We do not need the State to help us live our lives.

I can tell this will be a very good, respectful debate, and I am looking forward to the coming rounds. Protection - Police My opponent points out that private companies should be able to provide significant amounts of protection for citizens, and the study indicates that there are more private security guards employed than police officers worldwide. So I mean speaking by numbers, I'm sure private guards hired by companies could fill the void of police officers. But there's a big difference between guards and police officers. Here are requirements for becoming a police officer - . http://education-portal.com...;Here are requirements for becoming a security guard - . http://education-portal.com...;A few quick and noticeable comparisons between the two - - Police officers are required to have at least a high school diploma; security guards are not- Police officers obtain specific, detailed, high quality training at a police academy; security guards may only receive on-the-job training once hired- Police officers undergo many various tests and exams ensuring that they are capable for the job, even psychiatric tests to see if the officer's personality and behaviors are fit for the job; security guards do not undergo any tests to the same extentNow this simply proves that police officers are on average better prepared and ready for the task of protecting citizens. Police officers are simply of a better quality than the average private security guard, so naturally if governments are done away with and private companies are given the responsibility of total protection with their guards, that level of protection will decrease. My opponent might say that private companies could start raising the quality of their guards and implement the same measures the police take with their officers. I can ensure you that the companies would do no such thing, because privately owned companies are all about one thing - profit. The level of protection for citizens would no longer be primarily about the general welfare of the citizens, but about the cost of that protection and the cheapest way possible to provide the required protection. Protection - Military My opponent points out here that if the whole world did away with government, there would be no need for any country to have a military, which I agree with. So let's look to the problems associated with an entire country becoming "private". When my opponent describes the country as owned privately by individuals, a line can be drawn to the concept of feudalism. Here is a detailed description of feudalism - . http://en.wikipedia.org... Feudalism flourished between the 9th and 15th centuries. It consisted of three concepts, lords, vassals, and fiefs. Lord - a noble who held landVassal - a person granted possession of the land by the lordFief - the land a lord ruled overPresently, the lords would be the private individuals who controlled the lands, vassals would be the people allowed to live on the privately owned land, and the fiefs would be the privately owned sections of land. Essentially my opponent is talking about feudalism with his scenario. In medieval times, however, the lords still had to answer to a king. My opponent's scenario has NO king or higher power that the "lords" would answer to. The individuals who own the parts of the country therefore have complete control. The most obvious problem with this idea would be actually the lack of protection that would follow this sort of change in society. These "fiefs" that are in place would have their own security to provide protection of their own borders. But if whole countries did in fact turn into a series of fiefdoms with their own lords, a power struggle between the lords would likely ensue. This would lead to many civil wars if you will between the countries. Alliances would be made and broken, lords would always be looking for the advantage over their fellow lords and fiefs, violence would be imminent. Protection would be effectively removed just by the violence caused by this shift in society. LawsFollowing with the feudalism-related idea my opponent is suggesting, let us now look to things associated with laws. The first theory my opponent brings forth is basically suggesting that we allow private judges contracted by the people in legal conflict to rule with whatever legal proceedings they see fit. What if the people involved in the legal conflict cannot afford the judge? Who will supply one then? Would it really be just to allow judges to rule without any sort of universal standard in place for all of them? I know corruption already exists in the governments of the world today, but wouldn't corruption increase greatly with this new system? These are key problems with this scenario. Another theory my opponent offers suggests that the owners of the private property shall decide their own laws for their own land. My opponent then attempts to address the main problems that would result from this. First, the problem of an owner possibly creating laws that allow for very immoral things to happen on the land. My opponent dismisses this with the claim that this will only decertify the land. If these types of laws are passed on a certain land, then that land becomes a breeding ground for chaos and violence. This tainted land will then pose a danger to surrounding lands, and can be very dangerous to the whole country. Second, conflicting legal systems leading to chaos and confusion. My opponent dismisses this with the simple notion that the land owners will work in harmony to ensure the simplicity of travel between lands. I disagree with this 100%. Some basic laws will be the same across the board of course, but there could be some laws that are vastly different from one another or even completely unique to one land. This would a) cause confusion between travelers and b) create many loopholes for people to exploit and get away with things that could be considered immoral and detrimental to society. The final theory my opponent uses is one of natural rights, or natural laws. A few basic laws can be derived from John Locke (life, liberty, and property). I completely agree that each human has a right to these natural laws. But as long as a government does not directly infringe upon these natural rights, I see no problem with additional laws made by the government along with these natural laws given to us upon birth. I have pointed out many flaws in a world without any sort of government. If government were removed altogether, society would face chaos, confusion, increased violence, and many other dangers and difficulties. Protection would significantly decrease or even be gone altogether, and differing laws between every single land would cause a lot more problems than one unified system of law provided by the government. I await my opponent's response.