anarchy is the best form of government

Thank you for your definitions, Pro. I'll argue that anarchy is not the best form of government. Rebuttals: Statement: "States and institutions inevitably marginalize certain groups of people, therefore government fails to protect the natural rights of many of its citizens." Response: This is correct. All governments will inevitably group its citizens into either law abiders or law breakers. The law breakers are punished, and the law abiders retain their rights. The reason for this is because they do not violate the rights of others. Any state, including an anarchistic one by Pro's definition, must either have no power (non-coercive) or have power to protect right (coercive). These are the only two categories for a state. If a state has no power, then rights cannot be protected by that state. If a state has power, it will marginalize groups of people to protect their rights. Pro's argument is unfounded, as the government would have to have power to coerce in order to protect rights, which is contrary to the definition provided by Pro. Statement: "Criminals are still dealt with in anarchist societies..." Response: Not a government, Pro. This point is moot, unless Pro can show that Greece is an anarchy. If Pro really wishes to contend that Greece is a good example of an anarchy, then I would ask if anyone would choose to live in Greece over somewhere like the United States or Britain. If Greece is a good example of anarchy, it becomes obvious that anarchy is quite undesirable. Statement: "We have seen anarchists clashing with sisa drug dealers and working to make life better in poverty-stricken Greece." Response: We have also seen Catholics working to make life better in poverty-stricken countries, far more than anarchists have (1,2,3). I offer this as the reason a Catholic Theocracy is the best form of government. Do you see why this argument fails, Pro? Charitable deeds are not examples of governments. They are examples of private charity. This point is irrelevant and does not prove in any way that an anarchy is preferable to any other government that would also allow charity to occur, such as a democracy or theocratic government. Statement: "Why is being united a goal? The goal is supposed to be the protection of rights." Response: Because this is the way humanity has survived. Governments have been created to protect their citizens from foreign powers. Theocracies united us. Monarchies united us. Democratic states united us. Which of these is best I will leave up to you, but one thing is certain: removing the power to coerce from these states would disintegrate that unity. One must only look to the Articles of Confederation, enacted before the United States Constitution (4). Under the Articles, all states needed to agree unanimously on policy, which split the states apart into almost separate countries. Lack of power for the federal government to coerce the states lead to not unity, but splitting into factions. No one agreed, therefore no government protections could be offered. With the Constitution, however, the federal government was given power, albeit very limited power, to coerce the states against their will (5). This lead to unity, crafting an effective government still in place today, and probably the single most powerful government that still wholeheartedly protects the rights of its citizens. As anyone can see, the government must have the power to coerce in order to secure our rights. Without it, governments cannot stop those who wish to violate your rights, as that government is powerless. Your government cannot be disjointed and powerless and still protect your rights, thus, an anarchy is not preferable, let alone the best form of government. Statement: "The United States government of course punishes criminals, but does very poorly at reintegrating these individuals back into society." Response: This point is completely irrelevant. Problems in a government's procedure do not invalidate that governmental system. Democracy is not suddenly horrid simply because the US is bad at criminal reintegration. I agree with Pro that we should fix this, that our legislative system ought to enact a law coercing the executive into building a system in our prisons that can better rehabilitate or reintegrate criminals, but this law would only be possible if the government had the power to coerce. An anarchy could not fix this problem, as first, they have no power to imprison or punish others as that would require the power to coerce individuals to do things against their will, and second, the government would have no power to create legislation because it would inevitably require coercion (at least one person would have to do something against their will, such as rehabilitate a criminal they despise). The problem Pro offers, while having merit, can only be solved by a government that has the power to coerce, and by Pro's definition, an anarchy could never solve this problem. Statement: "A restorative justice approach would probably yield much better results." Response: No sources, no evidence to show that this system would be better, or what this system would even look like. Yet, I'll take the argument for what it stands and show how anarchy could never have a justice system in the first place. Anarchy requires lack of any coercive power. A justice system must be contrary to the will of the individual receiving justice (i.e. it is against a thief's will to receive justice). Coercive power being required in order to go against someone's will, an anarchy by Pro's definition can never have a justice system. Statement: "Anarchy is a different type of government that though unproven, could be the best form of government." Response: Pro has violated his burden. It is not my burden to prove that some other form of government is better than anarchy, but it is Pro's burden to prove that anarchy is the best form of government. Pro's statement at the end, that anarchy COULD be the best form of government violates the resolution found in this debate, that anarchy IS the best form of government. Pro even admits that this resolution is unproven, admitting that he cannot fulfill his burden of proof. To the voters, I ask that you do not see the all-capitalized words as a violation of conduct, I am only doing so to show the contrast between Pro's statement in R2 and the resolution of this debate. I await Pro's response. Sources: (1) https://www.caritas.org... (2) https://www.crs.org... (3) http://www.crosscatholic.org... (4) http://avalon.law.yale.edu... (5) http://constitutionus.com...