Many of the following government aspects help the economy.

IFRASTRUCTURE My opponent cites a town in Ohio (as a non-realistic example). His claim is irrelevant, as roads in Ohio are already owned and maintained by the government. . http://www.dot.state.oh.us... So, it would be ridiculous to apply my case to it, as in my proposition, companies would own and maintain roads. (building competition) "The government could easily pay the cheapest contractor to build, so that would still be competition. " If privatized, citizens would be able to directly choose where their money goes. This has a much greater effect on the forcing of competition than when government does so (because government did not work to get this wealth as citizens have). (roads competing for use) "You didn't even explain this aspect in Round 1. However, it could probably also occur with government. " I actually did, you just didn't look hard: "Roading companies would probably either keep the roads that they had owned or sell them to other companies that would own them, maintain them, and make profits with them. " When roads are owned privately, many different companies compete for use. This keeps the potential tolls to a minimum (only to the cost of maintenance, probably about a penny per car). This cannot occur with government, as the roads are owned by a monopoly. (voluntary relinquishing of property) "The government only fixes road that the people decide need fixing. " Irrelevant and not contending my point. When government controls roading, property is relinquished involuntarily. This allows government to cheat land owners out of the land that they own and have developed. (more efficient demand) "The people still demand roads from the government. " But government is not the people, and the people are better at knowing their needs than a government most often elected on party lines. Government often does not meet demand as fully as the people need (. http://www.artba.org...). "Try to get every city along a highway to pay for the highway without some help from a government of some sort. " It becomes necessary to remind my opponent that cities are also government. So, cities would not be paying for highways at all. Highways are needed for developed manufacturing (. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov...), tourism (. http://www.transportationvision.org...), general transportation, and shipping. For these reasons, large companies would probably invest in highways, as they are necessary (. http://www.transportation1.org...) for most of their business. Highways also help the environment (. http://answers.yahoo.com...), so environmental groups may contribute as well. The summary of my opponent's arguments is that it makes no difference whether or not government controls infrastructure. I have shown how it is much more efficient otherwise. This point goes to CON. WARFARE My opponent claims that warfare includes defense because they both involve the military. To attack this, I will use an analogy: Airplanes involve tires. They need them to land. Cars involve tires. They need them to move. So, an airplane is only a type of car, because it needs tires. This is obviously foolish. Defense is not warfare merely because it involves the military. Defense is most often the construction of defenses so that other governments will not damage, just as airplanes are most often moving in the air and not using tires. My opponent has a misconception of the warfare point. The warfare point claims that governments should engage in warfare merely to help the economy. My opponent concedes that this just leads to a lesser market for goods to be exported. He also concedes that this effect is greater than the effect of warfare on the economy. My opponent then adds another point to the jumble, claiming that the spoils of winning a war are worth the war itself. This is foolish, as all spoils gained are just as easily lost. Slaves do not often make good workers, as they are not voluntary. Because they are not paid, and only maintained, they are no better off for the economy than making all McDonalds in the country mechanical. Because no workers are paid and have any surplus with which to engage in market activities, they create no aggregate demand (. http://www.wordiq.com...). Without a large domestic aggregate demand, a greater strain is needed to sell goods produced to other countries (or at least in order to avoid destructive deflation (. http://www.frbsf.org...) or a generally weak economy). The only problem is that they don't have those countries that they can export to because they've harmed their trade relations. While defense will maintain an active economy, warfare does not. This point also goes to CON. CURRENCY My opponent questions how the minting industry will be able to make a profit. So, I must make this into a visual thing: Metals are mined------>Metals are minted----->Metals are used to purchase goods MINING INDUSTRY----->MINTING INDUSTRY The mining industry makes a profit by gathering resources and selling them to the minting industry for minted currency. The minting industry makes mint and pays their employees and the mining companies in these coins. What is left over is kept as minted coins for the employer. The workers take these coins and spend them elsewhere. So, these coins are NOT sold like conventional goods. They are used in the marketplace. The profits of these companies would directly be the coinage produced. My opponent could not find what I was referring to in my source, The Wealth of Nations. Adam Smith claimed that for centuries, governments had reduced the silver content (value) of their currency and that they would continue to do so for generations. In this way, government can even inflate metal coins, which could not be done with privatized coins. My opponent's counter-argument in this contention is that potential currency companies could never make a profit. I have shown you how they would. Therefore, this point also goes to CON. SUMMARY Infrastructure should be privatized because, as I have shown, it is much more efficiently done while in the private sector. Currency should be privatized, as governments tend to devalue their currency over time. Further, a new industry could arise from a privatized minting industry. Based on your interpretation of the place of defense in warfare, you may either go PRO or CON on this one. However, either way I have 2 or 3 points. Because my opponent has only potentially won 1 contention, he has lost. I again thank my opponent for this debate. RESOLUTION NEGATED.