Oppressive government is more desirable than no government.

I shall attend Pro"s points in both his opening and rebuttal. First, Pro states that an oppressive government creates order in society. One of his first pieces supporting this contention is a quote from John Mearsheimer; "anarchy leads to uncertainty about other"s intentions and fear about one"s survival. " Pro then states "With no government, people don"t know who to trust but themselves. " Historically, this has not been the case; two of the most major examples of people not knowing who to trust in the 20th century alone is with Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, two of the largest contenders for totalitarian state of the century. [1][2] And it should not be forgotten that Mao Tse-Tung greatly damaged bonds of trust in China when his 100 Flowers campaign mutated into the Cultural Revolution, a period of encouraged free speech followed by a mass political cleansing. [3] The rampant patriotism combined with the strengthened Sedition Acts in the U. S. also led to imprisonment [4]. Indeed, if anything an oppressive state creates an aura of distrust; a reader can truly understand the fear Winston (from 1984) feels in not knowing if this person or that person is trustworthy, and a moment of bad judgement turns the novel a different direction. Next, Pro uses a quote from Hobbes; "man in the state of nature seeks nothing but his own selfish pleasure, but such individualism naturally leads to a war. .. The State determines what is just and unjust. .. " The problem here is that the oppressive state is in a constant state of war with the people; such people may be conquered at the present, but a single rebellious individual left in the public can spark an uprising. Second, part of the selfish nature of man is to have esteem among others; when there is no "legitimate" means to use force for your ends, you are considered a problem-maker and quickly made an outcast should you try to, say, force someone at gunpoint to buy a homeless man a cheeseburger. Third, the state is made of people; the people in the State, with a monopoly on making law, will obviously make laws that favor themselves over others, as follows their selfish nature. The advantage of polycentric law should be evident; it follows the will of the vast majority, so less effort is needed maintaining it as opposed to an oppressive state. There is no legitimate means to initiate aggression, thus you may not be a judge or police officer and be free of the law (while I do not know about Filid law in this case, the xeer doubles the penalties committed by judges and police). After those quotes, my opponent tries to equate civil war with a stateless order; however, a civil war is precisely a conflict to gain control of a state; so long as Libyans feel a State must exist, then several factions will fight to make sure they do not become the subjects of the next regime. Given the nature of many African states, it would be foolish, in an environment where people believe a State to be necessary, to not be in a faction; the root problem in Libya is the perceived need of a State. The Irish and (prior to the U. N. ) the Somalis saw no need for one. Since we are on that point; Somalia"s problems are caused by the U. N. The U. N. offered military and economic aid to whichever clan may bring democracy to the region; like our Libyan example, as well as others [5], there is a need to fight in the war merely to not be a loser. Also, as Pro"s own source states, the civil war became a clan issue, only sustained with States wanting some form of puppet in control. Most somalis still resist, as the current state still begs for more and more outside help to control its claim; Somalia will be in chaos so long as a state is deemed possible. [6] Now, on to things besides order; so called public utilities. Pro states that in anarchy, the rich and powerful will be able to hoard all the resources. How is this person able to be rich and powerful to begin with? Is he his own doctor, farmer, general, architect? Unless this person has traits that put him above the ken of mere humans, he is cooperating with others to gain his wealth. That, or he is a head of State and is living off taxes. Even then, with a multitude of armed thugs holding his reign; are they all loyal? Will not one of them pull a Stalin-style rise to the top and kill the current top dog? Further, why would an oppressive state distribute resources properly? Nazi germany rationed resources to primarily help the soldiery, making POW"s and interred Jews and Slavs the victims of starvation. The Soviet"s proved themselves no better with the Holodomor in the Ukraine,[7] and Mao"s Great Leap Forward in China led to massive starvations of the Chinese. [8] The xeer in Somalia tries to help the less fortunate in their common law on provisions for common watering areas; where polycentric law attempts to realize the realities of an area and benefit as many people as possible, the totalitarian law actually hurts its citizens! Pro moves on to defense; he states the disarray of India as a reason for it being conquered with relative ease by the British. The british conquered India by co-opting the existing Brahmin order that existed before-hand; compare this to Ireland, who spent centuries resisting Britain, and continues to strive for the liberation of the tiniest piece of land on the isle. So, a foreign invader smaller than an oppressive state can win by taking the command centers; with anarchy, a larger neighbor can fight for centuries before the citizenry is conquered, and even then just temporarily. Pro argues that the State worries about another state taking its citizenry and resources. However, the primary use of resources in an oppressive government is to oppress; the food is primarily for the oppressors, the best shelter is for the oppressors, and defensive resources are used for the oppressors. A look at a North Korean peasant and a soldier [10][11] should tell all there is about where these resources are diverted in oppressive states. Lastly, Pro mentions foreign troops joining civil wars. First, these are wars to capture the state, hence not "no state". Second, states have hired foreign help before; they have also put in place puppet governments (like South Vietnam) to do their bidding, and work to form coalitions like the one that occupied and attempted to rebuild 2003 Iraq. At best my opponent has given arguments of "you too," and yet the States do these crimes with greater frequency and scale than anarchy has, if and when it has. Further, Pro"s one example of anarchy gone wrong is Somalia, ignoring that societal welfare has improved relative their nearest neighbors, and that the example is a strike against his own case because the U. N. offer of aid to the clan that creates democracy heavily incentivized enough factions to try for a state, meaning others would have to join and avoid becoming subjects, thus showing that the formation of a state, rather than the non-existence of one, is bad. I await Pro"s reply. Sources: [1] . http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk... [2]. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk... [3]. http://www.history.com... [4]. http://www.u-s-history.com... [5] . http://www.iol.co.za... [6]. http://books.google.com... [7]. http://en.wikipedia.org... [8]. http://en.wikipedia.org...