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

An analysis of his belief in a DRO system makes me believe that he is a panarchist. I enjoyed this debate because it allowed me to more understand the anarchist view. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1. Domestic Establishment of tyranny. My opponent's case against the likely private monopoly of watchdog companies has several flaws. First, it assumes that multiple protection companies already exist (and they wouldn't, because of economy of scale [conceded by my opponent]). Second, it ignores the merging of corporations, which is mutually beneficial to both parties, and was the original market cause of monopolies. Technical monopoly of a watchdog company in addition to the free rider problem which my opponent has not truly addressed make watchdog replacements of government unworking. In no anarchy has a successful watchdog company ever been made. This is because such companies are unprofitable due the free rider problem. Again, the result of the economics of scale would be either a monopoly or simply no such company at all. The final result would be no defense against the potential establishment of tyranny by crime organizations such as the mafia or, perhaps more likely, a foreign government. 2. Private Justice and Vigilantism While vigilante justice exists under other systems, it would certainly be more prevailant under anarchy for reasons aforementioned. My opponent's eBay example has several flaws. The largest is that it does not apply to coercive, non-monetary crimes against liberty, such as theft. If theft occurs, then that individual was relinquished of his property involuntarily. This isn't like eBay where he willingly bought something from a shady seller. My opponent has not defended the establishment of a private court system, and therefore concedes it. Private court systems have tendencies towards local monopoly due to economy of scale (conceded by CON) and therefore one cannot simply unsubscribe from the only force that protects them. "If corruption happens in the GOVERNMENT, it's a long process to get rid of the person in question, and even then they'll still have their pension and lofty lifestyle. " That occurs in the current system, which I am against. Because the nature of a justice system that protects people from coercion requires coercion itself, and this coercive entity also tends towards monopoly due to the economics of scale, it is best owned and managed by the people. 3. Conquest My opponent's argument does not address the Free Rider Problem. Customers will not buy defensive services voluntarily because the company will end up protecting them whether they buy them or not. This is why there exists no for-profit private militia, even under previous anarchist systems. My opponent proposes a DRO; however, such a DRO system fits the definition of government, though it is panarchist. It is a system collectively owned that funds the military. It resolves disputes and protects rights just as a government would with compulsory authority, though this authority is entered into voluntarily. For more information about panarchism: . http://en.wikipedia.org... So, my opponent has argued for a panarchist system of government, and has therefore essentially conceded the debate. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1. National Defense My opponent has argued that national defense could be funded by a panarchist government. He has therefore effectively conceded this contention, that because of the free rider problem, national defense can not be effective without government. 2. Justice System As aforementioned, the coercive power of the justice system should not be owned by a private monopoly. 3. Coercion First, I would like to address slavery. My opponent has argued that it is no longer profitable because of escapes; however, new technology such as surveillance would make escape necessarily impossible. Further, the slave owners would likely employ the private police force to hunt down the escaped slaves, so slavery would begin again under anarchy. As said earlier, coercion restricted to ending coercion is a lesser evil than allowing free coercion. Both evils cause the infringement of freedom; however, one can easily find that the former is preferable to the latter. Again, my opponent's DRO system is merely a panarchist system of government. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Conclusion: An entirely anarchist system of government is unsustainable because private military and defense are undermined by the free rider problem. Because the nature of a justice system that protects people from coercion requires coercion itself, and this coercive entity also tends towards monopoly due to the economics of scale, it is best owned and managed by the people it protects. Therefore, in order to protect the freedoms of human individuals, a small and limited government of some sort must be established. The resolution is affirmed. VOTE PRO. I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. It has given me an introduction into the Anarchist perspective that I desired. It was a good debate, Rezzealaux.