Oppressive Government is preferable to no government

Without further adeiu, I'll get started. Inevitably, what this debate will end up coming down to is safety and, grotesquely, body count. Which one is safer for people and which one piles up more dead bodies in the long run. I'm here to explain why having no government is worse in both catagories. C1: Safety under an oppressive regimeMy opponent has voiced concern over how I would define an oppressive regime. The examples I planned on using were the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, and I hope we can agree that those were fairly oppressive governments. Anyway, back on topic. During a general oppression, you're told where to sleep, where to eat, what to eat, who to sleep with, what you can like, what you can't like, what you do for a living, and all sorts of things that control your life. But the one good thing about this is that you know they're also doing this to the guy next to you, and the guy who lives down the street from you, and everyone around you is under the same conditioning as you are. This makes it so that the only person you need to fear for you life against is the government themselves, which makes it a lot easier when you pass buy a big, buff guy rippling with tattoos on the street going to work everyday since you know he won't attempt to kill you. In an anarchy, however, there is no such conditioning. If you felt so inclined, you could go and firebomb the home of the guy next door and not have to face any sort of punishment from a governing party. Of course, no one would also be blaming if the people of the now burnt down house came into yours in the middle of the night and murdered you while you slept. This is the conditions of general anarchy, meaning everyone is free to do as they wish to whom they wish, so long as they possess the ability to do it. Your life would be constantly in danger if you had to walk past the big, buff guy rippling with tattoos on the street if you gave him so much as one wrong look. So now that we understand that even during an oppressive government, one is more safe in it than with no government, we must adress the elephant in the room: the actual government itself. C2: What Government? I know that my opponent will inevitably bring up the point about the massive bodycount of oppressive governments such as the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, but again we have to be looking at this from a long term view to accurately compare body-counts and general safety. The main problem with oppressive governments, such as the two examples, is that they never really last, The Soviet Union only really lasted from it's formation in 1922 to around the 1990's,[1] where the bulk of it's killings happened under the short reign of Stalin from 1928 to 1941[1]. The reign of Nazi Germany didn't even last half as long, only from it's take-over in 1933 to 1945 at the end of World War 2[2]. So even if they have short spurts of mass genocide, those short spurts are likely to be the only events of killing before it inevitably falls apart for whatever reason. Anarchy, however, does not know such a time limit. Even if the killings happen slower with anarchy, it will be for a longer time, potentially for a boundless amount of time. The killings will pile up higher and higher with time, and eventually overtake the body count of the now probably collapsed oppressive government. In conclusion, I have just proved two things: 1. That during an oppressive government regime's reign, you're still more safe than in a general state of anarchy, and 2. That even if you are in danger from said government regime, that said regime will probably not last that long, and will be gone before you know it, relieving you of your danger, whereas the danger is a constant factor in a situation of general anarchy. The resolution is affirmed. Sources:[1] . http://www.realussr.com...[2] . http://historyonthenet.com...;