The Instigator
dennisf
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
biblio
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Government should only regulate and protect its people

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/15/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 351 times Debate No: 86647
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

dennisf

Pro

The government (US as example) has become weighed down with all its expected duties. Along with being rampant with corruption from cash flow, there is a big problem. My solution to this is that the government just have two functions: protect its citizens and regulate the free market so it can stay free. Everything else can be privatized like insurance and what not. The government would collect taxes at a lower rate because it would have fewer expenditures. Companies would strive to create the best product and monopolies could be broken up by the government. Where is the con here?
biblio

Con

One must ask you to define what you mean by "protect its citizens". Do you propose the government protect them from outside influences? From terrorist threats? From their neighbors? Would government protection include protecting them from disease?

Insurance is currently privatized. Are you then advocating that schools become privatized? What about road building and bridge building?

By stating the government would regulate the free market, that contradicts the meaning of free market where there is no government intervention. A free market economy suggests that the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority.

I look forward to debating this with you.
Debate Round No. 1
dennisf

Pro

By protecting its citizens, I mean from any threats both foreign and domestic and in any form. Yes, I am advocating for the privatization of building infrastructure. Yes, I understand that doing so would mean that there would be a payment of some sort to use these services. But I believe that these payments would be less than those that people pay currently for income taxes and whatnot. Yes, a free market economy is completely free from government intervention monopolies and such, but what is stopping monopolies when there is no government intervention? A laissez-faire system would not work with greed and corruption so there would have to be some sort of regulation. A pseudo-free market or regulated market would work the best.
biblio

Con

First you advocated a free market with governmental intervention. Now you are advocating a pseudo-free market or regulated market. Who would regulate the market? The U.S. is currently operating under a laissez-faire system which is coined free enterprise or market economy and I agree, it is not working well. Based on the definition of pseudo, which means not genuine, what would a fake free market look like?

Protecting citizens from foreign and domestic threats requires a military force. Would that then also require a CIA and FBI? I am assuming that you are speaking only of federal taxes being reduced and that state taxes would then take care of local police and fire. You stated building infrastructure would be privatized. I will also assume you are simply stating that infrastructure would be privatized. Infrastructure includes buildings, transportation and communication systems, water and power lines, schools, post offices and prisons. Who would take care of the federal highways?

It would seem that if the government only spent money on the military and the market, whatever it may look like, it would need far less money. However, that leaves states to pick up some extra burden. So it would be acceptable to you to have federal taxes reduced and state taxes increased?
Debate Round No. 2
dennisf

Pro

"The U.S. is currently operating under a laissez-faire system which is coined free enterprise or market economy and I agree, it is not working well."

The U.S. is actually operating under a mixed economic system right now, which is sort of like the pseudo-free market I am talking about. I am also using pseudo as a prefix where it means resembles or imitating, which is what it would do, except with partial government interference.

State taxes can be lowered as well as the states will also just be there for regulation and protection. Regarding federal highways, they would be privatized and taken care of like other things. For example, in the US, there is a tax of 18.4 cents per gallon that goes to the construction of highways among other things. If the industry is privatized, this will help gas prices go down in return for paying a small toll to use highways. Also, privatization can open up more jobs to the people further helping the economy.

https://en.wikipedia.org...
biblio

Con

All economies are mixed economies wherein the means of production is shared among the private and business sector (http://www.businessdictionary.com...). The laissez-faire portion shows itself in the deregulation of business (think phone companies) as well as the removal of trade barriers.

According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, for the fiscal year 2014, 18% of federal taxes collected went to the military. That means your plan would reduce 82% of federal taxes and stop the federal funding of all other programs including social security, Medicaid/Medicare, schools, VA benefits, and more. The tax you spoke of for highways is a federal tax " one of those taxes your plan would eliminate. As that tax would be eliminated, gas prices would come down immediately.

So the federal highways would become privatized and "taken care of like other things". In theory, the public would pay 18.4 cents per gallon less for gas. Yet now there would be a toll on federal (interstate) highways.

State taxes would be lowered and states would only take care of police and, I assume, fire departments as they are only going to regulate state and local businesses and protect people. Schools and colleges would all be private rather than public. Hospitals and clinics would all be private. Stores and gas stations, again, privately owned. Roads would be privately owned with tolls on every road to pay for upkeep, repairs, and reconstruction.

Your original argument stated government was "rampant with corruption from cash flow". By eliminating the above mentioned 82% of federal tax, it will certain not be rampant with corruption from cash flow any longer. However, it seems you shifted that corruption onto corporations who are the ones that actually are rampant with corruption, more so than the government. I do not see where this shift encourages "companies would strive to create the best product". They no longer have to pay taxes and have no regulations requiring them to treat people fairly or safely. There is no longer any government regulation except to prevent a monopoly, which is already illegal.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.