Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[2]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[3]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[2]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-09-10 16:59:48.924
	1	+2016-09-10 16:59:48.0

Caselist.CitesClass[3]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,19 @@
	1	+1NC – Libertarianism
	2	+I value morality. When a person chooses to do something, they aim to successfully attain the goal they acted in order to achieve. They must regard this goal as valuable, or else they would not have acted at all. By extension, they must also aim to have what is necessary for them to achieve this goal, or else, they would be contradicting their valuation of the goal of the action. By acting, an agent necessarily aims at having whatever conditions are necessary for them to achieve their goal. For instance, when I go to the store to buy ice cream, I am considering my goal of getting ice cream to be valuable. If that’s valuable, I must also value my ability to go to the store.
	3	+This implies an intent-foresight distinction since ethics are grounded in intended and willful actions – foreseen harms aren’t constitutive of the action since they bear no causal connection to the agent’s choice. Prefer since the only consistent way to judge an action is the features innate to the action itself.
	4	+This generates a negative right to property since a right to have things at your disposal is the general requirement of the pursuit of all ends, regardless of what they are.
	5	+Ripstein Arthur Ripstein, Force and Freedom. Harvard University Press, 2009, pp.66-67
	6	+Property. In order to set an end for yourself, that is, to take it up as an end that you pursue, you must take yourself to have the power to achieve it. Your entitlement to set and pursue your own purposes parallels your ability to do so: you must be entitled to use the means that you suppose will enable you to achieve it. There are two ways in which you can be entitled to such powers. First, as we have seen, you have your own personal pow- ers, which you have innately; that is, your right to them does not depend upon any act that you, or anyone else, have performed. The development of those powers may be the result of previous acts of yours or of others— you might have your exercise routine or your personal trainer to thank for your strength, for example. But your right to these powers, as against anyone else who might wish to use them, does not depend upon how you came to have them. Second, you might have powers that are external to you, as means at your disposal. Whether you can adopt a particular end will depend upon the powers and means you have at your disposal. For Kant, property in an external thing—something other than your own person—is simply the right to have that thing at your disposal with which to set and pursue your own ends. Secure title in things is prerequisite to the capacity to use an object to set and pursue ends.14 Secure title has two parts to it, possession and use. You have rightful possession of a thing provided that you are entitled to control the thing and exclude others from it. Thus you are wronged if someone else damages your property, or trespasses against it.15 If your property is damaged, you are deprived of means you could have used to set and pursue ends. If your property is trespassed against, it is used in pursuit of ends that you have not set for yourself. Moreover, trespass or damage to it limits your freedom even if, as a matter of fact, you had no inclination (or even empirical ability at that moment) to pursue those particular ends, and even if you can think of no use to which you might put it. You are wronged because you are deprived of your ability to be the one who determines how the thing will be used. You have the right to use a thing if you are free to exploit it to pursue such ends as you might set, and do not require the consent of anyone else in order to do so.
	7	+This is also true since the right to property grounds all other rights – the right to life or to speak freely is based on your right to your body so property rights are undeniable.
	8	+You have an absolute right to property once you subject it to your purposes, so any violation is prohibited.
	9	+Ripstein 2 Arthur Ripstein, Force and Freedom. Harvard University Press, 2009, pp.104
	10	+Kant’s account thus focuses exclusively on the transition in a thing’s status from unowned to owned, that is, the transition from its being available to all to its being subject to one person’s exclusive choice. The account is boring because the only factual precondition of rightful acquisition of an unowned object is empirical possession of that object. The act in question is simply bringing a thing under your control, so that you can now decide how to use it. Neither improving it nor putting your will into it is required. Improving it is not required because improving an object is only relevant once you have taken possession of it. Until you take possession, improving just fritters away your efforts. The same point applies to what Hegel describes as “putting your will” into an object, at least if this is understood as something different from simply taking possession of it. Wishing for a thing engages your will in a sense that is irrelevant; subjecting it to your choice—making it a means for setting and pursuing your purposes—is established only by taking control of it. Nothing more is required. All you need to do is take physical possession, and give a sign to others that you are doing so in order to have it as your means rather than just for a specific use. These steps are required because they are just the steps in subjecting a thing to your choice. You do not need to improve the object, because improving an object you are already in possession of is just subjecting it to your choice in some specific way. Unless it is already subject to your choice, however, the ways in which you change it—for example, by tiring it out—do not subject it to your choice. At most, they prepare it for subsequent use.
	11	+The standard is respecting property rights. The standard deals with an a priori right to property. Violating the property rights of some to protect the rights of others, is a violation since this would make property rights contingent on their utility for the rights of others, and would deny the requirement of an unconditional right to property that precedes any specific social arrangement that is required by the framework
	12	+
	13	+Contention:
	14	+Prohibiting nuclear power production is a violation of property rights because:
	15	+1. It would require government confiscation of power plants owned by private companies, which directly violates their ownership rights of the reactors.
	16	+World Nuclear 16 “World Energy Needs and Nuclear Power” June 2016 AT
	17	+Government policy is central to any discussion of nuclear power in the USA. The development of nuclear power began as a government program in 1945 following on from the Manhattan Project to develop the wartime atomic bomb. The first nuclear reactor to produce electricity did so at the National Reactor Testing Station (NRTS) in Idaho in December 1951, as the US government reoriented significant resources to the development of civilian use of nuclear power. In the mid-1950s, production of electricity from nuclear power was opened up to private industry. The world's first large-scale nuclear power plant at Shippingport, Pennsylvania, was owned by the US Atomic Energy Commission, but built and operated by the Duquesne Light and Power Company on a site owned by the utility company near Pittsburgh. Today, almost all the commercial reactors in the USA are owned by private companies, and nuclear industry as a whole has far greater private participation, and less concentration, than any other country. Yet, the government remains more involved in commercial nuclear power than in any other industry in the USA. There are lengthy, detailed requirements for the construction and operation of all reactors and conversion, enrichment, fuel fabrication, mining and milling facilities. The review process preceding the construction of new reactors can take 3-5 years. The US government, through its own national research laboratories and projects at university and industry facilities, is the main source of funding for advanced reactor and fuel cycle research. It also promises to provide incentives for building new plants through loan guarantees and tax credits, although owners have to raise their own capital. US domestic energy policy is also closely linked to foreign, trade and defence policy on such matters as mitigating climate change and nuclear non-proliferation (of weapons).As of late 2013, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) was reviewing nine applications for combined construction and operating licences (COLs) to build 14 new nuclear reactors, as well as three design certification applications for new reactor types (EPR, ESBWR and APWR) and two design certification renewals (both ABWR). The NRC’s FY 2014 budget for oversight of the 100 operating power reactors was $1055 million, including six reviews of extended power uprate requests (and eight others) and 10 licence renewal applications. The budget includes nuclear materials and waste safety.State and local governments also have a major impact on the framework and economics of the US nuclear power industry. Deregulation of electricity prices in some states in the 1990s led to greater concentration in nuclear power production. In 1976, a voter referendum in California led to a law that prohibited the construction of new nuclear plants in the nation's largest state and the prohibition still remains in effect. Opposition in the state of Nevada was a key factor in the decision by the new Democratic administration of Barack Obama in early 2009 to abandon the government's long-standing plans for a 70,000 tonne geological repository in that state for disposal of the high-level nuclear waste that has accumulated at reactor sites across the nation.
	18	+
	19	+2. It would close off nuclear power production to everyone. The government cannot unilaterally declare certain industries as illegal to own and operate even if doing so will reduce accident risk, just as it cannot prohibit people from owning cars for the same purpose, because mere ownership does not violate the rights of any other person. At worst, the government can pass safety regulations to prohibit nuclear plants from posing a threat to others, but cannot outright prohibit it.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-09-10 16:59:49.150

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Adam Torson

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Lynbrook YZ

ParentRound

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

Round

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

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Palos Verdes Le Barillec Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+SEPTOCT - Libertarianism NC

Tournament

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