Government is immoral

Con begins by citing a typical utilitarian argument for government in that it is designed to help the people of a given territory and by extension I will assume con means that can create the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people in that territory. I admit that governments can produce outcomes that are many times helpful to populations. Government solutions may not and in fact, most times I would argue are not the most efficient ways to produce good outcomes but that decent outcomes can come from them. One example would be the National Health Service(NHS) in the United Kingdom. A totally government run health care system. The NHS functions fine, the UK does not have rampant death and disease and people generally have access to health care. However, that doesn't justify the use of force or threats of force to accomplish that goal when there could be more ethical alternatives. The central question of this debate is not whether or not government can deliver solutions that help society but rather whether they are delivered in a moral and just manner. Con argues that wealth redistribution is moral and just. I would ask Con, If I steal $100 out of you wallet or purse to give to my friend to feed his family, is my theft of your property justified? Furthermore, what if hire someone to commit that theft for me, is that justified? A government is essentially the hired thief. Fredric Bastiat said "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else. " I would like con to explain how a society in which we are a constantly taking the property of others is moral or just when all conventions of morality that we know of tell us theft and use of force or threats of force for purposes other than self defense is immoral. Con argues that government is moral because it is the will of the people. I previously made a solid refutation to social contract theory in the previous round but let me address Con's specific points here. First, we must understand that not all governments are necessarily government based on what the people likely actually want. We can point to North Korea, Afghanistan when under the Taliban, possibly Iran, Cuba, and many other dictatorial states. If Con wishes to point to the fact that the people don't revolt as evidence of consent to be governed in those places, I would argue that insurrections would be easily quelled by those totalitarian governments. Con argues that removing government would infringe upon rights of those who wish to be governed. However, in a state of being where all human associations are voluntary and free from force people could easily form private associations that are voluntary for mutual aid or self governance. It is important to not the difference between governance and government, governance being systems of organized people and societies that don't necessarily involve force. There are many theories on how to have governance without government but that is not the topic of this debate. Con attempts to defend democratic systems as being legitimate while not addressing the inherent nature of democracy or to a more limited in scope sense republican forms of government that have democratic features(like the United States). Is immoral as it entails that the mere plurality or majority of voters(depending on your voting system) will use violent force or threats of force to impose their will or ideas on the remainder of the population who didn't support them. In a stateless society people will have voluntary associations or individual choices and relationships would not be based on force. An argument that governments exist in every species known to ever exist is lacking an understanding of exactly what government is. Species that are social in nature have developed systems of organization but one would not necessarily call them governments without investigation and data. We must remember that the defining nature of government is the ability to use the initiation of force. That is what makes government immoral. George Washington famously said "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force. .. " The US founders attempted in a crude and arguable unsuccessful way to create a system of government that avoided the pitfalls of purely democratic systems. They understood that government was force and in my view erroneously thought they could attempt to limit that power. Con states at the end of the argument, "People are meant to work together; we intrinsically make bonds with other human beings. To force people to live in a society where there are no opportunities to do so, because it would be too inefficient, is utterly immoral. " I would agree that human are social beings and that they seek bonds with each other to create meaningful relationships and organizations for survival benefit. However, does Con really believe that people want those relationships among people forceful and not voluntary interactions? Government being inefficient is not the argument for the state's immorality. It is simply a side effect of how governments operate and is a separate issue. Con finishes by state that government is moral because it is wanted. That brings the question that if government's programs and ideas are desired by the greater marketplace of society why must they be implemented using violent force? Good ideas should not require force.