Many of the following government aspects help the economy.

My opponent claims that privatization is not a way to approach the resolution. However, by claiming that the government assuming an aspect makes it worse-off and less-beneficial, this government aspect indirectly hurts the economy. An example would be nationalizing the credit industry. While this would not help the economy, PRO would argue that credit does help the economy though even slightly while under government control. However, because this aspect of government is in existence, it is making the economy worse off than it would be (therefore: hurting it). . http://www.mises.org... INFRASTUCTURE My opponent claims that government-control of the infrastructure industry is beneficial in several ways: -improved, efficient transportation -easy shipping of goods -people cannot share expenses as government can There are three problems with my opponent's arguments. First, only the third is truly against my alternative. The first two occur regardless of government (see unrefuted first round case). The third is an obvious falsehood, as people often share in expenses, and the community would simply meet and agree to split the costs of building a road. No government is necessary. My points still stand unrefuted, that privatization of infrastructure has the following benefits: -competition for building -competition for use -privately owned and maintained -all transactions voluntary -demand allows for efficiency So, it is clearly better for infrastructure to be privatized. WARFARE I thank my opponent for clarification. My opponent has claimed that war can be used to stimulate the economy. The second thing my opponent said is how having a defense can protect an economy. Thirdly, my opponent refutes the argument that warfare should be privatized (which I wasn't going to make. .. ). So, a rebuttal is in order. My opponent's second point is irrelevant, as defense and war are two different things. defense- the act or action of defending . http://www.merriam-webster.com... warfare- military operations between enemies . http://www.merriam-webster.com... They are different in that warfare intended to boost the economy is never defensive. My opponent's first point claims that government should actively engage in war with other countries to help their economy. While this may allow for war-related industries to boom, it destroys a nations ability to trade with other nations. . http://www.independent.org... . http://www.nber.org... By eliminating the exporting and importing markets of goods, the economy is weakened. Therefore, warfare should be limited. Defense is not warfare either, though my opponent may try to play it that way. War weakens trade relations, ultimately causing more harm than good. Therefore, warfare harms the economy. CURRENCY My opponent makes a volley of false assumptions regarding currency: I change my case for government oversight of currency companies so that fineness is not regulated, but overseen as to not be falsified. I claim that government may want keep currency companies from falsifying weights. Then my opponent writes: "If the government is going to regulate the private companies in their coin minting to prevent the falsifying of coin weight, and guarantee degrees of fineness in their metals, it might as well fund those private companies. And then it might as well take over the private companies. " This is obviously false. Governments keep commercials from falsifying information in marketing their products, but government does not fund those companies and shows no signs of truly taking them over. My opponent's logic is clearly flawed. Otherwise, my opponent's arguments are truly that it doesn't make a difference whether or not currency is government-controlled or not. However, he drops the point that governments have abused currency before. They have also done this by reducing the fineness and thus the value of their coin, as noted by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations. . http://www.readprint.com... Competing currency companies would not be able to do this, as they are competing. In this manner, they cannot get lazy and inflate their currency as governments can. Competition is the key element that makes currency best privatized. So, currency is also best privatized. I await my opponent's arguments.