‘Mean Green Workshops 2K6 L Coercion Neg Coercion D/A INC SHELL “WAR ON TERROR" /NATIONAL SECURITY... SOCIAL WELFARE COERCION IS COV! INTERNAL LINKS COERCION IS TOTALITARIAN/DESTROYS FREEDOM... IMPACTS. ETHICS. CAPITALISM/FREE TRADE IMPERIALISM..... RIGHTS VIOLATIONS SNOWBALL.. 35-36 TOTALITARIANISM BAD 37-37.5 TAKES OUT SOLVENCY - VOLUNTEERS. 38-39 TAKES OUT SOLVENCY ~ BAD CITIZENS ALTERNATIVE CARDS (IF DESIRED): REJECTING THE STATE SOLVES LIBERTY .. EXTENSIONS...... FRAMEWORK/ANSWERS RIGHTS COME FIRST/A2 UTIL... A2 MORAL/SOCIAL OBLIGATION... A2 DEMOCRACY OUTWEIGHS A2 TERRORISM OUTWEIGHS A2 FRAMEWORK IS UTOPIAN. A2 YOU LEAD TO ANARCHY. A2 STATE GOOD SOLVES CRIME....... KEY TO VOLUNTEERS.. SOLVES RACISM... ARF ANSWER: 10, -PLEASE ADD ANY RIGHTS MALTHUS ARGUMENT IF YOURE LOOKING FOR ADDITIONAL ANSWERS/IMPACT TURNSMean Green Workshops 2K6 a : Coercion Neg k- UNE — ComPELen SeRNKCE (6 & Test oe THe i) QDVERNMENT TO tomocgentze THE omtens iw ORVEER VO Conveot TRhemM — TAS LEADS To ASTRO ESTAR ket MA, Witte, 1998 [Daniel E., Bringham Young University Law Review, "Getting a Grip on National Service: Key Organizational Features and Strategic Characteristics of the National Service Corps (AmeriCorps) *", lexis, Evan DeFilippis] 2, The polcy argument agains using goverment cesouteos to ntl a worldview Clinton vews the Corps as an organic and growing moans by which he can perpetuate his paltical vison and influence far beyond the ‘confines of his oan stay nthe Presidantal eff, n172 [776] Hower, some judges have notcodtht= ‘an essential element in maintaining a system of limited government” against authoritarianism is to prevent the kind of "massive state involvement with mediating institutions that would invest the capacity to influence powerfully, through socialization, the future outcomes of... political processes nt73 some ‘seas touching the relaton [780] between ini ‘and Sate far] holy ferent om tose upon whZh cur esttutone rst” and the Supreme Court hae nated Here ate some Syste Soca order that ne gis body could mpose upon the people "wtheut dog violence to both the later and spit of Bw Canetti * 1124 Ody, legal scholts and jadges have pad lle atenton to the 2c thatthe Sear Cours anayels seems to have substantial ‘uupgort in fe poston of th Framers themselves ts clear fom the wings of Themos Jelereon. Join Adame ames Macs that ‘he Framers (1) were foriar withthe lator model for sca ecer and (2) rejects tha model decause tay eoneldered fe odous and ‘reconcile wi the Unted Staies constitutional system of argere bey based upon the onn prosuprosttonsnt75°-782| Cotto ‘nemnso}ves,"indwiuals tnd io choose elles coneruent with galt aspects of thal ideniios, ans they supper te rstitulons ‘embodying hose denies” nt76 Identification also may engender internalization of, and adherence to, youn values and norms and homogeneity in’ attitudes and behavior. Just as the social classification of others engenders stereotypical perceptions of them, so too does the classification of oneself and subsequent identification engender the attribution of prototypical characteristics to oneself... This self-stereotyping amounts to depersonalization of the self (i.e. the individual is seen to exemplify the group), and it increases the perceived similarity with other group members and the likelihood of conformity to group norms. n177 “The sei-steretyping occasioned by Psychological grouping causes ane to expect attdinal and pocoptual aareamont wn group member, such that Ssagreementkiggers ‘Sout and, tun, athudnaiperceptul change" 178 A change in ieriy ean lead to 2 change h pica! behave 179 (733) Unfortunately community service has often been used as an effective means for encouraging political docility to government authoritarianism; it makes some sense to control a population by using carefully supervised, simple, time-consuming, labor- intensive activities that yield easily measurable results. n180 Authoritarians encourage populations of mixed demographic groups, because the internal differences reduce the risk of an effective challenge by the population to the central authority. n18%4 The "doomsday" scenario of government overreaching would contemplate the possibility of the National Service Corps becoming a standing domestic military force that requires all young men and women to engage inlaw enforcement and domestic peace-keeping missions. 1182 aca! echo programs that increasinaly engull the eno He experience of students n163 cen be linked tote eng ter Gwaun a atonal serge, a process thats already Begining to ‘cur even a he elementary school evel 8a through explox Gesgn.n18s "784 in acetin tothe government-undes mass sociatzation 1186 of voters nd fulure voor, tore may aso syerualy be preblame rested to to unethical police use of Gofps rfomston catches * foragvantage in plical campaigns. 1187 Adklionaly. campaign fnanoe ans nfumce-pecding issues may are In eotjneton win Row ‘Corps rqsoures are deployed to sone particular speci nieces groups andor static omographiciseograohe polical constivenies {0188 inte ands ofan unscrupulous potion, the Corps could eventually become avery point fool or acsompiening Hegiarate { unoses Peay my wh a east ie rage en NaasMean Green Workshops Goercion DA eee B. IMPACT -— Their moral framework makes life not worth living — a willingness to sacrifice individual liberty in the name of survival is dehumanizing, and creates a tyranny of survival that strips life of value Danie! Callahan, Fellow, Institute of Society and Ethics, THE TYRANNY OF SURVIVAL, 1973, p. 91 For all these reasons, itis possible to counterpoise over against the need for survival « "tyranny of survival." There seems to be:no imaginable evil which joup is not willing to inflict on another for the sake of survival, no rights, li 3 dignities which iti not reads Wis easy, of course, to ecognize the danger when survival is falsely and manipulatvely invoked. Dictators never talk aboot their aggressions, but only about the need to defend the fatherland, to save it ftom destruction atthe hands ot its enemies. But my point goes deeper than that. Is directed even at leitimate concern for survival, when ‘hatconcem js allowed to reach an intensity which would jgnore, suppressor destroy other fundamental human rights and values, The potential tyranny of survival as a value is that itis capable, if not treated senely, of wiping out all other values, Survival can become an obsession and a disease, proveking 2 All this begs the question: If serviee is so glorious, and has so many benefits, why must it be mandatory? American politicians never answer that question. And, given the history of national service, that's not surprising. ‘The idea that the state has the right to force individuals into "public service" jobs or to serve in the military has always been irresistible to tyrants and to big- government theoreticians. For example, in 1848. in The Communist Manifesto, Kar] Marx and Friedrich Engels called for the "establishment of industrial armies" to perform (mandatory) work (o help build a worker's paradise. Inthe 1940s, Adolf Hitler touted pflichterfulling, or "fulfillment of duty." For Germans, that meant an obligation to "serve the commutiity."*The philosophical rationale behind it was encapsulated in the popular'Nazi slogan: "Gemeinnutz vor Eigennutz!" ("The common interest before self") aaa I's no coincidence that history's most oppressive ideologies have embraced the concept of nal service. As the Ayn Rand Institute's Scott McConnell wrote in the New American (June 9, 1997), national service "is the essential collectivist idea.” "In Soviet Russia," McConnell wrote, "the requirement was to serve the proletariat: in Nazi Germany, it was service to the Volk [the people]: in various absolutist monarchies, it was service to the king: in some religious regimes, it's service to God.” Whatever the particular rationale, individuals were considered a "public good," to be used as the government directed Curiously, such an explicitly collectivist idea has had continuing appeal even in the United States, the world's most libertarian nation : Does this look Coerced??? ‘ 4 ; Hel nL "2Mean Green Workshops 2K6 Coercion Neg MANDATORY SERVICE IS THE VERY ANTITHESIS OF FREEDOM; IT IS THE GOVERNMENT'S WAY OF SOCIALLY ENGINEERING INDIVIDUALS AS PAWNS OF THE STATE. : Coyle, 2004 [ Christoper, August 2™, president of The Liberty Coalition at the University of Virginia, “Slavery is Freedom”, google, Evan DeFilippis] They ate defitely at no toes for supposed justifications forthe system. Seme iment th unequstsactfces made by those in aur sci. cloimin tat poor and minority Americans make up a dsproporionata share c the are foes. Tt goal ea sharod scrive, moaned forcing alleheren, twain tose of the weaky and powerul to owe thai reeures” me. Othere want tons he pli thal mos S:uddenyreanskoned ater the atacks on Ot. Toy fear a generation of Americans lacking ch esponsbsiy anda fespec forthe mia. They aio see universal compulsory nallonal sre 3s way te hel he Communty and foster sence of belonging mih end respon, ‘wares thar Tilo cizens Whaat all of this boils down to is an attempt to "socially engineer" a generation of young Americans to forcefully instil the virtues and ideals these commentators desire. The wish to promote pairiotism among seemingly apathetic youth lacking in discipline, bi destroying the very thing which makes this countty worth loving: freedom. Freedom is a word you will not hear uttered by those promoting compulsory service as this idea is at‘! the very antithesis of the freedom we hold so dear. What makes our country so great is, the fact that its citizens can choose to pursue the goals and ends that they have freeh chosen for themselves and are not subordinated by the government to be coercively + forced into pursuing the ends those in power believe they should be striving for Does this look Coereed??? : ae yi’ ta m4Mean Green Workshops 2K6 Coercion Neg MANDATORY NATIONAL SERVICE FORCES SUBMISSION OF INDIVIDUALS BY THE GOVERNMENT, sR RSE SESS iste tet tere PAE AR, Faria, 2002; (Miguel A., editor in chief of the Medical Sentinel of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons and author of "Cuba in Revolution ~ Escape From a Lost Paradise; feb 22; newsmax.com) ‘As Thomas Sowol wrote In Humzn Events a yar or so age, the actual theme of CS is "compulsory submission,” where students are used as "pawns in a propaganda program, which is more in keeping with what happens in totalitarian societies." Ho corectinfax, hats wry Lag NOt Oppose community service for juvenile transgressors as legal punishment or restitution. Is CS, then, philanthropy, rehabilitation ‘oF punishment? Natona Senice and Gonmunty Sevce Teach Subservenee and Conformity Rather than engendering a sense of true philanthropy and charity, as is the case with volunteering for good works carried out disinterestediyhy churches, synagogues, voluntary, associations and other benevolent institutfons of society, National Service and school- based (compulsory) Community Service teaches students to conform and to surrender ‘! personal liberty, It's not by chance that Karl Marx's eighth plank of the Communist Manifesto promulgates "equal liability of all to labor,” ans ve 10 park the estadistent of neustit ‘armils an the combination o educa wth abo for industial produeton, From pevatoly epanaores CS ta stae-eponsorod,obigotory NS, {hare jst one smal, dangorous ele. CotanlyNatianal Sanico nae nat whet our Founding Father intondee fore fee pecoleenowed > by thar Creator vith the precious Natura rights ie, Nberty andthe pusul et happiness rave nahin bit pais for genuine voluntary fa Mothor Terosa when conducted rly and dinoretesly, Parone and family shouldbe Teaching thelr chidren respect ana discolna, whe churches should be teaching chery anc piletivopy. NS or CS, schookbasad (whether publ: pvat) i ae story, fr tne sforeneniioned reasons. It iS interesting that when CS becomes NS, required and enforced by the State, itis the government that decides what qualifies as “service,” not the individual. wok tat christian groups want to perorn frequently doesn quay as servica” 4) This anor reason that Iberian and inowedgeabie conservative, 25 wala reiious soups, eppose Natenel Service (forced labor. Libeels on stats love NS and CS for the wong reason vie, @Stablishing subservience and enforcing conformity of the State ‘over individual members of society. (5)Mean Green Workshops 2K6 Coercion Neg National service violates civil liberties and makes you the servant of the state. Jacob G. Homberger 1991 jssue of FREEDOM DAILY president of The Future of Freedom Foundation( http://www textfiles.convconspiracy/natsrve.txt) ‘The versions of national service are many and varied, Most of them are directed to the youth of America, They range from univ mnscription to more "benign" forms of coercion advocated by Mr. Buckley. But all of them have at their core one essential principle: that the state, rather than being a servant of the people, is their master; and as their master. has the power to force the citizenry, either directly or indirectly, to serve others. National service violates every principle of individual liberty and limited goverment on which this nation was founded. As John Locke and Thomas Jefferson emphasized, life, liberty. property, and conscience are not privileges bestowed on us by governmental officials; they are hatural, God-given rights with which no public official can legitimately interfere. We are not brought into the world to serve the state; the state is brought into existence by the people to serve us through the protection of our natural, God-giyen rights, t vod gt & : Does this look Coerced??? 1 1 ' mod Hast : Mean Green Workshops 2K6 Coercion Neg Compulsory Service is equivalent to unchecked political power Lawrence, 2003; cn, sep 1; 1c o}ove Non Compan Sere get Son “Thoms Bowe, E(t wn Batre aa wes Fete Ay and Istaos ia Cater ats "By what right do we treat our sons and daughters as beasts of burden?...not all citizens concede an unchosen obligation to serve, Holding their own lives as th value, many reject as evil the notion that being needy confers on some people a moral claim to free labor from others." His final argument indicates that only those who desire "unchecked political power aver others" advocate for universal compulsory service, ‘The final argument comes from an unnamed commentator in response to Bladam’s essay. The commenter felt that CS would "totally take away what America stands for. Our country is a democraey, where we are free to choose what we want to do with our lives” and in his view, CS isnot in keeping with this ideal. « 38 zones psi ages sn and tly irene with teams i sept OFC. eo taleys my own tps a "hemageint he hops ofthe wo have ee doa Metta sola eae The argu setae hn stung emu ower eto a pews jae ceed iMean Green Workshops 2K6 Coercion Neg ‘Compulsory service leads to mandatory service and totalitarian rule. 1 Alex Epstein February 4, 2002 "Bush's Un-American and Immoral call for ‘National Service’ writer for the «i Institute publisher of The Duke Review hitp://www.capmas.com/article.asp?ID=1393 The logical end-road of the belief that you have a duty to serve the nation is legislation that forces you to do so-i.c., compulsory national service, Robert Litan of the Brookings Institution has proposed that every 18-year-old be forced to perform one year of compulsory service. This is nothing less than involuntary servitude of the youth of "the land of the free." While President Bush claims to be in favor only of voluntary service, his and other proposals are a step in the direction of mandatory service. McCain and Bayh write that "national service should one day be arite of passage for young Americans." There is only one way to make national service a "rite of passage’--by government coercion. McCain has long-favored compulsory national service, but laments that it “is not currently politically practical.” Accepting the premise that service is a duty, Bush and others who now claim service should be voluntary will be morally powerless against future bills that seek to make it mandatory. ‘i, a .an's alleged duty to the state’'l was Adolf Hitler, for example, who preached that "the higher interests involved in the life of the whole must set the limits and Jay down the duties of the interests of the individual." Every totalitarian society in history has rested on the premise of m ma } ty mo \ Does this Took Coerced?2? 2 : 6Mean Green Workshops 2K6 / Coercion Neg Voulenteering and Mandatory service are products of the violence of governmental power. : Bill Winter January 20, 2004 LP News Editor Libertarian Solutions: What's wrong with national service (hitp:/peacecorpsontine.org/messazes/messages/2629/2019385,htm!)Tulian> Libertarians also understand that coercive "volunteering" is not necessary. Americans havea Jong history of rallying to defend the nation in times of genuine crisis, and stepping forward to help their fellow citizens in need. They've never needed a politician or government bureaucrat to force them to do so, As Bandow noted, real volunteering —- and real compassion ~ needs neither “oversight nor subsidy from Big Brother. True compassion is going to [flow] from the grassroots up, not from Washington down." Weill end with this thought: While (real) volunteering and (forced) national service have some similarities: there is one profound difference., , ad difference. National service is a product of government power, bureaucracy, and coercion. Volunteerirtg, 6a! the other hand, is the highest tribute to the American spirit of cooperation, compassion, and liberty. That makes all the difference. ; Does this Jook Cocreea?2? : ; y tyMean Green Workshops 2K6 Coercion Neg NATIONAL SERVICE 1S AUTHORITARIAN; IT FORCES CITIZENS TO WORK FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE STATE, WHILST CONFORMING THEM TO SOCIETY. Faria, 2002; (Miguel A., editor in chief of the Medical Sentinel of the Association of ‘American Physicians and Surgeons and author of "Cuba in Revolution ~ Escape From a Lost Paradise; feb 22; newsmax.com; evan) National Service and compulsory Community Service have their roots 29. the Total Stale of Bato Musson (compassion fscsm), the Soviet Communism of Lin and Stain, Nazi Germany (iter Youty, the Litle Rod Book of Mao-Tse-Tung he Red Guar), ann my retve Cuba, ho Young Penoors of dear Fidel Casto (9) First, NS is about forcing citizens to work for the economic benefit of the State. Likewise, CS is about teaching the young to conform in society for the same ultimate benefit of the ‘State. Second, when NS and CS are obligatory, the work of citizens is not freely given. Itis not charity. 1201 even atwien Itis obligatory, and thus deprived of genuine ood faith’ and voluntarism. Third, a country that already has an abundance of freely giving... volunteers (over 90 million citizens) for humanitarian and other projects and which donates billions of dollars a year to philanthropy does not need to force its citizens:to °, '! “volunteer” in NS or its children mandated to undertake CS. : Warrants: , a) Forces citizens to work for the economic benefit of the state; this is also reflected in authoritarian regimes such as Benito Mussolino, Lenin and Stalin's Soviety Communism, and Nazi Germany. b) Community and National Service are obligatory, this is evident in many highschools which require CS before graduation. This obligation to serve destroys any kind of altruism in the act, and deprives CS of the good. ©) Mandatory National Service is superfluous we already have a ridiculous amount of volunteers Does this look Coerced??? 5 eNO \ i ae ! rosasta : Mean Green Workshops 2K6 Coercion Neg Conscription is arbitrary and destroys all rights Machan, 2003, orn, terptilsoly at Asn “he psn Lite Poe 20 Sinan With the introduction of the conceptual perversion known as positive rights, it has become impossible for government to govern by a set of consistent standards that had been provided by the theory of individual rights. Positive rights, as already noted, must be in inherent confliet- when someone is ‘conscripted to serve another, he or she no I serve. js or her own purposes or, indeed, even the purposes of mam the scarcity of time and skills to which other: sed naturally entitled. Most certainly, positive rights conflict with out basic negative rights to life, liberty, and property. In the last analysis, the doctrine of positive rights leaves government impose its arbi standards- one day itis to help AIDS research, the next to foster the arts by supporting public broadcasting, and the following day itis 1o solve the problem of im fe smoking habits among the citizenry. No stan straint apply- indeed, as in fascistic system, anything goes that the leaders important. The only difference is that the leaders, United still abide some modicum of democracy. ate Does this look Coerced??? Fae he i setter Get t vatMean Green Workshops 2K6 Coercion Neg The draft is unjust and expenci it goes against all of the liberties that the military is soposed to defend. Doug Bandow August 31, 1999 Fixing What-Ain't Broke: The Renewed Call for Conscription Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, He is the author or editor of several books, including Tripwire: Korea and U.S. Foreign Policy in a Changed Worldand Human Resources and Defense Manpower, and was a special assistant to President Reagan “Julian > ‘The draft was bad policy during the Cold War and would constitute amazing foolishness today, For instance, renewed conscription would reduce the quality of new service personnel. Returning to the draft would also increase the costs of raising a military force. Conscription is an expensive process—for individuals, government, and society. For the armed services, a draft would yield higher tumover, thus increasing training costs. Also, because few conscripts choose to make the military a career, the Pentagon would have to hike reenlistment benefits. A draft ‘would not improve the retention rate of skilled personnel or inculcate civic virtue. The military does have some serious personnel problems; however, such problems could be solved by returning to a foreign policy that is proper for'b'republic. The Clinton administration's promiscuous use of military force in conflicts irrelevant to U.S. security drives many potential, recruits away from and current career personnel out of the service. Furthermore, policymakers ' should adjust compensation and benefits to more successfully attract both new recruits and skilled personnel in the years ahead. A renewed draft would be bad for the military. But more important, conscription would be unfair and unjust--sacrificing the very constitutional liberties that the military is charged to defend ‘ é Does this look Coerced??? : o ii! . \L my : ty moMean Green Workshops 2K6 Coercion Neg Volunteering is based on the totalitarian model that encourages people to serve. Margaret Bell AM Autumn 2001 (Volunteering Today and Tomorrow) past President of the International Association for Volunteer Effort (IAVE) and a member of the CIVICUS Regional Board of Directors in Asia-Pacific.recipient of the Order of Australia This model was born out of totalitarian thinking which "obliged" citizens to serve. In this model, various types of pressure are applied in order to gain the loyalty or service of an individual or group. Lacking any capacity for spontaneity or genuine commitment to the work they engage in, participants flounder, and as soon as artificial pressures are removed the work stops. In some countries the notion of volunteering is still closely associated with this model, and volunteer recruitment is low and remains unpalatable because of the negative images of state-demanded "volunteering". (1) ‘The coercion model may be found in political parties, camps, associations, unions, cooperatives, educational institutions, statutory bodies and quasi-government organisations. In some countries people have been volunteered for military service, or for tasks within such a servicé, Here we meet a contradiction in terms. It is not possible to "volunteer" for any kind of activity otherthan © by free will and a deliberate decision on the part of the volunteer to engage in the work available is essential, otherwise we are not talking about volunteering. 1 i 4 Wee Does tis look Coereed?”? i: NS : i i :Mean Green Workshops 2K6 Coercion Neg While the act of volunteering may by itself not stem from coercion- the restrictions placed ‘on people once they serve are coercive and rights- restrictive- all national service programs are like this so any increase in a program, even if voluntary, still links Freeman, 20015 some itr, te tteraio Whe Lbsrionom Neto ews Pitsopy & aie AMues- Von 0, Nbr 5 Sag 201, Bo- ASP: Simon) ‘The liberal argument for inalienability can avoid this source of contention. For the issue of inalienability comes clown toa question of the design of basic legal institutions, in particular the institutions of propert and the use of government power to enforce personal agreements. 16 Nothing about liberalism inalienability restriction prevents people from voluntarily assuming the roles of master and subordinate to nearly any degree they choose. If this is the kind of life a person wants to live in relationship with another who consents, so be it: it is protected by freedom of association. The inalicnability restriction implies that person has the right to exit at any time this essentially private relationship.17 The problem comes with the contrary suggestion: that into this private relationship should be introduced the legal mechanism of contract and the institution of private property, with their provisions for coercive enforceability. Then the voluntary servitude arrangement is no longer merely a matter between consenting adults“ it becomes a matter of civic lay and 2 publicly recognized right. Ont party to-the arrangement enters the public and political realms to demand, as a right, that others recognize and respect a private agreement bestowing ownership in another person, Society is called upon to adopt publicly a parallel aititude and to treat a person, not as a being with rights due moral consideration and respect, but as property, an owned thing, Alienation of basie rights, if politically recognized, imposes duties not just ‘upon the transferor, but also upon society and its members to respect and uphold such transactions, We arg called upon to ignore the moral fate and political status of others as equals, and to participate in their civie and moral debasement, Moral and legal duties of mutual respect, protection from unwanted harm, and mutual assistance of others in distress are suspended, and society's members are obligated to apply their collective force to compel another's property to comply with contractual obligations..1s By embracing alienation agreements as matters of enforceable public right, we accept a mandate to cocree and harm certain people against theit vwill,and to regard and respond to them as if they were things. ‘ror, in recognizing and enforcing these contracts, government and its agents are treating people accordingly. : Does this look Coerced \ ; \ i ’ wey ;Mean Green Workshops 2K6 Coercion Neg Voluntary service leads to mandatory service. Bill Winter January 20, 2004 LP News Editor Libertarian Solutions: What's wrong with national service (htip://peacecorpsoniine. org/messaves/messages/2629/2019385.htm)) ‘Voluntary service programs can be a stepping stone to non-voluntary programs. Many supporters of voluntary service programs are honest about what they really want: Mandatory service programs. For example, Senator McCain supports a mandatory military draft or two-year term of equivalent civilian service, but says such a plan is "not currently politically practical.” However, as Bandow notes: "Proponents of a mandatory, universal system, such as Senator John ‘MoCain, see voluntary programs as a helpful first step." David R. Henderson, an associate professor at the Naval Postgraduate School, agrees. Ashe wrote in Reason magazine (February 1993): "With the voluntary-service network in place, and with an existing constituency of organizations that benefit from the artificially cheap labor.the., next step is compulsory service,” ' \ Does this look Coereed??? 4 \ : 1 4peta : Mean Green Workshops 2K6 Coercion Neg Any restraint on freedom justified in the name of the “war on terror” or national security puts us on a slippery slope that can only result in more repression. Fish, 20055 pertson tie Comenatve tent Alas Asin eons cent Rei Sao ‘This conservative-liberal alliance constitutes a "silent majority,” but not because its constituents are silent—they are quite vocal. What is silent is their covert cooperation to restrict freedom on a range of issues, despite their overt detestation of one another. One of the main arguments they use for depriving people of their freedom involves an appeal to extraordinary circumstanees—for example, freedom of the press may have to be restricted in time of war {o_prevent the enemy from finding out out plans or the location of our troops. The difficulty with this argument is its slippery slope: in time, a clear danger, such as placing meny lives in immediate jeopardy, by.a lesser danger, such as "sending the wrong message." Politicians use more than the slippery slope to limit personal freedoms in our large and diverse country: they also use seapegoating. Uniting people against a common enemy is a powerful tactic. ‘Therefore, to defend our country against the ravage: ating, iis essential to protect minority rights—including the rights other individual, a minority of one, "In time of war" may be a justification for some limited encroachments on some rights for sdpie time-| emer: ut it isnot an atveptable ust for govern Jimit more and more rights at all times because We are always ina state of. war, literal or metaphorical. In my lifetime, when we bave not been occupied with World War I, the + Korean War, the Vietnam War, and numerous smaller "police actions," we have been waging a war against communism, a war on drugs, and now a war on terrorism, The Cold War has been over for fifteen years. Is it too much to ask when, ifever, the assault om our freedom will end.” ' It would make matters simpler if people used their freedom in only positive ways, but both libertarian conservatives and civil liberties Iiberals recognize that this outcome is impossible, To begin with, freedom includes the right to Jeam by trial and error —to maike mistakes, sometimes mistakes that are very cosdy or irreversiblo—and to gain wisdom from experience, Because all must have equal rights, yourallowing me the freedom to suceeed entails my allowing you the freedom to fail, and vice versa Similarly, my freedom to express myself requires me to grant you freedom to express yourself even if | find your religion, politics, sexual preferences, art, or choice of intoxicating substances odious—and vice versa." Thus, although racist speech or violent films may disgust me, I choose not to criminalize them because I know that they are the price I must pay for my freedom of expression. Furthermore, freedom of expression does not mean just the freedom of the majority to express its dominant views. It means the freedom of all groups and individuals—including minority cultures or subcultures ot the counterculture, agnostics and atheists, minority religions, nonconformists and eccentrics—to express all views, including those that are deeply offensive to the majority, ‘The alliance of the majority ofcaxaratves wih he rujeiy othe tir witness eveneaynese to Sacrifice lom has Jed to the passage of ever more intrusive and punitive laws, as well as risonin ever-larger numbers of Americans for an ever-wider range of offenses. we now nove be gee pn yoplaion nn ie ‘A Woven 2.2 lon Aeros ae rere (eran and Besh 203) nd vre 485 lint ten ptt ar on pul oan Pat 2002)—wel me ha} peter four asl pop. One are of se eateonk, ating yo ese eer poss. mee dg, ‘tees in 58), FAI, Wak 10 2728-180, asd ASP, i Does this look Coeread?9? fog \g ; \ podMean Green Workshops 2K6 Coercion Neg Government actions in the name of the “war on terror” are acts of coercior Gavin, 20025 tose, wr keiraltepor Frey 0 Adopt Terror Lays Sei a Rees WSs reget Sno) Nearly every state legislature has considered some terrorism legislation, sch tt ode one USA Part Ac Mostof ‘bent leptin adc uignseunero ta inte seal los, Which defines terrorism as illegal acts "dangerous 10 human life" intended t ce a civilian population! or "influence the policy of a government,” su such definitions are also at the heart of the debate in many states, with eivil-liberties advocates arguing that the Janguage is so broad that acts of civil disobedience could be prosecuted as terrorism, : Does this look Coereed??? eae aa : ii : i. : i) } ie faeMean Green Workshops 2K6 Coercion Neg Link and impact card Persuasive rhetoric based on “national security” expands state power to the point of opression . Bailey, 20033 (rots Aue: Foie Felon: Res: Vl 35 sn 4.5; eco as Sinan Second, a world that is half free is dangerous to liberty at home and abroad. In a half-fiee world, free societies mast protect themselves from the ambitions of tyrants motivated by ideology (Hitler and Stalin) or greed (Saddam Hussein). In the face of tyrants and terrorists of the Al Qaeda varicty, politicians in tree societies persuade anxious voters that we need tighter borders, increased spying on visitors and citizens, and detentions based on the slimmest of national security pretexts, ‘The result is a growing national security apparatus, including a bigger military, « new Department of Homeland Security, and expanded domestic and international spy agencies, All of these diminish domestic liberty and soak up more and more of our citizens’ wealth. These expanded state powers have ven tempted some conservatives fo agitate for the establishment of an American empire. In the past our government justified supporting unsavory regimes such as Saudi Arabia and Zaire as necessary allies in ‘our nation’s struggle against even more menacing tyrants and terrorist organizations. Not surprisingly, to people yearning to be free of their tyrants, our support of their oppressors looked like hypocrisy and this often encouraged them to adopt anti-liberal ideologies as guides for their struggles against oppression ‘ ‘ ' a Does this look Coereed??? u vie % i yi i) } ty faeMean Green Workshops 2K6 Coercion Neg Thinking or question; ig in terms of national interest is Propaganda and leads to dehuminization. : Rajiva 2006 ne . Lila Rajiva, Professor at the University of Maryland, freelance journalist, Prometheus: ‘The Emergence of the Police State in America, pgs. 152-153] (Julian Melendez. and Rosabelia Magat) < Inthis context, even to think in terms of nation states and national interests i an eflect Of propaganda. If the market penetrates everywhere and its interests rule. then in reality iis transnational armies and transnw Tan ON Ls Pransnationall arenies and transna: Tonal objectives that prevail. F Uberation of Fallujah entails the expulsion or mna esacre ofits people; secu- tity demands che cteation‘of a legal no man’s land of ng ‘onpersons—enemy combatants who do not deserve the protection of taw . fade WE GbI von Tn the ene, wel zones alpts edo : Be ian wor coMbatanis ether Te or sentenced For them, the category of torturethat-isnet-tortre Ivereated w mask the absolute dominian thet the state demands. “PGR s3 \ Does this fook Coereed??? He a ate Aemed Mean Green Workshops 2K6 L n_ Neg eee eee SE Attempts (o expand state power for “the welfare of others” will only expand state power- Justifying things like the Bush doctrine and imperialism ' Pinkerton, 20043 anes. wih Corio, Cent Recon: Vl [se 10, p50, Ip ASP eee Since) ALissanesin, prospects for expanding the warfare state--which will, in turn, further expand the welfire state—seem excellent, In today’s America, the spending of blood and treasure for foreign wars--even ‘those, such a5 Iraq, that violate international law and are based on government di mn=-is practically unquestioned. A government arrogant enough to lie, big time, will never be a modest government. And th uurse. having made more enemies around the world through offensive wars. Washington must Spend more on “defense; including homeland defense. Finally, after pledging a welfare state for Iraq {ation a kh or ky ad conecar bec eo experi ning le acum. L Will be impossible not tokeep and expand the welfare state here at home. Judy ted 918 sieht ened vo Wari etsy Pine Hin Der Lend Oso anes bey fr hes ve Bras augue soa bnderped harps Reems wire ace bch peace shes three eto er, har ete ceo bee prt more wa deep pct. Wes es ‘een hs too tsy nding is fon pty net eof sch expe wll al be a vente oth vais soe of a ake ng te eset Sh ree el push agin al nj! He cst tot lar ty ee ue trotin. a government thats "strong" enough 10 rearrange the domestic affairs of other nations likely will ‘feel equally confident about continuing to meddle in matters that should be private heze at home, be the) sexual, medical, or pharmacological. nsdpt one wre: "War is the health of the state” iz Some wins oteows, endorse the Bush Doctrine, explicitly with their words or implicitly with theie silence. Mheyaass nee: tah nines offssion ie airesto face ten be fee. Ldisagree with this neo + Rousseauiean argument; pis int if the Bush Doctrineers get theit way, our future politics will po the cynical and pethans dirigiste way of France. as every big-governmentalizing action is justified in the name of la gloize-oops, I mean “democracy” 3ys mens. shave a. debate about American imperialism. wy erin if we don't raise our voices, then libertarianism, a la Epstein, could become just a synonym for economies. in wisehcase, WE might have rosperity, but we won't have peace, and we won't haye freedom, ‘ Does this Ipok Coerced??? 5 i Fi ' FEESce ‘Mean Green Workshops 2K6 I Coercion Neg eee Attempts to expand state power for “the welfare of others” will snowball and begin to affect other liberty-restricting issues ' Cmca v Conse Kein Vol 38 eu 1.9404, 1s: ASP ic: Sion) Pinkerton, 2004: anes0, Atshe sine, prospects for expanding the warfare state--which will, in turn, further expand the welfare State--seem excellent, In today's America, the spending of blood and treasure for foreign wars--even those, such as Iraq, that violate international law and are based on government deception--is practical unquestioned. A government arrogant enough to lie, big time, will never be a modest government. And ‘then, of course, having made more enemies around the world through offensive wars, Washington must id more on "defense;’ including homeland defense, Finally, after pledging a welfare state for k {ison 9 rb oncom transi sefomd eps shiny" Ese’. iL Will be impossible not to keep and expand the welfare state here at home. tut ays afer ie 118 senitie tat nod Word Work Gras Pte na ‘evi yi-Oso rose camty fr eres ve i Briss suaeqaon scl beer rove al fs pose or scout aten ‘eth pet ses ry toes, ‘eda Arrie, vl sone rie Dees bch i il oly bean aera oe wits sr fhm are aay ig ebstemon ibe dep necks, When ht tne Hes Bsn ree ea psh es eal nye He cnt enleta onto oc ve eens he to busy vnaing i op ply ‘waitin @ government that’s "strome” enough to rearrange the domestic affairs of other nations likely will feel equally confident abi itinuing to meddle in matters that should be private here at home, be the! ‘sexual, medical, or pharmacological, tsdojn one ms pig: "War is the health of the state." ie Som ster ofenne endorse the Bush Doctrine, etplictly with their words or implicitly with these Silence. reyes sete: th he aise of fafon tee easier it oe coe be oe Ldisagree with this neo: + Rousseauean argument, oe: if the Bush Doctrineers get their way, our future politics will go the eynical and perhaps dirixiste way of France, as every big-governmentalizing action is justified in the name of la gloire-- san "democracy" By atoms les have a debate shout American imperialism. w, or snu if we don't raise our voives, ther Libertarianism, a la Bpstein, could become just a synonym for economics. twice, We might have prosperity, but we won't have peace, and we won't have freedom. i Does this Jook Coerced??? : ay (EEMean Green Workshops 2K6 Coercion Neg Askioe Ce State coercion is hidden and creates the repression of rights. Rajiva 2006 [Lila Rajiva, Professor at the University of Maryland, freelance journalist, Prometheus: ‘The Emergence of the Police State in America, pgs. 134-88] (Julian Melendez and Rosabella Magat) ZZ. Thestory of Prometheus drason pre-Chistian th, Ging savior one who'dous batile not with evil incange Sse bat Ahetaditionil gods, the Olympians, keeps of wants Tidition. Suit 804 like in capacity, he is no longer the a ical WISH SATU DUTTAT heroic : Greek, and bis mortal enemy is not the law-breaking Lacifo ee er but the esta Ppmenton Mount Olympus, Like the trickster god wha wrested the secret ot fie from Zeus on behalf dF humankind, the intellectuals of he Noe World Over, the new Prometheans, see thensoh z iselves as using stratagems to “iite eer of he world from te olde gp ee Thee over cal be unacceptable andsneeorty sandal o stsS cin Pelee ho comply yagi eat State 10 rewrite detentions and torture oat- inyth- making that Side its hound, virtuous operation of ‘and \ Does this look Coereed??? u “a ig 1 : es yes : mf Apeta : Mean Green Workshops 2K6 Coercion Neg Positive rights result in martial law and totalitarianism Machan, 2003 ctor. rotary at Asbun the pasion fe ibe Pav 175 Siem) If govemment’s function, however, is to protect individual negative rights, there is no systematic danger of pitting groups against groups since governments will not redistribute scare resources but enforce laws that demand abstinence from the use of force, If force, however, is omnipresent in the task of solving social problems. quite apart from the protection of negative rights, the role of democracy will be to jine where it must be deploved. Democracy shall determine who are the beneficiari in the process of wealth in other words, resource and services- redistribution. Ina very imaginative and alarming essay, Lt. Colonel Charles Dunlop, Jr, has argued that certain contemporary trends that involve the expansion of the use of military power trends that involve the expansion of the use of military power are quite ominous, Such a use of military force expands the role of the military in American social life to the point that the population may inclined to entrust many of the ny tasks to the and thus encourages the emergence of permanent martial law. ‘Combined with the democratic method this can encourage a kind of democratic totalitarianism, namely, by incr ‘ing govern rity in all realms of social life the war on drugs, coping wi natural disasters, and so forth= as well as lending military aid to ot! ms of the world where such ‘matters need to be addressed, Se . Pechaps, this prospect, made evident in our foreign affairs, will finally persuade our citizenry to restrain our government and give democracy a it to handle, " 7 Does this look Coereed??? a QV ‘ (PEEMean Green Workshops 2K6 Coercion Neg Ignoring human initiative makes tyranny and rights violations inevitable. In absenee of individual freedom fate is what drives one to do what they have no choice in doing. Machan 2000 [Tibor R. Machan, Professor at the Argyvos School of Business and Economics at Chapman University, research fellow at The Hoover Institution, Initiative: Human Agency and Society, pg. 80] (Julian Melendez) € But there is ho way to avoid the connection, We complain about the loss of political or economic libenty. but if ihere Ts ne hames hen this loss is inevitabloCTyranntes) dp Zovernment and criminal mizcnduet, and the rest are all Sist like nateral ts, happenings over which we can do no more “Din sone hand-wringing. (human beingsdo what Trer-de Because the forves of mate ee ee beings do what they do hecaus {he forces of nature drive them to do it then only fale fo responstble When they de nolitical po ee only fate 13 responsible when they do political o eriiinal wrongs, This may pur the mater to ‘ Plainly for some of those who have feen,aclvessing the issue, Ine ther is no escaping the simple conclusion. “Que sera, era” sill say ‘thest chat wall he will he Spey atl he ill } : Does this look Cocroed??? oi 7 gy. is 1 4Mean Green Workshops 2K6 Coercion Neg Coercion leads to confusion and inj solyed and creating violent paralysis. Machan 2000 justice previnting problems from being [Tibor R. Machan, Professor atthe Argyvos School of Business and Economics at Chapman University, research fellow at The Hoover Institution, Initiative Ageney and Society, pgs. 5-6] (Julian Melendez) the practical consequences of such a divided outlook, whereby much of the discussion in the culture both condemns and exonerates individuals when it comes to their lamentable conduct, may well be confusion, as well as injustice, If'in order to act effectively including establishing institutions to guide long-range behavior and policies— people must have ideas by which to be guided, and if these ideas ply conflictrig, even contéadictory, courses of action, it seems rea- sonable to expect much Kqufusion)and even fajustics)to arise,’ We ‘come to understand ourselves in one of the following two ways: either 4s capable of being individually responsible for many problems in our lives or as unable to aci by our own judgment. Tn this Tight, we must see ourselves as divided in a rather funda- mental way. Such division, if justified, would discourage efforts toward resolving problems, ironing out differences, solving apparent contra- dictions. We would ai best be advised to just accept the surrounding confusion and live within a world in which blaming and praising con- ‘ tinue side by side with the conviction that no one can help doing ishe of she ts doing, because itis alla matter of an ongoing ee mere ar ongoing causal connections. This confusion also engenders the serious vulnerability. in many in our culture to making opportunistic moralistic attacks—harsh pealing to environmental, genetic, economic, cultural, and other forms of determinism. Outbursts, denunciations, and so forth, are often dis- cussed in this fashion—for example, on talk shows, as well as in more serious social commentaries. People angrily attack others but then excuse themselves on the grounds that they cannot help themselves, not realizing that those at whom they are angry are subject to the same excuse and th dow Deepeta : Mean Green Workshops 2K6 Coercion Neg Use of coercion and other “big government” programs expands the government to the point of repression without any gains ~ Beller, 20045 coset, isrovinas cheno alt To erates: Review in ain Hay ~Vohe 2 Naber 2 ee. eso AS She e Jim Crow laws were "just one partic (nous ex 1 new willingness on the part of Americans generally to employ government power to achieve social goals" (p. 328). In Hummel's scheme, segregation and integration are not moral opposites but evil twins, because both are instruments of official coercion, The problem with public schools, whether forcibly segredated or forcibly integrated, is that they are public, taxing the citizens’ wealth to brainwash their minds. This is the lasting, pernicious legacy of the Civil War. Reversing America's trajectory toward freedom, it destroyed th ian minimalist state and created One Nation Under Bigger Government. In ils wake came governmental expansion at every level: a national debt, universal taxation, a standing army used for civil repression, sailroad subsidies and regulation, veterans' pensions, state school systems, city police and fire departments, licensing for lawyers and doctors, obscénity laws, wt Does thi ook Coeroed??2 : ii - lo eee eetMean Green Workshops 2K6 I Coercion Neg 1 esse ede nes sees ; Fear-mongering and creating threats is another link- it’s all used to repress individuals and destroy freedom \ Fish, 2005) detisosnt, he Comseriatne-LteatAlance Asin Freedom, Simin endo Rove A205, Yo 1 oe 2927-20. en ASP ‘The larger social context for these nus -sents an astounding catalog linary day-to-day activities that have been criminalized, of the loss of | in an ever-growing number of social settings. and of ever-increasing govern ‘monitoring, ore eitzeny The ftiong pr it of ingsnens os Reknn n pivacy ghee owen ei sd mel adc eden ral pees our Serr parcial dri be af probed ee a ito avoi sete a tad mesg hot ds orig sgn ls eee sarees mara bse ne en Youcama expect confit fem your hap (i er eto cd abe peer ian ioe, ops aero {hey want espn dtc preci or tna se ano Et erred crs be Gi rt sane meas at raphe cae es be techd as wl a ind pct he sateen You cannot expect your student records or library records to be confidential (in order to prevent terrorism, {0 catch pedophiles). ‘Yoecannot ike ple re many pups iol sing ete ena aero rove ox You cannot find out much of what your government is doing or has done in the past because of excessive seereey and politically self-protective classification of information (for the smooth fmctioning of zovernment and national sect as rivacy decreases, the government's privacy increases, {cet er tyrone eRe ey deseases, the governments privacy incense, eras el inrnconfomyoar obey mots se ee hoa bes teeta pae cha tues ry zener oon ier Sn of mi met we ard aig vie eer Yea ac me ny mi eee ogee pidy ne eh et we pire +7, 1! Yeti eit fare efron pence (ean ae a hose Soe eee nes desl petit dein sprit tment ‘icon hn wen degree sabes eae as wh hs ceil wo des oan Bese "rot mtr recon ski anes vache osm igre a ate fea SO Politicians fear t »bilize support and edple in line. Over time. as we accept less and less f ftecdom and kowtow to official explanations, we become docile. If the price of freedom is etemal vigilance, we have been asleep at the wheel, om coun infomation ! ant L fMean Green Workshops 2K6 t Coercion Neg Coercion strips peoples identities and makes a person only identify with the actions that actions that his desires frustrate. : Berard Williams 2003 (From Freedom to Liberty: The Construction of a Political Value) {Knightbridge Professor of Philosophy, Cambridge University (1967-1979), Monroe Deutsch Professor of Philosophy, University of California, Berkeley (1988-2003), and White's Professor of Moral Philosophy, Oxford University Professor of Philosophy} {tis usually said that the particular reaction of resentment is tied to the idea of the other person's action being not rightful, If we accept this idea, and also identify as (necessarily) resentment the feelings that go with a sense of a restriction on one's liberty, we shall be back on the road to Rousseau's outlook. But I think that we should loosen both these connections. Resentment is not 10 closely tied to the idea of right, ” and a [End Page 17] sense of coercion or restricted liberty can be connected to reactions that range more widely than resentment in the strictest sense. A helpful consideration here is the extent to which the person whose liberty is in question is identified with the actions that might be felt to 4éstrict or violate that liberty. This idea holfis us to explain the case of the citizen who thinks that a certain political decision is both procedurally comreet and right in principle, but nevertheless experiences its consequences for himself as a cost in liberty. The reason that this is possible is that his sense of himself is not entirely that of a person identified with the state's decisions, however rightful. Rousseau of course wanted each Person in a virtuous republic to be identified totally with himself or herself as citizen, but i is inevitable and appropriate and an entirely good thing that on any conception of a modern society--and I suspect also, on a realistic conception of any society whatsoever--this is not going to be so, Someone who disapproves of a measure in principle but not on procedaral grounds is less ‘identified with it than someone who approfes of it in both these respects, Someone who finds it both procedurally and in principle objectionable is even less identified with it, and one who thinks that all the procedures are a sham is Jess identified still. At the end of this line, when the action that constrains someone is experienced as nothing but coercion, sheer force in the interests of others, the lack of identification is total, and this certainly is resentment. But right from the beginning of this progression there is room for the idea that the action, whatever there is to be said for it, is a limitation of someone's liberty. to the extent that he identifies with the desires and projects which this action will frustrate. Does this Ipok Coereed?”? Coy Ye. : 7 ie 4Mean Green Workshops 2K6 I Coercion Neg Coercion and the causes of it are obstacles of ‘freedom. Bernard Williams 2003.(From Freedom to Liberty:The Construction of a Political Value) {Knightbridge Professor of Philosophy, Cambridge University (1967-1979), Monroe Deutsch Professor of Philosophy, University of California, Berkeley (1988-2003), and White's Professor of Moral Philosophy, Oxford University Professor of Philosophy} This is an idea of liberty as ability or capacity. It has an obvious disadvaittage: we already have a concep! of ability or capacity, and on this [End Page 7] showing ‘liberty’ or ‘freedom’ turn out boringly just to be other names for it. More importantly, it misses the point of why we want these terms in the first place. That point is registered for the first time when we add to this kind of account a further condition, which concems the kind of obstacle that is stopping us from doing something we want to do. We. say, more narrowly, that we are unfree if our inability is the product, specifically. of coercion, whore that is taken, at least in the central cases, to mean--usiiig the term ‘coercion’ in a broad sense--the intentional obstructive activities of other people, This is incorporated in Isaiah Berlin's famous account bf "negative" liberty, and of course, as he noted, it goes back a long way. ° Berlin quotes, for one. Helvétius: "Phe free man is the man who is notin! ‘rons, nor imprisoned in a geo}, nor terrorized like a slave by the fear of punishment .. itis not lack of freedom, not to fy like an eagle or swim like 2 whale." Though | shall be concemed with what Berlin called “negative freedom,” I shall not use that term nor discuss the distinction . a "and "positive" freedom itself. (It is misicading in several respects, ularly if it is identified, as it is sometimes by Berlin, with a distinction between “freedom from" and "freedom to") The range of obstacles, those identified with "coercion," can itself be interpreted more or less broadly. Some candidates, ordered roughly from the obvious and agreed to the more disputable, ares (A) Prevention by force (Helvétius's irons and gaol): (B) Threats of force, penalties, social rejection, and so forth (Helvétius's fear of punishment); ® (©) Competition in (something like) a zero-sum game, where one competitor sets out to stop another reaching his goal; [End Page 8] (D) By-products of another enterprise, not aimed at the agent; (£) By-products of an arrangement which structurally disadvantages (those in the position of) the agent, sed? i A Does this lok Coereed?22 : ‘i Y : ' +e ' elMean Green Workshops 2K6 a Coercion Neg Coercion is antithetical to freedom Alberta Report, 1994, (nts eanceejontn: 82% she A Sno) Ifa socictyis to be free, it must have Jaws restricting at least a few individual liberties, according to Ottawa lawyer Robert Nadeau in the March 21 issue of Citizen, from Focus on the Family Canad, “Freedom, rightly understood, cannot imply a total absence of coercion ot constraint...There are only two ‘ays that society can be ereated: through coereion or consensus. Coercion is antithetical to a free and democratic sovjety. But constraint, both in the form of selfrestraint and in the form of laws required to protect the common good, is implicit in consensus...By defining freedom in terms of the individual's right fo do whatever he pleases, we undermine the ability of society to function civilly or to protect itself from ‘moral and social disintegration.” : Does this look Coerced?2? Dog G0 : 4 ! 4Mean Green Workshops 2K6 Coercion Neg Coerced actions destroy natural rights Machan, 2003; cor, rr arpisinhy shen “the psn rib Pas 1, Sinan ‘Rights, then, are those principles that gov basic relations between human bein; ‘The source of a specific right may vary, but the most basic source of rights is human nature, implying moral requirements for community life such that every person may be forced to abide by certain principles: It is everyone's natural right to be respected for what he is- a human being eapable of choosins to live, to thing, to act rationally, and to interact by respecting the rationality of all others. ‘The tights to life, liberty, and property state these points somewhat elliptically. What they meen is this: (1) Since itis one’s basic nature to be able to choose to live, one’s life (as the outcome of one’s identity and essential human choice) is something that no one other than the agent is permitted to terminate of rake (unless the person refuses to respect the life of another and thereby incurs self-defensive action that may kill her); (2) since the choive to live implies the commitment to choose to thing and act rationally, others who have explicitly or implicitly joined a community are not justified in authorizing the subversion of one’s liberty to make this choice (it would be the negation and irrational denial of another's ‘humanity to subv ase between ratjonal though and a 1Lthough and action); and (3) since rational choice may lead one to interact with others who also may find it rational,to associate with others, the association of individuals and the results of sueh association (e.g, acquisition, Sooperation, competition, trade, and bequeathal) tidy not be violated. “ These rights to life, liberty, and property-righ ulted, robbed, or = are natural rights. They emerge because we are human bein: use we ave the power of ' choice to live and to flourish, and because we can best do so in societies. ‘The main contention wielded against the strictures of natural rights is the notion that if another lives badly, neglects his life, or suffers misfortune, help may justifiably be imposed upon him, depriving » him of the freedom to choose badly that is part affront or even to destroy the human dignity of the person to force someone to engage in the sort of other-assisting. conduct often deemed to be honorable, like sharity: coerced charity is not charity but robbery. ‘Those who urge such measures fail to observe the requirements of human nature, That failure only appears to be helpful or nevessary. Once these matters caret clear that the alleged welfare state does not really promote human welfare at all. One cannot promote the overall welfare of human beings if one imposes conditions contrary to the requirements of human nature (except, perhaps, entirely accidentally). ; Does tis look Coerced??? ees AO”: y ' eee (eeenuer 'Mean Green Workshops 2K6 Coercion Neg Freedom is key to ethics and morality, Machan 2000 [Tibor R. Machan, Professor at the Argyv. ‘08 School of Business and Economics at Chapman University, research fellow at The Hoover Institution, Initiative. Human Agency and Society, pgs. 88-89] (Julian Melendez) We human beings are not hardwired, at least as far as those ace tions of ours are concerned that are guided by our conceptual thinking. We have to concer ourselves about nearly everything. People have to make difficult choices in the face of all kinds of tests, as when they resist the temptations of drugs, alcohol.'smoking, or other bad habits and practices orhen they need to change their minds in the face of new evidence and arguments, aud sdforth. So we human beings con- stantly face the issue of choosing between alternatives, of exercising Semi ace te tesue of choosing between alternatives, of exercisin "this free will res onsibly, of being a moral agent, an ethical being, am aia animal. As Mors Midgley puts it in her book, The Ethical rimate, we must really face up to the fact that we are not living by instinct but by choice, That is the second answer to the question of why freedom is im- portant. Why the fuss? Because while we hav t, we are facing incred- ible alternatives, some of them devastating for ourselves, for those we love, for our fellow citizens. And if we do not do the right thing of our own there are devastating consequences. So another reason, then, lom inatters is that t iX@xtremelpy intimately yonnected with ethies, with morality. There are no such things as guilt, regret, apology, pride, or sense of achievement If there is no free will, i there ino freedom. You cannot tell others they ought to have done better if there_was no_choice. It makes no-sense. It amounts to ishfulShinking\It is a completely misg a demonology. Ethics would have to be bogus } iterprise Jn human life if freedom were not a reality. Now this does not prove Treedom, but it Vis important if one is concerned about ethical does indicate why ‘matters, if one is concerned about “oughts” and “ought nots” in life SS Does this look Coerced??? ips ; 4 mAce Mean Green Workshops 2K6 I : Coercion Neg ‘The notion of positive rights and coercion undermine the principles of capitalism and free trade ' Machan, 2003: rise. rororjtasapy a Asbur: “Me passion Ley Page 15.16 Si) 1e of the most powerful ideas in opposition to the free society is what political phil call ositive rights, [tis now usually opposed to our basic or natural negative rights t e from the uninvited interventions of other persons. Positive rights, in contrast, require that members of a community be provided with service at the expense of other persons. This idea js also Known. in context of practical public policy measures, as the doctrine of entitlements. Positive rights is also a most powerful idea set against the principles of a free economy. If people have such rights, one has no justification to refuse service to others, One may be conscripted to serve the needs and wants of other people regardless of one’s own choices. Moteover, positive rights are supposed to emttle one to services and benefits to be paid for by taxation. The idea is also used to establish the case for government regulations, which includes mainly the regulation of businesses. Free irade is, thus, constrained. at least to the extent that some significant ortion of one’s wealth is not one’s own to allocate as one sees fit. Even if one holds that taxes must pay for government Irom some members to others in the community. see Does this look Coerced??? tee 4 " Tp f Apeta : Mean Green Workshops 2K6 Coercion Neg Increased power and restriction of liberty justifies imperialism and military state Bailey, 20035 (roms rysep cng Fedor Ren Vl 38 ee pt St) : Second, « world that is half free is dangerous to liberty at home and abroad. In a half-free world, free sovictics must protect themselves from the ambitions of tyrants motivated by ideology (Hitler and Stalin) or greed (Saddam Hussein). In the face of tyrants and terrorists of the Al Qaeda variety, politicians in tree societies persuade anxious voters that we need tighter borders, increased spying on visitors and citizens, ‘and detentions based on the slimmest of national security pretexts, ‘The result is a growing narional security apparatus, including a bigger military, a new Department of Jani estic and international spy a diminish domestic liberty and soak up more and more of our citizens’ wealth. These expanded state powers have even tempted some conservatives to agitate for the establishment of an American empire. In the past our government justified supporting unsavory regimes such as Saudi Arabia and Zaire as necessary allies in our nation's struggle against even more menacing tyrants and terrorist organizations. Not surprisingly, to xcople yeaming to he free of their tyrants, our support of their oppressors looked like hypocrisy and thus ‘often encouraged them to adopt anti-liberal ideologies as guides for their struggles against oppression aE Does tis took Coereed??? 7 Fa DX i sees jee motMean Green Workshops 2K6 / Coercion Neg Any rights violations snowball- this prevents the enforcement of rights at all Macha, 2003. criorx.rotarpienpy et ashen“ aan or LP Sd So with the theory of positive individual rights, we find ourselves with the very unhappy situation that perfectly normal claims to having certain rights are usually in conflict. Governments, therefore, cannot rotect our rights but must pit some rights against others, Instead of government having the task of “securing these rights.” government must here invoke some additional standard by which to tell which and whose rights should get protection. Sinec no such standards are available, the situation tums into a government not by Jaw but by people, after all, who will decide which rights need protection and which do not t L aie Does this Jook Cocreed?2? faa af.Mean Green Workshops 2K6 Coercion Neg Any deviation from rights policy snowballs- we must reject the notion of positive rights and coercion and embrace a doctrine of negative rights ' Machan, 20015 cyte ide on ubeny Yor, i. propa Sinan) Because iti itself arbitrary and incoherent, the doctrine of positive rights leaves government free to be arbitrary and incoherent, As long as some people are getting resources that were earned by somebody else, that's all that counts. One day it's subsidizing ALDS research that tops the to-cio list; the next it's fostering the arts by splurging on the National Endowment for the Arts and PBS: the next it's ouring everyone of smoking and plundering the tobacco companies. No principles, no logic, no standards of restraint, and no surefire way to know from day to day what one will be free to.do and what one will be wohibited from doing. Whatever the leaders sav goes, so long as they continue to mechanically genuflect before the altar of democrac} we are to reverse course and achieve a more consistently free socicty we must tear up the counterfeit standard of rights and restore a gold standard: the rights doctrine that enables us to actually pursue, and: achieve, life and happiness. agian Does this ook Coeroed??? os Do ‘ ‘ | : oHMean Green Workshops 2K6 Coercion Neg ‘Totalitarianism outweighs nuclear war! Rummel 2001 (RJ, Political Scientist, University of Hawaii, Death By Government, httpy/Avww:hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.CHAPLHTM) Consider also that library stacks have been written on the possible nature and consequences of nuclear ‘war and how it might be avoided. Yet. in the lite of some still Jiving we have experienced in the toll from den (and related destruction and misery among the survivors) the equivalent of a nuclear war, especially at the high near 360,000,000 end of the estimates. Itis as thouzh one had already occurred! Yet to my knowledge, there is only one book dealing with the overall human cost of this “nuclear war"--Git Elliot's Twentieth Century Book of the Dead. Every violation of liberty should be rejected ‘i Sylvester Petro, Professor of Law at Wake Forest University, TOLEDO LAW REVI orest University, TEW, 1974, p. 480 ‘tis seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once: Thus itis unacceptable o say thatthe invasion of one aspect of freedom is of no import because there have been invasions of so many other aspects. That road Jeads to chaos, tyramny, despotism and the end of all human aspiration. Ask Solzhensyn. Ask Milovan Dijilas. In sum, if one believes in fieedom 2s a supreme value andthe proper ordering principle for any society aiming to maximize spiritual and material welfare, then every invasion of freedom mast be ‘emphaticelly identified and resisted with an undying spirit. \ Does this ook Coereed??? : BX a yu ae : ty eeeMean Green Workshops 2K6 Coercion Neg And, this guts solvency- coerced people don’t make good workers- volunteers are key Machan, 19975 criore. rotorpispiyat aiden "Why Edom Mite Fir Hoover atin ems: Pages 8; Som) On the broad canvas of human history, free persons have, in the main, been more helpful to the rest than those who have been coerced by governments to render service. Expecting perhaps some emergencies, governments ruin the plight of the neddy by thwarting the creativity of the able and willing. including the creative and ambitious traits of the temporarily helpless- at least in the ong run, Slaves do not make very ‘good Samaritans, nor do they exhibit much ambition. So the prospects for both the fortunate and less fortunate arc greater if the human right to liberty is promoted. proteeted, and maintained within the various legal orders that guide human communities. y ! of L ; Does this look Coeroed?2? Ud 2 : i DB :Mean Green Workshops 2K6 Coercion Neg Government support of nat recruit volunteers nal service hurts the private sector’s ability to Spalding — 2003 [Matthew, Director of the B. Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies at The Heritage Foundation, “Principles and Reforms for Citizen Service”, April Ist, pg. hutp:/Wvww-heritage.org/Research/Labor/bg1642.cfm, Schy] Any expanded government role in the voluntary sector is unwise and counterproduetive. "The more [government] puts itself in the place of associations," Tocqueville argued, "the more particular persons, losing the idea of associating with each other, will need it to come to their aid these are causes and effects that generate cach other without rest, Will the public administration in the end direct all the industries for which an isolated citizen cannot suffice?"25 Citizen service that is paid for and organized by the government encourages individuals and associations to look to the state for assistance. Likewise, the government's funding of charitable organizations to pay for volunteer time reducag.the need for private-sector support, making it more likely that citizens will abdicate their civic responsibilities. Institutionalized federal funding and government administration also will have the effect of further reshaping the voluntary sector, ! as public money and oversight inevitably pushes aside private philanthropy and sets the stage for increased lobbying and public advocacy. The long-term effect would be to shift the center of gravity within the volunteer community from civil society to the public sector. , Does this look Coereed?2? 4 a 1A i i : A moi !Mean Green Workshops 2K6 Coercion Neg When an authoritative force like the government uses coercion to try to enforce the rules of law the demand breeds resentment. 7 Bemard Williams 2003 (From Freedom to Liberty:The Construction of a Political Value) {Knightbridge Professor of Philosophy, Cambridge University (1967-1979), Monroe Deutsch Professor of Philosophy, University of California, Berkeley (1988-2003), and White's Professor of Moral Philosophy, Oxford University Professor of Philosophy} Ina frequently quoted remark, Heracleitus said "They would not have known the name of justice, if it had not been for these things," and it is virtually certain that "these things” are disputes, quarrels, and conflict." Justice, hence an authoritative source of justice, hence an empowered enforcer of justice, is needed to impose solutions on what would otherwise be unbounded conflicts of interest. Similarly, the restriction of our activities by the intentional activities of others, as contrasted with the ubiquitous limitations we face in nature, can give rise toa quite specific reaction, resentment; and if resentment is not to express itself in more conflict. hon-cooperation, and dissolution of social reliions, an authoritative determination is needed of whose activities should have priority (needless to say, that determination itself may well use concepts of justice.) In an appropriate context, resentment can be directed to inaétion, to a fefusal’ to remofe some obstacle iffit can be claimed that it is the other party's business to remofe it, But it cannot extend to what are recognized as blankly the obstacles of nature. Rousseau's distinction between being confined in one's house by a snowstorm and being locked in it by someone else remains in place. “ [End Page 11] But now there is a further development peculiarly connected with freedom. As soon as the authoritative source is indeed empowered and deploys coercion to enforce its rulings, that coercion itself can give rise to resentment. Questions arise of how that power is being used, questions that demand legitimating accounts. Those questions are likely to become more pressing, the closer the situation comes to that in which the authority uniquely commands the means of some kinds of coercion (suich as (A) abofe, and to some extent (B))--that is to say, the closer it comes to the ideal type of there being a state. To various degrees in different societies. these questions will be the subject of discussion. The political. in some of its many forms, now exists L Does this look Coerced??? ? é es this Joo ‘i AO i) : Gan ieeeMean Green Workshops 2K6 Coetcion Neg Positive rights and coercion equal slavery- only free people can help society Machan, 199 Tha R Poof piles ters Why Peon Mat be Fit Hower anes Pg Si) ‘To see the idea of positive rights is a confused one, we need to consider at this point the important concept of comopossibility: A compossible set of rights is not in conflict it can be respected and protected for everyone. One petson's positive right to health care would be protectable only if someone else’s fails to be protected- goods and servives are always scarce. Moreover, positive rights mecessarily contradict negative rights, To protect the right to health care would involve failing to protect the right to liberty of those who may not want to provide such health care, The negative rights position holds that, although it may well be a good thing for everyone to have health care, it would be wrong to force doctors 10 provide it on tgsms to which they object, without their consent, Even if one might argue that in some ‘drastic emergency cases this does not hold, a system of law upholding the set of negative tights- rotecting the rights to life, liberty, and property from violaiors- is far more conducive to justice than the idea of protecting positive rights. At most, then, what positive rights or entitlements are can only be understood, coherently, as values sought by many, values they may obtain through their own effort, though trade or by means of other people's generosity, not as right. Treating these values as rights of entitlements implies placing others in involuntary servitude, * Of course the idea ofa free society does tpt foreclose any efforts human beings want, ined often out, to make in behalf of others, quite the contrary. Itis only free human beings who ultimately are enabled creatively to help their fellows, not because those fellows have a lien on their lives but because they are fellow human beings whose plight is understandable by those who enjoy their own capacities reasonably unimpaired Dos this ook Coereed??? ee A\ j pi YY: 1 AMean Green Workshops 2K6 Coercion Neg Government programs don’t solve — they don’t represent a genuine eb society ' Spalding - 2003 (Matthew, Director of the B. Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies at The Heritage Foundation, “Principles and Reforms for Citizen Service”, April Ist, pg. hutp-/Avwvv heritage.org/Research/Labor/bg642.cfm, Schy] Americans have always exemplified a strong sense of civie responsibility and humane compassion toward their neighbors and the less fortunate in their communities and traditionally have supported and participated in a vast array of private service activities, The objective of citizen service legislation should be to promote a renewed commitment to this great tradition of individual service as a way of strengthening the natural grounds of citizenship and civic friendship. As Tocqueville noted, "Sentiments and ideas renew themselves, the heart is enlarged, and the human mind is developed only by the reciprocal action of men upon one another."7 ‘The goal of an authentic citizen service initiative should not be to engage citizens ina, government program, nor to create an artificial bond between individuals and the state or organization that coordinates their service, but to energize a culture of personal compassion and ! civic commitment to those in need of service. Citizen service should not be a tool for an educational reform agenda, a platform for political or social activism, or a method of reinventing government. A true citizen service initiative should recognize and support the dynamic and diverse nature of civil society: It should not promote one particular form of service or suggest that public service in a national, government-spnsored program is in any way better or more dignified than traditional, and nongovernmental, forms of community service. ‘ Does this look Coerced??? 1 t ' AMean Green Workshops 2K6 Coercion Neg Nationalist or patriotic retoric sheilds the state and presents the government as an inevitable end. Rasiva 2006 Disa Ranwn, Proresoe ay tHe Une esr OF May any oe rat ppoumman, Promerueus: “Tue Emenintrocs LATHE I Arreases, pe p57 Cate Merevnee avo Rossagia Manat) We can identify certain concrete themes in the program of the + A fascinatioh with advanced techitblogy, nop only of weaponry but espe: cially of commonication and information + ‘The exploitation of informatio networks and the rampant use of psy : chological operations (psy-ops) and mind-control techniques + A tendency to secrecy, covert actions, and the creation of extralegal channels + An emphasis on maneuverability, flexibility, lightness, and speed in the deployment of forces + Rradical reordering ofthe military that blurs the ling between military eee + Fitegation of the civitian population through the use of guard and ——————e—S——————E EE Feserve forces SCL Phe Does this Hook Coereed?”? a KS Aas ; ii : ny j my roMean Green Workshops 2K6 Coer n Neg 5 + § 4§ aining of police SWAT teams, and the deployment of covert para military forces The embrace of privatization and operational models drawn from business An unconstrained and unapologetic symbiosis between business, gov emment, and militagy We TOTALITY AND SEGRECY Analyzed, these disparate elements reveal a pattern—a tendene| unity and secrecy, Between private ana public, civiland military, domestic {he financial mechanisin of the market, and networks of propaganda Fvery part of the Promethean program also tends toward invisibility. rom Egkert operations £0 the exploitation of far-flung bases, rom stealth air eels bases, from stealth air strikes to satelite spying nou Ralagical operations to back-roo om nonlethal weaponry and psy sso dec Gee YoCokag) Cidivisibijand invisible, the state, totally hidden, presente elt Se Does this fook Coerced??? 1 4Mean Green Workshops 2K6 Coercion Neg Rajiva 2006 [Lila Rajiva, Professor at the University of Maryland, freelance journalist, P coercion, rometheus: ‘The Emergence of the Police State in America, pgs, 146-147} (Julian Melendez and Rosabella Magat) (The Tagg hold Moar del Dt reeive Rel ha combines aspects of corporations and goverment and is no longer avait ableto all The new private sphere of corporatism neg ‘Much of what rakes place fs privat that Is @ecrat Woovernment has been ‘Gaurped by private interests pursued privately ‘Yo legitimize this arrangement, Prometheans look neither to the law, wilh which they havea woubled relationship, nor to the will of the people, toward which they show suspicion. They look instead to a reading of his, tory and philosophy that privileges them as the inheritors of the liberal, "ges them os the inheritors of the liberal, democratic, and capitalist state, the expression of enlightenment rationat id the best hope at Mankind (Kristol 2003). Bi ation of the Prometheans to social progressives n from seeing that "torture-ite” proves eventually tobe not Rumai) in its premises than many forms af Torture that are physi cally more brutal. For neo-conservatives and liberals alike, There i indeed ood torture, Theres indeed good war, such as Kosovo ot even leag, before it proved to he bloodier than they hed anticipated (Johnstone 2002) The similarity of the soctal agenda and Weltanschavung of the neo- ‘conservatives ta liberalism should thus not be surprising: although the neo- conservatives strongly support American military strength and corporate interests, they originated on the left as social democrats and, in a few cases, even Trotskyites, sho only moved to the right on foreign policy in response to the Vietnam War (Raimondo 1993). When they did, they carvied over their revolutidnary roots in the cadres and networks through which they ‘operated. The neo-conservatives see themselves as €Fevolutionargwan->), ‘Geared only nthe services of capital rather than labor: and Institutions supe posedly serving the national re ‘come to be dominated by their ‘pratt and tanshatlonalnetwrlo of busihew, Fini and RT TyMean Green Workshops 2K6 Coetcion Neg Coerced methods of “generosity” violate rights and fail- individuals need to recognize their own rights ' Machan, 2003; ¢rtcre., rorpaitopy st Aubu:“The pasion fr Libs pss 135136 Si) Itis wrong to steel on one’s own as well as with the support of millions. It is wrong to enslave others, to place others into servitude when they refuse, and the like, no matter whether on is in the minority or the majority. Nor can majorities authorize certain people, such as their political representatives, to carry out such deeds even if they do it indi threatening those whom the would rob, steal from, kidnap, assault, or whatever with aggressive enforcement at the hands of the Ttis wr even for the government of a representative der or republic to carry out such deeds. Having done it with democratic “authorization” makes it ne more right than ifno such author id taken place. There is simply no moral authority for anyone t. te to another such powers since one hasn't got them in the first place. If my friends and I enact an elaborate process, surrounded with pomp and circumstance, ritual and ornamentation, 1o commence kidnapping your ‘children or confiscating your wealth, ll this is morally and politically trumped by the fact that your consent fo the process has been lacking. Unless you are @ eriminal, who has by his or her crime in effect {acitly agreed to accept our forcible self-protective response, you may not be intruded upon. Most of this is admitted by all the parties tb the debate. This is why even when the people elect certain political representatives (for example, conservative Republicans), others (for example, liberal Democrats) often claim that what results, in termhs of legislation, is wrong and should not have been done. ‘They mainfain this in various political forums that are supposedly the spheres of democratic decision making. So the ly think that what the democratic provess produces is not decisive as to what ought to be done. Even is a law passes, crities will it wrong- heartless, unkind, lacking in compassion. Even supporters of + legal positivism, who discount any moral dimension of the legislative process, such as the tobe uided by natural or divine law, will protest de je atiaeks upon values other than democracy. This is ‘decause no one simply accepts the answer to a challenge of a democratically artived- at result was brought about by way of the democratic process. "We" did it, s0 it’s okay, a matter of society’s collective will. Even in criminal trials, the mini-democracy of a jury verdict is governed by firm provisions of due process and with opportunities of appeal. Itis, then no valid {0 those w1 st the aking of their life- time, ineome, fortune, or whatever- by majority vote, “Well, this is okay since it is done democratically.” The violation 9f the rights of individuals is no le: ied by democracy than is collective callousness. This raises the problem of hot to be kind, compassionate, generous, and helpful to those in genuine need without violating the rights of individuals to their life, liberty, and property. The answer is actually quite simple” Do it, promote it, and exhibit it by your own conduct! When members of a society lear that moral rineiples cannot justly be viol the dem« rovess, so they may not violate anyone's right with the excuse that “we" did it-so it’s okay they learn also that when shin 2 done, it ha torbe done by choice, free from coercion, The help that. and needy should be given must be given initiative of the free citizen- via charity, church, philanthropy. fu and the ci Does this fook Coereed??? ae le me faeasta : Mean Green Workshops 2K Coercion Neg And the alternative solves for liberty- through dialogue and contact we can promote libertarianism and ideas of liberty world-wide- we just need to reject the state’s appetite for power : Preble, 20035 (ciisoper, sup Se: Fors Frndon: Reo; Vo. 35 oie 4 46 eso sip: Sion) ‘This is not to say that freedom-loving people must sit idly by while half the world's population struggles under autocracy. Libertarians know what works best to promote positive change in the domestie realm: political and economic freedom. Men and women advance the cause of liberty cvery day not by government edict but out of self-interest. We should be no less optimistic about the power of economic activity, trade, voluntary exchange, and person-to-person cultural o% ‘change even the most illiberal and autocratic countries in the world. Peaceful, voluntary exchange is far more in keeping with classical rinciples than an empire of force, dedicated to the princi ‘compelling "illiberal” nations to heel, Liberal governments can best promote democracy not at the point of a bayonet but rather at the point of sal Lite fe sh! dnoemty sends tly, fom ce sta oust, dynamic eke stat oe. And we al ko wy, Csi! [ralan encour itil mi: atcaysies emares evi enterncral pt ese pas ron ray Rel ste cone the tas of ples and econo ream o eet auceate meters olay balay et sakes coating ecian a ig acto nae ‘ity vay the mos abi, lige ad gid ndvins. Faced wh hi ex ofl, governs tol to eer saat en Ioan eds eaipseot inet teva Ines orn, kr bids ivy come fe tant goesoy seen iene ees ‘ype gute sol when sd tee ufc snes mal peo met arg he fs ste ea fr heer Pastas peal ely Ase ons hese nssnes however, We should be far more lféarful of the state's insatiable appetite f¢ rand wwe should avoid inviting goverment to pursue iliberal ends abroad under the guise of promoting — freedom at home, : lee ae Does this look Coereed?2? : ‘i Qt : feet f LMean Green Workshops 2K6 I Coercion Neg Freedom can only be preserved if it is treated sis a priority issue. Agreeing with the aff threatens free society. ; Gerald P. O'Driscoll Ir May 9, 1995 The Meaning of Hayek (director of policy analysis at Citicorp, a senior fellow of the Cato Institute, and the author of Economies as a Coordination Process: The Contributions of Friedrich Hayek. ) Hayek argued that, in the interventionist dynamic, liberty is lost piecemeal, one freedom ata time, always in the name of necessity and expediency. Hayek echoed the words of Lord Acton: “Liberty is not the means to a higher political end. Itis itself the highest political end." Or, es Hayek later amplified Acton's insight, That freedom can be preserved only if it is treated as a supreme principle which must not be sacrificed for particular advantages was fully understood by the leading liberal thinkers of the nineteenth century, one of whom [Benjamin Constant] even described liberalism as "the system of principles." Such is the chief burden of their warnings conceming "what is seen and what is' ‘ot seen in political economy" [Frederic Bastiat] and about ihe "pragmatism that contrary.to the intentions of its representatives inexorably leads to socialism” [Carl Menger]. ! ’ 4 " Does this look Coereed?”? : ii WS :peta : Mean Green Workshops 2K6 Coercion Neg Rights must be upheld in every instance Machan, 2003; reer. roorpitosty tach “The yon fr Lier Page 2 Shen) ' What camaged the iatural rights is thai no full backing for it-had been articulate to.start with It on_good insight but lacked thorough support, Even in our time, however, the most commonly voiced defense of our right to freedom merely asserts that we have such a right and argucs that it is_going,to make us prosperous. Human_heings need more than this to sustain confidence in their community in the face of both domestic and international adversities, ‘The distinctive America polity is one that respects the moral nature of human individuals. Unlike 50 many other communities in human history. it has not officially sanctioned jhe role that en adult human, being must play in his or her life. But this admittedly inconsistently practiced virtue of our republic is being undermined by reactionary forced. Although this reaction is understandable people often fear v.and others are easily tempted to exploit this fear- it must be resisted by all those who want justice and prosperity for human beings here on earth, 7 1 Diissteipiiaal ifs ci Does this look Coerced??? cease wy y fot notce Mean Green Workshops 2K6 / Coercion Neg eae ae Commitment to freedom must always come first, evei in our discourse- any deviation from this policy backslides Machan, 19973 (riser ot ofp o Ashu “Why Feed Mat be Fs" Horr into eum: age 1-12, Sin) Accordingly, every effort needs to be made b ind women, all of whom at k licit seL themselves the task of flourishing here on earth, noi to allow the backslidin: ‘ome dominant ‘through contemporary culture. Such an effort must, however, be made without resorting to any violation of the individualist principles (c.g, without censorship). It must be a matter of relentless argument and lication for the principles of individuali uublic policies and private conduct, Unless the momentum in maintained in sustaining the political revolution that b: -d human legal institutions toward supporting the flourishing of all human individuals here on earyh, there will ‘massive reversals toward class warfare and oppression. Some signs of those reversals are already evident, and the diminished prominence of individualism among American intellectuals and political figures has made the advance of this revolution less likely now than it had been earlier. One can only hope that ‘members of the intelligentsia will not continue to be me: b tive systems that promise them greater powers over others in the name of chimerical polities, culture, and economics. Calis for civility and virtue that in fact replace the initiative of human individuals and their voluntary associations with state power impede rather than advance the hymanistic objectives that impelled the founders of the American republic to put fieedom first, as the-centlal public, good to which nothing else mist be sacrificed, vuer' - Does this ook Coerce??? : ii BD :Mean Green Workshops 2K6 Coetcion Neg Only an altruistic approach to national service will create an ethic of the civil society that is necessary to solve : Spalding — 2003 [Matthew, Director of the B. Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies at The Heritage Foundation, “Principles and Reforms for Citizen Service”, April Ist, pg. huip//www.heritage.org/Research/Labor/bg1642.cfin, Schy] President Bush's first objective for a Citizen Service Act is to "support and encourage greater ‘engagement of citizens in volunteering.” To be truly voluntary, an action must be intentionally chosen and done by one’s own free will, without compulsion or external constraint and "without profit, payment or any valuable consideration."9 It is this altruistic process by which individuals choose--without coercion or economic benefit~to help others that has the character-forming effect of habituating and strengthening citizens’ sense of duty to help their neighbors. By contrast, "volunteerism" that is paid for and organized by the government belittles authentic volunteerism both by presenting service 4s aniemployment option rather than as the sacrificial giving of one's time and resources and by ae thit money and guidance from the government is necessary if'Americans are to help their neighbors. "Dependence," Thomas" Jefferson noted, "begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition."10 Reform of the national service laws should redesign service programs as an opportunity for true voluntary service rather than a federal jobs program.11 ¥ 1 mf 4 ‘ Does this look Coerced??? i ; E\ i piMean Green Workshops 2K6 / Coercion Neg eee eee cn Rights outweigh and are a prerequisite to successful util and consequentialism Machan, 2003; cron, este st sho “psn Ler Fas 94 Sins) However, the utilitarian appr 1ublic policy has its critics. There are many who point out ‘hat if there are no reliable principles, then calculating the consequences of policies is an impossible and tunintclligible endeavor. If there is no thy reason to human life, then all such consequential caleulations,are themselves pointless. Why should we think that breaking up Microsoft is going to be bad for the economy just because there is something similar break-ups have been bad in the past? If; however, there is something we can learn from the past, italso follows that we could have learned that, in general, government should not interfere with people's economic affairs. That would imply that we should respect individual rights as a matter of principle. Prominent libertarian David Bonz, editor of The Libertarian Reader, comments on the matter in an interview in the publication Full Context ere may be a sense among some Objectivists and other libertarian motivated primatil by concer for individual rights that it’s a happy coincidence that pursuing a policy of individual is leads to the results of prosperity and social harmony, but that you had to choose, you would choose individual rights ove quences. That’s a false dichotomy. Its implicit, although perhaps not played up as much adtit should been in [Ayn] rand’s work, that it is hot a happy coineidence- it would be unreasonable to expect that the proper philosophy for man dié not lead to good results. It would make no sense to demand individual rights for a species for whom' the pursuit of individual rights would result in social conflict and poverty. These two lines of argument have to work together. Of course, most rights theorists such as Ayn Rand and the neo-objectivists in whose * ranks [belong are in some sense consequentislists (or, more precisely, teleologists)! Rights are vital so that we can choose- so that we have the opportunity to choose what is right (while lunavoidably running the risk of choosing what is wrong). To the extent that individual rights are tected, every particular individual enjoys the good consequence of being free to act on his behalf, further isequences (for himself and others) then depend on how he chooses to act. ‘The reason for the “happy coincidence” that respecting rights generates social harmony and pro: at wi 18 are respected, the incentive structure is such that doing wron; ‘ends to hurt oneself, mostly, and the results may not be simply dumped on others. At the sam time, on has all the incentive im the world to do productive and beneficial that are good for as well as oneself. But th 10 guarantee that protecting individual rights will produce, inany gi tance, more goodics than some kind of politicall ed or regulated lal ‘might. So when the consequentialists appear to offer such guarantees, they rum the serious risk- historically well documents- that if just once they cannot deliver on the promises, argumentatively they will become vulnerable. 2 : 999 fe ap 7 Does this look Coereed?2? cet 5 : eerce Mean Green Workshops 2K6 / Coercion Neg eee eee ree ES SRR AIT Util Rights are more important and can co-function with util- util justifies rights violations Machan, 2003, rien. moterpsisly x Asn *Te pain fer Litt 99092 Simo) Well, for someone who cares about the character of polities, not to mention the successful livin life, the issue is crucial. Can principles be identified to the extent that we can stick to them confidenth 2 every context to which they properly apply- or must we consider each case anew, from serateh? Is it not enough to know that we have basic rights as human beings deriving from our very nature and the requirements of our survival, and then to abide by this knowledge, whether or not same of the onsequences of respecting those rights tum out to be inconvenient to somebody? Or raust our individual "ights be held hostage to a demonstration of the wider public benefits each time the question comes up. with those rights regarded as expendable if the tally of public benefits looms sufficiently large? The latter is clearly not a caleulation we make when it comes to freedom of expression and religion. We do not try to determine in each case whether the freedom to worship leads to a better religious climate, or whether freedom of expression, especially in the press, produces more good than. say, a government-regulated press. Why? Because we care about those freedoms so much- and 30 we Jwant each individual to enjoy them 2s a matter of eurse. We don’t want to put those freedoms at risk by letting them be subject to a cait-benefit analysis every time s ublishes a broadside or opens a church. Presumably we have leamed that lesson a fyfig time ago and we take it that this lesson has savin; Bower. Of course, our allegiance to principle even in these realms is nt perfect- witness the speech . Constraints that the U.S. government imposes on broadcasters but does not impose on priht publishefs. * ts theorists think that the same principled is valid when it comes ot other a including the right to bear ure ie will misuse guns and this will have some undesirable, even deadly consequences. All in all, however, respécting the rights of individuals to bear arms also ought tobe seen as having slaying power, as an expression of the right of self-defense that js in tum based on the right to life itself To consistently respect and protect basic individual rights isthe best overall cou for human beings to as they live in their communities " faepeta : Mean Green Workshops 2K6 I : Coercion Neg Liberterianism is justified by and justifies util Epstein, 2004: isons sans, coovion Cos Rn V3 tu 1010S, Ip ASP sec. Simon) OF THE TWO basic points I made in ny nil remarks, one has escaped serious criticism: tot the traditional natural law justifications for freedom are not sufficient to sustain the case for individual liberty or for limited government, We are,as it were, all consequentialists now. The pric dette, mon ae me fcte, Raney Bae and Davi Finan cs atary yan of free cms iy ood mre mshi ta eles ys Pinker ra tay detrei on ro ts theo ‘Tonner sagpes oer pene 2 fea Wacom tse pees, Bamett thinks state evercion is not justified as a means to overcome major evordination problems ‘because the risk of abuse is greater than the potential gains from the method. But his examples do not ‘Support that conclusion. of.ause te cia of FW cd wae toa ave cormamy nga ita id Doel rr’ ‘eidhton want hs conned hi paing tBu is wg a eka ht ane feof sna doin eqn nian Bae jections to eminent domain d Lely on jowable subjective value each person attaches to his orher But if that point is decisive, then eminent domain is also i ate wl dito ‘condemn land for national fortifications or public parks, when the public-use criterion cannot be contested at all “Ties res sel iil wih arts roles st he rhe jn he pd eit on poner wee i eed Sd he Pury compenatin fed ematical ete wale of ep vses ant doen king rowers, NAITO. e set of purpas¢s for takings and boost the compensation, and this takings problem will shrink, without using the meat cleaver of inc: wate subjective values to savage eminent ddfnain, Nex Sart chins edn nt mn oman beastly a recone folat rbls at en amelines Pres denn ea ‘ets avers ptt nly Ucar toms a i ve he owe au a tad sabe selena boet meio ae prema rong pie drs nappa cae he sane es oon orighnys The seacoast ae ‘edo embed ares congenwoik arin shows tlut pen on op velpmer take nce te esc onco fgrapoy, ‘Eon pt 0 fees, ca ge tpn mera hws pos) ove te exe ie wl when monte eee on ck voltyseettrs. Too ots mj bla aca soon, lr tesla in he mea nodatorte ‘meet cag dw he ed forse seven 9 eae i Does this look Coereed?22 : ' feelce Mean Green Workshops 2K6 / Coercion Neg eee eee SSE A/T Util/Consequentiatism Defending freedom at all costs at all times is the only consequentialist option- it allows for the greatest good . Barmett, 20045 (tty, sacs, Conor. Cowen Ren Vo 3 sue 10, 40.50, Ip ASP eb; Sinem) FoR MOST OF hs cewer. Richard Epstein has been urging libertarians to expand the exceptions to the prohibition n-the use of force beyond self-defense, detention of rights violators, and restitution to include usin forced transfers to solve the economic problems of "holdouls" and "free riders." tows weistescavneaty stipe dona, tere by xan, He justifies both of these expansions on consequentialist grounds. {ni wring con; howee, 78D sed a vedo wana wat xg exept cartuopatonse ee eats ea at opcode ona Irena echt ence anton toa dt of et ay pole oor feud No ees wlan “nae eae oes el nents fps ore ea compe hy gw martes anagoas alow sop nie eee nee Sy tasactin thoy with ithe bene nae ep {imate Ins aeymsy ppined How enc al cont ow defers pa wel th epics of ie der nd Sous ist cny tease te eens fh buen ore, a rodeo cfea nit xp a to one when emcee eo coe Heit ar sane sich oben ae etre alse ten tr cue cod el suas re sho ns ‘Sbbtchense Message of tsehin- of ii fe se sea ee ‘i [8 te cles of oi, sexe Oro ne slParfond wes destmecby cue! dona bes ogee es guerbb mo. ashe Ace Cy ew of tia ewe erty sal he ndematon trio nce ate ower i "oom im Epi ian fe Tings Chae wou eset rue a pe ht wu gre eine en dna vari no San ages his pes beter than wit yew tve ue Who's tO pay that these takines for the "public good.” as opposed ublic use, do not increase aggregate welfare? vibsiosy tate were created by Goes Moers rensning in Devo eax newline on? Who oye ag ey Uta twee ep Sos edison wre? ea vet tiniaos ao our trowesye, we have little choice but to rely on the principle of freedom of contract to aswer these questions, however imperfectly. Unlike self-defense and restitution, exceptions for free riders and holdouts cannot be justified as the enforcement of the rights of others. Authorizing force in defense individual rights is a neces 40 address the problem of compliance when persons put their own interests ahead of respect for the rights of others~-rights that are themselves necessa isequentialist grounds, to solve the ve of knowledge and interest. Caution should be out guide in pursuit of better consequences than properly defined individual rights provide, faepest : Mean Green Workshops 2K6 I Coercion Neg Libertarian views are compatible with util Brubaker, 19995 cxskyc. nein rites Sane 8 86 ay AS. Sino) IN his latest, book, Principles for a Free Society(A)--based on previously published essays and law- review articles—Epstein seeks to “reinvigorate the classical view of laissez faire." He does so by grounding it not on first principles of natural Taw but on utilitarianism, Laissez faire's commitments to limited goverment and the free market derive not from a narrowminded adoration of individualism but from a concern with the common good of the polity. Natural laws (or natural rights, divine law, ete.--he docs not distinguish) appear to Epstein as undemonstrable matters of faith ot reasoning which, “to put the ‘matter charitably,” he says, "border upon the obscure or occult.” Yet the principles of natural law--by which he means the principles of laissez faire--are better, he insists, than the arguments offered to support them. In fact, without the aid econ: weory, he argues, nafural-law thinkers "dev an ac sound appreciation of the basic rigius that any utilitarian on. ‘want to adopt in his society." And itis this wilitarign vi inf tein's conception of the common good 100d disembodied from the concrete interests of the individuals in the buta "summation of interests of those individuals." To this he adds the Pareto principle that changes from a baseline conditi should be justified by making at least some better offand none worse of ' ieee ie Does this ook Coered?? : wow :Mean Green Workshops 2K6 Coercion Neg A/T Good samaritanism/moral obligations ‘We have no obligation to be noral- and it violates our rights ‘ Machan, 2003: rver®.rorséphibsphy Ate “he pai fi ber Pae Sin) ‘Yet disnensing with rights is not so east 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 {patemalistically, perhaps) impose on her something that she ought to be fice 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 in 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, 1 prevent person from injecting heroin, I may have benefited her (perhaps only temporarily), but Thave, nevertheless, violated her rights. Does this lok Coereed??? u a+ y t ee 4Mean Green Workshops 2K6 Coercion N AJT Moral obligation to serve others/intervene- ‘There's no requirement or moral obligation to serve anyone- people must wi undertake such actions . Machan, 2003, neeen.21Fer pistol 3 Anne -The aso fr ey Pats 1617: Sinan) Underlying the idea of positive rights is the belief that human beings by nature owe, as a matter of enforceable obligation, part of their lives to other persons. In plain terms this means that governments must force us to serve our fellow human beings and that generosity or charity must not be left to individual conscience, this position has even been defended on the grounds that negative rights- of the very poor, for example- entails these positive ones. Others argue that all rightsare in faet positive because they are meaningless without being protected; the right to the protection of one’s right to freedom, for instance, is a positive right. In fact, there are fatal problems with all these views. The first generalizes whal amounts to a rate moral emergency case into principle of law-namely, that when some innocent people are totally helpless, they should obtain resources by stealing them- but those extraordinary circumstance do not generate any ‘egally enforceable rights for people. Yes, those who face them might resort to stealing and might very well be forgiven because of their very limited options. But this does not generate laws granting the authority to steal! ‘There are others who believe that we'alredtly have positive rights to the services of the stite and, thus, tothe earnings of taxpayers who must pay for these services. What they fal to show is that no.right to being provided with protection exists unless there are rights to liberty, ones that members ofa," ' ‘community then elect to have protected and to delegate the authority to have this done. To fain protection for something presupposes that one has the right to liberty to act for that purpose, including the right to voluntarily combine with others for the purpose of gaining the protection. That original right, however, is a negative one, requiring that others abstain from intervening in one’s affairs, The services of government are something people must choose to obtain by their consent to be governed, and they do not have a right to them prior to having freely established that institution Does this look Coerced??? ] 8 1 hae LMean Green Workshops 2K6 Coercion Neg AL FOCAEY BRST INAITOAL VANES “NEE EY XO — COMMENAL Ketwil) — ReTeanad, TIRTMDLAL NLRTS doe wTY “Machan 2000 {Tibor R. Machan, Professor atthe Argyvos School of Business and Economies at Chapman University, research fellow at The Hoover Institution, Initiative Ageney and Society, pgs. 92-93] (Julian Melendez) CA kind of communalism is clearly part of human life—Aristotle was very good al noticing this when he discussed the nature of the Polis and how human beings are by nature social animals. This is both intellectually and emotionally attractive. So itis difficult, in the face of this attractiveness, to make a us niche for the individuality is also essential and even more lamental than our sociality. Bul this individuality is indeed the Griving note? of all the social ee values that we embrace, that we champion. It is becatise our Iniends, : “our familly, our neighbors, our colleagues, our ‘associates, our fellow human beings have things to offer that have not been there lnefore That ‘ we value them: "do not mean value just in the economic sense, although that is a very important part of it. Let us neveé demean money; it allows us to buy things, to visit friends, to travel, to go to the museum end to the theater. Let us champion economic prosperity, but partly hecause it ia @ means to ends that we champion even more. Without this individual capacity to contribute w society, to (0 cur Fellow human heigs and ToTead and guide our own lives and enhance ourselves, th notion of society would be really quite empty. It would be like. being ‘What many champions of community values fail to appreciate is that human community Tife és exciting and promising because itis made up of individual human beings. And their individuality is fun- damentally important because they are ereative agents, because they }ey are not Simply responsive, reactive yy into the world. : ible of initiative, their eom- dings, because they are creative and capal ° : on with its potential for wider and wider voluntary ae '" ig enormously productive and inventive, giving us all 7 benefits and : 5 * the hazards of art, science, oho religion, technology. polities, | and the intricacies of humian personality. huss :peta . Mean Green Workshops 2K6 i : Coercion Neg est SESE eee eee deed ESE ECE ; Human nature justifies individual rights Machan, 19973 risen pwfooisy 2 shun “Wy doa be Ha nay Page sine What, then, can we say about human nature that stands the test of objectivity of meeting the standards-of being true to our unprejudiced observations and experiences? All acts of human inquiry, ofthe search for answers, however fruitless they may often seem, suggest an answer to our questions. Human beings are by nature creative, not merely responsive. That they do things ‘on their own initiative explains better than anything else all our developments, cultural changes, diversity of approaches to life. varied philosophies, and religion, as well as animal appears to change and develop its environment and life circumstances so drastically and often and be so often at odds with members of its own species concerning what is the best thing to do. We, unlike other animals, are always coming u with new ides, plans, and solutions to problems, even if these were little more than the rejec proposed solutions, the abandonment of theories, the denial of answers, Still, as the ancient Greek Cratylus, Plato’s first teacher, discovered (despite his adhered to Herclitus’s relativist doctrine), one could not fumetion in this world without a system uinication, Common indicators, if not outright words, need to be employed in this case, hand signals, just to make sense to one another’ So our relentless innovations as well as our many disagreements demonstrate our creative nature as human individuals, whereas our need for and reasonably successful practice of communication testify to our occupancy of commdn' ground, our membership in an objectively determinate species in an objectively determinate reality. We seem to be aware of this fact of human reality in many spheres strietly'personal ," jons to itemnational economies, from law to ina Las in science, Language cle illustrates that some stable principles for understanding and clear expression but that we also ‘need the malleability that is part of every living language. In short, the diversity that comes from individuality, as well as some measure of uniformity, furthers community. This would appear to attest to tha common human nature and the essential element of the individuality of each human being, (What distinguishes human beings as rational animals also alerts us to their individuality since to be rational requires individual effort or initiative, something that places the particular individual in a decisive role in his or her life. This also explains the fu about never being able to guarantee that we will get people to think along certain lines, that we will finally persuade them: they always have the free will to reject even very good arguments or to come up with better ones.) : Docs this ook Coeroed??? ae 6 0 faeMean Green Workshops 2K6 Coercion Neg A/T natural right to be served Any view of a “right to be served” is reactionary both impossible to do and repressive Machan, 2003; ;rvork, eorerfitosophy a Auburn: “Te pation Liber age 17; Sion) Those who wanted to zetain some elements of the political outlook that Locke's position displaced, namely, the view that people belonged to the country-were, in fact, subjects of the country’s head, the king or government-found a way to use the concept of human rights to advocate their essentially reactionary position, (Yes, Virginia, Karl Marx was @ reactionary!) They appropriated the concept of individual human rights to mean not liberties from others but services from them. It is not that one has the Tight to seek happiness, for example, but thal one has a right to be made happy! Positive rights are, in fact nothing more than mislabeled preferences or values that people want the government to satisfy or attain for them. They mandate involuntary servitude! Ifindividual rights were no more than expressions of preferences or affirmation of values, there would be no end of conflict between our tights. An assertion of a right, for example, to private property is then nothing but a preference for owning something and-as such it could be in conflict with some other right, for example, another person's similar preference fo take something. That is due to the fact that these assertions would be, in the last analysis, no more than expressions of private collective preference. + Does this look Coereed?2? : (o\ t rf LMean Green Workshops 2K6 Coercion Neg A/T democracy solves- Individual rights should come before democracy ‘ Machan, 2003; cert, rorpiit:epy a Abu: Tie prin fr ibe: Fag 154196; Sino) It is wrong to steal on one’s own as well as with the support of millions. It is wrong to enslave others, to place others into servitude when they refuse, and the like, no matter whether on is in the minority or the majority, Nor can majorities authorize certain people, such as their political representatives, to carry out such deeds even if they do it indirectly by threatening those whom they would rob, steal from, kidnap, assault. or whatever with aggressive enforcement at the hands of the lice. Iti then even for the government of a representative 1ey or r {0 carry out such deeds, Having done it with democratic “authorization” makes it no more right than if no such tion had taken place. There is simply no moral authority for anyone to delegate to such powers since one hasn't got them in the ftst place. If my friends and I enact an elaborate process, surrounded with pomp and circumstance, ritual and omamentation, to commence kidnapping your ‘children or confiscating your wealth, all this is morally and politically trumped by the fact that your consent to the process has been lacking. Unless you are a eriminal, who has by his or her crime in effect tacitly agreed to accept our forcible self-protective response, you may not be intruded upon. Most of this is admitted by all the parties to the debate. This is why even when the people elect certain political representalives (For example, conservative Republicans), others (for example, liberal Democrats) often claim that what results, in terms of legislation, is wrong and should not have been done. ‘They mainfain * this in various political forums that are suppos heres cratic decision making. So the evidently think that what the democratic process produces is not decisive as to what ought to be done. Even is a law passes, crities will t wrong- heartless, unkind, lacking in compassion. Even supporters of + sitivism, who discount any moral dimension of the legislative process, such as the ion to ded by natural or divine law. will protest democratic attacks upon values other than democracy. This is ‘because no one simply accepts the answer to a challenge of a democratically arrived. at result was brought about by way of the democratic process. “We” did it, so it’s okay, a matter of society’s collective will. Even in criminal trials, the mini-democracy of a jury verdict is governed by firm provisions of due process and with opportunities of appeal. Itis, then no valid answer to those who protest the taking of their life-time, income, good fortune, or whatever- by majority vote, “Well, this is okay since it js done democratically.” The violation cof the rights of individuals is no less justified by democracy than is collective eallousness. This raises the problem of hot to be kind, compassionate, generous, and helpful to those in genuine need without violating the rights of individuals to their life, liberty, and property. The answer is actually quite simple” Do it, promote it, and exhibit it by your own conduct! When members of a society learn that moral inciples cannot justh d by the democratic process, so they may not violate anyone's ri with ise that “we" did it so it's okay they lear also that when the right th te done. it ha to’be done by choice, free from coercion. The help that the poor and needy should be given must be given at the initiative of the free citizen- via charity, church, philanthropy, fund raising, and the like. i yn ‘ Fete eee : Does this look Coerced??? cae GLMean Green Workshops 2K6 Coercion Neg A/T Democracy solves rights/democracy key No- rights come before democracy \ Machan, 2003: ins. rtorsisapy at asben “The passion for Liber: Page 18: Simon) \n ti sure so as to protect the rights to life, liberty, and, in the practical respect of both these, private property. Thus and political rights- to be free to engage in decision making vis-4-vis political matters must not violate those basic rights. Political rights include the right to vote, serve in government, and take part in the organization of political campaigns. Practically speaking, the exercise of one’s political rights may have an impact on who sovems, on various internal rul wvernment, and on the organization of political processes. There is, however, no political right to override anyone's right to life, liberty, or property. Any evidence of some ‘community’s lepal system overriding these rights is ipso facto evidence of the corruption of that system, from a bona fide political one into one of arbitrary (even if majority) rule. Indeed, one of the failings of contemporary conscrvative legal theory is that it does not appreciate the intimate connection between Lockean individualism and democracy. Because of this, many think that democracy may trump our basic rights ‘The main reason why the founders established a government that secures our rights is that they: agreed with Locke and a few others throughout human history who held that justice requires that communities fir human being’ as moral agents wilh’personal responsibility to govern their own lives. It is to protect their moral agency that warrants the establishment of governments via the consent of the governed. ; aa mc) : pola rotMean Green Workshops 2K6 ion Neg Political liberation necessary. People wont abide servitude even if they are defeated by otherrwi fh more power. ~ Machan 2000 eae : [Tibor R. Machan, Professor at the Argyvas School of Business and Economics at Chapman University, research fellow at The Hoover Institution, Initiative: Human Agency and Society, pgs. 82-83] (Julian Melendez) ©. Political Hiherty not having others usurp one’s sovereignty. one’s tole"ie Me gavernar OP ines Mea a precondition far eid life, wot Justa Dompecis class preference, Preferences are Just hat—they are 2 not needed. aot even finmly wanted, only something that some people ugh. fren both wish for anil others ean de without. He is events th analysis and experience. thal one cannot just dispense with frverton Why iethat so? What is i about rem Delays That corpies That ' 1) be granted this fundamenial condition hy other peaple? Why do auillinns uf people want. consésitaty. to dhave their axe status as ini slors—as Grralons, as ociginalam. as something other than wallflaw- ers—rospected? Even when they eave in, quite inconsistently, to cer- tain pleas for cocieion orintrusiveness, they cannot stand it very Tong. They change their minds and demand this fundamental condition ot being treated as creative original beings. Why is that so? Almost any other animal has a fac: lity for succumbing to a state of servitude. They can be domesticated, eventually, with a little behavior ‘modification. But human beings seem unable to adjust for very long to 2 condition of servitude. They may be defeated in their resistance by more powerful people and a sustained tradion of ‘subjugation, but deepite cata Go periods of such repression that might fave” gules 1 resSnGe W WaT dual ery has been nearly; voughout human history. This is not an acci- EBs ‘ Does this Pee Coerced? e i. 1 heel 4Mean Green Workshops 2K6 Coercion Neg Freedom is key to choice. Without freedom we are not responisible for are own actions andliving moraly good or bad becomes immposible. Machan 2000 [Tibor R. Machan, Professor at the Atgyvos School of Business dnd Economics at Chapman University, research fellow at The Hoover Institution, Initiative: Human ‘Ageney and Society, pgs. xi-xii] (Julian Melendez) _.. Z Miwe cannot act on our own initiative, then our behay independently of any original, creative (causal) influence by us. And ihen we live neither an ethically good nor a bad life and cannot be “Gither Blamed or praised. For efics, as well as politics, is about whet. we do rightly or wrongly by out own choice, by our initiative. So there are no political wrongs, and our public officials cannot act oiher than He they do. We cannot dg anything phoutanything)-it is all just phenom ena unfolding inevitably. Choice is but a @ayth,) maybe useful but Uneonnected with truth. If, however, we possess the capacity to take the ini If, however, we possess the capacity ive to, determine on our own some of what we do—then we ate responsible and often culpable when we act (unless we are crucially incapaci- ‘Tated), Eihics and law, which concern how we ought to or ought not to act and assume that the decision is ours in most cases, are then bona T= fide concems of our li \ Does this ook Coereed??? : A i 1 ‘ L 4Mean Green Workshops 2K6 ada Coet COSECED REMAP ATION GT DEMe CRAIC RT AA WW Destes AGEncy to AUK Restos (NeWebp Posner 2003 [Richard A. Posner, Judge, United States Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Senior Lecturer, University of Chicago Law School, The New Republic ¢ Online, “Why: Conscription Does Not Serve Community:'An Army of the Willing”, fhttp:/swwwtnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=200305198s=posner051903, } (ulian Melendez) Tita tecture in 1998 ted "Wa Money Can't Buy," Michael Sande! observed that "to tum (military) service into a commodity job for s or degrade the sense of civic virtue that properly ; attends it." To Sandel—here foll lowing, Rousseau, who had said, "Ihold enforced labor to be less opposed to liberty than taxes"—-the voluntecr ‘amy isa prime example of rampant and destructive commodifeurien The suggestion is perverse. Conscription could be described as ¢ tion of slavery, in the sense that a conscript is a person deprived of the @uumership of his own labor; and slavery isthe ultimate commodification, because it treats a human being as a salable good. Michael Lind tien on had it backward when he opposed the volunteer army (which he had called a "mercenary" force) on the ground that “in afepublic, as oprosed to the old-fashioned despotic monarchies, the citizens ticipate, they are the owners of the state, the state does not own them." But eurely is conscription that treats the persons conscripted as i the stale deeg own them. There are circumstances in which military serve is an obligation of citizenship, but ownership isa poor metaphor for obligation. The, cote that asserts an unlimited right to the enforced labor of its people is not Participatory itis despai. Does this Jpok Coerced? : aMean Green Workshops 2K6 I : Coercion Neg Removing free will denies individual responsibility. Z What is interesting about these influential views of the nature of Jaw is that in certain respects they entprace notions that are deemed “ alien to them, First, Dworkin, although he has rekindled an interest in moral principles and, thus, in personal moral and legal responsibility, O is in fact a political egalitarian and finds the idea of the right to individual liberty unfounded. Yet that idea is central to the belief in individual moral responsibility. If one is not free to acl chooses—if the law compels one to do the right thing WKpolitical Eeulationinstead of tadividual conscrence determines how members ofa human community will conduct themselves—ihen one cannot Be horally responsible for what one does. This view, then, is plagued by The opposite problem from the one we identified in connection with existentialism, To endorse moral responsibility without the right to individual liberty is no better than to endarse moral standards by wl human liberty but deny hich this Ther ought tw he exerisee toy sh Does this look Coerced? : Co , ; rf AMean Green Workshops 2K6 / Coercion Neg AIT Terrorism outweighs No- even under the threat of terror- government power cannot be expanded to the point where torture and repression is justified. Meisels, 2005s cron. ar ietow Tenia Uses iter: VoL 5 eet obs ae: Simon) As opposed to the ‘striking a new balance’ argument, (as well as to any straight-forward reference to Locke's “prerogative power"), the use of torture is wholly precluded by the justification offered here for Curtaling liberty in times of terror, ina veritable gem of liberalism, Hobbes claims that confessions admitted under torture are flawed since in all likelihood the accused cor onfesses to the crime not because he ommitted it but in order to avoid physical pain, Whether or not itis in fact the case that most confessions sxtracted under torture are unreliable (and with regard to terrorist suspects it may not be), the voluntary abrogation of such measures is entirely ruled out, even for Hobbes, by the logic of contracting in order to protect one’s preservation, While such measures may remain available to Hobbes’s unrestrained sovercign who bears no contractual obligation towards his subject, they esmnot be willingly consented to by Lockean contractors. Limiting the powers of the sovercign so as to exelude the use of certain ‘measures, such as torture and coerced self-incrimination, is absolutely essential despite the impediment it places on combating teror. I is not only a logical cost of even the most minimally ck an-Iibera| contractarian justification of government, but also the practical pice we must pay for suarding against Inquisition-tipe judicial systems that were still familiar to Hobbes's generation Does this tpok Coerced??? : i (f : ie 1 Lpeta : Mean Green Workshops 2K6 Coercion Neg A powerful state fails in the war on ferror- and increases in military power can only result in leviathan ' Preble, 20033 ichrisenies Anién: Fin Fedor: Ren: Vol. 35 ie 4, Ab ebsco as San) ‘The state will always find new justifications for its existence. The end of the Cold War should ha ‘opened the door to a reduction in the threats posed to Americans and American interests. But other threats rose to the Surface, Liberal governments might have taken action to mitigate the threat from global terrorism, but for a variety of reasons most looked the other way. September L1_refocused our attention It should also have refocused our attention on the proper means for dealing with threats. A reflexive return to the Cold War model, focused on state actors, is particularly unwise because Al Qaeda is not at all like the Soviet Union, Since the 9/11 attacks, more harm has heen done to this loose-knit network of terrorists and fanaties throughs timely intelligence gathering, cooperative Jaw enforcement, criminal prosecution, and international financial pressure than by laser-guided bombs and cruise missiles. ‘Yet the. iministration seems determined to implement an over-ambitious strategy t deals only tangentially with Al Qaeda and that dra heavily on military resources to accomplish the ission of fing all terrorism. In this environment-filled wit 8. if not hundreds, of threat th real and imagined—there will Je opportunities for the state to expand its power over the dividual. The most obvious manifestation js the American military me which is ted to consume nearly $400 billion in fiscal year 2003 ant! over $500 billion by fiscal year 2009. Very little of this spending buys anything that will protect us from terrorism. u In the interest of protecting individual liberties, liberal democracies are constrained in thei use of power, The mo mn of these constraints is the limitation on the use of forve abroad, whichis the ‘otion that states may act only when their vital security interests are threatened, To lift these constraints, , ant liberal ents the authority to engage in military action when vital i are n risk, ultimately would erode the very notion of a democratic peace that is at the core of the global libertarian utopian vision Does this ook Coereed?22 : iit * G4 feepeta : Mean Green Workshops 2K6 Coeicion Neg AIT Utopian- ‘The framework for a perfect world exists~Libertarianism is a prerequisite to a free world for everyone- we need o reject coercion and oppression- in the new world, we can change it Boaz, 19975 cows, Novdes Futsias Craing» amen fr Uap bso pS) (We disagrée with the gendered language) Lots of political movements promise utopia: Just implement our program, and we'll usher in an ideal world, Libertarians offer something less and more: a framework for utopia, setanax Unversiyrileser eben ori ptt My ie community woul probably nt be yowruopia The attempt to create heaven on earth is doomed to fail, because we have different ideas of what heaven would be like. As society becomes more diverse, the possibility of agreeing on one plan for a whole nation or the whole world becomes even more remote. And in any case, we can't possibly anticipate the changes that progress wil] bring. Utopian plans always involve a static and rigid vision of the ideal community, and such a vision cannot accommodate a dynamic world. \e syn. oe ina wnt ezzon wb ike cay ow ta ee ee 1900.00 fave nase ndtysciiaion, What we need is not utopia, but a fiee society in Which people can design their own communities. ‘Alibertarian soi work for uioda. In such a society, gov ld respeat people's right to make their own choices in accord with the knowledge available to them. As jong as each person respected the rigits of others, he would be free to live as he chose. ts ctoemigh wetinvoke vais 'y ae wih tes nein ala dof erniy idle bal coe lgtr oats wish hy woud age ey en, ‘icc wbtamgie rblorrque prc ston So ugh weld itary sector see eho ey node ge a sip apecig te esta comnuniy tht ey woud be fae one We already have such a framew In the market process, we can choose from many different, ‘goods and services, and many people already choose to live in a particular kind of community. A libertarian society would offer mote scope for such choices by leaving most decisions about living arrangements to the individual and the chosen community, rather than government's imposing everything to rules about reli Manes. Suc famework mii ofr owed of ervins fw wih nigh appeal ere kins of pope. Oba ora ight rove igh ee ef series sl nt wl oso igh pices and es, Air igh be morro hs whe re ose ney Ot bern sn Darl elu obscene Tha he ened economy map! rer esl es font ean progeny. ter pele ret pee ‘Sine Ie Copegus Free Cy ofa here es ue nd hn ug te ted so rage er al dat ea ‘eetely dein conan (ence ees ertertene dsc ic ata ii soit on ats pe of pe pn feed, ie Merle sey can enieably slow props leche vento scien Ia sg of pare-stona soy wie stup-want ta pee a aed on hstcomon Tey would De ‘ieewdose The libertarian legal order would require only that no onc be coerced into joining or giving up his property. Many people might choose a "utopia" very similar to todays small-town, suburban, or center-city envi we wt fit from the opportunit =r altematives and to observe and emulate valuable innovations. Insach soc, severest sold oe a Leward Red, aulerof the oan fr Ea Elsa p i anyting t's pscfl” Volmary ‘communes cook wake sce rs tur the legal order of the whole society would punish only violations of the rights of others. By radically downsizing and decentralizing government—by fully respecting the rights of cach {individual--we can create a society based an individual freedom and characterized by peace, tolerance, ‘community, prosperity, responsibility, and progress. mn we achiev ‘world? It is hard to predict the short-term course of any society, but in the lon un, the world will recognize the repressive and backward nature of coercion and the unlimited possibilities that freedom allows. The spread of commerce, industry, and information has underminéd the : sass ee Does this look Coerced??? peste ye 1 aieeceeaet ee aco y : fot mfMean Green Workshops 2K6 Coercion Neg age-old ways in which gov is held men in dis even now liberating humanity from the new ms of coercion and control developed by (wentieth-century goveraments. . ‘awe eer ev cet aida te lett ecu! aid of elf. The very pene ofthe wolf bl ke and ew esnlogis ‘uberis ite suing son nar igi semen ae he ee elena esate eos hat ne apt e e-Tak ceaury_ Ewe want a dynamic world of prosperity and opportunity, we must make ita libertarian world. Tie inp se ses rps of i Ansan Relining ere ovement ut De even nee Fone noe)’ ‘orl finan cemomanitiog, gba mrt. wetness a eon am Madson cou venga Libertarianism isnot just a framework for utopia, itis the essential framework for the future. fe :peta : Mean Green Workshops 2K6 Coercion Neg It’s not utopian- a world of liberty is not hard to envision- it's the only way to avoid totalitarianism ' Machan, 2003; riser tor pissy a Aubns “Te passin fr Libr" Page 27. Sin) ‘No doubt, in.a free market many people may not achieve as much as many others, because, in.a free market, the conditions enabling folks to achieve their goals depend in large part upon the choices of to puret mnd services from certain producers, they thereby enhanee those producers’ chances of getting ahead. economically, at least. Even if the prospects for advancement in an unhampered market are indeed better than in any other, the kind of freedom thus institutionalized is not guaranteed to result in uniform advancement. Unlike Kuttner and Marxists, champions of the free market are not utopians. They do not fancy. that the world can somehow be reengineered to achieve the dream of uniform and perfect happiness for all, The kind of obstacle- free personal liberty dreamed of by Kuttner and bis ilk simply cannot be realized: People will never be free of all impediments to their various (albeit quite possibly even admirable) goals and desires. Life cannot be sustained without effort. It takes work. And luck. Pe must overcome hurdles at every stage, and the higher and more complex the value being pursued, the : ‘more hurdles there will be and the harder it will be to overcome them, What politics can only do is help lear the road to achievement by outlawing the arbitrary inferference of our fellows and letting us"get on with things, But the dream of socialists everywhere is for some powerful agent to create a world of effpitless freedom [rom necessity, hardship, hunger, ignorance, poverty disease, ugliness, the indifference of others, and the like. Since that world will never arrive as long as people interaet with one another voluntarily, the socialists want governments to draft us into somehow producing such a state of affairs. They really do» >elicve that satisfaction of all our desires can be planned top-don by the iron hand of the (sometimes democratic) state, Whereas some hope that this paradise can be achieved by democratic means (in some of his works, even Marx seemed fo), men like Lenin and Stalin sought to deploy the coereive powers of government to this end directly, bypassing the formal assent of the populace, What they produced was not paradise, however, Kuttner’s faith in governmental intervention, albeit not as totalitarian in temperament is akin to such Leninist and Stalinist illusions Keynes was similarly aligned but, according to him, for only brief periods in a country's economic development. He though that governments could step in ' something to advance personal goals by mean of public works. This is what is referred to as demand-side ‘government intervention. poy rfpeta : Mean Green Workshops 2K6 Coercion Neg To successful have freedom does not require anarchy Eppstein, 2004: acme a. raed Curio v Co ss VL 35 te 1, p DSB, Lg.ASPebic Sen) | for Friedman to list the instances where state pow view gives.no scope for tariffs because local protection is ther raison détre, notwithstanding all the palaver about infant industries. By contrast, the state sponsorship of scientific research has created public goods; before I ruled the National Science Foundation out of bounds, I would examine the evidence that advances in health have more than repaid their cost. Improve the system. yes: abolish it. no. Friedman's pipe dream is that the alternative to limited government is no government at all. Not so. A large society wi sn open invitation to some sleazy indivi e power in his own name. Constitutional government uses deliberation to expand the base of public support, Friedman's void at the center promotes totalitarian rule, not individual liberty. foa CecaMean Green Workshops 2K6 Coercion Neg AT State key to prevent crime/murder/ete.- A rejection of coercion solves- negative rights such as the right to life will always exist- and the state can protect those : Machan, 2003, acer. rot piso Aan: The isin for Lian" Fuge 17 Sion) ‘The doctrine of positive rights has served statists well in America. The country’s political system, sketched in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, was founded on a famous theory of basic negative human rights. This was originally developed by John Locke. It held that every individual human being has the unalienable right to. among other things, life liberty, and property, The rights Locke identified- following several centuries of political and legal thinking during which various theorists had begun to identify them more or less precisely0 are negative. They require that human beings abstain or refrain from intruding on one another. Their existence means that 10 one ought to enslave another, coerce others to act in various Ways, or deprive others of their property, and that each of us is justified in resisting such conduct when others engage in them ordinary eriminal law has for centuries been grounded on bits and pieces of such theory of individual rights, requiring nothing from anyone but to abstain from coercion. Docs tis look Coereed??? i i AX i ii ; ! rf Lce Mean Green Workshops 2K6 / Coercion Neg ee ae eee ee aE Alt Government key to get people to volunteer, ete. Communities solve the need for a state to coerce services- as long as demands aren't mandatory Machan, 1997s cro. norocpixspy a AsburWhy Peon Ms Fs Hone tn cy Pages Sin) Perhaps the most vocal outery about classical liberal individualism focuses on problems of nity within the framework of this political outlook. Without delving into this matter at length, it needs.to be noted that, because individuality is central to human nature, classical liberalism is not able to advance some general or universal theory volunta ity life. Indeed, as Robert Nozick observed, what distinguishes the libertarian political order is its hospitality to numerous experiments in human community lif: And, indeed, what we find ina nation such as the __ United States of America is the we of innumerable overlapping human mnities to which neatly all citizens simultaneoush belong. Yet it arguable that the only human community as such. suitable to any and every human beings- ‘sone that does not impose particular community goals on its citizenry, It makes it legally and otherwise possible, however, to develop innumerable communities- churches, clubs, neighborhoods. corporations, professional association, fiaternities, political patties, and so on, This i just what we would expeot in light of the fact of the essential individuali 88 of human beings- that this aspects of their ‘ature be reflected in the variety of communities tHeir interaction ‘generates. faeMean Green Workshops 2K6 Coercion Neg AST Racism \ Government repression is the wrong way to tackle the problem- rather, people must accept individual rights of expression in order to prevent repression that would be far worse than the discriminatory comments of a few- Fish, 2005; vetenoo Me Corsratnetsten! ale Apis Pedoae thse Hees FOS VO 1882, 9272280, ac ASH Itwould make matters simpler if people used their freedom in only positive ways, but both libertarian conservatives and civil libesties liberals recognize that this oulcome is impossible. To begin with, freedom includes the right to Jeam by trial and error—to make mistakes, sometimes mistakes that are very cosdy ot irreversible—and to gain wisdom from experience. Because all must have equal rights, ‘your allowing me the freedom to succeed entails my allowing you the freedom to fail, and vice versa. Similarly, my freedom to express myself requires me to grant you freedom to express vourself—even if T find your religion, polities, sexual preferences, art, or choice of intoxicating substances odious—and vice versa.* Thus, although racist speech or violent films may disgust me, I choose not to criminalize them because [know that they are the price Imust pay for my freedom of expression, Furthermore, freedom of expression does not mean just the freedom of the majority to express its dominant views. It means the freedom of all groups and individuals—includinggninority cultures or subcultures or the countereulture, agnostios and atheists, minority religions, nonconformists and eccentrics—to express all views, including those that are deeply offensive to the majority, " any 1 roo L ql Does this look Coerced??? a i (9 j iid ‘asta : Mean Green Workshops 2K6 Coercion Aff While a “coercion-free” world may exist in theory- it’s not practical or possible- limited coercion is necessary to protect freedom 1 Eppstein, 20043 cricion Nach coowion vs Cover east VL 3 510 pH Ip AS eso: Sinan ‘The oven oxi eons fee tn reese esl deen. With force, one person wins while the other person loses. With cooperation, both persons win. This simple observation underlies the consequentialist explanation for the libertarian preference for agreement over coercion: Take that arrangement that leaves both parties better off than they are under the altemative legal order. Contracts result in joint ‘that the greater the ease of contracting, the greater the gains from cooperation. Coercion creates at least one ioser for every winner, where the losses (e.2., death, rape. or theft) can be huge relative to the gains on any intuitive interpersonal Wien be ose it nya way Sein inert ae eo eeponbut am spit of lew th cone vn conden. The se iran vee wll (pod haan ‘Yet just how far does this insight go in a practical sense? To hang your hat on empirical regularities is to retreat from the language of absolutes and to invite exceptions to general rules, If our ultimate criterion asks what arrangement leaves all parties better off than they are under the next best alternative, there may ie dominance of agreement over coercion should be displaced. In fact, there are: Some contracts are suspect, and some force is justified. F deli wit edit cots fs x presi. eo oe the cosequnes of ese i Tors on hind aie, eh apy comprehensive sb Aion tod ten scout mt aes happl se ert pee yoparine Tvs oer ates nytt ont wl an seas at sho ext be porte orate an srasenert oho, dua CONTACt to Kill a third person has the opposite effect. Indeed, itis preciscly becausé contract vields gains from trade to the participants only that we worry, aout such assement. nos called conpiaces, because ofthe tat her nose othe bese its of liberty ancl f others. We are now faces d these right neateing avangemens, o punish hem if they achieve ter objet and, mor aportant, to nip them in the bud. Cone tout nd ctr eat it ach stor Cott tat ibe nv t sae sou gunn sil drone More ‘careers. coat ope in esti of vader i pele cans Wr pei Heath one fs vce val eves fee cele ‘eter ane compan ban er nope Eva hot su ede wt ete nase erring ha ty cane prose im hy Wk, os te pola rie at pert cen esses sraeeomets le sated hy govern con # Oe cee hese Capea Senden ren dtu ppd te braver orn peste of ae Sometimes the strong libertarian synthesis breaks down in the opposite direction. The most conspicuous illustrations are condemnation and taxation, each of which contemplates the use of force against ordinary verton who have nether commited ay wrong nor beached ay promise. Ytit i my view angerous institutions, both of which are not only consistent wit limited government ‘but required by it ‘The libertarian prohibition against fe take int t ooperaion in Ke situations ean he thuaried by individual holdout, Twill 1 be possible w build a solely by getting the cooperation of 99 out of 100 private landowner along the way. The last one (indeed afl) must be brought into line, and the way to do itis to compel the’ purchase by paying them the highest value of the Jand in any alternative use whos ale isnt cepeusnt on he oad tat tsabou toe bull The pubis ini thse whose property seodened, sn the vit of he aoud, bt compeation cones xu big f-m> indir suites inal deprivation inthe proces. State coercion is used to create the win/win situations found in private contracts, ‘What werk in condemnation cases helps eit ain as wel The public enforcement of private igs nd the exon o ifsc soe condennaton ‘oth seed money fat en conpalsory exactions can supply. ten tie cooeiuton ad bldou reblens are verse mc work ins tbe dave prevet sive abuses fom warner yay no he yen he at cre sense Viniaon on te power of xan thers canbe deve aswel), for wallow tne fining to vary is aout wou pedir on ne sega ofthe popu. In sum, the central challenge to any political theory is to devise a set of institutions that first allows and ‘then controls the use of coercion against individual citizens for their own benefit. w sign ort jasitgsions at fave : Does a look Coerced??? yl ec ereee eect Y" ia weekMean Green Workshops 2K6 n Coercion Aff Tercera eee eee PESTER Saute fovea olde iston wher tee cies dr por amet ction eth edn lee any claim of the government to action in the public interest is sufficient to justly stole intecoecai Reser overeat sasion ames te ara ee whicheasly Be ogee afer Te fosl canis eo i ws Feder Rees aettr tenes en hu Th we cones eon neognes at state power is als0 appropriate to overcome holdout problems by the limited use of force, This two-tier inquiry clearly lewitimates some forme cr ‘overnment action. but by the same token it makes the case against state intervention stronger in thove ings where-none of these justifications ate available. inet vy te soe ston apts ns tt aman emu dens eae eri Gol ent it ii ng -dnrnton a ecleo eg ae ey Iooene mean Sr of pes alco sgh bonds sed linea ek ll tha ie een oe ur limited use of evercian is done with the paradoxical intention of expanding the scope of individual ftcedom. tis always dangerous business, but itis only with a consojous awareness of how ave mat bath use and limit gov. ower that we shall find the intellectual tools to resist a descent into the ali- Powerful welfare state. re acta sc fr codprt on ly oo tone rr fe sb poet et on ‘oy cee lites use corn iat found echnge ta Cen oat # Does this ipek Coerced??? faeMean Green Workshops 2K6 f : Coercion Aff THE Gove RAMET ChlT BE Watered Awiny UTHeetT A TOUAL COLLARSE CE TSE Tle ACTER SAE Cat'T Ssowe GE We MERITS AEC EVITRE LE Preble, 20035 (cvisoper aS: Fring eed: Reson: Vol. 3 ne 4 46a Std ‘THE STATE POSES the greatest threat to liberty, and the greatest expansions of state power occur during times of threat—-both real ahd imagined. To protect us from these threats, and ultimately from the state, Ronald Bailey advocates an aggressive foreign policy “aimed at building a free world sooner rather than later." Bailey argues that this policy would be only temporary, and thatthe ultimate gos] would be the creation ofa new order, whereby liberty could be guatanteed at home without the need for "an intrusive national security apparatus." ‘This is global fibertarian utopianism, By this logic, freedom-loving people will use government action to + mold.a perfect, ree world, But if Ubertarlans ar¢ opposed io government action to make a perfect domestic world, why discard those principles béyond the water's edge' : The practical and moral difficulties of welfare-statism on the Sse font pale in comparison to thos: of global libertarian wtopianism. For one, Bailey vastly underestimates the capacity ofthe statg to hold ‘onto power once that "new" world is created, once the unfree are made free, He also underestimates what it would actually take to force democracy down the throats of the approximately 3 billion people who ‘currently live under some other system of government, . An overwhelmingly powerful national security state would certainly be needed, Railey implies it would be only temporary, but how long is that? A decade? A century? How will we know when we have won, when we can return to our happy cocoon, safe from extemal threats, and therefore content to demobilize ‘our armies, sorap our ships, and leave our airplanes to bake in the desert? Talk of temporary measures ‘enacted in the name of defense should consider how other "temporary" measures~from federal tax withholding to mohair subsidies to NATO--seem stubbornly permanent, even after the crises in question (World War I, World War Il, and the Cold War, respectively) have long since abated, : Does this look Coerced??? 1 i 1 : : wes } Hi iesasta : Mean Green Workshops 2K6 Coercion Aff ision of a minimum ‘The Alternative fails- it is unclear, free of content, and ami state and pure liberty is wtopian- it can’t possibly exi uous- a Klein, 19993 ose, sanme<¥o) es {The Wns in Gry: pene Revie se ASP. Sion ‘This indeterminacy in the very notion of negative liberty spells ruin for the classical liberal project of stating a principle--Spencer's principle of Greatest Equal Freedom, sav. or J. S. Mill's "one very simple principle" about not restraining berty save where harm to others is at jssue--which can authoritatively guide thought and policy on the restraint of liberty. Because we cannot identify "the greatest liberty.” rineiples whi itare empty, To talk. as classical do, of minimisin coercion by maximising negative liberty, is merely to traffic in illusions. (19%. =) Classical liberal conceptions of the role of the state that are spelt out in terms of a principle of laissez- faire suffer from the disability that principle is itself practically vacuous. ... The ideal of laissez-faire is only a mirage. 109, 6 ‘Theories -refore, are worse than uninformative: they are virtually empty of content, (92,9) Inv, because their content js open-ended and their very definition uncertain, the negative rights in terms cof which the minimum state is theorised confer upon [the minimum state] all of the indeterminacy which characterises my own account of the proper functions of government, (0.0) see Does a Jook Coerced??? faepest : Mean Green Workshops 2K6 Coercion Aff Ideas of liberty are flawed Klein, 1999s (cae, sneer Vt ane Ie Wayeo‘lohe Gry net Revie so ASE Sin) ‘The central idea of libertarianism is fiberty--the maxim. of private property and freedom of consent contract, But the maxim has limitations of several kinds, First, iLis sometimes ambiguous. The terms of consent and the rights inhering in property are sometimes unelear and indeterminate. Consider the following gray areas: the unsightliness of a neighbor's house: ‘unpleasant the basis of consent by the young, the senile, and the mentally retarded; issues relatin, to the unborn fetus; the tacit terms of ongoing relationshi ing. itand marriage: the continuum thet spans private voluntary agreement and coercive loca] government. The maxim also is a 1S about whether the taxation to finance a minimal state be d ive and in violation of fiberty. Ambiguities abound. Second, the maxim is incomplete. It stipulates no rules to govern the use of government resources; it is silent on ten thousand issues of public administration, Given that the government imposes taxes and raises revenue, the maxim of liberty, by itself, does not say whether that revenue may be used for welfare benefits. Where we believe that government resources should be privatized, it fails o tell us how and how fast to privatize, It does not instruct us about meting out punishment and enforcing restitution. Incompleteness abounds. “Third. in some cases, abiding by the maxim is unliésirable, A policy maker with the power to rugh toward liberty may be unwise to do So. Piccemeal steps in the direction of liberty, such as the deregulation of the U.S. savings-and-loan industry in the 1980s, may be unwise. Should all governments do nothing {6 control air pollution in Los Angeles today? Should the government not grant eminent-domain powers ir the construction of a particular highway today? Should all levels of government allow a free market in machine guns and bombs? Instances of undesirability abound, , Fourth, libertarians think the desirability of liberty is much more frequent and much more decisive than current policy admits, and they oppose high taxes and the welfare state. But no body of argument ides an au ve justification, or “rational foundation," for libertarian reform: no bo provides an authoritative justification, or. "rational foundation," for libertarian reform: no body of argument represents fundamental truths from which the validity of one's libertarian position can be derived see et look Coerced??? : eee! C fold aceMean Green Workshops 2K6 / Coercion Aff No link- voluntary actions or incentives aren’t acts of coercion- in fact they’re the exact opposite- crucial to uphold principles of freedom : Ines Suan, 36 Eso ASP. Sion) Brubaker, 19995 (asic. nevew: ri ‘One of the ways ia which a system of limited government facilitates the common good is simply to allow breathing space in which “spontaneous ordering” can ocour—such as in the formation of social norms. Informal riles with informal sanctions contribute to the common good either because of the constraints of the market (nasty employcrs lose good employees) or because of reciprocity (anyone who applied the rule at one time could have it applied against him the next). Unlike law, social norms vary with the patticular ‘sraupand its circumstances, the cost of their enforcement is inexpensive, aid'their voluntary character reserves individual dignity. Also, laissez faire, while barring state imposed redistribution, can support 2 Social norm of charity toward the poor. Because it is Voluntary it can make finer and more accurate Sistinctions than can the state between the deserving and undeserving poor. Of course, there will be neighbors who won't cut their prass, landlords who won't make repairs, and charitable providers who ‘won{thelp innocents in need. But to address these hardships through extensive Jegal codes, coerced redistribution, and costly litigation will make only a few better off and most worst off ; Does this look Coerced??? A 7 | : ii i : ye ; aesMean Green Workshops 2K6 Coercion Aff The state is not inherently violent, Coleman, Frankel, Phillips 1976 : [ames 8. Coleman; Boris Frankel; Derek L. Phillips, Professor of Sociology at Stanford University and the University of Chicago; Professor of Citizenship at the Institute of| Social Research at Swinbume University in Victoria, Australia, Theory in Society, “Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia (In Review Symposium)”, vol. 3, no. 3, pz 437-458, hitp:/flinks jstor.org/sici?sici=0304- s 242194281976231295963A 3% SCAT TASARNASAUYIED.0 CO%3B2-B] (Julian Melendez) tt i TNozick argues, however, hit if persons are to be set of natural rights, then theoretical con depriving them of those rights by constitutional choice. Thus, aecordin; be made, it could only be made by endowed, and each could anticipat position in societ i eet regarded as beginning with : asistency does not permit arbitrarily @ veil of ignorance when they make : ig to Nozick, if a social contract were te 4 set of persons (differentially) naturally e, because of his endowments, just wha he would find himself in. é Does this look Coereed?72 : ii! . iat ckMean Green Workshops 2K6 Coercion Aft fee If this were the case, however, we could not arrive at a basis for constitutiona choice, at least not easily, for interpersonal conflict of interest would remair interpersonal conflict of interest. Nozick would argue that because of thest conflicts of interest, not all persons would voluntarily give up rights tha could lead to redistribution, andi a greater-than-minimal state could not arise without violating natural sights. This view, I think, is mistaken. To episide!! the simplest case, if there were two classes in a society, and one (the better-endowed) sees itself best off by a small tax-and-benefit for unemploy, ment, while the other (the less well-endowed) sees itself best off by a large taxcand-benefit, they may still agree on some tax-and-benefit preferable te both than none at all. I believe, then, that Nozick is not correct in his argument that a greater-than minimal state cannot arise without violating natural rights of individuals. But | believe also that he has uncovered the central defects in current theories o! distributive justice, most especially that of Rawis. And in so doing, he has brought modern political philosophy a long step forward. | Does a look Coerced??? 1 Lce : Mean Green Workshops 2K6 Coercion Aff Internet Solves Coercion Frezza, 1996: (01 -hison’s Grnest mi Diy Foros 1226 ASAP. We. 15E ese 1.523226 2p bss ASP Sioa SOVEREIGNTY. Absolute ownership of, {deal has intrigued libertarians (vith a small I) for generations, Unfortunately, only an incurable ideologue believes it will ever happen in {he real world, But suppose a place existed where privacy was inherently assured? A place where coercive force, whether exerted by outlaws or by the state in the name of protecting us from outlaws, was physically impossible? A place where both the whims of tyrants and the will of the majority meant nothing? (Wha kinds of scts woul enw evi of ization cold sy e wove om he voli ectngeat tle Fr alae? A ne wou eae nos eit fn iy could pel ns epee sthry pepe gi in hi oenocedeco cond cps sane? It's high time to start asking these questions. This hypothetical place is already under construction. We call it cyberspace, a ng, much of the world's is going to move there over the next fifty years, In cyberspace, you must learn a new ‘You are free to stop lis aiefthoenar tenn pomp ceases a ontoisa vy buen ia eal irer acme aes aN ee Jn cyberspace you learn that e rom the control of nation has been flourishing jn the private domain, evgscyconsim ‘The prospect of inviolable freedom of speech thrills civil libertarians, eve sey sid sensu When it reaches maturity. the Intemet will do nothing less than dissolve the hoary grip of collectivism, How? As the Nets tentacles spread around the globe, supranational economic communities will arise bee acters Scene geomet onetagininemnestparauemicearca tisensvene This distributed, selforganizing network of networks devoid of centralized access control, is immune from domination by any single entity, ILwill work itself into the bowels of even the most autocratic regimes, giving those who would rule others nothing in return, is makes the Internet a grave threat to the world’s gove ticularly those addicted to t distribution financed by progressive taxation. Alert defenders of the status quo have already begun fighting back. Have you wondered what is really motiv 1 government to work so hard to slow the export of strong encryption or to promote key-escrow schemes that create a back door into any transaction? s scrtceyuatasseuiicay wate ae pe Setanta nto ar ibn toms sane ein ominrnsinel i orig yal rman a vtec dtypntte rsisterom. The era of Dig government is indeed over. and technology will make sure it doesn't come back from the dead. ‘Not far ahead lies the unbounded opportunity society of cyberspace. Who among us will choose to live in a place where productive merit is king while envy must travel unarmed? at Does this look Coereed??? Her qa ee ae feet eeMean Green Workshops 2K6 Coercion Aff Coercion theory is flawed- there are only two alternatives, either A) no coercion is used- making the state uneffective, especially (insert util card if necessary) utilitarian situa OR B) The state needs to be eliminated- that’s bad... (Insert Impact) Briedman, 20043 tons, ners, Coxon ve Caen esn Vl 3 090-5, 1p ASP ban: Sinem) ‘The first is the extreme version of the libertarian state: no coercion beyond a monopoly on retaliatory force. Such a state will do less well for us than a state that initiates cerciom in the rare circumstances where doing so produces large benefits. But it might do considerably better than the realistic alternative: Epstein’s society as we can expect to see it actually implemented, in a world with plentiful arguments for extensive uses of state power and strong incentives to act on them, ‘The second alternative is to eliminate state evercion by eliminating the state. In that world, some ‘coordination problems will go unsolved, making the result worse than the world that would be produced bya slate un by perfectly wise and virtuous ibertarans But elimioating the sat alsa eliminates the largest coordination problem of all: the problem of conivolling the state. Given the record so far, that is « more serious problem than how to build roads without the power of eminent domain, \ Does this lok Coereed??? t : \O 1 ' 1 ‘