The Instigator
udongnoodles1211
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ameliamk1
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Essential state services should not be privatized

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Ameliamk1
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/29/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,327 times Debate No: 49673
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

udongnoodles1211

Pro

The privatization of state services will only be disastrous, and as it will only result in the future as a huge mistake. In this debate, I'll define 'essential state services' as 'state services which are always needed for citizens to live with comfort, such as medical services or in the case of South Korea, train services and etc'.

Moving on to my argument, our first argument is about rights. Ladies and gentleman, privatization will only result in people becoming unable to use the services properly. Private corporations are corporations that chase profit most. Their sole aim is to get more profit. It is inevitable that when privatization happens, the price of the services will go up, because the corporations will try to get more profit. Some people might say that the corporations will actually lower their prices in competition, so it will be better than the government, but it is not so. The government sets their price so low that they actually don"t get enough profit to cover their losses. Even if private corporations try to lower their prices as much as they can, it will still be higher than the government. Higher prices will only result in lower classes unable to use public utilities. Ladies and gentlemen, does this make sense? Lower classes are same people, same with everyone. Then why can"t they use public utilities? Public utilities are linked with life, such as water, electricity, and medical services. And if those lower classes can"t afford that stuff, just because a private corporation tried to make more profit, their life will be no different with people in underprivileged countries, whose rights are violated. It makes no sense that people should die from lack of medical services because privatization happened and private corporations chased profit. Also, in state services, different areas have different profits. So, there could be also a result where private corporations cover this area with state services, but do not cover this area with the services. So I repeat, private corporations only chase profit, and they are not interested in things that have no profit because there will be only economical loss. However, the government is different. It is their actual duty to provide people with these kinds of services such as medical services and electricity services. It isn"t the private corporation"s duty to do so, so we see that the government will be much better in providing these kinds of services. It will be much more stable than privatization. If privatization really happens, people will lose all sorts of rights, such as the right to be given medical services, etc.
Ameliamk1

Con

Thank you for starting this debate, sir, and I hope it will be fun and informative.

My opponent provides the definition of a "public service". He made it clear that we refer not to welfare or military strength, but instead to slightly less necessary functions, among which might include electricity and water, mail service, public transportation, education, and certain medical services. Thus, it is my incentive to prove that government provides inadequate coverage of these utilities, at unreasonable prices, and that private business offers a much more sustainable alternative, while my opponent must endeavor to show the opposite. Best of luck to him, and may the best man win.

The Beauty of Greed

My adversary makes several claims that while I do not question factually, are misconstrued as negative attributes. Indeed, a business does strive toward the ascertation of profit, but is the magnificent "invisible hand", as Adam Smith puts it, that makes private corporation superior to bureaucracy. It is the very need for profit that not only results in feasible prices and costs needed to overcome competition, but that drives private service above that of any government.

My opponent says of corporation, "they are not interested in things that have no profit because there will be only economical loss". Because of the inexorable connection between profit, service, and price, this is simply a fallacy. If a business fails to provide adequate goods, or charges too much, their competition, or indeed the government, will ensure their ultimate demise. This is the grisly fate that awaited, for example, Tielenic Acid, a tragic story I would detail had I more characters to spare. (1)

While my opponent believes government has a "duty" to provide various assistances, the results of government meddling, both in quality and fiscally of these services prove otherwise. Endless examples of government throwing away money can be found. 27 million spent on pottery classes, half a million spent on a lavish bathroom in a national park, millions of dollars spent on robo-squirrels (2), the list goes on. The reasons for this are simple, and they came in two forms: government doesn"t spend its own money, and is not subjected to competition. Government has no need to be frugal with its monetary supply, nor does it need to provide quality service, as it is neither challengeable nor replaceable. Were essential services privatized, even in the few cases where utilities became more expensive, citizens would still net an ultimate gain as a result of lower taxes: for example, were education privatized, the American people as a unit would retain 809 billion dollars every single year.(3)

I have much more to say, but I must wait for future rounds. I eagerly await my opponent"s next entry.

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(2) https://www.mytotalmoneymakeover.com...
(3) http://rossieronline.usc.edu...
Debate Round No. 1
udongnoodles1211

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for responding to my challenge so enthusiastically.
Now I'm going to move on to my rebuttals.

Rebuttal)
1. About that 'invisible hand'- My opponent has agreed that these corporations are more interested in profit. So, to repeat, because they want more profit, they have high possibility to provide less quality of service than the government. One side of that low quality would be that they would like to use less money and get more profit. And if they wished to provide high quality, their price would get higher, because they need to make money. The job of the companies is to make money, whereas the government tends to strive more for the citizens. This means that however feasible the prices of the companies are, it cannot be lower than the prices of the government, which means that private services tend to have the possibility to exclude poor people with no money in the services. I'll explain the other side in other rebuttals.

2. About his next paragraph- This paragraph seems to be an extension of the former paragraph. That's cool. I'll pass.

3. About his accusation about the government- Just because the government made mistakes in the cases the opponent has listed before doesn't mean that their quality is lacking. In fact, I can't find a link between 'robo-squirrels' and 'essential state services'. Where I come from(South Korea), robo-squirrels aren't essential state services. At least the last time I checked. My point is that the government does have the duty to provide its citizens a certain quality of life. And there is one more thing the companies can't win the government in. And that's stability. Corporations go through a number of crises. In course of these crises, the price could become higher, the quality could become lower, or the system itself might fail entirely. However, the government's services are much more stable. It's always their duty to provide citizens with a stable service.

Additionally, about the government having no competition, in fact it does. All executives always look toward reelection. This causes the government to strive toward getting a good image. So, it tries to provide low prices, good quality, and not wasting taxes, etc. My opinion is that the pressure of the reelection will make the public services much better.

Back to Con...
Ameliamk1

Con

Once again, I thank Pro for his argument.

1.I was under the impression I had responded to this in my previous round, but perhaps I ought to elaborate. My opponent claims that a business's drive for profit will inspire it to reduce quality and "cut corners", endangering lives and providing weak service. However, the forces of the free market prevent this from happening for two primary reasons.

The first of these reasons are lawsuits, a popular pursuit in western capitalist society. If a corporation harms the customer or the market, or engages in shady business, then it is liable for massive, crippling payouts that serve as harsh justice, and deter enterprises from deviating from health and safety standards. One such example would be the car giant Toyota, who is being taken to the bank over alleged failures in the break system in a number of their models. (1) You can be that other dealerships will not fall to the same error anytime soon, serving as an example of how lawsuits control business.

The second reason is the business itself. Providing shoddy service, whether it be a problem of quality, price, treatment, or otherwise, will result in a loss of clientele and customers. An example to this point is Chick-Fil-A, who is suffering heavy boycotts because of the owner"s
anti-gay policies. (2) Should Chick-Fil-A wish these customers back, an alteration in attitude would be required; the business would have to change. This is a principle that is fundamental to capitalism, and keeps the society afloat.

I would argue that the Government is not sufficiently subjected to these tests of legitimacy. Lawsuits against Government are quite futile, as Government claims no responsibility for the individual grievances against its employees. Furthermore, my opponent"s attempt to argue that politicians vying for a fiduciary position allow for business competition within government is simply invalid. Taking money from other people and seeing who can spend the most of it and make the least back is not a promising business model. For competition to work, personal gain must be at stake.

2.I must make this brief. My point about the robo-squirrels is the extreme waste one allows for when they do not spend their own money;if government cant waste millions on these squirrels, why should be believe they will spend wisely on education or safety.

Now, my opponent says "government does have the duty to provide its citizens". Indeed, but "duty" doesn"t imply a desire to do something, whereas businesses actually want to conduct the operation, as there is personal gain in it. Government has no motivation to provide quality goods, whereas business does. It"s all down to competition.

As I have few characters left, I must wrap up. Good luck to my opponent.

(1) http://injury.findlaw.com...
(2) http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Debate Round No. 2
udongnoodles1211

Pro

Thanks to Con for diligently posting his arguments. I'll move on to my rebuttals right away.

Rebuttal)
1. About his first rebuttal) I'll start from the back. First, about the government. I think Con may have misunderstood me. Let me try and explain things a bit more clearly. No citizen would want to support a politician who takes astronomical sums of money and wastes it all on useless things like robo-squirrels. When a political party makes motions in which money is used wisely, as such in state services too, the number of the people supporting this party will obviously increase. And to parties, supporters are everything. They will do their possible best to fulfill the needs and wants of the citizens, which includes the quality and etc. of the state services.
Next, about his first reason. Yes, that might be true in western capitalist society. However, in our society lawsuits are very hard to file. The procedure is much more complicated than the States. But I think this is kind of a stalemate.

2. About his second rebuttal) OK I get what you're saying about robo-squirrels. But about 'not their own money'? That I find a bit hard to accept. My view is that because it is somebody else's money, precious taxpayer's money, the government would try to use it much more wisely. For an everyday example, if you borrow somebody else's textbook, you don't doodle on it like you usually do. Also, about the 'government's duty' thing. Con accuses the government of having no motivation to provide quality goods; but in fact they do. The motivation they have is their duty, their responsibility, their sense of obligation is their motivation, which is a much more purer motivation than personal gain, which can lead to more selfless services.

That's about it.

Oh yeah, why the hell was the government making robo-squirrels in the first place? Just curious
Ameliamk1

Con

To answer my opponent's question, robo-squirrels were, and may still be on development as part of the US's spy program. Yes, I know.

Now, on to the matter at hand:

Competition

My opponent can be assured that I fully understood his point, and responded to it in my previous entry. Two candidates competing over who can provide the highest-costing services at the lowest prices is not a viable way to manage money. Occasionally, a potential fiduciary will pop up who endorses fiscal responsibility, but if the US budget is any indication (1), their either lying or do not get elected. Voters are furthermore quite unlikely to support someone who promises to cut budgets for utilities or raise the prices of these federal services. Any competition within government is either nonexistent or not beneficial. Much of the electorate will cast their ballot for the candidate offering them more luxury, not prudent monetary application

If lawsuits are tedious to file in South Korea, then I am afraid that is yet another failure of the government, not of Capitalism or private industry.

Spending Others' Money

My opponent's use of a borrowed textbook is invalid. Tax money is not borrowed, it is taken, by force if necessary, and it is delegated to the sole ownership of government. One would happily take notes in a text book if it was officially theirs. Candidates know that the more money they spend, the more likely they are to be elected. Additionally, since the government belongs to the government and not a specific leader, that delegate has no personal connection to the money, and so possesses no reason to use it.

I must ask, really? The government is motivated to do good by obligation? Yes, and high school students always turn in excellent homework due to obligation. And convicts always try their best when performing community service because of obligation. The point here is, an involuntary action is not favorable as a consequence of its mandatory nature. It is, in fact, the other way around. When no great personal accomplishment is achieved by an action, there is simply no motivation to complete it. I have great respect for my opponent, but this strikes me as quite a desperate argument.

In conclusion, I find no real reason that government can, will, or has provided good service without monetary waste, whereas the natural forces of the free market, competition and the division of labor, almost guarantee both these things. Best of luck to my opponent in the voting, and may the best man win.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by udongnoodles1211 2 years ago
udongnoodles1211
Looks like I lost. hehe Thanks to my opponent for this wonderful debate, and I really enjoyed it.
Honestly. I appreciate all of the votes and look forward to meeting more of them in future debates.
Thanks everybody.
Posted by Glock30Owner 2 years ago
Glock30Owner
@udongnoodles1211

I'm nice. Until it is time to not be nice.
Posted by udongnoodles1211 2 years ago
udongnoodles1211
To Glock30Owner:
You seem awfully nice for a Glock30 owner.
Posted by Ameliamk1 2 years ago
Ameliamk1
My apologies sir, I hope the debate will be satisfying.
Posted by Glock30Owner 2 years ago
Glock30Owner
Well, I was going to take up the debate, but looks as if I was beat to the punch. I look forward to reading the arguments.
Posted by udongnoodles1211 2 years ago
udongnoodles1211
To Glock30Owner:
I've done what you asked. Will you accept this debate?
Posted by Glock30Owner 2 years ago
Glock30Owner
I may wish to take up your debate if you can define what an "essential state service" is and I find that definition to be flawed and erroneous.
Posted by udongnoodles1211 2 years ago
udongnoodles1211
hey let's commemorate our friendship with a debate :)
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
udongnoodles1211Ameliamk1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments are simply too repetitive. I'm not seeing strong responses to Con's points throughout the debate. I need to see more on why governments are more accountable to the people at large than companies, and why the methods Con presents for preventing companies from harming the people won't be effective or available. I don't see either of those things. I think there could be reasonable arguments for why privatization of these services doesn't lead to reduced prices (and, more specifically, how competition is actually absent in similar sectors of private industry), but I don't see those arguments. As such, while I disagree with him, I find Con's arguments most persuasive in this debate, since it appears that the government is more spendthrift and generally is harming taxpayers more than private industry would. He also gets sources because he provided some that were integral to his arguments while Pro provided none.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
udongnoodles1211Ameliamk1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con rebutted pro's arguments nicely and answered all his opponents' objections. Good luck to both of you in future debates.