| ... |
... |
@@ -1,0
+1,56 @@ |
|
1 |
+==Part 1: Framework== |
|
2 |
+ |
|
3 |
+ |
|
4 |
+====1. All goods stem from liberty; It’s impossible to value without liberty; **Fried**^^ ^^** ====** |
|
5 |
+I would say …that campaign. |
|
6 |
+ |
|
7 |
+ |
|
8 |
+====Next, liberty can only be properly protected by self-ownership, meaning the ability to exercise control of ones actions, so long as they don’t violate anyone else’s rights because external ownership means that the individual has no guarantee that their liberty will be protected.==== |
|
9 |
+ |
|
10 |
+ |
|
11 |
+====2. Argumentation logically entails one’s exclusive property rights over one’s body.==== |
|
12 |
+Hoppe : |
|
13 |
+It must be considered the ultimate defeat for an ethical proposal if one can demonstrate |
|
14 |
+AND |
|
15 |
+so would already implicitly have to accept the very norm which he was disputing |
|
16 |
+ |
|
17 |
+ |
|
18 |
+====3. Argumentation ethics necessarily leads to the rights of self-ownership and property acquisition. Kinsella^^ ^^==== |
|
19 |
+Argumentation is a …to admit its truth). |
|
20 |
+This o/w the AC: as long as there is moral contestation of |
|
21 |
+AND |
|
22 |
+. Thus, the state cannot violate this right by use of coercion. |
|
23 |
+ |
|
24 |
+ |
|
25 |
+====And, states can’t interfere with the choices of individuals since:==== |
|
26 |
+When states interfere with people’s individual choices, they aggregate value, which is impossible since value is agent relative, i.e. value requires a valuer, and can’t be measured. |
|
27 |
+Interference with individual’s action implies that individuals aren’t automatically capable of choosing the correct moral |
|
28 |
+AND |
|
29 |
+Thus, the standard is consistency with libertarian self-ownership. Prefer: |
|
30 |
+ |
|
31 |
+ |
|
32 |
+====1. Self-ownership provides the necessary framework for action and exercise of reason, making it a starting point for ethics and a prerequisite to answering other ethical questions. Boaz^^ ^^ writes:==== |
|
33 |
+Any theory of …rights are self-evident. |
|
34 |
+ |
|
35 |
+ |
|
36 |
+====2. Moral uncertainty means you default to my framework. A. if we are uncertain about values we should refrain from imposing them on people for risk of being wrong-and allow people to pursue their own ends at all costs so we don’t interfere with incorrect morality B. allowing people to pursue their ends allows them to explore their own conception of the good which increases the chance we will find an actual morality.==== |
|
37 |
+ |
|
38 |
+ |
|
39 |
+==Part 2: Offense== |
|
40 |
+ |
|
41 |
+ |
|
42 |
+===1. Taxpayer Contention=== |
|
43 |
+ |
|
44 |
+ |
|
45 |
+====I contend that the government cannot force taxation of person or business-2 warrants.==== |
|
46 |
+Otteson 2 James R. Otteson (professor of philosophy and economics at Yeshiva University) "Kantian Individualism and Political Libertarianism" The Independent Review, v. 13, n. 3, Winter 2009 12/31/14 JW |
|
47 |
+Poor relief and charitable activities, however, cannot be supported on these grounds because |
|
48 |
+AND |
|
49 |
+by his inherent personality" (Metaphysics of Morals, 1991, 155). |
|
50 |
+ |
|
51 |
+ |
|
52 |
+====Dismantling nuclear power plants requires nuclear planners forced by the government to gouge there customers for decommissioning trusts NEI ‘15==== |
|
53 |
+**Fact Sheets The Facts About Nuclear Decommissioning Trust Funds a href='/CorporateSite/media/filefolder/Policy/Fuel/Nuclear-Decommissioning-Trust-Funds'Fact-Sheet'March-2015.pdf?ext=.pdf' The Facts About Nuclear Decommissioning Trust Funds /a The Facts About Nuclear Decommissioning Trust Funds: No Reason to Change the Tax Rate on Earnings Oakwood AW** |
|
54 |
+ "Payments made by electric utilities to decommissioning funds represent amounts collected from their |
|
55 |
+AND |
|
56 |
+to the marginal rate the customers would pay if they retained these funds. |