Privates CP + Coercion DA

Privates CP

1NC CP TextPlan Text: The Private Sector should [insert plan]

Solvency - GeneralThe private sector can do the plan and more. They have innovative technology and experience in oceanographic data collection.Woll, 12 (Steve, Steve Woll, an active AMS Member, and a meteorologist, is Director of Business Development for WeatherFlow Inc in Poquoson, Virginia. He served as a Meteorology and Oceanography Officer for the United States Navy for over twenty years. He has an MBA degree from the College of William and Mary, an MS degree from the Naval Postgraduate School, and a BS degree from Duke University., The role of the private sector in ocean sensing, October 14-19, http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/icp.jsp?arnumber=6405082)

Recent years have seen the development of innovative and often lower-cost ocean observing technologies[are], putting more capability than into the hands of private sector ever companies, in some cases for the first time. At the same time, activity by private sector companies in the coastal oceans has increased in support of oil and gas exploration , offshore wind energy, homeland security, maritime shipping, fisheries, and other drivers. Oceanographic data from private sector sources has the potential to fill in existing data gaps in a cost-effective manner. In order to optimize our ability to make use of such data, a discussion of the policy surrounding the use of private sector data (and of the underlying data infrastructure needed to support it) is needed. This paper discusses some of the background, history, and considerations that have a bearing on the use of such private sector data.

The private sector is the MOST efficient when it comes to the collection of ocean data through exploration. Implementing the plan through the private sector would increase the oceanographic data collected and increase economic activity, all while eliminating government spending.Woll, 12 (Steve, Steve Woll, an active AMS Member, and a meteorologist, is Director of Business Development for WeatherFlow Inc in Poquoson, Virginia. He served as a Meteorology and Oceanography Officer for the United States Navy for over twenty years. He has an MBA degree from the College of William and Mary, an MS degree from the Naval Postgraduate School, and a BS degree from Duke University., The role of the private sector in ocean sensing, October 14-19, http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/icp.jsp?arnumber=6405082)

The last twenty years have seen an increase in the number and breadth of various public-private partnerships in both oceanography and meteorology,

and the policies of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) specifically encourage those efforts. On the oceanographic side, the National Ocean Service (NOS) operates the Integrated Oceanographic Observing System (IOOS), which has been very successful at coordinating the efforts of federal government agencies, universities, and private sector companies, establishing a robust Data Management and Communications (DMAC) capability and providing funding to performers through a set of Regional Associations (RAs) that coordinate activities within their regions. At the same time, the technological boom of the last half century has begun to see the broader deployment of some specific types of oceanographic and marine meteorological sensors by private companies for private purposes (e.g. oil exploration, operation of port facilities, wind energy prospecting, etc.). Because specific companies or customers fund the collection of this data for specific business purposes, the resulting data sets have generally been kept proprietary and not shared with the government or the public. As IOOS, NOAA, and most of the federal government face severe budgetary constraints for the foreseeable future , it is prudent for the Oceanography Enterprise to review all of the options available to help IOOS, NOAA, and the broader Oceanography Enterprise meet their collective mission requirements. The NMP has been very successful at getting the NWS access to large numbers of high quality, professional grade meteorological observations via restricted licensing and the MADIS data architecture. Given this demonstrated success, implementing a similar data policy and supporting data architecture at NDBC and other oceanographic repositories should be given serious consideration. At the same time, a data policy of unrestricted licensing and an unrestricted data architecture should also be considered, since such an arrangement is the most flexible, gets the most data into the most hands, and can reasonably be expected to directly support more users and generate more economic activity . Review of these options should be conducted by IOOS and the Oceanographic Enterprise leadership and a working group representing government, university, and private sector interests. Debating the merits, costs, and benefits of these and other options would be an extremely healthy and useful exercise for IOOS and the broader oceanographic community. The resulting decisions and subsequent policy guidance would serve to provide a much-needed clarity, thereby allowing all participants and the Oceanography Enterprise as a whole to optimize their planning for the next decade and beyond.

A nonfederal organization can do the plan and still capture their leadership benefitsOrcutt et al, 3 - Professor of Geophysics and Deputy Director Scripps Institution of Oceanography (John, also Interim Dean of Marine Sciences University of California San DiegoNov. 4, 2003 “Major Ocean Exploration Effort Would Reveal Secrets of the Deep”

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=10844)

WASHINGTON -- A new large-scale, multidisciplinary ocean exploration program would increase the pace of discovery of new species, ecosystems, energy sources, seafloor

features, pharmaceutical products, and artifacts, as well as improve understanding of the role oceans play in climate change, says a new congressionally mandated report from the National Academies' National

Research Council. Such a program should be run by a nonfederal organization and should encourage international participation, added the committee that wrote the report. Congress, interested in the possibility of an international ocean exploration program, asked the Research Council to examine the feasibility of such an

effort. The committee concluded, however, that given the limited resources in many other countries, it would be prudent to begin with a U.S. program that would include foreign representatives and serve as a model for other countries. Once programs are established elsewhere, groups of nations could then collaborate on research and pool their resources under international agreements. "The United States should lead by example," said committee chair John Orcutt, professor of geophysics and deputy director, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San

Diego. Vast portions of the ocean remain unexplored. In fact, while a dozen men have walked on the

moon, just two have traveled to the farthest reaches of the ocean, and only for about 30 minutes each time, the report notes. "The bottom of the ocean is the Earth's least explored frontier, and currently available submersibles -- whether manned, remotely operated, or autonomous -- cannot reach the deepest parts of the sea," said committee vice chair Shirley A. Pomponi, vice president and director of research at

Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution, Fort Pierce, Fla. Nonetheless, recent discoveries of previously unknown species and deep-sea biological and chemical processes have heightened interest in ocean exploration . For example, researchers working off the coast of California revealed how some organisms consume methane seeping through the sea floor, converting it to energy for themselves and leaving hydrogen and carbon dioxide as byproducts. The hydrogen could perhaps someday be harnessed for fuel cells, leaving the carbon dioxide – which contributes to global warming in the atmosphere – in the sea. Likewise, a recent one-month expedition off Australia and New Zealand that explored deep-sea volcanic mountains and abyssal plains collected 100 previously unidentified fish species and up to 300 new species of

invertebrates. Most current U.S. funding for ocean research, however, goes to projects that plan to revisit earlier sites or for improving understanding of known processes, rather than to support truly exploratory oceanography, the report says. And because the funding bureaucracy is discipline-based, grants are usually allocated to chemists, biologists, or physical

scientists, rather than to teams of researchers representing a variety of scientific fields. A coordinated, international ocean exploration effort is not unprecedented, however; in fact, the International Decade of Ocean

Exploration in the 1970s was considered a great success. The new program proposed in the report would complement more traditional oceanographic research, and should be operated by a nonfederal contractor chosen through a competitive bidding process, the committee said. Having an independent organization manage the program has many benefits, including the creativity, cost savings, and performance incentives that the

competitive bidding process inspires. Contractors also can receive funding from multiple government agencies as well as private contributors. Federal agencies are more frequently turning to independent contractors to carry out special projects, the committee noted. It recommended that any contractor chosen to run the ocean exploration program should be subjected to regular external review. The most appropriate part of the federal government to house the ocean exploration program and oversee the contractor is the National Oceanographic Partnership Program, an existing collaboration of 14 federal agencies, the committee decided. Before this can happen, however, Congress needs to revise the partnership program charter so it can receive direct and substantial appropriations of federal funds. If this funding issue is not resolved, the ocean exploration program could be sponsored by the National Science Foundation or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Implementing the proposed program would cost approximately $270 million the first year, and about $100 million annually thereafter, the committee estimated. A less extensive program could be run for about $70 million a year, the report notes. Education and public outreach need to be an integral part of the ocean

exploration program, especially to build global support, the committee emphasized. Ocean discovery "easily captures the imagination of people of all ages," the report adds. Yet a recent survey by a consortium of

aquariums, zoos, and museums revealed that for the most part Americans have only superficial knowledge of how oceans function and are connected to human well-being. Teachers should be involved in the program from the start so that they understand the science and can incorporate it in their lesson plans. Keeping Congress and other government officials informed about plans and accomplishments also will be critical to the program's success. The report also says that the program's dedicated flagship should be given a name that the public will come to associate with the program, much as Jacques Cousteau's Calypso became a household term. In addition, satellites and the Internet could be used to maintain real-time communications between the vessel and classrooms or the general public. In addition to a main

expedition ship, the ocean exploration effort will need a fleet of new manned and unmanned submersibles. The manned subs should be capable of diving to at least 6,500 meters, while remotely operated vehicles should be designed to reach depths of 7,000 meters or more. Additional autonomous underwater vehicles that are programmed to travel a specific route, collecting information along the way with sensors and cameras, also are needed. An upcoming National Research Council report will discuss plans to replace Alvin, the 35-year-old manned submersible that was used for groundbreaking research, such as the discovery of deep-sea hydrothermal vents, and took the first human visitors to the wreck of the Titanic. The ocean exploration study was mandated by Congress and sponsored by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The National Research Council is the principal operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering. It is a private, nonprofit institution that provides science and technology advice under a congressional charter. A committee roster follows.

It should be managed through a private contractorNRC 03 – Committee on Exploration of the Seas, Ocean Studies Board Division on Earth and Life Studies. (“Exploration of the Seas: Voyage into the Unknown”, National Research Council, the National Academies Press, http://explore.noaa.gov/sites/OER/Documents/national-research-council-voyage.pdf, pg. 84-86)

An ocean exploration program could be managed within the sponsoring agency or through a contract to an independent entity. In the past, it was common for major programs to be managed from within the sponsoring agency, even at NSF, which maintains a lean administrative structure and no in-house research or facilities. The advantages of retaining the management for major programs within the sponsoring agency are that the agency retains ownership of the program, connections to other internal agency programs are tight, and those within the agency who have nurtured the program are rewarded by assuming leadership. In fact, this is the route that NOAA has adopted for its current ocean exploration program. In recent years, agencies are increasingly turning to nongovernmental groups to take on the day-to-day operations of large programs. The advantages of this approach

are several. First, the process of competitive bidding for the management of the program leads to creativity in program design, cost savings, and incentives for excellent performance. Second, as programs build up and close down, there is no need to accommodate the personnel requirements through agency headcount. NSF chose the independent contractor route in selecting the Joint Oceanographic Institutions (JOI) (Box 5.2) to run ODP (Box 4.1), and has recently issued a request for proposals for management of the Ocean Observing Initiative. NASA will be selecting an

independent contractor to manage the International Space Station (ISS) (Box 5.3). The advantages of an external contractor are potentially even greater for an ocean exploration program. For example,

if NOPP were to lead the effort, management by an independent contractor would provide a neutral third party to balance the interests of the various agency partners and accept contributions from a variety of public and private

sources. If NOAA were to lead the program, management by an external group could mitigate some of the perceived inadequacies in the present, internal-NOAA program. For example, the program would

be an “arm’s length” away from the pressures of the agency mission and subjected to regular external review. Depending on the choice of the external managing organization, grant processing, priority-setting, connection to the external community, and transparency of decision making could be improved. If NSF were asked to lead the program, the agency would almost surely choose this route

rather than build internally the infrastructure to manage the exploration-specific assets and data system. Finding: Management of large-scale ocean research programs can be effectively and efficiently operated through the use of independent contractors. Nonfederal operators can receive support from multiple government agencies and receive financial support from private sponsors. Independent audits of program performance can be used to ensure the program is achieving the desired outcomes.

Recommendation: A nonfederal contractor should be used to operate the proposed U.S. ocean exploration program. The original contract should be awarded

following a competitive bidding process. The program should be reviewed periodically and should seek to leverage federal resources for additional private contributions.

Private investors are seeking to invest more in renewable energyWessing 12(Taylor Wessing LLP, international law firm, 2012, “Private Capital and Clean Energy Study”)

The quest for alternative funding sources for the clean energy sector has never been more acute. Venture capital firms that funded the first wave of European clean energy technology companies are either withdrawing from the sector entirely or moving up the value chain to support less risky, later stage businesses. To put this in context, European clean energy companies only secured $82 million in venture capture capital investment in 1Q12, under half the $210 million raised during the corresponding period in 2011. The funding picture for power generation projects is equally bleak. Only $7.4 billion was allocated to European clean energy projects in 1Q12, 45% below the $13.5 billion recorded during 1Q11. In contrast, private capital investors are ready to increase their investment in the clean energy sector. Over 40% of surveyed private investors will allocate over 10% of their available funds to the clean energy sector during the next 18 months – a 300% increase on the number of investors that allocated this proportion of their available capital during the previous 18 months.

Private corporations are interested in OTECTGA n.d. (The Green Age, “Electricity Corporation OTEC Plants, Bahamas”, n.d., http://www.thegreenage.co.uk/cos/electricity-corporation-otec-plants-bahamas/)

OTE Corporation Bahamas OTEC Power Plant To be effective, companies such as OTE Corporation are bringing together both Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) and Seawater District Cooling (SDC) solutions, to leverage the benefits of the infrastructure that is put in place. OTE Corporation’s current plan is to construct the world’s first two commercially viable OTEC plants in the Bahamas which would be able to generate between 5-10MWs of electricity, 24/7. OTE Corporations unique capabilities in deep water piping means that these types of facilities will be able to support energy generation of this size and also be both technologically and commercially viable. A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) has been signed with the Bahamas Electricity Corporation (BEC) and a preliminary Power Purchasing Agreement (PPA) with a major Pacific utility company, which means this project is a few steps closer to getting the green light. OTE Corporation Seawater District Cooling Solution In parallel, OTE Corporation has been selected to construct the world’s largest deep ocean Seawater District Cooling (SDC) facility, which would bring about 80-90% saving in electricity usage for air-conditioning in this world famous luxury resort. The Energy Services Agreement is in place and once again the project is closer now to getting the green light to proceed. OTEC Economic Feasibility From a technological perspective, the more the component parts are improved means that from a economic perspective costs are able to be reduced. This then goes a long way to make OTEC solutions more economically feasible. For example, making sure that the heat exchanger has low corrosion levels means that repair and servicing costs fall and overall profitability levels of a plant will increase. OTEC Environmental Impact From an environmental perspective the build

process will hinge on the piping infrastructure being put in place without interrupting local marine ecosystems. The piping system is buried deep in the ocean, which means it takes water that contains high nitrate concentrations, otherwise useful to support marine life. Also a 10m diameter pipe is needed to pump enough water to support a 100MW plant. This is why the infrastructure has to be created so it doesn’t have a detrimental effect on the environment around it, which would be counterintuitive to the principles behind OTEC and also defeat the purpose of this technology. Studies are taking place to look at the impact a plant would have on the marine life around it. 3D modelling for example has been able to project the area that will be affected by an OTEC power plant and nutrient extraction levels. These studies help companies like OTE Corporation work through improving the technological solutions to mitigate these impacts.

Solvency- Ocean ExplorationOcean exploration should be privately fundedAquarium of the Pacific and NOAA 2013(Aquarium of the Pacific and NOAA, July 19-21, 2013,“The Report of Ocean Exploration 2020: A National Forum”, http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/oceanexploration2020/nationalframework.html)

By 2020, private sector investments in exploration technology development, specifically for the dedicated national program of

exploration, exceed the federal investment, but federal partners play a key role in testing and refining new technologies. Forum participants agreed that a top priority for a national ocean exploration program of distinction is the development of mechanisms to fund emerging and creatively disruptive technologies to enhance and expand exploration capabilities. In addition to significant federal government investment in ocean exploration technology over time—whether by the U.S. Navy, NASA, NOAA, or other civil- ian agencies involved in ocean exploration

—many felt strongly that to shorten the time from development to unrestricted adoption, more of the required investment would come from the private sector. These emerging technologies will likely include the next generations of ships; remotely operated vehicles; autonomous underwater vehicles; telepresence capa- bilities; and new sensors. Most participants felt that continuing to develop human occupied vehicles should be a much lower priority for a national program than focusing on autonomous vehicles, sensors, observatories, and communications systems. Participants also felt that federal partners in the national program of exploration should play a key role in testing and refining these technologies as well as working to adapt existing and proven technologies for exploration. Overall, some of the most important technologies to cultivate are those that collect physical and chemical oceanographic data, biological data, and seafloor mapping data.

Solvency- OTECPrivate investors are seeking to invest more in renewable energyWessing 12(Taylor Wessing LLP, international law firm, 2012, “Private Capital and Clean Energy Study”)

The quest for alternative funding sources for the clean energy sector has never been more acute. Venture capital firms that funded the first wave of European clean energy technology companies are either withdrawing from the sector entirely or moving up the value chain to support less risky, later stage businesses. To put this in context, European clean energy companies only secured $82 million in venture capture capital investment in 1Q12, under half the $210 million raised during the corresponding period in 2011. The funding picture for power generation projects is equally bleak. Only $7.4 billion was allocated to European clean energy projects in 1Q12, 45% below the $13.5 billion recorded during 1Q11. In contrast, private capital investors are ready to increase their investment in the clean energy sector. Over 40% of surveyed private investors will allocate over 10% of their available funds to the clean energy sector during the next 18 months – a 300% increase on the number of investors that allocated this proportion of their available capital during the previous 18 months.

Solvency– STEM

The USFG acknowledges the private sector as a better alternative for STEM education than federal agencies. C.S.S.T, 14 (The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology has jurisdiction over all energy research, development, and demonstration, and projects therefor, and all federally owned or operated non-military energy laboratories; astronautical research and development, including resources, personnel, equipment, and facilities; civil aviation research and development; environmental research and development; marine research; commercial application of energy technology; National Institute of Standards and Technology, standardization of weights and measures and the metric system; National Aeronautics and Space Administration; National Science Foundation; National Weather Service; outer space, including exploration and control thereof; science scholarships; scientific research, development, and demonstration, and projects therefor., Private Sector STEM Initiatives Make Big Impact, January 9th, http://science.house.gov/press-release/private-sector-stem-initiatives-make-big-impact)

Washington, D.C. – The Research and Technology Subcommittee today held a hearing to review science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education initiatives developed and conducted by private organizations. Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas): “A well-educated and trained STEM workforce will promote our future economic prosperity. But we must persuade our nation’s youth to study science and engineering so they will want to pursue these careers. We need to learn what is taking place outside of the federal government so we can be sure we are not spending taxpayer dollars on duplicative programs. And we need to more effectively use taxpayers’ dollars to gain the most benefit for our students and our country. You can’t have innovation without advances in technology. The STEM students of today will lead us to the cutting-edge technologies of tomorrow.” The administration’s fiscal year 2014 budget request proposed over $3 billion across more than thirteen different agencies of the federal government for STEM education. Despite this level of federal spending, according to a recent poll, American students rank 26th in math and 21st in science. Witnesses today discussed what is being done by industry to support STEM education. Understanding the work of the private sector in the STEM fields will inform the federal government’s role, help to reduce duplication of effort, and leverage existing programs. Research and Technology Subcommittee Chairman Larry Bucshon (R-Ind.): “One of the most essential aspects to keeping America at the forefront of STEM innovation, advancement and development is engaging students at a young age and keeping them interested in pursuing STEM degrees and careers. As a cardiothoracic surgeon and father of four children between the ages of 9

and 20, I understand that such programs and activities are necessary to enhance America’s economic growth and competitiveness.” The first panel of witnesses today discussed how industry and philanthropic organizations offer financial or technical support for students, professional development opportunities for teachers, and technology for classrooms as a way to encourage interest in and support for STEM education. On the second panel, high school students who benefitted from private sector STEM initiatives discussed their positive experiences and what they learned. Many industry sectors, non-profit organizations, entrepreneurs and educational institutions are working in a variety of ways in order to bolster the STEM related workforce pipeline. Partnerships with education providers, STEM focused competitions, and other opportunities have become important pieces of private sector efforts to strengthen the STEM workforce.

Solvency– Warming/Adaptation

Engaging the private sector in climate change prevention is essential for multiple reasons. It not only combats climate change, but it also develops our adaptive technologies.Miller, 14 (Alan, Alan S. Miller is a climate change and global environmental expert with more than 30 years experience. Until his retirement in December 2013, he was the Principal Climate Change Specialist at the International Finance Corporation, the private-sector lending arm of the World Bank Group, where his general responsibility was climate change policy and analysis. He is a widely published author on climate change, energy, and development, including a leading environmental law textbook. His degrees are from Cornell University (A.B., Government 1971) and University of Michigan (J.D. and M.P.P. 1974)., Why We Must Engage the Private Sector in Climate Change Adaptation Efforts, January 9th, http://blogs.worldbank.org/climatechange/why-we-must-engage-private-sector-climate-change-adaptation-efforts)

Scientists have reached near-consensus about climate change and its impacts. We’ve also seen the creation of several significant donor-supported climate funds, as well as a steady increase in policy and financial support for climate-friendly technologies. In one critical respect, however, we need more progress: making the private sector a partner in helping nations build resilience and adapt to climate change. The business community needs to be our partner as we build resilience against and adapt to climate change. Yet to date, adaptation discussions inside and outside official climate negotiations have had surprisingly little business engagement . The focus thus far has been almost entirely on what governments need to do, and who should pay. In some quarters, business interest has even been viewed as inappropriate competition for scarce resources. This is changing in a few countries, but not yet in developing nations where the biggest needs exist. Adaptation planning and investments must include the private sector – and the sooner this happens, the better. Engaging the private sector is essential for multiple reasons. It can mobilize financial resources and technical capabilities, leverage the efforts of governments, engage civil society and community efforts, and develop innovative climate services and adaptation technologies. Private entities dominate many investments that are critical to adaptation, such as the location and design of buildings and other infrastructure investments. Private-sector corporations also develop – and often dominate – the design and delivery of many adaptation services such as weather observation technology and early warning systems. Drought-resistant seeds and other agricultural products, along with water management infrastructure and technologies, also tend to fall within their

purview. Although insurance tends to be much less available and relevant to investment in developing nations, there are already significant examples of “Cat” bonds and other products that spread the risk and speed the recovery of countries after natural disasters. As the largest victims of natural disasters, corporations are also in a position to spread climate awareness and rally political support for climate action. Finally, and in some ways most important, the private sector must take on a bigger, if not the dominant, financing role for climate adaptation in all but the poorest countries if we are to prepare sufficiently for the challenges that lie ahead. So what do we mean by partnering with the private sector in adaptation projects? In a recent article I co-authored with Bonizella Biagini, the Global Environment Facility’s adaptation manager, we review the concept and provide some highlights: In partnership with the International Finance Corporation, a private port facility in Colombia identified its vulnerability to long-term sea level rise. The company modified and increased its planned investments to anticipate and incorporate greater structural integrity. It subsequently announced it will make similar enhancements to all eight ports that it owns and manages. Munich Re, a major insurance company, has made analysis and management of the impacts of natural disasters a central basis for selecting and working with clients – not simply spreading risks, but making their clients more resilient to reduce losses. This improves the company’s profitability and helps clients avoid business interruption. In very poor countries with weak business development, adaptation programs can help channel development into less vulnerable areas. In Sierra Leone, for example, small and medium-sized enterprises offered affordable water harvesting, storage and distribution systems that helped communities withstand projected changes in rainfall patterns and intensity – all activities that were also supported by existing adaptation funds. Highly innovative adaptation products and services developed and marketed by private companies are already improving climate resilience. Low-cost weather observation systems placed on cell phone towers, for example, are a fraction of what radar systems cost and often work as well or better in many locations. Companies that offer farmers highly targeted weather and soil information, meanwhile, can help improve yields and reduce vulnerability to climate change. Of course, governments play a key role to make businesses more aware of climate risks and boost private sector engagement through partnerships. The IFC and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development have been working with the government of Turkey and its business associations to do just that. A recent ambitious effort along these lines is also taking place in New York City, where city officials are inviting insurance companies to discuss coastal protection investments. City officials recognize that since insurers will be among the major beneficiaries, they may be asked to share the costs of the major improvements required. Efforts to engage the private sector in adaptation to climate change are beginning and must be accelerated. Public policy should provide appropriate incentives for adaptation measures and, where necessary, regulation to avoid shifting risks to the public. The financial community can help by recognizing the

relevance of climate risk as a factor when it evaluates the expected future performance of companies, for example by offering climate leaders a financial premium. These are all common-sense steps we must take with our private-sector partners as we prepare the world for the future.

The private sector is a more viable option at combating climate change. Their preexisting technology and innovating potential can fix the government’s failure to reduce CO2, but investment is needed.Ide, 12 (Kentaro, Kentaro Ide is Senior Associate, Customs and Global Trade at Deloitte. He was a research Assistant, Center for the Promotion of Disarmament and Non-Proliferation at Japan Institute of International Affairs. He attended the School of Oriental and African Studies, U. of London and the University of British Columbia., Analysis: The private sector and climate change, February 13th, http://www.rtcc.org/2011/11/10/analysis-the-private-sector-and-climate-change/)

With the future of the Kyoto Protocol uncertain, and pressure mounting on the world’s governments to slash their greenhouse gas emissions, the role of the private sector in combating climate change is becoming ever more relevant. Technology, innovations and green entrepreneurs are increasingly part of the solution – but they cannot survive in a vacuum. In the first of a three-part series, sustainability analyst Kentaro Ide reflects on the Marketization of Climate Change. “In this time of government failure and media inattentiveness to climate issues, leadership is coming from the private sector,” says one speaker, addressing her full audience of businesspeople. It is the second and final day of Energy Solutions 2011, a buzzing expo of 300-plus exhibitors and numerous seminars, and the speaker is hardly alone in her enthusiasm for the potential of the private sector in addressing climate change. Faith in the market as a channel for developing and disseminating technologies (a broad definition of which includes business processes and tacit knowledge) to combat climate change is nothing new. The UNFCCC has devised its own market-based mechanisms, such as emissions trading and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), to spur private investment and R&D in “green” technologies. Likewise, the RTCC policy manifesto highlights the importance of private enterprise and technological innovation in creating a low-carbon economy. Within London alone, expos like Energy Solutions or the Carbon Show (along with the countless organizations that recognize and reward private innovations) illustrate the growing market for technologies ranging from hardware for voltage and/or current optimization to consultancy services for greener business operations. Furthermore, new movements such as social entrepreneurship and impact investing are seeking to create alternative models for financing and promoting innovation by applying business strategies to meet social and environmental objectives. From traditional businesses pursuing green profit opportunities to new enterprises

prioritizing their social mission over profit maximization, many of these actors share a sense that the private sector is “picking up the slack” in tackling climate change. This is particularly true among proponents of social entrepreneurship, who cite government failure as a key reason for seeking private-led solutions to social issues. Even among traditional businesses, some UK firms marketing solutions for voltage optimization, for example, claim that their business models can remain profitable even without further regulations on energy efficiency.

Solvency- Offshore DrillingOffshore drilling should be privateNate Berg June 14, 2010 (http://www.planetizen.com/node/44623)

"We need to move away from the crony corporatism that has characterized much of the nation's energy sector during the last century or so. It would be foolish to promise that

market-based reforms would prevent another disaster, but they would be more effective than yet more meaningless bureaucracy. There are several reasons for this. First, the existing government regulations have been counterproductive. They pushed energy companies offshore - miles and miles offshore. America is a resource-rich country, and unlike other resource-rich countries, we have locked up most of our resources so we can't use them . While the Gulf of Mexico holds about 44 billion barrels of oil in undiscovered reserves, according to Minerals Management Service (MMS) estimates, the continental U.S. has slightly more onshore. The difference is that we are allowed to explore and extract the offshore reserves, while it is extremely difficult to get permission to do the same on land. As a result, most exploration takes place offshore, where the consequences of a spill are so much greater."

USFG Funding Bad

US Government funding is bad and green energy should be private

Nelson 12 (Jim Nelson, CEO of Solar3D Inc., US Government Should Trust the Free Market for Green Energy Investment, May 29, 2012, http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2012/05/us-government-should-trust-the-free-market-for-green-energy-investment)

The loan guarantee program should be retired permanently. The path to commercialization requires brains, discipline and grit. It is rarely aided, and often impeded, by government involvement . Our government should trust the free market forces that have made America great. The government’s green energy policy includes two parts: (1) supporting basic research, with the aim of developing new green energy technologies; and (2) making loan guarantees that promote the adoption of green energy technologies. Supporting basic research is an important role of government, but the loan guarantee program is a wasteful mistake because it doesn’t work. The Department of Energy’s loan guarantee to Solyndra was an embarrassing example of the malfunction of the current system. The investment was undoubtedly scrutinized and rejected by the Silicon Valley-based venture capital firms — organizations abundantly more qualified to identify good investments than government committees. There was no urgent strategic need for the U.S. to have Solyndra rush its

product to market. The decision to fund Solyndra’s attempt to commercialize did not stand up to reason. However, politics ultimately trumped reason. The bureaucrats awarding the financial aid were beholden to political masters, who had promised Americans that they were going to fix the U.S. economy by creating green jobs — something that could not possibly happen in any timeframe worthy of consideration. The price of the Solyndra failure was borne by the American people. It would be interesting, but probably undiscoverable at this point, to know how many projects that are currently funded with loan guarantees would be funded privately if loan guarantees did not exist. After technology is proven, good investments should be able to get private funding and negate the need for government support. Bad investments shouldn’t be funded at all.

Government subsidies are the silent killer of Renewable Energy

Paul Nahi 2/14/2013 (CEO of Enphase Energy, http://www.forbes.com/sites/ciocentral/2013/02/14/government-subsidies-silent-killer-of-renewable-energy/)

Hardly a day goes by that we don’t hear or engage in a conversation about energy. Too often, those conversations are about failed companies that lived only for government

largesse. Whether the discussion is about the cost of energy, the damage being done to the environment, or national security issues, there is one constant: everyone agrees that the world needs safe, clean, and affordable energy . As the chief executive of a solar technology company, no one

wants an abundant supply of clean energy and a healthy solar energy industry more than I do. And the best pathway to a stable renewable energy industry is to create self-sufficiency and independence from government financial

assistance . One might question the rationality of this position, given the fact that between 1994 and 2009 the U.S. oil and gas industries received a cumulative $446.96 billion in subsidies, compared to just $5.93 billion given to renewables in those years. (The nuclear industry, by the way. received $185 billion in federal subsidies between 1947 and 1999 .) Certainly, subsidies are a useful tool to help

establish an emerging industry. But where there is no projected end to funding, subsidies stop being a catalyst, and start becoming a crutch. This is especially true when companies supported by subsidies become powerful enough to influence governments to perpetuate their support. Healthy companies depend upon sound business models in a competitive environment. Lousy companies that are limping along on subsidies will slow the growth of the industry. If a product is well designed and meets the needs of the consumer, it will find success in a market economy. In that same market, the real costs of the product are accounted for in a company’s profit margin. That is not true of traditional energy companies. Complex and arcane tax laws are used to subsidize these corporations and obscure the true cost of energy. Government subsidies effectively transfer a portion of the costs to taxpayers, enabling artificially low prices and inflated

profits. Equally dangerous is the government’s direct investment in private companies. Much has been made of the current administration’s investments in certain renewable energy companies, some of which failed . The politically motivated headlines concerning these investments may serve as a rallying cry for critics, but they fail to identify the fundamental mistake. If the administration is trying to cultivate a new industry by leveling a playing field, it needs to focus on demand creation and not try to manage supply . In doing so, it will unleash talented entrepreneurs – as well as the investors willing to back them. Some companies will survive, others will not. But those that do will have the essential ingredients for sustained success. There is absolutely a role for government in technology development. Most companies, especially young ones, cannot afford to invest in basic research. The time frames are long, and only a small portion of the research results in commercially viable products. Yet, this research is the foundation of future industries. Investment in basic research, through our universities and research institutions, that yields licensable technologies, is a more prudent path for the allocation of public resources. The confusion behind energy subsidies coupled with slanted media coverage has resulted in a myth that solar power is not cost competitive and is dependent on government subsidies. This is simply false. In many parts of the country today, solar energy is less expensive than conventional forms of energy, creating consumer demand for solar to reduce monthly energy bills. And the solar industry is both an affordable and sustainable source of clean energy, and a significant job creator. The U.S. solar workforce today is around 120,000 strong and growing. The facts are clear. The costs of

development and production of fossil fuel energy have been underwritten with our tax dollars to the benefit of a few traditional energy companies. If we build the true costs into the price of all energy, solar power is not only competitive, it’s cheaper. However we will only see that truth if we remove direct and indirect energy subsidies . We have a strong market for solar power today. We have a willing market, the necessary technology, and an undisputable imperative to create a cleaner, safer planet. I’m committed to leading a company that delivers the best technology and service. We will continue to revolutionize power generation on a global scale, one kilowatt hour at a time. But a robust, renewable energy market will remain hampered if the energy industry continues to chase the next subsidy. For the good of our energy future, subsidies for all energy must eventually end.

Government funded renewable energy companies have failedKish 12(Daniel Kish, senior vice president for policy at the Institute for Energy Research, “Subsidies for Green Energy Do Not Help American Consumers”, 18 Jan 2012, http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-the-government-invest-in-green-energy/subsidies-for-green-energy-do-not-help-american-consumers)

Politicians are learning what the American people have known for years: Uncle Sam is a pretty lousy investor and a terrible venture

capitalist. In recent months, the evidence has mounted. From Solyndra to Soperton, the federal government has pumped billions of taxpayer dollars into countless "green energy" companies . Simply, the

government should not be picking winners and losers. No source of energy requiring heavy government subsidies or that government forces you to buy should receive taxpayer money. In the end, the government is hurting the American people. The game goes like this: The government taxes the American worker, and then takes a portion of those tax dollars and gives it to Solyndra or another favored political ally of whomever has power in

Washington. Then it forces the utilities to buy the energy. Taxpayers' money is needed to keep the apparent energy costs from the green sources down because if the real cost were paid directly by consumers on their monthly electric bills or at the gas pump, they would revolt. In fact, if development of these sources made any economic sense, private sector job creators would be lining up to do it. Case in point: Look at what has happened with the shale energy revolution in places like Pennsylvania and North Dakota. When energy is affordable and technology is available, Americans will unleash the power of innovation and risk their own capital to develop any source. In fact, 1 in 5 new jobs created since 2003 has been oil- and natural gas-

related. But with green energy, firms need Uncle Sam to ensure their profit. Since 2007, total federal energy

subsidies increased from $17.9 billion to $37.2 billion. Seventy-seven percent of that increase is due to the

Obama administration's stimulus. Renewable subsidies increased 186 percent , led by wind energy, which received a 10-fold increase to nearly $5 billion. None of this, by the way, has kept energy prices down. Electricity prices have increased by 23 percent in the last five years. [Check out the U.S. News Energy Intelligence blog.] Meanwhile, the government is rigging the game through mandates that force American consumers to buy green energy sources to meet the requirements of the law. Currently, 29 states have green energy mandates that require a certain percentage of the states' electricity to be generated from these sources. Among states with renewable mandates, consumers pay on average 38 percent more for electricity. The evidence is clear: Federal subsidies for green energy sources do not help American consumers or ensure the economic viability of green energy companies like Solyndra that can't turn a profit even with half a billion dollars in taxpayer money.

Government investments in private renewable energy companies hamper growthNahi 13 (Pual Nahi, CEO of Enphase Energy, “Government Subsidies: Silent Killer Of Renewable Energy”, 14 Feb 2013, http://www.forbes.com/sites/ciocentral/2013/02/14/government-subsidies-silent-killer-of-renewable-energy/)

Healthy companies depend upon sound business models in a competitive environment. Lousy companies that are limping along on subsidies will slow the growth of the industry. If a product is well designed and meets the needs of the consumer, it will find success in a market economy. In that same market, the real costs of the product are accounted for in a company’s profit margin. That is not true of traditional energy companies. Complex and arcane tax laws are used to subsidize these corporations and obscure the true cost of energy. Government subsidies effectively transfer a portion of the costs to taxpayers, enabling artificially low prices and inflated profits . Equally dangerous is the government’s direct investment in private companies. Much has been made of the current administration’s investments in certain renewable energy companies, some of which failed. The politically motivated headlines concerning these investments may serve as a rallying cry for critics, but they fail to identify the fundamental mistake. If the administration is trying to cultivate a new industry by leveling a playing field, it needs to focus on demand creation and not try to manage supply. In doing so, it will unleash talented entrepreneurs – as well as the investors willing to back them. Some companies will survive, others will not. But those that do will have the essential ingredients for sustained success. There is absolutely a role for government in technology development. Most companies, especially young ones, cannot afford to invest in basic research. The time frames are long, and only a small portion of the research results in commercially viable products. Yet, this research is the foundation of future industries. Investment in basic research, through our universities and research institutions, that yields licensable technologies, is a more prudent path for the allocation of public resources. The confusion behind energy subsidies coupled with slanted media coverage has resulted in a myth that solar power is not cost competitive and is dependent on government subsidies. This is simply false. In many parts of the country today, solar energy is less expensive than conventional forms of energy, creating consumer demand for solar to reduce monthly energy bills. And the solar industry is both an affordable and sustainable source of clean energy, and a significant job creator. The U.S. solar workforce today is around 120,000 strong and growing. The facts are clear. The costs of development and production of

fossil fuel energy have been underwritten with our tax dollars to the benefit of a few traditional energy companies. If we build the true costs into the price of all energy, solar power is not only competitive, it’s cheaper. However we will only see that truth if we remove direct and indirect energy subsidies. We have a strong market for solar power today. We have a willing market, the necessary technology, and an undisputable imperative to create a cleaner, safer planet. I’m committed to leading a company that delivers the best technology and service. We will continue to revolutionize power generation on a global scale, one kilowatt hour at a time. But a robust, renewable energy market will remain hampered if the energy industry continues to chase the next subsidy. For the good of our energy future, subsidies for all energy must eventually end.

A level playing field is necessary in renewable energy corporationsUSECRE n.d.(United States Export Council for Renewable Energy ,“CHAPTER 3. ENCOURAGING PRIVATE-SECTOR INVESTMENT”, n.d., http://www.oas.org/dsd/publications/Unit/oea79e/ch07.htm)

The issue of a “level playing field” - meaning an environment in which every private-sector player has an equal opportunity to succeed and in which no artificial barrier affects the results - is best analyzed on an individual country basis. In every country the electricity sub-sector is shaped by the

resources, economics and history unique to that country. In general, new technologies are seldom on an equal footing with established technologies; subsidized technologies have an advantage over unsubsidized technologies; and technologies with front-end-loaded capital costs are disadvantaged in an economic regime with a short-term pricing structure. Nevertheless, the policy strategists in each country will need to examine the status quo - the existing state of the electricity industry on the day of the inquiry - to determine whether, and to what extent, barriers exist which unfairly favor investments in oil, gas and coal over investments in the renewables. The impediments to grid-connected renewable generation and the potential mechanisms to bridge those impediments can be illustrated by comparing the unbundled, competitive electricity market model and the more traditional government utility model. In the case of the unbundled, competitive market, an unlevel playing field may be created if short-term pricing is mandated, and in the case of the state-owned, vertical utility, an unlevel playing field may be created if the bidding system is biased (or

slanted) in favor of the conventional fuels. What are the impediments to renewables in a market system? The privatization of utility systems has brought a degree of market discipline and economic reality to the electricity business of many nations and has fostered conditions generally conducive to private investment .

However, the shift to a short-term market for wholesale electricity may hamper development of new renewable energy generation projects in previously undeveloped resource areas except in those countries that have implemented special policies to offset this result. Projects that depend on short-term markets for all or most of their revenues are known as “merchant plants”. Merchant plants are built with the understanding that they have not specifically identified buyers to purchase their output at fixed prices over a long-term (typically 15-20 years). Instead, they sell into the short-term market and receive whatever price the market dictates for that particular week, day, hour or half hour. An electricity market that offers only short-term prices constitutes an inhospitable climate for building new, renewable energy projects. In the absence of long-term capacity expansion planning, the dynamics of the short-term market cause a country’s electric capacity expansion to be based on short-term economic principles. Experience has shown that under these conditions new capacity

needs will be met by thermal projects having the lowest capital costs and the shortest lead times for construction. The problem is not that renewable on-grid generation cannot be competitive in such a market, rather that financial markets are resistant to financing capital-intensive facilities unless there is some assurance of a revenue flow that returns principal and interest. In a short-term market, governments may have to build a bridge to

encourage the development of renewable energy projects that deliver long-term benefits. A short-term market assigns absolutely no value to the fact that a renewable energy generation will essentially be free once its debt has been retired. Consequently, renewable energy generation is vulnerable to the short-term market price choice of a gas-fired combustion turbine despite its high fuel cost and short life. Developers of inexpensive thermal plants can survive in a purely short-term market environment because: · thermal plants typically recover their operating cost since a major portion of their cost is fuel related, and since short-term markets tend to track fuel prices; · the lower debt load on their projects leaves them with a far lower financial exposure to a prolonged slump in market prices; new fossil plants with low per kilowatt capital costs are likely to recover those costs before fuel prices rise to a level that affects their viability; and · the very short construction lead times of thermal plants provides timing flexibility, permitting them to take advantage of market trends - however,

this timing flexibility is also an attribute of some types of renewable resource facilities, such as wind and solar facilities. Renewable energy generation will essentially be free once its debt has been retired. In a short-term market system, a major barrier to the acquisition of new renewable resource generation is the lack of buyer (utilities, distribution companies, etc.) motivation. Short-term electricity prices are based on electricity generated by existing plants, the capital costs of which are already absorbed. The initial electricity prices offered by new plants coming on line will invariably exceed the current short-term price for electricity. It is therefore difficult to envision how a short-term market system will enable new generating capacity unless the wholesale buyers in the system project electricity prices for completing generation over a term of years, and contract for energy for that long-term period. Electricity from new renewable generation facilities will frequently be higher than any current short-term market price, but will be competitive (cost-effective) if long-term contracts are considered. To date, lenders have not been willing to provide debt capital for renewable energy merchant plant projects dependent on short-term markets in countries whose newly established markets have yet to achieve a solid track record. Since lenders require that renewable projects demonstrate steady, predictable cash flows to meet debt-service requirements over a long-term period, the significant price risk created by unpredictable, fluctuating short-term prices effectively preclude financing under present market conditions.

Government is inherently inefficientAllan Brownfield JUNE 01, 1977 http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/the-inherent-inefficiency-of-government-bureaucracy

There are few who will disagree with the fact that , in recent years, the governmental bureaucracy has grown dramatically while its effi ciency has deteriorated in an equal ly dramatic manner.

Privatization Good

Privatization of water has saved livesCato 8/25 (Fredrik Segerfeldt, 8/25/2005, “Private Water Saves Lives”, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/private-water-saves-lives, HS)

Worldwide, 1.1 billion people, mainly in poor countries, do not have access to clean, safe water. The shortage of water helps to perpetuate poverty, disease and early death. However, there is no shortage of water, at least not globally. We use a mere 8 per cent of the water available for human consumption. Instead, bad policies are the main problem . Even Cherrapunji, India, the wettest place on earth, suffers from recurrent water shortages. Ninety-seven per cent of all water distribution in poor countries is managed by the public sector, which is largely responsible for more than a billion people being without water. Some governments of impoverished nations have turned to business for help, usually with good results. In poor countries with private investments in the water sector, more people have access to water than in those without such investments. Moreover, there are many examples of local businesses improving water distribution. Superior competence, better incentives and better access to capital for investment have allowed private distributors to enhance both the quality of the water and the scope of its distribution. Millions of people who lacked water mains within reach are now getting clean and safe water delivered within a convenient distance. The privatization of water distribution has stirred up strong feelings and met with resistance. There have been violent protests and demonstrations against water privatization all over the world. Western anti-business non-governmental organizations and public employee unions, sometimes together with local protesters, have formed anti-privatization coalitions. However, the movement’s criticisms are off base. The main argument of the anti-privatization movement is that privatization increases prices, making water unaffordable for millions of poor people . In some cases, it is true that prices have gone up after privatization; in others not. But the price of water for those already connected to a mains network should not be the immediate concern. Instead, we should focus on those who lack access to mains water, usually the poorest in poor countries . It is primarily those people who die, suffer from disease and are trapped in poverty. They usually purchase their lower-quality water from small-time vendors, paying on average 12 times more than for water from regular mains, and often more than that. When the price of water for those already connected goes up, the distributor gets both the resources to enlarge the network and the incentives to reach as many new customers as possible.

Privatization good.Higher Council for Privatization- (“About Privatization/Benefits,” http://www.hcp.gov.lb/pages.asp?pageid=2&subid=10) SLD

Ever since the 1970s, many industrialized countries have acknowledged the benefits of privatizing some of their state-owned enterprises in an effort to improves their quality of service and reduces the cost on consumers. The trend towards privatization has since spread to the four corners of the world, with more and more Governments choosing to resort to this option after it has proven its merits. From Egypt to Jordan, Kuwait and The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, many of the regions nations have adopted privatization as a viable and cost efficient solution to many of their problems.¶ The benefits of privatization are numerous, be it for the public at large, consumers or the local economy.¶ Privatization will create new jobs as companies expand their operations and seek to gain market share in a competitive environment. These jobs will hopefully encourage young Lebanese to stay in the country and not emigrate. Privatization will also secure better salaries as private companies usually operate in better financial conditions than public ones and can offer their employees higher salaries and incentives. Additionally, because of far fewer bureaucratic obstacles, private companies can provide their employees with more opportunities for advancement and growth, as well as better training and skills enhancement. Privatization will ensure consistent quality services and products as in a monopoly-free environment, companies will need to innovate and invest in modern equipments so as to differentiate their service offering from that of their competitors, leading to all round better services and products that are consistent and continuous. That should, for example, lead to the introduction of the latest technologies in telecom, such as G3, and 24/7 supply of electricity to all Lebanese areas. Privatization will increase productivity levels and encourage innovation since it is well documented that private companies are generally more productive and efficient as they tend to have the financial and human resources, as well as the organizational flexibility, needed to operate at an optimum level. Public organizations, meanwhile, tend to score low on productivity as they often operate in monopolistic environments, lacking the financial incentives to innovate and be more productive. Privatization will help reduce the bureaucracy and red tape that has historically plagued public entities to the detriment of consumers. Private companies are required to operate with minimal bureaucracy to survive and thrive in an ever-competitive market. Privatization, combined with the establishment of independent regulatory authorities for privatized sectors (whose responsibilities include the fostering of competition), will ultimately lead to the abolishment of monopolies, be it in telecom or the production and distribution of electricity. The entry of different operators to the market will then increase competition and lead to a reduction in prices for the consumers. ¶ Privatization will put an end to the financial drains of state-owned enterprises that have put a strain on the public treasury. As an example, the state has had to subsidize EDL for up to a billion dollars a year; an amount that could have been spent on education, health care, security or other sectors in need of financing. Privatized entities will have to pay corporate income tax to the Government, hence contributing to its revenues in greater measure as their businesses improve. Privatization will help significantly trim the public debt as, by law, all proceeds from privatization must be used to extinguish the public debt. ¶ Privatization can put an end to political favoritism in employment and in the provision of public services. Privatization will allow the private sector to play a larger role in the privatized sectors as entrepreneurs establish supply, distribution and other ancillary businesses around the privatized entities. By privatizing major public entities, and opening up the market for investment by foreign companies, the Government can attract foreign capital; an important ingredient for job

creation and economic development. The launch of IPOs as part of the privatization processes will undoubtedly increase the volume of trading on the Beirut Stock Exchange and further develop Lebanon's local capital markets. A major component of a market economy is the reduced role of the state in the economy, with a greater contribution by the private sector, which in turn fosters economic flexibility and eliminates rigidity resulting from public sector bureaucracy. Privatization will translate into a favorable climate for investments, characterized by a liberal open market economy and reduced bureaucracy and red tape, thus repositioning Lebanon as a business hub.

Net Benefit – Coercion

1NCThe affirmative uses other people’s money to fund public expenditures – it amounts to stealing.Machan, Tibor R., 2004, Professor Emeritus Department of Philosophy @ Auburn University, Research Fellow at Hoover Institution Stanford University, Putting Humans First pg.Thinkers of all stripes tend to understand the problem with unlimited usage of land or water held "in common." What has not been as widely understood is that a tragedy of the commons exists as well in our national treasury. Recognizing the applicability of the analysis to public finance will help us understand the universal applicability of some features of economic analysis. That might incline us to look on the tragedy of the commons as more significant than has been hitherto thought for purposes of gleaning some insights about the nature of justice itself If, furthermore, we consider the significance of the principle that "ought implies can" for a theory of justice, it could turn out that some

extant theories, such as egalitarianism, will have to be seriously rethought and ultimately shelved. In the public treasury, we have what by law amounts to a common pool of resources from which members of the politi cal community may try to extract as much as will serve their purposes, with little thought to the aggregate negative eco nomic consequences. These include red ink, high taxes, or loss of productivity nationwide—consequences that any particular group's self grabbing can only minutely affect. Whether for ar tistic, educational, scientific, agricultural, athletic, medical, or general moral and social progress, the treasury is regarded as a common pool that all citizens in a democratic society may dip into. And, of course, nearly everyone has very sound reasons for dipping into it—their goals are usually well enough thought out that they have confidence in their plans. They know that if they receive support from the treasury, they can further these goals. So they graze this commons as much as their political power will enable them to. Any commons is going to be exploited by individual agents without regard to standards or limits—which explains, at least in part, why the treasuries of most Western democracies are being slowly depleted, deficits are growing without any sign of restraint, and such political limits as do persist tend to gradually wither away. Japan, Germany, Great Britain, and, of course, the United States are all experiencing this common looting of the treasury, as are numerous other societies that make public funds available for private purposes. For how else can we construe education, scientific research, the building of athletic parks, the upkeep of beaches, forests, and so forth ex cept as the funding of special private goals by means of a com mon treasury?

This allows individuals to be treated as a means to an end – holding individuals responsible for public goods amounts to the death of liberty.Machan, Tibor R., 1995, Professor Emeritus Department of Philosophy @ Auburn University, Research Fellow at Hoover Institution Stanford University, Private Rights, Public Illusions

If the proper political goal is the equal progress of all individuals, then obviously the proper function of laws is to achieve this goal. Clearly, bringing about full equality among citizens will require the widespread enforcement of economic and related changes required to eradicate the natural and inevitable difference among individuals. The totalitarian and dictatorial consequences are easy to infer . Voluntary

cooperation and generosity are certainly encouraged by those who oppose governmental welfarism. Within the welfarist system, however, these benevolent qualities are not regarded as enough. Individuals are not trusted to live peacefully and to be responsible for reaching their full potential. The entire concern with equality of welfare, even in the framework of “upgrading the poor” and “upholding society’s moral fiber,” is inconsistent with the ideal that each person must make his or her own way in life. This trend towards economic and spiritual equalization is so strong that when institutions do not meet the established norm, the government forces progress by utilizing its retaliatory powers for redistributive and paternalistic purposes . This can be seen in the use of, for example, forced busing to meet integration standards. The government can also indirectly force institutions to meet various standards by making financial assistance conditional on certain requirements. Such requirements treat members of society as tools for other people’s programs. This personal responsibility for others’ goals and well-being , which underlies political support for many desirable programs, also fuels - by making them conceptually and legally acceptable in the sphere of social engineering - the techniques of behavior modification and, at the extreme end, involuntary psychosurgery. All governmental action that does not serve to repel or retaliate against coercion is antithetical to any respect for human dignity . While it is true that some people should give to others to assist them in reaching their goals, forcing individuals to do so plainly robs them of their dignity. There is nothing morally worthwhile in forced giving. Generally, for a society to respect human dignity, the special moral relations between people should be left undisturbed. Government should confine itself to making sure that this voluntarism is not abridged, no matter how tempting it might be to use its coercive powers to attain some worthy goal.

That makes life worthless.Raz, Joseph, Phd Philosophy, THE MORALITY OF FREEDOM, 1991, p. 359.

One way to test the thesis of the primacy of action reasons is to think of a person who is entirely passive, and is continuously fed, cleaned, and pumped full with hash, so that he is perpetually content , and wants nothing but to stay in the same condition. It's familiar imaginary horror. How do we rank the success of such a life? It is not the worst life one can have. It is simply no a life at all . It lacks activity, it lacks goals. To the extent that one is tempted to judge it more harshly than that and to regard it as 'negative' life this is because of the wasted potentiality. It is a life which could have been and was not. We can isolate this feature by imagining that the human being concerned is mentally and physically affected in a way which rules out the possibility of a life with any kind of meaningful pursuit in it. Now it is just not really a life at all. This does not preclude one from say that it is better than human life. It is simply sufficiently unlike human life in the respects which matter that we regard it as only a degenerate case of human life. But clearly not being alive can be better than that life.

2NC OverviewVote negative – the affirmative redistributes wealth gained through private effort for public good – this treats people as a means to an end, denying individual agency and freedom of choice – that’s Machan.

The impact is no value to life – a world in which people are not allowed to make their own choices concerning the fruit of their labor makes everyone dependent on the government, nullifying agency and making life not worth living.

Side constraint – gotta reject every instance.Sylvester Petro, professor of law at Wake Forest, Spring 1974, Toledo Law Review, p. 480

However, one may still insist on echoing Ernest Hemingway – “I believe in only one thing: liberty.” And it is always well to bear in mind David Hume’s observation: “ It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once .” Thus, it is unacceptable to say that the invasion of one aspect of freedom is of no import because there have been invasions of so many other aspects . That road leads to chaos, tyranny, despotism, and the end of all human aspiration. Ask Solzhenstyn, Ask Milovan Djilas. In sum, if one believes in freedom as a supreme value and proper ordering principle for any society aiming to maximize spiritual and material welfare, then every invasion of freedom must be emphatically identified and resisted with undying spirit.

Turns case – property rights prerequisite to the right to life.Uyl, Douglas J. Den, AND Rasmussen, Douglas B., Professors of Philosophy, 1984, The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand

The Right to life is the source of all rights – and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product is a slave.

Tie-breaker – rights before life.Machan, Tibor R., 2003, Professor Emeritus Department of Philosophy @ Auburn University, Research Fellow at Hoover Institution Stanford University, Passion for Liberty pg.

Some have wanted to dispense with the idea of rights altogether, especially in the wake of so much corrupt discussion of rights, or rights talk, in our political and legal arena. Professor Heather Gert, among others, has argued for this on the grounds that each case of rights violation can, supposedly, be reduced to a matter of injuring or harming someone, So rights talk is su-perfluous.26Yet dispensing with rights is not as easy as one might think. Violating rights is not the same as injuring or harming some one in a narrower sense. I may violate someone's rights by de priving her of the chance to make a bad choice, thus not hurt ing but in some sense helping her. I would (paternalistically perhaps) impose on her something that she ought to be free to decide whether to accept or not, but doing this may not injure or harm her in any immediate manner at all. To take a choice away from a person does not always result in harming her, yet it is the major ingredient of violating her rights. What it hampers and violates is the very capacity that is at the root of what makes a good human life possible. Thus, if as an act of good Samaritanism, I pre vent a person from injecting heroin, I may have benefited her (perhaps only temporarily), but I have, nevertheless, violated her rights. 27 Furthermore, rights are not the kind of moral concept that arises primarily in the context of personal ethics or morality or even of small-scale social morality. Rights are general organiz ing norms— meta- norms, as Rasmussen and Den Uyl characterize them28—for a just community They belong in a constitu tion. They serve to establish "borders" around persons to secure for them a sphere of personal jurisdiction or authority, of sov ereignty. From within those borders they are able to make good judgments about how to live, including whom to invite in and whom to join on the outside.

Guaranteed risk of our impacts means you vote neg on probability.Machan, Tibor R., 2003, Professor Emeritus Department of Philosophy @ Auburn University, Research Fellow at Hoover Institution Stanford University, Passion for Liberty pg.

All in all, then, I support the principled or rights-based approach. In normal contexts, honesty is the best policy, even if at times it does not achieve the desired good results; so is respect for every individual's rights to life, liberty, and property. All in all, this is what will ensure the best consequences—in the long run and as a rule. Therefore, one need not be very concerned about the most recent estimate of the consequences of banning or not banning guns, breaking up or not breaking up Microsoft, or any other public policy, for that matter. It is enough to know that violating the rights of individuals to bear arms is a bad idea, and that history and analysis support our understanding of principle. To violate rights has always produced greater damage than good, so let's not do it, even when we are terri bly tempted to do so, Let's not do it precisely because to do so would violate the fundamental requirements of human na ture . It is those requirements that should be our guide, not some recent empirical data that have no staying

power (according to their very own theoretical terms). Finally, you will ask, isn't this being dogmatic? Haven't we learned not to bank too much on what we've learned so far, when we also know that learning can always be improved, modified, even revised? Isn't progress in the sciences and technology proof that past knowledge always gets overthrown a bit later? As in science and engineering, so in morality and politics: We must go with what we know but be open to change— provided that the change is warranted. Simply because some additional gun controls or regulations might save lives (some lives, perhaps at the expense of other lives) and simply because breaking up Microsoft might improve the satisfaction of con - sumers (some consumers, perhaps at the expense of the satis faction of other consumers) are no reasons to violate basic rights. Only if and when there are solid, demonstrable reasons to do so should we throw out the old principles and bring on the new principles. Any such reasons would have to speak to the same level of fundamentally and relevance as that incor porated by the theory of individual rights itself. Those defending consequentialism, like Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, have argued the opposite thesis: Unless one can prove, beyond a doubt, that violating rights in a particular instance is necessarily wrong in the eyes of a "rational and fair man," the state may go ahead and "accept the natural outcome of dominant opinion" and violate those rights.1 Such is now the leading jurisprudence of the United States, a country that inaugurated its political life by declaring to the world that each of us possesses unalienable rights, ones that may never be violated no matter what!

2NC – A2: Util/Extinction OutweighsWe access most probable internal link to extinction.Rand 1963(Ayn, The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism, Page 145)

A society that robs an individual of the product of his effort or enslaves him, or attempts to limit the freedom of his mind, or compels him to act against his own rational judgement—a society that sets up a conflict between its edicts and the requirements of man’s nature—is not, strictly speaking, a society, but a mob held together by institutionalized gang-rule. Such a society destroys all the values of human coexistence, has no possible justification and represents, not a source of benefits, but the deadliest threat to man’s survival. Life on a desert island is safer than and incomparably preferable to existence in Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany.

Risking extinction to protect rights is justified – we shouldn’t protect future generations if they have no liberty.Henry Shue, Professor of Ethics and Public Life, Princeton University, 1989, <Nuclear Deterrence and Moral Restraint, p. 64-5>

The issue raises interesting problems about obligations among generations. What obligations do we owe to future generations whose very existence will be affected by our risks? A

crude utilitarian calculation would suggest that since the pleasures of future generations may last infinitely (or until the sun burns out), no risk that we take to assure certain values for our generation can compare with almost infinite value in the future. Thus we have no right to take such risks. In effect, such an approach would establish a dictatorship of future generations over the present one. The only permissible role for our generation would be biological procreation. If we care about other values in addition to survival, this crude utilitarian approach produces intolerable consequences for the current generation. Moreover, utility is too crude a concept to support such a calculation. We have little idea of what utility will mean to generations very distant from ours. We think we know something about our children, and perhaps our grandchildren, but what will people value 8,000 years from now? If we do not know, then there is the ironic prospect that something we deny ourselves now for the sake of a future generation may be of little value to them. A more defensible approach to the issue of justice among generations is the principle of

equal access. Each generation should have roughly equal access to important values. We must admit that we shall not be certain of the detailed prefer ences of increasingly distant generations, but we can assume that they will wish equal chances of survival. On the other hand, there is no reason to assume that they would want survival as a sole value any more than the current generation does. On the contrary, if they would wish equal access to other values that give meaning to life, we could infer that they might wish us to take some risks of species extinction in order to provide them equal access to those values. If we have benefited from "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," why should we as sume that the next generation would want only life?

Their claims justify atrocity – rights come first.Callahan, Fellow at the Institute of Society and Ethics, 1973 (Daniel, The Tyranny of Survival, Pages 91-93)

There seems to be no imaginable evil which some group is not willing to inflict on another for the sake of survival, no rights, liberties or dignities which it is not ready to suppress. It is easy, of course, to recognize the danger when survival is falsely and manipulatively invoked. Dictators never talk about their aggressions, but only about the need to defend the fatherland, to save it from destruction at the hands of its enemies. But my point goes deeper than that. It is directed even at legitimate concern for survival, when that concern is allowed to reach an intensity which would

ignore, suppress or destroy other fundamental human rights and values. The potential tyranny of survival as a value is that it is capable, if not treated sanely, of wiping out all other values. Survival can become an obsession and a disease, provoking a destructive singlemindedness that will stop at nothing. We come here to the fundamental moral dilemma. If, both biologically and psychologically, the need for survival is basic to man, and if survival is the precondition for any and all human achievements, and if no other rights make much sense without the premise of a right to life - then how will it be possible to honor and act upon the need for survival without, in the process, destroying everything in human beings which makes them worthy of survival. To put it more strongly, if the price of survival is human degradation, then there is no moral reason why an effort should be make to ensure that survival. It would be the Pyrrhic victory to end all Pyrrhic victories.

Extinction of humanity is inevitable and unavoidable – we should focus on optimizing the time we have by protecting property rights.Espey, Distinguished Professor of Life Sciences Trinity, 00 This evidence has been gender paraphrased<Lawrence L. 8/26, ON THE DESTINY OF CIVILIZED CULTURES, www.trinity.edu/lespey/culture/118essay.html>

An understanding of evolutionary processes reveals that all civilizations (and eventually all forms of life) on Earth are destined to extinction. In view of the evidence that "man's central position of control in nature's scheme is deteriorating badly, and that in the expanding cosmology, man is already being bypassed" (267), it appears there has indeed been an exaggeration of the dominion of Homo sapiens. In fact, five billion years from now, as the "red giant" of our solar system casts its final glare upon the planet that it generously vitalized during its course of evolution in the vast Universe, there will not be a single intelligent earthling to proclaim to the heavens that the brief moment of human existence was any more or any less significant than the duration of any other organism that inhabited the Earth. Under the solemn disillusionment of this destiny, it becomes imperative to find some objective that will produce an incentive to endure the struggle ahead. But what is there to work toward? What is there to value? Goring (276) believes that, "lacking the power to alter his fate, (hu)man's noblest attitude must be one of dignity, comprehension, and defiance." And possibly he is right. Perhaps this is the goal that all of mankind should take into consideration. It is an attitude that is somewhat analogous to a sentiment once composed by Pascal (277): "(Hu)man(ity) is but a reed, the weakest in nature, but he is a thinking reed. It is not necessary that the entire universe arm itself to crush him. A breath of air, a drop of water, suffices to kill him. But were the

universe to crush him, (hu)man(ity) would still be more noble than that which kills him, because he knows that he dies; and the universe knows nothing of the advantage it has over him. Our whole dignity consists, then, in thought. Our elevation must be derived from this, not from space and duration, which we cannot fill. Let us endeavor, then to think well: this is the principle of ethics." Thus, Pascal has implied that (hu)man(ity) could find dignity within an endeavor to formulate an ethic that is more appropriate to the present circumstances. This idea seems credible, for after all, "the greatest value has at all times been placed upon systems of ethics" (278). (Ironically, if (hu)man(ity) does have the brain capacity to think more wisely, then the rudiment of his extinction might also become the source of his dignity.)

2NC – A2: You Allow Environmental DestructionOur worldview solves the environment best.Machan, Tibor R., 2004, Professor Emeritus Department of Philosophy @ Auburn University, Research Fellow at Hoover Institution Stanford University, Putting Humans First pg.

Whatever they may concede about the virtues of the market, Heilbroner and the rest nonetheless fail to consistently recognize that individual property owners have a direct and immedi ate interest in the fate of their own property—a self-interested motivation that leads them to maintain and sustain that prop erty. Environmentalists often dislike the very idea of what they regard as environmental treasures being controlled by private hands. After all, the right of ownership means that the owner of a particular chunk of environment is free to alter it in ways that the environmentalist might not like. But, in the first place, there is nothing privileged about the environmentalist's values and preferences with respect to the environment as opposed to the values and preferences of those who would drill for oil or build a shopping mall or buy the oil or shop at the mall. And there is also no reason why environ mentalists can't procure parts of the environment on a free market much as any business group could do. After all, as pri vate property owners of treasured lands or waters, environmen talists are free to run their own property according to their own principles of environmental preservation without fear of bu reaucratic bungling or pressure-group politics.We talk too much about "our" water, land, mountains, or animals—for it is precisely when an environmental area is held "in common" that no one but a select group of power holders (and those who successfully lobby them) can exercise any power at all over that area. "Common" ownership is no own - ership at all. You cannot give any of the "commonly held" land to your friends or children. Nor can you sell it to fund some medical treatment you may need or education you may wish to provide to your children. Nor can you even simply traverse the lands and waters and mountains, either, let alone hobnob with the animals at your heart's content. Common ownership, so called, generates overuse and confusion—the famous "tragedy of the commons." In practice, the destructive incentives inherent in a commons are combated by turning control over to a few. In democratic societies, this few gains control by persuading the majority of voters to give them power to put the commons to use as they see fit. In dicta torships, not even that kind of support is needed, although in both systems the power tends to fluctuate with the winds of opinion—either among the many or among the elite.

Any reason individuals can’t help the environment apply equally to the government.Machan, Tibor R., 2004, Professor Emeritus Department of Philosophy @ Auburn University, Research Fellow at Hoover Institution Stanford University, Putting Humans First pg.My first response is that there is no justification for greater distrust of "the market" than of the scientific bureaucracy that would be charged with doing the monitoring, regulating, and containing that Heilbroner and so many other champions of regimentation plump for. Such sweeping distrust of voluntary processes tends to arise from comparing the market system to some ideal and static construct developed in the mind of a theorist—not to real alternatives. Since human community life is dynamic, the best way to improve it is by the establishment of

certain basic principles of law, or a constitution, that will keep the dynamics of the community within certain bounds.9 But if human agents in the marketplace, guided by the rule of law based on their natural individual rights to life, liberty, and property, are by nature in capable of meeting the ecological challenges Heilbroner and many others in the environmentalist movement have in mind, one wonders how these challenges could be better met by some "new" brand of statism. After all, why should we expect ecologically minded bu reaucrats to be somehow better motivated, more competent, Let us for the sake of argument understand Heilbroner not to be advocating full-fledged collectivism but rather a compromise between an individualist-capitalist system and a collectivist system—that is, the welfare state. After all, he stipulates that the ecologically prudent socioeconomic system he envisions would be substantially individualist insofar as the institution of private property would not be entirely abolished in such a system. On the other hand, it is a system that would be "moni-tored, regulated, and contained to such a degree that it would be difficult to call the final social order capitalism." That sound you hear is a sigh of exasperation. Do we really need once again to abandon the individualist alternative for some increasingly regimented social order? Let us consider why an individual rights approach will more likely resolve environmental problems and, thus, be more conducive to the

common good—as understood within a framework that acknowledges the ontological priority of human individuals over their various groupings—than alternatives that propose to chronically violate individual rights. While this may seem question begging—by denying at the outset any meaningful non-individualist sense of the common good—it will turn out not to be once the individualist environ-mentalism that

emerges comes to full light. (Indeed, how could a systemic intervention be for the common good if various members of the community are habitually harmed by it?)

Harm would be limited to one’s own property.Machan, Tibor R., 2004, Professor Emeritus Department of Philosophy @ Auburn University, Research Fellow at Hoover Institution Stanford University, Putting Humans First pg.

The natural rights tradition holds that such harmony is best secured by granting every individual a sphere of personal jurisdiction. Within this ju - risdiction each person is empowered—and, yes, not being co erced by others is indeed empowerment for nearly all of us—to accomplish individual goals to the best possible extent. Properly protected personal jurisdictions limit the potential for social mischief. For by prohibiting persons from intruding on others or violating the rights of others, what the evil persons do is more likely to hurt only themselves (and voluntary associates like business partners and spouses). A polity of well-enforced rights thus systematically discourages wrongdoing—including gratuitous despoliation or damage of the environment—which, in turn, confers overall benefit to the community.

Individual rights solve best.Machan, Tibor R., 2004, Professor Emeritus Department of Philosophy @ Auburn University, Research Fellow at Hoover Institution Stanford University, Putting Humans First pg.

A sound environmentalism—one that puts humans first—would not countenance coercively enforced privilege for a particular clique of humans. Instead, it would acknowledge the essentially individual, self-responsible nature, and equal rights of all human beings. It would recognize that each mem ber of a human community is sovereign and that no one may exercise rule over another without that other's consent. In practice, public policy based on such principles would allow land to be bought and sold freely, without anyone being au thorized to wield the power of use and disposal over land that they have merely appropriated rather than obtained fair and square in the marketplace. It would be an environmentalism based on the principles of justice, property rights, due process, and freedom.

2NC – A2: Coercion is Racist No Impact – you can be racist under our framework but you cannot infringe on someone else’s negative rights because you are racist because that would be coercive and always rejected. There is a difference between mental and physical coercion.

Yes, it is morally legitimate to be a racist, but not to act out on that racism. We may not agree with racism but freedom of though exists in our society, if it didn’t, then we’d all be passive subjects in a coercive society.Forcing racists to be nice doesn’t change them, only persuasion is moral in trying to stop racism forced giving has no worth, that’s the overview

2NC – A2: Objectivism Bad Your arguments do not apply – our argument is not a call to end all altruism, it is a call to be able to give to others only if you want to. Altruism is completely acceptable under our value system only if it is not forced altruism. This is consistent with everything that we have said throughout this round.

2NC – A2: Justifies Slavery We solve best – protecting individual rights means you can’t violate anyone else’s freedom.Yates, Stephen, Professor of Philosophy at South Carolina, 1995, Liberty for the 21 st Century eds. Machan and RasmussenToday’s arguments for large-scale affirmative action reparations for blacks because of historical victimization (slavery, segregation) therefore fail. No one alive today was a slave or even born to a slave. Indeed, when slavery was practiced only a small percentage of whites owned slaves. Yet with all that said, one may reply that some blacks were harmed greatly by laws and practices aimed at them by some whites; the same can be said for women and other minority groups (American Indians come to mind). Racism, though fading in the face of near-universal disapproval, still exists; some whites would still use the legal system to lock blacks out of markets if they could. Thus arises

the need for civil liberties agenda of some sort. Libertarianism has the most powerful starting point available for an appropriate civil rights agenda that offers protection to everyone: the concept of self-ownership, coupled with the denial that anyone owns the life or fruits of the labors of others. This constitutes the most forceful objection to slavery possible. According to libertarian principles, the sole purpose of government is to protect individuals’ rights to life, liberty, and justly acquired property. Slavery presupposes that some individuals may own other individuals as property and dispose of their lives as they see fit. This clearly violates the latter’s rights to life and liberty, at the very least! Doing away with slavery was in fact a libertarian move, if a mostly unconscious one.

Coercion allowed for slavery.Machan, Tibor R., 1995, Professor Emeritus Department of Philosophy @ Auburn University, Research Fellow at Hoover Institution Stanford University, Private Rights, Public Illusions

With all this said, we can accept some portion of the popular idea that the United States enjoyed laissez-faire capitalism for several decades of its early history, especially when we compare it to other societies. Free enterprise is not just Fourth of July rhetoric but a prominent feature of the 1800s, and it still plays a considerable role in U.S. life. While several states have always practiced government intervention, most did so less in the early days of the Republic than either before its birth or in more recent decades – except, of course, with regard to the lives of black slaves and Native Americans, whose property rights were almost completely ignored with full legal sanction in various regions of the United States.

2NC ExtensionsGovernment Taxation is Coercion. This Violates human rights and freedom, which are prerequisites to a free AmericaRand 1963 (Ayn Rand, American novelist, philosopher, playwright, and screenwriter, “POV: Man’s Rights; The Nature of Government”,1963, http://ari.aynrand.org/issues/government-and-business/individual-rights)

If one wishes to advocate a free society — that is, capitalism — one must realize that its indispensable foundation is the principle of individual rights. If one wishes to uphold individual rights, one must realize that capitalism is the only system that can uphold and protect them. And if one wishes to gauge the relationship of freedom to the goals of today’s intellectuals, one may gauge it by the fact that the concept of individual rights is evaded,

distorted, perverted and seldom discussed, most conspicuously seldom by the so-called “conservatives.”¶ “Rights” are a moral concept — the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual’s actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others — the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context — the link between

the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.¶ Every political system is based on some code of ethics. The dominant ethics of mankind’s history were variants of the altruist-collectivist doctrine which subordinated the individual to some higher authority, either mystical or social. Consequently, most political systems were variants of the same statist tyranny, differing only in degree, not in basic principle, limited only by the accidents of tradition, of chaos, of bloody strife and periodic collapse. Under all such systems, morality was a code applicable to the individual, but not to society. Society was placed outside the moral law, as its embodiment or source or exclusive interpreter — and the inculcation of self-sacrificial devotion to social duty was regarded as the main purpose of ethics in man’s earthly existence.¶ Since there is no such entity as “society,” since society is only a number of individual men, this meant, in practice, that the rulers of society were exempt from moral law; subject only to traditional rituals, they held total power and exacted blind obedience — on the implicit principle of: “The good is that which is good for society (or for the tribe, the race, the nation), and the ruler’s edicts are its voice on earth.”¶ This was true of all statist systems, under all variants of the altruist-collectivist ethics, mystical or social. “The Divine Right of Kings” summarizes the political theory of the first — ”Vox populi, vox dei” of the second. As witness: the theocracy of Egypt, with the Pharaoh as an embodied god — the unlimited majority rule or democracy of Athens — the welfare state run by the Emperors of Rome — the Inquisition of the late Middle Ages — the absolute monarchy of France — the welfare state of Bismarck’s Prussia — the gas chambers of Nazi Germany — the slaughterhouse of the Soviet Union.¶ All these political systems were expressions of the altruist-collectivist ethics — and their common characteristic is

the fact that society stood above the moral law, as an omnipotent, sovereign whim worshiper. Thus, politically, all these systems were variants of an amoral society.¶ The most profoundly revolutionary achievement of the United States of America was the subordination of society to moral law . ¶ The principle of man’s individual rights represented the extension of morality into the social system — as a limitation on the power of the state, as man’s protection against the brute force of the collective, as the subordination of might to right. The United States was the first moral society in history .¶ All previous systems had regarded man as a sacrificial means to the ends of others, and society as an end in

itself. The United States regarded man as an end in himself, and society as a means to the peaceful, orderly, voluntary coexistence of individuals . All previous systems had held that man’s life belongs to society, that society can dispose of him in any way it pleases, and that any freedom he enjoys is his only by favor, by the permission of society , which may be revoked at any time.

The United States held that man’s life is his by right (which means: by moral principle and by his nature), that a right is the property of an individual, that society as such has no rights, and that the only moral purpose of a government is the protection of individual rights .¶ A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action — which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)¶ The

concept of a “right” pertains only to action — specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.¶ Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive — of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals,

by his own voluntary , uncoerced choice . As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from

violating his rights.¶ The right to life is the source of all rights — and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible . Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who

produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.¶ Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values.¶ The concept of individual rights is so new in human history that most men have not grasped it fully to this day. In accordance with the two theories of ethics, the mystical or the social, some men assert that rights are a gift of God — others, that rights are a gift of society. But, in fact, the source of rights is man’s nature.¶ The Declaration of Independence stated that men “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” Whether one believes that man is the product of a Creator or of nature, the issue of man’s origin does not alter the fact that he is an entity of a specific kind — a rational being — that he cannot function successfully under coercion, and that rights are a necessary condition of his particular mode of survival.¶ “The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A — and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper

survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right for him to work for his

values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational.” (Atlas

Shrugged)¶ To violate man’s rights means to compel him to act against his own judgment, or to expropriate his values. Basically, there is only one way to do it: by the use of physical force. There are two potential violators of man’s rights: the criminals and the government. The great achievement of the United States was to draw a distinction between these two — by forbidding to the second the legalized version of the activities of the first.¶ The Declaration of Independence laid down the principle that “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.” This provided the only valid justification of a government and defined its only proper purpose: to protect man’s rights by protecting him from physical violence.¶ Thus the government’s function was changed from the role of ruler to the role of servant. The government was set to protect man from criminals — and the Constitution was written to protect man from the government. The Bill of Rights was not directed against private citizens, but against the government — as an explicit declaration that individual rights supersede any public or social power.¶ The result was the pattern of

a civilized society which — for the brief span of some hundred and fifty years — America came close to achieving. A civilized society is one in which physical force is banned from human relationships — in which the government, acting as a policeman, may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use.¶ This was the essential meaning and intent of America’s political philosophy, implicit in the principle of individual rights. But it was not formulated explicitly, nor fully accepted nor consistently practiced.¶ America’s inner contradiction was the altruist-collectivist ethics. Altruism is incompatible with freedom, with capitalism and with individual rights. One cannot combine the pursuit of happiness with the moral status of a sacrificial animal.¶ It was the concept of individual rights that had given birth to a free society. It was with the destruction of individual rights that the destruction of freedom had to begin.¶ A collectivist tyranny dare not enslave a country by an outright confiscation of its values, material or moral. It has to be done by a process of internal corruption. Just as in the material realm the plundering of a country’s wealth is accomplished by inflating the currency — so today one may witness the process of inflation being applied to the realm of rights. The process entails such a growth of newly promulgated “rights” that people do not notice the fact that the meaning of the concept is being reversed. Just as bad money drives out good money, so these “printing-press rights” negate authentic rights.¶ Consider the curious fact that never has there been such a proliferation, all over the world, of two contradictory phenomena: of alleged new “rights” and of slave-labor camps.¶ The “gimmick” was the switch of the concept of rights from the political to the economic realm.¶ The Democratic Party platform of 1960 summarizes the switch boldly and explicitly. It declares that a Democratic Administration “will reaffirm the economic bill of rights which Franklin Roosevelt wrote into our national conscience sixteen years ago.”¶ Bear clearly in mind the meaning of the concept of “rights” when you read the list which the platform offers:¶ “1. The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation.¶ “2. The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.¶ “3. The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.¶ “4. The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home and abroad.¶ “5. The right of every family to a decent home.¶ “6. The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.¶ “7. The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accidents and unemployment.¶ “8. The right to a good education.”¶ A single question added to each of the above eight clauses would make the issue clear: At whose expense?¶ Jobs, food, clothing, recreation(!), homes, medical care, education, etc., do not grow in nature. These are man-made values — goods and services produced by men. Who is to provide them?¶ If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor.¶ Any alleged “right” of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right.¶ No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as “the right to enslave.”¶ A right does not include the material implementation of that right by other men; it includes only the freedom to earn that implementation by one’s own effort.¶ Observe, in this context, the intellectual precision of the Founding Fathers: they spoke of the right to the pursuit of happiness — not of the right to happiness. It means that a man has the right to take the actions he deems necessary to achieve his happiness; it does not mean that others must make him happy.¶ The right to life means that a man has the right to support his life by his own work (on any economic level, as high as his ability will carry him); it does not mean that others must provide him with the necessities of life.¶ The right to property means that a man has the right to take the economic actions necessary to earn property, to use it and to dispose of it; it does not mean that others must provide him with property.¶ The right of free speech means that a man has the right to express his ideas without danger of suppression, interference or punitive action by the government. It does not mean that others must provide him with a lecture hall, a radio station or a printing press through which to express his ideas.¶ Any undertaking that involves more than one man, requires the voluntary consent of every participant. Every one of them has the right to make his own decision, but none has the right to force his decision on the others.¶ There is no such thing as “a right to a job” — there is only the right of free trade, that is: a man’s right to take a job if another man chooses to hire him. There is no “right to a home,” only the right of free trade: the right to build a home or to buy it. There are no “rights to a ‘fair’ wage or a ‘fair’ price” if no one chooses to pay it, to hire a man or to buy his product. There are no “rights of consumers” to milk, shoes, movies or champagne if no producers choose to manufacture such items (there is only the right to manufacture them oneself). There are no “rights” of special groups, there are no “rights of farmers, of workers, of businessmen, of employees, of employers, of the old, of the young, of the unborn.” There are only the Rights of Man — rights possessed by every individual man and by all men as individuals.¶ Property rights and the right of free trade are man’s only “economic rights” (they are, in fact, political rights) — and there can be no such thing as “an economic bill of rights.” But observe that the advocates of the latter have all but destroyed the former.¶ Remember that rights are moral principles which define and protect a man’s freedom of action, but impose no obligations on other men. Private citizens are not a threat to one another’s rights or freedom. A private citizen who resorts to physical force and violates the rights of others is a criminal — and men have legal protection against him.¶ Criminals are a small minority in any age or country. And the harm they have done to mankind is infinitesimal when compared to the horrors — the bloodshed, the wars, the persecutions, the confiscations, the famines, the enslavements, the wholesale destructions — perpetrated by mankind’s governments. Potentially, a government is the most dangerous threat to man’s rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims. When unlimited and unrestricted by individual rights, a government is men’s deadliest enemy. It is not as protection against private actions, but against governmental actions that the Bill of Rights was written.¶ Now observe the process by which that protection is being destroyed.¶ The process consists of ascribing to private citizens the specific violations constitutionally forbidden to the government (which private citizens have no power to commit) and thus freeing the government from all restrictions. The switch is becoming progressively more obvious in the field of free speech. For years, the collectivists have been propagating the notion that a private individual’s refusal to finance an opponent is a violation of the opponent’s right of free speech and an act of “censorship.”¶ It is “censorship,” they claim, if a newspaper refuses to employ or publish writers whose ideas are diametrically opposed to its policy.¶ It is “censorship,” they claim, if businessmen refuse to advertise in a magazine that denounces, insults and smears them.¶ It is “censorship,” they claim, if a TV sponsor objects to some outrage perpetrated on a program he is financing — such as the incident of Alger Hiss being invited to denounce former Vice-President Nixon.¶ And then there is [Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission] Newton N. Minow who declares: “There is censorship by ratings, by advertisers, by networks, by affiliates which reject programming offered to their areas.” It is the same Mr. Minow who threatens to revoke the license of any station that does not comply with his views on programming — and who claims that that is not censorship.¶ Consider the implications of such a trend.¶ “Censorship” is a term pertaining only to governmental action. No private action is censorship. No private individual or agency can silence a man or suppress a publication; only the government can do so. The freedom of speech of private individuals includes the right not to agree, not to listen and not to finance one’s own antagonists.¶ But according to such doctrines as the “economic bill of rights,” an individual has no right to dispose of his own material means by the guidance of his own convictions — and must hand over his money indiscriminately to any speakers or propagandists, who have a “right” to his property.¶ This means that the ability to provide the material tools for the expression of ideas deprives a man of the right to hold any ideas. It means that a publisher has to publish books he considers worthless, false or evil — that a TV sponsor has to finance commentators who choose to affront his convictions-that the owner of a newspaper must turn his editorial pages over to any young hooligan who clamors for the enslavement of the press. It means that one group of men acquires the “right” to unlimited license — while another group is reduced to helpless irresponsibility.¶ But since it is obviously impossible to provide every claimant with a job, a microphone or a newspaper column, who will determine the “distribution” of “economic rights” and select the recipients, when the owners’ right to choose has been abolished? Well, Mr. Minow has indicated that quite clearly.¶ And if you make the mistake of thinking that this applies only to big property owners, you had better realize that the theory of “economic rights” includes the “right” of every would-be playwright, every beatnik poet, every noise-composer and every nonobjective artist (who have political pull) to the financial support you did not give them when you did not attend their shows. What else is the meaning of the project to spend your tax money on subsidized art?¶ And while people are clamoring about “economic rights,” the concept of political rights is vanishing. It is forgotten that the right of free speech means the freedom to advocate one’s views and to bear the possible consequences, including disagreement with others, opposition, unpopularity and lack of support. The political function of “the right of free speech” is to protect dissenters and unpopular minorities from forcible suppression — not to guarantee them the support, advantages and rewards of a popularity they have not gained.¶ The Bill of Rights reads: “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . .” It does not demand that private citizens provide a microphone for the man who advocates their destruction, or a passkey for the burglar who seeks to rob them, or a knife for the murderer who wants to cut their throats.¶ Such is the state of one of today’s most crucial issues: political rights versus “economic rights.” It’s either-or. One destroys the other. But there are, in fact, no “economic rights,” no “collective rights,” no “public-interest rights.” The term “individual rights” is a redundancy: there is no other kind of rights and no one else to possess them.¶ Those who advocate laissez-faire capitalism are the only advocates of man’s rights.

Government Taxation is Coercion and Deprives People of Liberty Berlin 1958(Isaiah Berlin, Russo-British Jewish social and political theorist, philosopher and historian of ideas “Two Concepts of Liberty”, 1958, https://www.wiso.uni-hamburg.de/fileadmin/wiso_vwl/johannes/Ankuendigungen/Berlin_twoconceptsofliberty.pdf)

To coerce a man is to deprive him of freedom - freedom from what? Almost every moralist¶ in human history has praised freedom. Like happiness and goodness, like nature and reality, it is a¶ term whose meaning is so porous that there is little interpretation that it seems able to resist. I do not¶ propose to discuss either the history of this protean word or the more than two hundred senses of it¶ recorded by historians of ideas. I propose to examine no more than two of these senses - but they are¶ central ones, with a great deal of human history behind them, and, I dare say, still to come.

The first¶ of these political senses of freedom or liberty (I shall use both words to mean the same), which¶ (following much precedent) I shall call the 'negative' sense, is involved in the answer to the question¶ 'What is the area within which the subject - a person or group of persons - is or should be left to do¶ or be what he is able to do or be, without interference by other persons?' The second, which I shall¶ call the 'positive' sense, is involved in the answer to the question 'What, or who, is the source of¶ control or interference that can determine someone to do, or be, this rather than

that?' The two¶ questions are clearly different, even though the answers to them may overlap. I am normally said to be free to the degree to which no man or body of men interferes with¶ my activity. Political liberty in this sense is simply the area within which a man can act unobstructed¶ by others. If I am prevented by others from doing what I could otherwise do, I am to that degree¶ unfree; and if this area is contracted by other men beyond a certain minimum, I can be described as¶ being coerced, or, it may be, enslaved. Coercion is not, however, a term that covers every form of¶ inability. If I say that I am unable to jump more than ten feet in the air, or cannot read because I am¶ blind, or cannot understand the

darker pages of Hegel, it would be eccentric to say that I am to that¶ degree enslaved or coerced. Coercion implies the deliberate interference of other human beings¶ within the area in which I could otherwise act. You lack political liberty or freedom only if you are ¶ prevented from attaining a goal by human beings.3 Mere incapacity to attain a goal is not lack of¶ political freedom.4 This is brought out by the use of such modern expressions as 'economic freedom'¶ and its counterpart, 'economic slavery'. It is argued, very plausibly, that if a man is too poor to afford¶ something on which there is no legal ban - a loaf of bread, a journey round the world, recourse to the¶ law courts - he is as little free to have it as he would be if it were forbidden him by law. If my¶ poverty were a kind of disease which prevented me from buying bread, or paying for the journey¶ round the world or getting my case heard, as lameness prevents me from running, this inability¶ would not naturally be described as a lack of freedom, least of all political freedom. It is only¶ because I believe that my inability to get a given thing is due to the fact that other human beings¶ have made arrangements whereby I am, whereas others are not, prevented from having enough¶ money with which to pay for it, that I think myself a victim of coercion or slavery. In other words,¶ this use of the term depends on a particular social and economic theory about the causes of my¶ poverty or weakness. If my lack of material means is due to my lack of mental or physical capacity,¶ then I begin to speak of being deprived of freedom (and not simply about poverty) only if I accept¶ the theory.5 If, in addition, I believe that I am being kept in want by a specific arrangement which I¶ consider unjust or unfair, I speak of economic slavery or oppression. The nature of things does not¶ madden us, only ill will does, said Rousseau.6 The criterion of oppression is the part that I believe to¶ be played by other human beings, directly or indirectly, with or without the intention of doing so, in¶ frustrating my wishes. By being free in this sense I mean not being interfered with by others. The¶ wider the area of non-interference the wider my freedom.

Taxation is equivalent to slavery and funds inefficient bureaucracyWollstein, member of ISIL's Board of Directors and a founder of the original Society for

Individual Liberty, 07 (Jarret B. Wollstein, member of ISIL's Board of Directors and a founder of the original Society for Individual Liberty, 2007, “WE MUST END TAX SLAVERY NOW”, http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/end-tax-slavery.html#author)

At the current rate of growth, within 20 years taxes will consume every penny we earn. Long before then, we will all be

living in public housing projects and eating government cheese. Taxation is impractical, unnecessary, and immoral. It is impractical because tax-supported public services – from public schools to police protection – work poorly, if at all, and are very wasteful. Taxation is unnecessary because any service or product that people truly want or need – from education to roads to charity – they can and will purchase without being forced to pay. And taxation is immoral because it is based on brute force – the threat of fines and imprisonment of peaceful citizens. For 150 years, America got along fine without the personal income tax, sales tax, profits tax, and most other taxes. We need to end taxes now, before tax slavery ends America.

Government funded programs are coercive and irresponsibleWollstein, member of ISIL's Board of Directors and a founder of the original Society for Individual Liberty, 07

(Jarret B. Wollstein, member of ISIL's Board of Directors and a founder of the original Society for Individual Liberty, 2007, “WE MUST END TAX SLAVERY NOW”, http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/end-tax-slavery.html#author)

These incidents show how far our government has strayed from its original

purpose of protecting our lives, liberty, and property. Providing basic government services such as police, courts, and military defense would cost a fraction of what we now pay in taxes. Fifty years ago, the US had an excellent court system and the most powerful military in the world, yet taxes then consumed less than 5% of the average person's income. Today,

taxes are over ten times as high, and ninety percent of the money we pay in taxes is wasted. Would you send $20 billion of our tax dollars to Mexico to prop up the peso? Would you pay for inner-city schools that graduate students who are unable to read or write? Would you pay farmers not to grow food? Would you authorize the Pentagon to spend $7,622 for a coffee maker designed to survive a plane crash? Would you have spent billions to build up the militaries of the Shah of Iran and Gen. Noriega of Panama? Would you spend $352,000 to study the mating habits of the California kangaroo rat? Would you spend $17,000 so an artist could display a picture of Christ

in a jar of human urine? Any business that spent money as irresponsibly as the government does would quickly go bankrupt – if their directors weren't lynched first. But, as the Supreme Court has ruled, government is not legally obligated to provide you with any specific service in return for the taxes you pay. Unlike legitimate businesses, only the government can legally force you to pay for its programs, no matter how wasteful or outrageous. And there's no limit to how much of your income the government can seize.

Government taxation is coercive theftDoug Casey (author of "Crisis Investing," which spent 26 weeks as No. 1 on the New York Times Best-Seller list; editor and publisher of the International Speculator, one of the nation's most established and highly respected publications on gold, silver and other natural resource investments), 2002

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=15336)

To eliminate any misunderstanding as to what taxes are, it's helpful to define the word "theft." One good definition is "the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods of another." The definition does not go on to say "unless you're the government." There is no difference, in principle, between the state taking property and a street gang doing so, except that the State's theft is "legal" and its agents are immune from prosecution. Many people do not accept that analogy, because the government is widely viewed as being of, for and by the people – even though it's also acknowledged as acting badly from time to time. Suppose a mugger demanded your wallet – perhaps because he needed money to buy a new car – and threatened you with violence if you weren't forthcoming. Everyone would call that a criminal act. Suppose, however, the mugger said he wanted the money to buy himself food. Would it still be theft? Suppose now that he said he wanted your wallet to feed another hungry person, not himself. Would it still be theft? Now let's suppose that this mugger convinces most of his friends that it's OK for him to relieve you of your wallet. Would it still be theft? What if he convinces a majority of citizens? Principles stand on their own. Even if a criminal act is committed for good purpose, or with the complicity of bystanders, (even if those people call themselves the government), it is still an act of criminal aggression. It's important to establish an ethical viewpoint on the matter, even if it doesn't change your reaction to the mugger's (or the State's) demands. Just as it's usually unwise to resist a mugger, it's usually unwise to resist the government, which has a lot of force on its side.

Link

Eliminating Coercion is a PREREQUISITE to FreedomEugene Miller Summarizing (and) F.A. Hayek

Freedom requires that the coercion of some by others in¶ society be reduced as much as possible. One function

of¶ government is to prevent individuals from coercing other¶ individuals, but then government itself must be prevented¶ from using coercion improperly. In a free society, the¶ exercise of government’s coercive power is constrained and¶ made predictable by general rules that apply equally to all¶ individuals, including to those who make and

enforce the laws.¶ A free society is one that empowers individuals to develop and¶ follow their own life plans. Attempts to manipulate the¶ environment of individuals , e.g. by withholding vital¶

information, are insidious forms of coercion.

Tyranny LinkHeinlein, 1966 (Robert A. Heinlein, Bestselling author of The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, Life-Line, Destination Moon, and more. Won the democratic nomination for Governor of California. Graduated from the U.S. Naval academy with a B.A. in Naval Engineering, and also took classes at UCLA, 1966, “The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress”)

“There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him.”

The Result of the Government Being too Large is that it Bullies usJohn Stossel, March, 2014 (John Stossel is the host of "Stossel" (Thursdays at 9 PM/ET), a weekly program highlighting current consumer issues with a libertarian viewpoint. Stossel also appears regularly on Fox News Channel (FNC) providing signature analysis)

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/03/26/bullies-rule-when-government-gets-too-big-lose/

We're told government protects us, but protectors quickly become bullies . ¶

Take the Food and Drug Administration. It seems like the most helpful part of government: It supervises testing to make sure greedy drug companies don't sell us dangerous stuff.¶ The FDA's first big success was stopping thalidomide, a drug that prevented the nausea of morning sickness. It was approved first in Europe, where some mothers who took it proceeded to give birth to children with no arms and legs. ¶ The FDA didn't discover the problems with thalidomide. It was just slow. ¶ The drug application was stuck in the FDA's bureaucracy. But being slow prevented birth defects in America. It taught politicians and bureaucracy that slower is better. Then the FDA grew, like a tumor.¶ Today, it takes up to 15 years to get a new drug approved. Though most devices and drugs never are.¶ What do Americans lose when regulators say "no"? Usually, we never find out. We don't know what vaccines or painkillers are never developed because regulation discouraged companies from trying something new.¶ But here's one example

where we do know what we lost:¶ Uterine prolapse is a common and nasty complication of childbearing. It causes urinary incontinence and terminates most couples' sex lives. Complicated surgery and clumsy devices didn't offer much help until device companies developed implants that often did.¶ However, since biology is unpredictable, some implants fail. In 2011, the FDA abruptly demanded "more studies."¶ The bullies' mandate unleashed a hornets' nest of tort lawyers. They advertised, "Did your device fail? Call, and we will get you money!" They soon piled up so many suits that device manufacturers' insurers canceled liability coverage. Device companies then withdrew devices from the market. So now women suffering from uterine prolapse have fewer options. This is a price of bureaucratic "caution."¶ Reasonable people can debate whether the FDA assures product efficacy and safety. But the regulatory boot always presses toward delay.¶ Innovators don't dare make a move without saying, "Regulator, may I please?"¶ In rare cases, when new devices are approved, there is a new obstacle: complex marketing restrictions. Say something about your product that the government doesn't like, and you may be fined. The Office of the Inspector General and federal and state prosecutors troll for rule violations, then sue and fine.¶ This harms patients. Most never know they were harmed, because we never know what we might have had.¶ There are only two ways to do things in life: voluntarily or by force. Government is force. Government bureaucrats, who spend their whole lives pushing the rest of us around, easily become bullies.¶ We need some government force . The worst places in the world are countries that don't have rule of law. Then people are afraid to build factories because mobs may steal what they make, or a dictator may take the whole factory. No one builds, so everyone stays poor.¶ It's good America has rule of law. It's good we have a military to defend us from foreign attacks, police that keep the peace, courts that ensure contracts are honored, environmental rules that punish polluters.¶ But now our government goes way beyond that. It employs 22 million people. Not all have the power to impose force on the rest of us, but millions do. Some use it to bully us in big and petty ways.¶ Twenty-two million government workers delay the Keystone XL oil pipeline, raid poker games, force us to put ethanol in cars, prohibit drugs and medical devices that might make our lives better, take about half our money, and jail more citizens than even China and Russia do.¶ Like frightened kids in elementary school, we learn to accept this, to think it's natural. But it's not right that government forbids people in pain to make their own choices about what might help them.¶ Voluntary is better than force. Free is better than coerced. We're better off when government is small and people are left to do as they please, unbullied.

Impacts

Coercion risks the worst atrocities Harry Browne, 2003 (Libertarian Presidential candidate and executive director of public policy at American Liberty Foundation)

http://www.jrbooksonline.com/pdf_books/why_govt_doesnt_work.pdf

Magazine, financial advisor and economist, Why Government Doesn’t Work, pg 66-67)

The reformers of the Cambodian revolution claimed to be building a better world. They forced people into reeducation programs to make them better citizens. Then they used force to regulate every aspect of commercial life. Then they forced office workers and intellectuals to give up their jobs and harvest rice, to round out their education. When people resisted having their lives turned upside down, the reformers had to use more and more force . By the time they were done, they had killed a third of the country’s population, destroyed the lives of almost everyone still alive, and devastated a nation. It all began with using force for the best of intentions—to create a better world. The Soviet leaders used coercion to provide economic security and to build a “New Man”—a human being who would put his fellow man ahead of himself. At least 10 million people died to help build the New Man and the Workers’ Paradise. But human nature never

changed—and the workers’ lives were always Hell, not Paradise. In the 1930s many Germans gladly traded civil liberties for the economic revival and national pride Adolf Hitler promised them. But like every other grand dream to improve society by force, it ended in a nightmare of devastation and death . Professor

R.J. Rummel has calculated that 119 million people have been killed by their own governments in this century. Were these people criminals? No, they were people who simply didn’t fit into the New Order—people who preferred their

own dreams to those of the reformers. Every time you allow government to use force to make society better, you move another step closer to the nightmares of Cambodia, the Soviet Union, and Nazi Germany . We’ve already moved so far that our own government can perform with impunity the outrages described in the

preceding chapters. These examples aren’t cases of government gone wrong; they are examples of government—period. They are what governments do—just as chasing cats is what dogs do. They are the natural consequence of letting government use force to bring about a drug-free nation, to tax someone else to better your life, to guarantee your economic security, to assure that no one can mistreat you or hurt your feelings, and to cover up the damage of all the failed government programs that came before.

That makes life worthless.Raz 1991 (Joseph Raz, Phd Philosophy, 1991, “THE MORALITY OF FREEDOM”, 1991)

One way to test the thesis of the primacy of action reasons is to think of a person who is entirely passive, and is continuously fed, cleaned, and pumped full with hash, so that he is perpetually content, and wants nothing but to stay in the same condition. It's familiar imaginary horror. How do we rank the success of such a life? It is not the worst life one can have. It is simply no a life at all. It lacks activity, it lacks goals. To the extent that one is tempted to judge it more harshly than that and to regard it as 'negative' life this is because of the wasted potentiality. It is a life which could have been and was not. We can isolate this feature by imagining that the human being concerned is mentally and physically affected in a way which rules

out the possibility of a life with any kind of meaningful pursuit in it. Now it is just not really a life at all. This does not preclude one from say that it is better than human life. It is simply sufficiently unlike human life in the respects which matter that we regard it as only a degenerate case of human life. But clearly not being alive can be better than that life.

The impact is no value to life – a world in which people are not allowed to make their own choices concerning the fruit of their labor makes everyone dependent on the government, nullifying agency and making life not worth living.

(Side constraint – gotta reject every instance.)

Limited government is key to prevent tyranny, which killed more people than both World Wars combined – the plan provides positive rights, or entitlements that causally fail to protect the right to lifeErich Weede (Professor of Sociology at the University of Bonn) Winter 2008: Human Rights, Limited Government, and Capitalism. http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj28n1/cj28n1-3.pdfNegative rights serve to protect the individual, his liberty, and his property from coercion and violence. Negative rights prevent others from undertaking some types of actions, but they do not oblige others to help one. In order to safeguard negative rights government has to be limited. The link between negative rights and limited government was already well understood long before the term “human rights” gained currency. In the late 17th century, Locke ([1690] 2003: 161, 189) wrote: The supreme power

cannot take from any man part of his property without his own consent: for the preservation of property being the end of government . . . wherever the power, that is put in any

hands for the government of the people, and the preservation of their properties, is applied to other ends, and made use of to impoverish, harass, or subdue them into arbitrary and irregular commands of those that have it; there it presently becomes tyranny, whether those that thus use it are one or many. ¶ The right to life certainly is a fundamental human right. It is a negative right since it only requires that others do not kill one. In this context, one should recall that about 169 million people have been killed by states or their governments in the 20th century

(Rummel 1994). Communists and National Socialists established the most murderous regimes. Among the victims of communism, there are tens of millions of deaths from starvation after the coerced collectivization of agriculture in Stalin’s Soviet Union or Mao’s China. Although the 20th century suffered two world wars and other bloody wars, fewer people died on the battlefield or because of bombing campaigns than have been murdered or starved to death by their own governments. Whoever wants to protect human rights should therefore first of all focus on the necessity of protecting people from the state and its abuses of power. ¶ Positive Rights ¶ Positive rights or entitlements commit the state and its officials to undertake

certain types of action—for example, to guarantee certain minimal standards of material well-being.

The American Bill of Rights (1789) is limited to negative or protective rights, while the United Nations General Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights (2000) encompass both protective rights

and entitlements.1 The trend from short lists of negative rights to long lists of negative and positive rights has been accompanied by a rapid and sustained increase in public spending in the West (Tanzi and Schuknecht 2000). ¶ Classical liberals, in contrast to people called “liberals” in 20th century America and “social democrats” in Europe, demanded the primacy of individual liberty and thereby of protective rights and limited government .

Providing people with entitlements forces the state to curtail the negative rights and liberties of individuals. In order to fund entitlements the state has to tax (i.e., to take

coercively from) some people in order to provide for others. Entitlements have to rest on coercion and redistribution—that is, on a greater restriction of negative rights or individual liberty than would otherwise be necessary. As the balance of achievements and victims of communism demonstrates, the attempt to provide entitlements did not prevent tens of millions of deaths from starvation. Actually, the attempt to provide more than negative rights resulted in something less: the lack of respect of negative and positive rights. As I shall argue,

this association between the attempt to guarantee entitlements by a monopoly of coercion and central planning is causally related to the repeated failure to protect even the right to life. ¶

Coercion Violates Rights, and Without Rights, We can’t have a Just SocietyMachan, Tibor R., 2003, Professor Emeritus Department of Philosophy @ Auburn University, Research Fellow at Hoover Institution Stanford University,

Passion for Liberty pg.Some have wanted to dispense with the idea of rights altogether, especially in the wake of so much corrupt discussion of rights, or rights talk, in our political and legal arena. Professor Heather Gert, among others, has argued for this on the grounds that each case of rights violation can, supposedly, be reduced to a matter of injuring or harming someone, So rights talk is su_perfluous.26Yet dispensing with rights is not as easy as one might think. Violating rights is not the same as injuring or harming someone in a narrower sense. I may violate someone's rights by depriving her of the chance to make a bad choice, thus not hurting but in some sense helping her. I would (paternalistically perhaps) impose on her something that she ought to be free to decide whether to accept or not, but doing this may not injure or harm her in any immediate manner at all. To take a choice away from a person does not always result in harming her, yet it is the major ingredient of violating her rights. What it hampers and violates is the very capacity that is at the root of what makes a good human

life possible. Thus, if as an act of good Samaritanism, I prevent a person from injecting heroin, I may have benefited her (perhaps only temporarily), but I have, nevertheless, violated her rights. Furthermore, rights are not the kind of moral concept that arises

primarily in the context of personal ethics or morality or even of small-scale social morality. Rights are general organizing norms—meta-norms, as Rasmussen and Den Uyl characterize them28—for a just

community They belong in a constitution. They serve to establish "borders" around persons to secure for them a sphere of personal jurisdiction or authority, of sovereignty. From within those borders they are able to make good judgments about how to live, including whom to invite in and whom to join on the outside.

Affirmative Answers

A2 Solvency- GeneralPrivate sector technology is insufficient to explore the oceans—the federal government is key to improve technologies that would unlock new exploration capabilitiesMunk, 13 - Professor emeritus--Scripps Institution of Oceanography (Walter Munk 2013 “Exploration Seen Through the Lens of Research,” http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/oceanexploration2020/oe2020_report.pdf)

By 2020, private sector investments in exploration technology development, specifically for the dedicated national program of exploration, exceed the federal investment, but federal partners play a key role in testing and refining new technologies . Forum participants agreed that a top priority for a national ocean exploration program of distinction is the development of mechanisms to fund emerging and creatively disruptive technologies to enhance and expand exploration capabilities. In addition to significant federal government investment in ocean exploration technology over time—whether by the U.S. Navy, NASA, NOAA, or other civil- ian agencies involved in ocean exploration—many felt strongly that to shorten the time from development to unrestricted adoption, more of the required investment would come from the private sector. These emerging technologies will likely include the next generations of ships; remotely operated vehicles; autonomous underwater vehicles; telepresence capabilities; and new sensors. Most participants felt that continuing to develop human occupied vehicles should be a much lower priority for a national program than focusing on autonomous vehicles, sensors, observatories, and communications systems. Participants also felt that federal partners in the national program of exploration should play a key role in testing and refining these technologies as well as working to adapt existing and proven technologies for exploration. Overall, some of the most important technologies to cultivate are those that collect physical and chemical oceanographic data, biological data, and seafloor mapping data.

Privatization conflicts with political opinionSteve Tadelis, associate professor of business and public policy | 4/3/11 |

New York’s deputy mayor, Stephen Goldsmith, a champion of privatization, announced plans to “insource” tasks and services that the city previously privatized and assigned to contractors and consultants, citing opportunities to save money for the city. Isn’t saving money the motivation behind recent plans by Florida’s Republican leaders to privatize prisons and probation services? Governor Tom Corbett of Pennsylvania, likewise, announced earlier this month that he will study the benefits of privatizing state owned liquor stores. But he said that it “isn’t about the money. It’s about the principle . Government should no more run the liquor stores than it should run the pharmacies and gas stations.” What, then, should governments be providing,

and does privatization actually save money or inflate expenses? The answer is, it depends. There are services that have been proven easy to privatize, such as garbage collection. The task is simple and

well defined: drive the truck, pick up the cans, dump the trash and don’t spill it on the street. How do we ensure high quality service? Citizens will complain if it isn’t. But not everything that seems straightforward is easy to privatize . Take information-technology (IT) services. There are dozens, if not hundreds of private companies that provide a variety of IT services, making it easy

to find qualified private providers who can bid for, and supply, IT services. But for governments to use the market mechanism, they have to specify in advance what services are needed, how they will be delivered, how success will be confirmed, and how payments will be made. What makes IT services challenging is the rapid change in the ways we use IT and in the technologies that are used to deliver it. Not long ago I heard a telling story from a city manager in California. Some city council members suggested that there is no reason to have an in-house IT department when there are so many excellent private companies that do the same thing. Shortly thereafter, they hired a private firm at a price that was significantly less than their costs of having an in-house team. Things went great until the first time they asked the company to produce a new report. The company’s response was “that’s not in the contract and we will have to charge an extra fee.” This made sense. The problem was that every few weeks a new report or a new analysis was needed for some ongoing activity, leading to a succession of change order requests with extra payments. Since the company owned the database, the city could not get competitive bids for new changes. Within months, the city had to hire a part-time employee to deal with change orders. After a couple of years it was clear that the city was paying more than double for the same quality of IT services they previously received from their former in-house staff. When the two year contract was up for renewal, they terminated the contract and brought back an in-house team. This kind of problem is not exclusive to local governments. Big corporations can fall into the same trap. In 2004, Sears, Roebuck and Co. outsourced its IT services to Computer Sciences Corp (CSC). After less than a year, Sears terminated the $1.6 billion 10-year agreement with CSC and brought the services back in-house. In 2002 Diebold outsourced its IT services to Deloitte with a 7-year contract in place. In 2006 Diebold backed out of the contract 3 years early and brought back 80 workers to provide the services in-house. More recently, in July, 2009 Boeing acquired one of its most important contactors, Vought Industries, to achieve better control over the much delayed production process of Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner. At the heart of these problems lies a conflict of interest that is present in any outsourcing or privatization relationship. The buyer, or city, seeks to provide a service at lower costs compared to in-house provision. On the other hand, the contractor wants to make a profit. This tension means that the relationship must be designed carefully in order to ensure a successful

outcome for both local government and private contractor. If the service that is outsourced or privatized is difficult to scope, define, bound or monitor, then what the government may seek and what the contractor delivers are neither aligned nor easily described. This leads to an imperfect contract for which neither party’s expectations are adequately accounted for. Costs can skyrocket due to change orders. In a public procurement setting where there are no immediate market pressures to control costs, this can lead to long lasting waste. Furthermore, if the service requires adaptation as the relationship evolves, then the flexibility a government would have with its own workforce is lost. Politicians like simple messages. The trouble is that political agendas seldom align with the cost-benefit analysis required for good privatization policy decisions. The tough part is strategically choosing the right projects and services for privatization that have a good chance of avoiding outsourcing’s pitfalls. Politicians like simple messages. Conservatives like to say that “privatization provides good services at low costs,” while many liberals will claim that “privatization reduces quality and costs jobs.” Both can be

right or wrong, depending on the particulars of the service involved. The ugly part is that political agendas seldom align with the cost-benefit analysis required for good privatization decisions. An operational framework for strategically choosing whether or not to privatize a given service requires an ability to identify both the opportunities from privatization and its potential pitfalls. We can only hope that Mr. Goldsmith has some people who can do it for the benefit of New York’s citizens.

Privatization BadPrivatization Funding BadWe Own It (”5 reasons why privatisation is bad for you”, http://weownit.org.uk/privatisation, HS)

1. Your services get worse. Private companies do not have a social purpose, their legal priority is making a profit for shareholders , not putting people first. This means they may end up cutting corners, or underinvesting in our services. They have a duty to make as much money as they can. Water companies ignore leaks instead of investing in infrastructure, while private company involvement in the NHS has been bad for patients. Private companies also have 'commercially confidential' contracts, so they don't share information with others ; this makes it harder for them to work in partnership to provide an integrated service. 2. Your costs go up. You pay more, both as a taxpayer and directly when you pay for public service s. Value for money goes down because private companies must make a profit for their shareholders and they also pay their top executives more money. This means either we the people, or the government, or both, end up paying more than they did before. Fares on our privatised railways and buses are the most expensive in Europe, while people are also being hit with high energy bills. 3. You can’t hold private companies accountable. If the local council runs a service, you know where to go to complain. But if a private company runs a service, they are not democratically accountable to you . That makes it harder for you to have a voice. Academy schools are less accountable to parents. Atos, the welfare provider, tried to silence disability campaigners instead of responding to their concerns. 4. Staff are undermined. If you work in public services, privatisation will make your life harder. A Europe-wide study found that privatisation has had ‘largely negative effects on employment and working conditions ’ . There are often job cuts and qualified staff are replaced with casual workers, who are paid less and have worse conditions. This has a knock-on effect on the service being provided – for example, in the cases of care workers or court interpreters. 5. It’s difficult to reverse Once our public services are privatised, it's often difficult for us to get them back . Not only that, we lose the pool of knowledge, skills and experience that public sector workers have acquired over many years. We also lose integration across different services (private companies often don't share information because it's 'commercially confidential').

Privatization is bad Addicting Info 9/29 (Wendy Gittleson, 9/29/12, “9 Reasons Why Business People Are Terrible At Governing”, http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/09/29/9-reasons-why-business-people-are-terrible-at-governing/, HS)

1. Companies are in business for one reason and one reason only…to make money . They are not in business to serve their employees or even their customers. A corporation is legally obligated to put profit above all else. This philosophy typically boils down to making the cheapest product the market will allow ( or offering the least amount of service) and selling it at the highest price the market will allow. It’s one thing if your cell phone has a built in life span of six months to two years. It’s quite another for the electrical power grid. 2. Businesses do not care about their customers. I know. That statement is a little cold. They spend billions in advertising convincing us that they care about us. They truly want us to have clean clothes. They want us to have a clean environment. They want your children to frolic in fields. They sell you that toy just so your child can see you as the hero you are. They want you to be happy. Actually, no where in the corporate charter does it talk about customer happiness or even customer satisfaction. Sure, if a competitor is making their customers happy, there might be some incentive to go in that direction, but ultimately, it’s about the shareholders and only the shareholders. It’s easier and cheaper to improve the marketing than it is to improve the product or service. In other words, it’s fine to sell defective products, as long as they can manipulate a certain percentage of the people into believing they are buying a good product at a good price, their shareholders are happy. If the marketing campaign is really good, they will convince their customers that product defects are normal (as with many electronics) and that they should pay to replace their defective product with the next generation of the very same defective product.

Private Businesses go bankruptAddicting Info 9/29 (Wendy Gittleson, 9/29/12, “9 Reasons Why Business People Are Terrible At Governing”, http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/09/29/9-reasons-why-business-people-are-terrible-at-governing/, HS)

9. F inally, businesses can, and do do something that would be unacceptable for the US Government…they go bankrupt. In all fairness, government runs best when represented by a variety of backgrounds. Business people do have a place in government as do trash collectors, artists and even community organizers. It runs best with a variety of perspectives. It runs best when it is run by We the People.

USFG Good Achievements

The USFG has already established many solid programs on its own; public criticism is unfoundedMartha J. Pierce is a member of The Olympian’s Board of Contributors June 17, 2013 http://www.theolympian.com/2013/06/17/2587880/many-reasons-we-need-a-strong.html#storylink=cpyhttp://www.theolympian.com/2013/06/17/2587880/many-reasons-we-need-a-strong.html

For more than 50 years there has been a drumbeat of propaganda downgrading government: Government can do nothing right, and government is the problem. At first the attack was on the size of government and all its employees . From the Great Depression through World War II, government needed to employ those whom the private sector would not. During WWII, many were needed to conduct the war effort. Some of those were dollar-a-year men volunteering to work for that sum as a service to their country. In the post-WWII years, government remained large, helping other nations to recover from the devastation of the war years (the Marshall Plan). By 1954, a Cold War mentality had become the norm in our society, and the war in Korea required the continuation of a war bureaucracy. The John Birch Society emerged, creating fear of communism using George Kennan’s Domino Theory as a threat of what was going to happen to this

nation. Today, conservatives of all stripes continue a disdain for government. Disdain hides the real issue behind all of this. Small government means no government. Take back the Constitution means reinterpret that document to appeal to special interests. A social safety net means a sanctimonious morality for a few. Citing a fear of socialism means ending Social Security and Medicare. Privatize everything. Never admit there are limits to privatization. Some conservatives believe they understand the Constitution because they have memorized that document. I doubt they have read “The Federalist Papers.” The language is a little antique to read comfortably . Yet Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay made the Constitution very clear for all, including our own generation . As our revolution ended, the Industrial Revolution was escalating in England. Essays written by these men stated that government is good, necessary and has utility. Writing to explain the Constitution, they said: preserve the governments of the states, preserve the union and encourage improvements in infrastructure — to speed growth in a young nation in debt. Hamilton was the one who clearly understood that governments do not function without income. Eventually Hamilton instituted a national bank, a prototype of today’s Federal Reserve. His idea was that a public/private bank would give those with wealth a stake in the new nation. Taxation is essential. These men recognized the federal government had a role in equitably distributing tax funds across the states. The men of the Federalist Papers and creators of the Constitution were not socialists per se, but

they understood the limits of states to provide all that was needed. The private sector was perceived as a partner, not a preferred substitute for government. Colonists were never overtaxed any more than we are today. They did have similar problems regarding those who wanted young businesses to be independent of English regulation. In fact, the Boston Tea Party was really about bailing out the East India Co. from near bankruptcy in exchange for a small increase in taxes (Wall Street and the auto industry today). Change is accelerating faster than many can cope with; therefore, the assumption is that things were easier and simpler in the past. We face global competition today, mind-boggling technological change and fear that society is losing something of value. Individuals fear government is cheating them of freedom. For the young, there is a great deal of hope, and many are on the frontier of change that will provide both progress and a social safety net that will ease

economic disruptions. Can we afford it all? Yes. Many overseas investors still value this nation’s economy, primarily for safety, and will continue to loan us money. National fear is unfounded.

Room for ImprovementDouglas J. Amy, Professor of Politics at Mount Holyoke College, 2010 http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=8

As impressive as the accomplishments of government are in the U.S., there is clearly room for it to play a much more constructive role in people’s lives . In fact, many Americans sense this already. One of the most common complaints about government is that it is not doing enough to address a whole raft of problems. Sure the air is cleaner than it was, but we still have major smog problems in many cities. Of course we have done much to reduce poverty among the elderly, but a high level of poverty among the general population still exists. And while energy efficiency has improved, we still have an economy that is dangerously dependent on oil and other fossil fuels. Some may be tempted to conclude from these situations that government simply can’t do anything more to help – that we have reached the limits of what government can do in these areas. But this is not the case. We know that government could actually do much more. How do we know this? Because governments in many other advanced democracies have already done much more to effectively address these problems.

Our Government’s Accomplishments have gone understatedRex Nutting, Sept. 27, 2011, 12:00 a.m. EDT http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-10-best-things-government-has-done-for-us-2011-09-26

a.) Protecting our freedoms . Our political and economic rights are the foundation of our democracy and capitalist economy. Without them, we’d be nothing.

We often think of our rights as a protection against the heavy hand of government, but we shouldn’t ignore the contribution that the people through their government have made in expanding those rights since the early days of the republic, when they applied only to white men with property. Liberals who look fondly upon the government as a benevolent force often do so because the federal government was on their side in the great battles to abolish slavery and to extend rights to African-Americans, women, Native Americans, immigrants, workers, gays and many others. Liberals don’t like big government; they like a good and just government. For their part, conservatives want a government that enforces property rights and protects us against tyranny.

b.) Giving away the land .

The United States developed as one of the most egalitarian nations in history, mostly because the government gave away millions of acres of land and sold more at rock-bottom prices to regular people who worked that land and made it productive. From the Land Ordinance of 1785 right on to the Homestead Act of 1862, the government offered cheap or free land to people who would have been serfs or indentured servants in any other society. The government gave poor but hard-working people a stake in their country. Other government programs gave away valuable mining and timber land for a pittance. Many a fortune owes its genesis to the government.

c.) Educating everybody.

Our economy and democracy would be impossible without an educated, skilled populace. From the beginning of our nation, offering free and universal public education has been one of the most important functions of government. The federal government has always had a role, from the 1785 Land Act and the land-grant colleges established under Lincoln to the GI Bill and beyond. It’s no accident that America leads the world in technological innovation.

Link TurnA federal operational commitment to exploration is key to getting the most private investment on boardNewton, 13 - Ph.D., Executive Director, Northwest Association of Networked

Ocean Observing Systems; Principal Oceanographer, University of Washington Applied Physics Laboratory; and Affiliate Assistant Professor, University of Washington School of Oceanography (Jan, “DEEP SEA CHALLENGE: INNOVATIVE PARTNERSHIPS IN OCEAN OBSERVATION” S. HRG. 113–268, 6/13, gpo.gov)

Private foundations are well suited to funding large equipment (e.g., buoys, radars), new technologies (e.g., sensors), or infrastructure (e.g., building, ship, computer). NANOOS has benefited from two different $500K awards from the Murdock Charitable Trust for observing equipment (buoys, gliders, sensors). These groups like to offer large sums for discrete items from time to time. Another example would be in funding grand challenges like the X-prize being offered by private industry for a low cost, accurate pH sensor. However, funding for the sustained operations and maintenance (O&M) is critical for ocean observing systems and is best suited to the Federal Government , because of the stability needed for assurance of the data and information. Foundations and private industry do not offer opportunities for O&M grants, to my knowledge. Leveraging is quite effective for infrastructure, platforms, data systems, and other ‘‘items.’’ In NANOOS, we use a single buoy for many diverse sensors and applications. We leverage the NANOOS data visualization system to serve many diverse data streams. But we have no way to support the people’s jobs to maintain the buoy or run the data system on a continuous basis except for through Federal or other governmental funding. The nation has a National Science Foundation that serves well our ocean science research. IOOS leverages those results every day, since the observing technologies, modeling capabilities and analytical capabilities stem from these investments. We must balance national funding for sustained ocean observations, such as IOOS, in order to maintain the jobs required to keep the observations coming, the models running, and the information products and data flowing to the public.

Private sector models federal actionSielen, 14 - Senior Fellow for International Environmental Policy at the Center for Marine Biodiversity and Conservation at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography (Alan B, “Sea Change: How to Save the Oceans,” 4/16, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141198/alan-b-sielen/sea-change?sp_mid=45656665&sp_rid=aHVyd2pzMTJAd2Z1LmVkdQS2)

The oceans of studies on dying seas have done nothing to stop their devastation. In a 2011 report, the Oxford-based International Program on the State of the Ocean wrote that the planet faced “losing marine species and entire marine ecosystems, such as coral reefs, within a single generation.” Last month, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

reported that the effects of human-induced climate change are already far-reaching. It also singled out ocean acidification. As the oceans absorb higher levels of carbon, the more acidic water threatens coral reefs, shellfish, and other marine life. The experts only confirm what people around the world see every day: marshland, once teeming with wildlife, paved over; subsistence fishermen in poor countries driven from the ocean by industrial fishing; recreational fishermen chasing fewer and smaller fish farther out to sea; surfers getting hepatitis shots before entering sewage-contaminated waters; families on vacation snorkeling through coral bone-yards. In the Chesapeake Bay, the United States’ largest estuary, harvests of native oysters have fallen to less than one percent of historic levels due to the combined effects of overfishing, disease, and habitat destruction. There is no shortage of international recommendations, action plans, and other prescriptions for restoring the oceans’ health. The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, the 2002 Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development, and the 2012 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) all put forward different ways to protect the oceans from pollution and overfishing, preserve biological diversity, and help developing countries build the scientific and institutional capacities to run effective conservation and management programs of their own. The calls for action have brought some victories, such as international rules limiting what oil tankers discharge into the sea, a global ban on the disposal of nuclear waste into the ocean, and the creation of marine reserves, or protected areas of the ocean. But as much as these measures helped, they have not eliminated all the other threats to the seas. Government leaders are in a unique position to seize the bully pulpit. In the United States, successes under both Republican and Democratic administrations are reminders of what is possible. Russell Train, chairman of U.S. President Richard Nixon’s Council on Environmental Quality, led efforts to secure an international agreement on prohibiting the dumping of toxic waste into the ocean at the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm. In 1977, U.S. President Jimmy Carter, responding to a series of tanker accidents off U.S. shores, called for a major international treaty on tanker safety and pollution prevention. Eleven months later, industries and most maritime countries backed two major international agreements: the MARPOL Protocol to prevent pollution from ships and the SOLAS Protocol for the safety of life at sea. Steady U.S. leadership contributed to the adoption in 1993 of a global ban on dumping radioactive waste into the ocean. In 2006, U.S. President George W. Bush established the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument, the world’s largest ocean preserve. Where government goes, the private sector can follow. Some businesses, nongovernmental organizations, and research institutions have brought the message of ocean health home to more and more people by educating consumers about such things as sustainable fisheries and the health dangers of industrial chemicals. Through a $53 million grant from Bloomberg Philanthropies, two environmental organizations and an investment firm recently joined forces to revitalize fishing off the coasts of Brazil, the Philippines, and Chile. In the United States, one of those organizations, Oceana, is also working with the energy industry and Congress to expand offshore wind production. But these are, by and large, the exceptions. Too often, government and industry have failed in their duty to safeguard the seas. The National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon spill concluded that “systematic failures in both industry practices and government policies” led to the spill. For years, the United States and other countries often stretched the definition of freedom of navigation -- a crucial principle of international law -- to avoid strict environmental standards and enforcement for vessels. Exaggerated concern over environmental regulation by defense and commercial interests continues today on issues such as restrictions on the military use of sonar to protect whales, dolphins, and other marine life and the creation of special shipping routes in ecologically sensitive areas to bypass endangered species. Although few would tolerate bulldozing the California redwoods or Madagascar’s baobab, industrial fishing fleets get away with destroying underwater Edens. The United States still hasn’t ratified the 1982 United Nations Law of the Sea Convention, which established international rules for all uses of the oceans and their resources. As a result, the United States cannot fully participate in negotiations over how the convention applies to competing claims on

continental shelf resources in the Arctic, or to protecting U.S. waters from pollution originating in other countries. ALL OR NOTHING Restoring the oceans will require a shift in how governments and societies act, including a fundamental transformation in the use and management of energy, agriculture, and natural resources in general. Achieving substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, transitioning to clean energy, eliminating the worst toxic chemicals, and cutting pollution from fertilizers and pesticides in watersheds will not be easy. All those are the results of long-standing political factors, economic behaviors, and consumer choices. Take climate change and ocean acidification. They are related to so many other pressing problems -- rising seas, extreme weather, destruction of ecosystems, loss of biological diversity, species extinction, drought, disease, food and freshwater scarcity, and the astronomical costs of responses -- that any strategy for the seas’ renewal is an empty vessel without concerted action on climate change and ocean acidification. The ultimate policy prescriptions for those problems might be clear -- carbon taxes, conservation, legally binding international rules to limit greenhouse gas emissions, enforceable environmental standards across industries, and advanced fuel systems, from better batteries to fuel cells. But they are still years away.

Coercion Answers

Government Coercion isn’t Inherently Bad. It can be JustifiedEdward Glaeser, 2007 (Edward Glaeser is the Fred and Eleanor Glimp professor of economics at Harvard University. He serves as the director of the Taubman Center for State and Local Government and as director of the Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston at the Kennedy School of Government.)

http://www.cato-unbound.org/2007/05/11/edward-glaeser/coercive-regulation-balance-freedom

But, as Klein notes, just because something is coercive, doesn’t mean that it is wrong. The coercive power of the state is useful when it protects our lives and property from outside harm. If we think that state-sponsored redistribution is desirable, then we are willing to accept more coercion to help the less fortunate. We also rely on state-sponsored coercion regularly when writing private contracts. The ability of creditors to collect depends on the power of the state to coerce borrowers.¶ The great difficulty is that coercion is both necessary and terrifying. For millenia, governments have abused their control over the tools of violence. The historical track record insists that we treat any governmental intervention warily. What principles help us decide on the appropriate limits to government-sponsored coercion? Are minimum wage laws acceptable coercion or do they fall outside of the pale?¶ I start with the view that individual freedom is the ultimate goal for any government. The ultimate job of the state is to increase the range of options available to its citizens. To me, this is not a maxim, but an axiom that is justified by both philosophy and history. On a basic level, I believe that human beings are the best judges of what is best for themselves. I also believe that the right to make our own decisions is an intrinsically good thing. I also believe that people become better decision-makers through the course of regularly making their own decisions. Moreover, the historical track record looks a lot better for governments that put freedom first. The liberal democracies, defined by their affection for liberty, have been far better for their citizens, than alternatives, whether Communist or Fascist, that enforced state-sponsored visions of how people should live their lives.¶ A belief in the value of liberty flows strongly through mainstream neoclassical economics. Economists frequently speak about an aim of maximizing utility levels, and this is often mistranslated as maximizing happiness. Maximizing freedom would be a better translation. The only way that economists know that utility has increased is if a person has more options to choose from, and that sounds like freedom to me. It is this attachment to liberty that makes neoclassical economists fond of political liberty and making people richer, because more wealth means more choices.¶ There is a recent wave of scholarship suggesting that the government can help individuals be happy by reducing their choices. While happiness may be a very nice thing, it is neither the obvious central desiderata for private or public decision-making. On a private level, I make decisions all that time that I expect to lower my level of happiness, because I have other objectives. On a public level, I can’t imagine why we would want to privilege this emotion over all other goals. A much better objective for the state is to aim at giving people the biggest range of choices possible, and then let people decide what is best for them.¶ But putting freedom first doesn’t mean abandoning the state. At the very least, we rely on the government to protect our private property against incursions by others. Even most libertarians think that it is reasonable for the state to enforce contracts. This enforcement increases the range of contractual options and this, in a way, expands liberty.¶ While these forms of state action are readily defensible, many of the thorniest questions involve tradeoffs between the liberty of one person and the liberty of another. Taking wealth from Peter and giving it to Paul increases the choices available to Peter and decreases the choices available to Paul. Governmental coercion to redistribute income cannot be opposed purely on the grounds that it restricts liberty. Certainly, redistribution reduces the freedom of the taxpayer but it increases the options of the recipient of governmental largesse.¶ With this lengthy preamble, let me switch to the minimum wage and related restrictions on the ability to contract. The minimum wage reduces the options available to the employer, who must pay his workers more. It also reduces the freedom of both employer and employee, both of whom lose the ability to contract at a lower wage. Opposing this loss of freedom is an increase in the options available to workers who remain employed and now earn a higher wage. While I am no fan of higher minimum wages, I can imagine settings in which the increase in the freedom of the still-employed

workers could be more important than the offsetting losses to individual liberty. We cannot get to a clear answer on the minimum wage on the basis of an axiomatic desire to increase the range of choices available to individuals, because we are trading one person’s choices against the choices of another.¶ Perhaps one might come to a clear view on the minimum wage by hewing to an uncompromising belief in freedom to contract.

More Government Does Not Mean Less Freedom. Libertarianism and Libertarian Mindsets are Just ways of Stopping Left Wing InitiativesDouglas J. Amy, Professor of Politics at Mount Holyoke College, 2007 http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=18more-government-does-not-mean-less-freedom/&print=1

"The size and extent of government activity, by itself, tells us nothing about how free or oppressive a society is."¶ Despite the claims of conservatives, there is no necessary trade-off between government size and the freedom of its citizens.¶ "FREEDOM!" has always been a rallying cry of anti-government activists. Many conservatives embrace and extol the libertarian principle that “Individual freedom and government power are polar opposites. More government means less freedom.”1 For them, the trade-off between government size and individual liberty is inevitable, and this is the main reason they work to minimize government.¶ As Ronald Reagan once put it: “Runaway government threatens … the very preservation of freedom itself.”2 Charlton Heston, speaking to a college audience in the 1990s, argued that the government had become more than just a threat, that it had already reached oppressive proportions in the United States: ¶ There is now no aspect of American life, public or private, that the federal government does not invade, instruct and finally coerce to its will. Farm and factory, home and school, university and research center, club and playground – all are overlaid with a spidery network of laws, guidelines, restrictions and Draconian penalties that stifle the spirit, the energy, the creative capacity of what was once the freest nation on earth. In this hemisphere, now that Ortega and Noriega have fallen, the collectivists' sentiments discredited around the world fly best, I fear, in Cuba and Washington, D.C.3¶ Heston’s views may seem extreme, but it is important to realize that many Americans are concerned about government impinging on their freedoms. Almost a third of us believe that the federal government “poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens.” And many people resent it fiercely whenever the government prevents them from doing what they want to do – whether it is riding a motorcycle without a helmet, filling in a wetland on their property, or carrying a gun for their own protection.¶ Bashing the government in the name of freedom can be a very effective political tactic. After all, freedom is quintessentially American. It is our most basic political value and a fundamental part of our national political identity. We are “the land of the free” as we sing in our national anthem. And so, to the extent that government can be portrayed as interfering with our individual rights and freedoms, it will be seen as bad – as anti-American.¶ The political right's ability to convince many Americans that there is an inevitable trade-off between government and freedom has been one of its greatest ideological victories. In one stroke, it renders illegitimate virtually all liberal policy initiatives. Any effort to expand social programs or increase regulation becomes seen as an attack on freedom. If you value freedom, it is argued, you should strongly oppose any increase in public sector activity. If you love freedom, you should hate government. ¶ Or so it seems. But things are not always as they seem. In reality, this view of the relationship between freedom and government is incomplete, distorted, and often wrong. It relies almost entirely on a misleading stereotype: government as “Big Brother.” But if we can step back and look at the performance of our democratic government in a more objective and less dogmatic way, we begin to see that many of the basic conservative and libertarian assumptions about government and freedom are mistaken.¶ No Necessary Trade-off Between Government and Freedom¶ Let’s start by seeing what is wrong with the assumption that there is an inevitable trade-off between government and our individual rights and liberties. Former U.S. House

Majority Leader Dick Armey put this assumption succinctly: “The sheer mass of our federal government is simply inconsistent with a free society.”5 But it is a mistake to believe that the size or extent of government has anything to do with how oppressive it is. For example, you could have a country with a minimal public sector that was very repressive to its citizens. It would have low taxes, few social service programs, and hardly any regulations on business. But it could also be incredibly oppressive – allowing only one-party elections, banning free speech, muzzling the press, preventing freedom of assembly, jailing people arbitrarily, etc. On the other hand, we could have a society with a public sector much larger than we have now that has all the freedoms of a modern democracy. Belgium, for example, has a public sector almost twice the size of the United States as a proportion of GDP, and has much more extensive health care, unemployment, and pension programs. Yet Belgian citizens enjoy essentially the same rights and liberties as Americans. We see very few Belgian political refugees applying for asylum in the U.S. because they are oppressed in their homeland.¶ So the size and extent of government activity, by itself, tells us nothing about how free or oppressive a society is. The necessary trade-off between government size and citizen’s freedom simply does not exist. And the reason it does not exist is because many of the most common activities of the modern state – building roads and highways, putting out fires, fighting disease, treating our sewage, providing college loans, funding basic scientific research, providing medical care for the elderly, supplying clean water, feeding the poor, providing parks and recreational facilities, subsidizing farmers, educating our children, forecasting the weather, sending out Social Security checks, and so on – are not inherently coercive or oppressive at all. So it is simply mistaken to automatically equate more government with less freedom.¶ The minimal-government crowd uses this “more government = less freedom” formula to make all sorts of alarmist claims. For example, some suggest that every increase in government power is a step down the road to totalitarianism and repression. This is a favorite argument of many conservatives and they use it to oppose even small and seemingly reasonable increases in government programs or regulations. For example, they argue that if we allow the government to insist on background checks to buy guns, this will lead to mandatory gun registration, which will eventually lead to confiscation of guns, and this will put the government in a position to repress a disarmed and helpless citizenry. Or they suggest that legalizing assisted-suicide for terminally ill patients will only set the stage for government euthanasia programs aimed at the handicapped and others. Or they fear that mandating non-smoking areas is merely a step toward outlawing cigarettes altogether. Or they contend that if we allow environmental regulations to restrict how an owner deals with wetlands on their property, we are going down a road in which property rights will eventually be meaningless because the state will control all property. This seems to be the view of the conservative judge Janice Rogers – one of George W. Bush’s appointees to the federal judiciary. In one of her opinions, she railed against local restrictions on the rights of real estate developers in California and concluded that “Private property, already an endangered species in California, is now entirely extinct in San Francisco."6¶ In his book, Defending Government, Max Nieman has labeled this argument the “Big Brother Road to Dictatorship.” It suggests that the expansion of government powers in the U.S. during the last 75 years has been inevitably leading us down the path toward totalitarianism. But as he has noted, there is really no valid evidence for this theory. If we look at how modern dictatorships have come about, they have not been the product of gradually increasing social programs and regulations over property and business. As Neiman explains:¶ It is common among conservative critics of public sector activism to characterize government growth in the arena of social welfare, environment, consumer and worker protection, and income security as steps toward the loss of liberty and even totalitarianism. Many critics of the emergence of the modern social welfare state … have tried to convey the sense that the road to totalitarian hell is paved with the good intentions of the social democratic program. …There is no record, however, of any oppressive regime having taken power by advancing on the social welfare front. Lenin and Stalin, Mussolini, Mao Tse-tung, Fidel Castro, and Chile’s Pinochet did not consolidate power by gradually increasing social welfare programs, taxes, and regulation of the environment or workplace. Rather, these assaults on personal freedom and democratic governance involved limitation on civil rights and political rights, the legitimization of oppression and discrimination against disfavored or unpopular groups, and the centralization and expansion of military and policy forces. Hitler did not become the supreme ruler of the Nazi state by first taking over the health department.

Perm: Do the Plan and reject ALL other instances of unnecessary coercion

Coercion is Fine and Moral as Long as it’s Reasonable. A World without Coercion is Inconsistent with NatureLord Keynes, 2011 (Lord Keynes is a world-renowned blogger with over 1200 posts and over 13,000 page views. His bibliography for this story is: Maxwell, S. 2000. The Price is Wrong: Understanding What Makes a Price Seem Fair and the True Cost of Unfair Pricing, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, N.J. and Mises, L. 1998 [1949]. Human Action: A Treatise on Economics, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn.) http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2011/05/coercion-and-taxation-is-theft-argument.html

I see one of the latest responses to one of my previous posts is this:¶ “Your statists simply refuse to analyze human activity as voluntary on the one hand or the result of hostile force and/or fraud on the other, the Rothbardian test. That is because unsophisticated people understand the difference quite well and would see what a nest of theft and fraud the Keynesian program is.”¶ I am well aware of the difference between forced and voluntary behaviour, and the simple truth is that you cannot live in a world without some degree of reasonable force and coercion (the operative word being “reasonable”). For example, your wife or child is about to walk in front of a speeding car, and there is no time to yell a warning. Do you:¶ (1) Use coercion to stop them from being killed or injured by grabbing them, or¶

(2) Do nothing because coercion is always wrong.¶ If you do what any normal, moral human being does, you do (1), and that course of action can be defended as a moral and right thing to do on many ethical theories. If you choose (2), on the grounds that nobody can be subject to involuntary coercion at any time, you are revealed as an utterly immoral idiot, to my mind. The crucial point is that when coercion occurs it must be justifiable. To say that coercion is reasonable is to say that it is justifiable in a convincing way, on some grounds. ¶ We are told by some Austrians (perhaps not the more intellectually sophisticated ones) that nobody should be subject to involuntary coercion at all, and usually they appeal to natural rights arguments and nature. But I doubt whether such libertarian concepts really are consistent with nature. Take this libertarian insistence that we must be free from any coercive authority, done without our consent. This is a radical violation of one fundamental part of human nature: the relationship of parents to children. How can you raise children without using coercion without their consent? You can’t. The alternative is letting children run wild. Reasonable coercion is necessary, in so far as it does not conflict with the legal rights that all human beings are given under the law.¶ But to return to the comment above, it is a typical version of the “taxation is theft” argument. ¶ First of all, how would Austrians know that all people who pay taxes regard this as theft? It is natural to dislike paying taxes, but evidence suggests that many people – a majority – think it is the moral thing to do:¶ “The IRS Oversight Board conducted an independent poll in 2005 that found 96 percent of the respondents agreed ‘it is every American’s civic duty to pay their fair share of taxes.’¶ The Pew Research Center in a similar study in 2006 found 79 percent of the respondents said that cheating Uncle Sam was ‘morally objectionable.’¶ Certainly, Americans pay their taxes because they have to: ever since 1945, taxes have been automatically withdrawn from pay-checks. But people also comply because they think it is fair. Polls show that most Americans think only ‘a few’ people cheat on their taxes. Paying taxes, just like leaving a tip, is a social norm” (Maxwell 2000: 146).¶ Yes, Americans might dislike paying tax, but it appears a majority think it is both fair and right, just as you might

dislike looking after a troublesome, obnoxious teenage child, even though you recognise that this is the right thing to do and the law says you must do so as a parent. ¶ With regard to modern taxes which pay for public goods, it appears to me that it is the Austrians/libertarians who are in the minority. But, of course, just because a majority of people think something is moral, this does not necessarily make it so. You need a defensible moral theory to justify some action as right. This issue cuts right to questions about philosophy of ethics.¶ If two people (a libertarian and Keynesian, say) wanted to seriously debate, they would have to ask:¶ (1) Is there an objective theory of ethics?¶ If one person does not believe in objective ethics, then the debate collapses into whether ethics is objective or subjective. Also, anyone who believes that morality is subjective can just appeal to David Gauthier’s Morals by Agreement and come up with some contractarian theory in which, if a majority of people assent to living by certain rules, then this is perfectly defensible ethics. If one takes David Gauthier’s Morals by Agreement as a method for ethics, then modern social democratic states already have a majority that supports basic principles like progressive taxation, so it appears to have ample justification.¶ But the statement “taxation is theft” seems to require that some objective ethical theory is true, however, so:¶ (2) If both people agree that ethics is objective, then what ethical system is true?¶ Our morality cannot be justified by an appeal to nature: that is why most natural rights/natural law based ethics collapse, and why natural rights ethics in the Rothbardian or Randian tradition won’t fly.¶ In my opinion, the workable objective theories of ethics that are not obviously flawed are Rawl’s human rights ethics, or rule consequentialism/utilitarianism (as in Brad Hooker, 2000, Ideal Code, Real World, Oxford University Press, Oxford). Some claim that a modern form of Kantian ethics is defensive, though I have my doubts.¶ Since taxes are levied to provide public goods and services (e.g., universal health care in all industrializied nations except the US), it is not difficult to justify them morally under Rawl’s human rights ethics or rule consequentialism.¶ Also, since in every ethical system some values will conflict, where does human life and the preservation of human life rank in these systems?¶ The belief that taxation is theft obviously implies that property rights are absolute or at least high in value. But why on earth should property rights rank above human life? Under rule consequentialism even the initiation of force involved in taking wealth might be perfectly justified, e.g.,¶ (1) If a village of 100 people has one well which is in the possession of one man, who suddenly refuses to give water to anyone else, and there is no rain or any other water and people are dying of thirst, can the dying people use force against the man (but not kill or wound him) to take what water they need just to survive? (leaving him of course with his proper share).¶ If a person said “no,” I would conclude that the person is morally bankrupt (since I regard rule consequentialism as defensible theory). If “yes,” then it is obvious that rule utilitarianism allows the use of reasonable force to take some reasonable amount of property, if people's lives or welfare are at stake.¶ In fact, utilitarianism as a moral theory was also held by Ludwig von Mises, who rejected natural rights, and used utilitarianism to justify a minimal state and limited interventions like fire regulations:¶ “There is, however, no such thing as natural law and a perennial standard of what is just and what is unjust. Nature is alien to the idea of right and wrong. “Thou shalt not kill” is certainly not part of natural law. The characteristic feature of natural conditions is that one animal is intent upon killing other animals and that many species cannot preserve their own life except by killing others. The notion of right and wrong is a human device, a utilitarian precept designed to make social cooperation under the division of labor possible. All moral rules and human laws are means for the realization of definite ends. There is no method available for the appreciation of their goodness or badness other than to scrutinize their usefulness for the attainment of the ends chosen and aimed at” (Mises 1998 [1949]: 716).¶ “Economics neither approves nor disapproves of government measures restricting production and output. It merely considers it its duty to clarify the consequences of such measures. The choice of policies to be adopted devolves upon the people. But in choosing they must not disregard the teachings of economics if they want to attain the ends sought. There are certainly cases in which people may consider definite restrictive measures as justified. Regulations concerning fire prevention are restrictive and raise the cost of production. But the curtailment of total output they bring about is the price to be paid for avoidance of greater disaster. The decision about each restrictive measure is to be made on the ground of a meticulous weighing of the costs to be incurred and the prize to be obtained. No reasonable man could possibly question this rule” (Mises 1998 [1949]: 741).¶ Perhaps is time for Austrians to attack Mises as an “evil” statist who advocated using coercion to enforce fire codes?¶ Progressive taxes and Keynesian macroeconomic management of an economy are justifiable on utilitarian grounds. As for the libertarian minority who disagree, there is no reason why a minority of people with a debased sense of morality should not pay their share.

The Disad is Non-unique, Coercion Happens all the TimeFetissenko, Maxim, 2008 (“Behaviorism, Performance Management, and the Inevitability of Coercion in Conflict Resolution and Prevention” Maxim Fetissenko is a Professor of Communications Studies at Northeastern University) http://citation.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/5/7/5/4/pages257540/p257540-4.php

The example of the tax collection process in the United States (or in any other country) demonstrates punishment’s essential systemic role. Few would disagree with the idea that some form of taxation is necessary for maintaining the

basic infrastructure of any state. Yet, even with the existing strict penalties, tax evasion is not uncommon. There is little doubt that eliminating the prospect of punishment for not paying taxes and choosing to rely, instead, exclusively on “rational persuasion” would inevitably result in a bankrupt treasury. And this example is far from unique. Legitimate coercion is part of everyday life in all societies, and many uses of punishment are accepted as indispensable tools of behavior control

at all social levels. Indeed, governments may attempt to maintain a monopoly on the use of armed force, but they

are not the only agents utilizing punishment, which, of course, is not limited to the use of

armed force. Examples of routine applications of punishment range from an employer using a disciplinary action to get his workers to arrive at work on time, to a parent “grounding” her child for misbehavior. Moreover, in many everyday communication situations we often rely on coercion (as defined in the

sociological sense of the term) without realizing it. Miller (1980) suggests: “much persuasive discourse is indirectly coercive. In other words, the persuasive effectiveness of messages often depends heavily on the credibility of threats and promises proffered by the communicator” (p. 12). There is little doubt that he is right. Coexistence of Persuasion and Coercion Inhabitants of any modern (or not so modern) society have two options when it comes to accepting the rules of conduct which they would not be inclined to adopt on their own: a) they can “voluntarily” agree to accept such rules as legitimate (one could say, be persuaded to accept or b) they can choose to reject such rules, and then the society will attempt to force a change in the dissidents’ attitudes and behavior through some application of punishment