The state is not necessary in a capitalist society

Capitalism can effectively substitute, if not exceed, any service the state provides, including a police force, fire control, judicial system, ect.

I await my opponent's rebuttal, and wish him the best of luck.

Thank you to my opponent for starting this great debate. While, we may agree on many things, namely that the state is often incapable of proper management, we do however disagree on the point of how much state interference there should be. My opponent believes that the state should not be at all involved in any affairs, yet alone exist.

I contend that at least the state is necessary for some basic things, such as a standing army.

How would private individuals realistically pay for a standing army? Even if it were possible in concept- how would people who did not pay for the standing army be delt? Would they simply receive no protection? But then how is this possible? In national defense, the army acts for everybody. They protect the country as a whole- and since it protects the country as a hole, and that if it were done privately things would work less well (Dealing with non payers would be an issue) it is one area that should have a state. Please expect more thorough debates as my opponent elaborates on how he believes that this stateless society will exist.

THE GAME
THE GAME
THE GAME
THE GAME
THE GAME
THE GAME
THE GAME
THE GAME
THE GAME
THE GAME
THE GAME
THE GAME
THE GAME
THE GAME
THE GAME
THE GAME
THE GAME

I reaffirm all my old arguments- sure, the state is hardly needed- but we do need a state for the most minimal of functions. My opponent has not proven that the state is entirely unnecessary, thus he has yet to affirm his resolution.