Government should be abolished

Con begins his statement by citing Somalia. I have already explained why Somalia is a weak example against anarchy in my previous statement, something which Con has conveniently ignored. I provided statistics showing that while Somalia may be bad, it has been improving by any standard since the collapse of its state. I further pointed out that judging all possible forms of anarchy by one brief example of chaos resulting from the collapse of a government is fallacious. I advocate agorism, which would provide a functional framework rather than depending on one to arise out of political instability, as is necessary if a government collapses. The same framework could also be developed through political gradualism. By the same logic used by Con, I could argue that statism is a bad idea because North Korea is a bad place to live. I showed how Somalia's instability can be explained by how the anarchy began, as well as the failed UN interventions. Lastly, I provided two real-world examples of anarchy resulting in a stable system, which Con also ignored. Con has merely restated his argument after I have rebutted it, doing this without attempting to defend his argument against my rebuttal. If con wishes to use this argument, he must rebut these arguments, not ignore them. He then gives Los Angeles as a second example of anarchy in practice. This is flawed for several reasons. First, it ignores the fact that gangs make most of their money off of dealing drugs, a practice that would be replaced by private industry in market anarchy. Second, gangs will have a higher propensity to be violent than will PDAs, as gangs are illegal, and illegal activity tends to attract unsavory characters while scaring away legitimate business. Third, if a PDA does attempt to monopolize a region, it will severely damage its public image, reducing its profits drastically through angering and frightening customers. This is not a problem for gangs, as they are already engaged in unpopular activity and thus necessarily do not care nearly as much about their PR. Fourth, if a PDA declares monopoly over a region, it must face the PDAs of each person residing in the territory. As it is unlikely that a previously-agreed-upon court would find in favor of the would-be monopolist, that possibility is out of the equation. Violence is unlikely because it would require the business to raise the wages of its employees due to the drastically increased risk in the job and would also threaten the safety of whoever owns the firm. Con then states that HOAs and PDAs qualify as governments. With respect to HOAs, he points out that they are geographically based. I agree. They do not initiate force though, as they are contractually agreed to by all parties, unlike the state (see my rebuttal to social contract arguments below). Regarding PDAs, Con states "a dominant gang or warlord make the same effort to suppress and delegitimize their opponent's use of force within their jurisdiction just like any other government." This is logically flawed because PDAs, which are distinct from gangs and warlords, would likely remain competing, for the reasons I listed in the above paragraph. As such, they are extremely unlikely to become monopolized, provided relative political stability. He then states "If PDA's are to be effective, they cannot permit another legitimate force initiator in their region, meaning that these function exactly like a private government." This is entirely baseless; a shoe company is no less effective at providing shoes if it is the only company around. In fact it is less efficient. So why would defense be more efficient if provided by a monopoly? Con provides no reason. Next Con states that private government is feudalism. This is arguably true. Fortunately, I am supporting anarchism here, not private government. Supporting privatization of the functions of government is not the same as supporting a government that is private. Under feudalism, not only is there a geographical monopoly on the legal initiation of force, but there is little or no mobility for those living under the system. Feudalism is a form of statism, not anarchy. Con claims arguments that governments are unethical fail, "because the definition of government is not limited to a specific government." This is a non-sequitur, as I am arguing that *all* government is unethical, and therefore support its abolition. He then claims, "It is impossible to say that all government is bad while you continue to advocate a modified form of government." I agree with the statement here. The problem is, I don't support a "modified form of government," making this claim a strawman. PDAs fail to qualify as governments because they do not initiate force, are not monopolies, and are not territorial. HOAs fail to meet this standard as well, as they do not initiate force. Con then says, "My opponent can only make these claims if he waives all claim to any governance of peoples. Otherwise, these same objections apply to his alternative governmental forms." This is, once again, a strawman, as I have established that my system does not involve government. Con states, "My opponent claims that the social contract is not the same thing as a written contract governing a society. I would point out to him that the Magna Carta, the US constitution, and countless other charters and constitutions are precisely that – contracts for a society – social contracts. These contracts are signed and considered legally binding. I fail to understand his distinction between the two." The distinction is that not all parties agree to a social contract, meaning it initiates force against parties which are affected, but do not sign (which means everyone in the country, except for those few people who signed the Constitution themselves). On the other hand, in a PDA or HOA contract, all affected parties explicitly agree to the terms, meaning that force is not initiated. To recap: 1. Con has ignored all of my points regarding Somalia, and merely repeated his initial argument. 2. Con's argument that PDAs would be comparable to gangs fails because the environment gangs thrive in is very different from anarcho-capitalism, making it a flawed analogy, among other reasons given above. 3. Con's argument that PDAs and HOAs are states fails because they fail to qualify, as PDAs aren't geographical monopolies, nor do they initiate force, and HOAs do not initiate force. 4. The accusation that private government is feudalism fails because it is irrelevant; I do not support any government. 5. Con's claim that the social contract is indistinguishable from a contract with a PDA or HOA fails because not all parties agree to a social contract, which means it initiates force. All parties agree to PDA/HOA contracts, so they do not meet the qualification of initiating force. In conclusion, Con has failed to justify government, ethically or pragmatically. Furthermore, his arguments for the necessity and desirability of government have failed for reasons stated both in the body of my statement and its recap. I urge you to vote with an open mind after round five ends and judge the arguments made without bias. Vote either pro or con, but be sure to be objective and rational.