Resolved: No government is preferable to an oppressive government

Thanks to Zaradi for the debate. I'll just go over the major arguments in the debate.What is a state? Most of the confusion regarding this debate centers around what actually qualifies as a state. My opponent calls my definition "abusive" because it "works...to exclude most states from actually being qualified as states, as if someone chooses to work under that state willingly it isn't a state according to his definition." However, he is mistaken as to what actually is compulsion--that is, all that is required for compulsion is that the person has no other choice than to submit to the state; that they may choose to do so willingly is irrelevant, because if they choose not to submit to the state they will be violently supressed. His only other argument is that a monopoly isnt required; his arguments are that first, people can just leave a state, which we all know is not true, people are still subjects of the state until they go through complex citizenship renounciation measures, and leaving simply is not an option for many people. Moreover he misunderstands that the monopoly is within a certain territory, as indeed all states are. Second he links you to the webster definitions of government and state however if you actually read the definitions they refer to entities that have the sole control ("continuous exercise of authority").The definition isnt absuive as he claimed, in fact its entirely reasonable, it just clashes somewhat with his arguments. After all, what is a government if not an entity that exercises sole control of the laws within a given territory? You cannot have two absolute authorities, thats a contradiction in terms.What is statelessness? Anarchy is simply the lack of a state. That is, the lack of an entity that exercies legistlative and taxation powers and has the sole authority over the law. Con chose to strawman anarchy, claiming that "An anarchy would represent no such heirarchy or chain of command " but this is on its face absurd because we can see literally hundreds of thousands of non state organizations such as companies, colleges, families, clubs, ect that have heirachies and chains of commands. All that anarchy is advocating is an abolition of the state mechanism, not the abolition of society.My case My case has astonishingly been almost entirely dropped. Other than his brief arguments against it in his second round, his only further critiques are that I dont try to outweigh the "State of nature"--indeed, I do not try to outweigh a situtation in which everyone kills everyone else, instead I've shown that such a state doesnt exist and never has-- and that I don't give any example of the benefits of statelessness, and yet my entire argument was that it was preferable to oppression because it didnt have the same negative effects.1. History Con literally drops all of the negative impacts from oppressive governments and the analysis that you presume a pro vote unless con gives you historical examples of stateless catastrophes. So you extend that. He made some attacks on my feudalism example, but all of it is based off of misunderstanding what statelessness actually entails. De'Jouvenel explains[1] that in the ancien regime power was: "shared, limited, and above all it was not sovereign." He goes on to explain that "The distinguishing characteristics of a Power which is sovereign are: its possession of a legistlative authority; it's capacity to alter as it pleases its subjects' rules of behaviour...Power in medieval times was very different, it was tied down, not only in theory but in practice..."Thus you can affirm. You have for most of a thousand year period of western history a system where there was no sovereignty and yet society still existed and the negative impacts coming off of oppression were not felt, nor were those from the fictional "state of nature". Con also fails to respond to the example of American colonists living initially in stateless societies. The clear implication of course being that the state of nature impact is unwarranted and that oppression, with its historical failings is worse than anarchy.2. Theoretics Con drops entirely the decivilizing impact of oppression.Con almost completely drops the counterplan of replacing the state mechanism with competing private organizations. Literally his only offensive response is that it doesnt solve for the state of nature (which doesnt exist), and yet he doesnt explain how. My system provides for law and order without decivilizing and genocidal effects of oppression.Con case "State of nature"? Con repeatedly tries to give some apocalyptic sounding nightmare where everyone kills each other ("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") without a state. Despite his failure to respond to the sociological objections to this (Grossman), the emprical objections (Hoppe), historical indicators against his point (Nisbet) or my point about how if mankind is naturally aggressive than giving ultimate power to a state is not a solution (he only says that he didnt claim that, but the obvious implication of man "always in fear of losing his life to another" is aggression) and his failure to give a single example of a return to a "state of nature" after a government collapse despite thousands of states collapsing throughout history he still claims that the state of nature is an important impact.Cons major argument is another fallacy He says that because a state of nature never occurred in reality we know that anarchy is impossible and never happened, because without a state we have a state of nature. But this is clearly absurd, not only do we KNOW that primitive man lived in anarchy yet still had social groupings we also know that the state is just one of the many institutions in some socieites. Con, and his philosopher Friend, is just making a bare assertion. There is literally 0 evidence that without a monopoly of ulimate jurisdiction (a state) these impacts happen; history and everything we know about sociology and psychology strongly indicate otherwise. Hobbes was simply inncorrect. His entire impact is nothing more than a fiction, Con can't give you any empirical examples and doesnt even apply this to definitional states (voluntary societies are not states) let alone oppressive ones.Social contractHe drops lots of my attacks because they lack "actual warrant" so extend all of the ones he drops. Con also gives no example of a social contract that existed in anything other than the abstract.He gives no explanation as to how the social contract if it even exists justifies oppression, he just claims it justifies the initial forming of a state. Great, but that doesnt explain how governments that exterminate their populace maintain legitimacy.In response to the fact that the social contract doesnt exist Con cites a card that makes the breathtakingly ignorant argument that consent under coercion is still consent. It is consent only in the barest sense of the word, as in I choose to do an action because my rights were violated and I was forced to do so or face worse consequences. Rape is not consenual sex, it was forced. If someone chooses not to do drugs because they dont want to be imprisoned they arent consenting to the state, they are just being forced to give up their rights in the face of a superior force (like a million man army). Sounds quite similar to the survival of the fittest Hobbes so clearly derided. Con minunderstands Hoppes argument-- that the state chooses to let people keep some rights doesnt mean that when submitting to an entity that can alter any law or previous agreement they arent waiving all their rights. By giving this power they submit themselves to slavery, but this violates the very basis of contracts! Thus the social contract cannot exist.I also urge readers to re read all of my attack that Con dropped.The resolution is affirmed.Citations: http://goo.gl...