Resolved: No government is preferable to an oppressive government

I'll refute Zaradi's case, then go back to mine. General critiquesMy opponent failed to even define a state. This means that you prefer my definition automatically (he didn't dispute it). More importantly, he doesn't quantify any of his impacts. He just asserts that a return to a "state of nature" somehow outweighs everything else but he doesn't tell you when/where a state of nature occurred so that we know what to expect, and obviously he doesn't apply this history to the modern world.ObservationMy opponent observes that the resolution can't be affirmed because "a true stateless society" can never be formed because anarchy somehow means everyone rules. First of all, this is just false. You can look to all stateless forms of association like corporations, colleges, or clubs and see that the lack of a state doesn't mean there's no hierarchy or person in charge, the only difference is that these things are contractual and non-monopolistic (stateless) relationships. A stateless society would just replace the mechanisms run by the state with competing jurisdictions. Secondly, my opponent commits the fallacy of redefinition. His interpretation of Upshaw redefines a state to mean a society where "there is no one to lead us", but a lack of a state merely means no one has a compulsive monopoly. If everyone in a given society chooses to follow one leader/organization than that's fine, it still isn't a state. A state needs to be compulsory and have the power tax and legislate without consent. If a whole society chooses to voluntarily pay an organization to perform a certain service, that would be a corporation.Third, my opponents claim can easily be thrown out considering that almost every aspect of society is not controlled or monopolized by the state, and yet progress still is made.Remember the burden I put on Con? He has to show that the state is necessary to perform some task, but his only justification is it keeps us out of some generic "state of nature"--not even an explanation why a state is the only thing that can perform this.The beginning My opponent is fundamentally wrong about the nature of mankind, but more importantly is that his proposed solution is incredibly flawed. First, there's no warrant on law and order being synonymous with a state. This is an assertion, experience in every other sector tells us that a compulsive monopoly is not needed to produce a good.Second, if mankind is naturally aggressive, then how is giving coercive power to a government the solution to anything? Surely humans would be even MORE aggressive if they can act on their aggressive impulses while making others (taxpayers) pay for it. Hoppe rightly notes[1] that if a state was a solution to this issue we should should be observing: "just as much war and aggression should exist between the private citizens of various states as between different states. Empirically, however, this is not so. The private dealings between foreigners appear to be significantly less war-like than the dealings between different governments..." And this is obvious, because naturally one will be more aggressive when they can shift the costs to others. Giving power to a state, ESPECIALLY one that definitionally cares not for its citizens rights doesnt solve.Third, Con can't or doesnt cite what the "state of nature" actually is and how long it occurs and how modern society would collapse back to it. His entire argument is built around the assertions of Hobbes. Primitive man, the closest to a "state of nature" we will ever observe didn't live in some kind of "war of all against all", it lived in kinship tribes that evolved into societies (note that society =/= a government). There is also no warrant on how anarchy in the modern world would bring us back to this point especially given the widespread existence of non governmental non-violent agreements.This whole argument is an argument for civilization, not for the state and thus you turn it because oppressive governments decivilize and bring us back to barbarianism. Hobbes is wrong about widespread death. Man inherently desires not to kill, as many other animals do. This is why, even in the face of enemy fire, firing rates were as low as 15%[2] during WWII, because mans animal mind (the one that takes over during stress) does not want to kill. It was only state military training during Vietnam that brought these firing rates up and overrode the antikilling instinct. The "state of nature" is just a fiction, that never truly existed. Con cant provide any real example of deaths/harms from anarchy. The End Con basically argues the social contract theory. Many problems with this:First, this doesn't justify an oppressive government. No Jews signed a contract to be exterminated. Second, there is no social contract. Tacit consent does not exist. The social contract theory basically operates under an incredibly perverted view of consent where using services provided by the monopoly (when in many cases there is literally no competing alternative, the state has destroyed them all) somehow means you signed away your rights to the state.Third, there is literally no warrant on how only a compulsive monopoly can provide law and an escape from the "state of nature". Even if he proves a state can do it better it doesn't justify the destruction of an oppressive state.Fourth, a social contract to a state is a contradiction in terms. Hoppe explains[3] that if a contract with a state actually existed: "every private property owner had surrendered his right to ultimate decision making and the protection of his person and property permanently to someone else. In effect, in transferring this right onto someone else, a person would submit himself into permanent slavery...any such submission-contract is from the outset impermissible (hence null and void), because it contradicts the praxeological foundation of all contracts, i.e., private property and individual self-ownership."Fifth, even under the social contract governments have obligations (protect rights). The citizens have an obligation to abolish the state. His entire justification for a state just doesn't apply to the kind of states he's advocating. Sixth, oppressive states routinely invade other countries and impose their will onto/kill people who didn't sign any contract with them.Seventh, Cons case lacks clear impacts. Baselessly asserting that a "state of nature" will return without explaining how and how bad that return will be isn't an impact. Eighth, Con fails to show how a state, not societal pressures and negative incentives, keeps man from being violent. What specific mechanism from the state keeps man in line, and how can that mechanism not be provided by the private sector or communities? An "enforcement mechanism"for law is not something that can only be provided by the state, historically it was not and my case shows that it doesn't have to be.Ninth, Con has 0 warrant on how private enforcement of law leads to a state of nature.My case: Con says that the greatest flaw in my case is that I don't cite advantages of anarchy. The advantage to anarchy is that it avoids the negative impacts coming off of oppressive states, or states in general.His only other critiques come from a misunderstanding of what a state actually is. A system where there is no state apparatus and power is contractually derived (serfs could leave the manor and the kings power came from actual,not implied consent of the ruled) and divided between church, king, nobles, and the freehold rights of the serfs is certainly NOT a compulsory monopoly of ultimate jurisdiction. It fails to meet a single requirement of the definition. Same with the American colonies, while they were de-jur under state control, the actual situation of these initial pioneers lacked a state. Yet these were people were not at each others throats like Hobbes says they would've been. Thus, my opponents impact fails. The resolution is affirmed.Sources:http://goo.gl...