The US Federal Goveronment should abolish 99%of its functions

My opponent starts by claiming that the constitution states the government should only have 15 responsibilities (it’s actually more than 15, but my opponent cut some out). However his argument assumes the government is justified by the constitution. Something for which he has provided no evidence. Second, he assumes the constitution shouldn’t be changed when needed. Which we know has happened many times throughout history [1] and should be the case because as Jefferson said “The dead should not rule the living.” [2] Furthermore, his argument contradicts his original proposition. Clause 6 and 7 for instance don’t fall under Pro’s 3 responsibilities of government. The full text of section 8 also states the government should “....have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;” [3]. Again, where does this fit in the original propositions? His next argument has to do with the national debt. However this argument assumes that the national debt is something that needs to be paid off right away. The national debt and personal debt are two very different things. Eliminating the debt can have serious adverse effects in international economics [4]. Professor Buchanan states “...there is no convincing theory or evidence demonstrating that a government can enhance its citizens’ economic prosperity by refusing to borrow money. By contrast, because the federal government can undertake high-return investments (such as spending on education and infrastructure), the Golden Rule of government budgeting suggests that the federal government should run annual deficits to finance such long-term investments, while collecting sufficient tax revenues to pay for the rest of the government’s operatIons each year. “ [5] Counterplan I argue that we shouldn't abolish 99% of the government's functions, but we should abolish 100% of its functions. This is much better than abolishing all but 1% of its functions. Pro never actually argues what justifies the remaining 1% at all. He simply assumes the legitimacy of the state. Since the state is making the claim of authority, then it is Pro’s job to justify its existence. We ought to strive towards maximum freedom for all, as an unfree society inherently seems wrong and it seems arbitrary to claim that some freedoms are just and some aren’t. Since the government is structured in a hierarchical fashion, this entails it possesses authoritarian characteristics. However, if the government was abolished and a horizontal structure was instilled, this would eliminate any possibility of coercion by a state. I also don’t see what’s to stop the government from establishing more power. Assuming the government had and only had the responsibilities listed at the founding of the US, then it’s evident that it obtained more power. So why wouldn’t it happen again? Lastly, we ought to abolish the state as it lacks moral authority. Assuming the state had moral authority, then it follows that its laws have moral import. That is to say, when the state makes a law, it is moral to follow it because it is law. However, this is clearly false. If a law claims we ought to murder children, it is morally abhorrent to follow it. It also doesn’t seem immoral to break certain laws. For example, nobody thinks I’m breaking some moral code if I have a coin in my ear in Hawaii, even though it’s against the law [6]. We follow something because our sense of morality tells us this, not because of a dictation from a government official. This means the law has no moral import and neither does the government have moral authority. If we have a government in place, then it is in violation of morality. Pro’s arguments fail to show why we should abolish all but 1% of the government. Even assuming the state is justified, his arguments fail. However, what is best is if 100% of government functions be abolished. Sources [1] http://www.scholastic.com... [2] http://www.goodreads.com... [3] http://www.archives.gov... [4] https://www.thestreet.com... [5] http://scholarship.law.gwu.edu... [6] http://www.dumblaws.com...