Be It Resolved That The Goverment Should Nationalize the Internet.

I'll continue structuring my argument numerically for clarity and consistency. 1. Pro beings by claiming that the government should be involved in the market because the government "can do it cheaper. " Whoa - hello, Communism. Saying "the government can do it cheaper" is a horrible argument. Pro writes, "The fact is that government should not assume that someone else is providing a need for its people, it should take initiative. " Again, the internet is not a need! Like I said, the government's only responsibility in a democracy is to protect the rights of its citizens. Because the internet is not a right, the government has no incentive to get involved. 2. Moreover, while Pro accuses me of being short-sighted, he's clearly the one who's wishful thinking. When has the government ever done something without a profit motive? The government's debt is nearly 1.5 trillion dollars. Because politicians can't pay this debt by raising taxes (as doing so hinder their re-election), they're going to ensure that they profit in all of their business endeavors, perhaps not to pay greedy CEOs, but to pay to the State. So, the idea that the government would drastically lower costs is a pipe dream. 3. Next Pro complains about Comcast's profit margins. A business that doesn't think about profit doesn't stay in business. Additionally, Comcast profit margins are less than businesses in many other industries. In fact, they are barely high enough to get people to invest in their stock! People who constantly whine about greed haven't the faintest notion about how business or a capitalist economy works. Here's a clue: If DSL offered service for $11/month as Pro suggested, but Comcast and AT&T provided better service (i. e. faster speed, more options, etc. ) but charged $25/month, then people have the option of which they'd prefer. Just because several companies have a lot of business is NOT indicative of a monopoly, oligopoly, etc. and Pro has not proven as such. 4. Pro continues that a government option would "the cost of an essential need for all families by $168 a year. " Again, high-speed internet is NOT a need - it's a luxury. At best, it could be argued that this would be a NEED for government officials, whose internet is paid by government tax dollars anyway. Additionally, no one has argued against the government creating a system specifically for itself. A huge reason why that's an important factor is because the opinion of the people is very important to consider in this matter. For instance, there is a huge divide in our society and our government concerning nationalizing health care let alone the internet! The ideology to combat will be: If the government can get in on the action here, they can justifiably get in on the action anywhere. I mean what's next - government food chains? Pro would say it's unlikely, but hey, at least food is a necessity. If the government implements itself into every aspect of the market, we'll become a Communist nation. This is especially true if the government offers the lowest price in every market, completely eliminating their competitors, and making nearly impossible for small business to compete. 5. Next Pro argues that my ideology is moot because it's impossible for a competitor to compete. First of all, he clearly has no idea how things like the stock exchange and investing work. If you pool resources, get loans, sell stock, etc. then you'd have the funds to make yourself a viable competitor. Second, if the government implements a cheaper alternative, how does Pro expect those businesses to compete OR for other smaller businesses to emerge and compete? Small businesses drive the American economy. 6. Who's to say that the government wouldn't charge per site or download? Moreover, government control = less freedom! They can easily implement censorship and other manipulation. Conclusion: Pro dropped many of my arguments, including: The reality that free internet is accessible; Our 'freedoms' are not being threatened as Pro argued in R1; The government would become a digital Big Brother; etc. Additionally, I propose that there are other alternatives to combating this alleged oligopoly, such as boycotts (at least in the household, if not at businesses and schools) - an argument again that Pro has completely ignored. Plus, he mentioned that combined these 2 companies in question have control of 30% of the U. S. market, so about 15% each. What about the other 70%? Worst case scenario, Americans can switch providers. There are companies with even more of an oligopoly-like reign, including telecommunications providers, air lines (Boeing), Dell - IBM, Haliburton, gas stations, etc. Like with these other companies, the government should take measures to regulate the economy; however, creating a public option is not a viable or proper solution.