Small government is better than large government

5k characters in 3 rounds is a bit small for a complete debate on this, so I apologize if I miss a few things. To conclude, let me remind everyone that while Large government has problems, Small government does as well. I personally am not advocating government to be as large as possible, but government needs to be "large" in some respects for even my opponent's "life, liberty, and prosperity" to be possible. Let me list some of these things and rebut a bit: You have to say these things would be "better" in order to vote for my opponent. 1. Private roads that could bar people from using those roads. (How can people protest the use of the interstate?) 2. Private Healthcare that allows people to go bankrupt so that they may live. Private Healthcare which costs more to the state while insuring less than 100% of the population (speaking of efficiency think of how complex private healthcare has to be, each policy interacting with each different doctor. Every doctor talking to every private healthcare. Every employer having to shop for and talk to each insurance agency. So much needless cost! YOU PAY FOR ALL OF THIS!) 3. Disbanding of all welfare monies which would immediately mean everyone who cannot work immediately being homeless, and starving. (Think of how well Charities supply food to Africa) My opponent seems to think that private charities will cover everything welfare does right now, but supplies no evidence to confirm this, whereas we can see that people still starve in the world. Charities can't even cover the people that starve now without adding ours to the mix. You have to be able to say its "better" for people who can't work to starve and die. 4. The EPA being disbanded. You have to say it's OK for companies to save money by dumping toxic materials into our rivers, and by dumping as much toxic gas into our atmosphere as they would like. My opponent believes that private watchdog agencies will warn people about companies doing this and thinks people will make these companies fail. We all know though, people will buy the cheapest products regardless of the morality that went into the creation of the products. Wal-mart largely functions today due to Chinese sweat shops, many of which force children to work extreme hours. (Chinese government being "small" when it comes to labor laws) 5. The FDA being disbanded. My opponent believes that it's a company's right to sell whatever they wish regardless of how poisonous it may be to our civilians. He says a company should be able to sell poisoned food, and it would be up to civilians to both figure out that it is poisonous, and to then stop buying the food so that company has to change or go out of business. Civilians in this country can't know that the food they buy is safe to eat, or the drugs they purchase are pure. They have to research every single thing they purchase. Is this society better for having less government? He believes that private companies will step in and check every product you buy. I ask - who will do it and who will pay for it? What power will those private companies have to force other companies to not sell their products? This is why it is necessarily in the Government's court. 6. Private Water. When was the last time you had to put a lot of thought into if you'd have running water or not? What about electricity? Some people may point to Flint, Michigan as an example of how government does a "bad" job while ignoring the vast majority of cases where they do a good job. This also ignores that private companies with no EPA or FDA oversight, will do far worse in order to save money. Private companies stepping in to these fields would be opening up ourselves for far more of these terrible scenarios. The government here was attempting to be more "efficient" and have by doing so ignored their workers in the industry, and made poor choices. The fact that a large government made a mistake does not mean "small" government would be better. That private institutions would not have made this mistake 100 times over. 7. Oil companies with no government oversight would be allowed to spill wherever they'd like with no punishment, contaminating whatever they'd like. Is this "better?" How would the government ever know about it with no EPA? 8. With no public education system all parents are forced to pay for private schools. Many cannot afford this. These parents also cannot afford day care most times. They will be forced to keep their children in unsafe conditions and without properly trained teachers. The public institution can be improved in a "large" government. Under my opponent's own "life, liberty, and property" guidelines, who considers a society with the above policies to be protecting the life of its citizens? Allowing contaminants and expecting civilians to test everything they buy? Who says a society is protecting its civilians liberties when they cannot drive on the roads? When they cannot buy water? Not a society for me.