Governments are inherently immoral and illegitimate

I will start by going over some of your points, then I will also touch on other aspects of this topic I feel are important for my closing arguments. I feel inclined to mention, however, that I don't believe you addressed my previous arguments that much in the last round, since your response was similar to what you already argued in the first round."There are governments that are mutualistic with their people , and there are governments that disregard the voice of the people."By its very nature and definition, a government can never be on an even playing field with those it governs, and this is very simple to demonstrate. There are two classes when it comes to societies with governments: those in the government who wield political power, the ruling class, and those outside of it, the subjects. This is the essence of political authority: it places those with it above the rest, or else it isn't political authority. In addition, the concept of government is about obedience to those in power who have this political authority. This is why I refer to the rest of the people as subjects: they have to obey whatever laws and orders are declared by the politicians and others with power. Elections don't change this fact; the laws of elected politicians have to be obeyed, and they have no obligation to keep their promises once they are in office. They have the power to pass whichever laws they want, and there is no guarantee that those laws will reflect the "will of the people". In fact, they usually don't. Not to mention, governments also don't have an obligation to hold elections, as they have the political authority to amend or pass laws that give them the power to suspend or cancel elections altogether. Even if a government does listen to what its subjects want, this doesn't automatically make the government and its laws good. To use my previous example, the government of Nazi Germany was popular with the majority of Germany, but their laws and actions were immoral and illegitimate. "Governments can establish environments suitable for economies to thrive, so that people can get food easily rather than working on the fields to eat."You don't need governments for this type of organization to occur. People cooperate through their own free will with others to achieve many different goals all the time. "In response to your claim that governments don't have the right to rule people, I say that they can have the right if it's given by the people, just as long as the government stays in line. If they don't, their right can be revoked."Not necessarily. As I mentioned before, the government can just amend and pass laws that allow it to either cancel elections or remain in power for whatever amount of time it wants. The constitution of the Weimar Republic guaranteed elections every four years, but the Nazis, who obtained their power through democratic elections, circumvented this by banning all opposition, and they had the legal authority to do so.In short, the concepts of government and political authority are illegitimate because there is no rational or moral basis to obey the law just because it is "the law", as it is just words on paper. Something being "the law" doesn't immediately mean that law is good or beneficial. These concepts are also immoral, because they are based on the idea that political power is above morality, since "the law" is enforced regardless of whether someone morally objects to it or not. You can't argue in court that you broke a law because you believe it is evil; that is irrelevant in the eyes of the legal system. All that matters in court is if there is enough evidence to prove that you broke the law, not whether that law is unjust. Jury nullification, which is when the jury acquits a defendant because they don't agree with the law, is anarchistic because it goes against the ideas of law, government and authority. I wrote an article that further elaborates on these points, and this is a quote from it:"Those in Nazi Germany who broke "the law" to give shelter to Jews avoiding persecution were good people for protecting them against unspeakable evil, and those "law-abiding citizens" who obeyed the government and turned over Jews to the authorities were complicit in helping the Nazis commit inhumane atrocities."https://steemit.com...I am also going include the links I put in the previous round again, because the topics they cover are extremely important in terms of this debate.https://steemit.com...https://steemit.com...As for actual published literature, I would recommend: "The Most Dangerous Superstition" by Larken Rose and "The Problem of Political Authority: An Examination of the Right to Coerce and the Duty to Obey" by Michael Huemer.Some final thoughts:I am probably going to lose in the voting period because many people still believe that governments are legitimate and necessary, and I just want to point out that popular or majority opinion doesn't always match the truth. As an example, only around a decade ago, the majority believed that gay marriage should be illegal. To go back further a lot further in history, the majority back then, including Aristotle, thought slavery was moral and necessary. Again, this didn't mean the majority was right.Truly understanding why the concepts of government and political authority are immoral and illegitimate requires thinking about these ideas objectively from scratch, without making assumptions or reaching conclusions based on what you already believe you know about this topic.