Government is a necessary evil to protect the freedoms of human individuals.

This is one of my first debates in a long time that I am arguing for the government side, which is why I believe I shall enjoy it. Because both debaters value individual liberty but have different proposals on protecting it, all that need be debated is the system. The resolution contains the words "necessary evil" not without reason: individual liberty is harmed under anarchy and government. However, I will show that there is greater liberty with government than without. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Arguments against anarchy: 1. Potential domestic establishment of tyranny I would like for my opponent to describe a private company that would prevent the establishment of tyranny without infringing on individual liberty. Such a company would likely become a monopoly because of the economics of scale. According to economist Milton Friedman, "Monopoly arises to some extent because technical considerations make it more efficient or economical to have a single enterprise rather than many" [1]. Should defense against the establishment of tyranny be monopolized privately, it is more susceptable to corruption than collective democratic ownership. Because free riders would most certainly exist from such a private company (because they can reap the benefits of the company's services without paying), such a company would not have very much power. As a result, the funding for defense against the domestic establishment of tyranny would be significantly less if privatized. Because of the free rider system, anarchist systems such as 1936 Spain were ended. There was no company to prevent this perhaps because of the free rider problem. 2. Private Justice and Vigilantism Private vigilante justice systems such as the Mafia have a history of corruption. They still exist in the free market because there is demand for their services, which are more economically efficient than alternatives. Vigilantism deprives its victims of liberty without due process, so innocents are more likely to be oppressed under anarchy than otherwise. A private court system would have compulsory authority in order to function and, again, collective democracy in funcions with compulsory authority is necessary to limit corruption. 3. Conquest My opponent's proposed national defense system has several flaws: -The free rider problem: the individuals in a community would not invest their personal incomes in a security company if they could get the same benefits without doing so. As a result, people would likely not invest in "defense insurance" because the community recieves the benefits of the insurance without having to pay for it. -His Vietnam and Iraq examples are not profit-driven companies, but power-driven and religiously motivated insurgencies. The Viet Cong were supported by foreign governments, and the Iraqi Insurgency was funded by global terrorist organizations. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Minarchy: 1. National Defense I have already addressed the weaknesses of security companies (technical monopoly, free rider problem). These weaknesses are significant enough to prefer a collectively funded military. 2. Justice system Private justice and court systems have been addressed earlier (vigilantism, private compulsory entities). 3. The Justification of Compulsory Authority to Protect Liberty Slavery of human beings would occur under an anarchist system. Slavery obviously is an infringement of one's ability to govern their own lives and property. Simply put, in the absence of a system to protect people from coercion, coercion occurs. Coercion not to coerce can be considered a lesser evil than individual coercion left alone. So, a certain level of government is necessary to protect individuals from coercion. My opponent has proposed private courts to protect people from coercion; however, in order to prevent coercion, such courts would have to have coercive power. A collectively controlled coercive entity is also ethically preferable, because the power to coerce should be derived from the people. In the words of Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" [2]. Profit-driven coercion can be considered a greater evil than collectively controlled coercion. CONLCUSION: The coercive powers necessary to protect liberty in society must be placed in the hands of a government controlled by the people. A government is also necessary to defend from threats to liberty, both foreign and domestic. [1] Milton Friedman; Capitalism and Freedom, Chapter VIII [2] . http://www.archives.gov...