Only the wealthy had that opportunity. ......
Essential services should be socialized, and privatized services should be regulated.
In his rebuttal of my first premise, Con claims that the only essential services in society are police, courts, and defense. While I agree that all 3 of those are essential services, I disagree with the notion that those are the only one that should be provided publicly. For example, healthcare is needed in every individuals life. Without the services, we could not live our lives (or at least, live them to the highest quality possible). And when healthcare can only be provided to those who can afford it (like the ongoing situation in the United States), poor people aren't able to live their lives properly. Thus, making the service essential to all members of society. The same applies to education. People need an education to have a basic understanding of the world. Before the common-school movement, very few people had access to it. Only the wealthy had that opportunity. So the Government started providing it, and soon everyone had access. Food/housing should only be provided to those who are in need. Not to those who have the means of acquiring them. I agree with Con that universal distribution of these services would not be good. The State would not ration this. Neither would they be the "sole employer". Transportation is a natural monopoly. One business could control the entire network of the city's roads/transit. So it would be ideal to place that power in an organization that answers to, and only to the public. The support for the second premise is affirmed. In his rebuttal to my third premise, my opponent claims that competition would cause businesses to not pay their workers pennies a day. Historical evidence shows that this is false. If all businesses pay their workers very low wages, the worker will not have much a "choice". In the late 1800's, this is especially prevalent. And if it is true that environmental laws are not needed, why did society start advocating for it? Because the notion that property rights could protect the environment didn't work, and doesn't work. Why go through the trouble of lawsuits and diverting capital to lawyers/courts when just outlawing it would be much easier and effective? If monopolies are unlikely in a free market, how come Theodore Roosevelt and many other Americans fought for anti-trust legislation during the Progressive era? Monopolies/Trusts were not taken down by market forces, instead, they were broken up by Government regulation.