anarchy is the best form of government

As con, I'll rebut Pro's claims. Statement: "States discriminate more than just 'law abiders' and 'law breakers.' (offers example of racial bias)" Response: Racism is a problem in any community. As I've stated previously, Pro must be able to show that this problem is intrinsic with all governments apart from anarchism if he really claims that this tends to prove anarchism is the best form of government. If anything, allowing people to form communities that have no coercive power would exaggerate this problem. Communities would not only be divided by ideals, but also by race, which is the textbook definition of racism, if the society was indeed made up of racists. As such, anarchism would never be the solution to the problem, as if the country is already racist, allowing them to form racist communities could never solve the problem of racism. Statement: "Anarchism does not create a state, instead, power is concentrated in the freely associated communities." Response: You are being very loose with the term "state." A state is defined to be a government, which is sovereign, that presides over its citizens. If Pro is willing to state that these communities are a) associated by their members, thereby being sovereign, b) has the ability to coerce (Pro conceded this in R2), and c) has the power to punish and protect (also conceded by Pro), then Pro has conceded that anarchy creates states, be it 1 or 200, and as such, has not remained topical and contradicted his very resolution. Statement: "Greece is not an anarchy, it is closer to a failed state." Response: Agreed. Greece is a horrid example of any government, as there is no power for Greece to coerce its citizens. This is the problem with the government losing the ability to coerce, as without that power, the state will inevitably fail. Statement: "It was Greece's corrupt democracy and capitalist system that failed the people and led to the need for anarchists to step in to help feed and care for people and deal with wrongdoing drug dealers." Response: I disagree. Anarchists were not needed to care for people, charity was needed. If you are to claim that anarchists are responsible for dealing with wrongdoing drug dealers, you claim that gangs of organized thugs that coerce these drug dealers are somehow the savior to Greece's citizens. Remember here, Pro, that these anarchists are certainly not the only people helping the Greeks, rather, that outside forces have lead to actual support of the needy. Anarchists represent an insignificant portion of this assistance, and are irrelevant when determining the success of an anarchistic society. Statement: "I think I left out an essential element of government in m earlier definition--a government should provide for the needs of its citizens." Response: I wholeheartedly disagree with this. You offer a utilitarianistic political philosophy, if I understand this argument correctly. Yet this completely contradicts your earlier statement of what a government ought to do: protection of individual rights. How can a government provide for the needs of its citizens if not by necessity taking away the rights of its citizens? Think of governmental policies, any that provide support for their citizens. All of them require one thing in common: taxes. It would be impossible to provide governmental services without the ability for a government to coerce its citizens into paying taxes, and taxes violate one's right to keep what they own (private property rights). Your decision, Pro: either we ought to protect our rights to property and liberty by removing coercion from our government, or we craft a government that can provide for the needs of its citizens that inevitably violates their individual rights. Before I offer further argument, I request that you take a stand on this issue, and tell me which is true anarchism. Statement: "You still don't seem to argue explicitly that unity should be a goal of government." Response: I apologize if my argument was not explicit enough. Unity is certainly a goal of government, as no government could exist without it. Statement: "The constitution had to be unanimously approved..." Response: Little history lesson, Pro: the Constitution did not require unanimous consent. Did you take any US History classes? It's true that it was eventually agreed upon by all the colonies, but not at first. In order for the Constitution to be considered the new supreme law of the land, it required ratification, or for 9 of the 13 colonies to agree upon it (1). This in fact proves that the United States is based on the idea that power for the super majority to coerce the minority is a good thing, a goal of government, as it acquires unity, and that unanimous consent is a terrible policy to enact in any government, as it splits us apart. Statement: "I don't believe Con has shown that anarchy does not have the "power to coerce in order to secure rights." Response: Here's where I got that statement, Pro. " It utilizes non-coercive consensus building as a means of making community decisions (R2, Pro)." This is your definition for an anarchy, a society that makes decisions without the power to coerce. If Pro states that anarchy is just a way to eventually create a government, then anarchy is not the government itself, thereby meaning that Pro definition contradicts the resolution. If Pro states that this is the government, then it is not anarchy, but instead a confederation, or a system of government that requires unanimous consent in order to pass legislation. Either way, both of these definitions contradict the actually resolution Pro claims to uphold, or is off topic because it describes a system of government that is not an anarchy at all. Statement: "I want a socialist anarchy, as it is the closest to the optimum form of government." Response: Although I understand your arguments against a capitalistic democracy, this is a topic for a potential future debate. What we need to focus on here is the difference between anarchy and democracy, how they choose to provide public goods is of no concern to this debate. Rather, we must address the way these governments are formed, not how the provide resources. If after this debate you would like to challenge me on how to best distribute goods, I'd be more than happy to accept. Until then, this point is irrelevant. Statement: "Direct action is an example of anarchy protecting other's rights." Response: All governments can have direct action. The direct action you offer is when government fails and is unable to protect your rights, therefore, you take matters into your own hands. This is not a government at all. A government requires there to be some law, some ability to show that you have at least sovereignty over the matter in question. Police officers who carry out the law in the US show a warrant for sovereignty over a search. Your claim is that no sovereignty is required, after all, they are taking matters into their own hands. This is dangerous, as individuals can claim a moral high ground for justification for almost anything. Beating up drug dealers is one thing, beating up someone you disagree with because you think they shouldn't be allowed to talk is another. Both are direct action, and both would occur in an anarchy. This is only one example. There are countless other examples of vigilante "justice" that has resulted in the removal of human rights and a "survival of the fittest" rule, not a unifying society like the one Pro would have you believe in. Statement: Pro offers evidence that restorative justice is better than a punishment-centrist justice system. Response: My two objections have already been stated, one lies in the inability to coerce, the second that socialistic policies vs right-wing policies are irrelevant when applied to this debate. If you misspoke last round, then there is no harm. Sources: (1) https://www.archives.gov...