Essential services should be socialized, and privatized services should be regulated.

I would like to point out that my opponent, while recognizing that there are other services needed for a long and happy life, still affirms the position that the only essential Government services are law enforcement, the courts, and defense. But this has been proven wrong on an international level. In other countries, the Governments are able to provide quality education and health care. For example, most other developed countries spend less of their GDP per capita on healthcare, and still attain universal coverage (http://www.politico.com...). My opponent argues that competition in the healthcare sector drives quality up and prices down. While this maybe true in the general marketplace, the United States (before and after the Affordable Care Act was passed) still spends more for healthcare per person as shown above. It is true that the US uses a lot of expensive equipment for health care, but the price discrepancy is still a problem. It is important to make the distinction between total spending, and spending per person. Total spending does go up with higher population, but the same is not necessarily true with spending per person. My opponent makes the common claim that people in countries with universal health care sometimes go to the United States for care. While this may be true for people with a lot of money that can afford our system, they are the exceptions, and not the rules. Many Americans have actually been going to countries with universal health care, such as Canada, and the United Kingdom (http://www.nytimes.com...) due to the problems with the American system. Almost nobody in Canada or Europe advocate free market healthcare, and many advise the US to adopt a single-payer system. My opponent affirms that very few people had access to education before public schools were widespread. However, I would like to point out that a very likely reason why attendance to private schools outmatches those of public school, is because many kids were working in farms, or in factories. Many times, only kids born into rich families had the time to go to school. The argument that private industry can provide schooling for lower overall economic cost seems legitimate until you consider the social conditions of many people in the working class. Some families can't afford education at all, and there will be few charity schools that would provide education for free. As it stands, even various Church groups who pride themselves on assistance for the poor have tuition rates at thousands of dollars a year (http://www.ncea.org...) There is no such thing as a free lunch, but sometimes it is better to use taxes in order to pay that lunch off for somebody in need. Private industry has a tendency to distribute wealth from bottom to top if left unregulated. Soup kitchens will still exist, but the millions of Americans who currently depend off of food stamps (http://www.nbcnews.com...) will be cut off. While it is ideal to help these people get back to high-paying work, it is not ideal to end the food stamp program. Regarding monopolies, my opponent still affirms the positions that Government regulation is unneeded because of the nature of the marketplace. However, the nature of businesses who are big/powerful enough to monopolize is to make profit. So businesses will collaborate with each other in order to provide people the illusion of competition, when in reality they are dealing with a hidden monopoly. While the Government may not always answer to the public, every country that my opponent mentions (DPRK, USSR, Nazi Germany, the Philippines under Marcos, PRC, Iraq) did not allow the people to have a voice in their Government. Canada, the UK, Modern Germany, the US, Japan, South Korea, etc. all have representative democracies/republics, with the people having a say in their Government. I only claimed that the Government should help only the needy with regards to food and housing, everything else should be universal. The reason why food/housing are the exceptions is the private industry has been proven to work well providing those services to those well-off (not the poor). The second premise remains affirmed. My opponent claims that I am arguing that "all businesses will underpay their employees when possible." I have never said nor implied that. I was simply referring to the working class have a strong tendency to be underpaid, as evidenced during pre-Progressive Era time period. The law should protect these workers. Of course computer programmers won't earn minimum wage due to value and competition. They are not of the low-wage professions. My opponent claims that the reason for employees making low wages during the industrial revolution is because of slow initial wealth creation. However, the fact still stands that during the early 1900's, most Americans lived in relative (not absolute) poverty. After the Progressive Era, and especially AFTER (not during) the New Deal of the 1930's-1940's, poverty took a dramatic turn downward. Government regulation was one of the main reasons for this. While the New Deal did not fix the Depression, it provided many Americans with poverty relief. While the property rights system may work, it would be a financial burden to both corporations and the people due to the hassles of the legal process. Too much money would be spent on lawsuits. It is best to instate a universal law to let businesses beforehand they are not allowed to harm the environment. I affirm my opponents stance that you should be able to build a house on your own property if it is a wetland, as it is a danger only to yourself, and not universally to others. If regulation of the kind I am proposing were to lead to oppressive Government, wouldn't that same standard apply to other countries with environmental regulation? Many nations that score high on the economic freedom index (http://www.heritage.org...) have proper regulations in place. The ever changing force of the marketplace doesn't always protect against monopolies. Legislation meant to break trusts up actually encourages business because it gives them the assurance that monopolies/trusts will not harm their business, providing the people who run it with relief.