coercion k - symonds

Download Coercion K - Symonds

Post on 30-May-2018

220 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

  • 8/14/2019 Coercion K - Symonds

    1/78

  • 8/14/2019 Coercion K - Symonds

    2/78

    Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 2Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Coercion K

    Libertarianism Causes Genocide..................................................................................................................................58Libertarianism Decreases Freedom...............................................................................................................................59Libertarianism Ignores Consequences..........................................................................................................................60Libertarianism Wrong Positive Rights.......................................................................................................................61A2: Libertarianism Creates Social Equality..................................................................................................................62Libertarianism Results in No Government...................................................................................................................63Top-Down Libertarian Revolution Fails.......................................................................................................................64A2: Freedom Based Rights- Free Will is Never Lost...................................................................................................65A2: Freedom Outweighs All.........................................................................................................................................66A2: Negative Freedom Based Rights- Circular Logic Fails.........................................................................................67A2: Negative Freedom based rights- Rothbard Flawed................................................................................................68A2: Negative Freedom based rights- Hegel Flawed.....................................................................................................69A2: Negative Freedom based rights- Fichte Flawed.....................................................................................................70Negative Freedom Bad Reduces Freedom/Equality..................................................................................................71 Negative Rights Flawed................................................................................................................................................72 Negative Rights Flawed................................................................................................................................................73A2: Moral Imperative Comes First...............................................................................................................................74A2: Must Reject Coercion in Every Instance................................................................................................................75A2: Weigh Coercion First- Consequentialist Framework Key.....................................................................................76A2: We Are Libertarian Consequentialists ...............................................................................................................77

    A2: Libertarianism is Consistent With Consequentialism............................................................................................78

  • 8/14/2019 Coercion K - Symonds

    3/78

    Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 3Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Coercion K

    Shell 1/2

    Environmentalism lends itself to the widespread expansion of governmental influence and

    authority at the expense of liberty

    George Reisman, Ph.D. is Professor of Economics at Pepperdine Universitys Graziadio School of Business and

    Management, 2001, Excerpt of a speech delivered at the Austrian Scholars Conference,http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=661&id=71The same intellectual quarter that a generation or more ago urged the totalitarian control of all aspects of human life for the purposeof bringing order to what would otherwise allegedly be chaos, now urges a policy of laissez-faireout of respect for natural harmonies. Of course, it is not a policy oflaissez-faire toward human beings, who are to be as tightly controlled as ever. Nor, of course, is it a policy that recognizes any form of economic harmonies among human beings. No, it is a

    policy of laissez-faire toward nature in the raw; the alleged harmonies that are to be respected are those of so-called eco-systems. But while the intellectuals have turned against reason, science, and technology, they continue to supportsocialism and, of course, to oppose capitalism.They now do so in the form of environmentalism. It should be realized that environmentalismsgoal ofglobal limits on carbon dioxide and other chemical emissions, as called for in the Kyoto treaty, easily lends itself to theestablishment of world-wide central planning with respect to a wide variety of essential means of production. Indeed,an explicit bridge between socialism and environmentalism is supplied by one of the most prominent theorists of the environmental movement, Barry Commoner, who was also the Green Partysfirst candidate for President of the United States. The bridge is in the form of an attempted ecological validation of one of the very first notions of Karl Marx to be discreditednamely, Marxsprediction of the progressive impoverishment of the wage earners under capitalism. Commoner attempts to salvage this notion by arguing that what has prevented Marxs prediction from comingtrue, until now, is only that capitalism has temporarily been able to exploit the environment. But this process must now come to an end, and, as a result, the allegedly inherent conflict between thecapitalists and the workers will emerge in full force. (For anyone interested, I quote Commoner at length in Capitalism.) Concerning the essential similarity between environmentalism and

    socialism, I wrote: The only difference I can seebetween the green movement of the environmentalists and the old red

    movement of the Communists and socialists is the superficial one of the specific reasons for which they want to violateindividual liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Reds claimed that the individual could not be left free because the resultwould be such things as "exploitation," "monopoly," and depressions. The Greens claim that the individual cannot be left freebecause the result will be such things as destruction of the ozone layer, acid rain, andglobal warming. Both claim that centralizedgovernment control over economic activity is essential. The Reds wanted it for the alleged sake of achieving human prosperity. The Greens want it for thealleged sake of avoiding environmental damage . . . [And in the end,] [b]oth the Reds and the Greens want someone to suffer and die; the one,the capitalists and the rich, for the alleged sake of the wage earners and the poor; the other, a major portion of allmankind, for the alleged sake of the lower animals and inanimate nature (Ibid., p. 102). If the worlds intellectuals had been open to thepossibility that they had been wrong about the nature of capitalism and socialismprofoundly, devastatingly wrongand taken the trouble to read and understand the works of von Mises inorder to learn how and why they had been wrong, socialism would have died once and for all with the Soviet Union, and the whole world would now be moving toward laissez-faire capitalism

    and unprecedented economic prog ress and prosperity. Instead, the intellectuals have chosen to foist the doctrine of environmentalism on theworld, as a last-ditch effort to destroy capitalism and save socialism.

  • 8/14/2019 Coercion K - Symonds

    4/78

    Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 4Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Coercion K

    Shell 2/2

    Federal regulations make us slaves to the state

    Feser, Professor of Philosophy at Loyola University, 2000(Edward, Taxation, Forced Labor, and Theft, The Independent Review, Volume: 5, Fall, 221-22)

    It is important to understand how this argument differs from other libertarian arguments against

    taxation. It is not quite the same as the general claim that taxation interferes with individual liberty

    insofar as its enforcement is intrusive and it prevents one from doing what he wants with a portion of

    his income,2 forthere are many who would find such infringements of liberty acceptable butnevertheless consider uncomfortable the notion that taxation also amounts to forcing people to work.The argument also differs from the objection that taxation amounts to theft in that forcing someone to laborand stealing from him are different offenses (although, if we take the former to involve specifically thestealing of labor, the difference between the objections may be one only of generality). Nonetheless, it issometimes suggested that Nozicks argument is essentially concerned with the violation of property rightsor with theft, rather than with forced labor in that Nozick presupposes that one has a property right in

    the portion of ones earnings the state takes in taxes, a right his critics claim he fails to establish

    (Kymlicka 1990, 10718; Michael 1997, 141; Weinberg 1997, 336; Otsuka 1998, 71).3 Nozicks argument,as stated previously, nowhere explicitly appeals to any claim about property rights, and it is by no meansobvious that an argument objecting to some practice on the grounds that it amounts to forced labor needs

    even implicitly to do so. Clearly, I might still be forced to labor for someone else if I labor at all, even if Ihave no property right in the product of the labor: a slave may own no part of his masters land or

    tools, and thus arguably he cannot own whatever he produced using them vegetables, saybut he isnevertheless a sla