Technology R&D Needs Unification

First, I will start out with a definition. Don't worry, I won't give you a huge list and I won't bog the debate down in the little details. Competition: The pillar of capitalism in that it may stimulate innovation, encourage efficiency, or drive down prices. . http://en.wikipedia.org... - Economics_and_business Now according to this definition, to do away with competition would be to do away with the pillar of capitalism, slow innovation, discourage efficiency, and may raise prices. But, really, the 3 points that I'm going to focus on are these (I know that this is in speech format, but after a while it becomes difficult to write any other way): 1)Competition has helped push technology forward, and continues to do so. 2)There is no current organization that has this power, and if one was formed to carry out the task that Pro is proposing, then there would be far too much power in one place. 3)Doing so would set a dangerous precedent for other industries. Now, as I said, competition has helped push technology forward, and continues to do so. The best example would be the iPhone. Nowadays, people can hardly think of a time with touch screen devices. It has spread from the phone industry to laptops, electronic GPSs, and many other devices. . http://www.nextag.com...... . http://www.epinions.com...... . http://www.visualplanet.biz...... So, what would have probably happened had the iPhone not come out? I'm sure that, eventually, we would possess touch screen capabilities, but not nearly as soon. The same goes with Application stores, and many other things. And that's just one product born out of competition between technology companies, in this case Apple and other phone companies. Cars, another piece of technology, also thrive on competition between other companies. Well, maybe "thrive" isn't the right word, but it has pushed the industry forward, and those that aren't fast enough have disappeared. Do you really think that cars would have as many safety features, low prices, and advanced technology in them if they weren't constantly striving to be better than their competitors? No, of course not, and why would they. They would have no one that they needed to beat, so they could even just stick with the same model, because they wouldn't need to have anything better. And if anyone claims that a moral conscience would make them spend more money in order to help the public, then they don't know crap about business. Moving to my second point, there is no one organization or government that has the power to do something like unite the thousands of tech companies that exist all around the world. And that is a very, very good thing. If something came along with the power to uproot thousands of companies from their home countries, move them to one country, then force them to combine, then we all have a new master. So, even if it were, somehow, possible to do what my opponent is proposing, I would very strongly recommend that we don't do it. That is too much power. And finally, it would set a dangerous precedent. If they (they being the almighty power that can combine some of the most independent people against their will into one company) did this for the "benefit of humanity", what would stop them from doing it again? Do we really want a single bank, one that didn't have to compete with lower interest rates? Or a single airplane company that didn't have to lower fairs and raise safety standards? I eagerly await my opponents response.