Small government is better than large government

I will rebut the points you made in the last round 1. If I do not think that you have a right to your life can I murder you? If i think you dont have a right to your property can I take whatever I want from you? In a country like North Korea the goverment has complete contol over peoples lives. Nobody argues that they dont but do people agree that they should. I am arguring the government should not be able to decide what rights a person has and does not have. Just because they attempt or suceed at blocking people from doing something does not make it right. The government creating victimless crimes never ends well. With strict drug laws opiod overdoses are still a major problem and higher than ever. Also the government does not give anyone anything they simply redistrubte what society creates. 2. I beilive small goverment would be able to take care of this. I think majority of people agree that a proper role of government is having a judicial system. Things that cause direct harm can be settled in court. In terms of things like food regulatioms I believe they are unesscary. If someone produced poision food or didnt check their food that company would go out of buisness because nobody would buy their products. The companies would instead have independent bodies do it for them without billing tax payers or face failure. Also i never said anarchy is best, that is no goverment not small government. Companies could not do whatever the want because small government would still protect a person right to life, liberty and property. Moving to the idea that one company or watchdog or any one entity can effictenly mointor all things is silly. Thats why the governemnt should stay out of it. The free market would have several comapinies and watchdogs who would be able to check these comapines. As previously mentioned companies would also be free to go unchecked and suffer the consequences of doing so. 4 (I think 3 was not posted or I cant see it) I am saying the government shouldnt spend a single penny on health care because it has nothing to do with healthcare. People do not have a right to health care. Living in Canada I know many people go to the US for treatment but not the other way around why is this the case? Many people also choice to be uninsured because they beilvie they can save money or would rather spend the money on something else. They should be free to do so. 5. Yes there are some in Canada where I live and as far as I am aware the US has some toll roads to. I do not have a major problem with local government (state, municipal) geting involved in this, but when the federal government does it becomes completly inefficent. Once again the free market would take care of this by virtue of competion. Bottled water companies supply water for very low prices and they are not even as competitve as they could be due to government taxes and regulations. 6. In a free market if a company refuses to serve a group of people it is creating an oppurtinty for someone else to fill the gap. Also many people would boycott such companies as they rightfully disagree with those policies. At the same time we should not force them to change the policies. I would say it is equivalent to you being free to running head first into a wall. Can you do it? Sure. Should you? No. 7. Once again I am not saying one charity or group will get the job done, but collectivly they can. Also if people knew the government wouldnt take care of them many on welfare would try much harder to work. Without juding all people on welfare I think that many of the people on welfare abuse it. A charity would be better at seeing which people need help rather than some government offical who most likely never meets the person but just stamps paperwork. To finish off my argument I will summarize my arguments throughout the debates. Small government that is limited to defending life liberty and propert is best. People do not need the government to tell them how to run their lives. The government should not and can not impose morailty. Anytime a governemnt attempts to set up a eutopia the result is distopia (communisn). The war on drugs and terror or the implemination of a welfare state have only greatly worsened the problems the government looks to solve. I am not saying we shouldnt look to solve these problems but what I am saying is the free market has constantly shown itself as being best able to provide for all people. It is when the government interferes in the free market that we run into issues. The negative side has constally implied and said that the government gives us our rights, but we must understand that they only protect our rights. I agree that there is no all powerfull force of nature enforcing these rights, but as intelligent beings we should at least be able to agree on the non agression principle. If we can do so all I am saying is that we should hold the government to the same standard and the only way to do so is by limiting it.