Oppressive government is more desirable than no government.

First, I would like to acknowledge my opponent"s well-written, detailed response. I will now attack my opponent's points whilst defending my case. My first contention does not imply that people who are governed by an oppressive state love their government and do not want to change it at all; rather, the contention states how people can at least depend on an oppressive government for basic societal welfare even if some of their natural rights are not recognized. They can rely on their government to channel order and not allow various tribes to discharge weapons near their house, while their children are playing in the backyard. They can rely on their government to provide public services and prevent foreign threats from entering their country. Ensuring these basic traits are fulfilled must be prioritized over the recognition of all natural rights because without these traits, human rights are meaningless due to the constant fighting that will inevitably erupt. In the absence of government, people have no one to depend on for the security of their society. I have even provided three examples that support this theory: Libya, Somalia, and India. In response to all the examples my opponent has provided, having no government would have been a much less desirable alternative. At least in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, there wasn"t a civil war nor absolute chaos, people still had access to education, healthcare, energy, etc., and furthermore, there was no fear the enemy state would invade. People in Germany did not want the Soviet Union to overcome their state because they knew the result would be massive discrimination (which it was). They were relieved that Germany happened to have a powerful military that was strongly incentivized to not allow Russia to invade. This theory applies to the other examples my opponent provided. Although people were displeased by the fact that some of their natural rights were not recognized, they were still relieved that basic societal welfare would prevail nevertheless. Having no government would demolish societal welfare, cause complete chaos, and thus the recognition of the peoples" natural rights would be the least of their worries. In response to my opponent's second point, firstly, small, occasional fights between the state and its people is much more desirable than an extremely long and violent civil war between various groups. At least when the state fights with its people, there is still a sense of order because everyone is not waging war on each other, but instead, small riots occasionally form. Furthermore, public services still exist and the state is still properly defended from foreign threats. My opponent may make the argument of possible uprisings, but we must keep in mind, uprisings do not happen everyday. Oppressive governments such as the Soviet Union, Libya, Iraq, Egypt, etc. have lasted for many decades, and compared to anarchies such as Somalia and the post-revolutionary Libya, the civil discourse in those nations was not even remotely close. Groups, such as the Al-Shabaab, are fighting for power everyday. On the contrary, Iran, for example, rarely has violent groups like the Al-Shabaab violently demanding power and land. Next, my opponent seems to assume that laws provided by the system of polycentric law are not biased at all. This is not necessarily true. Laws could easily be made that favor groups most powerful. Furthermore, polycentric law simply cannot substitute for an oppressive government because the system does not provide essential defense against foreign threats, nor does it tax citizens in order to better the welfare of the society through the provision of basic goods and services, nor does it have the power to completely stop a civil war. These are traits that an oppressive government can do, thus making it more desirable. My opponent's third point clearly lists populations that want a government, and one population that did not want a government. Since all states, except for the Irish example my opponent provided, want a government, this proves that the majority of anarchies strive to form a government and thus civil war is inevitable. In order to avoid such chaos, any government, even an oppressive one, is desirable. In response to my opponent"s fourth point, the U.N. may have aggravated Somalia"s civil war, but it certainly was not the sole cause of the violence. "opposition factions failed to fill the power vacuum...They also failed to reach a negotiated settlement. As a result, the factions kept fighting against each other...Most of the major factions have been fighting for domination, while smaller ones have been fighting for survival." The excerpt clearly describes how various groups of people fought when there was no government to prevent such violence. To answer my opponent's question in his fifth point, certain groups become excessively wealthy and resourceful simply because they are more powerful. "In Somalia, different clans contest over resources such as water, livestock and grazing land." In the absence of government, there is no one to properly distribute these resources since these resources are constantly being fought for. In response to my opponent's sixth point, of course, an oppressive government will not perfectly allocate resources; they may be greedy and/or discriminative. However, an oppressive government will still be somewhat reasonable when distributing basic resources because they are incentivized to prevent a socioeconomic gulf, wherein the rich get richer, while the poor (nearly the entire population) stay the same or become poorer. This would destroy the economy, thus impoverishing the people, which thereby results in an oppressive government unable to obtain sufficient taxes to provide spoiled lives for the oppressive government"s leaders and the leaders" friends/family. Furthermore, Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia still provided water, energy, health care, etc. to the general population. The majority of an anarchy, however, would not benefit from these essentials. My opponent states how the xeer does a better job of distributing resources to the poor; this is simply not true. The xeer does not have enough resources to distribute to the entire population, since powerful groups, such as the Al-Shabaab, hog up most of the resources. In response to my opponent"s seventh point, Ireland"s war with Britain could have been prevented if they had had a government in the first place. Likewise, the probability of India being invaded would be significantly lower if they had a proper government to threaten any prospective invaders. My opponent may make the argument that Britain would have attacked India anyways due to their abundance of resources, however this assumption can be overthrown if we look at China. Countries did not want an all out war with Ancient China since they knew the empire had an incredibly powerful defense. Furthermore, Ireland is one country that accepted the existence of its anarchy. Other countries run by anarchy, such as Somalia and Libya would be too busy fighting themselves to actually protect themselves from foreign threats. I have even proven this theory in my early argument, with Al-Qaeda members teaming up with Libyan clans in order to gain more power. An oppressive government would not allow such groups to enter their country and threaten their power. I have already refuted my opponent's eighth point, wherein an oppressive government is incentivized to prevent a socioeconomic gulf. My opponent's ninth point has been refuted as well; anarchies naturally want to form a government, and as a result chaos in a society ensues, during which public services and proper protection from foreign threats are inexistent. I now await my opponent's second rebuttal. Sources: http://www.twnside.org.sg...