Tournament: Valley | Round: 1 | Opponent: X | Judge: X

I negate. The resolution questions what countries ought do, and they ought to be just, so I value justice. Justice requires giving each their due. This is the best interpretation of justice because it respects the inherent worth of all individuals. Individuals are generally due rights because:

A: We possess rights naturally; we have life, liberty, and property, even in the state of nature.

B: We may give up some rights to the state, but in return, the state has an obligation to make our rights more secure, which means the state specifically has an obligation to our rights.

C: Even if rights are only legal creations, the government still has an obligation to create an ethically acceptable conception of rights.  Property rights are necessary to create a sphere of sovereignty around individuals that allows them to operate as free and equal persons and to participate meaningfully in social discourse. Gaus:

Gerald F. Gaus, "Public Justification and the Moral Right of Private Property".  No Date. http://www.unc.edu/~~jabaker/gaus.pdf
A regime of rights, and in particular of regime of private or "several
AND
the burdens of public justification and the demands on devices of social commensuration.

Therefore, my standard is respecting property rights.

My contention is that banning the production of nuclear power is an unjust limit on property ownership.

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. 06:

John Levendis, Walter Block, Joseph Morrel. "Nuclear Power." Journal of Business Ethics (2006) 67:37–49. JY.
Let us make a more philosophical rebuttal to at the zoning challenge. Under the
AND
one, advocates grounding all planes for this or any other such reason. 

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. 2:

John Levendis, Walter Block, Joseph Morrel. "Nuclear Power." Journal of Business Ethics (2006) 67:37–49. JY.
There need not be any fear that nuclear power stations would be located under free
AND
protests on NIMBY grounds for this reason would be ruled out of court.

There are two impacts.  First, a categorical ban on nuclear power is an inherent violation of property rights, which is unjust on its face.  Because rights serves as checks on what can be done for utilitarian reasons, this comes prior to the affirmative.  Second, even if utilitarian concerns are important, violations of rights also outweigh the AC because denials of rights are the basis for infinite structural violence. Petro 74:

Petro ‘74 ~Sylvester, Professor of Law at NYU, Toledo Law Review, Spring, p. 480, http://www.ndtceda.com/archives/200304/0783.html~~
However, one may still insist, echoing Ernest Hemingway - "I believe in
AND
every invasion of freedom must be emphatically identified and resisted with undying spirit.

Counterplan: Countries will end subsidies and liability guarantees for nuclear plants. Block et al 3:

John Levendis, Walter Block, Joseph Morrel. "Nuclear Power." Journal of Business Ethics (2006) 67:37–49. JY.
Let us summarize. The nuclear industry was too risky for private firms to enter
AND
environmental costs) be allowed to determine the contours of the energy industry.