The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Government should be laissez faire

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/17/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 491 times Debate No: 54918
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




I'm new at this, so bear with me:

Government should be laissez faire to emphasize actual thinking on the part of the people and encourage the sink-or-swim in success. one must work hard to ensure their own comfortable place in life and not have such an easy way to shrug off all responsibility (welfare programs that don't check to ensure that their recipients have an actual need)


government should take care of basics, like roads, police, etc. they should help those who are not just lazy, but are struggling to make ends meet. this should involve at least food stamps and healthcare. but my main point is that it involve something, and that laisse faire is not the way to go.

imagine a world where a man owned everything except a plot of land. there are tons of people who want to branch off but can't. or imagine a world where someone is just placed on the earth and wants to survive. in both cases, why can't they just go pick apples off a tree or plant corn? man has created property rights, and technology to possess it all. natural law says they should be able to. if we are going to deprive people of their rights, we should make up for it in our laws. everytone who is not lazy should have access to a reasonable minimum.

roads and such are not so much an igeological thing like caring for the poor. but as a ptratical matter it would be very hard to get the private secto to creates roads, or police, in a coherent way.

o things like environmental regulations. it's not fair for some people to be able to poliute so much that it hurt teh rest of us. we need laws and enforcement. which is not laissez faire.
i could go on.
Debate Round No. 1


Government should provide national security, and then back off. Road systems can be a private business. Hands off government would not deprive people of rights, it would increase them. Less political regulation would open up choices that before Americans never had because of governmental red tape


you did not respond to my points about the poor. or the creation and enforcement of environmental regulations and how it's not fair to just let what ever happen happen if people want to pollute our drinking water or our breathing air.
about roads, who's going to ensure that the private contactors can make square miles, or a system of roads that makes sense? or when necessary, take over private land? even most hard core conservatives agree to the basics, like roads. pro is just a radical ideologue.
you also provide no basis for why national security only. you could argue that mercenaries and private citizens handle it, but you don't. why is that? couldnt similar reasoning for why not be applied elsewhere? like police, or is that something that you also want to just ignore?
Debate Round No. 2


Please excuse my super late reply, my internet is faulty. Also, please be nice. No one is trying to spear you with opinions and/or questioning your intellect so there's no need to be snippy. Its okay to have a strong opinion, but not to be rude about it.

When I say Laissez faire, I'm referring mainly to economics. A free market makes the most efficient use of resources, and it avoids people becoming reliant on state support, which encourages creativity and growth. Unrestricted capitalism means that those who make the best decisions about what products and services to offer will flourish, while those who make bad decisions will fail. It's also argued that without government interventions, how resources are used is decided by the way people choose to spend their money, thus increasing efficiency overall. These arguments work on the logic that the combined actions of the public, each acting from self-interest make for more effective economic decisions than a central government can make. Personally, I think that government being completely hands off would be great, but like you've pointed out, basics (like roads) would be crappy and essentially useless. I do think that communities would benefit from their own system of police work, which would vary from group to group. Trade and commerce between groups would be an available option and probably happily used.


i won't deny there is some benefit to a hands off approach. but it's not always the most efficient, and it doesn't always provide what's necessary to society.

you still have not responded to my points about the poor earlier. food, health care, perhaps shelter. please refer to my anaologies and points in my first post.

you have not argued why the military is anything special for why you'd use the government.

police varying by the community in a way already exists, as each community makes its own force. they could make it private, but i dont see how it'd be much cheaper. they could try low balling their pay, but it'd show in poor results from the police, this is per private or public sector. plus there's benefits that when the government does it, they have to adhere to the constitution, like due process and search and seizure laws.

you also haven't responded to how we'd regulate and enforce environmental regulations. this almost necessarily involves the government. unless you just let everything go to hell? but hten how is it fair that Joe can pollute everyone else's air and drinking water?

i could go on and on with examples. perhaps you are correct in asseting there should be less government invovlement. but that is a far cry from where you are right now in your positions.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.