On balance, a corrupt government is better than no government.

If my opponent feels that any of my responses did not contain as much detail as he wanted, it was solely out of my desire to be brief. Therefore, this reply will contain as much information as needed to convey that the CON must win this round by showing that no government is better than a corrupt one. 1)Thoreau My opponent claims that no one has the power to enter or exit from the state of nature freely. I will contend that you can, but at the same time feel the immorality of governmental punishments. At what line can a government force one to enter under a social contract. The PRO has not accounted for this. I will also contend that it is human free will that should determine if one does or does not form a social contract. If one is forced to enter a society in which he or she deems morally corrupt, then this only demonstrates an increased sense of undesirability and immorality of the government. Walden and Thoreau, moreover, show more than just an allegory. In fact, they correctly portray the true grandness of nature and the corruption of government. Thoreau was sent to jail as a result of his unwillingness to accept the government as moral by not paying taxes. By doing this, Thoreau only proved the intolerance of an immoral and corrupt government but also how no government must be the superior option. 2)Laws of Government PRO claims that anarchy has no laws in which to protect its citizens from harm; hence, I need to underscore the connection between laws and government. A corrupt government, by definition, is one that does not protect but takes away human rights. In order for a government to get away with this, the laws must be in their favor. Therefore, the laws must be corrupt to allow corrupt governmental actions from occurring. I will cite the example of eminent domain for private use such as in Kelo V New London. Thanks to the corruption in this law, innocent people become deprived of their fruits of their labor and right to property. Under no government, no presence would do that. In the likely occurrence that the PRO will reply that they have no guarantee in the state of nature to that property, I will respond that a community, lacking government, can still protect this right and not need to take away from them. 3)Original Purpose I am attacked by stating that I evade logic with pretty rhetoric, but the point of even a corrupt government protecting rights has yet to be fully proven by the PRO. Next, if logic is what the PRO wants, it's what I have given him. A government is meant to protect rights. Corrupt governments do not protect human rights, cross apply point 2. Therefore, a corrupt government does not do what it is meant to do. Furthermore, we must see how the CON wins this argument at the point in which I can prove that governments cannot properly protect my rights. My opponent cites America in his last speech. The American judicial system seems nice at first, but when I have 50 dollars stolen from me, what is the government to do. They still have little to no ground in punishing this criminal. Even if he is sent to jail for a maximum of a night or two, where is my justice? Where is my right of being able to keep property? Moreover, the American Government prevents me from doing ANYTHING about it! As will be addressed in my fifth point, we must see that by entering a social contract with a corrupt government, we lose more than we gain. 4)Once a Corrupt Government, Always a Corrupt Government PRO claims that anarchy can have no improvement where governments can. So, there was some governmental corruption back in the day dealing with sex and race, despite what the PRO would like you to think, have these issue been resolved…no. Granted the problems are not as significant as back in the day, however, the government still cannot be improved completely on any single issue. PRO cites the Civil War in his rebuttal and how long did that take to resolve race issues. I would love to see the PRO answer this for no answer can be given. If governments can be improved upon like my opponent claims, why does it matter the racial background of Barack Obama in the 2008 Presidential Election? Simply, governmental societies cannot be fully improved upon. Next, under a government, as soon as one corruption "ends" then another one just arises. By correcting an issue, a government can abuse the changes in which to make the situation even worse than before. Granted, I will agree with my opponent by saying some issues also cannot be resolved in the state of nature either, but for different reasons. The state of nature cannot be improved upon because it is the way it is, its part of the inherent nature of the state of nature. 5)Moral Superiority Again, I am accused of using rhetoric above logic. Regardless, we must see that the resolution states better, not what is pragmatic under situations the PRO creates. Next, we must see how the PRO fails even to try to show how a government that is corrupt is morally superior to no government at all. At this point, the CON wins the round by showing that corrupt governments are not morally superior to no government at all. Finally, we must pull through that a corrupt government is an immoral entity that cannot guarantee rights, but also infringes upon the rights it is meant to protect. Yet, by entering a social contract, we sacrifice our guaranteed natural liberty that we are born with and do not receive civil liberty that is meant to be given to us by a government. My fifty dollars will be stolen no matter what, the difference remains in how to respond. The PRO hopes that the government will protect me, but at the end of the day, I can only rely on my natural liberty and taking matters into my own hands. 6)Locke and Just for Fun We must see how the Locke quote still applies. In the state of nature, men are at peace where as in the state of war, we are fighting an uphill battle to become the strongest with governmental hierarchies. Next, we must see how a government is different from superiors. One, to say that all superiors are governments gives CON no ground in debate. Two, the debate is about corrupt governments versus no governments. To say that a mother or a father, themselves, constitute a government goes beyond what the resolution implies. Even so, I would rather have no parents than one that abuses me. No matter which angle you look at this issue, the CON proves that no government is a morally superior option to that of a corrupt government. Finally, within my last allotted character limit, I will briefly explain the difference between that of the state of nature and government. Before diving into that, however, I must reinforce that this will be an important issue in the debate. First option, the one the PRO implies is a dog-eat-dog world in which every man fends for himself. It is true that this would fit under the concept of the state of nature yet it would be to everyone's best interest, while in the state of nature, to follow my next option. Two, that of a community. We see that a community, like me teaching others calculus or chemistry, includes people working together. Under this type of system, there are no laws but a mutual understanding of what is mutually beneficial to all parties. The PRO will probably try to say that this is a government, but I cannot say this enough, A COMMUNITY IS NOT A GOVERNMENT. All protection of rights can be achieved, teaching and education can be done, and all other benefits that a government fails to provide can be provided under a community setting in which no body, no government can judge, tax, and punish others as a superior, but in which all parties recognize all others as equals, working together for mutual benefit. I'm sorry that you had computer problems and I totally understand. I just wanted to see what the rules of the tournament had to say about the whole issue.