Many of the following government aspects help the economy.

Alright, then, my case. "I am not argueing that these aspects of society hurt the economy; rather, I believe that it is best that these aspects be privatised." That's funny, because that's not the resolution. The resolution is that when these actions are performed by government, they help the economy, and you are supposed to be saying that when these actions are performed by government, they lead to either a negative or a neutral effect on the economy. I think a definition for government is necessary: Government - the complex of political institutions, laws, and customs through which the function of governing is carried out (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) INFRASTRUCTURE For this contention, my opponent only talks about how infrastructure could be privatized, but says nothing about how government runs it. The government that controls a part of infrastructure depends on the level of infrastructure: local streets and roads would be local, intrastate highways would be done by the state, and interstate highways would be done by many states, being overseen by national government. Infrastructure by government helps the economy because it allows for improved, efficient transportation, which allows for cities to expand beyond walking distance from downtown to suburbs. It also allows for cheaper shipping of goods, which is very important for the economy. When a neighborhood decides that it needs roads, and it needs to build roads, they set up a neighborhood government to build the road together. When two cities decide that they need a road connecting them, the two governments should be used to cooperate in building the road. Whenever large groups of people want a road to be built for their general welfare, government is the obvious answer. What would happen if there were five homes in a neighborhood, and they all decided that they needed a road to connect themselves? They would play chicken until someone finally decided to pay for the road. Or, of course, they could turn to government. WARFARE My opponent points out some negative effects of war. However, war often stimulates the economy. http://www.americaslibrary.gov... http://eh.net... "For the United States, World War II and the Great Depression constituted the most important economic event of the twentieth century. The war's effects were varied and far-reaching. The war decisively ended the depression itself." The Great Depression ended with WWII. Now, the one major positive effect of having a government actively ready to engage in warfare: it keeps the economy alive. http://en.wikipedia.org... This article talks about how Europeans who could not defend themselves properly were enslaved by other Europeans. If a country wants to have an economy, it needs to have people. In order to prevent another country from charging in and taking over, killing and enslaving the country's citizens, it needs to be prepared to fight back against that country. In order to fight back, it needs to be prepared for war, with an army and equipment necessary to run an army. Now, it would be very foolish to try to privatize warfare. If all of the people are going to benefit, all of the people should have to pay something. This is answered with taxes. Additionally, if one corporation runs the entire army of a government, that corporation could easily conquer the government, and then we wouldn't even have government to run the "three government aspects that help the economy." CURRENCY My opponent only attacks paper-money currency. I suggest a metal-based currency. As the value of the currency is controlled by the economy, the only governmental function with currency would be to mint coins to standard units so as to help in monetary transactions. For example, it helps shoppers if they have gold coins that the government regulates to be worth $1 rather than having to weigh the gold every time they want to buy something. This is a positive effect. If the government is going to regulate the private companies in their coin minting to prevent the falsifying of coin weight, and guarantee degrees of fineness in their metals, it might as well fund those private companies. And then it might as well take over the private companies. How would privatizing the production of metal-based currency be any better than allowing it to be run by government? "So, currency would be better off privatized, as it cannot be abused AND inflation cannot occur." To do this, the company would HAVE to use a metal-based currency. Metal-based currencies can be neither abused nor inflated, so there really is no difference between government and the private sector here. Therefore, if my opponent thinks that privatized currency is good, then governmental currency can't be that much worse, which doesn't help him in negating the resolution. Anyways, thanks for accepting. I look forward to your rebuttals.