The Instigator
Alduin
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
debatinglikeman
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Private vs public. Which is better? Pro-private, Con-public

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
Alduin
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/10/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 731 times Debate No: 61502
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

Alduin

Pro

When it comes to public vs private, public looses badly. Think about the public places you visit. Parks, for instance. In public parks, there is often graffiti, vandalism and litter. Think of the restrooms at public parks. Unclean, smelly and heavily vandalized. In the publicly owned park, everybody in a sense owns it. It's easy to not take care of it. Not in a privately owned park though. It's more pleasant and clean. Almost the exact oppisite of a public park. That's because a person owns it and has to pay for it with his or her own money. It turns out that when you have to pay for it, you take better care of it. The bathrooms are clean and graffiti free. There's nicer benches and other sceneries too. Parks are just one example of private vs public. So why not privatize more? Well more people would, if not for public's biggest champion, government. But is the public government better than the private individual?
debatinglikeman

Con

The country shoud not be only all public but it musn't be all private also.
Imagine that you will have to pay everywhere you go, to the park, walk on the street. Public bathrooms would still be unclean even paying for companys to use.
Another thing is that if you put a country in a private way the counpanies will control the money of that country, meaning that government would loose control, because they will not have the power to control things inside something private.
Saying this the poor countries would brake because the money will be controled by private companies. But in this kind of country the companies are foreign usually from USA meaning that USA would control the money and that country.
Debate Round No. 1
Alduin

Pro

Of course you need government for some things, military and deploy act for starters. But a private business would have to lower prices to compete with others. And they would have to provide service to justify those prices. If a business owner is mean to customers, they won't go to that store. So in order to stay open he has to treat customers kindly. The same with prices. This also includes prices. If you are charging what the customers think is an unfair price, then they will scout for lower prices at a rival business. So you have to keep your prices within a reasonable range. This also includes employment. If you treat your workers badly and/or pay them a low salary, they might leave and work elsewhere. Then your business won't grow and you can't open new stores. The only way companies would grow is if they worked hard. Look at Wal-Mart and McDonalds. They didn't get worldwide overnight, it took them several years. If McDonalds sold bad burgers and Wal-Mart was rude to customers, they wouldn't be here. Any business that the government monopolizes the private sector can do better. In a government industry (like the TSA), workers are rude and intrusive, the lines are long and move slowly and they waste money. Remember the "puffers" that the TSA spent billions on? They shot puffs of air at you and were supposed to detect bombs. Now they are gone (turns out air can't detect bombs). The TSA spent millions more getting them removed and destroyed. A industry like that would never survive on the market. But still the TSA is here, being funded by tax dollars and putting hiring ads on pizza boxes. (Turns out not too many people enjoy working there). And the worst part is, they can't fail because government won't let them. If they go broke government bails them out. A safety net like that would never exist in the private industry, because the decision of "will this business succeed" is determined by the people.
debatinglikeman

Con

Are you willing to pay for everywhere you go?
Govenment wouldn't stop collecting taxes and you will have to pay even more for companies to use what is now public places. Govenment will lose autonomy because capital would stay in companies not countries. Again, poor countries will broke because the money will be taken by rich country companies and spend there. Just see China, they grow their economy 7% per year, that's a lot, but they use labor work and their public system is very bad. Because companies take the money and don't invest there. And taxes for govenment also doesn't help population.

Another argument is corruption. Imagine how much money they will get only with corruption. Get Russia for an example: when they opened they capital for companies they sold it by a very low price. Who bought it? Mafia. That what moves the capital in Russia. If you thing World Cup in Brazil had corruption you'll see in Russia 2018.

And companies don't care about the employee. If he/she is demanding too much or isn't working they just fire him/her and contract another person. There are few laws that combact this kind of action. I'll never forget the day that my father was completing 25 years in Nokia, they didn't make any celebration, none congratulations. He just asked for more money in the sallary (because he didn't got any in that year) and they didn't give him. He quit and the company don't care.
He was just a number from many many more, and 25 years is not little, it's a lot.

Saying this the companies can refuse service in determinated areas that won't have profit for them. Imagine how periphery would get without public systems like health and shools. The criminality rate would grow insanely high.

Another point are crises. How do companies and government don't break in crises? Because of the State. It takes out from the monetary reserve that every country has and put this capital on the market.
Debate Round No. 2
Alduin

Pro

You wouldn't have to pay everywhere you go. When somebody is doing you a service, yes. But nobody is going to charge you for trivial things. (Imagine the uproar.) Yes the government will continue to function, and perhaps become economically stronger as a result. (If the market is good people are likely to spend more) and China's economy is flourishing because of the use of Western economic policies. China in the 70s and China today are two very different Chinas. They started to practice a free market system around 78 and their productivity skyrocketed over the next 15 years. But the USA seems to be drifting to a pre 78 China. (Which is not a good thing) And when it comes to corruption, you're going to find that in every system of government. Socialist, Theocratic, Republic, Monarchy, all of them will have some. But our Capitalistic Republic is the best option you will get when it comes to economic growth and freedom. Now you say employers don't care about their employees. Yes and no. A employer knows that workers are needed to get a job done, but also has to know that if they are not treated fairly, they could loose workers and/or face lawsuits. But think about what you said from the perspective of an employer: if he or she is demanding too much or isn't working they fire the person and contact another one. Well that's how the market works. If you are at a job, you are there to work, collect your pay and go home. A boss is not going to play around with lack of progress. It was you, after all signing saying I'll do this job. And you will never get any laws preventing you from being fired. That would throw everything upside down. Suddenly a manager can't fire a person who won't stop distracting other workers, and yet still has to pay them because they're on the clock. Now you're dad put in some good time at his company, but he was not entitled to a raise (even though I'm sure he deserved it! He should have at least been recognized after 25 years) but his bosses could have had other reasons for denying a raise to him. I can't tell you the number of times I've been shot down on that one. But after 25 years experience he should have no trouble finding a different company to work for. I wouldn't be surprised if he was getting multiple job offers once word got out. Now companies are out to make profit, and they do avoid places where little can be made. But not all private businesses have the same principles. The Red Cross and Salvation Army were both privately founded, and both use profit to help others, mostly relying on volunteers as workers. And Charter Schools are also privately owned and use the parents money to directly buy school supplies and pay their teachers. These new Charters are actually so popular among parents that lotteries are held to determine which students get enrolled. And why shouldn't parents want their kids there? Charter Schools are cleaning public school kids test scores year after year. Charters only employ the best teachers, and often fire and replace them. Other private learning institutes like Sylvan and Fusion Academy also follow Charter Schools examples and always out preform the public school system (which ha sent changed its methods much over the last 30 years, another common trait in government run institutes. The USA now ranks 17th in education when it comes to 1st world countries). And because of new schools like these kids are graduating, which leads to a lower crime rate. And when it comes to crisis, the private sector takes care of individuals. Remember superstorm Sandy? The Red Cross and The Salvation Army were on the scene in less than 72 hours, while the government publicly run FEMA and DRF, as well as Congress, were arguing that something had to be done and more laws were needed to prevent these kinds of disasters. One congressman in 2012 actually proposed a 794 billion dollar plan to build giant windmills in the Atlantic Ocean to blow hurricanes away. (Imagine for a moment how many windmills that would be, and more importantly who is sailing out there to build them). While all this nonsense was being talked about, the private industries were out there helping thousands of people rebuild their lives, just like they did during Hurricane Katrina and the BP Oil Spill. Will government ever realize that individuals can do it better? I'd like to think so, but year after year it seems that they really know what you can and can't eat, smoke, enjoy and do.
debatinglikeman

Con

You're very good, you know what you're talking about.

I don't know if I was clear but I am private pro too, I'm capitalist and in favor of privation.

And my father got a better job yes thank god.

Anyway, like I said, I'm not con but I was motivated to try see things from the otherside.
Congratulations, you're very good.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Comrade_Silly_Otter 3 years ago
Comrade_Silly_Otter
Alduin, the destroyer of worlds is supporting private ownership ( AKA Capitalism )!

Divide and conquer everyone!
Divide and conquer!

* Crazy rambling *
Posted by FaustianJustice 3 years ago
FaustianJustice
I would just so love to fill in for con on this one.
Posted by Alduin 3 years ago
Alduin
We shouldn't have to fight when we debate. (We're not in Congress you know).
Posted by debatinglikeman 3 years ago
debatinglikeman
I like debating with you, it's good, and remember I'm not looking to fight or anything :)
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by FaustianJustice 3 years ago
FaustianJustice
AlduindebatinglikemanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro got it for ample demonstration of their premise. I would love to pick this one up, though. Congratulations, Instigator. Dare ya to debate -moi- on the topic, though.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
AlduindebatinglikemanTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: con...conceded?