Oppressive government is more desirable than no government.

I too would like to acknowledge my opponent"s well-written opening statement. In the course of this argument, I will first go over each of my opponent"s contentions and then further strengthen my case. Even though my opponent has not explicitly stated his value, he stated that his criterion is utilitarianism; therefore, I shall assume that he too values societal welfare. Thus, whoever better upholds societal welfare by meeting the conditions of utilitarianism wins this debate. My opponent's first contention states how in the absence of government, polycentric law can act as a legal system. However, polycentric law does not effectively fulfill the main purpose of laws, which is to create order in a society; "The Somali Civil War is an ongoing civil war taking place in Somalia between various armed rebel groups." Despite the existence of polycentric law in Somalia, different groups of people are still constantly fighting for power and resources. This is because polycentric law does not deal with war crimes, but merely crimes between individuals, such as murder, rape and theft. The reason war crimes are not properly dealt with in Somalia, for example, is because the various parties realize that this system is their only form of cooperation. Accusing parties for their violent aggression in the civil war would immediately break this collaboration, and thus the fragile system would collapse. Thus, even though polycentric law may do an excellent job of providing justice for those who commit murder, rape or theft, civil war will continue nevertheless. This proves that polycentric law is less desirable than an oppressive government, because at least an oppressive government can declare power through the use of its military, which would provide order in a society and not chaos. Secondly, my opponent seems to forget that laws and justice are not the only things that allow a society to function; public services are also imperative. Polycentric law cannot provide public services because that is not the purpose of the system; the system is merely a way of providing justice for those who commit certain crimes. Thus, even with polycentric law, most of the society is deprived of resources since there is no government to properly allocate these resources and social services, such as education and healthcare. As a result of the deprivation of certain resources and services, most of the population becomes uneducated and faces much poverty. On the other hand, an oppressive government has an incentive to prevent its governed society from collapsing both socially and economically, and as a result, they will properly distribute resources and provide the necessary services (e.g. education) to get the country"s economy running. Next, my opponent"s second contention states how in the absence of government, humans will naturally cooperate. However, the example my opponent provided himself contradicts this theory. "The Somali Civil War is an ongoing civil war taking place in Somalia between various armed rebel groups." A peaceful anarchy is simply not possible because though humans will naturally form alliances, these various alliances will fight each other because there is a limited supply of resources and there is no government to take charge and distribute these resources accordingly. It is simply human nature to try to obtain power and resources when you realize others may do so too. Not only does Somalia prove the societal dysfunction that results from anarchy, but my earlier example of Libya does too. An oppressive government, however, can prevent such societal dysfunction through the use of its authoritarian power. Societal order benefits the majority of the society, therefore allowing societal welfare. I now await my opponent"s rebuttal. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org...