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

Before I begin, I would like to apologize for my FF. I could not find the time to respond. My opponent agreed to FF his next round in order to allow me more time to respond. Conduct should go to Pro."I do not see how a high school diploma is anyhow relevant. I have a high school diploma but there are countless of better-suited individuals that have dropped out of high school that could become security providers."I was attempting to show the higher standards police officers are held to over security guards."A certificate showing that you know how to Spark Note a book and do your homework 15 minutes before class has nothing to do with one's capacity to protect people."A high school graduate obviously has a better work ethic, and a better attitude than a high-school dropout - things that would be preferable for a person to have that is responsible for protecting people. And if earning a diploma is as easy as using SparkNotes, then there wouldn't be 7000 high school kids dropping out every day (http://www.all4ed.org...)"Maybe police officers are subjected to psychological tests now and then, so what? Police brutality is a daily thing, even in the United States, where pregnant women can be tased and old men beaten to death with little or no consequence on guilty officers. "Unsubstantiated claim"On the other hand, private security officers are automatically taught to be more respectful, more helpful, more trustworthy, and much nicer to people in general" Unsubstantiated claim"Why? Because of the same profit-seeking interest that you oppose. Mall and shop owners have an interest in bringing in more clients, which means they have to provide a safe and relaxing environment."Protection should not rely on profit! Let's say a traveler was just wanting to pass through a piece of land. Would the owner require a payment for protection to be provided to this traveler? How much would this fee be? Well, I guess it would just be whatever the owner wanted it to be. And if the traveler refuses to pay, and then gets robbed or harmed in some way, what happens then? The so-called "police" will just stand there and watch?If all land becomes privately-owned by different owners, the only thing that would motivate them to provide any protection at all for the people on their land is PROFIT. And this would NOT be a good thing, because without any gain for the owners, the protection would cease to exist. "Private road and land owners could offer the exact same protection with the same level of effectiveness and efficiency."Maybe, but this "protection" would not exist across the board, it will only exist when driven by profit."After all, where do most crimes happen? In the privately-secured stores or in public streets? In the streets, and I doubt this is just a coincidence."Unsubstantiated claimMy opponent then goes on explaining how his scenario of a stateless society is different from feudalism. I would just like to say that I was not trying to draw a strict comparison between my opponent's scenario and feudalism. I only compared the two because the structure of the two seemed similar (with the privately owned land and all). Once you delve into feudalism, then yes, it is quite different from my opponent's idea. So, I will continue to refute my opponent's points he made about the stateless society. I will not attempt to argue that his scenario and feudalism are still the same, for that was not my original intention for the comparison."In a free society, people would either own the land they live on or rent it from an actual owner. Obviously, since you would have the choice to pick which owner you'd like to rent your land from, most people will look for someone who does not try to control every aspect of their lives. I mean if you had the choice, would you look for a rent money-seeking owner or a freak that forcefully takes away 3/4's of everything you earn every day?"Owners would have to keep their prices competitive with one another. But if prices keep rising and rising, what's going to stop the owners? how is that fair to the citizens?"In a free society, such restrictions would not exist, allowing a wider marketplace of land to be established with competitive owners deciding to improve their properties and attract clients as if they were entrepreneurs."Yes the land-owners would have COMPLETE control. They can do whatever they want, whenever they want. How is this good again?The next section of my opponent's argument is pointing out how a feudal-like society would not rise. I did not mean to say a feudal society would arise. I'm sorry if I caused any confusion by that."To begin with, why would the people in a legal conflict want to hire a judge they can't afford? The market adjusts itself to all the demands of society. Unreachable, over expensive judges would be a luxury service, not a general one."So..... there would have to be judges that offer their services for free? Because surely some people would not be able to afford a judge period, just as some people cannot afford a lawyer today. But now, the government will provide a lawyer for you. Who will provide the judge in your scenario, and why?"Now, is it fair or just to allow judges to rule without an universal standard? Not considering the fact that this system is the one already in use in the United States without problems, I would like to ask you a similar question. Is it fair to allow a few central planners, union bureaucrats, and powerful technocrats to decide what competent and educated judges should do? Central planning never works, so don't expect litigation to be any different."Ok judges wouldn't be a problem. I concede this point."Another case against private litigation resolution you pointed out is corruption. You agreed that corruption already exists. The difference is that in today's monopolized system, the customer (you or I) have no choice. We have to remain with the same government judges all the time."Not true. "Article II of the United States Constitution (Section 4) states that "The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery or other High Crimes or Misdemeanors." (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Now, judges can be impeached because of this nation-wide law in the Constitution. I would also like to point out that if the whole nation would be privatized, nation-wide legislation like the Constitution would not exist. There would be a bunch of different sets of laws all over, and that would be it."If private companies were in charge of conflict resolution, wouldn't you choose the least corrupted company? In short, private companies would be less corrupted than the government monopoly of courts."How would you choose the least corrupted company, or let's say least corrupted land-owner? Would that involve one to move all of their belongings off of their property? Because what I'm getting from this is whoever's land you live on you must follow their rules. So if you end up on corrupt land, you have to move off of it. And if there's only a select few honest land-owners, everyone would flock to that land, and those land-owners surely wouldn't be able to provide land for everyone. So corruption would still exist, and since the corrupt companies are calling the shots for their employees, the corruption would not be removed.Polycentric Theory of LawIf one land allows all kinds of crime to happen, ALL criminals would most certainly flock there. That area would become an area just absolutely filled with crime. Once all the victims there are taken care of, the criminals would certainly spread to surrounding areas. So if one area allows crime to happen freely, its surrounding neighbors would certainly suffer. Criminals are like fleas - get a flea-infested animal near other animals, and the fleas just spread and multiply.Out of space. Back to Pro