Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[73]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[100]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[73]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2017-03-25 19:13:58.804
	1	+2017-03-25 19:13:58.0

Caselist.CitesClass[100]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,28 @@
	1	+NC
	2	+I negate, resolved: The United States ought to guarantee the right to housing.
	3	+I value morality, because of the word “ought” in the resolution, defined as a moral obligation.
	4	+The value criterion is respecting freedom.
	5	+First, respect for autonomy arises from the fact that we all own ourselves. This is the only coherent starting point for ethics.
	6	+David Boaz, the executive Vice President of the Cato Institute, explains David, Executive vice president, the Cato institute Libertarianism: A Primer. Simon and Schuster, 1997, New York. Pg 61-62
	7	+Any theory of … rights are self-evident.
	8	+
	9	+And self ownership is a prerequisite to the affirmative framework because the AC relies on a conception of what it means to wrong someone but in order for some person to be wronged they must first own themselves. Otherwise, it’s only the owner that is wronged. Thus their framework only makes sense if it presumes self ownership and autonomy.
	10	+Second, autonomy is a pre-requisite for people to pursue other desires and goals. Without autonomy, one cannot have the freedom of individual choice to try and obtain other desirable aspects of life. Thus, even if they win that their criterion is preferable, autonomy is necessary in order to achieve it.
	11	+
	12	+Third, regardless of what ethical principle is the best, people must be able to rationally choose that principle to obey it, which requires an expression of autonomy. This makes autonomy a pre-requisite to moral decision making, since without it we would be unable to determine which values to promote. To clarify, autonomy is necessary to both determine what is good and to achieve those goods.
	13	+
	14	+I contend that mandating federal subsidizing of housing violates freedom.
	15	+
	16	+First, Government housing policies are coercive and interferes in local housing affairs
	17	+Georgi Boorman explains in 2016 Georgi Boorman is a Senior Contributor at The Federalist.) Say Goodbye to Choosing Your Neighbors and Local Tax Rates, The Federalist, April 22,2016, Date Accessed 2/22/17 http://thefederalist.com/2016/04/22/say-goodbye-to-choosing-your-neighbors- and-local-tax-rates/
	18	+Stanley Kurtz at … aren’t they?
	19	+
	20	+
	21	+Second, Any violation of freedom is more important than any potential benefit to government subsidized housing because it sets the precedence for governments to override citizens’ liberties. This leads us down the path to tyranny since each individual violation of freedom can always be justified in the name of the greater good, leading to greater and greater restrictions on liberty.
	22	+Sylvester Petro writes Sylvester Petro, professor of law at Wake Forest, Spring 1974, Toledo Law Review, p. 480
	23	+
	24	+However, one may …with undying spirit.
	25	+
	26	+Freedom of expression is also the most important thing underneath their criterion, since it is a necessary check on unjust government action. Absent freedom, the government could insert thing that is unjust under their value criterion without fear of recourse or backlash from the citizenry.
	27	+
	28	+AND, there is a difference between negative rights and positive rights. A negative right refers to freedom from coercion, whereas a positive right refers to freedom to pursue one’s ends. For example, my right to not be enslaved is a negative one since it is a right to be free from slavery, where as my right to education is a positive right since it is a right to be free to pursue an education. Under the criterion, negative rights must come before positive rights since prioritizing people’s freedom to achieve their ends would create infinite obligations to help others at the expense of our own freedom to make life choices. For instance, if positive rights took precedence we would be morally apprehensible for choosing to debate at this tournament instead of helping those in need. This independently proves why public campaign finance is unjust, since public campaign finance necessarily involves allocation of taxpayer’s money towards someone else’s campaign which implies we are prioritizing the positive right to be free to campaign over the negative right to be free from unjust coercion

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2017-03-25 19:14:02.327

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Chris Fox, Diganta Rashed

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Scarsdale SB

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+73

Round

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

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Stuyvesant Fennell Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+MARAPR - Lay Libertarianism 1NC

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Grands NCFL Quals