Resolved: The United States Federal government should mine asteroids.

I would also like to clarify that my opponent did in fact point out a flaw in my wording. The motion is based in the near future which is this century 2000-2100. Also before I start I would like to state my position. I am against the motion "Resolved: The United States Federal government should mine asteroids.". I am for a motion that says the federal government should not mine asteroids but instead encourage and support America's Enterprise system to take on and flourish in this lucrative new market. I. The Economy -The US economy is a mixed system. There are numerous privately owned corporations in the US. There are also numerous Federal systems and regulations in place to make sure things run smoothly. Examples of these systems are labor laws and minimum wage requirements. http://www.uncg.edu... -Competition is what keeps low prices low without sacrificing quality. The only thing keeping that gallon of milk you bought the other day for $4 instead of $24 is the existence of other manufacturers providing the same goods. The same logic and effects are seen within the Middle East and oil prices. OPEC used to have a massive monopoly on oil and was the driving factor in the worlds foreign policies and economies. Both America and Canada have counteracted this by drilling into their own massive reserves. Russia is also another large exporter of oil. My point is whoever holds a monopoly has unchecked and dangerous power on lives and economies globally and within their own economies. The pipe flows both ways China may have the largest REM stash but they have a lack of free enterprise therefore they strangle their own economy. If the US government was to have a monopoly on REM's from asteroids they have the potential to not only strangle the global economy but our own as well. This is where economic risk factors in. If one company fails it can leave a dent but there are more companies to take over. If the government fails then the whole system collapses. You will get higher returns for less risk by leaving it to corporations than if you were to have the government take control. Plus the government has a lot on its plate. National defense, deficit, foreign policy, etc. Meanwhile corporations have far less to worry about and can more effectively focus their resources to get results. NASA is not a mining company. They are a research and development organization. http://www.nytimes.com... http://thehill.com... - One last point I would like to make is the term "Flooding the Market". Below is a definition of the term flood. FLOOD " brim over, deluge, drown, immerse, inundate, overflow, pour over, submerge, swamp, teem engulf, flow, gush, overwhelm, rush, surge, swarm, sweep, choke, fill, glut, oversupply, saturate" http://dictionary.reverso.net... - The only thing that keeps a REM valuable is the fact that it is rare. If you were to suddenly dump an excess amount of REM's into the market not only would the value and prices of them drop dramatically but you run the risk of destabilizing the global economy. In short if there is a surplus of something it is no longer rare nor as valuable. A great historical example of this are the constant fluctuations in the gold market. - In terms of economy it would be a lot less risky to leave space mining to corporations and have the federal government tax and regulate these companies. Once again not only is it less risky but that is how our economy is designed to begin with. II. Diplomacy -Below is a link to a UN website regarding space policy. http://www.oosa.unvienna.org... -For the sake of time I am going to pull an excerpt from this site "The Outer Space Treaty was considered by the Legal Subcommittee in 1966 and agreement was reached in the General Assembly in the same year ( resolution 2222 (XXI). The Treaty was largely based on the Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, which had been adopted by the General Assembly in its resolution 1962 (XVIII) in 1963, but added a few new provisions. The Treaty was opened for signature by the three depository Governments (the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States of America) in January 1967, and it entered into force in October 1967. The Outer Space Treaty provides the basic framework on international space law, including the following principles:" -Here is also a list detailing basic principles also pulled from the site -the exploration and use of outer space shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries and shall be the province of all mankind; -outer space shall be free for exploration and use by all States; outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means; -States shall not place nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies or station them in outer space in any other manner; -the Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used exclusively for peaceful purposes; -astronauts shall be regarded as the envoys of mankind; -States shall be responsible for national space activities whether carried out by governmental or non-governmental entities; -States shall be liable for damage caused by their space objects; and -States shall avoid harmful contamination of space and celestial bodies. http://www.unoosa.org... - This excerpt alone severely limits and challenges this motion. If the government were to be in control of space mining then every incident would be an international one. International space law says that everything in space is neutral and is to be shared with the entire planet. While this would be good for humanity it doesn't give the US much incentive nor reason to be the worlds economic breadbasket. Say we find a rich asteroid full of REM'S. China sees this as an opportunity and also mines this asteroid. The US cant say no because that would be illegal. Now look what we have. The US put all the work into locating and setting up this asteroid just to have China come in off our backs and take the resources. That wouldn't help the US at all and would be counter productive. You would have a greatly easier time defending a private entities asteroid claim than a national entities one. Once again this leads into economic risk and even possibly war. Based on these two factors alone it would be a bad idea to let the US government mine for asteroids. -I thank my opponent for making this debate and apologize on the delay. I look forward to hear more of his arguments.