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

First, to correct my opponent on his understanding of my essential services argument, I stated that “essential government services would be those of the police (domestic protection), courts (justice), and military (protection from foreign invasion).” Not that these were the only services that would be necessary for a long and happy life. Also, I agree that currently in the U.S. the really poor (meaning no income) are not able to afford extensive healthcare, this problem can only be solved with wealth generation and private employment growth only possible through capitalism. I would now like to point out that my opponent has neglected to answer my argument that competition in the healthcare sector drives service quality up, and prices down in order to win the patronage of the market so that the business may profit. Pro also ignores the fact that rather than U.S. citizens going to countries with socialized healthcare for their healthcare needs, it is the other way around. Also, I agree that people should have a basic understanding of the world and while very few people did have access to education prior to public schooling, we have to remember that at the time, public schools had lower attendance rates than the “backward” private ones in places like Indiana and Illinois (http://mises.org...). Also, this lack of availability my opponent mentioned was likely due to the low population density at the time as displayed by this map (http://etc.usf.edu...). Finally, my argument that private industry can provide education at lower overall economic cost still stands as this argument from round one has remained un-countered. The cost of public education is still unreasonably expensive for all those who pay taxes and private industry can still provide better, cheaper education because of competition and profit incentive. While only partial socialization of food/housing is certainly better than total socialization it is still bad because you still create a drain on the economy by taxing the productive people in society to pay to support those who produce little to nothing. My argument that private industry does a better job of production and distribution of food and housing from round 1 has also not been contended and so still stands.Yes, one business could conceivably control the entire network of transportation but this isn’t realistic, because as I explained towards the end of my argument on the third premise, the market changes too quickly for monopolies to form easily thanks to competition, and wealth generation which results in higher pay and better products and increased investment which leads to innovations which in turn breeds more competition. Look to my argument on the third premise from round 1 for more information. Also, the government will not always necessarily answer to the public as my opponent contends. This is because as you give it more power over your life and the lives of others its purpose changes from the purpose of serving the people by protecting their rights, to ruling the people. Absolute power, corrupts absolutely. There are more examples of powerful governments ruling their people rather than serving them (DPRK, USSR, Nazi Germany, the Philippines under Marcos, PRC, Iraq, etc.). My opponent’s basic argument for his first premise is that only the needy should get government help and not those who can pay for it. The problems with this is the creation of a disincentive to work. The logic here is simple, “If you don’t have to work to eat, get healthcare, transportation, education and housing, while I have to work in order to have those things for myself and you, why should I work? Why not let someone else pay for both of us?” Thus, the welfare state spirals out of control where more and more people become dependent on the socialized “essential services” for living. The result is a country like Greece or Portugal where people are protesting having to pay the now outrageous bill for their socialized industries.The second premise is affirmed in that the industries mentioned should be part of the free market. In my opponent’s attack on my third premise arguments, he is essentially implying that all the businesses are going to underpay their employees when possible. However if this were historically proven, then Microsoft and Apple would be paying their employees at precisely the regulated minimum wage. Instead computer programmers earned $72,630 each in 2011 (http://money.usnews.com...). Why is this? Part of it is competition as I mentioned in my rebuttal, the other part is the fact that businesses pay employees by how much the business values them. It is very similar to renting an apartment, you pay what it is valued overall by the market except in the case of employees, they are renting their services to employers who make up the market that purchases labor and they purchase it at what it is valued by the market. My opponent also brings up the 1800s as an example of employee defrauding, however the reason that wages were so low was because this was essentially the birth of industrial capitalism and so wealth generation initially of course was slow. However, despite the slow initial wealth growth non-farm income between 1865 and 1900 actually grew by 75% contrary to what my opponent would have you believe (http://en.wikipedia.org...(1865%E2%80%931918)). As to environmental regulation. Yes the property rights system works, the only reason that people pushed for regulation was the same reason that people pushed for other regulation of free markets. Impatience for social change and the contrast between the improved and the yet to catch up (http://mises.org..., and The Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek). Also, when private property rights are not respected but are part of a vast government regulation system for purposes including the environment or socialization of industry, you get something like Zimbabwe (http://www.cgdev.org..., http://www.cgdev.org...). And the reason for the lawsuits is that then you get a case by case analysis of property damage and not simply an overarching regulation and an unelected board that has the authority to stop you from building a home on a piece of land that is owned by you simply because they think it’s a wetland (http://online.wsj.com...). Environmental regulation of the sort my opponent proposes only opens the way to bureaucracy and oppressive government. Finally, as to antitrust, the reason that antitrust laws were passed was a misunderstanding of the market by the majority who also happened to be the impatient and slow to catch up ones mentioned earlier in this rebuttal. Despite what my opponent would like you to think, antitrust is not good because of the fact that it reduces the incentive for businesses to compete by ensuring that the government will protect them from being out competed by a more efficient business in the same industry (http://mises.org...). Further, just because a group of people think that businesses have too much power and that antitrust legislation doesn’t make it so. That people voted for antitrust was my opponent’s only answer to my explanation of the rarity, short life, and relative harmlessness of natural monopolies in a completely free market system thus my argument still stands. I would also like to point out that my opponent made a similar answer to my explanation of the environment and property rights.