Government should be abolished

My opponent's argument begins with a quote from philosopher Thomas Hobbes. The problem in Hobbes's reasoning is that his "common power to keep them in awe," otherwise known as government, is run by humans with the same nature, whatever that may be, as those who are governed. So if humans are violent by nature, the state cannot be expected to be any less violent. Hobbes's argument also seems to assume that statelessness means lawlessness. This is false, however, as there are ways by which law can come into existence under statelessness. The first is through non-coercive boycott, that is, people could enforce contracts and prevent fraud by agreeing, implicitly or explicitly, to boycott firms which commit fraud or violate contracts. A good historical example of this is the Merchant Law of the late Middle Ages. The Merchant Law was a form of de facto law whereby fraud and dishonesty were discouraged without the use of a central government. {1} The second is through privatized enforcement. This would happen when people would pay a private defense agency (henceforth PDA) to defend them. {1} While the PDAs may still initiate force, they would not be governments as they are not geographical, nor are they monopolies and without those necessary conditions, a rapist would be a government, as he initiates force as well. Con has requested to expand the definition of government. I agree to this expansion so long as my definition remains necessary for an entity to qualify as government. I do not concur if it is merely sufficient, as this definition would seem to potentially include homeowner's associations (henceforth HOAs), PDAs, and possibly other institutions which I am wholeheartedly in favor of. This would defeat the purpose of this debate, since by such a definition, I would in fact concur with Con. Now I will cover my opponent's observations. Observation 1: I do not dispute my opponent's claim here. Observation 2: I do not dispute this observation either; however, I am not sure that a 'local co-op' fits my definition given in my first statement. Observation 3: As I am in full favor of society, I concur with this observation as well. To support his first contention (that government is necessary), Con begins by citing James Madison. The problems with James Madison's statement seem to have already been covered above, as the quote appears to be a reiteration of Thomas Hobbes's argument from human nature. Since I have already critiqued this argument, I will not repeat myself. Next, Con states, "The fact is, although man is social by nature, yet he is also extremely selfish in his needs and desires. " This is true; however, my contention is that anarchism is capable of providing sufficient institutions to deter antisocial behavior. In fact, I argue that anarchism is in fact more efficient than government at doing this, due to lack of monopoly. He then cites Hobbes again, but as I have already stated, anarchism can supply institutions capable of performing this function more efficiently than a state. Next he gives Somalia as a historical example of anarchism failing. First of all, Somalia has actually improved since the collapse of it's state. For example, the percentage of infants with low birth weight dropped from 16% to 0.3%, infant mortality per 1,000 dropped from 152 to 114.89, the percentage of the population with access to a health facility rose from 28 to 54.8, and radios, telephones and TVs per 1,000 rose from 4, 1.92 and 1.2 to 98.5, 14.9 and 3.7, respectively. {2} Second Somalia is the result of a collapsed state, not agorism or another form of concerted revolution, making it far more susceptible to political instability. Also, failed UN interference has led to further instability. It would be absurd to judge all forms of anarchism based on a period of chaos resulting from a collapsed state, just as it's unfair to judge all states based on North Korea. For successful historical examples of anarchism, see Medieval Iceland {3} and the 'Wild West' {4}. To support his second contention, Con cites John Locke. This is a strawman, as my position is not that law should be abolished, as the Locke quote implies, but that only one source of law, the state, should be abolished. Con states that I claimed that anarchism allows people to choose their governments. This is true, but when I made that argument, I mistakenly used the word 'government' when these institutions do not technically qualify for my definition. This was an improper use of the word in the context of this debate. They do not qualify as governments because PDAs are not monopolies, nor are they geographically based, and HOAs do not initiate force, given the standards for initiation of force I gave. He then states that a contractual government is what was promoted by Hobbes and Locke. This is mistaken, however, as Hobbes and Locke advocated an unsigned, nonconsensual "social contract", distinct from the explicit contracts which I advocate. Hobbes and Locke's governments qualified as governments because they initiate force, PDAs and HOAs do not. Con then states, "When competing laws attempt to govern the same people, and no agreed upon judiciary is present, chaos ensues. " The problem with this statement is that under normal conditions, it is profitable to avoid unnecessary violence. As such, PDAs would probably find it profitable to agree on a private court beforehand to resolve conflicts between one another, as well as their customers. Con challenges me to answer a few questions: 1. "How do you propose to address anti-social behavior in the absence of any government (use your definition as well as mine)? " Antisocial behavior would be addressed by the apprehension of criminals by PDAs. As both the accuser and the accused likely have PDAs the PDAs would likely have agreed upon a court in anticipation of such situations, the court would then determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. 2. "How do you ensure the warlord from the next city doesn't decide to overrun your homeowner's association? " Most likely the HOA would require that people pay a PDA or HOA-run police agency in order to move there. Also, there would be little incentive to invade an HOA unprovoked, and due to the risk, HOAs would be deterred from provoking others. 3. "How do you secure the rights of the individual against the majority's decisions? " A better question to ask would be "How does a state secure rights? " as even under a relatively free government, rights are violated en masse through laws against all kinds of victimless behavior, as well as the practice of taxation and monopolization of industries. To answer Con's question, rights would be protected by PDAs, which would be deterred from enforcing victimless crime laws because there is less demand (for example, I care far more that my neighbor doesn't rob me than I care if he wants to smoke crack). On the other hand, in a state, costs of enforcing these laws are not borne directly, so voters are less likely to take into consideration the cost of their enforcement. Lastly, I'd like to point out that my opponent has not rebutted the two lines of argument I presented in my first statement. My first being that government is unethical, and my second being that government is inefficient. I wish to extend these arguments and hope that Con will rebut them in his next statement. Sources: 1. . http://www.lewrockwell.com... 2. . http://www.peterleeson.com... 3. . http://www.daviddfriedman.com... 4. . http://www.mises.org...