Resolved: No government is preferable to an oppressive government

To prefer something over another means that usually you would choose it over the offered alternative. Thus both my opponent and I must not only show specific times and places where one is to be preferred, but rather show that human nature/incentives would cause a rational person to choose our position. Oppressive is a foggy & subjective term, however it should be self evident that governments which routinely violate rights are oppressive. Rights can be defined in many ways, but the only rational position is that people have the right to do whatever they wish with their bodies and property so long as they don't harm or devalue another persons property or person (non-aggression principle). I'll defend this position if my opponent really wants to attack it, but I aim to show that under any view of rights anarchy is preferable to oppression. A state is defined as a compulsive monopoly of force and jurisdiction within a territory with the power to tax and legislate[1]. I. History A. Oppressive governments The 20th century provides us with a wealth of case studies to examine the effects of oppressive governments. Contrary to theancien regimeof kingly rule, the 20th century (post WWI to be exact) marks mankind's final transition from sovereign kings to peoples and, ultimately, dictators in charge of the state. Previously while governments could be oppressive in specific times and places (such as the first war), they generally returned to the previous status quo while retaining only a few of their new privileges. After WWI however, the age of truly big government had begun. Hoppe correctly remarks[2] that the 20th century was "the century par excellence of socialism: of communism, fascism, [and] national socialism.." It was also the most murderous and unjust period in human history. The results of the oppressive government experiment are clear and incontrovertible, from widespread war and genocide to less obvious violations such as absurdly high taxation and regulations the terrible effects of oppressive governments are clear to all. The economic devastation of Europe and Russia, almost universal conscription (slavery and murder) along with millions of deaths: the 60 million people killed in the second great war[3] 33 million of whom were completely innocent men women and children[4], the 11 million dead from the Holocaust[5], the 3.9 million murdered in the Holodomor, the 3 million dead in Stalin's great purge[6], and the 45 million in Mao's "great leap forward"[7] being but a few examples of the victims of oppressive governments. Moreover there are countless nameless victims of these slaughters: survivors or family members and conscripted soldiers who are forced to deal with psychological trauma and injuries sustained from oppressive government. The era of oppressive governments represents one of the greatest social upheavals ever; most if not all of our present day disorder: social decline, and cultural degradation can be attributed to the destructive effects of oppressive or semi oppressive governments (such as redistributive democratic-socialist states like the US and Europe). The post WWI regime of oppressive governments must be regarded as a social catastrophe the likes of which the world has never seen. My opponent has a mountain to climb in order to prove that any other form of governments including a complete lack thereof could outweigh these in destruction and any other metric of evil. Automatically you presume an affirmative ballot because an examination of historical and contemporary oppressive states gives strongly negative results. Reject out of hand any theoretical arguments my opponent proposes that contradict history, and while I know not what arguments he will make, it's incredibly doubtful that any historically observed stateless or, more likely, pseudo stateless catastrophe will outweigh the effects of oppression. B. Stateless societiesWe have good examples of stateless societies for analysis, such as feudalism. Robert Nisbet[8] explains that feudalism was "an extension and adaptation of the kinship tie with a protective affiliation...Contrary to the modern political state with its principle of territorial sovereignty...rights, welfare, authority, and devotion inhered in a personal, not a territorial tie. To be the 'man' of another man, in turn the 'man' of still another man and so on up to the very top of the feudal pyramid, each owing the other either service or protection, is to be in a feudal relationship." Indeed, despite the orthodox historical beliefs of feudalism being a form of slavery, feudalism was virtually always a contractual/kinship tie. Serfs could negate their obligations by leaving the manor for over a year (see the year and one day rule), and feudal kings totally lacked ultimate jurisdiction, and had to get their nobles agreement before implementing taxation[9] and the approval of the nobles was needed to legitimatize virtually every decision a king could make[10]. Thus for most of a thousand year period in Western history there was the complete lack of a state (monopoly of ultimate jurisdiction), and nowhere near the negative impacts coming off of oppressive governments. The early British colonies were also typically characterized by the lack of a state. This shows us that a lack of a government is not incompatible with human nature, so you affirm right here.I already know what my opponent is going to say. Ignore any attacks he makes on feudalism, because my job isnt to prove no government is ideal just that its preferable. Ignore also any critique he makes regarding feudalism's incompatibility with the status quo--the point isnt to say feudalism is good, but rather to illustrate that when we had no state is was over all an acceptable state of affairs especially when compared to oppressive governments. There is no inherent need for a state to keep people "in line". II. Theoretical implications A. Inevitable effects of oppressive governmentsOppressive governments and the rise of absolutism have destroyed much of civilization. As Bertrand de'Jouvenel aptly points out (during WWII)[11]: "We are ending where the savages began. We have found again the lost arts of starving non-combatants, burning hovels, and leading away the vanquished into slavery. Barbarian invasions would be superfluous: we are our own Huns." Even without looking at history, its clear that rights violations and warfare from oppressive governments is virtually inevitable since these governments are definitionally suppressive. An oppressive government will not cede power without a fight (as can be seen extensively from King George's England all the way to modern Syria) so even if an oppressive government somehow avoid external war it still faces internal conflicts and this coupled with the rights violations definitionally associated with oppressive governments strongly disconfirms the hypothesis that they are better than no government. Oppressive governments are far more decivilizing and deadly than anarchy. B. Feasible stateless societies There are feasible alternatives to the state. There is literally no service provided by the government that can't be provided by the private sector and/or communities. Even law and order can be provided by the same kind of private security firms already used by governments throughout the world[12]. All that needs to be abolished is the compulsorily monopoly. Before we even come CLOSE to negating we need strong proof that any state at all is advantageous. Given the historical decivilizing and brutal effects of governments, especially oppressive ones, my opponent has a huge mountain to climb.My opponent must prove that both A state is needed to provide some essential service, and that this service is so essential that its necessity outweighs genocide, war, and cultural and economic destruction. Before then, you affirm. For all these reasons the resolution is affirmed. Citeshttp://goo.gl...