Resolved: No government is preferable to an oppressive government

Let's get started. I'll start with establishing my case before critiquing my opponent's. Observations:Before we even begin, though, I'd wager that the resolution cannot be affirmed. Why? Because true anarchy, where there is no state ruling and either a) no one is in charge or b) everyone is in charge, is impossible to actually form. As Robert Upshaw[1] correctly notes, "actual anarchy never truly exists . . . [it presupposes] that all can rule at once, a supposition that directly contradicts human nature". We can find the truth in that statement simply by examining the dicotomy of ruling: one either leads or is lead. If all lead, there is no one to actually accomplish anything, and society never actually forms. If we all seek to be lead, there is no one to lead us, and society, again, never actually forms. This means that you instantly negate the resolution, as anarchy cannot actually exist in the material world, and thus cannot be something we would prefer to have. But moreover, a true stateless society can never really exist because there will always be decisions to be made, and thus always some person or group that will be in charge. The mere fact that there is no fancy title for the people in charge isn't a valid reason to call something 'stateless' if it's a de facto state. My opponent may try to argue that there does not need to be someone in charge, but if no one is in charge then there is no collective society as men then act in their own self-interest. This means that since a stateless society cannot actually be formed, you negate right here.But if you do not buy those arguments, I will establish why any sort of state, regardless of it's oppressive or non-oppressive nature, is always better than no state at all. My argument is split up into two parts: the beginning and the end.Part I: The Beginning . . .In the beginning, before any sort of state is formed, we exist in a state where there is no form of law, no form of control, no form of peace or tranquility. There is only self-want and desire for self-gain at any cost, regardless of harm to other people. Philosophers describe this state as a state of "perpetual and unavoidable war", and call it the State of Nature. As Celeste Friend[2] explains for the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Hobbes concludes that the State of Nature would be unbearably brutal. In the State of Nature, every person is always in fear of losing his life to another. They have no capacity to ensure the long-term satisfaction of their needs or desires. No long-term or complex cooperation is possible because the State of Nature can be aptly described as a state of utter distrust. Given Hobbes’ reasonable assumption that most people want first and foremost to avoid their own deaths, he concludes that the State of Nature is the worst possible situation in which men can find themselves. It is the state of perpetual and unavoidable war."Since this state is a horrible place to be with untold numbers of people dying, it's obviously something we want to avoid. But how do we actually avoid it?Part II: The End . . .These same philosophers also agree that in order to escape from this State of Nature and to prevent it from returning again, society forms the Social Contract to create a societal state. Friend[2] continues on to explain, "Because men are reasonable, they can see their way out of such a state by recognizing the laws of nature, which show them the means by which to escape the State of Nature and create a civil society. The first and most important law of nature commands that each man be willing to pursue peace when others are willing to do the same, all the while retaining the right to continue to pursue war when others do not pursue peace. Being reasonable, and recognizing the rationality of this basic precept of reason, men can be expected to construct a Social Contract that will afford them a life other than that available to them in the State of Nature. This contract is constituted by two distinguishable contracts. First, they must agree to establish society by collectively and reciprocally renouncing the rights they had against one another in the State of Nature. Second, they must imbue some one person or assembly of persons with the authority and power to enforce the initial contract. In other words, to ensure their escape from the State of Nature, they must both agree to live together under common laws, and create an enforcement mechanism for the social contract and the laws that constitute it."Examples of these states are all around us. Any sort of government is a form of the social contract. The mere proof that this is working is that our world has not devolved into absolute anarchy. The government retaining control of the populace by enforcing laws and regulations upon activities we once had the right to in the State of Nature is what is keeping the State of Nature from returning. And as the State of Nature is an impact that outweighs all other impacts, as even the millions of people who died under my opponent's case don't come near enough to even compare to the impact of devolving into the State of nature, this is the ultimate reason why any state, even an oppressive one, would be better than having no state and devolving into the State of Nature.Insofar as my case stands, the resolution is clearly negated. But let's address my opponent's case now.The Pro Case . . .As a brief overview to my opponent's case, there's one glaring flaw that I feel must be pointed out: my opponent gives you no actual reason why a stateless society is to be prefered. He lists a bunch of reasons why states are horrible and kill a whole bunch of people, but he never says anything about the benefits of a stateless society. Since he does not, you prefer my impact of a stateless society leading back to the State of Nature, which outweighs the negative impacts of enacting a Social Contract and the creation of a state by a longshot. This means that the resolution is affirmed easily. My opponent might try to extend out the feudalism point where he claims that feudalism is an example of a stateless society that works, but lets take a closer look at that point...Feudalism: A Stateless Society? . . .My opponent gives the example of feudalism as a stateless society and justifies it by saying that the King didn't actually have all that much power and had to get consent from his nobles and lords before any taxation could occur and thus there was no ultimate jurisdiction here and it does not meet the definition of a state. Let me introduce my opponent to the concept of an Aristocracy, which is where a group of powerful people rule over the majority. This type of state is exactly what my opponent is describing as feudalism, which would actually make this a state. This means that you can extend this out not as pro evidence, but as con offense to show why a society run by a state can work better than a stateless society. My opponent also gives the examples of the early british colonies being stateless, but those were either run by different charters or the royal crown themselves in the end, which means they were not stateless. Because of this my opponent actually has no examples of how stateless societies are beneficial, so you can easily negate as I'm the only one with an actual beneficial impact, i.e. preventing the state of nature from returning, being extended out.His front-line responses don't apply to my attacks as I'm not making any of those claims. His contention about how benefits can be provided by stateless societies just as well as states isn't relevent as a) this doesn't prevent the return of the state of nature, as only some form of state can do so via the Social Contract, and b) if my opponent's argument is true it's at best non-unique since we both provide those benefits.The resolution is affirmed.Cites:http://debate.org...;