DDO TOC Round 1: Economics

1a. My opponent's arguments rely on the assumption that Uranium would be mined in an open pit. In 1990, 55% of world uranium production was the result of underground mining . http://www.world-nuclear.org.... This number has recently dropped due to the rising Uranium mining trend, ISL . http://www.world-nuclear.org.... ISL, or ISR, is the most common Uranium mining method in the United States . http://www.world-nuclear.org.... The process of ISL does not remove Uranium ore from the ground . http://www.wise-uranium.org... and does not cause the radiation leaks that my opponent's case worries about . http://www.wise-uranium.org.... Further, it is one of the most cost-effective method of Uranium mining . http://www.wise-uranium.org.... Regulations would be more than sufficient to make sure that ISL has little to no environmental impact. My opponent's unwarranted claim that "limestone is mined via 'open-pit' " is false. Limestone had been effectively mined underground . http://www.igsb.uiowa.edu..., and due to the tourism and profit benefits of doing so, limestone would be mined underground, where it doesn't have the environmental hazards that my opponent claims. 1b. The cost of a light rail system is considerably less than $350 million . http://www.grandcanyontreks.org..., a drop in the bucket for BHP Billiton, which made $15 billion in profits in 2008 . http://www.bhpbilliton.com.... I still think that it is funny that my opponent thinks that 20% is too high (1c) and too low (1b, 2). Again, it is irrelevant, though. If a water dispute became anything, it would be settled by the courts. It is not a reason for the government to own the GC. 1c. My opponent's source saying that the NPS markets the Grand Canyon linked to a private tourism company . http://www.grandcanyon.com.... It is evident that the government does not market the Grand Canyon and if a private company were to do this, more revenue would be produced and more money would be brought into the United States. 1d. While Cato is not directly referring to the Grand Canyon when it warrants its claim, its claim is obviously aimed at the Grand Canyon . http://www.cato.org.... This entire point is irrelevant though, because BHP will buy the Grand Canyon, not an environmentalist. 2a. Air pollution concerns in the tourism industry in my opponent's source relate to air plane and car emissions . http://www.rff.org..., which occur whether the government owns the GC or not. My opponent also makes the claim that an increase in tourism would cause water pollution; however, his source makes no mention of it . http://www.rff.org.... 2b. My opponent's argument here is void, because mining would be done underground and through ISL. Also, there is no reason why helicopter tours would no longer be profitable; so my opponent's argument is also irrelevant. 3a. My opponent has dropped this subpoint. 3b. My opponent claims that government ownership of the Grand Canyon is good because it lessens taxation. First, my opponent has already conceded that this revenue is insignificant to the budget of the federal government. Second, my opponent's argument can be used to justify the government owning all capital (which is communism). My opponent has conceded that communism would not be beneficial. He has therefore conceded that his point is irrelevant and harmful if applied to a level of relevancy. 3c. Government is historically less efficient at running businesses than the private sector. For example, the post office is ran so inefficiently, it is possible for private companies (the United Parcel Service, for example . http://www.ups.com...)to compete with it. Because private companies can meet public demand more efficiently than government, it would be preferable to privatize the Grand Canyon. 3d. As I've already noted, the Grand Canyon could be owned privately and mined with little or no environmental impact. 4. My opponent actually conceded in an earlier round that any private ownership would lead to an increase in a flow of revenue into the United States. CON argues here that a mining company could not run the Grand Canyon as a tourist attraction. This is inherently false. The Walt Disney company was originally a Hollywood Animation Studio . http://corporate.disney.go.com...; however, it opened the world famous Disney World and Disney Land as tourist locations . http://corporate.disney.go.com.... BHP would want to tap into potential tourism income and maximize it, just like a tourism company. Now, for my opponent's case: 1a-b. This point was addressed earlier. 1c. " I found that it fails to make note of any regulation regarding subsidence. " Look harder: "The development of the regulation of subsidence under Public Law 95-87, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act) are also discussed, including the new regulations being developed under the regulatory reform program. " . http://www.onemine.org... My opponent's argument that a mining company would not tap into tourism is again unwarranted and contradicts history. 2. My opponent's definition is again unwarranted, and even under it, my opponent has conceded that a foreign nation would not be able to manage a military base, etc. The United States Government would still hold ultimate authority over its land. 3. My opponent's source here does not warrant his claims. Therefore, disregard them. Again, water rights would be followed with or without government ownership, as the same regulations and contracts apply either way. 4. The argument that government should own assets and capital has not been made. Contrary to my opponent's statement, capitalism is the status quo, not communism; therefore, my opponent was required to make an argument as to why government should own capital. Regarding my constitutional argument against the ownership of the GC: The Constitution does not grant federal power to own capital or even landmarks . http://www.archives.gov.... The 10th Ammendment claims that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" . http://www.archives.gov...; therefore, government ownership of the Grand Canyon is unconstitutional. In conclusion, government ownership of the Grand Canyon is unconstitutional, undesirable, and economically limiting; therefore, Grand Canyon National Park should be privatized. Because my opponent has conceded that auctioning this property is the best way to privatize it, the United States should be auctioned off to the highest bidder. The 5th Round has been reserved for addressing the voters briefly. Thanks again to my opponent for this debate.