Resolved: An unjust government is better than no government at all

"No man has any natural authority over his fellow men" - Jean-Jacques Rousseau. It is because I agree with Jean-Jacques Rousseau, that "Resolved: An unjust government is better than no government at all" is not true. According to Oxford Dictionary, unjust means "Not based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair" better means "More desirable, satisfactory, or effective," and government means "The group of people with the authority to govern a country or state." The main topic of my argument is that we value liberty, and the criterion put forth is the duty of government coming from their social contract with the people. The basis in which government is created arises out of a rational fear that if humans are granted unlimited freedom, then they will invariably violate the rights of another through acts of aggression. And as such, a government is created. In the social contract, based on this fear, the government must meet this need. In the case of a government that is not morally fair to its citizens, there is an implication that the government, in being unjust, does not respect the rights of individuals. Thus, if not respecting or protecting the rights of individuals within its jurisdictions, the government fails to meet its obligations under the social contract. However, on the other side of the spectrum, the absence of government meets the criterion and more. Since the government isn't established, there is no social contract between the people and an authority, and therefore a social contract cannot be violated. From this, it can be drawn that an unjust government does not meet the criterion, but the absence of government does. Absence of government respects natural rights further than an unjust government. In an anarchic scenario, absolute autonomy is inherent, whereas in an unjust government, and government in general, power over the people is demonstrated in the hands of a few men exercising absolute autonomy. Comparatively, the anarchic scenario respects the autonomy of individuals better. The affirmative will try to question this, stating that if given unlimited freedom, natural rights can be violated by other men. However, this is exactly where the contradiction occurs. It is inherent to an unjust government that rights aren't respected, because removal of rights is immoral, and in this infrastructure, power will be concentrated with a few men. But in anarchy, according to philosophers like John Locke, the masses are benevolent. Weighing the two options: a corrupted few men with unlimited power over all others, and benevolent masses with unlimited power over themselves, it is evident which respects natural rights more. In addition, without Locke's philosophy, it is still better to err on the side of the absence of government because of the nature of government. The government is created with the intent of authority existing, and therefore must have a legitimate means to obtain the ends, something called enforcement. If the government is able to have such enforcement, they have a medium to violate natural rights, and to perform acts of aggression that wouldn't otherwise be possible. To protect natural rights, we have to vote negative. In conclusion, what we can clearly see is that an absence of government meets the criterion of societal contract being met, simply because there is not a societal contract, and upholds the values of liberty through an unlimited freedom distributed to all people, rather than the few present in an unjust government.