An Anarchist State

== Rebuttals == Pro seems to be using two, incompatible ideas. They define Anarchy as the "absence of government" while simultaneously admitting that a governing force is necessary to preserve basic order and justice. Pro says that FORMAL government is unnecessary in an "eye for eye" system, but that's only half the equation. Anarchy, by Pro's own definition, necessitates the absence of ALL government. Non-formal government is still government. Pro still has not addressed the main contradiction of their "eye for eye" justice system. Such a system still requires judges and administrators - who decides when a violation has occurred, and who administers the punishment? Isn't this one of the main functions of "formal" government? Even if everything is decided collectively by the group, that is not Anarchy - it's Democracy. Pro admits that early government formed to preserve peace among "primitive societies." But now, supposedly, we humans are much more sophisticated and civilized so we no longer need governments to keep the peace..... right? Wrong. Pro admits in Round 2 that human nature would probably not significantly change under Anarchy. So we must then briefly explore what modern human nature is. What do we see in situations when government temporarily dissolves (Hurricane Katrina, Ferguson Missouri, 2003 Iraq, etc....)? Does everyone band together in mutual harmony and cooperation? No - we see looting, violence, murder, and mob rule. Pro must provide compelling evidence to support their claim that base human nature is now more "advanced." For Anarchy to work as my opponent says, human nature would have to fundamentally change. Unfortunately, there is a mountain of evidence to suggest this has not happened. Humans overwhelmingly devolve into self-serving, competitive, and violent behavior when government dissolves. In any case, Pro has already admitted human nature would not change, so this is a moot point. I cannot help but feel that Pro isn't really arguing for Anarchy at all. My opponent says justice requires a balance between liberty and limitation - neither total freedom nor total restriction. Yet isn't that what all but the most repressive governments provide - allowing people to exercise certain freedoms in certain ways? I fail to see how Pro's vision of Anarchy differs from an informal liberal government. How can there be any real restriction if Anarchy's definition is "liberty unrestricted by man-made law?" If man doesn't make the laws, then who/what does? Is there any law at all? == Challenges == To these many questions Pro has given few answers and even less evidence. For clarity, I will list each of my challenges to Pro for the final round. I look forward to the answers. 1. If Anarchy is the absence of all government then who/what preserves order and justice? 2. How is an "eye for eye" justice system not coercive? Isn't it simply intimidation through the threat of retaliation? 3. Who settles disputes and who administers justice in an Anarchist system? How is that different from a basic government? 4. If Anarchy is a balance between freedom and restriction, then how is it different from the concept liberal government? 5. If Anarchy rejects man-made laws, then who/what authoritatively prohibits autonomy violations? Is this prohibition not a sort of "law?" 6. What evidence is there to support the claim that governments are no longer needed to maintain peace? I eagerly await Pro's response.