Anarchy is better than communism

ok, so your opening argument was two sentences long? a few misleading assertions? you did not state the rounds of the debate? (i.e. first round: opening arguments, second round: rebuttal) you did not include any definitions for anarchy or communism? you did not set any rules for the debate? and most importantly, you spelt 'you' wrong! but that's ok, i'll disregard these factors because 'technically' i didn't post my argument... and i'll try to have a say now. Anarchism is a political movement which encourages stateless societies, societies with no government. Government is extremely necessary for co-operation. Human and social cooperation requires some sort of structure of law in the background. The only reason we can trust each other to cooperate is because we know there are legal forces that will punish us if we violate each other's rights. One simply knows they will be punished if they violate the rights of someone else. This legal framework is crucial to our existence. If it were not there, societies would turn to chaos (the most common word associated with the political movement of anarchism). Hobbes states that 'the absence of a common power is a war of all against all', if men live without a common power they will 'act according to their desires and aversions' and if there is no structure of law to stop them from doing so, they will indeed act on these natural passions. Government is crucial for human existence, anarchism is only crucial for the downfall of the human race. In a communist Government, there is a ruler, and there are rules. Rules which are enforced (sometimes harshly so but that is besides the point). This is why Anarchism is always used in a negative sense and implies lack of order and chaos. I did some research and, strikingly, i found that virtually every person on the planet falls under the authority of some state! I also found that absolutely every single historical instance of a stateless society has evolved into a state-governed one! Coincidence? I think not, clearly anarchist societies are unstable. There have only been 4 'mass' societies who have attempted anarchism.... obviously all evolved into different forms of Government eventually. The opposition stated... "Communism is the kind of government which controls everything in a country." and Anarchy is when there is no Government... and i have already stressed the absolute detrimental impact this could have on a country. We simply require law to live. Conservation of law is crucial to our existence. There is a degree of control in a communist society, yet people are still bound by the law, preventing the country from degrading into absolute chaos. A 'controlled' society. There are several negatives to a communist society, but it is no doubt better then anarchism. She also stated... "Communism is the kind of government which controls everything in a country. In a society where everything is controlled there's no room for individuality, and everyone becomes like a clone of every other person". This statement I do not agree with, in principal. There is room for individuality in a communist society, albeit individuality which goes unrewarded. People can chose their career path and who they want to marry, just because everyone receives a similar wage/similiar plots of land does not mean individuality is non-existent. The opposition is asking for individuality to do what exactly? Without a government, the possibilities are endless? You could steal a car perhaps? get drunk in public at the age of 14? murder your neighbour? There will be no law to prevent you from any of these cruel actions. But i guess if they provide the opposition with a little more 'individuality' then that would benefit the whole of society greatly! And yes, the oppositions last sentence where she mentioned the robots, is a complete exaggeration (english teaches take note of the use of hyperbole to enhance ones argument, although this is a poor example). Just because a group of people are controlled by the law does not mean they are robots, they are still entitled to certain rights enabling freedom, and individuality. Now to tackle the opponents first argument.... (sorry had to make up for accepting the debate in round 1) The opposition has made a correct statement by saying anarchy, 'lets you live the life you want to live exactly how you want to live it without anything to tell yo otherwise'. Yes, thats true, so whats stopping you, in an anarchist society, of murdering your next door neighbour? This is a harsh example but the opposition needs to come to terms with the detrimental impact of having an anarchist society. Anarchy is chaos. Communism is OK.