Oppressive government is more desirable than no government.

I will begin this final message by noting that I did not stick to the L-D format to which I originally set out, but this is because in light of my opponents argument structure, I found it unnecessary and cumbersome. With that, I will refute my opponent's case. I offer the following neutral definitions that I believe are more pertinent than the earlier ones.: government is... The body with the power to make and/or enforce laws to control a country, land area, people or organization. A group of people who hold a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a given territory. -from wiktionary If a body makes or enforces laws or holds a monopoly on legitimate force, then it is probably a government. First, my opponent argues that my the idea of a Kantian categorical imperative is a philosophical concept and not a law, and therefore not enforceable. However, the two are not mutually exclusive and indeed a law must be a normative philosophical concept. Perhaps (s)he is right in that it is difficult to enforce because it is difficult to interpret. However, my opponent's laws of 1) Do all you have agreed to do and 2) Do not encroach on others or their property are similarly vague and incapable of facile enforcement. For example, what if a person has agreed to conduct a surgery but ends up killing the patient? My opponents two laws could be interpreted to find the morality in this case, but they would do little good to determine culpability. To determine if malpractice was committed, you need more than a brute Utopian "peace corps." You need a law system, expert witnesses, industry standards, all of which a government, even an oppressive one, could provide. My opponent claims that " the legislative, judicial, or executive branches do not do anything to stop immoral people." This is a simplification of the US government (and some other governments) that is not true. For example, the executive branch finds guilty people, and the court tries them, but there are also state governments that do the same. Also, you need to have more than the holding of hands and the singing of "Kumbaya" to enforce laws. How does any organization (such as your corps) not have a leadership? Also, once your peace corps has a leadership it is a government because it is able to enforce laws in a systematic manner (i.e. according to the leadership), and in a manner in which it has a monopoly on legitimate force (it will be the only "legal" way to do "justice"). Your peace corps either a) disorganized but well-meaning an therefore ineffective as a neighborhood watch b) organized and malicious, therefore an oppressive government c) organized and well meaning, therefore a good government d) disorganized and malicious and therefore a scourge. Look at option B: Why the oppression? Precisely because your twin laws are so vague. The peace corps leadership can interpret those laws as it pleases, and enforce them as it pleases. In addition, it is still possible to corrupt your peace officer corps because they are human. Take for example a Napoleonic figure who uses propaganda to get the masses on his side- he doesn't need bribes, he only needs demagoguery and opportunity. By necessarily having a leadership structure and enforcing laws, your anarchic peace corps would turn into an oppressive government. I am corroborated not only by theory but by empirics. If we look to the historical record, almost all anarchies have turned into oppressive states (before later becoming less oppressive). My opponent, at the end of his case states, in essence, that an oppressive government is bad. This, I concede. However, this does not negate the resolution by itself. Thus, I will defend my reasons for why an oppressive government still has worth. First, an oppressive government can and has maintained civilization. For example, the US was oppressive to blacks for most of its history but it was still one of the most democratic institutions on earth. Your suggested society sounds a lot better, but that's about it. The fact is, you have no way of guaranteeing the freedom you promise. You have no check in the force of the police corps. I, too, can think of a utopian anarchy, but the problem with what I and you think of is that utopian societies depend on the good people triumphing, which doesn't always happen. The peace corps can and would be corrupted. The answer, to preserve society, is government. The man in front of the teleprompter isn't society. Society is the executive branch stopping the rapists, murderers, and thieves. The vigilante peace corps isn't society. Society is the government. Second, oppressive governments can deal with external threats, while anarchist ones cannot. It is ironic that you cite "fanatics", and then claim that "The only reason they would have to threaten us is because we infringed on them." Do you believe that fanatics need a reason to attack us? I would argue that your analysis of 9/11 is overly simplistic, and the conclusion you draw, "Don't encroach on others and they won't encroach on us" is wrong. For example, if Joe is crazy, he doesn't need a reason to hurt Bob. Furthermore, if Dan sends Joe an angry letter signed "Bob," Bob could get hurt even though he didn't do anything. Replacing the names in the above example with those of countries is one counterargument to your misguided maxim. Furthermore, let's apply the analysis to your 9/11 scenario. You say that we encroached on the Middle East in the Cold War, so that's why they bombed us. But imagine you are the Middle East- you were just encroached upon without cause by the US! That disproves the principle of "Don't encroach on others and they won't encroach on us" because otherwise, there would be no conflict in today's world. The fact is, people and countries sometimes encroach without cause. Life isn't fair. And in history, an anarchist state has not been able to defend itself when life throws injustice at said state. This is the number one reason for my claim that anarchy turns into oppressive government eventually. Look at the example of anarchist Catalonia, which only lasted a few years before coming under the fascist government of Franco. Or, look to the example of the Free Territory of the Ukrainian revolution which was, in a few years, taken over by the Bolsheviks. No large anarchist society has been able to defend itself from external threats adequately. It can therefore not defend civilization because it ceases to exist and is instead replaced by the external threat, which usually does retain civilization. Switzerland is a small independent society, armed to the teeth, that no one invades. Note that it has a government. To conclude, I have attacked the idea that a utopian anarchy can exist, even with the idealistic "peace officer corps." In addition, I have defended, and provided empirical, historical evidence for the notion that oppressive governments can maintain civilization, and defend against threats, while the anarchist state ceases to exist after a few years. I now ask that my opponent refute and rebut my arguments and defend his/her own without making any new ones. (S)he may provide new evidence, but I will not be able to respond to new arguments, so they shouldn't be allowed. I conclude this debate with a preemptive apology if I have come off as rude and a request of voters to please prioritize the overall logic and rhetoric when voting, as opposed to individual ideas.