The state is a faux necessity and should be abolished

I will be defending my arguments this round, but first I'd like to make a few clarifications. Burden of ProofMy opponent did seem to imply that I was correct in my analysis of the burden of proof, stating that he got "carried away. " Despite this, he still failed to make any original arguments supporting his claim. I have already explained why the BoP rests on his shoulders and it is clear that he did not even attempt to uphold this burden in any of the debate rounds. Given this alone, it is clear that he cannot be given this debate, as he hasn't made any arguments. However, I will still attempt to defend my own arguments. MonopoliesMy opponent briefly attempted to refute my monopolies argument by citing a source, then claiming that the source was far too complicated to summarize in this debate. First, let me point out that a source carries no wait if you don't even bother to explain it. Next, let's point out that the source itself is many pages long, far outstripping the character limit set in this round. If my opponent does not have enough space to summarize the material, how on earth does he think I'll have enough room to argue against it? However, I will attempt to do that here. The article referenced by my opponent basically argues that current economic thinking regarding monopolies is wrong, saying that there is no "true" natural monopoly, since competition itself is an ongoing and permanent process. The writer fails to realize that just because a firm cannot dominate the industry permanently does not mean that it shouldn't be defined as a monopoly if it dominates for an adequate period of time. There have been many times in history when a firm was able to monopolize some sort of the industry, for a variety of reasons. Sometmes companes are able to control all the inputs of production, thus insuring other companies cannot produce. Other times, they have unique technology that allows them to produce a good at a much lower price. Sometimes groups of companies will come together and agree to all sell at a high price. Without a government with the authority to stop these market abuses, they continue at the expense of the consumer. The law of supply and demand insures that market prices are generally near equilibrium price, but monopolies, cartels and other such similar entities throw this equilibrium price off, causing issues in the market. Safety/ProtectionThe opponent attempts to counter this point from two perspective: the anarcho capitalist perspective and the anarcho communist persepective. Let us look at each. First, the opponent claims that in an anarcho capitalist society, the private industry would be able to provide for all protection. This has two problems. First, people would only be able to have protection if they were able to pay for it. This means the impoverished would be unable to afford it. With a proper government in place, basic safety can be extended to all members of society. Looking at net safety alone, it is clear that the government can provide more than private industries. Additionally, these private firms have no clear direction of rules. For instance, imagine there are two large corporation owners who are rivals (perhaps they are competitors. ) Both men, being rich, are able to hire private military contractors (PMCs) and target the other person. This could lead to massive loss of life for innocent bystandards and would certainly lead to the deaths of many of the PMCs. What's worse, the conflict would cause both PMC corporations to be reduced in strength, lowering the nation's aggregate military force. Clearly this is not good for society. Second, from the anarcho communist perspective, the opponent argues that poverty often increases crime and that communism eliminates poverty, thus providing protection. This argument is fundementally flawed in many ways. First, while it is true that the impoverished commit crimes at a higher rate than everyone else, it is wrong to assume that all crime is being caused by the impoverished. There are many middle class citizens and rich citizens who commit crime as well, something eliminating poverty would have no effect on. Additionally, there are foreign countries who might wish to attack the US. Without a military, this threat goes unchecked, clearly lowering the actual and perceived safety of the communist country's citizens. Next, there's no clear evidence that communism itself can eliminate poverty. Since my previous argument still stands even if we assume poverty is eliminated, I won't spend much time on this point. It's simply worth noting that no communist country in history has been able to eliminate poverty. LawsFinally, my opponent claims that laws are simply arbitrary rules, then references some arguably bad laws that have been passed throughout history. First, laws are fairly arbitrary, but they often reflect the will of the people. We must remember, it is our representatives who make these laws and it is we who elect these people in the first place. The notion that some man in a box just flippantly makes whatever laws he pleases is innaccurate. There is a process in law creation, one that is influenced by the people. It is true that the occasional law is passed that is somewhat silly or unnecessary. For instance, the law that made marijuana illegal. However, the good laws far outstrip the bad laws, in number and scope. A few examples of laws critical to the good of society: You cannot murder people. You cannot steal from people. You cannot destroy things you do not own. You cannot sexually assault people. I can go on and on. Without a government to create and enforce these rules, people have no real incentive to follow them. After all, if my next door neighbor mows too early in the morning, it would be completely permitabe for me to walk over to him and stick a fork in one of his eyes. So long as he dies, there's really no threat of reprisal. Laws are clearly necessary if we want people behaving in such a way that benefits society as a whole. ConclusionSo to briefly go over everything that's happened in this debate. (1) It was decided that the burden of proof rests on my opponent's shoulders. (2) The opponent failed to meet this burden, nor did he even attempt to present his own arguments. (3) I've demonstrated that a government is necessary to prevent market abuses and to adequately protect its citizenry. Because of all this, I urge you to vote for me. Thanks for reading!