Many of the following government aspects help the economy.

My opponent is correct in defining the resolution as "many" means "more than one". Any other definition would be abusive. I expect to win Warfare and Currency, though I probably have a good chance at Infrastructure. It is important that we are not debating the United States, but government and society in general. I am not argueing that these aspects of society hurt the economy; rather, I believe that it is best that these aspects be privatised. INFRASTRUCTURE . .. could be effectively privatised. Farms, for example, would have demand for roads to be built. A company would then be paid to look around and find property to buy, buy it, and place the road in. In this way, the confiscation of property is voluntary, and the amount of money paid to uproot that business is agreed upon by both sides (making it fair). Property would often be relinquished easily in some cases as having a road near land would make the property more valuable than when it was large with no access to transportation. The question would remain as to who would own these roads after they were built. These roads would either be owned by the roading companies or by the individuals that funded the road's construction. Individuals would probably only own roads if they had owned the property that they had built on. 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. So, roads could be privately built, owned, and maintained. This would be more effective than the current system in which roads are publicly built, owned, and maintained in that all transactions are voluntary, maintinence occurs at the necessary times, and roads are only built when demand forthem exists. WARFARE . .. is the point in which I will NOT argue about I understand exactly what about warfare my opponent believes helps the economy. Warfare: -threatens security, leading to market stress -removes workers from the job pool -employs workers in jobs that do not produce wealth I await my opponent's argument that warfare can help the economy and how. CURRENCY . .. could be effectively privatised. First, the current monetary system is a monopoly that has abused itself throughout history. For example, 1923 Germany printed money to the point where the mark was worth one sevenhundred twenty-six billionth of its value less than ten years ago. . http://www.usagold.com... When a currency inflates to where the consumer price index is 726,000,000,000 times what it used to be, the people cannot escape to another currency. Currency is a monopoly when government controls it, and when the government abuses it, everyone suffers EVEN MORE than when a private monopoly overprices something like software. People don't need software as much as they need currency. Second, if a private company tries to overmint its currency (which would have to be something besides paper to have value), then it will lose to its competitors. If people believe that a currency might inflate, then they'll trade to another. Third, because currency will have real value (silver coins, etc. ), it will be much less likely to inflate, as their value will be determined by something other than demand for money. Government could fine companies that they find to have falsified the weight of their coins, etc. , as is done with other companies of different industries. Also, government could hold silver to a certain degree of fineness before it could be minted. Governments could collect taxes in the form of bullion. Currency would not have to uniform throughout. So, currency would be better off privatised, as it cannot be abused AND inflation cannot occur. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I await my opponent's case.