Government Intervention to completely and utterly destroy any remnants of the Amish way of life.

To begin with, as I have often stated, no one wishes to suffer. Not a single living creature. Even those such as masochists, who wish to experience a certain level of suffering, still do not wish to experience what we may call "true" suffering. What they would consider suffering. Given this, all moral decisions should be made under this ultimate premise: Since nobody wishes to suffer, we should focus on maximizing freedoms, while limiting harms, so as to bring about the best possible reality for everyone.For this reason, government intervention should not "completely and utterly destroy the Amish way of life." Doing so would fail both premises of the aforementioned ultimate moral guideline. Now, allow me to address my opponent's case. Let me remind the voters that it is my opponent's burden of proof, as the person advocating for something, to prove why allowing the Amish way of life to continue to exist is more harmful than beneficial. If he cannot do so, he has failed, and no such actions should take place. I would also like to bring into light the resolution of this debate; that is, it is one of complete and utter annihilation. This being the case, if I can show there is but one redeeming trait of Amish culture, my opponent cannot justly say we should do away with every single aspect of Amish life. In other words, he would not be capable of soundly saying we should "completely and utterly destroy the Amish way of life". That said, let us begin.1. When Government Should InterveneI will be repeating myself a bit here, but as previously stated, the ultimate form of morality is one of preventing harms, while maximizing freedoms. Given this, a government should only intervene when and if something is not at is maximal apex of freedom, or when action can bring about less harm than taking no action. For instance, banning murder is just, because allowing murder to go on creates more harm than banning it, though it takes some freedoms of action. Or in another case, allowing someone kill themselves, because while someone dying is a form of suffering, stripping the freedom to control your own existence is a greater harm.In other words, when may governments intervene? Only when intervention is moral.It is in this context I find myself staring down my opponent's claims on the role of government, which I find more than a tad bit puzzling, for as a Communist, and therefore, fellow Socialist in ideology, it would seem perplexing to me that my opponent would provide certain anti-Socialist arguments on the role of government. The purpose of Socialism is, in essence, to create a society wherein one is free to pursue their passion and follow their personal choices in life, so long as those choices do not infringe upon the rights of others. In this sense, Socialism's goal is a more fair society; not equality in of itself. So when my opponent claims that equality supersedes liberty in Socialist ideology, he is either mistaken, or being intentionally misleading. Equality sometimes supersedes liberty, but liberty often supersedes equality as well. Neither liberty, nor equality, in of themselves equate to fairness, or justice. An excellent example is the former Soviet Union, or China under Mao, who's citizens were almost entirely equal; in poverty and oppression. This was not Socialism then, nor is it now, when my opponent advocates for that kind of thinking.When it comes to Socialism, it would argue two things primarily about the Amish way of life: Are their needs met, and as a follow up, do they have the capability to pursue their passions, and change their life, if they so desire? Subsequent questions may be asked such as "what kind of treatment do people receive", but so long as the answer to the above two questions are "yes", then Socialism has no qualms with the way of life in of itself. And even if the answer to one or more of the above questions is "no", my opponent still has all his work cut out for him, for he must prove how these things are the fault of the Amish way of life itself, and not broader problems with the structure of global or national society. Even then, if he manages to prove it is the fault of the Amish, he still must display why these things are justification to "completely and utterly" destroy the Amish way of life, rather than destroy or reform those specific aspects of it.2. Negatives of the Amish Way of LifeMy opponent has made the bold claim of labeling the Amish "retarded by their very definition". He then provides what I should think is an inadequate, and inaccurate definition of retardation. Allow me to propose my own definition, taken from the American Heritage Dictionary[1]:1. The act or process of slowing or impeding. The condition of being delayed or impeded. 2. The extent to which something is delayed or impeded.3. Something that retards; a delay or hindrance.4. Often offensive Impaired intellectual development.None of these match the Amish way of life. For numbers one through three, they all imply a form of oppression. A lack of choice. When something is "delayed", it has no say in the matter. The same is for when something is "impeded". Both of these are things out of one's control. This cannot be said for the Amish, as there is nothing inherent to the way of life forcibly preventing them from slowing, delaying, or impeding anything. As for the fourth, there is nothing about the Amish way of life which inherently impairs intellectual development.I would like to remind my opponent that, even if he argues against my definitions, or in favor of his, he still has all his work cut out for him in showing why these things are bad.My opponent has made several claims about Amish. Beating their wives? Brainwashing little girls? Misogynist chants? Sexual slavery? These are serious claims. Has my opponent provided any evidence of these things? No, he has not. I invite him to do so. Until he does, his claims are merely frivolous banter. Baseless fear mongering. And should be entirely ignored thusly.3. The Necessity of ForceFirst of all, let me once again note my opponent has provided no justification or proof of the, dare I say, barbaric things he claims of Amish culture. However, even if I were willing to grant all of it, my opponent is still no closer than he was before at explaining why force is necessary. Merely living in a culture which likes an older way of life, and which, if it is at all true, engages in immoral actions against one another, does not in of itself prove that violence is necessary. What justification does my opponent provide for using force? How does the lifestyle of the Amish show they cannot be reasoned with, or why non-force cannot be used to bring about a better reality? What is inherent about the Amish way of life that requires (requires meaning there is no existing alternative) force? My opponent has made no argument for his case, and therefore, his case deserves to be dismissed.Sources1: http://www.ahdictionary.com...