true laissez faire libertarianism is dangerous

I accept and we meet again :)Pro does not use the term anarcho-capitalism, therefore it is reasonable for me to allow for some government. My laissez-faire libertarian world (LLW) would have a government who's purpose is limited to:- protection of private property - legal enforcement of voluntary contracts- creation & management of moneyNote that in my LLW, there is no public property other than the resources used by government employees.I would also like to point out that the form of government Pro supports is a monopoly that enforces it's edicts by force. "people will die of food with no food stamps"Pro refers to what is now called SNAP. It should be noted that members of SNAP purchase their groceries using an EBT card and shop at the same grocery stores the rest of us do. My opponent will need to explain why the absence of SNAP would have the result that people "die of food". Does SNAP dramatically increase the quality of food at grocery stores?"people will die of disease with no healthcare"I covered this in our Obamacare debate? http://www.debate.org...Pro has the burden to show the positive correlation between lack of public healthcare and reduced mortality. I've already shown that the calculation of so-called hazard ratio these studies rely on his dubious. From the above debate:"Appendix D of the 2002 Institute of Medicine cites only two studies on the topic of deaths from lack of health insurance, Franks et al. (1993) and Sorlie et al. (1994). It adopts the Franks estimate of 1.25 deaths among those without health insurance for every death among those with health insurance without explanation. The problem with this is that Franks" sample assumed that baseline insurance status remained the same for 19 years, an unrealistic assumption, and it excluded everyone covered by government programs. The 95% confidence interval for the 1.25 hazard ratio was 1.00 to 1.55" http://healthblog.ncpa.org...From my debate linked above:"In independent empirical papers, Richard Kronick and David Card and his colleagues find little evidence that health insurance coverage significantly reduces mortality. Former Director of the Congressional Budget Office June O"Neill and her husband Dave also conclude that lack of insurance has little or no impact on mortality." http://healthblog.ncpa.org..."people will die of disease with no food regulations"I'm assuming Pro is referring to the FDA here. But Pro has it backwards. It's the FDA that kills people. In 2005, Dr. David Graham, senior drug safety researcher at the FDA for 20 years, gave an interview exposing issues inside the FDA in relation to approval of the drug Vioxx."FDA analysts estimated that Vioxx caused between 88,000 and 139,000 heart attacks, 30 to 40 percent of which were probably fatal, in the five years the drug was on the market."https://en.wikipedia.org...This drug was approved by the FDA. As Dr. Graham states:"Since November [2004], when I appeared before the Senate Finance Committee and announced to the world that the FDA was incapable of protecting America from unsafe drugs or from another Vioxx®, very little has changed on the surface and substantively nothing has changed. The structural problems that exist within the FDA, where the people who approve the drugs are also the ones who oversee the post marketing regulation of the drug, remain unchanged. The people who approve a drug when they see that there is a safety problem with it are very reluctant to do anything about it because it will reflect badly on them. They continue to let the damage occur. America is just as at risk now, as it was in November, as it was two years ago, and as it was five years ago."http://www.lifeextension.com...But it gets even worse than that. Ron Unz, publisher of The American Conservative, did some research on this subject and found a startling correlation between U.S. mortality rates and the time Vioxx was on the market (keep in mind, it was handed out to about 80 million people):"We find the largest rise in American mortality rates occurred in 1999, the year Vioxx was introduced, while the largest drop occurred in 2004, the year it was withdrawn," says Unz. "Vioxx was almost entirely marketed to the elderly, and these substantial changes in the national death-rate were completely concentrated within the 65-plus population."The FDA studies had proven that use of Vioxx led to deaths from cardiovascular diseases such as heart attacks and strokes, and these were exactly the factors driving the changes in national mortality rates.""Perhaps 500,000 or more premature American deaths may have resulted from Vioxx [my italics], a figure substantially larger than the 3,468 deaths of named individuals acknowledged by Merck during the settlement of its lawsuit."http://www.theweek.co.uk...Pro confuses regulation, which is "a legal norm intended to shape conduct that is a by-product of imperfection" and government policy. Pro assumes that regulation ONLY comes from monopoly government. This is simply false. Why would we assume that individual actors would not get together to address concerns they might have in some uniform fashion? Pro may cry "But that's just another name for government!". No, it isn't. The key here is "monopoly" and "force". These entities, whatever form they might take, would be voluntary in nature, which is the key to their success. Whatever they be, there would be multiple of them and they would need to serve their customers or die, no different than any other business (well, except those wall street banks, and GM and GE, and ... all the other Crony businesses we have today). Since I'm advocating for a solution to this specific problem minus any government, I will turn to anarcho-capitalism for a solution. Most A.C. theorists today propose a form of insurance company to address these types of needs. The main difference is that their role would change slightly. They would likely take on the role of drug testing for example. They would also assess the risk of drugs and price insurance accordingly. This would have the result of reducing the risk of another Vioxx."people will die of pollution and the environment will be tainted with no enviro regs"Decreases in pollution have been brought about increases in wealth and improvements in technology. These are attributes brought about by the free market. Perhaps Pro has not heard of the "tragedy of the commons". When a lake full of fish sits in a public park, what incentives are in place for fisherman? Of course, they will fish as fast as possible since the cost is low and they know others are coming to get theirs. With this lake privatized, the owner will set a price for taking fish that can be modified as needed to control the population of the fish. I can address this more in a subsequent round. I'm running out of space.