Governments should not be allowed to borrow money

2. Gannon: "Also, the federal government is the only kind of government that can run at a deficit" Brian: Firstly, though US states supposedly have a "balanced budget requirement", the fact is that almost all of them have deb outstanding, as this site shows: http://www.governing.com... Also, there is no such requirement for provinces in Canada, where I live, many of whom routinely run major deficits, especially my home province of Ontario. Gannon: "The fact is, whether or not you realize it, you pay for these roads through either tolls from profit seeking companies who want to charge you as high as possible or from the government. I'd choose the government any day over Donald Trump highway. Oh and private businesses actually can build highways and roads, it's just that they don't have the necessary federal mandates to take peoples property and compensate them for it. The article below is about a private road tolling company that went bankrupt, proving private industry fails sometumes" Brian: Yes of course someone has to pay for the roads: the question is in what way? In terms of eliciting greater responsiveness to consumer demand, the free-market method of tying payment to service is far superior to the government method of separating payment from service (paying for roads out of general taxation, and then letting people use them for "free"). When payment and service are separated, you get over-congestion on the roads caused by people driving on them for "free" and you get a lack of responsiveness to the needs and desires of road consumers. Also, government is a giant monopolist, whereas there is the very real possibility of competition in a free transportation market, both between different owners of roads and between owners of roads and owners of other means of transportation such as railroads or airlines. It is a general rule that competition breeds innovation and excellence; whereas monopoly breeds stagnation and mediocrity. You say that private businesses can currently build roads, and that the ones that do "sometimes fail". Firstly, the fact that private businesses can fail and go bankrupt is a good thing, not a bad thing. This means that the inefficient players can be weeded out, and their assets can be bought up by the more efficient players or by eager newcomers. This welcome force is unfortunately absent when it comes to the government. Secondly, while private businesses can technically build roads, they are at a massive competitive disadvantage vis-"-vis the government. The government can force taxpayers to fund the construction and maintenance of their roads, and as a result, can afford to offer the service "for free". How can a private road owner, who must charge enough to cover the costs of both construction and maintenance of his road, plus labour, plus a profit to make it worth his while, be expected to vigorously compete against such odds? The fact that some private roads do manage to survive in the current environment is a fact more worth noting than that most businesses don"t bother building private roads. 4. Gannon: "Lol, you do realize this money goes to people who buy bonds from America, so the money flows to investors who stimulate our economy." Brian: So what? If the government paid to have a bunch of stupid pyramids constructed, the money would flow to the pyramid construction companies and "stimulate our economy" in that fashion. The point is not just to spread money around to any random person; the point is to pay people to do useful things for society, so that they are encouraged to do these things rather than useless or counterproductive things. Con"s Case Gannon: "My opponents "solution" to this (a government operating without the use of deficits) is by leasing out certain government services to private companies. The problem is that, private companies has the tendency to go bankrupt and fail and try to squeeze as much money from their customers as possible. My opponent sites efficiency, but i would like to site ethics. Should companies be allowed to take from our wallet to profit from a basic service that could instead be provided b a government instead of to the profit of other people? The key difference in this solution is who owns the road itself. A capitalist who seeks profit and doesn't really consider how you feel about the money and may overcharge you more then taxes, or a government official, who may not be efficient." Brian: I fail to see what is wrong with people offering a "basic service" (however that is defined) to others, with the hope of profiting from the transaction. Isn"t the main thing that the service is delivered effectively to the people who want it? Why is it a bad thing if both service provider and service receiver benefit? Isn"t more benefit a good thing? If according to "ethics" it isn"t, then I want nothing to do with that set of ethics. Also, what"s with the assumption that government officials "consider how you feel about the money" and don"t "overcharge you". Government officials are human beings just like capitalists are. If we assume that the latter are callous and greedy, than we should assume that the former are as well. And because the government has more power to abuse than a private businessman does, we should be more concerned about the former than the latter. Extra Gannon: "woa woa woa woa, this (a wartime wealth tax) clearly is unconstitutional, i have the right to my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness(originally property, also money makes me happy). That 1% of capital could be used for more efficient things outside of the government spending it." Brian: Well, the income tax used to be unconstitutional too, as were the kinds of measures that eventually became the New Deal, until the Sixteenth Amendment and a more "amenable" Supreme Court changed that. But yes, I of course agree that capital can be used more efficiently when in private hands, something which I actually included in my case, point #2, so thank you for agreeing with me there. You should realize though that whether government borrows capital or taxes it, that capital is unavailable for private investment, so I"m not really sure what you"re getting at here. Gannon: "We still need to maintain a military, but in times of potential defensive wars, we still need the ability to have debt to finance things when waging war. Increasing taxes to fund military operations is illogical since taxes are paid yearly and not in streams. Bonds will be necessary to maintain a fight. I'm not advocating for war, i'm advocating a potential scenario where debt may be useful for the country." Brian: I will concede that debt "may be useful", though not indispensable (irregular tax levies in wartime emergencies are not unprecedented by any means) in the incredibly rare scenario where a nuclear armed power must fight a sudden, unexpected, defensive conventional war. But in light of all of the numerous harms allowing governments to run debts results in, forsaking convenience in such ultra-rare, hypothetical scenarios is a very small price to pay.