Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 1
Coercion
1NC Shell [1/2] 6
1NC Shell [2/2] 7
Link – Social Services 8
Link – Social Services 9
Link – Forced Charity 10
Link – Charity/Taxes 11
Link – Taxes 12
Link – Taxes 13
Link – Taxes 14
Link – Taxes 15
Link – Taxes 16
Link – Taxes 17
Link – Taxes 18
Link – Positive Rights 20
Link – Interference in Free Market 21
Link – Government Intervention 23
Link - Welfare 24
Link - Welfare 25
Link – Welfare 26
Link – Welfare 27
Link – Social Security 28
Link - Medicare 29
Link – Healthcare/Entitlement Programs 30
Link – Medicaid/Privatization CP AT: Perm 31
Link – Wealth Distribution 32
Link – Health Care 33
Link - Healthcare 34
Link - Healthcare 35
Link – Healthcare Kills Value of Life 36
Link – Healthcare 37
Link – Courts 38
Link - Courts 39
Link – Immigrants 40
Link – Utopia 41
Coercion = Immoral 42
Coercion = Immoral 43
Welfare = Immoral 45
Impact – Freedom 46
Impact – Freedom 47
Impact – Freedom 48
Impact – Tyranny 49
Impact – Self Sacrifice 51
AT: Right to Life 52
Coercion à Genocide 54
Coercion à Tyranny 55
Coercion à Corruption 57
Impact – Taxes Kill Liberty 58
Impact – Statism 59
Impact – Statism 60
Impact – Economic Growth 62
Impact – Agency 63
Impact - Economy 64
Impact - Terrorism 65
Free Trade Good 66
Coercion Snowballs/AT: N/U 67
Impact – VTL 68
Impact – Government Intervention 69
Impact – Government Control 70
Turns Case – Kills Charitable Desires 72
Turns Case – Poverty 73
Turns Case – Poverty 74
Turns Case – Private Sector Solves 75
Turns Case 77
Property Rights Key 78
AT: Util 79
Internal Link Magnifier 80
Link Magnifier - Snowballs 81
Internal Link Magnifier—Specific to Poverty 82
Rights outweigh Extinction (1/3) 83
AT: Util Solves Rights (1/2) 87
AT: Utilitarianism—Calculation DA 89
Morality – Key to Prevent Extinction 90
Morality – Must Reject 91
Morality – Key to V2L 92
Morality 93
Libertarianism Key To Morality 94
Framework – Rejection Key 95
A2: Altruism 96
A2: Altruism 97
A2: Altruism 98
A2: Altruism 100
Altruism Bad – Economy 101
A2: Aiding Poverty = Moral, Turns Coercion (non-regulation/barrier affs) 102
AT: Have to help the poor 103
Free Market/Small Government k2 Freedom 104
Free Market/Small Government k2 Freedom 105
AT: Cap Bad 106
Socialism Fails/AT: Cap Bad 107
Socialism Fails 108
Cap Solves War 109
Free Market = Moral 111
Coercion Destroys Freedom 112
Coercion => War and Genocide 114
Privatization CP – Private Better than Government 115
Privatization CP – Private Better than Government 116
Privatization CP – Private Better than Government 117
Privatization CP – Health Care 118
Privatization CP Solvency 119
Privatization CP – Charity 120
Privatization CP Solvency—Volunteer/Non-Profit 121
Privatization CP – Good Character 122
Privatization Good - Efficiency 123
Privatization CP – Education Solvency 124
Privatization CP Solvency—Education 125
AT: “Free-rider” 126
Privatization CP Solvency–Health Care 127
Privatization – Mormon Church Proves 128
Privatization CP – Empirical Solvency 129
Privatization CP AT: Market Failure 130
Privatization CP Solvency—Military 131
Privatization CP Solvency—Military 132
Privatization CP Solvency—Prisons 133
Privatization CP Solvency—Immigrant Detention Centers 134
Privatization CP Prisons—AT: Questions of Authority/Responsibility 135
Privatization CP Prisons—AT: “Creaming” 136
Privatization CP Prisons—At: Profit-making ® Cutting Corners 137
Privatization CP Prisons—At: Current Employees Losing Jobs 138
Privatization CP Prisons—AT: Strikes 139
Privatization CP Prisons—At: Long-term Privatization ® Inefficiencies 140
Privatization CP Prisons—Privatization Better 141
Privatization CP Prisons—AT: Liability Problems 142
Privatization CP Prisons—AT: Use of Force 143
Privatization CP Solvency—Prisons 144
Privatization CP – Solves Terrorism 145
Privatization CP – Poverty and Democracy 146
Education CP–1NC? 147
Education CP – Solvency–Tax Credits ® Best Education 148
Education CP Solvency–Education 149
Education CP – Solvency–Education–Tax Credits 150
Education CP Solvency–Education–Tax Credits Best 151
Education CP Solvency–Education–Tax Credits Solve Coercion 152
Healthcare Vouchers CP 153
Health Care Solvency 154
Solvency - Healthcare 155
Solvency - Healthcare 156
Healthcare CP - Deregulate 157
Privavitzation Solvency - Econ 159
Charity CP 160
Charity CP - Solvency 161
Charity CP - Solvency 162
Charity CP - Solvency 163
Charity CP - Solvency 164
CP Solves Coercion 165
Charity CP - Solvency 166
Charity CP - Solvency 167
Charity CP - Solvency 168
Charity CP - Solvency 169
Government Programs Fail 170
Private/Public Trade Off 171
Public/Private Tradeoff 172
Free Market à Charity 173
Privatization Good – Econ 174
A2: Perm: Do Both 175
A2: L/T – We Reform/Decrease Spending 176
1NC – Alternative 177
Alternative – Rejection 178
Alternative – Rejection 179
Alternative: Imagination 180
Alternative: Imagination – A2: Can’t Imagine 181
Alternative Solvency 182
A2: Objectivism not accepted 183
A2: Objectivism à political favors 184
AT: Alt is Violent/Justifies Violence 185
Americans want Smaller Government 186
Random AT: Federal funding o/w investment 187
AT: Rimal 188
AT: Rimal – AT: Majority Checks 189
AT: Rimal – Doesn’t Solve Resources 190
AT: Rimal – Author Indict 191
AFF—Utilitarianism Good—Rights 192
AFF—Utilitarianism Good—Life over Rights 193
AFF—AT: Util ® No Rights 194
AFF—AT: Freedom Outweighs 195
AFF—Consequentialism Key (1/2) 196
AFF—AT: Libertarian Consequentialism 198
AFF—Utilitariarianism Good (1/2) 199
Aff – Objectivism =/= Moral 201
Aff – Objectivism not Ethical 202
Aff – Objectivism Fails 203
Aff - Objectivism Kills Liberty 204
Aff – Objectivism Bad 206
Aff – OBJ Bad: Genocide 207
Aff – OBJ Bad: Politics 208
AFF – A2: Objectivism Morality Impact 209
AFF – Objectivism Bad – Morality 210
AFF – Objectivism Bad – Genocide 211
AFF – OBJ Bad: Rights 212
AFF – OBJ Bad: Environment/Global Warming [1/2] 213
AFF – OBJ Bad: Environment/Global Warming [2/2] 214
AFF – Objectivism Bad – A2: Ethical Egoism 215
AFF – Objectivism Bad – Racist/Exceptionalist/àExtinction 216
AFF – A2: Imagination Alt 217
Aff – AT: Free Market Solves/Turns Case 218
Aff – Moral Obligation to Solve Poverty 219
Aff – Rimal/Liberty Bad 220
Aff – Rimal 221
Aff – Rimal 222
Aff – Rimal 223
Aff – Rimal AT: Authoritarianism Bad 224
Aff – Rimal Uniqueness 225
Aff – Rimal Uniqueness 226
AFF – Privatization F ails 227
Aff – Privatization Bad: Investment 228
AFF— Privatization Fails Prisons 229
AFF—Privatization Doesn’t Solve Military 230
AFF – Privatization Fails: Healthcare 231
AFF – Privatization Doesn’t Solve Social Security 232
AFF – Privatization Doesn’t Solve Social Security 233
AFF – Privatization Doesn’t Solve Social Security 234
AFF – Privatization Doesn’t Solve Social Security 235
AFF – Privatization Doesn’t Solve Social Security 236
AFF – Privatization Doesn’t Solve Social Security 237
Aff – Privatization leads to Monopolies 238
Aff – Privatization Fails 239
Aff – Public Spending Good/Privatization Bad 240
Aff – Privatization Bad 241
Aff – Corporations Bad 242
AFF – AT: Privatization 243
AFF – Privatization – AT: Costs Less 244
AFF – Cap Bad 245
1NC Shell [1/2]
Government welfare and social services are coercive and morally wrong
Waldron 86 Professor of Law and Philosophy at New York University School of Law[Jeremy, “Welfare and the Images of Charity” The Philosophical Quarterly. Volume 36, No. 145. October 1986, pg. 463-482] mr
But Rand apart, the moral objection that must be taken most seriously is this. Charitable giving by the wealthy to the poor is not only morally permissible, it is indeed morally desirable. It is a good thing if those who have surplus wealth give it to what they regard as deserving cases. It is good not merely because generosity is a virtue and we ought to want to have as many virtues as possible: that line of thought leads in the direction of the crazy view that we should be glad there are poor people about so that we have someone to be charitable to. It is good on account of the moral force of the needs and the plight of those who are the potential recipients of our charity. It is because we care for them, and not (merely) because we care for our own moral integrity, that we ought to take note of their plight and do whatever we can to ameliorate it. Indeed, perhaps we can subject to moral criticism and moral pressure if we fail to do so. That much conceded by most all of modern opponents of state welfare provision. The mistake, they do say, is to convert moral pressure into compulsion - to force people to do what everyone agrees it would be morally desirable for them to do. Murray Rothboard's view is typical. He recognizes that charity is a good thing, but writes, "[I]t makes all the difference in the world whether the aid is given voluntarily or is stolen by force." [I]t is hardly charity to take wealth by force and hand it over to someone else. Indeed this is the direct opposite of charity, which can only be an unbought, voluntary act of grace. Compulsory confiscation can only deaden charitable desires completely, as the wealthier grumble that there is no point in giving to charity when the state has already taken on the task. This is another illustration of the truth that men can become more moral only through rational persuasion, not through violence, which will, in fact, have the opposite effect.4 The argument is a powerful one - the more so because, of course, the general point invoked at the end of this passage is absolutely fundamental to the entire tradition of liberal philosophy (and not merely its "new right" wing). Most liberals base their belief in toleration and civil rights in part on the irrationality and immorality of forcing people to do something merely on the ground that it is (believed to be) morally desirable. Since this is so, Rothbard and other libertarians appear to have a powerful argument against their opponents, in this tradition at any rate. The argument is that the Welfare State, with its apparatus of compulsory contribution, "poisons the springs of private charitable activity"5 just as the enforcement of a religious faith or a personal ethic or a scientific belief would, in the eyes of Locke or Kant or Mill, poison the basis of personal commitment, moral autonomy, and individual rationality. It is easy to overlook this point, and spend one's energy demonstrating that charitable giving is morally right, that everyone ought to give something to those worse off than themselves, and that those who would be the targets of coercion in a welfare state - those who would withhold charity - are morally in the wrong. But this is not necessarily in dispute. The libertarian argument is that, even if charity is morally desirable, indeed even if it is in some sense a moral duty, it is nevertheless wrong to require people by the threat of legal penalties and confiscation to give up any of their wealth for redistribution to the poor. This is the challenges that must be met by defenders of the welfare state.
1NC Shell [2/2]
Coercion risks the worst atrocities
Browne 95, former Libertarian presidential candidate
(Harry, executive director of public policy at American Liberty Foundation, editor of Liberty Magazine, financial advisor and economist, Why Government Doesn’t Work, pg 66-67)
The reformers of the Cambodian revolution claimed to be building a better world. They forced people into reeducation programs to make them better citizens. Then they used force to regulate every aspect of commercial life. Then they forced office workers and intellectuals to give up their jobs and harvest rice, to round out their education. When people resisted having their lives turned upside down, the reformers had to use more and more force. By the time they were done, they had killed a third of the country’s population, destroyed the lives of almost everyone still alive, and devastated a nation. It all began with using force for the best of intentions—to create a better world. The Soviet leaders used coercion to provide economic security and to build a “New Man”—a human being who would put his fellow man ahead of himself. At least 10 million people died to help build the New Man and the Workers’ Paradise. But human nature never changed—and the workers’ lives were always Hell, not Paradise. In the 1930s many Germans gladly traded civil liberties for the economic revival and national pride Adolf Hitler promised them. But like every other grand dream to improve society by force, it ended in a nightmare of devastation and death. Professor R.J. Rummel has calculated that 119 million people have been killed by their own governments in this century. Were these people criminals? No, they were people who simply didn’t fit into the New Order—people who preferred their own dreams to those of the reformers. Every time you allow government to use force to make society better, you move another step closer to the nightmares of Cambodia, the Soviet Union, and Nazi Germany. We’ve already moved so far that our own government can perform with impunity the outrages described in the preceding chapters. These examples aren’t cases of government gone wrong; they are examples of government—period. They are what governments do—just as chasing cats is what dogs do. They are the natural consequence of letting government use force to bring about a drug-free nation, to tax someone else to better your life, to guarantee your economic security, to assure that no one can mistreat you or hurt your feelings, and to cover up the damage of all the failed government programs that came before.
Freedom comes before all other impacts
Sylvester Petro, professor of law at Wake Forest, Spring 1974, Toledo Law Review, p480
However, one may still insist on echoing Ernest Hemingway – “I believe in only one thing: liberty.” And it is always well to bear in mind David Hume’s observation: “It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once.” Thus, it is unacceptable to say that the invasion of one aspect of freedom is of no import because there have been invasions of so many other aspects. That road leads to chaos, tyranny, despotism, and the end of all human aspiration. Ask Solzhenstyn, Ask Milovan Djilas. In sum, if one believes in freedom as a supreme value and proper ordering principle for any society aiming to maximize spiritual and material welfare, then every invasion of freedom must be emphatically identified and resisted with undying spirit.