Be It Resolved That The Goverment Should Nationalize the Internet.

Now let's get back to the debate. .. 1. We once again find ourselves in perhaps the most indicative argument of this debate: whether or not access to high speed internet is a right. Again, I stand in FIRM negation. You'll notice that Pro cited the example of one's "right to trial" and yet I have no idea why; there is absolutely no connection. All he did was prove that people have some rights - and I agree with him - but still, access to the internet is not one of them. Rights are things that you are born with; they're moral principles sanctioning one's freedom of action in a social context. In that regard, a right to trial exists. A right to the internet does not. Rights say that morally certain actions are right, and all other actions that forcibly interfere with those actions are wrong. Nobody is forcibly interfering with Pro or anyone else from accessing high speed internet (which would be the only argument), so therefore his point fails. 2. Pro maintains that the government should socialize the internet, because any "profit" i. e. higher ratio of gain than what was invested would go towards giving us (citizens) things that provide utility. I'll begin by quoting Robert Scheer -- "What is proposed is not the nationalization of private corporations, but rather a corporate takeover of government. The marriage of highly concentrated corporate power with an authoritarian state. .. is more accurately referred to as "financial fascism" [than socialism]. After all, even Hitler never nationalized the Mercedes-Benz company, but rather entered into a very profitable partnership with the current car company's corporate ancestor, which made out quite well until Hitler's bubble burst. " Additionally, if the government socializes the internet, the competition will be eliminated (Americans would not choose the option with the higher cost). So, what is the incentive for this government to create better and more productive services? Moreover, capitalism gives people the opportunity to dictate the market via supply and demand. Without competition, my #2 point remains: How do we know that the government won't raise its prices drastically at a later point - say when the competition has been eliminated - or even kept it JUST below the other competitors? That would make the entire thing not worth it, as we have no incentive to socialize something and limit our freedoms if we're not even getting huge monetary gains. Socializing puts economics in the hands of the government and not the people. 3. Here we are again. Pro thinks that the internet should not turn an overall profit because it provides us rights. Okay, lawyers defend our rights too, and yet they still profit. Are lawyers and judges not "mechanisms of the Bill of Rights? " Plus, I'd agree that the internet is a so-called mechanism of our rights (though I think that applies to nearly everything), and as such, I believe that we all have the RIGHT to purchase internet services. This premise completely negates the conclusion to his entire argument and debate. 4. Pro didn't respond to my 4th point, so. 5. First of all, I don't think there's anything wrong with Wal-Mart. In fact, my R1 argument SPECIFICALLY said, "To combat the current high prices of internet, a new company could emerge with lower prices, attract a lot of customers, and in the end prove to be a viable competitor or perhaps even surpass the current alleged oligopoly. That's what Wal-Mart did :) " I maintain this argument as a reason for how and why the free market could lower the cost of the internet. Also, Pro said that socializing would lead other companies to create a better service and product. This premise alone completely destroys his argument, as that very same incentive exists today without socialization. Moreover, if a drastically superior product is created, then it's reasonable to assume Pro would want to socialize that too. After all, he's arguing for socialization on the base of human necessity. If a better, more popular item became the norm as the internet has, he'd want to socialize that out of "necessity" as well. 6. Pro said that if the government hikes up internet rates (which I posed as a potential problem), we'll simply vote the politicians out of office. What I said was that by these private companies hiking up our rates, we could effectively do the same thing via boycotts, switching providers, etc. The reality is that we're too apathetic to do it. Why would it be any different with politicians? Also, again this very argument put forth by Pro destroys his own. Say the Government and Comcast were 2 providers. The costs suddenly skyrocketed for both, and the people demanded change. The government said No. Then what? We'd be forced to make a choice, which has been my proposal all along.