Resolved: An unjust government is better than no government at all

Okay, let's talk about this topic and establish some burdens. Since you are the affirmative, you have the burden of proof to show that an UNJUST (not only any) government is always superior to a lack of government (anarchy). Let it be clear that I am not arguing for anarchy nor am I stating that anarchy is en balance superior - but what I am arguing is that an unjust government is NOT superior to a lack of government. Let's look at the facts of the matter. To begin, we have to look at what an unjust government entails. An unjust government is one that does not uphold its social contract, or violate the rights of its constituents. By rights, we can turn to either the natural rights that John Locke spoke about, or we can turn to civic rights that the government gives to its constituents. By violating that contract, the purpose of that government is null and void. That government takes what it was established to prevent (like homicide, etc.) and flips it around, committing that same act. In an absence of government, no contract exists between the people and an institution. As such, that contract cannot be violated. Meaning that in this debate, you have to show that a violated contract is better than an unviolated, nonexistent contract. Now let's further look at why these contracts exist. Humans create these contracts to prevent bodily harm to themselves, such as a violation of John Locke's property, liberty, or life rights. But once an unjust government exists, those contracts are violated to the dismay of those humans that created the contract. That being the case, we have to consider consent of the governed. By affirming, my opponent states that it is superior to ignore the consent of the governed. But finally, by affirming by opponent has to gauge that the violation of rights by authority is better than the violation of rights by a common man. The problem in this logic is a matter of leverage. Authority, by definition has the leverage to violate the rights of every man within its jurisdiction. This means that authority then can mass violate rights. Contrary to this stands an absence of government. In this absence, no centralized authority exists other than consensual agreements between private individuals. This means that private individuals and consensual agreements lack the leverage to violate rights anymore than a centralized authority. For instance, a tyrannical government violates the rights of all within its jurisdiciton, whereas terrorist cells only violate the rights of certain individuals (not the entire population that consented to its governance.) Let it be understood that if the affirmative fails to meet these conditions, then he loses the debate and you have to vote con. I have no burden. So far my opponent has presented two arguments. 1 -- that an unjust government leads to a just government. He brought up the example of the United States becoming a just government by breaking off from an unjust government. But there are a multitude of issues. By making this statement, the affirmative claims that the ends justify the means. Let's say I go out and kill someone, but that person is a corrupt monarch. My ends are to make a better society by eliminating that monarch. But my means are to kill him. To violate his rights in exchange for the betterment of others rights. This idea entails a utilitarian approach. That is also the case in the debate today - so he has to show why a utilitarian approach is superior to an individualized approach. But further, his mentality in the debate today that an unjust government leads to a just government excludes an entire possibility - that an absence of government leads to a government. 2 -- If there is no government people will form their own governments. This topic is irrelevant. We're arguing whether an unjust government is superior to an absence of government. Those governments formed can be just or unjust - but that has no bearing on the topic today. But let's say that it does. In the absence of government, there is a possibility that a newly formed government is just. However, when a government is unjust, it fails to be just. Between the two, an absence of government holds stronger because of the possibility of justness that doesn't exist in an unjust government. To respond, my opponent might point out that an unjust government might reform to become just. But keep in mind today, the topic is concerning an unjust government - not a reformed government. Thus, the option is clear - negate.