The US Federal Goveronment should abolish 99%of its functions

My opponent completely drops his arguments in regards to the constitution. Until he responds he has conceded that point. It also appears that he has dropped my points about the debt. All he does is assert “The government should pay off its debt with all deliberate time” sans justification. Then goes onto claim we could do it. It seems my opponent has dropped his entire positive case. Abolishment of Government Pro starts off by stating we need the government because men cannot govern themselves and we need to be able to defend ourselves from foreign invaders. Along with asking how could education be funded. All of these argument fail to justify the state’s existence. His first attempted justification starts with a straw man. My argument about moral authority has absolutely nothing to do with the ability to recognize natural law at all. The very first sentence of my argument states that it’s dealing with the lack of moral authority of government, nothing else. He then argues that humans aren’t fundamentally good and that we need government to enforce laws. First, this argument is self refuting, as it fails to understand the government itself is made up of humans. If humans are too immoral to govern themselves, then how would putting a select few in charge of others magically change their nature? The argument boils down to “Men cannot govern, which is why we need men to govern”. It is humans that make the laws and it is humans that carry out the enforcement, any statement about human nature will necessarily apply to the lawmakers and enforcers. If Pro is correct that humans are no angels, is it really wise to provide a select few of devils with power over others? Second, this argument is asserted with no justification to back it up. He merely appeals to James Madison’s authority and cites some Islamic bombing. I’m not exactly sure what bombings prove, as it’s clear governments didn’t stop said atrocities either. Third, such argument is contradicted by sociology. Human nature is crafted by the society and culture in which one lives. Take for example the Semai culture. The Semai culture exists purely on cooperation and possesses no government structure, yet “little violence occurs within Semai society. Violence, in fact, seems to terrify the Semai. A Semai does not meet force with force, but with passivity or flight. Yet, he has no institutionalized way of preventing violence — no social controls, no police or courts. Somehow a Semai learns automatically always to keep tight rein over his aggressive impulses.” [1] The only threat to their culture of nonviolence was due to British colonialism [2]. This shows human nature isn’t inherently violent, but caused due to the society in which we exist. An anarchist society based on cooperation and solidarity will foster those values in human nature. This is also evident by the fact humans exist. Humans are social beings. It wouldn’t be beneficial to always be in competition with others. What happens when said person needs help? How would this individual pass on their genes if said genes are predisposed to rejecting cooperation? Fourth, the argument assumes there is something magical about centralization in regards to enforcement of laws. In an anarchist society, we would have a horizontal structure. No man over another, one where decisions are decided by everyone in a decentralized fashion. Instead of laws, we would have rules according to the local commune in which one lives. Why would someone disobey a rule that they themselves agreed to enact? If one is speaking about murder and the like, then it can still be handled in a decentralized way. However, we must keep in mind that many of the social attributes that cause crime will be eliminated in an anarchist society, as hierarchy would be abolished in favor of maximizing freedom and equality. The next argument Pro brings up is the question of how we would defend ourselves. Again he is assuming there is something special about centralization. Anarchism is against hierarchical coercive authority, not organization. During an event such as a foreign invasion the people would organize themselves into a bottom-up defensive force. As Malatesta writes [3] “But, by all means, let us admit that the governments of the still unemancipated countries were to want to, and could, attempt to reduce free people to a state of slavery once again. Would this people require a government to defend itself? To wage war men are needed who have all the necessary geographical and mechanical knowledge, and above all large masses of the population willing to go and fight. A government can neither increase the abilities of the former nor the will and courage of the latter. And the experience of history teaches us that a people who really want to defend their own country are invincible: and in Italy everyone knows that before the corps of volunteers (anarchist formations) thrones topple, and regular armies composed of conscripts or mercenaries disappear.” There have been cases where militias model themselves very close to this structure, such as the “Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine”. “The insurgent army did not stand above the population and give them orders. Peasants organized themselves from the bottom up, without a state. The RIAU had no monopoly on legitimate violence. All these militias did was defend their communities from people attempting to impose a state on them. The RIAU did not enforce the rule of anyone over the rest of the population. Its’ purpose was to prevent any group of people from imposing their rule over anyone else”. This army was very successful in repelling enemies such as the white army, but fell only due to betrayal by the Bolsheviks and not enough resources [ibid]. But such things wouldn’t be a problem for the US, with its amount of resources and industrialization. Indeed, a centralized army has many downsides. For one, it is at the beck and call of an authority. If such authority believes it is profitable to take land and resources, then it can use its army in an oppressive way. As is what happens too often today. His next question is about the funding of education. If we absolutely must keep capitalism, education can be funded through charities. It would be very very beneficial for education to be funded, as the children would be the future working class. If we are to open our minds to post-capitalist structures, then such a thing wouldn’t be a problem. Wage labor would either be radically changed or abolished, making the question of funding is trivial. He states keeping government functions will cause the economy to grow, however this is asserted with no evidence. It also doesn’t take into account that economic growth doesn’t necessarily correspond to the well being of its citizens. Pro then says the government could easily make a constitutional amendment that would limit its power. However, the constitution according to Pro already limited the government’s power and look what good that did. The amendments would be put in place by the government, what’s to stop them adding another that grants it a little more power? I find all of Pro’s reasons for accepting a small government faulty. Abolishing only 99% of its functions is ineffective and doesn’t maximize freedom as much as going all the way. Total abolishment has been upheld as the best way to go. Sources [1] Robert K. Dentan, The Semai: A Nonviolent People of Malaya. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1979, p. 59. [2] https://cas.uab.edu... [3] Malatesta, E., & Richards, V. (n.d.). Anarchy. Pp 40-41 [4] http://www.nestormakhno.info...