On balance, a corrupt government is better than no government.

As written in Plato's Republic, 'Law is the king of all, mortals as well as immortals..' Because of Plato's analysis, and the reasons that follow, I stand firmly in affirmation to today's topic, that 'On balance, a corrupt government is better than no government.' For overall clarity I'd like to offer the following definitions and say thanks to dictionary.com. Better means morally superior. Corrupt is defined as made inferior by errors or alteration. While a Government is the governing body of persons in a state, community, ect. I'd also like to define Anarchy as a state of society without government or law. Topic Analysis: What I first observed is that a Government is composed of rational agents, therefore the only way a government can be corrupt is if those agents that compose the government are corrupt themselves. My second observation is that no known group of humans are completely moral and pure. If so they have yet to create a government system in today's society.(Status quo) Lastly, I observe that government systems are created solely for protecting natural born rights (i.e. Life, liberty and property). This observation is quite evident within the context of the Social Contract theory purposed by either Locke or Rousseau.(Political theory) Furthermore, my observations led me to my thesis, that, since governments are composed by immoral beings then they are all inherently corrupt. Therefore, since ALL known government systems are inherently corrupt my opponent MUST prove to you that universal anarchy is a better solution. This is now the burden of the CON in order to have some ground in today's debate. Moving on.. Now I will point out the benefits offered by a government system, in accordance to the status quo as well as political theory. Simultaneously explaining the negative effects of anarchy. First, A government is contractually obligated to protect your human rights, meaning if I were to kill my neighbor I'd be punished accordingly. This punishment would never happen in an anarchy where everyone is for themselves and no protection is offered. Therefore a government, since it protects your rights, by enforcing laws, is better. Second, A corrupt government can be improved if people undergo proper routines to change it (i.e. Civil Disobedience & protesting.) BUT in an anarchy there's no room for improvement because if they establish a way to help/manage the citizens it would ultimately be considered a government, which is simply going back to my primary stance that a corrupt government is better than no government. Last, a government offers their citizens education and schooling, because schools are regulated and paid for by governments. YET an anarchy has no government funding to pay for educators. Therefore no, or very weak, schooling will be available to the young individuals within an anarchy, which is bad because better education leads to more economic and political success, which is empirically proved as we can look to the United States, Canada, France, as well as the financial and literate success of the U.K. http://en.wikipedia.org... Overall, governments are inherently corrupt. YET they still offer protection to our natural born rights. Unlike an anarchy were protection is NOT guaranteed. And just for the fun of debate I'd also like to point out that as supported by (correct me if I'm wrong) Aristotle's view on Social Contract-- Anarchy can never exist. And never has. We are ALL born into a governing body, be it a tyrant, president, or even a mother and father. Therefore, making it impossible to evaluate the positive effects of something that never has, and never can exist. Meaning in no way can CON win. Because they are evaluating the non-existing. If necessary I'll give a more in-depth analysis... GOOD LUCK, hopefully we have a good debate. I'm looking forward to your responses! =D