anarchy is the best form of government

First, let me apologize that this is not better organized. I was rushed after I forgot about the debate and was forced to hammer something out before bed. States discriminate between people on many more levels than just "law abiders" vs "law breakers." Anarchism argues that the institution of the justice system is unacceptably inadequate. Even in the case of law breakers, not all are treated or punished equally. For example, the U.S. Sentencing Commission found that black offenders were sentenced to 20% more prison time than white offenders for committing the same crimes. Anarchism does not create a state, that is part of the whole point of it. Power is concentrated in the freely associated communities, including the power to punish wrongdoers and protect the rights of its members. These communities have members that can act to coerce others to obey the rules of the community. Greece is certainly not an anarchy, it is closer to a failed state. The economic and political system failed the citizenry, so parts of the society reverted to the most natural form of government--self-government via anarchy. Anarchists are often revolutionaries who despise the inequitable nature of the state's distribution of resources. It was Greece's corrupt democracy and capitalist system that failed the people and led to the need for anarchists to step in to help feed and care for people and deal with wrongdoing drug dealers. Catholics have worked across the world to provide aid, which is of course noble, however those are outsiders coming in to provide aid--not the countries' own citizens forming a new type of government to address their own needs as is the case of the anarchists in Greece. The US provides monetary aid to many countries around the world, but does anyone believe that this means the US should run the world? No. That sort of patronizing assistance seems leaves the countries beholden to the will of the US, and perhaps even keeps them from developing better economies for themselves. I agree that charitable deeds are not examples of governments--but I think I left out an essential element of government in m earlier definition--a government should provide for the needs of its citizens. The anarchists in Greece are not doing charity, they are taking matters into their own hands because both the state's government and outside charity have not provided for the citizens' needs. You still don't seem to argue explicitly that unity should be a goal of government. Ironically, the reason America won the Revolutionary War is because it sought the aid of a foreign power, the French, who nullified Britain's extreme naval superiority. Anarchy still allows for trade and relations with other nations as delegates can be chosen by consensus to perform these duties. The constitution had to be unanimously approved--the founding fathers formed a consensus in order to establish this most crucial document, ironically utilizing anarchist methods to form their new state. I don't believe Con has shown that anarchy does not have the "power to coerce in order to secure rights." Anarchy is both a process and a philosophy, as all forms of government are. As for your claim that it is irrelevant how well a government reintegrates its criminals into society, is it not a dereliction of duty to protect the criminals' right to rehabilitation if it fails to the degree the U.S. justice system does? I argue that it is failing to protect this right of these citizens. It also fails to protect the rights of immigrants who the state criminalizes. The U.S. state also fails to protect the rights of women needing abortions in Texas. It has also failed to protect the rights of the litany of black men and boys who have been killed by police in recent history. The problem with the state is its priorities are wrong, and I believe this is because a capitalist, indirect and corrupt democracy creates rules that only protect a certain class of its citizens. Now is this inevitable in a democracy? I don't think so. But perhaps it is so with capitalism. I am really an advocate of socialist anarchy, as socialist democracies have the highest happiness indices in the world, they are the closest to the optimum form of government. These citizens are the happiest because they don't have to worry about their rights being tread on. Con continues to assert that anarchies have no capacity to coerce citizens to act according to rules, however I have already shown that the Greek anarchists punished drug dealers and destroyed their drugs and equipment, proving that anarchists can coerce citizens to follow the law or be punished. I'm not sure I have done a good job of defining anarchy. "Direct action" is a primary tenant of anarchy. Direct action is simply taking matters into your own hands when the state has failed to protect rights or provide for needs. Handing out food and beating up drug dealers are examples of direct action. This is where the "teeth," or power to coerce, of anarchy comes in (https://plato.stanford.edu...). Here is a piece of evidence in restorative justice's favor, which I brought up because I consider it a very anarchist form of justice. The mediated group represents a implementation of justice closer to restorative justice. "Recidivism was examined in four victim-offender mediation sites in the U.S. using comparison groups of referred but non-mediated offenders and non-referred offenders. Eighteen percent of the mediated group of offenders re-offended within one year compared to 27% of the non-mediated offenders (Umbreit, Coates & Kalanj, 1994). In addition, 41% of the new offences committed by mediated offenders were classified as "less serious" compared to only 12% of the non-mediated group" (http://www.justice.gc.ca...). It is because anarchy has not been seen on any large scale in recent history, that I miswrote that it "could" be the best form of government. I hope I have shown reasons why anarchy would be the best form of government.