Small government is better than large government

Ah, sorry. I did assume your citizenry. I'm used to debating with people IRL, this is my first debate currently on this site. I'll keep my comments mostly to the general concepts you present and any reference to the US government you use, but I'll admit to only a small knowledge of Canadian government. Rebut, cont.: 1. Your definition of human rights as things that fall under non-aggression is fine, but again you're using a terribly broad concept. Also not everyone agrees to the same set of human rights. Who decides these what set of "rights" to use? The government. They have to confirm which set of rights they will guarantee. They then have to specify exactly how far those rights go. To me personally, rights are not rights if they can be taken away. The government decides on which set of rights it will give its society, but nothing stops them from changing those rights. The government changes our rights all the time even when the majority of the population doesn't agree, or wants different rights/entitlements. ("Bll of Rights" for America, plus some directly in our constitution and later amendments. This is the government giving us new rights, or taking them away). So yes, the government CAN revoke our rights if it wants. And it already does. If you think humans have the "right" to inject whatever they want into themselves, you are saying the government cannot revoke that "right," yet they have and can. As for your law/lawyer example. We have the right to a fair trial (granted to us by our government) but we are ENTITLED to a lawyer. We do not have a 'right' to have a lawyer. Rights are the concepts, entitlements are the things our government pays for/gives us as far as the strict concepts go. To me, both of these are entitlements since I don't believe in "rights" as something that humans naturally obtain from "god" or nature. But I do understand the definitions. 2. "Direct" harm can be terribly difficult to prove. An oil company can have an oil spill that contaminates a certain area of ground. It can seep into the water supply and poison people hundreds of miles away, causing them great harm, but they may not even know to blame the water. This is why agencies like the EPA exist. The public must be protected from private companies. Our food comes from private companies. They could use pesticides and weedkillers that contaminate our food. None of us would know to blame our food for causing us cancer or other harms if we didn't have the government to provide this for us. No private company is going to step in and test literally every single product and no private watchdog organization can keep track of every potential contaminant. The government has the scope to handle everything within its borders. It can only function then with taxes. It is its duty to keep taxes as low as possible, but taxes are a necessary evil. To say otherwise is to say anarchy (the smallest government) is better than any other alternative. This guarantees maximum freedom, but who thinks it is truly better? The world becomes might=right. In the same respect, when you say Large government means there will be more lobbying, you're absolutely correct. In a small government private companies can do whatever they'd like. They can poison our atmosphere, dump toxins into our waters, coat our food with toxins. So small government necessarily has less lobbying because there is nothing to lobby for. They've already won. Saying that small is "better" in this case is the definition of absurdity. The fact that there is something to lobby for means that society is being protected from large companies. Having to deal with their toxins instead of dumping them into our rivers or having their product cost more by using healthier alternatives to pesticides and weedkillers costs them money and hurts their business. There is no "better" about a society without an EPA or FDA where citizens cannot be protected from the things they cannot see. No citizen can test everything before they use it. We all as citizens pay for this through government "theft" because there is no private alternative. 4. You, as a canadian, argue against Universal Healthcare. Have you ever been in a system where healthcare is private? I have already given you a link against this that you have not addressed. If you can't address that then you have already lost the small versus large debate on this topic as far as which is "better." 5. Private Roads. Is there an example anywhere in the world where this concept works? Can you imagine having to pay to use each new road you turn onto or every mile of the interstate to a different company? Privatized water? Electricity? 6. What happens in your "better" society when a private company in a whole state decides not to supply water to gay people, not to allow black people to drive on their roads? 7. No charity has the scope of the government to help every citizen. Not enough people can give to charity to help every citizen. Text limit