument, I want to remind the audience about my argument. I am claiming that anarchism is an inadequate political framework because it allows TOO much freedom; it's idealized goals pave the way for an astronomical increase in crime, chaos, and subjugation. Ironically, because of the absence of the state, anarchists will doom society to not more freedom but less - this will happen due to the fact that there will be many human beings who will hurt others to get what they want. Entities such as crime families, gangs, etc. can run rampant as long as they stay in power. This, coupled with the fact that there will be ones who will successfully grow stronger, means anarchy reduces humanity to a previous stage in development. Think of society in terms of chiefdoms or tribes, except with modern day technology. ==================== Argument against Anarchism ==================== Taking this into account, my opponent attacks my arguments by arguing the citizens can secure this themselves - essentially, he is arguing that the people can protect themselves from the chaos that will ensue. I've pointed out this as being ridiculous, given that citizens are much less motivated and effective then a centralized police/military force. Here is his response: "Do I believe that every human being knows right from wrong? Yes. " ----> Which is a complete assumption, especially given the fact that you also assume there is such a thing as an objective moral value. Nevertheless, you never defend this peculiar moral psychological fact and thus it should be treated with disregard. "Do I think they will all act on those notions: no. And I don't think it makes me pretentious to believe that a civilian police force would arise. " ----> I'm sure a civilian police force could and would arise, but the fact remains that they will likely be MUCH less effective than a government police force. The latter is much more intricate, large, well-equipped, etc. "Do I think citizens can defend themselves as well as an armed force? Well, how about this: in the American Revolution, the American forces were mostly unorganized, working with limited ammunition and guns versus a very well equipped British force. What did that teach us? Knowledge of terrain can compensate for formal training. I believe the same would happen again" ----> You really need to read your history correctly when making such references. The reason why the colonists won was indeed partly due to knowledge of terrain, but more important factors include the limited supply of resource for the British (up to 3 months), a dangerous social climate (the French is an obvious example), poor communication, and faulty initial plans boiled up to the British retreating[1][2]. If Britain was bent on conquering North America, I'm sure they could have if they poured their resources into it (though at the time, there wasn't any motivation to make them do such a rash thing). "Now, the need for working with criminal families would drop as well. People went to them to obtain objects they couldn't get lawfully. So, eliminate the laws, eliminate lawlessness. That's not much an argument, so I'll move on" ----> This isn't much of a rebuttal, so I recommend you stay on this point. If criminal families have no need to supply illegal products, then they can simply shift to other more commercial products. The possibilities are endless, and if they can gain control over it and have some influence on it's supply, then they have a great way to make money as they have before. It is the case that many criminal families were born out of the need many people had for illegal products, but this doesn't prevent criminal families from stretching outside these original goals and dealing with other industries as well. "Now, you described governments most important job to be security. Security from what? " ----> To secure people from other people who wish to harm. ==================== Conclusion ==================== My opponent states that he supports anarchy because the government is too slow, and that anarchy can force people to accept the consequences of their actions. While this is great and all, it greatly overshadows the perilous consequences of anarchy - a very high increase in crime. If there is no government, then there is nothing significant to prevent criminal families from rising and gaining control - because without the government, which was the strongest force (unless taken into comparison with other governments), the one with the biggest guns is the ruler. Anarchy doesn't make everyone free, it simply takes the government off the pedestal and places criminal families on the top. Anarchism is an incredibly naive and romanticized political ideology, and it shouldn't be taken seriously given it's very weak rational basis. ---References--- 1. . http://www.history.com... 2. . http://hawkeyeplanner.com...