Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[0]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[0]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[0]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-09-17 17:33:52.21
	1	+2016-09-17 17:33:52.0

Caselist.CitesClass[0]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,30 @@
	1	+Gerald Gaus writes:
	2	+Gerald F. Gaus, “Public Justification and the Moral Right of Private Property”. No Date. http://www.unc.edu/~jabaker/gaus.pdf
	3	+A regime of rights, and in particular of regime of private or “several” property, is a form of social commensuration or, perhaps better understood, a way to avoid the requirement of social commensuration.64 This point is seldom appreciated. To be sure, it is often acknowledged that “property draws a circle around the activities of each private individual or organization. Within that circle, the individual has a greater degree of freedom than without” and that “organizing idea” of the “private property system” is ”the idea of sanctioning expansion of personal spheres ofauthority so as to secure individuals inviolability in their respective life projects.”65 What is less appreciated is how this devolution of moral authority allows us to cope with evaluative diversity without ongoing collective commensuration. If we conceive of property rights as moral, property owners possess a moral claim within their sphere to employ controversial evaluative standards yielding decisions about how to employ resources. Owners employ controversial standards with which others disagree, yet others recognize a bundle of moral duties and liabilities that give public moral standing to the owner’s standard-based activity. Rights in several property, by devolving moral jurisdiction, allow for moral claims in the face of evaluative disagreement and the absence of commensuration.66 As Jeremy Waldon observes “Ownership …expresses the abstract idea of an object being correlated with the name of some individual, in relation to a rule which says that society will uphold that individual’s decision as final when there is any dispute about how the object should be used.”67 Ownership implies authority over decisions about the use of objects and parts of the world.68 Some system of private ownership is thus endorsed by the very idea of public justification under conditions of far-reaching evaluative diversity. From a moral perspective, a system of private property lessens the burdens of public justification and the demands on devices of social commensuration.
	4	+
	5	+Therefore, my standard is respecting property rights.
	6	+
	7	+My contention is that banning the production of nuclear power is an unjust limit on property ownership.
	8	+
	9	+Nuclear power generation does not constitute a use of force against another, so a ban on nuclear power is illegitimate. The miniscule risk from nuclear accidents doesn’t count. Block et. al.
	10	+John Levendis, Walter Block, Joseph Morrel. “Nuclear Power.” Journal of Business Ethics (2006) 67:37–49. JY.
	11	+Let us make a more philosophical rebuttal to at the zoning challenge. Under the
	12	+AND
	13	+one, advocates grounding all planes for this or any other such reason.
	14	+
	15	+And the real solution to nuclear power should be less government intervention in to the market, and violating other property rights. Nuclear power need not be banned inherently, insurance and property prices provide a free-market check against externalities. Block et. al.
	16	+John Levendis, Walter Block, Joseph Morrel. “Nuclear Power.” Journal of Business Ethics (2006) 67:37–49. JY.
	17	+There need not be any fear that nuclear power stations would be located under free
	18	+AND
	19	+protests on NIMBY grounds for this reason would be ruled out of court.
	20	+if utilitarian concerns are important, violations of rights also outweigh the AC because denials of rights are the basis for infinite structural violence.
	21	+Petro ‘74 Sylvester, Professor of Law at NYU, Toledo Law Review, Spring, p. 480, http://www.ndtceda.com/archives/200304/0783.html
	22	+However, one may still insist, echoing Ernest Hemingway - "I believe in
	23	+AND
	24	+every invasion of freedom must be emphatically identified and resisted with undying spirit.
	25	+
	26	+Counterplan: Countries will end subsidies and liability guarantees for nuclear plants. Block et al:
	27	+John Levendis, Walter Block, Joseph Morrel. “Nuclear Power.” Journal of Business Ethics (2006) 67:37–49. JY.
	28	+Let us summarize. The nuclear industry was too risky for private firms to enter
	29	+AND
	30	+environmental costs) be allowed to determine the contours of the energy industry.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-09-17 17:33:53.940

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Megan Nubel

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Strake Jesuit MC

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+0

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+1

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Apple Valley Anderson Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+SeptOct- Lib 1NC

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Greenhill