Abolish the State!

My opponent has a very high faith in humanity's virtues and honor. Why should we count on politicians acting "for the good of the people"? Won't they use their power to control society in their personal favor? Is it just a coincidence that so many central planners live in mansions while the common man lives in poverty? Capitalism is criticized because it is a system where individuals would make their own rules and pursue their own interests, but isn't that what politicians do? I quote Laissez-faire economist Frederick Bastiat for this one: "The claims of these organizers of humanity raise another question which I have often asked them and which, so far as I know, they have never answered: If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? The organizers maintain that society, when left undirected, rushes headlong to its inevitable destruction because the instincts of the people are so perverse. The legislators claim to stop this suicidal course and to give it a saner direction. Apparently, then, the legislators and the organizers have received from Heaven an intelligence and virtue that place them beyond and above mankind; if so, let them show their titles to this superiority. They would be the shepherds over us, their sheep. Certainly such an arrangement presupposes that they are naturally superior to the rest of us. And certainly we are fully justified in demanding from the legislators and organizers proof of this natural superiority." If a government ended its coerced monopoly on police, education, and healthcare these industries would be thrown open to market competition and individuals, able to realize that they need these essentials, would be willing to shop around and pay for the specific kind of education, healthcare, protection, etc., that they personally desired. But isn't it immoral to charge people for such necessary goods? Shouldn't they be free of charge? For starters, anytime the government provides something it is far from "free" it is payed for through taxation. Secondly, the tax-payer is often the poor person himself, who would likely pay less in fees to more efficient private services. In fact, I saw one study where a low-income black neighborhood paid more in taxes than it received in government aid benefits. How is that helpful? Also, government-provision is no guarantee of availability; British hospitals routinely turn patients away on account of "insufficient funds". But wait, I thought Socialism was supposed to be the system where money is no object, why this discrimination? Lastly, government-aid programs increase poverty and crime-hear me out; in the US a jobless, single mother is given X amount per month for each child she has, this has an effect of rewarding(subsidizing)out-of-wedlock births of children who are not desired or cared for-and thus are much more likely to abuse drugs, become promiscuous, and and commit crime. Prior to the welfare explosion in the US in the 1960s, families and mutual-aid societies took care of their own; reaching out to the needy and penalizing any who were just looking for a free-ride. Why does a politician have to organize something in order for it to be benevolent and caring? Couldn't someone be a Capitalist BECAUSE he wants to help the poor and give them opportunity? The next dilemma is worker protection. How can Capitalism ensure that? Wouldn't employers cut corners to increase profit? Perhaps, but they wouldn't keep their workers very long if another employer can lure the workers away with higher pay and better working conditions. Hired labor has to be persuaded to come to and stay on a job, meaning it is actually profitable to offer pay and benefits. Can anyone imagine the owner of a dirty factory trying to hire workers for no wages? Workers could also subscribe to private watch-dog groups such as "Consumer Reports" and "Underwriters Laboratories" who keep tabs on product safety. But wouldn't machines take over? Without machines an industrialized society is impossible and we would soon find ourselves in deep poverty while all toiling over small land plots. I find it quite odd that my opponent criticizes machine production by using a computer that was machine-produced. A worker who is replaced by a machine is freed up to do other labor. The pony express has certainly been mechanized, but its not as if the riders and their heirs have sat around bitterly ever since. Human labor will always exist as long as human wants and ideas exist. A perspective from the Austrian school of Economics will answer the questions about money and banking: Recessions are caused by government banks granting free credit to investors, this creates faulty signals that make certain business ventures look in demand and profitable when they actually weren't. In the US the housing market was receiving huge injections of credit(obeying Keynes)and houses were being built at a very rapid rate but that bubble collapsed when it was realized that many of the homes were not being sold or were being bought by people who could not afford them(US law prohibits banks from denying loans). A recession is the economy ridding itself of bad investments caused by artificial credit. Inflation is also caused by the government's bank monopoly on money printing. These little pieces of paper are about as valuable as Parker Brothers Monopoly money. Before the US had a National Bank, money was a fixed quantity of gold and there was no inflation. Paper notes were used because they were easier to carry than gold coins. Now, with a monopoly and without a gold backing, governments obsessively print money as they please which increases the supply of money and thus decreases its value. In a stateless society money would likely be precious metals but could be any mutually agreed on commodity. Abolishing the National Bank would abolish recessions and inflation. But wouldn't warlords take over? Here is the Libertarian argument for private protection: Lacking a government, individuals would take out insurance policies on their lives and property, with the insurance company promising dollar-for-dollar repayment for any damage caused by an attacker or thief. The companies thus would have a huge vested interest in keeping their clients safe and would invest in private security agencies to patrol and protect the property of their clients. To increase their effectiveness, insurance companies typically contract and coordinate with other insurance agencies-which ensures economies of scale and their ability to have access to enough capital to back up their contracts with clients. The competition would keep costs low, and quality high. If a company becomes aggressive at starts shooting at people then its customers can leave it and be protected by another company. When governments fire on their own people they have no alternative short of revolution or fleeing the country. But war is unlikely between the companies, they will want to keep a quality brand name and war is very expensive which scares off customers. Already, insurance agencies have dispute resolution procedures to avoid conflict. But enough about my side, my opponent must answer the major question; Is taxation theft? Isn't a tax the forcible removal of someone else's property? If I stole my neighbor's wallet would I be justified because I contend that I was doing it to "give to the poor"? Isn't coercing someone to pay for defense normally called a protection racket? Even if the majority casts their vote in favor of a tax, isn't that just the majority issuing approval of a theft? If he can show that taxation isn't theft then my entire argument falls apart and I must concede victory to him