Government is a necessary evil to protect the freedoms of human individuals.

I negate, that "Government is a necessary evil to protect the freedoms of human individuals". Statistically, people will place a rather heavy burden of proof on me as I am arguing against the status quo, so I'd like to ask the voter to base the winning condition on whether or not I am able to sufficiently address each of PRO's concerns. To argue for anarchy completely requires an overhaul of many ideas and beliefs; something that cannot possibly be done in a single debate here on DDO - putting me to that standard would not be reasonable. V: Individual Liberty - PRO's definition will be fine. According to former professor of constitutional law and current president of the United States, Barack Obama, the only attribute that makes a government what it is, is "the monopoly on violence". Companies can own land and churches have the ability to gather fees from their constituents, but only a government can legally initiate the use of force. This is part of PRO's definition - a "compulsory" authority. No government can carry out its duty without money, and as they are a collective authority, they would, naturally, get their funding from every member of the population. If an organization collects only from a few and protected everyone, then it'd be called a charity. If an organization collects only from a few and protected a few, then it'd be called an insurance company. Only when an organization collects from everyone is it called a government. This is a necessary outcome of PRO's definition. A government is a compulsory authority that collects from everyone to run its operations. In other words, a government is going to have your money, and will take it by force if you do not give it. This directly infringes on individual liberty. No government can ever achieve individual liberty, as it is based on attacking individual liberty. VC: Anarchy - The absence of government, limited or not. __________________ Contentions Against Anarchy "1. Under anarchy, a domestic group could unite and force an oppressive government onto a population." >The definition of anarchy is not "without organization", but "without government" - or in other words, an anarchist society (anarchy) would be one without an entity that has the monopoly on violence. In an anarchy, the economic system would be a free market - there is no government to make it a socialist or mercantile system. As we all know very well, the law of the free market is that if there is a desire for something, then a solution will be produced. This is why a domestic group cannot force an oppressive government onto the population. Are you afraid certain large corporations will become governments? Certainly in an anarchy, every citizen (for lack of a better word) would be as fearful of an oppressive government as we are of terrorists today. Well then, those corporations will have to answer to your needs - they will have to prove to you one way or another that they will not do such a thing. A company that does not answer to its customer's needs cannot survive. Every company would have to do something like post every one of its monetary transactions online - SOME action to clarify that they are being trustworthy. Such transparency then would make it impossible for any company to secretly gather an army to force a government onto the population. A company is really the only way any domestic group could gain enough power to force an oppressive government onto the population. Timmy's neighborhood gang cannot get enough funds from their combined allowances to buy themselves even a single Stinger missile. "2. Under anarchy, vigilante justice and a private alternative are the only systems that protect individual freedoms." >I'm not sure why private alternatives are an argument against anarchy? Also, vigilante justice is a non-unique argument. "3. Under anarchy, foreign nations can easily conquer and then establish an oppressive government." >There's quite a few steps before an invasion could start and in those steps are the reasons why a government would not want to attack an anarchy, but for now, let's assume that the attacking country is already on our hypothetical anarchy's doorstep. The security companies of the anarchy will be the ones with the most vested interest in this situation, as they will be the first to go if the invasion is successful. They would more than likely arm the populace at the border with whatever weapons that they pleased, as this creates a significant fog of war problem for the invaders. If we look at Iraq, which has been more or less an anarchy with an armed populace fighting against a foreign country's invading force, it has been a complete fiscal disaster for the US. In recent history's examples of Iraq and Vietnam, it is clear that even the world's greatest military superpower cannot successfully take over an armed populace. Contentions For Minarchy "1. National defense is best achieved through a collective effort, as without an official military, a people can only REACT to an invading force." >As stated earlier, anarchy does not mean without organization. In a free market, there is definitely going to be corporations - although nothing like the ones we know today. Citizens of an anarchy are going to have a desire for security (we know this because we also have this desire), so the free market will provide security insurance companies. This is more or less a type of collective effort, so whatever benefits PRO is arguing that an official military has, an anarchist security company would have as well - though to be sure, I'm not sure what he means by an anarchy can only react to an invading force. React as opposed to what? "2. Individual rights can be protected through a court system and with a system of law enforcement. With government, individual rights simply can be effectively protected." >You desire a dispute resolution system and a peace insurance organization? So does everyone else! Therefore, the free market will definitely provide it to you. "3. Not infringing on another's liberty should be compulsory." >Though I agree that it should be compulsory in the sense that it should never happen, forcing it to happen simply doesn't work. "Not infringing on another's liberty should be compulsory" is the same thing as saying "It should be compulsory to not infringe on another's liberty", which then is synonymous with "Force should be used to prevent the infringement of liberty", which is a completely contradictory statement. Force is the infringement of liberty, and to say that the infringement of liberty is justified to prevent the infringement of liberty does not fly under any logical system. _________ That'll be it for openers. I await a rebuttal from the minarchist position.