An unjust government is better than a state of anarchy.

It's been a very hectic time. Luckily I have been granted an hour to write up a response before I need to go and spend the day working on calculus packets. I almost needed to forfeit, which would have been a frustrating shame. I apologize for being late, again. Let's get on to conclusions! Regarding your premise: "There are/have been governments that execute their citizens for no significant reason at all. " -Only if being a threat to the government is not a significant reason. Do we have the right to execute terrorist leaders? Roots of government: "There are still established governments that have the potential to be even worse for the society than any government that could rise from what was once an anarchistic society. " -No, if you trace them back all governments have their roots in anarchy. There is no reason that an established government has the potential to be worse than one of mob rule resulting from anarchy. Examples: "Your arguments so far have simply been "what if" statements with no substantial backing. " -No. Somalia and the United States were both used as examples. I use more specifics than you, not that it matters. What anarchy is: Anarchy is not a thing, but rather a void. This void, like any other, will undoubtedly be filled by a government in a short span of time. You are correct in saying that Anarchy doesn't cause a house of be burned down, or a store to be looted, but it allows these things to happen. Even unjust governments have previsions to TRY and prevent this, and thus have a chance to succeed. During the Police Strike (US History) when there was no government capable of (instantly) enforcing order, looting and violence broke out immediately. Anarchy might not "cause" anything, but it cannot preserve rights any more than it can give them. Regarding your freedoms: 1: If you're free from taxes you're also free from such burdens as roads, medical aid, retirement funds, legal remedy, and the ability to contract with anyone. 2: Yes you could take drugs. There will be no system in place to help you once you've destroyed your brain and a incapable of normal function. 3: Yes, you could do things with your body (until you're killed by someone else who can do whatever they want with theirs. ). Could you please explain what you mean here? On Progress: Progress is only possible when people have the ability to contract with one another. You cannot start a company without contracting with a bank for a loan (for instance), nor can you start a large scale operation effectively without a standardized currency. Without a government supported court system there is no process for contract enforcement or legal remedy, nor is there a standard currency. Anarchy cannot provide the protections necessary for innovation or business growth except through personal force (violence). On violence: It would be worth mentioning the US police strike again. Without the means of maintaining order, violence broke out and this happened immediately after the strike had begun. Nothing was done for days until the government finally brought in National Guard to calm everything down. This is both an example of how (in those few days) an inability to suppress violence leads to disaster, and it's also an example of how an unjust government was able to eventually end the violence. Yes governments can be violent, but they can also enforce the peace through legal remedy without the need for even more violence. Anarchy cannot do this. A government will also be able to protect citizens from other governments, anarchy cannot. In conclusion: Anarchy, being nothing more than a void, can promise nothing for its citizens. It cannot protect their hypothetical rights, nor can it exist for long without becoming a government of some sort. Governments, no matter how unjust, have a history of becoming more just (Any number of governments can be named: Russia, U. S, Britain, etc ). They can guarantee rights and progress, something anarchy cannot do. The supposed benefits of living in an anarchy (namely, the ability to pretend you have unlimited rights) is outweighed by the advantages and de-facto rights you lose, no driving, contracting, protection of rights, etc. I look forward to my opponents concluding statements. I also thank him for making my first debate on this site very interesting and challenging. It's been an honor debating someone with a record such as your own.