The state is a faux necessity and should be abolished

Let's get to it. Burden of ProofAn important part of this debate will concern which side has the burden of proof. Let it be clear that the burden of proof most usually is placed upon the person who makes an affirmative claim. To further expound upon this, an "affirmative claim" is one such that it differs from the status quo. Not just any status quo, of course, but a well establish status quo. For example, if someone were to claim "humans are not carbon based', the burden of proof would lie upon them, as it is well established that humans *are* carbon based, and claims to the contrary require significant evidence, or proof. Similarly, we find in today's world that people are almost universally directed by a government of some sort, be it fairly limited, like what we might find in mid-Europe, or dictatorial, like we might find in North Korea. In any case, "the state" is clearly the status quo, and the opponent is arguing counter to that. Given the logic that has preceded this paragraph, it is clear the burden of proof lies upon the opponent. Now my opponent did make a brief claim that it is my job to prove that "governments naturally form". I accept this, and offer forward examples of any given government on the face of the planet to prove that governments form. The majority, if not all, the societies existent today have naturally formed a government. The proof is in looking at the world as it exists today. Hunter-GatherersMy opponent briefly brought up "hunter-gatherer" tribes, claiming that they have existed for 90% of humanity's existence. Seeing as hunter-gatherer tribes rarely recorded historical facts, this will be hard to prove. Beyond that, it's completely irrelevant. Even if humanity spent the majority of its time without government, this does not prove the government is bad or that it is not a societal good. Onto The Main ArgumentNow that clarifications have been made, lets move onto the real meat of the argument. Let us first realize that the opponent made no claims as to why a government-less society is good. They haven't upheld their burden of proof or presented an affirmative argument. Despite this, I will present a negative argument, because I don't believe in wasted rounds. My opponent asked two things of me. 1) That I explain why government is necessary for society and 2) why governance can exist alongside capitalism. Why Governance Is NecessaryWhy is a government necessary? There are a few ways we can look at it. ECONOMICALLY: From an economic perspective, a government is necessary to insure that market abuses cannot stand. For example, monopolies. A monopoly is a total control of the output of some good. Monopolies have the ability to charge exorbitant prices for said good, since no other vendor is capable of producing that good at any other price. This creates a problem in the market, which is ultimately driven by competition. If the government can't regular market failures, the market failures will continue, to the detriment of society. Statement: Governments are necessary to prevent market failures. SOCIALLY: Everyone seeks the protection of their own life, ultimately. After all, what matters more than you own life? The existence of the government increases actual and perceived safety. Without a government, there are no meaningful laws. Ie, there is no governing force to enforce them. Without laws, we are reduced to our animalistic nature, creating great dangers for all peoples in the society that are not already advantaged toward success. The existence of a government insures that laws are enforced, to a degree necessary, in order to increase actual and perceived safety. Statement: Governments increase actual and perceived safety. LEGALLY: There can be no doubt that there exist people who wish to take actions that are not to the benefit of society as a whole. These people are generally referred to as criminals. However, without a government, criminals are not labelled as such. There is no central information repository that tracks these people and no executive force that can put them away. Without governance, no one is held ultimately accountable. Statement: Governments increase the apprehension of criminals, through uses of databases and region-wide data. Governance and capitalismMy opponent implies that capitalism better exists without governance than with. I argue that this is untrue. First, let's look at my previous argument regarding "market abuses". It is clear that the government has the power to reduce or eliminiate said market abuses. This allows a better market to prevail, thus bolstering the idea of capitalism. The government is also capable of offering incentives that increase capitalistic success. For instance, the government can offer certain companies tax breaks if they operate in such a way that increases GDP, or economic efficiency. Such tax breaks "push" said company to invest their resources in slightly different ways that that positively effect the economy. Statement: Some governmental regulation is necessary for capitalism. ConclusionFor the reasons I have provided, it is clear the government is a societal good, that which we most highly value. In other words, society is better with a government than without. Again, let us point out the opponent wasted a round by clarifying terms when he should have been making his point. In good faith, I will assume the opponent will make all his arguments in the next round -- the last round he has to say anything. Thanks for reading.