I see your point on the difference between "should" and "must". I admit to a layman's perspective on the law. I'll have to be more careful crafting the next topic statement. I also should have specified the legal environment with a phrase such as, "by United States federal law" or "under English common law" or "using Maori tribal precedent" or some such.
Still, as Americans debating in America, there is a real environment in which we live. In this environment more and more necessary activities which were once done by government at every level are being 'privatized' into for-profit enterprises. It is under these circumstances that the Resolution is proposed.
There is a prima facie case that necessary and proper human enterprises such as fire departments should not be run on a for-profit basis. Fire departments in fact once were privately run for profit. The decision was made that the risk to public safety was too great to allow houses to burn because of the lack of private insurance and thus public fire departments paid for with tax dollars were created. It is instructive that, when public fire departments were invented in the mid-19th century, there were people opposed to the their creation.
While valid philosophical arguments can be made that carefully crafted incentive schemes could make necessary public functions into profit centers, this is counter to human nature and unnecessarily complicates what should be relatively simple decisions. Thus, it is clear that the Resolution should be decided in the affirmative.
Still, as Americans debating in America, there is a real environment in which we live. In this environment more and more necessary activities which were once done by government at every level are being 'privatized' into for-profit enterprises. It is under these circumstances that the Resolution is proposed.
There is a prima facie case that necessary and proper human enterprises such as fire departments should not be run on a for-profit basis. Fire departments in fact once were privately run for profit. The decision was made that the risk to public safety was too great to allow houses to burn because of the lack of private insurance and thus public fire departments paid for with tax dollars were created. It is instructive that, when public fire departments were invented in the mid-19th century, there were people opposed to the their creation.
While valid philosophical arguments can be made that carefully crafted incentive schemes could make necessary public functions into profit centers, this is counter to human nature and unnecessarily complicates what should be relatively simple decisions. Thus, it is clear that the Resolution should be decided in the affirmative.
Reply
Leave a comment