The US Federal Goveronment should abolish 99%of its functions

My opponent has completely dropped his points on the national debt. He has also failed to address my points about the constitution being the authority for governmental power. He attacks my defense of anarchism, somewhat because he still has ignored a majority of my round. Defense of Anarchism Pro tries to claim under a republican government there would be checks in place to balance power. However, this is where we see the self-refuting nature of his argument. If humans can put checks in place, then it shows we can keep each other in check and if powers can balance themselves, then why can’t a horizontal structure where everybody is in charge balance itself? If human nature is so corrupt, then so would the said checks we put in place. He has failed to answer my second point, asking for justification of Madison’s assertion. He has also ignored my point that human nature is flexible. Instead he strawmans my point on the Semai (which I’ll discuss later). Nor has he done anything to attack my model of “natural law” enforcement. His argument from human nature has been thoroughly refuted. Defense of the Revolution What does he have to say in regards to defense? He says there are some advantages to centralized armies. However, his reason for the Ottoman’s victory is because they were “more disciplined and organized”, but being organized and disciplined doesn’t entail centralization at all. Platformism argues for tight organization of anarchist groups [1] and the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine itself followed this philosophy. There is nothing contradictory about being organized and disciplined in an anarchist army Anyway, I never once claimed a centralized army is necessarily weak so his argument is moot to begin with. I argued that a decentralized bottom-up army can work, so it’s not necessary to have a centralized force. And again, Pro ignores all my arguments for that point. He also ignores the problem with an army being in blind obedience to an authority. He completely misunderstands my point about the Semai culture. I am not advocating for pacifism at all, nor does anything in my argument suggest this point. The Semai were used merely to point out human nature isn’t inherently violent and competitive. Although, his point is completely wrong anyway. The Semai weren’t destroyed by the British, they still exist today. The Semai were used by the British to fight in their wars [2] and their nonviolence is culturally threatened by British influence. Government establishing power Pro states that the job of democracy will keep government officials from obtaining power. The problem is, what if 51% of the people buy into propaganda of more governmental control? He provides an analogy that just because it failed once, doesn't mean we should stop trying and abolish it. Similar to a math test. The problem is the very nature of hierarchy entails the will to grab power, as it will further the interests of those in charge. Power corrupts even those who try to act honestly [3], reduces the ability to empathize [4], and tends to make people act selfishly [ibid]. Instilling a system of government will lead to those attempting to grab more power for themselves and putting them in charge of the military will give them the power to expand their interests. We can fuss around with attempted legal proceedings of which the government is in charge of to begin with. Or, we can instill a horizontal structure where no man is in charge of another. I will also point out, this is only one of many of my arguments in favor of abolishment. Pro has never tried to rebut coherently the moral or the maximization of freedom argument. Capitalism For some reason, Pro felt the need to argue for capitalism. It seems to be in response to a statement I made in the funding argument. Although I am an anti-capitalist, I allowed for the possibility of capitalism to remain in existence, so I’m not sure why Pro felt the need to argue this point. Nonetheless, I will defend alternatives to capitalism. His argument is that capitalism increased the standards of living and brought people out of poverty. This is a bad argument because so too did Hitler’s economic policies boost the economy and increase living standards [5]. That doesn’t mean we should accept fascism. The living standards of slaves also increased, but that isn’t an argument in favor of slavery. Pro never explains how capitalism brings people out of poverty or how such a thing exists only for capitalism and not for some other system. Until he explains how, his statements cannot be taken to be arguments for capitalism. Alternatives to capitalism have actually been proven to be successful, such is the case with the anarcho-socialist revolution in Spain. In certain areas of Spain after defeating Franco’s fascist government, anarchists collectivised workplaces and abided by socialistic systems (mutualism, collectivism and communism). Orwell. who was there during the time wrote: “In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life—snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.—had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master….Yet so far as one could judge the people were contented and hopeful. There was no unemployment, and the price of living was still extremely low; you saw very few conspicuously destitute people, and no beggars except the gypsies. Above all, there was a belief in the revolution and the future, a feeling of having suddenly emerged into an era of equality and freedom. Human beings were trying to behave as human beings and not as cogs in the capitalist machine.” [6] Historian Gaston Leval writes: “the various agrarian and industrial collectives immediately instituted economic equality in accordance with the essential principle of communism, 'From each according to his ability and to each according to his needs.' They co-ordinated their efforts through free association in whole regions, created new wealth, increased production (especially in agriculture), built more schools, and bettered public services.” [7] Clearly this shows not only anarchism, but also post-capitalist structures working in practice. In summary, Pro has ignored a majority of my arguments. He has only tried to deal with my argument that his plan is ineffective. He has not yet attacked my freedom argument nor has he properly rebutted my moral argument. He has dropped both his arguments in favor of attempting to defend the state’s existence. Even when he does this, his argument still fall flat, as he makes self-refuting claims while ignoring all of my other arguments. I have demonstrated that the best thing for the USFG to do is cease to exist, abolish 100% of its functions. Sources [1] http://nefac.net... [2] https://cas.uab.edu... [3] http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [4] https://www.oveo.org... [5] http://www.ihr.org... [6] Orwell, George (1980) [1938]. "chapter 1". Homage to Catalonia. [7] "Introductory Essay," The Anarchist Collectives, Sam Dolgoff pp.6-7