13-Generic-Lamballe-Coercion

13-Generic-Lamballe- - Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 1 Coercion Coercion.1 1NC Shell[1/2.6 1NC Shell[2/2.7 Link – Social Services.8 Link – Social

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 1 Coercion Coercion...................................................................................................................................................................1 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 Last printed 1 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 2 Coercion Genocide............................................................................................................................................54 Coercion Tyranny.............................................................................................................................................55 Coercion 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......................................................................................................105 Free Market/Small Government k2 Freedom......................................................................................................106 AT: Cap Bad........................................................................................................................................................107 Socialism Fails/AT: Cap Bad...............................................................................................................................108 Socialism Fails....................................................................................................................................................109 Last printed 2 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 3 Cap Solves War....................................................................................................................................................110 Free Market = Moral............................................................................................................................................112 Coercion Destroys Freedom................................................................................................................................113 Coercion => War and Genocide..........................................................................................................................115 Privatization CP – Private Better than Government............................................................................................116 Privatization CP – Private Better than Government............................................................................................117 Privatization CP – Private Better than Government............................................................................................118 Privatization CP – Health Care............................................................................................................................119 Privatization CP Solvency...................................................................................................................................120 Privatization CP – Charity ..................................................................................................................................121 Privatization CP Solvency—Volunteer/Non-Profit.............................................................................................122 Privatization CP – Good Character .....................................................................................................................123 Privatization Good - Efficiency...........................................................................................................................124 Privatization CP – Education Solvency...............................................................................................................125 Privatization CP Solvency—Education...............................................................................................................126 AT: “Free-rider”...................................................................................................................................................127 Privatization CP Solvency–Health Care..............................................................................................................128 Privatization – Mormon Church Proves..............................................................................................................129 Privatization CP – Empirical Solvency................................................................................................................130 Privatization CP AT: Market Failure...................................................................................................................131 Privatization CP Solvency—Military..................................................................................................................132 Privatization CP Solvency—Military..................................................................................................................133 Privatization CP Solvency—Prisons....................................................................................................................134 Privatization CP Solvency—Immigrant Detention Centers................................................................................135 Privatization CP Prisons—AT: Questions of Authority/Responsibility..............................................................136 Privatization CP Prisons—AT: “Creaming”........................................................................................................137 Privatization CP Prisons—At: Profit-making → Cutting Corners.......................................................................138 Privatization CP Prisons—At: Current Employees Losing Jobs.........................................................................139 Privatization CP Prisons—AT: Strikes................................................................................................................140 Privatization CP Prisons—At: Long-term Privatization → Inefficiencies...........................................................141 Privatization CP Prisons—Privatization Better...................................................................................................142 Privatization CP Prisons—AT: Liability Problems.............................................................................................143 Privatization CP Prisons—AT: Use of Force......................................................................................................144 Privatization CP Solvency—Prisons....................................................................................................................145 Privatization CP – Solves Terrorism....................................................................................................................146 Privatization CP – Poverty and Democracy.........................................................................................................147 Education CP–1NC?............................................................................................................................................148 Education CP – Solvency–Tax Credits → Best Education..................................................................................149 Education CP Solvency–Education.....................................................................................................................150 Education CP – Solvency–Education–Tax Credits..............................................................................................151 Education CP Solvency–Education–Tax Credits Best........................................................................................152 Education CP Solvency–Education–Tax Credits Solve Coercion.......................................................................153 Healthcare Vouchers CP......................................................................................................................................154 Health Care Solvency..........................................................................................................................................155 Solvency - Healthcare..........................................................................................................................................156 Solvency - Healthcare..........................................................................................................................................157 Last printed 3 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 4 Healthcare CP - Deregulate.................................................................................................................................158 Privavitzation Solvency - Econ............................................................................................................................160 Charity CP............................................................................................................................................................161 Charity CP - Solvency.........................................................................................................................................162 Charity CP - Solvency.........................................................................................................................................163 Charity CP - Solvency.........................................................................................................................................164 Charity CP - Solvency.........................................................................................................................................165 CP Solves Coercion.............................................................................................................................................166 Charity CP - Solvency.........................................................................................................................................167 Charity CP - Solvency.........................................................................................................................................168 Charity CP - Solvency.........................................................................................................................................169 Charity CP - Solvency.........................................................................................................................................170 Government Programs Fail..................................................................................................................................171 Private/Public Trade Off......................................................................................................................................172 Public/Private Tradeoff........................................................................................................................................173 Free Market Charity........................................................................................................................................174 Privatization Good – Econ...................................................................................................................................175 A2: Perm: Do Both..............................................................................................................................................176 A2: L/T – We Reform/Decrease Spending..........................................................................................................177 1NC – Alternative................................................................................................................................................178 Alternative – Rejection .......................................................................................................................................179 Alternative – Rejection........................................................................................................................................180 Alternative: Imagination......................................................................................................................................181 Alternative: Imagination – A2: Can’t Imagine....................................................................................................182 Alternative Solvency............................................................................................................................................183 A2: Objectivism not accepted..............................................................................................................................184 A2: Objectivism political favors.....................................................................................................................185 AT: Alt is Violent/Justifies Violence...................................................................................................................186 Americans want Smaller Government.................................................................................................................187 Random AT: Federal funding o/w investment.....................................................................................................188 AT: Rimal............................................................................................................................................................189 AT: Rimal – AT: Majority Checks......................................................................................................................190 AT: Rimal – Doesn’t Solve Resources................................................................................................................191 AT: Rimal – Author Indict...................................................................................................................................192 AFF—Utilitarianism Good—Rights....................................................................................................................193 AFF—Utilitarianism Good—Life over Rights....................................................................................................194 AFF—AT: Util → No Rights...............................................................................................................................195 AFF—AT: Freedom Outweighs..........................................................................................................................196 AFF—Consequentialism Key (1/2).....................................................................................................................197 AFF—AT: Libertarian Consequentialism...........................................................................................................199 AFF—Utilitariarianism Good (1/2).....................................................................................................................200 Aff – Objectivism =/= Moral...............................................................................................................................202 Aff – Objectivism not Ethical..............................................................................................................................203 Aff – Objectivism Fails........................................................................................................................................204 Aff - Objectivism Kills Liberty..........................................................................................................................205 Aff – Objectivism Bad.........................................................................................................................................207 Last printed 4 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 5 Aff – OBJ Bad: Genocide....................................................................................................................................208 Aff – OBJ Bad: Politics.......................................................................................................................................209 AFF – A2: Objectivism Morality Impact.............................................................................................................210 AFF – Objectivism Bad – Morality.....................................................................................................................211 AFF – Objectivism Bad – Genocide....................................................................................................................212 AFF – OBJ Bad: Rights.......................................................................................................................................213 AFF – OBJ Bad: Environment/Global Warming [1/2]........................................................................................214 AFF – OBJ Bad: Environment/Global Warming [2/2]........................................................................................215 AFF – Objectivism Bad – A2: Ethical Egoism....................................................................................................216 AFF – Objectivism Bad – Racist/Exceptionalist/Extinction...........................................................................217 AFF – A2: Imagination Alt..................................................................................................................................218 Aff – AT: Free Market Solves/Turns Case..........................................................................................................219 Aff – Moral Obligation to Solve Poverty............................................................................................................220 Aff – Rimal/Liberty Bad......................................................................................................................................221 Aff – Rimal..........................................................................................................................................................222 Aff – Rimal..........................................................................................................................................................223 Aff – Rimal..........................................................................................................................................................224 Aff – Rimal AT: Authoritarianism Bad...............................................................................................................225 Aff – Rimal Uniqueness.......................................................................................................................................226 Aff – Rimal Uniqueness.......................................................................................................................................227 AFF – Privatization F ails....................................................................................................................................228 Aff – Privatization Bad: Investment....................................................................................................................229 AFF— Privatization Fails Prisons.......................................................................................................................230 AFF—Privatization Doesn’t Solve Military........................................................................................................231 AFF – Privatization Fails: Healthcare..................................................................................................................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 Doesn’t Solve Social Security.............................................................................................238 Aff – Privatization leads to Monopolies..............................................................................................................239 Aff – Privatization Fails.......................................................................................................................................240 Aff – Public Spending Good/Privatization Bad...................................................................................................241 Aff – Privatization Bad........................................................................................................................................242 Aff – Corporations Bad........................................................................................................................................244 AFF – AT: Privatization......................................................................................................................................245 AFF – Privatization – AT: Costs Less.................................................................................................................246 AFF – Cap Bad....................................................................................................................................................247 Last printed 5 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 6 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. Last printed 6 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 7 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. Last printed 7 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 8 Link – Social Services Coercion is inherently prevalent among social services Hoshino, School of Social Work at University of Minnesota, 73 (George Hoshino, School of Social Work at University of Minnesota, 1973, “Social Services: The Problem of Accountability”, http://www.jstor.org/stable/30021513) A similar situation may prevail in the services programs. Indeed, con- trolling official behavior may be an even more difficult problem because of the discretionary powers of the worker and the fact that little of the worker's activity is directly observable. The person most acutely affected, the client, is not in a position to hold the worker or the agency accountable. (By way of contrast, consider the baseball player, whose every move is scrutinized by the umpires, his teammates, the opposition, the coaches, and the fans.) Many social services, especially the so-called hard services, such as day care, medical care, and transportation, are forms of in-kind income. Service workers are "gatekeepers" to desper- ately needed or wanted provisions, such as special allowances, jobs, housing, and even recreation, all of which are in short supply. The service worker's role is "functionally general" in contrast with the more limited "functionally specific" role of staff members in other fields, such as education and health. This general role, in combination with the "treatment" orientation of most social work theories, may lead the worker to intervene in virtually any aspect of the client's life. Given the vulner- able position of the low-income population, there is the danger that worker activity will be directed toward control of client behavior. Separa- tion of aid and services may mitigate some of the more blatant uses of the recipient's dependent status to impose behavioral conformity, but there is no assurance that more subtle but no less real coercion will not accompany the social services (5; 7). In the face of these realities, to suggest that clients of public welfare agencies can hold workers and agencies accountable to them is merely rhetoric. Social services are coercive. More, founder of Extropy Institute, 86 (Max More, founder of Extropy Institute, 1986, “THE IMPORTANCE OF SELFISHNESS, THE DANGERS OF ALTRUISM,” http://www.thedegree.org/philn004.pdf) We do not have a ‘right to a job’ or to welfare or to education or to medical services since that implies that someone must be forced to provide them. We have only the right to make a voluntary exchange for them — with our own goods and services (or to accept them as free, unforced gifts.) Free market capitalism is a system of voluntary agreements and is therefore an ‘exploitative’ system — in the sense that people can use each other to their mutual benefit. It is not exploitative in the negative sense of “ripping someone off” or violating their rights. A voluntary market exchange can only occur if both participants expect to benefit. It is state interference that introduces gainers at the expense of losers — taxation, regulation, bureaucracy, involuntary unemployment, war . (At least, some people may think they gain but a higher income or other ‘gain’ is only to one’s interest if acquired morally and rationally.) The idea of ‘exploitative’ capitalism is only made possible by the usual definition of ‘selfish’ which, as we’ve seen, implies that one can only gain at another’s expense. Last printed 8 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 9 Link – Social Services Government distributed social services are coercive ASPA, ‘72 (American Society for Public Administration, October 1972, Blackwell Publishing, “Decentralization and Citizen Participation in Social Services”, http://www.jstor.org/stable/info/975233?seq=1) Because the recipient of welfare is dependent upon the state for his economic sustenance, his inability to maintain stable family relationships or maintain attachment to the labor force is generalized to a more fundamental inability to cope effectively with the social and economic environment. This view thus places the department of public welfare in locus parent is to the client and her children (29). Social services provide one approach to changing the behavior of those who are economically dependent. The use of social services to reform individuals and to protect the well-to-do confronts two problems: it constrains the liberty of the individual and is of doubtful effectiveness in promoting its aims. Joel Handler believes that when government officials have discretion over the distribution of goods and services that other people need and want, the coercive power of government is increased as well. Governments may resort to coercion also when services fail to promote compliance or the cost of the services seems too high (18). To counter these arguments proponents of the selectivist-discretionary position explain that since welfare policy is inspired by the desire to maximize the protection of one class of individuals when threatened by the behavior of another, it is therefore inappropriate to use an individual standard to judge a program when a collective standard is more appropriate. Last printed 9 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 10 Link – Forced Charity Forced charity threatens morality, liberty, and justice. Waldron, Prof Law and Philosophy, New York University, 86 (Jeremy Waldron, Professor of Law and Philosophy, New York University School of Law, 8/86, The Philosophical Quarterly, p 464) In this paper I want to consider the way in which different images of charity are related to the issue of the justification of welfare provision. The moral legitimacy of welfare provision in the modern state is sometimes denied. Many of those who deny it are particularly concerned about the element of compulsion that it introduces into the sphere of philanthropy. There is, they say, no objection to the redistribution of wealth when it is undertaken as a matter of voluntary transfers from rich to poor. But they complain that the moral quality of these transfers is destroyed and that serious issues of liberty and justice are raised when people are compelled under threat of punishment to transfer part of their wealth to the state so that it can be distributed to other citizens who are poor and needy. My hunch is that the force of this sort of complaint depends crucially on a particular view of what charitable giving is and what it amounts to. I am going to argue that if we adopt a somewhat different image of charity — one that is less familiar but, as I shall claim, more faithful to the underlying relation between charity and property rights - we will find the complaint about the morality of compulsive charity somewhat less convincing. Last printed 10 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 11 Link – Charity/Taxes Stealing wealth in the form of taxes is wrong even if charity is morally right. Waldron, Prof Law and Philosophy, New York University, 86 (Jeremy Waldron, Professor of Law and Philosophy, New York University School of Law, 8/86, The Philosophical Quarterly, pp 465466) 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 seriously 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 challenge that must be met by defenders of the welfare state, Last printed 11 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 12 Link – Taxes Taxes (aka stealing) is comparable to forced labor and slavery. Waldron, Prof Law and Philosophy, New York University, 86 (Jeremy Waldron, Professor of Law and Philosophy, New York University School of Law, 8/86, The Philosophical Quarterly, pp 467468) 444r5545 So far this is merely negative: though many moral duties are properly enforceable, the fact that something (like not lying to your mother or giving to charity) is a moral duty does not eo ipsa show that it ought to be enforced. But positive moral arguments have been developed too. The challenge to the welfare state that has been taken most seriously in recent political philosophy is that of Robert Nozick. In a famous passage inxlnarchy, State and Utopia, Nozick suggests that taxing a man’s income or wealth (“seizing his goods”, as he puts it) in order to provide for the needy is morally on a par with forced labour. And, for those of us who are inclined to believe that forced labour in the service of the miserable and the destitute, where there is no other way to provide for their needs, might not be altogether a bad thing, Nozick insists that this in turn is morally on a par with slavery and other fomis of inter- personal aggression.‘° just as people have rights over their bodies that may not be violated even when doing so would be to the greater benefit of others, so Nozick believes individuals can acquire similar rights in relation to external objects by processes of appropriate and voluntary transfer. He accepts without question that philanthropy is morally desirable: it is an excellent way in which a person can exercise his rights." But our goals and our aims, no matter how high·minded and philanthropic they are, are constrained by the rights of others. just as I may not send your money to Ethiopia, or promise your blood to the Blood Transfusion Service, so a government, no matter how democratic it is, may not simply take the property of its subjects for charitable purposes if the subjects would rather use it for something else. Nozick believes that individual property rights over material objects “fill the space of rights, leaving no room" for general welfare rights like the right to a minimum subsistence." Compelling a private property owner to contribute to a welfare scheme for others against his will is a way of violating his moral rights; and there can be no justiiication for doing so since, on Nozick’s analysis, there are simply no rights to welfare that could possibly be regarded as being in conflict or competition with the proprety rights in question. Last printed 12 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 13 Link – Taxes Taxes and government spending allow social injustices Boaz, Cato's executive vice president, 09 (David Boaz, Cato's executive vice president, 6/23/09, CATO Institute http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9966) the government is using its money to impose rules on private organizations, whether businesses or churches or charities.For decades, opponents of big government have warned that government funding would mean government control. That insight, of course, is part of our folk wisdom: "He who pays the piper calls the tune."The laws sounded reasonable enough: Any college, or business, or In each case, hospital, or nonprofit agency that is a recipient of federal funds must abide by certain federal regulations. After all, it was reasoned, the federal government has a responsibility to monitor how taxpayers' money is being spent.So firms that did business with the government became subject to affirmative-action regulations, health and safety regulations, medical costcontainment rules and drug-free workplace requirements.Colleges that eagerly took the carrot of federal funding soon faced myriad reporting requirements, especially to document compliance with anti-discrimination rules. Members of Congress who had a good idea about how colleges should be run added amendments to appropriations bills: Any college receiving federal funds shall do thus and so.But soon it came to pass that almost every company in America was doing some business with the feds and every college was receiving federal aid. It became almost impossible to escape the tentacles of Leviathan.Conservatives used to complain about such big-government intrusions, and liberals brushed the complaints aside. Government funding of everything under the sun was not only a way of redistributing wealth, the liberals thought, it was a way of bringing everyone under the control of progressive, fair-minded bureaucrats in Washington.But then the conservatives started winning elections – in 1980, and 1994, and 2000 – and they started attaching their own strings to the federal money.The government forbade arts agencies funded by the National Endowment for the Arts to present any "obscene" art. Under pressure from the federal drug czar, Stanford University fired an instructor who said he carried drugs in his backpack on campus.The Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could prohibit federally funded family-planning clinics from giving their clients advice about abortion.Then liberals started to worry about big government. They fretted that the federal government was censoring, stifling, restricting – as indeed it was, and had been for decades. Only now it was conservatives doing the censoring and restricting.Duke University law professor Walter Dellinger warned that such rules were "especially alarming in light of the growing role of government as subsidizer, landlord, employer and patron of the arts."Dellinger is right. But the way to solve the problem he raises is to reduce the government's role in society. Surely we can't expect taxpayers just to hand over $3 trillion a year to various agencies and interests without regulating how the money is spent.Their representatives in Congress and the administration think that those who are subsidizing the businesses or the museums or the clinics have a right to say just what they will and will not pay for.Now the liberals are back in charge, and using federal money to impose their own rules. They've repealed rules limiting access to abortion and imposed rules limiting executive compensation and restricting the freedom of religious organizations to make hiring decisions on the basis of religion.Red or blue, liberal or conservative, it's still the case that government money comes with strings attached. He who pays the piper calls the tune.Freedom and diversity would be better protected if private organizations were allowed to set their own rules, even if they get government funding. Religious organizations should be able to actually practice their faith. Businesses should be able to make their own decisions about salaries, product development and other concerns. Last printed 13 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 14 Link – Taxes Taxation is equivalent to slavery and funds inefficient bureaucracy Wollstein, member of ISIL's Board of Directors and a founder of the original Society for Individual Liberty, 07 (Jarret B. Wollstein, member of ISIL's Board of Directors and a founder of the original Society for Individual Liberty, 2007, “WE MUST END TAX SLAVERY NOW”, http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/end-tax-slavery.html#author) At the current rate of growth, within 20 years taxes will consume every penny we earn. Long before then, we will all be living in public housing projects and eating government cheese. Taxation is impractical, unnecessary, and immoral. It is impractical because tax-supported public services – from public schools to police protection – work poorly, if at all, and are very wasteful. Taxation is unnecessary because any service or product that people truly want or need – from education to roads to charity – they can and will purchase without being forced to pay. And taxation is immoral because it is based on brute force – the threat of fines and imprisonment of peaceful citizens. For 150 years, America got along fine without the personal income tax, sales tax, profits tax, and most other taxes. We need to end taxes now, before tax slavery ends America. Government funded programs are coercive and irresponsible Wollstein, member of ISIL's Board of Directors and a founder of the original Society for Individual Liberty, 07 (Jarret B. Wollstein, member of ISIL's Board of Directors and a founder of the original Society for Individual Liberty, 2007, “WE MUST END TAX SLAVERY NOW”, http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/end-tax-slavery.html#author) These incidents show how far our government has strayed from its original purpose of protecting our lives, liberty, and property. Providing basic government services such as police, courts, and military defense would cost a fraction of what we now pay in taxes. Fifty years ago, the US had an excellent court system and the most powerful military in the world, yet taxes then consumed less than 5% of the average person's income. Today, taxes are over ten times as high, and ninety percent of the money we pay in taxes is wasted. Would you send $20 billion of our tax dollars to Mexico to prop up the peso? Would you pay for inner-city schools that graduate students who are unable to read or write? Would you pay farmers not to grow food? Would you authorize the Pentagon to spend $7,622 for a coffee maker designed to survive a plane crash? Would you have spent billions to build up the militaries of the Shah of Iran and Gen. Noriega of Panama? Would you spend $352,000 to study the mating habits of the California kangaroo rat? Would you spend $17,000 so an artist could display a picture of Christ in a jar of human urine? Any business that spent money as irresponsibly as the government does would quickly go bankrupt – if their directors weren't lynched first. But, as the Supreme Court has ruled, government is not legally obligated to provide you with any specific service in return for the taxes you pay. Unlike legitimate businesses, only the government can legally force you to pay for its programs, no matter how wasteful or outrageous. And there's no limit to how much of your income the government can seize. Last printed 14 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 15 Link – Taxes Government taxation is coercive theft Casey, author of "Crisis Investing," which spent 26 weeks as No. 1 on the New York Times Best-Seller list; editor and publisher of the International Speculator, one of the nation's most established and highly respected publications on gold, silver and other natural resource investments, 2002 (Doug Casey, author of "Crisis Investing," which spent 26 weeks as No. 1 on the New York Times Best-Seller list; editor and publisher of the International Speculator, one of the nation's most established and highly respected publications on gold, silver and other natural resource investments, 9/26/2002, “Slightly Up from Slavery”, http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=15336) To eliminate any misunderstanding as to what taxes are, it's helpful to define the word "theft." One good definition is "the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods of another." The definition does not go on to say "unless you're the government." There is no difference, in principle, between the state taking property and a street gang doing so, except that the State's theft is "legal" and its agents are immune from prosecution. Many people do not accept that analogy, because the government is widely viewed as being of, for and by the people – even though it's also acknowledged as acting badly from time to time. Suppose a mugger demanded your wallet – perhaps because he needed money to buy a new car – and threatened you with violence if you weren't forthcoming. Everyone would call that a criminal act. Suppose, however, the mugger said he wanted the money to buy himself food. Would it still be theft? Suppose now that he said he wanted your wallet to feed another hungry person, not himself. Would it still be theft? Now let's suppose that this mugger convinces most of his friends that it's OK for him to relieve you of your wallet. Would it still be theft? What if he convinces a majority of citizens? Principles stand on their own. Even if a criminal act is committed for good purpose, or with the complicity of bystanders, (even if those people call themselves the government), it is still an act of criminal aggression. It's important to establish an ethical viewpoint on the matter, even if it doesn't change your reaction to the mugger's (or the State's) demands. Just as it's usually unwise to resist a mugger, it's usually unwise to resist the government, which has a lot of force on its side. High taxation is indicative of a failed civilization; voluntary societies are the ultimate successes Casey, author of "Crisis Investing," which spent 26 weeks as No. 1 on the New York Times Best-Seller list; editor and publisher of the International Speculator, one of the nation's most established and highly respected publications on gold, silver and other natural resource investments, 2002 (Doug Casey, author of "Crisis Investing," which spent 26 weeks as No. 1 on the New York Times Best-Seller list; editor and publisher of the International Speculator, one of the nation's most established and highly respected publications on gold, silver and other natural resource investments, 9/26/2002, “Slightly Up from Slavery”, http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=15336) Actually, the truth is almost exactly the opposite. As Mark Skousen, economist and author, has pointed out: "Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state is a complete failure of civilization, while a totally voluntary society is its ultimate success." Taxes are destroyers of civilization and society. They impoverish the average man. They support welfare programs that anchor the lower classes to the bottom of society. They underwrite a gigantic bureaucracy that serves only to raise costs and quash incentive. They pay for public-works programs that are usually 10 times more costly than their privately financed counterparts, whether needed or not. They maintain programs that cause huge distortions in the economy (such as deposit insurance for banks and savings-and-loans). And they foster a climate of fear and dishonesty. The list of evils goes on and on. But the simple truth is that anything needed or wanted by society would be provided by profit-seeking entrepreneurs, if only the tax collector would retire. Last printed 15 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 16 Link – Taxes Taxation is analogous to coercive slavery Yates, Ph.D in Philosophy and is the author of Civil Wrongs: What Went Wrong With Affirmative Action, 08 (Steven Yates, Ph.D in Philosophy and is the author of Civil Wrongs: What Went Wrong With Affirmative Action, 1/28/08, http://www.lewrockwell.com/yates/yates17.html) In this case slavery is at odds with libertarian social ethics, in which all human beings have a natural right to ownership of Person and Labor. According to libertarian social ethics, contracts should be voluntary and not coerced. This is sufficient for us to oppose slavery with all our might. However, notice that this clear definition of slavery is a double-edged sword. There is no reference to race in the above definition. That whites enslaved blacks early in our history is an historical accident; there is nothing inherently racial about slavery. Many peoples have been enslaved in the past, including whites. The South, too, has no intrinsic connection with slavery, given how we already noted that it was practiced in the North as well. No slaves were brought into the Confederacy during its brief, five-year existence, and it is very likely that the practice would have died out in a generation or two had the Confederacy won the war. Finally, it is clear that when most people talk about slavery, they are referring to chattel slavery, the overt practice of buying, selling and owning people like farm animals or beasts of burden. Are there other forms of slavery besides chattel slavery? Before answering, let’s review our definition above and contrast slavery with sovereignty, in the sense of sovereignty over one’s life. Slavery, we said, is nonownership of Person and Labor. In that case, sovereignty is ownership of Person and Labor. The basic contrast, then, is between slavery and sovereignty, and the issue is ownership. And there are two basic things one can own: one’s Person (one’s life), and one’s Labor (the fruits of one’s labors, including personal wealth resulting from productive labors). Let us quantify the situation. A plantation slave owned neither himself nor the fruits of his labors. That is, he owned 0% of Person and 0% of Labor. In an ideal libertarian order, ownership of Person and Labor would be just the opposite: 100% of both. In this case, we have a method allowing us to describe other forms of slavery by ascribing different percentages of ownership to Person and Labor. For example, we might say that a prison inmate owns 5% of Person and 50% of Labor. Inmates are highly confined in person yet they are allowed to own wealth both inside the prison and outside. Some, moreover, are allowed to work at jobs for which they are paid. When slavery was abolished, ownership of Person and Labor was transferred to the slave, and he became mostly free. So let us define the following categories in terms of individual percentage ownership: Category Characteristics Chattel Slavery 0% ownership of Person and Labor Partial Slavery some % ownership of Person and Labor Perfect Liberty 100% ownership of Person and Labor With this in mind, here is our question for our readers: how much ownership do you have in your person and your labor? Are you really free? Or are you a partial slave? We are not, of course, talking about arrangements that cede a portion of ownership of Person We submit that forcible taxation on your personal income makes you a partial slave? For if you are legally bound to hand a certain percentage of your income (the fruits of your labors) over to federal, state and local governments, then from the legal standpoint you only have "some % ownership" of your person and labor. The pivotal point is whether or not ownership is ceded through voluntary contract. Have you any recollection of any deals you signed with the IRS promising them payment and Labor to others through voluntary contract. of part of your income? If not, then if 30% of your income is paid in income taxes, then you have only 70% ownership of Labor. You are a slave from January through April – a very conservative estimate at best, today! Last printed 16 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 17 Link – Taxes Taxation is in violation of the 13th amendment Yates, Ph.D in Philosophy and is the author of Civil Wrongs: What Went Wrong With Affirmative Action, 08 (Steven Yates, Ph.D in Philosophy and is the author of Civil Wrongs: What Went Wrong With Affirmative Action, 1/28/08, http://www.lewrockwell.com/yates/yates17.html) If one wants to stand on the U.S. Constitution as one’s foundation, then the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution can be used as an ironclad argument against a forcible direct tax on the labor of a human being. The 13th Amendment says: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." The 13th Amendment makes it very clear that we cannot legally or Constitutionally be forced into involuntary servitude. As such, we maintain that a human being has an inalienable right to own 100 % of Person and 100% of Labor, including control over how the fruits of his actions are dispensed. A human being has an inalienable right to control the compensation for his labor while in the act of any service in the marketplace – e.g., digging ditches, flipping burgers, word-processing documents for a company, programming computers, preparing court cases, performing surgery, preaching sermons, or writing novels. A forcible direct tax on the labor of a human being is in violation of this right as stated in the 13th Amendment. If we work 40 hours a week, and another entity forcibly conscripts 25 % of our compensation, then we argue that we have been forced into involuntary servitude – slavery – for 10 of those 40 hours, and we were free for the other 30. If we could freely choose to work just the 30 hours and decline to work the 10 hours, then our wills would not be violated and the 13th Amendment would be honored. Last printed 17 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 18 Link – Taxes Taxation is theft by the government Podolsky, Spent ten years doing mathematical physics and systems analysis in industry and government, twenty-five years doing psychotherapy in private practice, written five books and a number of articles about ethics, law, and government and their impact on our lives, 2009 Robert E. Podolsky, Spent ten years doing mathematical physics and systems analysis in industry and government, twenty-five years doing psychotherapy in private practice, written five books and a number of articles about ethics, law, and government and their impact on our lives, 3/31/09, “Why Taxation is Slavery”, ttp://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Opinion/048077-2009-03-31-whytaxation-is-slavery.htm I have maintained for some time that taxation is government’s most criminal enterprise and that it is, in fact, a form of slavery. Yet it continues to baffle me that so many people cannot or will not see the obvious truth in these statements and insist on arguing that taxation is necessary to humanity’s well being and that it is not slavery at all. “The greatest good for the greatest number” goes the usual utilitarian refrain…which I maintain is one of the greater falsehoods …for the usual reasons. But since these reasons are so elusive to the greatest number I have decided to explain my reasoning in language that (hopefully) anyone can understand, thus settling this dispute once and for all in the eyes of any reasonable person. While a whole book might easily be devoted to this subject, it is my intention to present here only a brief treatise on the subject in order to make the information as accessible as possible. I present herein three separate, but not entirely independent, arguments to make my case. I call them respectively: 1. The Property Rights Argument, 2. The Robin Hood Argument, and 3. The Smart Business Argument. The Property Rights Argument is the one usually presented by libertarians in the manner of the late Murray Rothbard. Unfortunately, Rothbard presupposed that most people would accept intuitively that people own their own bodies. From this assumption he then reasoned that this implied the existence of property rights and hence absolute ownership of whatever the individual might create or produce. While the reasoning behind this argument is correct, few people accept it because it is counter-intuitive. It is counter-intuitive because as children it is obvious to us that our parents own our bodies, rather than we ourselves. When we go to school our teachers appear to own us. And when we grow up and become employees it often seems that our employers own us. We also observe as adults that if we refuse to pay taxes we can involuntarily lose possession of all our assets, thus demonstrating that government has a higher claim than we do to whatever we would like to believe we own. In the midst of such a society it is hardly surprising that most of us are unconvinced that we have any property rights not mitigated by government decree. So it follows that if indeed we have any property rights worth discussing we will need some other way to discover this fact than simply agreeing with the Rothbard assertion that we own our own bodies. Fortunately there is another avenue of reasoning that we can call upon for this purpose. It begins with the definition of an ethical act: An act is ethical if it increases the creativity of anyone, including the person acting, without limiting or diminishing the creativity of anyone. As I have shown elsewhere, this definition is logically equivalent to similar definitions in which the word “creativity” is replaced by “love”, “awareness”, “personal evolution”, or any of a potentially large set of resources that are logical equivalents of creativity. I have also conclusively shown elsewhere that the utilitarian definition defining an ethical act as one that does more good than harm is invalid, and that because of this that it follows by simple logic that ethical ends cannot ever be attained by unethical means no matter who (or how many) benefits from such an act[1]. Now let’s ask the question, “Might it be ethical to steal someone’s possessions, either by force or by deceit?” And the answer is a resounding, “NO!” The scientist depends on her computer. The poet depends on his word processor. The artist needs her brushes and paints. Steal these things from someone and they are rendered less creative. By definition such an act is unethical…bad…evil. It follows logically from this that if we have the “right” to be treated ethically then we must have the “right” to own whatever we are able to acquire without stealing from someone else…and that therefore no one has the right, for any reason, to deprive us of the fruit of our bodies’ labor. By similar reasoning it follows that we do indeed own our own bodies and that any act which abrogates that right of ownership is an act of slavery because it diminishes our self-ownership. If our physical and financial possessions indeed contribute to our creativity, then it follows that the systematic removal of any such resources from our Last printed 18 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 19 possession is evil and is a form of enslavement. Taxation is just such an act. Last printed 19 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 20 Link – Positive Rights Right to healthcare deprives the producer of rights, and condemns them to slave labor. Ayn Rand, 1964, Russian-American novelist, philosopher, playwright, and screenwriter, author of numerous books including Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. The Virtue of Selfishness pg 129 -=Max Rispoli=A single question added to each of the above eight clauses would make the issue clear: At whose expense? Jobs, food, clothing, recreation (I), homes, medical care, education, etc., do not grow in nature. These are man-made values—goods and services produced by men. Who is to provide them? If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor. Any alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right. No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as "the right to enslave”A right does not include the material implementation of that right by other men; it includes only the freedom to earn that implementation by one's own effort. Observe, in this context, the intellectual precision of the Founding Fathers: they spoke of the right to the Pursuit of happiness—not of the right to happiness. It means that a man has the right to take the actions he deems necessary to achieve his happiness; it does not mean that others must make him happy. Last printed 20 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 21 Link – Interference in Free Market Government interference in the free market damages freedom and personal property Rahn, Senior fellow of the Cato Institute, 09 (Richard W. Rahn, Richard W. Rahn is a senior fellow of the Cato Institute, Chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth and Chairman of the Advisory Board of the European Center for Economic Growth., 7/15/09, “Heavy Foot of Government”, Washington Times, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/15/heavy-foot-of-government/) Men create democratic governments to protect life, liberty and property. Yet much of what modern government does daily has the largely unintended consequence of endangering and/or reducing life, liberty and property.Taxes reduce liberty and often erode the value of property. Most regulations reduce liberty and some erode property values and even endanger life. We now spend much of our lives trying to figure out how to reduce our tax burdens and to comply with never-ending government regulations and forms.In mid-July How old were you before you realized your actions could result in unintended consequences? of each year, several thousand economic libertarians meet in libertine Las Vegas as part of the annual FreedomFest.They come to discuss how they can keep the foot of government light by removing ever-growing government restrictions on their liberty, and how they can personally protect their property (savings and investments). Speakers range from chief executive officers, such as Steve Forbes of Forbes magazine and John Mackey of Whole Foods; media economic gurus, such as Larry Kudlow of CNBC and Steve Moore and John Fund of the Wall Street Journal; to think tank leaders, well-known economists, tax lawyers, and investment advisers.Most of those who enter government, either as elected politicians or bureaucrats, do not start out to deliberately erode basic freedoms and property rights, but all too many in the political class act like children -- irresponsibly and thoughtlessly.It has been widely reported that not one of the several hundred members of Congress who voted for the "stimulus package" or the "cap-and-trade bill" (each piece of legislation containing more than 1,000 pages) actually read, let alone understood, what was in these bills. The stimulus bill is objectively not working as promised by the advocates because, as many correctly warned, it is not possible for either individuals or governments to spend themselves into prosperity, nor will the political forces allow tax revenues to be spent wisely and effectively. If you look at the Obama officials' unemployment projections (with and without the stimulus bill), as well as the actual unemployment numbers, it is ironic that, if those in the Obama administration had not put forth the stimulus bill, the economy, by their own projections, would probably have been better off.The environmental cap-and-trade bill that has passed the House, but not yet the Senate, will greatly increase every American's energy costs but will have such a minor effect on the climate that it could not possibly pass any reasonable cost-benefit test. The unintended consequence is to make every American poorer with fewer job opportunities -- and, as we know, poorer countries invariably do more damage to the environment than rich countries (e.g., Switzerland versus India).The latest bit of silliness is the new effort to "stabilize oil prices." Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain and President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, writing in the Journal, demand that governments "supervise" oil prices.The new head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Gary Gensler, appointed by President Obama, says the commission will act to reduce "oil price speculation." These efforts are cheered on by economic know-nothings in the media.Every beginning economics student should know that prices allocate scarce resources and motivate future production. If governments try to control prices, oil companies and investors will invest less in new production, thus reducing future supply, which will lead to higher prices in the future. Speculators are necessary to allow producers to shift part of the risk of their investments. In responding to critics of oil speculation, Donald J. Boudreaux, chairman of the Economics Department at George Mason University, noted that the critics presume "that all speculators speculate long and that doing so is a sure thing. Neither presumption is valid. It's just as easy to speculate short as it is to speculate long. And if speculation were as risklessly profitable as [the critics] presume it to be, then high gasoline prices would pose no problem because everyone would be raking in the riches by speculating in oil markets." Furthermore, the Obama administration is busy canceling leases on areas opened for oil exploration by the Bush administration. The unintended consequence is that America will be more dependent on foreign oil and prices will be higher for American consumers.Democratic Sens. Carl Levin of Michigan, Byron L. Dorgan of North Dakota and Max Baucus of Montana have Last printed 21 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 22 made a series of legislative proposals to restrict and make it more costly for Americans to move businesses and financial assets out of the United States, and make it more costly for foreign institutions to invest here.These proposals will have the obvious consequence of driving needed foreign investment out, and the unintended consequence of spurring U.S. companies to domicile and move operations (and jobs) elsewhere and making it more difficult for Americans outside the United States to get needed foreign bank accounts.If these senators were actually the public servants they claim to be, they would do serious cost-benefit analyses before proposing daffy ideas that will be very costly to their fellow Americans in terms of economic growth, jobs and liberty.Events like FreedomFest are important because they help citizens understand their liberties are being eroded and that eternal vigilance (and action) is required to preserve what we have and develop realistic programs to roll back the forces of both intentional and unintentional government oppression. Last printed 22 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 23 Link – Government Intervention Freedom is threatened by government intervention Ludwig von Mises (Austrian Economist and Philosopher) 1960: The Economic Foundations of Freedom. http://mises.org/efandi/ch1.asp Economic Well-Being Threatened by Statism It is in the moral and mental atmosphere of this capitalistic system that the American citizen lives and works. There are still in some parts of the United States conditions left which appear highly unsatisfactory to the prosperous inhabitants of the advanced districts which form the greater part of the country. But the rapid progress of industrialization would have long since wiped out these pockets of backwardness if the unfortunate policies of the New Deal had not slowed down the accumulation of capital, the irreplaceable tool of economic betterment. Used to the conditions of a capitalistic environment, the average American takes it for granted that every year business makes something new and better accessible to him. Looking backward upon the years of his own life, he realizes that many implements that were totally unknown in the days of his youth and many others which at that time could be enjoyed only by a small minority are now standard equipment of almost every household. He is fully confident that this trend will prevail also in the future. He simply calls it the "American way of life" and does not give serious thought to the question of what made this continuous improvement in the supply of material goods possible. He is not earnestly disturbed by the operation of factors that are bound not only to stop further accumulation of capital but may very soon bring about capital decumulation. He does not oppose the forces that?by frivolously increasing public expenditure, by cutting down capital accumulation, and even making for consumption of parts of the capital invested in business, and, finally, by inflation?are sapping the very foundations of his material well-being. He is not concerned about the growth of statism that wherever it has been tried resulted in producing and preserving conditions which in his eyes are shockingly wretched. No Personal Freedom Without Economic Freedom Unfortunately many of our contemporaries fail to realize what a radical change in the moral conditions of man, the rise of statism, the substitution of government omnipotence for this market economy, is bound to bring about. They are deluded by the idea that there prevails a clear-cut dualism in the affairs of man, that there is on the one side a sphere of economic activities and on the other side a field of activities that are considered as noneconomic. Between these two fields there is, they think, no close connection. The freedom that socialism abolishes is "only" the economic freedom, while freedom in all other matters remains unimpaired. However, these two spheres are not independent of each other as this doctrine assumes. Human beings do not float in ethereal regions. Everything that a man does must necessarily in some way or other affect the economic or material sphere and requires his power to interfere with this sphere. In order to subsist, he must toil and have the opportunity to deal with some material tangible goods. The confusion manifests itself in the popular idea that what is going on in the market refers merely to the economic side of human life and action. But in fact the prices of the market reflect not only "material concerns"?like getting food, shelter, and other amenities?but no less those concerns which are commonly called spiritual or higher or nobler. The observance or nonobservance of religious commandments?to abstain from certain activities altogether or on specific days, to assist those in need, to build and to maintain houses of worship, and many others?is one of the factors that determines the supply of, and the demand for, various consumers' goods and thereby prices and the conduct of business. The freedom that the market economy grants to the individual is not merely "economic" as distinguished from some other kind of freedom. It implies the freedom to determine also all those issues which are considered as moral, spiritual, and intellectual. In exclusively controlling all the factors of production the socialist regime controls also every individual's whole life. The government assigns to everybody a definite job. It determines what books and papers ought to be printed and read, who should enjoy the opportunity to embark on writing, who should be entitled to use public assembly halls, to broadcast and to use all other communication facilities. This means that those in charge of the supreme conduct of government affairs ultimately determine which ideas, teachings, and doctrines can be propagated and which not . Whatever a written and promulgated constitution may say about the freedom of conscience, thought, speech, and the press and about neutrality in religious matters must in a socialist country remain a dead letter if the government does not provide the material means for the exercise of these rights. He who monopolizes all media of communication has full power to keep a tight hand on the individuals' minds and souls. What makes many people blind to the essential features of any socialist or totalitarian system is the illusion that this system will be operated precisely in the way which they themselves consider as desirable. In supporting socialism, they take it for granted that the "state" will always do what they themselves want it to do. They call only that brand of totalitarianism "true," "real," or "good" socialism the rulers of which comply with their own ideas. All other brands they decry as counterfeit. What they first of all expect from the dictator is that he will suppress all those ideas of which they themselves disapprove. In fact, all these supporters of socialism are, unbeknown to themselves, obsessed by the dictatorial or authoritarian complex. They want all opinions and plans with which they disagree to be crushed by violent action on the part of the government. Last printed 23 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 24 Link - Welfare The Welfare Program’s very existence dehumanizes the poor Tanner, director of health and welfare studies at the Cato Institute, 96 (Michael Tanner, director of health and welfare studies at the Cato Institute, December 96, Cato Policy Report, “Replacing Welfare”, http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/cpr-18n6-1.html) Welfare may have started with the best of intentions, but it has clearly failed. It has failed to meet its stated goal of reducing poverty. But its real failure is even more disastrous. Welfare has torn apart the social fabric of our society. Everyone is worse off. The poor are dehumanized, seduced into a system from which it is terribly difficult to escape. Teenage girls give birth to children they will never be able to support. The work ethic is eroded. Crime rates soar. Such is the legacy of welfare. Welfare should not merely be reformed, but eliminated Tanner, director of health and welfare studies at the Cato Institute, 96 (Michael Tanner, director of health and welfare studies at the Cato Institute, December 96, Cato Policy Report, “Replacing Welfare”, http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/cpr-18n6-1.html) Instead of "reforming" failed programs, we should eliminate the entire social welfare system for individuals able to work. That means eliminating not just AFDC but also food stamps, subsidized housing, and all the rest. Individuals unwilling to support themselves through the job market should have to fall back on the resources of family, church, community, or private charity. Eliminating welfare drops out-of-wedlock births, stemming poverty Tanner, director of health and welfare studies at the Cato Institute, 96 (Michael Tanner, director of health and welfare studies at the Cato Institute, December 96, Cato Policy Report, “Replacing Welfare”, http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/cpr-18n6-1.html) What would happen to the poor if welfare were eliminated? First, without the incentives of the welfare state, fewer people would be poor. For one thing, there would probably be far fewer children born into poverty. The availability of welfare leads to an increase in out-of-wedlock births, and giving birth out of wedlock leads to poverty. If welfare were eliminated, the number of out-of-wedlock births would almost certainly decline. How much is a matter of conjecture. Some social scientists suggest as little as 15 to 20 percent; others say as much as 50 percent. Whatever the number, it would be smaller. Eliminating welfare increases the number of hours worked, stemming poverty Tanner, director of health and welfare studies at the Cato Institute, 96 (Michael Tanner, director of health and welfare studies at the Cato Institute, December 96, Cato Policy Report, “Replacing Welfare”, http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/cpr-18n6-1.html) Poor people would also be more likely to go to work, starting to climb the ladder that will lead out of poverty. A General Accounting Office report on women who lost their welfare benefits after the Reagan administration tightened eligibility requirements in 1981 found that, on average, the women increased the number of hours they worked and their hourly wage and had a significantly higher overall earned income. Two years after losing their eligibility, a significant minority of the women (43 percent in Boston, for example) had incomes as high as or higher than they did while receiving benefits. Similarly, in 1991 Michigan abolished its General Assistance program, which provided cash assistance for poor adults without children. Two years later, a survey for the University of Michigan found that 36.7 percent of those people were working in the month before the survey. Of those with at least a high school education, 45.6 percent were working. Two-thirds of former General Assistance recipients, regardless of education, had held a job at some point during the two years before the survey. Last printed 24 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 25 Link - Welfare Government intervention through welfare is morally wrong – freedom through markets is critical to returning to our moral heritage James A. Dorn (vice president for academic affairs at the Cato Institute and professor of economics at Towson University in Maryland) 1996: The Rise of Government and the Decline of Morality. http://www.cato.org/pubs/catosletters/cl-12.pdf The growth of government has politicized life and weakened the nation’s moral fabric. Government intervention—in the economy, in the community, and in society—has increased the payoff from political action and reduced the scope of private action . People have become more dependent on the state and have sacrificed freedom for a false sense of security . The most obvious signs of moral decay in America are the prevalence of out­of­wedlock births, the breakup of families, the amorality of public education, and the eruption of criminal activity. But there are other signs as well: the decline in civility, the lack of integrity in both public and private life, and the growth of litigation as the chief way to settle disputes. One cannot blame government for all of society’s ills, but there is no doubt that economic and social legislation over the past 50 years has had a negative impact on virtue. Individuals lose their moral bearing when they become dependent on welfare, when they are rewarded for having children out of wedlock, and when they are not held accountable for their actions. The internal moral compass that normally guides individual behavior will no longer function when the state undermines incentives for moral conduct and blurs the distinction between right and wrong. More government spending is not the answer to our social, economic, or cultural problems. The task is not to reinvent government or to give politics meaning; the task is to limit government and revitalize civil society. Government meddling will only make matters worse. If we want to help the disadvantaged, we do not do so by making poverty pay, by restricting markets, by prohibiting school choice, by discouraging thrift, or by sending the message that the principal function of government is to take care of us. Rather, we do so by eliminating social engineering and welfare, by cultivating free markets, and by returning to our moral heritage. Freedom as it exists now in the welfare state is amoral – taxes mean that everyone loses James A. Dorn (vice president for academic affairs at the Cato Institute and professor of economics at Towson University in Maryland) 1996: The Rise of Government and the Decline of Morality. http://www.cato.org/pubs/catosletters/cl-12.pdf During the transition from limited government to the welfare state, freedom has come to mean freedom from responsibility. Such freedom, however, is not true freedom but a form of tyranny,which creates moral and social chaos. The modern liberal’s vision of government is based on a twisted understanding of rights and justice—an understanding that clashes with the principle of freedom inherent in the higher law of the Constitution. Welfare rights or entitlements are “imperfect rights” or pseudo­rights; they cannot be exercised without violating what legal scholars call the “perfect right” to private property. Rights to welfare—whether to food stamps, public housing, or medical care—create a legal obligation to help others. In contrast, the right to property, understood in the Lockean sense, merely obligates individuals to refrain from taking what is not theirs —namely, the life, liberty, or estate of another. For the modern liberal, justice refers to distributive justice or social justice. But “social justice” is a vague term, subject to all sorts of abuse if made the goal of public policy. Indeed, when the role of government is to do good with other people’s money, there is no end to the mischief government can cause. Many Americans seem to have lost sight of the idea that the role of government is not to instill values, but to protect those rights that are consistent with a society of free and responsible individuals . We have a right to pursue happiness, but there can be no legal guarantee that we will obtain it without depriving others of their liberty and their property. When democracy becomes unlimited, the power of government becomes unlimited, and there is no end to the demands on the public purse. Democracy then becomes crude majoritarianism in which the “winners” are allowed to impose their will and vision of the “good society” on everyone else. In such a system politics becomes a fight of all against all, like the Hobbesian jungle, and nearly everyone is a net loser as taxes rise, deficits soar, and economic growth slows. Last printed 25 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 26 Link – Welfare The welfare system based of taking other peoples money through taxes is a morally bankrupt concept James A. Dorn (vice president for academic affairs at the Cato Institute and professor of economics at Towson University in Maryland) 1996: The Rise of Government and the Decline of Morality. http://www.cato.org/pubs/catosletters/cl-12.pdf In addition to being inefficient and intellectually bankrupt, the welfare state is morally bankrupt. In a free society, people are entitled to what they own, not to what others own. Yet, under the pretense of morality, politicians and advocacy groups have made the “right to welfare” the accepted dogma of a new state religion, in which politicians are the high priests and selfproclaimed “benefactors” of humanity. But “the emperor has no clothes”: politicians pretend to “do good,” but they do so with other people’s money. Politicians put on their moral garb, but there is really nothing there. Government benevolence, in reality, is a naked taking. Public charity is forced charity, or what the great French liberal Frederic Bastiat called “legal plunder”; it is not a virtue but a vice. Welfare bills like stimulus hurt democracy through censoring and government control. Schock, Rep R-Illinois, 3/6 (Aaron Schock, Representative, R-Illinois, 3/6/09, The Freedom Project, http://www.freedomproject.org/News/NewsRead.aspx?Guid=01543574-86fe-450d-910f-6158a260f576) Throughout the 2008 campaign, Democrats were relatively cautious about promoting their plans for rapidly increasing the size and cost of the federal government while expanding Washington's control over our daily lives. As Rich Lowry of National Review noted in a recent column, those who likened the emerging agenda of Washington Democrats to "socialism" were "roundly ridiculed." But now that they're in power on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, Democrats are moving with astonishing speed to expand the federal bureaucracy and put the government in control of health care, energy, banking, housing, and other key sectors of the economy. Consider these few examples: A $3.6 trillion dollar "tax-and-spend budget" which includes a massive "cap and trade" tax on every American during a recession, billions for a new federal health care bureaucracy, money for hundreds of thousands of new government bureaucrats, and more. The Detroit News calls it a "battle plan for a broad attack on industrial America." The $350 billion in bailout dollars for the secretive Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and rumored plans for "nationalizing" private banks. The partisan trillion-dollar "stimulus" spending bill which opened the door to government-imposed health care rationing. The half-trillion dollar "omnibus" spending bill which includes the largest increase in federal discretionary spending since the Carter Administration and kills a successful school choice program. A new housing bailout designed to force responsible homeowners and taxpayers to subsidize scam artists, speculators, and those who knowingly made bad decisions. Top Democrats support stripping workers of their right to secret ballot union elections, regulating the Internet, and limiting free speech on talk radio. Some conservatives have been speaking out. In remarks to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Leader Boehner said: "[T]he stimulus, the omnibus, the budget, it's all one big down payment on a new American socialist experiment. They're laying the groundwork for everything in these bills -- expanded welfare, government-run health care, green jobs, the works. They even want to pay your irresponsible neighbors' mortgage off for them. All this is being done, though, on the backs of our kids and our grandkids. And all of these bills seek to replace our economic freedom with the whims and mandates of politicians and bureaucrats." Whatever you call it, "the era of big government is back" and Democratic politicians are working feverishly to raid our wallets and stifle our freedoms. This isn't a theoretical anymore; it's happening. And House Republicans are working hard to fight it. Last printed 26 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 27 Link – Welfare So-called welfare “rights” restrict freedom, rationalize the coercive transfer of wealth, and destroy charitable feelings, turning the case. Kelley, Ph.D., Princeton University, 98 (David Kelley, Ph.D, Princeton University, philosopher, author, founder and senior fellow of the Atlas Society, 98, A Life of One’s Own: Individual Rights and the Welfare State, p 151) We have examined the nature of welfare rights, their history, and the philosophical case for them. We have examined the arguments for believing in such rights and seen how the many issues they raise play out in the concrete reality of welfare programs. The conclusion can no longer be resisted: the concept of welfare rights is invalid. There is no warrant for claiming rights to food, shelter, and medical care, to income maintenance, child support, and retirement pensions, at taxpayer expense. Such rights cannot be justified by appeal to freedom, to benevolence, or to community. They do not expand but curtail freedom—that of program clients as well as of taxpayers. They make charity compulsory, undermining any genuine benevolence donors might have toward the poor. They replace the voluntary bonds of a society of contract with the coercive power of the state, undermining genuine community. The concept does not provide a valid rationale for the welfare state; it provides a mere rationalization for the coercive transfer of wealth . If we want a system based on genuine rights, one that promotes genuine human welfare, we should privatize or simply terminate the government programs. In place of "social insurance," the market can provide real and affordable insurance to protect against the risk of illness, accidents, disability, and unemployment. And for retirement, as we saw in the last chapter, private savings instruments provide a much better return than most people can expect from Social Security. At the very least, people should be allowed to opt out of the social insurance programs, forgoing the benefits to which they would otherwise be entitled in exchange for exemption from payroll taxes. A number of plans have been put forward to allow opting out without harming the interests of current retirees. Last printed 27 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 28 Link – Social Security Social Security is unjust and should be eliminated Epstein, Alex Epstein has a BA in Philosophy from Duke University and is an analyst focusing on business issues at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights., 07 (Alex Epstein, Alex Epstein has a BA in Philosophy from Duke University and is an analyst focusing on business issues at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights., 11/9/07, “Don't Save Social Security”, http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2? page=NewsArticle&id=15979&news_iv_ctrl=2410) With the first Baby Boomer collecting Social Security last week, on the heels of a Bush administration announcement that Social Security faces a $13.6 trillion shortfall, the issue of how to "save" Social Security is once again on the table. While we can expect fierce debate on the issue, we can also expect While the program may have financial problems, virtually everyone believes, some form of mandatory government-run retirement program is morally necessary.But is it?Social Security is commonly portrayed as benefiting most, if not all, Americans by providing them "risk-free" financial security in old age.This is a fraud.Under Social Security, lowerand middle-class individuals are forced to pay a significant portion of their gross income --approximately 12 percent--for the alleged purpose of securing their retirement. That money is not saved or invested, but transferred directly to the program's current beneficiaries--with the "promise" that when current taxpayers get old, the income of future taxpayers will be transferred to them. Since this scheme creates no wealth, any benefits one person receives in excess of his payments necessarily come at the expense of others.Under Social Security, every aspect of the government's "promise" to provide financial security is at the mercy of political whim. The government can change how much of an individual's money it takes--it has all sides to agree on one absolute: Social Security should be saved . increased the payroll tax 17 times since 1935. The government can spend his money on anything it wants--observe the long-time practice of spending any annual Social Security surplus on other entitlement programs. The government can change when (and therefore if) it chooses to pay him benefits and how much they consist of--witness the current proposals to raise the age cutoff or lower future benefits. Under Social Security, whether an individual gets twice as much from others as was taken from him, or half as much, or nothing at all, is entirely at the discretion of politicians. He cannot count on Social Security for anything--except a massive drain on his income.If Social Security did not exist--if the individual were free to use that 12 percent of his income as he chose--his ability to better his future would be incomparably greater. He could save for his retirement with a diversified, long-term, productive investment in stocks or bonds. Or he could reasonably choose not to devote all 12 percent to retirement. He might plan to work far past the age of 65. He might plan to live more comfortably when he is young and more modestly in old age. He might choose to invest in his own productivity through additional education or starting a business. How much, when, and in what form one should provide for retirement is highly individual--and is properly left to the individual's free judgment and action. Social Security deprives the young of this freedom, and thus makes them less able to plan for the future, less able to provide for their retirement, less able to buy homes, less able to enjoy their most vital years, less able to invest in themselves. And yet Social Security's advocates continue to push it as moral. Why?The answer lies in the program's ideal of "universal coverage"--the idea that, as a "New York Times" editorial preached, "all old people must have the dignity of financial security"--regardless of how irresponsibly they have acted. On this premise, since some would not save adequately on their own, everyone must be forced into some sort of "guaranteed" collective plan--no matter how irrational. Observe that Social Security's wholesale harm to those who would use their income responsibly is justified in the name of those who would not. The rational and responsible are shackled and throttled for the sake of the irrational and irresponsible.Those who wish to devote their wealth to saving the irresponsible from the consequences of their own actions should be free to do so through private charity, but to loot the savings of untold millions of innocent, responsible, hard-working young people in the name of such a goal is a monstrous injustice.Social Security in any form is morally irredeemable. We should be debating, not how to save Social Security, but how to end it--how to phase it out so as to best protect both the rights of those who have paid into it, and those who are forced to pay for it today. This will be a painful task. But it will make possible a world in which Americans enjoy far greater freedom to secure their own Last printed 28 Coercion futures. Dartmouth 2K9 29 Link - Medicare Link: Medicare Holcberg, David Holcberg has a degree in civil engineering from Universidade Mackenzie (Sao Paulo, Brazil). He is a media research and Op-Ed specialist at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, 07 David Holcberg, David Holcberg has a degree in civil engineering from Universidade Mackenzie (Sao Paulo, Brazil). He is a media research and Op-Ed specialist at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, 8/1/07, “Taxpayers Have NO Obligation to Provide Health Coverage for Uninsured Children”, http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=15473&news_iv_ctrl=2598) In "Stealing healthcare from babies" (August 1, 2007), the writer assumes that taxpayers have a moral obligation to "provide health coverage for millions of uninsured children." But taxpayers have no such obligation. Parents should be responsible for providing for their children's needs, including their health care. If some parents are unable to buy health insurance for their kids, they should rely on private charity, not on the proceeds of government taxation. Those who claim to be concerned with the health care of poor children are free to help them--out of their own pockets--and to persuade others to voluntarily do the same. They have no right, however, to force anyone to pay the expenses for other people's children. The government's coercive interference in the market--through Medicare and other programs and regulations--is one of the main factors driving up the costs of health insurance and medical care for children. To lower these costs we need to establish a free market in medicine--and get the government out of the health care business once and for all. Last printed 29 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 30 Link – Healthcare/Entitlement Programs Entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are stealing the savings of future generations. Levin, Chief of Staff to Attorney General, 09 (Mark R. Levin, president of Landmark Legal Foundation, attorney, top advisor and administrator to members of Reagan’s Cabinet, Chief of Staff to Attorney General, Deputy Assistant Secretary for elementary and secondary education at U.S. Department of Education, Deputy Solicitor of U.S. Department of Interior, B.A., Temple University, J.D., Temple University School of Law, 09, Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto, p 95) If a Statist were to devise a scheme whereby a grandparent would be stealing future earnings from his own grandchild, would the grandparent consent to such immoral behavior? Yet entitlement programs tend to be intergenerational swindles that threaten the well-being of future generations with massive financial obligations incurred from benefits received by today's generation. The Holy Grail of such programs is Social Security, followed closely by Medicare and Medicaid. Programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are built on government fraud and are creating a debt that could destabilize society. Levin, Chief of Staff to Attorney General, 09 (Mark R. Levin, president of Landmark Legal Foundation, attorney, top advisor and administrator to members of Reagan’s Cabinet, Chief of Staff to Attorney General, Deputy Assistant Secretary for elementary and secondary education at U.S. Department of Education, Deputy Solicitor of U.S. Department of Interior, B.A., Temple University, J.D., Temple University School of Law, 09, Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto, pp 104-105) Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are built on a family of frauds—the fraudulent concealment of material facts, the fraudulent representation of material facts, and the fraudulent conversion of one’s money for another’s use. They are a complex mix of taxes, benefits, obligations, and rights from which no individual can make much sense and about which the government sows disinformation and confusion. The "working poor" subsidize “the wealthy,” “the wealthy” subsidize “the working poor,” “the middle class" subsidizes itself as well as “the working poor" and “the wealthy,” and future generations are left paying off the crushing debt created by all of it, since the government spends far more than it raises. Yet so virtuous are the programs said to be—pensions for the elderly, compensation for the unemployed, medicine for the sick, and assistance for the disabled—few dare ring the alarm of looming economic catastrophe that threatens to destabilize the civil society. Universal health care and other programs that steal from future generations are implemented to increase the government’s control. Levin, Chief of Staff to Attorney General, 09 (Mark R. Levin, president of Landmark Legal Foundation, attorney, top advisor and administrator to members of Reagan’s Cabinet, Chief of Staff to Attorney General, Deputy Assistant Secretary for elementary and secondary education at U.S. Department of Education, Deputy Solicitor of U.S. Department of Interior, B.A., Temple University, J.D., Temple University School of Law, 09, Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto, p 106) Despite dire warnings from the CBO, from the former comptroller general of the United States, and from the various trustees that these programs are unsustainable and demand urgent attention, the pillaging of future generations not only continues, but the Statist proposes much more of it in the form of government run "national health care" or “universal health care." As with Roosevelt and Johnson before him, for today’s Statist this is about maximizing power. Last printed 30 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 31 Link – Medicaid/Privatization CP AT: Perm Medicaid crowds out private insurance Smith, Senior Fellow in Health Care Reform at The Heritage Foundation's Center for Health Policy Studies, 09 (Dennis G. Smith, Senior Fellow in Health Care Reform at The Heritage Foundation's Center for Health Policy Studies, 3/25/2009, “The Role of Long-Term Care in Health Reform”, The Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/tst032509c.cfm) Long-term care is an important but all too often overlooked component of health care reform. The great challenges we face because of population changes between now and 2030 are well known and will require bold solutions. As the Committee's statement points out, "... Medicaid continues to be overwhelmed as the sole solution for long-term care ...". [1] All too often, Medicaid is called upon to fill missing pieces. Yet the federal government and the states are facing the reality that Medicaid in its current form is unaffordable and unsustainable.About one-third of Medicaid spending, or about $100 billion in FY 2007 went to long-term care.[2] Over the next 10 years, Medicaid long-term care spending is projected to grow at an average rate of 8.6 percent per year.[3] At this rate, Medicaid will spend a cumulative total of $1.7 trillion on long-term care between 2008 and 2017. Within Medicaid, there has been some shift in where longterm care dollars are spent. In FY 2000, 72 percent of Medicaid long-term care expenditures went to institutional care and just 28 percent to community based services.[4] The overall distribution of FY 2007 expenditures had changed to 58 percent institutional and 42 percent community-based.[5]The Committee has asked the panel to address four questions which should help lead to the formulation of policies to create a system that is adequately prepared to meet the challenges of the 21st century. I will address them, however, in a different order as the policy decisions should lead sequentially from one to the next, ending with the financing question. From past experience, the financing is where consensus tends to fall apart. If you start with financing, chances are good that enthusiasm will wane before you discuss the policies of change. If agreement on policy can be reached, financing should follow.How would better long-term care coverage affect overall health care access, quality and costs?Long-term care coverage includes a mix of private and government sources. Better coverage should include the promotion of private sector options. Research from the National Bureau of Economic Research demonstrates that Medicaid has a large "crowd out" effect on private long-term care insurance.[6] Last printed 31 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 32 Link – Wealth Distribution Distributing wealth destroys freedom. Peron, Executive Director, Institute for Liberal Values, 01 (Jim Peron, Executive Director of Institute for Liberal Values, author, Heartland Institute, 3/01, http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-ideals-of-tyranny/) A free society will not be one of equality. Once human beings are free, the choices that they inevitably make will change their levels of wealth. Even if we were able to redistribute all wealth equally, once the heavy hand of centralized control was removed, inequality would immediately result. Imagine a society of complete equality of wealth but one where all people were free to make decisions regarding their own lives. If wealth were equal at 8 a.m. it would be unequal by 8:01. Some individuals would spend their money, while others would invest it. Some would gamble with it or buy pastries. Others would purchase tools for work or pay for education or training. Each choice means that the distribution of wealth will become progressively more unequal. The only way to prevent this from happening is to strip each individual of the right to make decisions for himself. The destruction of freedom is the only method for implementing equality of results. Thus every egalitarian society ultimately has to rely on coercion and tyranny to achieve its goals. Some have been more moderate than others, but the methodology always remains the same. Even the most moderate welfare states require systematic and perpetual policies of coercive redistribution. Last printed 32 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 33 Link – Health Care Health care policies are coercive. Bissell, The Objectivist Center, No Date (Andrew Bissell, The Objectivist Center, No Date, “Health Care - Is it a right?” http://www.objectivistcenter.org/ct-1297Right_To_Health_Care.aspx) First, it is very important not to conflate the right to life with a right to health care. The right to life is central to the Objectivist ethics and politics, and health care is certainly essential to maintaining one’s life. However, as Rand puts it: “A right does not include the material implementation of that right by other men; it includes only the freedom to earn that implementation by one’s own effort.” ("Man’s Rights", The Virtue of Selfishness, pp. 113-114) In this sense, an apt comparison can be drawn to the right of free speech; your right to speak your mind does not create some obligation on the part of others to support that expression, financially or otherwise. Ayn Rand unmasks the fallacy at the root of the “right to health care” and all other such economic rights: “A single question … would make the issue clear: At whose expense?” ("Man’s Rights", The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 113) Health care doesn’t simply grow on trees; if it is to be made a right for some, the means to provide that right must be confiscated from others. Health care exists because of the efforts of doctors, nurses, medical technicians, and even the engineers who design and build lifesaving machines. There are really only a few ways, then, that it can be provided. These medical personnel can offer their services as part of a mutual exchange of benefit for benefit, in a system of free, market exchange. Or, they can be forced to provide these services at the point of a gun, as in the movie John Q. Or, the government can arrogate to itself the title of the sole health care provider, funding its operations through forced taxation. The problems with forcing doctors to treat patients are obvious—first, of course, it requires wanton violation of their rights, and represents government enforcement of the principle that a doctor’s life is not his own, but instead belongs to the state or the community . And no one will want to enter the medical profession when the reward for years of careful schooling and study is not fair remuneration, but rather, patients who feel entitled to one’s efforts, and a government that enslaves the very minds upon which patients’ lives depend. Free health care means slavery. Brown, Staff Writer, 04 (John Brown, Staff Writer, The Daily Beacon, Senior in Political Science, 9/28/04, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fnews/1229567/posts) A "right" is the ability and autonomy to perform a sovereign action. In a free society founded on the ideal of liberty, an individual has an absolute ability to perform such an action - so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of another individual. Health care is not speech: In order for you to exercise a theoretical "right" to health care, you must infringe on someone else's rights. If you have a "right" to health care, then it means you must also have the right to coerce doctors into treating you, to coerce drug companies into producing medicine and to coerce other citizens into footing your medical bill. This is Orwellian. "Freedom" for you cannot result in slavery for others. Thus the concept of a "right" to health care is an oxymoron: It involves tak[es] away the rights of other individuals. Surely, though, we can agree that doctors, the pharmaceutical industry and insurance companies earn excessive profits, you say. Well, that depends on what your definition of "excessive" is. Doctors literally hold the lives of their patients in their hands. How much is someone who saves lives everyday worth? The same is true of pharmaceutical companies. While it has become fashionable to condemn their profits, the fact is that these profits fund medical research, which leads to more medicines being produced, and, consequently, more lives saved. Insurance companies spread the cost of health care among many people who might not otherwise be able to afford it, and thus make health care readily available for many. Last printed 33 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 34 Link - Healthcare Free health care kills competitiveness and people. Brown, Staff Writer, 04 (John Brown, Staff Writer, The Daily Beacon, Senior in Political Science, 9/28/04, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fnews/1229567/posts) Let's pretend, for a moment, that the left gets its way, and the United States adopts a universal health care system. This profit motive will effectively be removed. Doctors will then be government employees, and, as such, have far less accountability, as well as lower pay. Could we still expect the best and brightest to strive to be doctors? Probably not. More than likely, they will pursue other careers where they can make more money. Some love to bemoan the fact that the United States is one of the few industrialized nations without a government health care system. Yet they rarely note that the United States produces disproportional amounts of the new, life-saving drugs, largely because of the profits drug companies make. Will we continue to produce these drugs if we abolish the profit motive? Not likely. Chances are, they will not be produced at all, and more people will needlessly suffer and die as a result. When we examine countries that have embraced socialized medicine, we find long waiting lists, expansive red tape and little concern for the individual. Do you really want to be told which doctor to go to? Do you want to wait years to have necessary medical procedures performed? If so, then socialized medicine is for you. But if you believe in individual rights, competent healthcare and sound economic policies, we must get the government out of the doctor's office. Government is stripping doctor’s rights through coercive action Jonathan, M.D. Rosman, 2002 psychiatrist in private practice in Pasadena, is a senior writer for the Ayn Rand Institute, It's My Life! A Doctor Has a Right to His Own Life, February 20 2002 http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5316&news_iv_ctrl=1021] -=Max Rispoli=th Every doctor, like individuals in other jobs, has a right to work for himself and for his own enjoyment, and to make a ton of money at it if he can. As individuals, doctors have a right to offer their patients treatment according to their best judgment, and to charge such fees as they judge their expertise to be worth. Conversely, patients have the right to accept or reject our advice and services, and to shop around for the best deals they can get. Having the right to your life does not guarantee health or medical treatment at the doctors' expense, but it does guarantee that every individual has the freedom to seek whatever treatment he wishes, according to his own judgment and his own means. Individual rights means the freedom to act within one's means; it does not mean an entitlement to the goods and services provided by others. However, not only have American doctors been stripped of their professional freedom by all the various oversight agencies (which include licensing boards, the Health Care Financing Administration, managed care companies, peer review committees and more), but--more important--they have also been morally disarmed. Our intellectuals have taught doctors that need comes before ability, and that healthy and rich doctors have a duty to support sick and poor patients. They have taught doctors that the consumers of medical services (patients) are morally superior to the providers of medical services (doctors), just because the consumers are in need. Bureaucrats have eagerly latched on to this altruistic idea, and have erected a maze of welfare laws and regulations to satisfy the needs of the poor and the sick, and to "protect" them from "greedy" doctors. Thanks to these controls, it has become very difficult for doctors to think or to act freely on their own judgment. And it is the best doctors, the most dedicated and those least ready to relinquish their independent judgment, who have been the first to leave the practice of medicine when doctors' rights were trampled on. Who will ultimately be left if this trend continues? To quote Dr. Hendricks in Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged, "Let them discover, in their operating rooms and hospital wards, that it is not safe to place their lives in the hands of a man whose life they have throttled. It is not safe, if he is the sort of man who resents it--and still less safe, if he is the sort who doesn't." To save American medicine, American doctors need to be saved from altruism. To accomplish this, doctors must vigorously challenge the invalid notion of a "right" to health care. Nobody has a right to an antibiotic made by someone else, just as he does not have a right to someone else's car. Nobody has a right to have his gallbladder removed, just as he does not have a right to have his toilet fixed by a plumber. No one has a right to demand that a doctor treat him, but doctors do have rights, just as do auto workers and plumbers, to practice their profession (or trade) free from coercion. Last printed 34 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 35 Link - Healthcare Free medical care is immoral- it strips people’s rights to life and happiness Leonard Peikoff (1993), Leonard Peikoff, who founded the Ayn Rand Institute, is the foremost authority on Objectivism, Health Care is not a Right, http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=13873] -=Max Rispoli=LP: Most people who oppose socialized medicine do so on the grounds that it is moral and well-intentioned, but impractical; i.e., it is a noble idea—which just somehow does not work . I do not agree that socialized medicine is moral and well-intentioned, but impractical. Of course, it is impractical—it does not work—but I hold that it is impractical because it is immoral. This is not a case of noble in theory but a failure in practice; it is a case of vicious in theory and therefore a disaster in practice. I want to focus on the moral issue at stake. So long as people believe that socialized medicine is a noble plan, there is no way to fight it. You cannot stop a noble plan—not if it really is noble. The only way you can defeat it is to unmask it—to show that it is the very opposite of noble. Then at least you have a fighting chance. What is morality in this context? The American concept of it is officially stated in the Declaration of Independence. It upholds man's unalienable, individual rights. The term "rights," note, is a moral (not just a political) term; it tells us that a certain course of behavior is right, sanctioned, proper, a prerogative to be respected by others, not interfered with—and that anyone who violates a man's rights is: wrong, morally wrong, unsanctioned, evil.Now our only rights, the American viewpoint continues, are the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. That's all. According to the Founding Fathers, we are not born with a right to a trip to Disneyland, or a meal at McDonald's, or a kidney dialysis (nor with the 18th-century equivalent of these things). We have certain specific rights—and only these. Why only these? Observe that all legitimate rights have one thing in common: they are rights to action, not to rewards from other people. The American rights impose no obligations on other people, merely the negative obligation to leave you alone. The system guarantees you the chance to work for what you want—not to be given it without effort by somebody else. The right to life, e.g., does not mean that your neighbors have to feed and clothe you; it means you have the right to earn your food and clothes yourself, if necessary by a hard struggle, and that no one can forcibly stop your struggle for these things or steal them from you if and when you have achieved them. In other words: you have the right to act, and to keep the results of your actions, the products you make, to keep them or to trade them with others, if you wish. But you have no right to the actions or products of others, except on terms to which they voluntarily agree. To take one more example: the right to the pursuit of happiness is precisely that: the right to the pursuit—to a certain type of action on your part and its result—not to any guarantee that other people will make you happy or even try to do so. Otherwise, there would be no liberty in the country: if your mere desire for something, anything, imposes a duty on other people to satisfy you, then they have no choice in their lives, no say in what they do, they have no liberty, they cannot pursue their happiness. Your "right" to happiness at their expense means that they become rightless serfs, i.e., your slaves. Your right to anything at others' expense means that they become rightless. Last printed 35 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 36 Link – Healthcare Kills Value of Life Free public healthcare will create collectivization of medicine where both citizens and providers value of life is trashed. David Kelly, 1994, The Atlas Society, Is There are Right to Health Care?, http://www.objectivistcenter.org/showcontent.aspx? ct=14&h=53#[1]] -=Max Rispoli=- 5) The fifth consequence--the last one I'll mention--is the collectivization of health care, and of health itself. Just as a mixed economy treats wealth as a collective asset, which the government is free to dispose of as it sees fit for "the common good," so a collectivized health care system treats the health of its members as a collective asset. Under this regime, physicians no longer work for their patients, with the overriding responsibility to act in their interests. Instead, physicians are agents of "society" who must decide the amount and the kind of care they give an individual patient by reference to social needs, such as the need to control costs in the system as a whole. Indeed, even the individual in such a system is urged to protect his own health not because it is in his self-interest, but because he has a responsibility to society not to impose too many costs on it. To summarize, then, a political system that tries to implement a right to health care will necessarily involve: forced transfers of wealth to pay for programs, loss of freedom for health care providers, higher prices and more restricted access by all consumers, a trend toward egalitarianism, and the collectivization of health care. These consequences are not accidental. They follow necessarily from the nature of the alleged right. Last printed 36 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 37 Link – Healthcare Healthcare reentrenches coercion. That turns case: the only way to fix healthcare systems is to reject the coercive policies of the aff. Epstein, contributing writer for The Objective Standard, former editor and publisher of The Duke Review, 07 (Alex Epstein, contributing writer for The Objective Standard, former editor and publisher of The Duke Review, September 22, 2007, “To Fix American Healthcare, Get the Government Out of It,” http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=15935) Paul Krugman celebrates that "it has finally become politically possible to give Americans what citizens of every other advanced nation already have: guaranteed health insurance. The economics of universal health care are sound," he claims. "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." Wrong. The thing we have to fear in healthcare is the thing that has wrecked much of our system, and that has ravaged the world’s socialized systems with stagnation and shortages: government coercion. The basic requirement of medical progress and falling prices is freedom for doctors, patients, and insurance companies. The problem with our current system is that government coercion has infected every facet of medicine, dictating everything from how many doctors are allowed to be licensed to which medical professionals may perform what procedures, to what procedures insurance companies must provide on their plans. And yet Krugman, Hillary Clinton, and other advocates of "universal health care" seek to solve our problems with more coercion. For example, Mrs. Clinton’s new "guarantee" that "your insurance company will be required to renew at a price you can afford" is a veiled call for price-controls--and a prescription for insurance companies to be exposed to a bankrupting combination of huge liabilities with comparatively low premiums. If anyone is interested in fixing American healthcare, there is only one solution: get the government out of it. Last printed 37 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 38 Link – Courts Court decisions are coercive. Blake, Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Washington, 01 (Michael Blake, Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Washington, Summer 2001, Distributive Justice, State Coercion, and Autonomy, Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 30, No. 3 (Summer, 2001), pp. 257-296, JSTOR) Coercion is certainly presented in the law in its most stark form in the institution of criminal punishment. But it seems that even private law-the law of contracts, property, and torts-is rife with coercion as well. Contract law is often analyzed as a limited grant of (coercive) legislative power by which individuals are empowered to make legal rules determining ownership that all must be compelled to obey.23 Property law, too, has a basis in coercion; it is, as Jeremy Waldron notes, a commitment to using collective force against certain persons should they attempt to exercise control over certain goods. Taxation law, too, although not technically a part of private law, seems to involve implicit threats of coercive state action as well. In all these areas of law, the adjudication of disputes will issue in a coercive transfer of legal rights. Whenever a civil judgment is made, for instance, the legal rights transferred from the defeated party to the victor are ones that are ultimately enforced with coercive measures. If we refuse to go along with the transfer in question, we risk imprisonment for contempt. All of these sanctions are built into the structure of the private law. Such practices are , it seems, every bit as coercive, if not as dramatic, as punishment in the criminal law, and stand in a similar need for justification. A civil judgment gives us a choice between surrendering goods or freedom in much the same way as a gunman's threat; while the former is at least potentially justifiable, and the latter generally inexcusable, the conditions under which the former may be justified require an inquiry into hypothetical justification in precisely the same manner as punishment. Although the purposes of the coercive sanctions differ between private law and criminal law, the fact of coercion is necessarily found within all areas of legal rules: Every decision [judges] make imposes their will on other human beings. When a judge sentences a defendant to prison, the judge's decision takes away the defendant's liberty. When a judge finds contractual liability, the decision forces one party to compensate the other. Every word, then, masks a deed. And the deed, ultimately, is one of power and coercion.24 Last printed 38 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 39 Link - Courts The enforcement of court decisions is inherently coercive. Turner, Ph.D. Sociology, UC Riverside, 03 (Jonathan H. Turner, Professor of Sociology, Ph.D., Faculty Research Lecturer, UC Riverside, President of Pacific Sociological Association, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 03, Human Institutions: A Theory of Societal Evolution) Enforcement of Laws and Court Decisions. Ultimately, if laws and court decisions are to have the capacity to coordinate, regulate, and control, they must be obeyed. Historically moral persuasion, informal sanctions, shaming, and other noncoercive techniques could operate effectively on members of small populations revealing minimal differentiation of only age and sex categories and low levels of inequality with respect to only prestige and honor. As populations became larger and more complex, however, laws and decisions had to be enforced by coercion if necessary (Newman 1983). Since the polity rarely relinquishes its claim to a monopoly of force—indeed, it seeks to legitimate through law and ideology its right to have a monopoly on the use of force---the enforcement of laws and court decisions comes from the polity rather than the courts. Courts can have enforcement agents of their own, but these never rival the coercive force of political leaders. As long as the capacity to make decisions on disputing parties or to force deviants to change their behavior overlapped extensively with polity-as is the case with chiefs, kings, and councils of elites who fill both court and legislative functions—there was little conflict between the emerging legal system and the more developed political system. Enforcement simply came by edict of political leaders. However; when there is a separation of courts from political decision-makers and when legislative bodies have some autonomy from political leaders in the administrative branch of government, a potential dilemma emerges because legislators and judges have no real coercive power. Instead, they must draw upon the coercive power of political leaders at the top of the administrative system to enforce laws and court decisions ; and if conflict between these leaders and the emerging legal system occurs, the autonomy and viability of the legal system can be undone by political fiat backed by coercive force. Thus, as the legal system has historically differentiated from the polity, it has remained partially embedded in the polity and had to rely upon the latter’s coercive base to enforce decisions and judgments. This reliance has included the capacity of the court and legislative systems to have their decisions against political leaders and administrators backed by the coercive base of power lodged in the very polity that is being regulated by laws and court decisions. Only if a viable civic culture exists-—one infused with accepted legal postulates about the relationship between die state and the population—has the leg] system been able to exert this influence on polity. In return, for giving the legal system this autonomy, law provides polity with much of its symbolic base of power. Last printed 39 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 40 Link – Immigrants Giving illegal immigrants social services is immoral and coercive. Machan, Ph.D, Auburn University, 07 (Tibor R. Machan, Ph.D, Auburn University, R.C. Hoils Chair of Business Ethics and Free Enterprise, Research fellow, Stanford University, 6/4/07, http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/opinion/localstatecolumns/article_1715920.php) Paul McGuire, talk-show host and author of the novel "The Warning," claims that illegal immigrants impose a $2.2 trillion burden on U.S. taxpayers and that it is "immoral to make American taxpayers shoulder this burden." He made his remarks May 22 on Neil Cavuto's Fox News Channel program and as with nearly all those utterances, there was no real examination of the facts cited and the implications drawn from them. Still, it bears noting that the immorality begins not with putting illegal immigrants on the welfare rolls or providing them social services at the expense of American citizens. The immorality lies in the welfare state itself, in the government's policy of coercive wealth redistribution. In fact, if there were any moral justification to such wealth redistribution, having the wealth go to illegal immigrants could be considered far more morally defensible than having it go to American citizens or legal immigrants. Getting rid of the welfare state is key to solving illegal immigration. Machan, Ph.D, Auburn University, 07 (Tibor R. Machan, Ph.D, Auburn University, R.C. Hoils Chair of Business Ethics and Free Enterprise, Research fellow, Stanford University, 6/4/07, http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/opinion/localstatecolumns/article_1715920.php) This is what is evident in the current debate about illegal immigration: The welfare state is the underlying fundamental problem. Until that system is abolished, until a revolutionary change occurs and no Peter is looted for the sake of any Paul – whether poor, rich, legal or illegal – there will be no solution to the illegal immigration problem. Hispanic immigrants use enormous amounts of welfare, helping the government. Levin, Chief of Staff to Attorney General, 09 (Mark R. Levin, president of Landmark Legal Foundation, attorney, top advisor and administrator to members of Reagan’s Cabinet, Chief of Staff to Attorney General, Deputy Assistant Secretary for elementary and secondary education at U.S. Department of Education, Deputy Solicitor of U.S. Department of Interior, B.A., Temple University, J.D., Temple University School of Law, 09, Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto, p 158) Of course, the administrative state has prospered hugely from the immigration anarchy the Statist has unleashed. The Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector writes that “historically, Hispanics in America have had very high levels of welfare use .... [In recent years], Hispanics were almost three times more likely to receive welfare than non-Hispanic whites. Putting together the greater probability of receiving welfare with the greater cost of welfare per family means that, on average, Hispanic families received four times more welfare per family than white non-Hispanics...Welfare use can also be measured by immigration status. In general, immigrant households are about 50 percent more likely to use welfare than native-born households. Immigrants with less education are more likely to use welfare." Last printed 40 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 41 Link – Utopia Attempts to create a “perfect world” fail-we must provide a gateway for individuals to create their own utopias Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute, 1997 (David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute, January 1997, Cato Policy Report, “The Coming Libertarian Age”, https:// www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/cpr-19n1-1.html) My ideal community would probably not be your utopia. The attempt to create heaven on earth is doomed to fail, because we have different ideas of what heaven would be like. As our society becomes more diverse, the possibility of our agreeing on one plan for the whole nation becomes even more remote. And in any case, we can't possibly anticipate the changes that progress will bring. Utopian plans always involve a static and rigid vision of the ideal community, a vision that can't accommodate a dynamic reality. We can't imagine what civilization will be like a century from now. What we need is not utopia but a free society in which people can design their own communities. The Libertarian society is the best gateway for personal utopias Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute, 1997 (David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute, January 1997, Cato Policy Report, “The Coming Libertarian Age”, https:// www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/cpr-19n1-1.html) A libertarian society might offer thousands of versions of utopia, which might appeal to different kinds of people. Government would respect people's right to make their own choices in accord with the knowledge available to them. As long as each person respected the rights of others, he would be free to live as he chose. His choice might well involve voluntarily agreeing with others to live in a particular kind of community. Individuals could come together to form communities in which they would agree to abide by certain rules, which might forbid or require particular actions. Since people would individually and voluntarily agree to such rules, they would not be giving up their rights but simply agreeing to the rules of a community that they would be free to leave. We already have such a framework, of course; in the market process we can choose from many different goods and services, and many people already choose to live in a particular kind of community. A libertarian society would offer more scope for such choices by leaving most decisions about living arrangements to the individual and the chosen community, instead of allowing government to impose everything from an exorbitant tax rate to rules about religious expression and health care. One difference between libertarianism and socialism is that a socialist society can't tolerate groups of people practicing freedom, but a libertarian society can comfortably allow people to choose voluntary socialism. If a group of people--even a very large group--wanted to purchase land and own it in common, they would be free to do so. The libertarian legal order would require only that no one be coerced into joining or giving up his property. In such a society, government would tolerate, as Leonard Read put it, "anything that's peaceful." Voluntary communities could make stricter rules, but the legal order of the whole society would punish only violations of the rights of others. By radically downsizing and decentralizing government--by fully respecting the rights of each individual--we can create a society based on individual freedom and characterized by peace, tolerance, community, prosperity, responsibility, and progress. Last printed 41 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 42 Coercion = Immoral Government coercion is immoral because it kills freedom and virtue by eroding the basis of free market capitalism Doug Bandow (Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and a former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan) March 7, 1997: Freedom and Virtue are Inseparable. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6186. For years the Left promised that socialism would eventually out-produce the market. That claim died with the Soviet Union. What remained of the Left then began to complain that capitalism generated too many material goods. Now similar attacks on capitalism are coming from the Right. The market, it is said, threatens family, human relationships, values and virtue. However, it is a mistake to treat freedom, which is the essence of capitalism, and virtue as mutually antagonistic. In fact liberty-- the right to exercise choice, free from coercive state regulation-- is a necessary precondition for virtue . And virtue is ultimately necessary for liberty to flourish. Virtue cannot exist without the freedom to make moral choices. Coerced acts of conformity with some moral norm, however good, do not represent virtue; rather, compliance with that moral norm must be voluntary. Virtue rejects a standard of intra-personal morality. As such it is an area that lies largely beyond the reach of state power. Of course societies can be more or less virtuous. But blaming moral shifts on legal changes mistakes correlation for causation. America's one-time cultural consensus eroded during an era of strict laws. Only cracks in this consensus, which provided the moral foundation of the laws, led to statutory changes. Government has proved that it is not a good teacher of virtue. The state tends to be effective at simple tasks, like jailing people. It is far less successful in shaping individual consciences. New laws would not make America a more virtuous nation. Even if there were fewer overt acts of immorality, there would be no change in peoples hearts and thus in society's moral core. Indeed attempting to forcibly make people virtuous would make society it self less virtuous : First individuals would lose the opportunity to exercise virtue. They would not face the same set of temptations and be forced to choose between good and evil. This approach might make their lives a bit simpler. But they would not be more virtuous. In this dilemma we see the paradox of Christianity: A God of love creates man and provides a means of redemption, but allows him to choose evil. Second, to vest government with primary responsibility for promoting virtue shortchanges other institutions like the family and church, sapping their vitality. Private social institutions find it easier to lean on the power of coercion than to lead by example, attempt to persuade and solve problems. Third making government a moral enforcer encourages abuse by whatever interest groups gain power. If one thing is certain, it is that man is sinful. That sin is magnified by coercive power. Those who possess power can of course, do good, but history suggests that they are far more likely to do harm . Indeed, as Americas traditional Judeo-Christian consensus crumbles we a more likely to see government promoting alternative moral views. This is possible only if the state is given the authority to coercively mold souls in the name of the community or family. Despite the best intentions of advocates of statecraft as soulcraft, government grows ever more likely to enshrine something other than traditional morality. The fact that government can do little to help does not mean that there is nothing it should do. Public officials should adopt as their maxim "First, do no harm." Although America's moral breakdown, most evident in the inner-city, has many causes, the welfare state has exacerbated the problem at every level, punishing marriage, work and thrift. Government has spent years attempting to expunge religious values from the public square; the public school monopoly discourages both good education and values instruction. Last printed 42 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 43 Coercion = Immoral Coercion is immoral – denies individuals the capacity develop as moral agents. Edward Feser, philosophy professor, Loyola, ON NOZICK, 2004, p. 37-8 More hopeful is the strategy, pursued by a large number of libertarian philosophers, of appealing to a broadly Aristotelian account of morality (Mack 1981; Machan 1989; Rasmussen and Den Uyl 1991; Smith 1995). the fundamental moral question is not “What is the right thing to do?” but rather “What traits of character should I develop?” Only when one has determined what traits these are -- that is, what habitual patterns On Aristotle’s view, of action count as virtues can one go on to answer the subordinate question of how one ought to act in a particular case (the answer being that one should act the way someone possessing the virtue relevant to that situation would act). What count as the virtues, in turn, are just those qualities most conducive to enabling human beings to fulfill the potentials which distinguish them as the unique sorts of beings they are — those qualities, that is, which best allow human beings to flourish given their distinctive human nature. Given that human beings are by nature rational animals, we can flourish only if we practice those virtues governing practical and theoretical reason. It follows that we have reason to acquire intellectual virtues like truthfulness and practical virtues such as temperance and courage, and to avoid such corresponding vices as licentiousness and cowardice. Given that human beings are also by nature social animals, we can only flourish if we practice also those virtues governing interaction with other human beings, so that we have reason to acquire such social virtues as honesty and loyalty. Though the moral life will involve decision-making about what to do in a particular concrete situation, then, it involves more basically the gradual development of a good character by the taking on of the virtues and the weeding out of vices — it essentially involves, that is, a process of self-perfection. Only a person who voluntarily decides to do so can carry out this process, however virtue must be freely chosen if it is truly to count as virtue. Moreover, the specific requirements of virtuous behavior depend to a considerable extent on the unique circumstances of the situation and the individual person involved, circumstances knowable only to that person himself in the concrete contexts of moral decision- making. The moral life, then, is only fully possible under conditions wherein the individual is capable of self-direction (in Rasmussen and Den Uyl’s terms), the absence of coercion and interference from outside forces. Allowing others such self-direction is necessary too if the individual is to allow those others also to develop the virtues; and in general, respecting others’ autonomy is essential if one is successfully to cooperate with them as fellow citizens, and thus fulfill one’s own nature as a social being. Given the centrality of self-direction to self- perfection, then, respect for the rights of self-ownership turns out to be required for the successful pursuit of the moral life. Last printed 43 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 44 Last printed 44 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 45 Welfare = Immoral The welfare state is flawed – it looks only at the outcomes rather than the process which is immoral because looking at outcomes only assumes that the poor have been cheated not that they have tried and failed Walter E. Williams (John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics and Chairman of the Economics Department at George Mason University) January 15, 1996. THE ARGUMENT FOR FREE MARKETS: MORALITY VS. EFFICIENCY. http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj15n2-3-3.html Justice: Process vs. Results At the heart of most interventionist policy is a vision of justice. Most often this vision evaluates the presence of justice by looking at results. Social justice has considerable appeal and as such is used as justification for interventionist statism. There are several criticisms of the concept of social justice that Hayek has answered well, but defenders of personal liberty must make a greater effort to demystify the term and show that justice or fairness cannot be determined by examining results. The results people often turn to in order to determine the presence or absence of justice are educational and occupational status, income, life expectancy, and other socioeconomic factors. But justice or fairness cannot be determined by results. It is a process question. Consider, for example, that three individuals play a regular game of poker. The typical game outcome is: individual A wins 75 percent of the time, while individuals B and C win 15 percent and 10 percent of the time, respectively. By knowing the game's result, nothing unambiguous can be said about whether there has been "poker justice.'' Individual A's disproportionate winnings are consistent with his being an astute player, clever cheater, or just plain lucky. The only way one can determine whether there has been poker justice is to examine the game's process. Process questions would include: Did the players play voluntarily? Were the poker rules neutral and unbiasedly applied? Was the game played without cheating? If the process were just, affirmative answers would be given to those three questions and there would be poker justice irrespective of the outcome. Thus, justice is really a process issue. The most popular justification for the interventionist state is to create or ensure fairness and justice in the distribution of income. Considerable confusion, obfuscation, and demagoguery regarding the sources of income provide statists with copious quantities of ammunition to justify their redistributionist agenda. Income is not distributed. In a free society, income is earned. People serving one another through the provision of goods and services generate income. We serve our fellow man in myriad ways. We bag his groceries, teach his children, entertain him, and heal his wounds. By doing so, we receive "certificates of performance.'' In the United States, we call these certificates dollars. Elsewhere they are called pesos, francs, marks, yen, and pounds. Those certificates stand as evidence (proof) of our service. The more valuable our service to our fellow man (as he determines), the greater the number of certificates of performance we receive and hence the greater our claim on goods and services. That free-market process promotes a moral discipline that says: Unless we are able and willing to serve our fellow man, we shall have no claim on what he produces. Contrast that moral discipline to the immorality of the welfare state. In effect the welfare state says: You do not have to serve your fellow man; through intimidation, threats, and coercion, we will take what he produces and give it to you. The vision that sees income as being "distributed'' implies a different scenario for the sources of income never made explicit. The vision that sees income as being distributed differs little from asserting that out there is a dealer of dollars. It naturally leads to the conclusion that if some people have fewer dollars than others, the dollar dealer is unfair; he is a racist, sexist, or a multi-nationalist. Therefore, justice and fairness require a re-dealing (income redistribution) of dollars. That way the ill-gotten gains of the few are returned to their "rightful'' owners. That vision is the essence of the results-oriented view of justice underpinning the welfare state. People who criticize the existing distribution of income as being unfair and demand government redistribution are really criticizing the process whereby income is earned. Their bottom line is that millions of individual decision makers did not do the right thing. Consider the wealth of billionaire Bill Gates, the founder of MicroSoft. Gates earned billions because millions of individuals voluntarily spent their money on what they wanted--his products. For someone to say that Gates's income is unfair is the same as saying that the decisions of millions of consumers are wrong. To argue that Gates's income should be forcibly taken and given to others is to say that somehow third parties have a right to preempt voluntary decisions made by millions of traders. When sources of income are viewed more realistically, we reach the conclusion that low income, for the most part, is a result of people not having sufficient capacity to serve their fellow man well rather than being victims of an unfair process. Low-income people simply do not have the skills to produce and do things their fellow man highly values. Seldom do we find poor highly productive individuals or nations. Those who have low incomes tend to have low skills and education and hence low productive capacity. Our challenge is to make those people (nations) more productive. Another explanation of low income is that the rules of the game have been rigged. That is, people do have an ability to provide goods and services valued by their fellow man but are restricted from doing so. Among those rules are minimum wage laws, occupational and business licensure laws and regulations, and government-sponsored monopolies. Hence, another argument for free-market capitalism is that it is good for lowincome, low-skilled people. Last printed 45 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 46 Impact – Freedom 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. Free market Capitalism is the only way to ensure freedom from the oppression of governments – any other system can only lead to extinction Leonard Peikoff, Ph.D. from New York University, “The Philosophy of Objectivism: A Brief Summary,” Ayn Rand Institute, 1997, p. 5, http://www.aynrand.org/objectivism/pobs5.html The basic political requirement of Man's Life is freedom. "Freedom" in this context means the power to act without coercion by others. It means an individual's power to act according to his own judgment, while respecting the same right in others. In a free society, men renounce a lethal method of dealing with disagreements: the initiation of physical force. Force is the antonym and negation of thought. Understanding is not produced by a punch in the face; intellectual clarity does not flow from the muzzle of a gun; the weighing of evidence is not mediated by spasms of terror. The mind is a cognitive faculty; it cannot achieve knowledge or conviction apart from or against its perception of reality; it cannot be forced . The proper political system, in essence—the system which guards the freedom of man's mind—is the original American system, based on the concept of inalienable individual rights. "[T]he source of man's rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival." The Founding Fathers were right about the fact that rights are political, not economic, i.e., that they are sanctions to act and to keep the products of one's action, not unearned claims to the actions or products of others. And they were right about the fact that the proper function of government is the protection of man's rights. Man's rights, Ayn Rand observes, can be violated only by physical force (fraud is an indirect form of force). A political system based on the recognition of rights is one that guards man against violence. Men therefore deal with one another not as potential killers, but as sovereign traders, according to their own independent judgment and voluntary consent. This kind of system represents the methodical protection of man's mind and of his self-interest, i.e., of the function and purpose on which human life depends. Government is the agency that holds a monopoly on the legal use of physical force. In a free society the government uses force only in retaliation, against those who start its use. This involves three main functions: the police; the military; and the courts (which provide the means of resolving disputes peacefully, according to objective rules). The government of a free society is prohibited from emulating the criminals it is created to apprehend. It is prohibited from initiating force against innocent men. It cannot inject the power of physical destruction into the lives of peaceful citizens, not for any purpose or in any realm of endeavor, including the realm of production and trade. This means the rejection of any dichotomy between political and economic freedom. It means the separation of state and economics. It means the only alternative to tyranny that has ever been discovered: laissez-faire capitalism . Historically, capitalism worked brilliantly, and it is the only system that will work. Socialism in every variant has led to disaster and will again whenever it is tried. Yet socialism is admired by mankind's teachers, while capitalism is damned. The source of this inversion is the fact that freedom is selfish, rights are selfish, capitalism is selfish. It is true that freedom, rights, and capitalism are selfish. It is also true that selfishness, properly defined, is the good. There is no future for the world except through a rebirth of the Aristotelian approach to philosophy. This would require an Aristotelian affirmation of the reality of existence, of the sovereignty of reason, of life on earth—and of the splendor of man. Aristotle and Objectivism agree on fundamentals and, as a result, on this last point, also. Both hold that man can deal with reality, can achieve values, can live non-tragically. Neither believes in man the worm or man the monster; each upholds man the thinker and therefore man the hero. Aristotle calls him "the great-souled man." Ayn Rand calls him Howard Roark, or John Galt. In every era, by their nature, men must struggle: they must work, knowingly or not, to actualize some vision of the human potential, whether consistent or contradictory, exalted or debased. They must, ultimately, make a fundamental choice, which determines their other choices and their fate. The fundamental choice, which is always the same, is the epistemological choice: reason or non-reason. Since men's grasp of reason and their versions of non-reason differ from era to era, according to the extent of their knowledge and their virtue, so does the specific form of the choice, and its specific result. In the ancient world, after centuries of a gradual decline, the choice was the ideas of classical civilization or the ideas of Christianity. Men chose Christianity. The result was the Dark Ages. In the medieval world, a thousand years later, the choice was Augustine or Aquinas. Men chose Aquinas. The result Last printed 46 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 47 Impact – Freedom was the Renaissance. In the Enlightenment world, four centuries later, the founders of America struggled to reaffirm the choice of their Renaissance ancestors, but they could not make it stick historically. The result was a magnificent new country, with a built-in self-destructor. Today, in the United States, the choice is the Founding Fathers and the foundation they never had, or Kant and destruction. The result is still open. Capitalism is the best system to foster freedom, which is a moral necessity David Boaz (executive vice president to the Cato Institute) 1997: Editorial: Pro-Choice. http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/cpr-19n4-2.html Kristol and Wolfson are struggling, not just against the principles on which America was founded, but against the modern world. It is capitalism that has given us moderns so many choices. Capitalism is the economic system of free people ; it is what happens when you let people alone. The virtues that capitalism rewards--prudence, discipline, initiative, self-reliance, new ideas--and the affluence it creates tend to push people in the direction of confidence in their own abilities, skepticism about organized authority, and a desire to manage their own affairs in all realms of life. That's why capitalism is not in the long run compatible with political repression or governmental restrictions on freedom. Freedom is also necessary for the development of strong moral character. Surely Kristol and Wolfson don't want to undermine the bourgeois virtues, but the effect of restricting choice is to eliminate the incentive and the opportunity for people to make good choices and develop good habits. People do not develop prudence, self-reliance, thrift, and temperance when their choices are imposed by force. Welfare-state liberals undermine moral character when they subsidize indulgence in destructive choices . Big-government conservatives undermine character when they deny people the right to shape their own characters through their choices. Evaluate freedom first – it is critical to both prosperity and fairness Richard L. Stroup (professor of economics at Montana State University) 1987: REFLECTIONS ON FREEDOM, FAIRNESS, AND THE CONSTITUTION Freedom (with accountability) is the key to both prosperity and to any reasonable and realistic conception of fairness . Only with entrepreneurial freedom will the innovation required to increase prosperity occur. And only through freedom and prosperity can fairness— in the sense of benefits accruing to those with low incomes, as well as fair treatment under the law—be maintained . Both freedom and prosperity are incompatible with extensive regulatory or tax/transfer powers in the hands of government . This paper argues that freedom, fairness, and prosperity are unalterably linked and require strong constitutional constraints on government. A powerful case can be made for small, secure, but constrained and competing governments ofthe sort a federal system suggests. As James Buchanan’s work indicates, in today’s world Hobbesian anarchy is not likely to yield freedom, economic growth and prosperity, or fairness. In this world, I believe we do need government. Restraints on government, however, are the key to freedom and fairness. Few would dispute the need for restraints to maintain freedom, but the restraints on government are necessary for fairness as well. Why? Individuals are not equally endowed with effectiveness in market earnings, nor in the market for political influence. There will be elites in any system, and those who are not members of the elite are far better offwhen the influence of elites is diffused, as in a free society with constrained government—with freedom of entry and exit, operating under the rule ofwilling consent. Thus a government with the power to prevent arbitrary abuse of some people by others, but with sharply limited power to coerce others directly and in detail, is likely to provide maximum freedom,and hence maximum prosperity and fairness as well. Freedom outweighs all other impacts – government intervention in the economic system is morally wrong and threatens freedom James A. Dorn (vice president for academic affairs at the Cato Institute and professor of economics at Towson University in Maryland) 1998: Anew Global Financial Architecture. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5792 The problem with the current system is that it is really a pseudo-system--a compromised system influenced more by political considerations than by the principles of private property and individual freedom . That is why we still have pegged exchange rates, discretionary government fiat monies, crony capitalism, and negotiated rather than free trade. It's not market failure that has led to the chaos in global financial markets but government failure. In particular, governments have failed to get out of the way and let a spontaneous market order evolve while providing the institutional infrastructure needed by free markets and free people. The basic question is, Will governments leave markets alone and focus on establishing a legal framework for free trade, free capital flows, and sound money, or will they be led by the so-called best and brightest to create institutions that enhance the discretion and power of the state? Last printed 47 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 48 Impact – Freedom The temptation is to think that we can improve upon the spontaneous or undesigned order of the free market by deliberately designing a new global financial architecture. The problem is that, when government planners and bureaucrats are doing the designing, the incentive is to have too much government discretion and too little market discipline. Thus, the debate over a new global financial architecture is, at heart, a debate over the role of government in a free society. The overriding principle of freedom should not be compromised by limiting the choice of monetary institutions to a little more or a little less government discretion. Rather, the choice should be between government fiat money systems, on the one hand, and freemarket monetary systems, on the other. Freedom outweighs – without freedom, we are all reduced to the level of animals and slaves – only freedom from government oppression solves Ludwig von Mises (Austrian Economist and Philosopher) 1960: The Economic Foundations of Freedom. http://mises.org/efandi/ch1.asp Animals are driven by instinctive urges. They yield to the impulse which prevails at the moment and peremptorily asks for satisfaction. They are the puppets of their appetites . Man's eminence is to be seen in the fact that he chooses between alternatives . He regulates his behavior deliberatively. He can master his impulses and desires; he has the power to suppress wishes the satisfaction of which would force him to renounce the attainment of more important goals. In short: man acts; he purposively aims at ends chosen. This is what we have in mind in stating that man is a moral person, responsible for his conduct. Freedom as a Postulate of Morality All the teachings and precepts of ethics, whether based upon a religious creed or whether based upon a secular doctrine like that of the Stoic philosophers, presuppose this moral autonomy of the individual and therefore appeal to the individual's conscience. They presuppose that the individual is free to choose among various modes of conduct and require him to behave in compliance with definite rules, the rules of morality. Do the right things, shun the bad things. It is obvious that the exhortations and admonishments of morality make sense only when addressing individuals who are free agents. They are vain when directed to slaves. It is useless to tell a bondsman what is morally good and what is morally bad. He is not free to determine his comportment; he is forced to obey the orders of his master. It is difficult to blame him if he prefers yielding to the commands of his master to the most cruel punishment threatening not only him but also the members of his family. This is why freedom is not only a political postulate, but no less a postulate of every religious or secular morality. The Struggle for Freedom Yet for thousands of years a considerable part of mankind was either entirely or at least in many regards deprived of the faculty to choose between what is right and what is wrong. In the status society of days gone by the freedom to act according to their own choice was, for the lower strata of society, the great majority of the population, seriously restricted by a rigid system of controls. An outspoken formulation of this principle was the statute of the Holy Roman Empire that conferred upon the princes and counts of the Reich (Empire) the power and the right to determine the religious allegiance of their subjects. The Orientals meekly acquiesced in this state of affairs. But the Christian peoples of Europe and their scions that settled in overseas territories never tired in their struggle for liberty. Step by step they abolished all status and caste privileges and disabilities until they finally succeeded in establishing the system that the harbingers of totalitarianism try to smear by calling it the bourgeois system. The Supremacy of the Consumers The economic foundation of this bourgeois system is the market economy in which the consumer is sovereign. The consumer, i.e., everybody, determines by his buying or abstention from buying what should be produced, in what quantity and of what quality. The businessmen are forced by the instrumentality of profit and loss to obey the orders of the consumers, Only those enterprises can flourish that supply in the best possible and cheapest way those commodities and services which the buyers are most anxious to acquire. Those who fail to satisfy the public suffer losses and are finally forced to go out of business. In the precapitalistic ages the rich were the owners of large landed estates. They or their ancestors had acquired their property as gifts?feuds or fiefs?from the sovereign who?with their aid?had conquered the country and subjugated its inhabitants. These aristocratic landowners were real lords as they did not depend on the patronage of buyers. But the rich of a capitalistic industrial society are subject to the supremacy of the market. They acquire their wealth by serving the consumers better than other people do and they forfeit their wealth when other people satisfy the wishes of the consumers better or cheaper than they do. In the free market economy the owners of capital are forced to invest it in those lines in which it best serves the public. Thus ownership of capital goods is continually shifted into the hands of those who have best succeeded in serving the consumers. In the market economy private property is in this sense a public service imposing upon the owners the responsibility of employing it in the best interests of the sovereign consumers. This is what economists mean when they call the market economy a democracy in which every penny gives a right to vote. The Political Aspects of Freedom Representative government is the political corollary of the market economy. The same spiritual movement that created modern capitalism substituted elected officeholders for the authoritarian rule of absolute kings and hereditary aristocracies. It was this much-decried bourgeois liberalism that brought freedom of conscience, of thought, of speech, and of the press and put an end to the intolerant persecution of dissenters. A free country is one in which every citizen is free to fashion his life according to his own plans. He is free to compete on the market for the most desirable jobs and on the political scene for the highest offices. He does not depend more on other people's favor than these others depend on his favor. If he wants to succeed on the market, he has to satisfy the consumers; if he wants to succeed in public affairs he has to satisfy the voters. This system has brought to the capitalistic countries of Western Europe, America, and Australia an unprecedented increase in population figures and the highest standard of living ever known in history. The much talked-about common man has at his disposal amenities of which the richest men in precapitalistic ages did not even dream. He is in a position to enjoy the spiritual and intellectual achievements of science, poetry, and art that in earlier days were accessible only to a small elite of well-to-do people. And he is free to worship as his conscience tells him. Last printed 48 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 49 Impact – Tyranny Low level democracies can only cause tyranny of the majority – only protection of property can guarantee liberty Erich Weede (Professor of Sociology at the University of Bonn) Winter 2008: Human Rights, Limited Government, and Capitalism. http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj28n1/cj28n1-3.pdf According to Bueno de Mesquita et al. (2005), broad-based political participation and party competition come close to being prerequisites for governments respecting personal integrity rights. Low levels of democracy do not suffice to improve human rights practice. The ambivalence of the right to vote in my classification makes me neglect this particular right in this article. Without desiring to recommend an alternative political arrangement, I share the scepticism of those writers who see some connection between the vote and the subsequent fight for popularity and redistribution (de Jasay 1985) or who emphasize the need to add constitutional limits to electoral democracy. According to Buchanan (1993: 59), Private or several property serves as a guarantor of liberty, quite independently of how political or collective decisions are made. The direct implication is, of course, that effective constitutional limits must be present, limits that will effectively constrain overt political intrusions into rights of property, as legally defined, and into voluntary contractual arrangements involving transfer of property. If individual liberty is to be protected, such constitutional limits must be in place prior to and separately from any exercise of democratic governance . . . . The tyranny of the majority is no less real than any other, and, indeed, it may be more dangerous because it feeds on the idealistic illusion that participation is all that matters. Limited government is key to prevent tyranny, which killed more people than both World Wars combined – the plan provides positive rights, or entitlements that causally fail to protect the right to life Erich Weede (Professor of Sociology at the University of Bonn) Winter 2008: Human Rights, Limited Government, and Capitalism. http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj28n1/cj28n1-3.pdf Negative rights serve to protect the individual, his liberty, and his property from coercion and violence. Negative rights prevent others from undertaking some types of actions, but they do not oblige others to help one . In order to safeguard negative rights government has to be limited. The link between negative rights and limited government was already well understood long before the term “human rights” gained currency. In the late 17th century, Locke ([1690] 2003: 161, 189) wrote: The supreme power cannot take from any man part of his property without his own consent: for the preservation of property being the end of government . . . wherever the power, that is put in any hands for the government of the people, and the preservation of their properties, is applied to other ends, and made use of to impoverish, harass, or subdue them into arbitrary and irregular commands of those that have it; there it presently becomes tyranny, whether those that thus use it are one or many. The right to life certainly is a fundamental human right. It is a negative right since it only requires that others do not kill one. In this context, one should recall that about 169 million people have been killed by states or their governments in the 20th century (Rummel 1994). Communists and National Socialists established the most murderous regimes. Among the victims of communism, there are tens of millions of deaths from starvation after the coerced collectivization of agriculture in Stalin’s Soviet Union or Mao’s China. Although the 20th century suffered two world wars and other bloody wars, fewer people died on the battlefield or because of bombing campaigns than have been murdered or starved to death by their own governments. Whoever wants to protect human rights should therefore first of all focus on the necessity of protecting people from the state and its abuses of power. Positive Rights Positive rights or entitlements commit the state and its officials to undertake certain types of action—for example, to guarantee certain minimal standards of material well-being. The American Bill of Rights (1789) is limited to negative or protective rights, while the United Nations General Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights (2000) encompass both protective rights and entitlements.1 The trend from short lists of negative rights to long lists of negative and positive rights has been accompanied by a rapid and sustained increase in public spending in the West (Tanzi and Schuknecht 2000). Classical liberals, in contrast to people called “liberals” in 20th century America and “social democrats” in Europe, demanded the primacy of individual liberty and thereby of protective rights and limited government . Providing people with entitlements forces the state to curtail the negative rights and liberties of individuals. In order to fund entitlements the state has to tax (i.e., to take coercively from) some people in order to provide for others. Entitlements have to rest on coercion and redistribution—that is, on a greater restriction of negative rights or individual liberty than would otherwise be necessary. As the balance of achievements and victims of communism demonstrates, the attempt to provide entitlements did not prevent tens of millions of deaths from starvation. Actually, the attempt to provide more than negative rights resulted in something less: the lack of respect of negative and positive rights. As I shall argue, this association between the attempt to guarantee entitlements by a monopoly of coercion and central planning is causally related to the repeated failure to protect even the right to life. Last printed 49 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 50 Free markets are inherently non-violent because they rely on voluntary associations whereas governments force and compel, leading to violence. Branden, psychotherapist, author, teacher, 95 (Nathaniel, psychotherapist, author, http://www.fff.org/freedom/0195d.asp) teacher, January 1995, “Individualism and the Free Society, Part 2”, Whatever the differences in their specific programs, all the enemies of the free market economy-communists, socialists, fascists, welfare statists-are unanimous in their belief that they have a right to dispose of the lives, property, and future of others, that private ownership of the means of production is a selfish evil, that the more a person has achieved, the greater is his or her debt to those who have not achieved it, that men and women can be compelled to go on producing under any terms or conditions their rulers decree, that freedom is a luxury that may have been permissible in a primitive economy, but for the running of giant industries, electronic factories, and complex sciences, nothing less than slave labor will do. Whether they propose to take over the economy outright, in the manner of communists and socialists, or to maintain the pretense of private property while dictating prices, wages, production, and distribution, in the Since the moral justification offered for the rule of force is humankind's need of the things that persons of ability produce, it follows (in the collectivist's system of thought) that the greater an individual's productive ability, the greater are the penalties he or she must endure, in the form of controls, regulations, expropriations . manner of fascists and welfare statists, it is the gun, it is the rule of physical force that they consider "kind," they who consider the free market "cruel." Consider, for example, the principle of the progressive income tax: those who produce the most are penalized accordingly; those who produce nothing receive a subsidy, in the form of relief payments. Or consider the enthusiastic advocacy of socialized medicine. What is the justification offered for placing the practice of medicine under government control? The importance of the services that physicians perform-the urgency of their patients' need. Physicians are to be penalized precisely because they have so great a contribution to make to human welfare; thus is virtue turned into a liability. In denying human beings freedom of thought and action, statists and collectivist systems are anti-self-esteem by their very nature. Self-confident, self-respecting men and women are unlikely to accept the premise that they exist for the sake of others Neither can it be maintained except by men and women who have achieved a healthy level of self-esteem. And a healthy level of self-esteem cannot be maintained without a willingness to assert-and, if necessary, fight for-our right to exist. It is on this point that issues of psychology, ethics, and politics converge. If I may allow myself a brief aside, one might imagine that psychologists, social scientists, and philosophers who speak enthusiastically and reverently about freedom, self-responsibility, autonomy, the beauty of self-regulating systems, and the power of synergy (the behavior of whole systems unpredicted by the behavior of the parts taken separately) would naturally be champions of noncoercion. More often than not, as I have already indicated, just the opposite is true. They tend to be among the most vociferous in . A free society cannot be maintained without an ethics of rational self-interest. a defining feature of a synergistic society is that participation in it is voluntary. If people do not choose to engage in a given cooperative activity, the implication is that they do not perceive that activity to be helpful , either for crying for the coercive apparatus of government to further their particular ideals. To quote Waterman once again: It should be recognized that themselves or for others. Efforts to promote social cooperation within a synergistic society may appropriately include such techniques as education, persuasion, and negotiation. However, the use of political force to compel cooperation represents the abandonment of the synergistic ideal. A free society cannot automatically guarantee the mental or emotional well-being of all its members. Freedom from external coercion is not a sufficient condition of our optimal fulfillment, but it is a necessary one. The great virtue of capitalism-laissez-faire capitalism, as contrasted not only with the more extreme forms of statism but also with the mixed economy we have today-is that it is the one system whose defining principle is precisely this barring of physical coercion from human relationships. No other political system pays even lip service to this principle. Last printed 50 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 51 Impact – Self Sacrifice Politics will create a realm of self sacrifice- Those who attempt to repent will be forced at the point of bayonets Ayn Rand 1960, Philosopher, Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World Published as a pamphlet by the Nathaniel Branden Institute in 1967, http://freedomkeys.com/faithandforce.htm -=Max Rispoli=- The socialists had a certain kind of logic on their side; if the collective sacrifice of all to all is the moral ideal, then they wanted to establish this ideal in practice, here and on this earth. The arguments that socialism would not and could not work, did not stop them: neither has altruism ever worked, but this has not caused men to stop and question it. Only reason can ask such questions -- and reason, they were told on all sides, has nothing to do with morality, morality lies outside the realm of reason, no rational morality can ever be defined. The fallacies and contradictions in the economic theories of socialism were exposed and refuted time and time again, in the nineteenth century as well as today. This did not and does not stop anyone; it is not an issue of economics, but of morality. The intellectuals and the so-called idealists were determined to make socialism work. How? By that magic means of all irrationalists: somehow. It was not the tycoons of big business, it was not the working classes, it was the intellectuals who reversed the trend toward political freedom and revived the doctrines of the absolute State, of totalitarian government rule, of the government's right to control the lives of the citizens in any manner it pleases. This time, it was not in the name of the "divine right of kings," but in the name of the divine right of the masses. The basic principle was the same: the right to enforce at the point of a gun the moral doctrines of whoever happens to seize control of the machinery of government. There are only two means by which men can deal with one another: guns or logic. Force or persuasion. Those who know that they cannot win by means of logic, have always resorted to guns. Well, ladies and gentlemen, the socialists got their dream. They got it in the twentieth century and they got it in triplicate, plus a great many lesser carbon copies; they got it in every possible form and variant, so that now there can be no mistake about its nature: Soviet Russia -- Nazi Germany -- Socialist England. This was the collapse of the modern intellectuals' most cherished tradition. It was World War II that destroyed collectivism as a political ideal. Oh, yes, people still mouth its slogans, by routine, by social conformity and by default -- but it is not a moral crusade any longer. It is an ugly, horrifying reality -- and part of the modern intellectuals' guilt is the knowledge that they have created it. They have seen for themselves the bloody slaughterhouse which they had once greeted as a noble experiment -- Soviet Russia. They have seen Nazi Germany -and they know that "Nazi" means "National Socialism." Perhaps the worst blow to them, the greatest disillusionment, was Socialist England: here was their literal dream, a bloodless socialism, where force was not used for murder, only for expropriation, where lives were not taken, only the products, the meaning and the future of lives, here was a country that had not been murdered, but had voted itself into suicide. Most of the modern intellectuals, even the more evasive ones, have now understood what socialism -- or any form of political and economic collectivism -- actually means. Today, their perfunctory advocacy of collectivism is as feeble, futile and evasive as the alleged conservatives' defense of capitalism. The fire and the moral fervor have gone out of it. And when you hear the liberals mumble that Russia is not really socialistic, or that it was all Stalin's fault, or that socialism never had a real chance in England, or that what they advocate is something that's different somehow -- you know that you are hearing the voices of men who haven't a leg to stand on, men who are reduced to some vague hope that "somehow my gang would have done it better." The secret dread of modern intellectuals, liberals and conservatives alike, the unadmitted terror at the root of their anxiety, which all of their current irrationalities are intended to stave off and to disguise, is the unstated knowledge that Soviet Russia is the full, actual, literal, consistent embodiment of the morality of altruism, that Stalin did not corrupt a noble ideal, that this is the only way altruism has to be or can ever be practiced. If service and self-sacrifice are a moral ideal, and if the "selfishness" of human nature prevents men from leaping into sacrificial furnaces, there is no reason -- no reason that a mystic moralist could name -- why a dictator should not push them in at the point of bayonets -- for their own good, or the good of humanity, or the good of posterity, or the good of the latest bureaucrat's five-year plan. There is no reason that they can name to oppose any atrocity. The value of a man's life? His right to exist? His right to pursue his own happiness? These are concepts that belong to individualism and capitalism -- to the antithesis of the altruist morality. Last printed 51 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 52 AT: Right to Life Freedom from coercion is a prerequisite to right to life because it enables survival Peikoff, former professor of philosophy at Hunter College, 91 (Leonard, Ayn Rand’s heir, former professor of philosophy at Hunter College, Long Island University, New York University, the University of Denver and the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn, “Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand”, pages 362) An individual can be hurt in countless ways by other men's irrationality, dishonesty, injustice. Above all, he can be disappointed, perhaps grievously, by the vices of a person he had once trusted or loved. But as long as his property is not expropriated and he remains unmolested physically, the damage he sustains is essentially spiritual, not physical; in such a case, the victim alone has the power and the responsibility of healing his wounds. He remains free: free to think, to learn from his experiences, to look elsewhere for human relationships; he remains free to start afresh and to pursue his happiness. Only the crime of force is able to render its victim helpless. The moral responsibility of organized society, therefore, lies in a single obligation: to banish this crime, i.e., to protect individual rights. Reason has one and only one social requirement: freedom-such is the essence of the case for man's rights. Metaphysically, the individual is sovereign (he is a being of self-made soul). Ethically, he is obliged to live as a sovereign (as an independent egoist). Politically, therefore, he must be able to act as a sovereign. Men can choose not to recognize rights, just as they can choose to discard morality or evade reality; but they cannot choose it with impunity. Both in theory and in blood-soaked practice, there is only one alternative to freedom: men's attempt to live while defying reason's requirements. This means the attempt to survive without a tool of survival. Rights are objective principles; they are objective in regard both to content and to validation. Guaranteeing survival is more than just surviving Callahan, fellow at Institute of Society and Ethics, 73 (Daniel Callahan, Institute of Society, Ethics, and the Life Sciences, Hastings-on-Hudson, New York, 1973, The Tyranny of Survival, p. 99-100) The American Revolution was not fought to preserve physical survival; colonial Americans were certainly in no danger of physical extinction or even in danger of serious poverty. That revolution was fought to advance the values of freedom, justice and self-determination. When Israelis say "never again" and assert their willingness to die rather than accept subjection, they are making clear their need for something more than survival, their freedom and dignity as a people. The Jewish case is particularly significant in another respect also. The lesson which many Jews believed they learned from the holocaust is that the most ineffective way to guarantee survival is to be passively willing to settle for survival. Unless one wants more than survival, and is willing to die for it, even survival will be taken away. Giving up individual liberties for survival is a Pyrrhic victory – life is not worth living under coercion Callahan, fellow at Institute of Society and Ethics, 73 (Daniel Callahan, Institute of Society, Ethics, and the Life Sciences, Hastings-on-Hudson, New York, 1973, The Tyranny of Survival, p. 99-100) There seems to be no imaginable evil which some group is not willing to inflict on another for the sake of survival, no rights, liberties or dignities which it is not ready to suppress . It is easy, of course, to recognize the For all these reasons, it is possible to counterpoise over against the need for survival a "tyranny of survival." Last printed 52 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 53 danger when survival is falsely and manipulatively invoked. Dictators never talk about their aggressions, but only about the need to defend the fatherland, to save it from destruction at the hands of its enemies. But my point goes deeper than that. It is directed even at legitimate concern for survival, when that concern is allowed to reach an intensity which would ignore, suppress or destroy other fundamental human rights and values. The potential tyranny of survival as a value is that it is capable, if not treated sanely, of wiping out all other values. Survival can become an obsession and a disease, provoking a destructive singlemindedness that will stop at nothing. We come here to the fundamental moral dilemma. If, both biologically and psychologically, the need for survival is basic to man, and if survival is the precondition for any and all human achievements, and if no other rights make much sense without the premise of a right to life - then how will it be possible to honor and act upon the need for survival without, in the process, destroying everything in human beings which makes them worthy of survival. To put it more strongly, if the price of survival is human degradation, then there is no moral reason why an effort should be make to ensure that survival. It would be the Pyrrhic victory to end all Pyrrhic victories. Yet it would be the defeat of all defeats if, because human beings could not properly manage their need to survive, they succeeded in not doing so. Either way, then, would represent a failure, and one can take one's pick about which failure would be worse, that of survival at the cost of everything decent in man or outright extinction. Somehow we need to find better alternatives , if I may be allowed to understate the matter. We need to survive as races, groups, nations and as a species, but in a way which preserves a wide range of other human values, and in a way which is as sensitive about means as about ends. Last printed 53 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 54 Coercion Genocide Governments are self-interested and tend to harm society, leading to genocide and mass terror Cowen and Sutter, econ profs at George Mason and U of Oklahoma, 04 (Tyler Cowen and Daniel Sutter, econ profs at George Mason and U of Oklahoma, 10/29/04, “The Costs of Cooperation”, http://www.springerlink.com/content/m426771076018385/) [PDM] An alternative and perhaps more realistic supposition is that governments pursue their own interests rather than the public interest. These governments will not choose an optimal level of cooperative efficacy, so changes in the prevailing level of cooperative efficacy may improve welfare. Nonetheless it is not obvious that we wish to increase cooperative efficacy in governments of this kind. Strong, selfish governments, possessing a near monopoly on coercive violence, have strong propensities to wreak damage on society (Rummel 1995). As noted earlier, the level of cooperative efficacy can affect the pool of potential politicians. Lord Acton noted that power tends to corrupt and Hayek (1944) argued that government tends to attract the already corrupt. A wide variety of public choice theory and evidence suggests that many governments are prone to overtax, overregulate, and sometimes to wield violence against innocent members of society. In more extreme cases, many campaigns of genocide and mass terror have relied on widespread public approval and cooperative participation (Conquest 1986, Kressel 1996). Throughout history tyranny has been the rule rather than the exception, and most of these governments have relied on public cooperation to a considerable degree. Increasing cooperative efficacy for selfish governments may bring very high costs and also may induce knavish politicians to pursue power than the exception, and most of these governments have relied on public cooperation to a considerable degree. Last printed 54 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 55 Coercion Tyranny Government interference leads to total control and tyranny Machan, philosophy professor at Auburn, 95 (Tibor Machan, philosophy professor at Auburn, 1995, PRIVATE RIGHTS AND PUBLIC ILLUSIONS, p. 86-7) [PDM] As Bondy notes, in totalitarian states, where the government controls the printing presses and publishing organizations, anyone wishing to state a personal opinion must gain official sanction. (Even under Mikhail Gorbachev's glasnost and perestroika reforms—begun in 1987, prior to the breakup of the Soviet state—the openness and restructuring involved were permitted or instituted by government, rather than being understood as a basic human right that limits the scope and power of the government. Consider also that General Augusto Pinochet's Chile had had a relatively "free" market—that is, a government policy of abstention from heavy-handed economic regulation. Yet its critics will quite rightly refuse to regard it as having been a free country. Moreover in countries where broadcasting is government administered, there is no right to telecast one's views or ideas on the airways, only a permission to do so if it suits the state authorities. In contrast, if the right to property is respected, individuals do not have to seek political permission to act, even if they still must earn the opportunity to do so via the free marketplace and in face of natural obstacles. The right to property is the right to work for, acquire, and hold goods and valuables; it includes the rights of production, trade, and bequest, as well as the right to undertake innumerable actions vis-a-vis the world of ownable items not even conceived of yet. The right to pursue happiness or individual excellence in life, then, requires full support of the right to property. Private property rights are neither favored nor legally protected in our era and have not been for a long time. Both cultural and legal developments in the last one hundred years have undermined the protection of property rights The state often acts in a paternalistic fashion toward the citizen's ownership and management of property. It is increasingly willing to usurp mutually agreed-upon contracts . Nevertheless, broadly speaking, the history of the United States demonstrates that the significant protection of private property rights, despite much compromise and confusion, has a propensity to increase the productivity as well as the self-responsibility of the members of a human community. It contributes to their self-perception as moral agents who cannot expect others to live for them and it fosters their concern for and development toward doing reasonably well in their lives. In short, the right to private property is a required feature of a human community that enhances human flourishing. Democracies are critical to prevent war, proliferation, and terrorism Diamond, Hoover Institution senior fellow, co-editor of the Journal of Democracy, 95 (Larry Diamond, Hoover Institution senior fellow, co-editor of the Journal of Democracy, December 1995, A Report to the Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict, “Promoting Democracy in the 1990s: Actors and Instruments, Issues and Imperatives,” http://wwics.si.edu/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/di/1.htm) [PDM] OTHER THREATS This hardly exhausts the lists of threats to our security and well-being in the coming years and decades. In the former Yugoslavia nationalist aggression tears at the stability of Europe and could easily spread. The flow of illegal drugs intensifies through increasingly powerful international crime syndicates that have made common cause with authoritarian regimes and have utterly corrupted the institutions of tenuous, democratic ones. Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons continue to proliferate. The very source of life on Earth, the global ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered. Most of these new and unconventional threats to security are associated with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of democracy, with its provisions for legality, accountability, popular sovereignty, and openness. LESSONS OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY The experience of this century offers important lessons. Countries that govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do not go to war with one another. They do not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize themselves or glorify their leaders. Democratic governments do not ethnically "cleanse" their own populations, and they are much less likely to face ethnic insurgency. Last printed 55 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 56 Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against one another. They do not build weapons of mass destruction to use on or to threaten one another. Democratic countries form more reliable, open, and enduring trading partnerships. In the long run they offer better and more stable climates for investment. They are more environmentally responsible because they must answer to their own citizens, who organize to protest the destruction of their environments. They are better bets to honor international treaties since they value legal obligations and because their openness makes it much more difficult to breach agreements in secret. Precisely because, within their own borders, they respect competition, civil liberties, property rights, and the rule of law, democracies are the only reliable foundation on which a new world order of international security and prosperity can be built. Last printed 56 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 57 Coercion Corruption Government regulation results in corruption Miller, Director of the Center for International Trade and Economics at The Heritage Foundation, 09 [Terry, Director of the Center for International Trade and Economics at The Heritage Foundation, editor of the Index of Economic Freedom, Government Intervention: A Threat to Economic Recovery, Heritage.org] If policies must be developed in any of these areas, it is most important that they be as simple, straight-forward and transparent as possible. As the size and reach of the federal government increases in the U.S. economy, there is an ever-present risk of increased graft and corruption. These factors, more than any others, account for low levels of development in much of the world. Corruption thrives where economic regulations are complex and government involvement pervasive. It must not be allowed to take root here. Last printed 57 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 58 Impact – Taxes Kill Liberty Tax dollars should not be redistributed through entitlements – destroys human rights, freedom and individual liberty Erich Weede (Professor of Sociology at the University of Bonn) Winter 2008: Human Rights, Limited Government, and Capitalism. http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj28n1/cj28n1-3.pdf In the classical liberal tradition, liberty and property rights cannot be separated; they belong together. This tradition includes the English philosopher John Locke ([1690] 2003), the American Bill of Rights, the Nobel laureate Friedrich Hayek (1960, 1976), and contemporary libertarians like Murray Rothbard (1980). The concept of self-ownership clarifies the intimate connection between liberty and property. Ownership of the fruits of one’s labor is derived from selfownership. According to Locke ([1690] 2003: 111), “Every man has a property in his own person: this nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his.” Whether one should accept Locke’s theory about the legitimate acquisition of land by actually cultivating it, need not concern us here. Since one has to leave “enough, and as good” (Locke [1690] 2003: 114) for others, there might be problems with Locke’s approach. Most of contemporary taxation in developed countries, however, is hardly related to land ownership, but strongly related to returns on diligence, hard work, and human capital . Besides, it has been questioned whether rights and limited government or majoritarianism constitute the core of Locke’s political philosophy (Shapiro 2003). Since the purpose of this article is to analyze the effects of either a narrow focus on negative rights or a broader focus on negative and positive rights, which might result from majoritarianism, the “true” interpretation of Locke’s view need not concern us here. From the liberal perspective, taxation has to be a problem. Within this tradition it is disputed whether the state should engage in taxation and redistribution at all, even whether it should exist. The more libertarian an author is, the less willing he is to concede the necessity of a monopoly of coercion and violence. Locke ([1690] 2003), the American Founders, and Mises ([1927] 2005) favored a minimal state. In contemporary terms, one might say that the state should be concerned only with the provision of public goods, but not with the redistribution of private goods. Hayek (1960, 1976) accepts some coerced redistribution for the benefit of those who cannot support themselves. Rothbard (1980) rejects the desirability and legitimacy of establishing a monopoly of coercion and redistribution as well. For reasons of time and space, I do not want to discuss whether or under what conditions taxation may ever become legitimate. For present purposes it may suffice to say that a focus on self-ownership implies strict limits on taxation and a general preference for less rather than more of it. The focus on self-ownership and a conception of human rights built on it has the advantage of compatibility with the most fundamental insight of economics—incentives matter. I do not believe in the value of cataloguing a long list of human rights that stands no chance of ever being realized on earth. Purely normative arguments that disregard feasibility easily become incompatible with a philosophical principle according to which “should implies can” (Albert 1991: 91).2 If one accepts this principle, as I do, then one may criticize normative postulates by appealing to empirical science. In order to become useful for their beneficiaries, a proclamation of human rights has to clarify the corresponding obligations. Proclaiming “freedom from want” as a positive right does not provide society, government, or the courts with the resources to satisfy those wants. Declaring an obligation irrespective of feasibility helps no one . An insistence on negative or protective human rights puts fewer demands on government than the inclusion of positive rights does . Dorn (2007: 27) has outlined the role of the state and government well: “The role of the state is to preserve freedom by preventing injustice, not to pursue some arbitrarily defined notion of ‘social justice’ by violating people’s liberty and property. The essence of liberalism, in the classical sense, is to ‘do no harm’—not to ‘do good’ with other people’s money.” A parsimonious summary of the insights of three economists is useful to give one an idea about the kind of social order where human rights might prevail. Although such an order focuses on negative or protective rights and limited government, so that the protection of individual life and liberty against aggression becomes the basis for the legitimacy of state and government, I ultimately arrive at a testable and, by Popper’s (1959) criterion of falsifiability,3 a “scientific” statement. In particular, even the objective behind the desire for positive rights or entitlements (e.g., participation in the material well-being of society) is provided for the greatest number in a free society with limited government—that is, in a state that abandons the pretension of guaranteeing positive rights or entitlements. Last printed 58 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 59 Impact – Statism Statism leads to extinction Kateb, Professor of Politics and Director of the Program in Political Philosophy at Princeton, 92 ( George, Professor of Politics and Director of the Program in Political Philosophy at Princeton, The Inner Ocean p. 121-123) [PDM] I have said that statism is one of the main ideas that are implied in official (and lay) rhetoric rationalizing the use of nuclear weapons. But the role of statism in the nuclear situation is not confined to this function. In another form it makes another contribution. The form is best called—once again a French name is most apt—dirigisme, the unremitting direction by the state of all facets of life. Let us translate the word as "state activism." The contribution is indirect but insidious and pervasive, and consists of the general tendency to leave citizens in a condition of dependence which borders on helplessness. The virulent practitioners of state activism are, of course, the police state, tyranny, despotism, and totalist rule in all their varieties. Whenever a nuclear power is also one of the latter regimes, then the disposition among a compliant population is to get used to the idea that the state, as the source of practically all benefits and penalties—all those outside the intimate sphere and many inside it—has the right to dispose of the fate of the people in any way it sees fit. The way it sees fit seems the unavoidable way. Such compliance strengthens the readiness of officials to think seriously about using nuclear weapons. Just as the people are used to the idea that the state has the right to dispose of their fate, so the state gets used to the idea that it may even use nuclear weapons in disposing of its people's fate. My concern here, however, is not with the mentality of unfree societies but rather with that of democratic societies. I propose the idea—it is no more than a hypothesis—that the growth of state activism in a democracy is the growth, as well, of that compliance creating and resting on dependence which makes it easier for the government to think of itself as a state—not only in our earlier sense of an entity whose survival is held to be equivalent to the survival of society itself, but in the related but separate sense of an entity that is indispensable to all relations and transactions in society. The state, in this conceptualization, is the very life of society in its normal workings, the main source of initiative, response, repair, and redress. Society lives by its discipline, which is felt mostly as benign and which is often not felt as discipline or felt at all. The government becomes all-observant, all-competent; it intervenes everywhere; and as new predicaments arise in society, it moves first to define and attempt a resolution of them. My proposed idea is that as this tendency grows— and it is already quite far advanced— people will, to an increasing degree, come to accept the government as a state. The tendency of executive officials (and some in the legislative and judicial branches) to conceive of government as a state will thus be met by the tendency of people to accept that conception. People's dependence on it will gradually condition their attitudes and their sentiments. Looking to it, they must end by looking up to it. I believe the "logic" of this tendency, as we say, is that officials become confirmed in their sense that they, too (like their counterparts in unfree societies), may dispose of the fate of the people. Entrusted with so much everyday power, the entire corps of officials must easily find confirmation for the rationalization of the use of nuclear weapons proposed by the foreign-policy sector of officialdom . There may be a strong, if subterranean, bond between the state as indispensable to all relations and transactions in everyday society and the state as entitled to dispose of the fate of society in nuclear war, even though officials receive no explicit confirmation of this bond by the people. Under pressure, however, a people that habitually relies on the state may turn into a too easily mobilizable population: mobilizable but otherwise immobile. My further sense is that a renewed understanding of the moral ideas of individualism is vital to the effort to challenge state-activism. I say this, knowing that some aspects of individualism do help to push democratic government in the direction of becoming a state, and to push the state into state activism. Tocqueville's prescient analysis of democratic despotism must never be forgotten. Even more important, we must not forget that he thought that democratic despotism was much more likely in those democracies in which individualism was narrowly or weakly developed and in which, therefore, the power of a full moral individualism had never corroded the statist pretensions of political authority. His main anxiety was for France and the Continent, not for America. Thus, following Tocqueville, we may say that individualism provides no remedy for the deficiencies: the remedy is to be sought from individualism itself. One task of a renewed and revised individualism is to challenge everyday state activism? Remote as the connection may seem, the encouragement of state activism, or the failure to resist it, contributes to nuclear statism and thus to the disposition to accept and inflict massive ruin and, with that, the unwanted and denied possibility of extinction. In the nuclear situation, one must be attentive to even remote connections that may exist between human activity and human extinction. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Last printed 59 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 60 Impact – Statism Surrendering ourselves to the state justifies nuclear annihilation, killing billions. Beres, Professor of International Law in the Department of Political Science at Purdue University, 94 (Louis Rene, Professor of International Law in the Department of Political Science at Purdue University, Spring,, Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, Lexis) This, then, is an altogether different kind of understanding. Rather than rescue humankind by freeing individuals from fear of death, this perspective recommends educating people to By surrendering ourselves to States and to traditional views of self-determination, we premature and predictable extinction. It is a relationship that can, and must, be more widely understood. There are great ironies involved. Although the corrosive calculus of geopolitics has now made possible the deliberate killing of all life, populations all over the planet turn increasingly to States for security. It is the dreadful ingenuity of States that makes possible death in the billions, but it is in the expressions of that ingenuity that people seek safety. Indeed, as the threat of nuclear annihilation looms even after the Cold War, n71 the citizens of conflicting States reaffirm their segmented loyalties , moved by the persistent unreason that is, after all, the most the truth of an incontestable relationship between death and geopolitics. encourage not immortality but indelible badge of modern humankind. State activism generates nuclear statism. The more we accept the legitimacy of the state, the more likely it is that the state can wage nuclear war, risking extinction. Kateb, Professor of Politics and Director of the Program in Political Philosophy at Princeton, 92 (George Kateb, Professor of Politics and Director of the Program in Political Philosophy at Princeton, 1992, The Inner Ocean p. 121123) The virulent practitioners of state activism are, of course, the police state, tyranny, despotism, and totalist rule in all their varieties. Whenever a nuclear power is also one of the latter regimes, then the disposition among a compliant population is to get used to the idea that the state, as the source of practically all benefits and penalties—all those outside the intimate sphere and many inside it—has the right to dispose of the fate of the people in any way it sees fit. The way it sees fit seems the unavoidable way. Such compliance strengthens the readiness of officials to think seriously about using nuclear weapons. Just as the people are used to the idea that the state has the right to dispose of their fate, so the state gets used to the idea that it may even use nuclear weapons in disposing of its people's fate. My concern here, however, is not with the mentality of unfree societies but rather with that of democratic societies. I propose the idea—it is no more than a hypothesis—that the growth of state activism in a democracy is the growth, as well, of that compliance creating and resting on dependence which makes it easier for the government to think of itself as a state—not only in our earlier sense of an entity whose survival is held to be equivalent to the survival of society itself, but in the related but separate sense of an entity that is indispensable to all relations and transactions in society. The state, in this conceptualization, is the very life of society in its normal workings, the main source of initiative, response, repair, and redress. Society lives by its discipline, which is felt mostly as benign and which is often not felt as discipline or felt at all. The government becomes all-observant, all-competent; it intervenes everywhere; and as new predicaments arise in society, it moves first to define and attempt a resolution of them. My proposed idea is that as this tendency grows— and it is already quite far advanced—people will, to an increasing de¬gree, come to accept the government as a state. The tendency of execu¬tive officials (and some in the legislative and judicial branches) to conceive of government as a state will thus be met by the tendency of people to accept that conception. People's dependence on it will gradually condi¬tion their attitudes and their sentiments. Looking to it, they must end by looking up to it.I believe the "logic" of this tendency, as we say, is that officials become confirmed in their sense that they, too (like their counterparts in unfree societies), may dispose of the fate of the people. Entrusted with so much everyday power, the entire corps of officials must easily find confirma¬tion for the rationalization of the use of nuclear weapons proposed by the foreign-policy sector of officialdom. There may be a strong, if subterranean, bond between the state as indispensable to all relations and transactions in everyday society and the state as entitled to dispose of the fate of society in nuclear war, even though officials receive no explicit confirmation of this bond by the people. Under pressure, however, a people that habitually relies on the state may turn into a too easily mobilizable population: mobilizable but otherwise immobile. My further sense is that a renewed understanding of the moral ideas of Last printed 60 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 61 individualism is vital to the effort to challenge state-activism.I say this, knowing that some aspects of individualism do help to push democratic government in the direction of becoming a state, and to push the state into state activism. Tocqueville's prescient analysis of demo¬cratic despotism must never be forgotten. Even more important, we must not forget that he thought that democratic despotism was much more likely in those democracies in which individualism was narrowly or weakly developed and in which, therefore, the power of a full moral indi¬vidualism had never corroded the statist pretensions of political author¬ity. His main anxiety was for France and the Continent, not for America. Thus, following Tocqueville, we may say that individualism provides no remedy for the deficiencies: the remedy is to be sought from individualism itself. One task of a renewed and revised individualism is to challenge every¬day state activism? Remote as the connection may seem, the encouragement of state activism, or the failure to resist it, contributes to nuclear statism and thus to the disposition to accept and inflict massive ruin and, with that, the unwanted and denied possibility of extinction. Freedom from the state is necessary for humans to fully develop – anything less is dehumanizing Rothbard, academic VP of the Ludwig von Mises Institute and distinguished professor at UNLV, 70 (Murray Rothbard, academic vice president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute and distinguished professor at UNLV, “Freedom, Inequality, Primitivism and the Division of Labor”, 1970, http://www.mises.org/fipandol/fipsec1.asp) [PDM] Individual human beings are not born or fashioned with fully formed knowledge, values, goals, or personalities; they must each form their own values and goals, develop their personalities , and learn about themselves and the world around them. Every man must have freedom, must have the scope to form, test, and act upon his own choices, for any sort of development of his own personality to take place. He must, in short, be free in order that he may be fully human. In a sense, even the most frozen and totalitarian civilizations and societies have allowed at least a modicum of scope for individual choice and development. Even the most monolithic of despotisms have had to allow at least a bit of "space" for freedom of choice, if only within the interstices of societal rules. The freer the society, of course, the less has been the interference with individual actions, and the greater the scope for the development of each individual. The freer the society, then, the greater will be the variety and the diversity among men, for the more fully developed will be every man's uniquely individual personality . On the other hand, the more despotic the society, the more restrictions on the freedom of the individual, the more uniformity there will be among men and the less the diversity, and the less developed will be the unique personality of each and every man. In a profound sense, then, a despotic society prevents its members from being fully human. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Statism dehumanizes Beres, Professor of International Law in the Department of Political Science at Purdue University, 94 (Louis Rene Beres, Professor of International Law in the Department of Political Science at Purdue University, ARIZONA JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW , Spring, 1994, p. 9-10. The task, then, is for each person to become an individual. In order to reject the idolatry of militaristic nationalism and national self-determination, each man and woman must understand the lethal encroachments of the State. Recognizing in their current leadership an incapacity to surmount collective misfortune, citizens must strive to produce their own private expressions of progress. "From becoming an individual no one," says Kierkegaard, "is excluded, except he who excludes himself by becoming a crowd." We live in a twilight era. Faced with endless infamy of the modern State, we must understand the responsibility to be in the world, to act in history. If we are unwilling to accept abolition of the future, then we must rescue life from the threat of war and genocide. Last printed 61 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 62 Impact – Economic Growth Empirically, freedom is a prerequisite for economic growth Rothbard, academic VP of the Ludwig von Mises Institute and distinguished professor at UNLV, 70 (Murray Rothbard, academic vice president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute and distinguished professor at UNLV, “Freedom, Inequality, Primitivism and the Division of Labor”, 1970, http://www.mises.org/fipandol/fipsec1.asp) [PDM] If freedom and the growth of the market are each important for the development of each individual and, therefore, to the flowering of diversity and individual differences, then so is there a casual connection between freedom and economic growth. For it is precisely freedom, the absence or limitation of interpersonal restrictions or interference, that sets the stage for economic growth and hence of the market economy and the developed division of labor. The Industrial Revolution and the corollary and consequent economic growth of the West were a product of its relative freedom for enterprise, for invention and innovation, for mobility and the advancement of labor. Compared to societies in other times and places, eighteenth and nineteenth century Western Europe and the United States were marked by a far greater social and economic freedom?a freedom to move, invest, work, and produce?secure from much harassment and interference by government. Compared to the role of government elsewhere, its role in these centuries in the West was remarkably minimal. [5] By allowing full scope for investment, mobility, the division of labor, creativity, and entrepreneurship, the free economy thereby creates the conditions for rapid economic development. It is freedom and the free market , as Adam Smith well pointed out, that develop the "wealth of nations." Thus, freedom leads to economic development, and both of these conditions in turn multiply individual development and the unfolding of the powers of the individual man. In two crucial ways, then, freedom is the root; only the free man can be fully individuated and, therefore, can be fully human. Last printed 62 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 63 Impact – Agency Coercion restricts rights and destroys individual agency. Blake, Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Washington, 01 (Michael Blake, Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Washington, Summer 2001, Distributive Justice, State Coercion, and Autonomy, Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 30, No. 3 (Summer, 2001), pp. 257-296, JSTOR) People can be denied their autonomy by being starved, deeply impoverished, or subjected to oppressive and marginalizing norms, but they can also face a denial of autonomy that results from outright coercion. I will refrain from offering a complete theory of coercion in the present context;'4 I will only note that, as I have insisted upon throughout this exercise, whether an individual faces a denial of autonomy resulting from coercion cannot be read off simply from the number of options open to her. Coercion is not simply a matter of what options are available; it has to do with the reasons the set of options is as constrained as it is. Coercion is an intentional action, designed to replace the chosen option with the choice of another. Coercion, we might therefore say, expresses a relationship of domination, violating the autonomy of the individual by replacing that indi- vidual's chosen plans and pursuits with those of another. Let us say, therefore, that coercive proposals violate the autonomy of those against whom they are employed; they act so as to replace our own agency with the agency of another. There is much more to be said in the above context, but I want now to turn to the issue of coercion. Last printed 63 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 64 Impact - Economy Only the K solves the economy – government intervention in the economy makes collapse of economy and the dollar inevitable – the plan’s action is at best a ‘rear guard’ which means we control the best internal link Mark Thornton (American Economist of the Austrian School) 11/12/2008: Monetary Freedom and Its Opposite. http://mises.org/story/3196 Today we stand at a point in time that is the beginning of the end of an economic era when the US dollar dominated the global economy. The dollar still dominates world financial markets and many currencies around the world are still linked with the dollar, including China. However, the dollar has now ceased to gain additional influence in the world economy and it now has two new competitors, the Euro and the Chinese Yuan. Gold has now exceeded $1,000 per ounce and our trading partners are growing worried, both about the inflation we are exporting to them, as well as the value of their own central bank holdings of US government securities . As we enter the era of decline for the dollar all sorts of reforms will be used to address this decline and the economic instability it causes. However, reforms designed on Wall Street or in Washington will not work and will amount to nothing more than rear guard action by the moneyed interests that control the government. The only true path to reform is monetary freedom. We have gone from a situation where money was entirely free from government intervention to one that is completely dominated by government. Instead of privately minted coins made from precious metals we now have a system of government-printed paper fiat currency. We have gone from a system of private banking that provided bank notes and checks for demand deposits to one where banks are completely regulated by the central bank and a host of other regulatory bodies . The idea that our current financial mess resulted from a lack of regulation is truly laughable . Of course this process has taken centuries to complete. By giving up our monetary freedom—particularly over the last one hundred years—we have given government the ability to grow in size and scope and to achieve unthinkable levels of power. Every step forward towards government control of money has resulted in social chaos and economic destruction. The real economy only grows in the interludes when monetary mischief is at a minimum. We are now at a point in time when the US government is bankrupt. It cannot pay its bills, it cannot pay off its debt, and it has future unfunded liabilities with a current value in excess of $60 trillion dollars—and that was before all the current bailout packages! Given that the political parties have done nothing to solve the government's financial mess or to even reduce its magnitude, and given that everything they have done including the prescription drug benefit, the war in Iraq, and the bailouts of Wall Street only makes the problem worse, I can only conclude one of two things. Either they "plan" to resort to hyperinflation to pay for this mess, or they are collectively dumb as a sack of horse manure. Remember, hyperinflation is not just very high prices; it is social chaos and the breakdown of social order. At a basic level our lives are built on a structure of prices that we ourselves co-determine, but in a hyperinflation there is no solid basis for prices and therefore our lives are thrown into chaos. Society becomes more violent and criminal. Government, too, becomes more violent and criminal towards its own citizens. Turn – plan creates dependence which decreases incentives to work – tanks the economy Jörg Guido Hülsmann (professor of economics at the University of Angers in France) 2008: The Political Economy of Moral Hazard A central occupation of economists is to analyze the nature, causes, and effects of incentives — the circumstances that are held to motivate human action. Economists agree on the positive role that "good" incentives play to increase production. They also agree that "perverse" incentives have an opposite impact. One of these perverse incentives is called moral hazard, the subject of our present essay. Moral hazard is the incentive of a person A to use more resources than he otherwise would have used, because he knows, or believes he knows, that someone else B will provide some or all of these resources. The important point is that this occurs against B's will and that B is unable to sanction this expropriation immediately. The mere incentive to rely on resources provided by others is not per se problematic. For example, the announcement of a future inheritance might prompt the prospective heir to spend more in the present than he would otherwise have spent. In such cases we would not speak of moral hazard. A genuine moral-hazard problem appears however if A has the possibility to use B's resources against B's will and if he knows this. Laymen would call A's incentives a "temptation to steal" or a "temptation to act irresponsibly." Economists, ever weary of moralizing, have espoused the technocratic expression "moral hazard." Thus the essential feature of moral hazard is that it incites some people A to expropriate other people B. The B-people in turn, if they realize the presence of such a moral hazard, have an incentive to react against this possible expropriation. They make other choices than those that they would consider to be best if there were no moral hazard. Many economists have therefore concluded that moral hazard entails market failures; it brings about a different allocation of resources than the one that would exist in the absence of moral hazard. Conventional economic theory explains moral hazard as a consequence of the fact that market participants are unequally well informed about economic reality . In other words, moral hazard results from "asymmetries of information" and the theory of moral hazard is therefore considered to be a part of the economics of information. Last printed 64 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 65 Impact - Terrorism Only the alt. solves terrorism – government intervention in the economy makes terrorism inevitable because the government is willing to risk another terrorist attack – the Iraq war and mandates on terrorism insurance prove Christopher Westley (teaches economics at Jacksonville State University) 2007: The Mortgage Market Mess. http://mises.org/story/ 2555 Many supported the war in Iraq due to the supposed increase in security we will experience at home once Saddam is out of the picture. But who really feels safer in the its aftermath? Why do government's warnings of impending doom seem to be increasing rather than decreasing? Why has the government even put up a new website (www.ready.gov) that makes the most paranoid survivalist literature seem moderate and sane by comparison? Last November, even as the government was preparing its war on Iraq, President Bush signed legislation into law that required insurance companies to offer terrorism insurance for possible 9/11-like terrorist acts in the future. That's interesting. A reduced threat of terrorism would suggest less need for precaution. If the government actually believed that the homeland would be safer due to its actions overseas, then why does it impose (under the threat of violence) the insurance requirement? Others seem to see the war in Iraq itself as a form of insurance. They justify it as a necessary response to the shocking events of September 11, 2001, as though the Iraqi regime organized and executed those attacks (no connection has ever been demonstrated). By not responding forcefully, the U.S. would be sending a message of weakness to that and similar governments. The billions of dollars spent on this military venture and those that follow represent insurance payments to reclaim the level of safety many took for granted before 9/11. The country singer Darryl Worley, cashing in on this public mood, has recorded a popular song entitled "Have You Forgotten?" that explicitly makes this point. This sentiment is epitomized by the comments of a college student quoted in the New York Times: "It's the security of the United States that's at issue. They're saying that the only way we can ensure the security of our citizens is to go in there." This reasoning behind the hysteria follows the theory of blowback, the idea that angering and alienating millions of people must result in some organized-and-yet-unknown future retaliation. Government officials know that their policies will lessen security, not increase it, and that a world with terrorism insurance will make life more tolerable than a world without it. The electorate will more likely accept these policies if their costs, in terms of blowback, are softened by terrorism insurance already in place. This raises the problem of moral hazard to a different and dangerous level. Moral hazard problems result in any insurance program when the insured parties engage in risky behavior because of the existence of the insurance. It is well known, for instance, that people drive more recklessly when they receive high levels of automobile insurance at a low cost. To minimize these problems, insurance companies charge higher premiums to individuals who engage in high risk activities to force the cost of their activities onto them and to force them to assume responsibility for their actions. Therefore, the policyholder with multiple accidents must pay higher premiums, and the smoker who refuses to shun tobacco is forced to pay more for his health benefits. Such is the economic logic of the link between consumption and payment. If you choose to continue smoking, or if you choose to continue to engage in reckless driving, you will pay more for insurance. If you don't, then you will be forcing the costs of your actions on to others in the form of higher insurance costs, socializing the benefits you get from owning insurance onto remaining policyholders. The same relationship between consumption and payment does not apply to terrorism insurance, because those who are forced to purchase it are not the same people who increase the likelihood of increased costs in the future from their actions. The situation would be analogous to a smoker who uses the state to force others to pay for his insurance coverage to compensate for health problems that result from his plans to continue to smoke in the future. In the same way, by forcing insurance companies to offer terrorism insurance, the government enables itself to engage in activity that increases the likelihood of terrorist strikes at home. Real terrorism insurance would imply systems that reward those insured for moderating their behavior. When running for president, Candidate Bush argued for a "more humble foreign policy," and until one is implemented it is not likely that there will be reduced terrorism at home. This can only be achieved by increasing the scope of voluntary cooperation between individuals, or by favoring the scope of voluntary market transactions over state power. In other words, to insure for a world characterized by peaceful international relations, you must give trade a chance. Free trade draws men and women together by making them interdependent and thus creates the conditions necessary for civilization. On the other hand, "government interference with business and socialism," writes Ludwig von Mises in Human Action (The Scholars Edition, pp. 819–20) "create conflicts for which no peaceful solution can be found. … What has transformed the limited war between royal armies into total war, the clash between peoples, is not technicalities of military art, but the substitution of the welfare state for the laissez-faire state." Many such substitutions will result from the war in Iraq and those that follow it, enabled by government interventions encouraged by terrorism insurance. This explains, to a large extent, the opposition to the war from the Right. Nondefensive wars never expand freedom in the world. The health of the state and the health of civilization are mutually exclusive concepts. Last printed 65 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 66 Free Trade Good Free trade good – protectionism is essentially communism, which means their free trade bad arguments link to the K – prefer this over their war scenarios Thomas J. DiLorenzo (economics professor at Loyola College in Maryland) 2k: Trade and the rise of freedom. http://mises.org/article.aspx?Id=376&month=16 It is not an exaggeration to say that trade is the keystone of modern civilization. For as Murray Rothbard wrote: "The market economy is one vast latticework throughout the world, in which each individual, each region, each country, produces what he or it is best at, most relatively efficient in, and exchanges that product for the goods and services of others. Without the division of labor and the trade based upon that division, the entire world would starve. Coerced restraints on trade -- such as protectionism -- cripple, hobble, and destroy trade, the source of life and prosperity."(1) Human beings cannot truly be free unless there is a high degree of economic freedom -- the freedom to collaborate and coordinate plans with other people from literally all around the world. That is the point of Leonard Read's famous article, "I Pencil," which describes how to produce an item as mundane as an ordinary pencil requires the cooperation and collaboration of thousands of people from all around the world, all of whom possess very specific knowledge (of "time and place," as Mises called it) that allows them to assist in the production and marketing of pencils. The same is true, of course, for virtually everything else that is produced. Without economic freedom -- the freedom to earn a living for oneself and one's family -- people are destined to become mere wards of the state. Thus, every attempt by the state to interfere with trade is an attempt to deny us our freedom, to impoverish us, and to turn us into modern-day serfs. Mises believed that trade or exchange is "the fundamental social relation" which "weaves the bond which unites men into society ."(2) Man "serves in order to be served" in any trade relationship in the free market .(3) Mises also distinguished between two types of social cooperation: cooperation by virtue of private contract and coordination, and cooperation by virtue of command and subordination or "hegemony."(4) The former type of coordination is symmetrical and mutually advantageous, whereas the latter is asymmetrical -- there is a commander and a commandee, and the commandees are mere pawns in the actions of the commanders. When people become the mere pawns of their rulers they cannot be said to be free. This, of course, is the kind of "cooperation" that exists at the hands of the state. Western civilization -- like other advanced civilizations -- is the result of "achievements of men who have cooperated according to the pattern of contractual coordination."(5) The contractual state is guided by such concepts as natural rights to life, liberty, and property and government under the rule of law. In contrast, the "hegemonic society" is a society that does not respect natural rights or the rule of law. All that matters are the rules, directives, and regulations issued by dictators, whether they are called "kings" or "congressmen." These directives may change daily, and the wards of the state must obey. As Mises wrote: "The wards have one freedom only: to obey without asking questions."(6) Trade involves the exchange of property titles. Restrictions on free trade are therefore an attack on private property itself and not "merely" a matter of "trade policy." This is why such great classical liberals as Frederic Bastiat spent many years of their lives defending free trade. Bastiat, as much as anyone, understood that once one acquiesced in protectionism, then no one's property will be safe from myriad other governmental acts of theft. To Bastiat, protectionism and communism were essentially the same philosophy. Last printed 66 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 67 Coercion Snowballs/AT: N/U Our argument is linear—every increase in coercive power decreases human dignity. Rothbard, 70 [Murray, academic vice president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute and distinguished professor at UNLV, Freedom, Inequality, Primitivism and the Division of Labor, http://www.mises.org/fipandol/fipsec1.asp] Individual human beings are not born or fashioned with fully formed knowledge, values, goals, or personalities; they must each form their own values and goals, develop their personalities, and learn about themselves and the world around them. Every man must have freedom, must have the scope to form, test, and act upon his own choices, for any sort of development of his own personality to take place. He must, in short, be free in order that he may be fully human. In a sense, even the most frozen and totalitarian civilizations and societies have allowed at least a modicum of scope for individual choice and development. Even the most monolithic of despotisms have had to allow at least a bit of "space" for freedom of choice, if only within the interstices of societal rules. The freer the society, of course, the less has been the interference with individual actions, and the greater the scope for the development of each individual . The freer the society, then, the greater will be the variety and the diversity among men, for the more fully developed will be every man's uniquely individual personality . On the other hand, the more despotic the society, the more restrictions on the freedom of the individual, the more uniformity there will be among men and the less the diversity, and the less developed will be the unique personality of each and every man . In a profound sense, then, a despotic society prevents its members from being fully human. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Coercion snowballs—Every increase in the state’s power brings us closer to tyranny Browne, Former Libertarian Party candidate for President and Director of Public Policy for the DownsizeDC.org, 95 (Harry Browne, Former Libertarian Party candidate for President and Director of Public Policy for the DownsizeDC.org, 1995, Why Government Doesn't Work, p.65-66) Each increase in coercion is easier to justify. If it’s right to force banks to report your finances to the government, then it’s right to force you to justify the cash in your pocket at the airport. If it’s right to take property from the rich and give it to the poor, then it’s right to take your property for the salt marsh harvest mouse. As each government program fails, it becomes “necessary” to move another step closer to complete control over our lives. As one thing leads to another – as coercion leads to more coercion – what can we look forward to? – Will it become necessary to force you to justify everything you do to any government agent who thinks you might be a threat to society? – Will it become necessary to force your children to report your personal habits to their teachers or the police? – Will it become necessary to force your neighbors to monitor your activities? – Will it become necessary to force you to attend a reeducation program to learn how to be more sensitive, or how not to discriminate, or how to avoid being lured into taking drugs, or how to recognize suspicious behavior? – Will it become necessary to prohibit some of your favorite foods and ban other pleasures, so you don’t fall ill or have an accident – putting a burden on America’s health-care system? Some of these things – such as getting children to snitch on their parents or ordering people into reeducation programs – are already happening in America. The others have been proposed and are being considered seriously. History has shown that each was an important step in the evolution of the world’s worst tyrannies. We move step by step further along the road to oppression because each step seems like such a small one. And because we’re told that each step will give us something alluring in return – less crime, cheaper health care, safety from terrorists, an end to discrimination – even if none of the previous steps delivered on its promise. And because the people who promote these steps are well-meaning reformers who would use force only to build a better world. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Last printed 67 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 68 Impact – VTL There is no value to life in their framework – coercion makes us into mere tools of the state. Hayek, Nobel Prize winner for Economics, 60 (F.A. Hayek, Nobel Prize winner for Economics, 1960, The Constitution of Liberty, p.20) By “coercion” we mean such control of the environment or circumstances of a person by another that , in order to avoid greater evil, he is forced to act not according to a coherent plan of his own but to serve the ends of another. Except in the sense of choosing the lesser evil in a situation forced on him by another, he is unable either to use his own intelligence or knowledge or to follow his own aims and beliefs . Coercion is evil precisely because it thus eliminates an individual as a thinking and valuing person and makes him a bare tool in the achievement of the ends of another. Free action, in which a person pursues his own aims by the means indicated by his own knowledge, must be based on data which cannot be shaped at will by another. It presupposes the existence of a known sphere in which the circumstances cannot be so shaped by another person as to leave one only that choice prescribed by the other. Last printed 68 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 69 Impact – Government Intervention Government intervention into markets is an immoral violation of liberty that must be rejected. Minto 2000 (Karen Minto, Full Context, “Ayn Rand and Objectivism: An Introduction,” 2000, p. np. Accessed May 23, 2003, http://www.fullcontext.org/Objectivism/politics.htm) The basis of the Objectivist political theory is the idea of individual rights. According to Objectivism, since individuals must deal with one another by voluntary cooperation and voluntary trade, any action which violates the consent of any party (typically by force or fraud) is immoral, and ought to be punishable by law. The use of (or threat to use) physical force is only legitimate in cases where one is protecting or defending one's life, liberty or property against thief, attacker, or tyrant. Objectivists agree with the American founding fathers that men are by nature entitled to the rights of life, liberty (including the liberty to justly acquire, own and trade property), and the pursuit of happiness. Objectivism maintains that the only just government is a limited government--limited to doing only those things that can be justified as necessary and indispensable for protecting individual rights: the police, the law courts, and the national defense forces. Every other function of government currently in place is unjust and morally invalid insofar as (i) it is financially supported by involuntary means--people do not have the legal right to opt out; (ii) it forbids the peaceful and honest conduct of business by people who want to set up companies that operate according their goals, standards and principles, and that pursue markets of their own choosing. Objectivists regard the coercive paternalism of the modern socialist welfare-state as pernicious and unjust. It treats adults like children who are helpless to care for themselves. Every adult who has a modicum of dignity, of self-respect, and a vision of what they want to become as human beings should raise their voices and pens in protest against the vulgar excesses of today's governments. Objectivism views the only just social system as a system of free, voluntary exchange of goods, services and ideas, i.e, laissez-faire capitalism. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Last printed 69 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 70 Impact – Government Control States with too much power make genocide and democide inevitable David J. Heinrich (yes, he’s a blogger but he is quoting statistics from Rummel who is professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii) 2004: Our friend the State. http://blog.mises.org/archives/002192.asp This website is dedicated to the mass-murder that has been committed by The State. Via democide and genocide, 174,000,000 people have been murdered by States in the 20th century, with no end in sight; that's more than 4 times the number of people murdered by war alone, which is also mortifyingly high (36,000,000). All of the people murdered by the State, head to toe, would encircle the earth four times over again, in a "megatomb" or "ring of tears". There are other, equally mortifying, ways in which to visualize the State's murder. If all of the water or blood in the 174,000,000 people murdered by State-democide in the 20th century were to flow over the American Niagra Falls, it would take 10.4 hours for all of the water and 42.5 minutes for the blood. Including wars and democide, that's 210,000,000 people murdered by States in 100 years. On average, that amounts to 2,100,000 people murdered a year by States, or some 5,700 people murdered each day. The real numbers are much more mortifying, since State-mandated death took place in concentrated clusters. To me, this shows how crazy it is for anyone to support a State. Can anyone in their right mind really think that the State comes anywhere near close to saving 2,100,000 lives a year? Or that these lives would not exist without the State? The State is a perpetual Black Plague of Death. This is how States view people: as expendable. Also note that the US is listed as one of the agents of democide: "in this century the United States probably murdered about 583,000 people (line 350), conceivable even as many as 1,641,000 all told." The methods Rummel used to estimate democide can be read about in ESTIMATING DEMOCIDE: METHODS AND PROCEDURES. Giving the state a monopoly on its people to do what it wants ruining millions of lives through taxation and making conflict inevitable Hans-Hermann Hoppe (former economics professor at the University of Nevada) 2006: The Idea of a Private Law Society. http://www.mises.org/story/2265 As widespread as the classical liberal view is regarding the necessity of the institution of a state as the provider of law and order, several rather elementary economic and moral arguments show this view to be entirely misguided. Among political economists and political philosophers it is one of the most widely accepted proposition that every "monopoly" is "bad" from the viewpoint of consumers. Here, monopoly is understood as an exclusive privilege granted to a single producer of a commodity or service, or as the absence of "free entry" into a particular line of production. For example, only one agency, A, may produce a given good or service, X. Such monopoly is "bad" for consumers because, shielded from potential new entrants into a given area of production, the price of the product will be higher and its quality lower than under competitive conditions . Accordingly, it should be expected that state-provided law and order will be excessively expensive and of particularly low quality. However, this is only the mildest of errors. Government is not just like any other monopoly such as a milk or a car monopoly that produces low quality products at high prices. Government is unique among all other agencies in that it produces not only goods but also bads. Indeed, it must produce bads in order to produce anything that might be considered a good. As noted, the government is the ultimate judge in every case of conflict, including conflicts involving itself. Consequently, instead of merely preventing and resolving conflict, a monopolist of ultimate decision-making will also provoke conflict in order to settle it to his own advantage. That is, if one can only appeal to government for justice, justice will be perverted in the favor of government, constitutions and supreme courts notwithstanding. Indeed, these are government constitutions and courts, and whatever limitations on government action they may find is invariably decided by agents of the very same institution under consideration. Predictably, the definition of property and protection will be altered continually and the range of jurisdiction expanded to the government's advantage . The idea of eternal and immutable law that must be discovered will disappear and be replaced by the idea of law as legislation — as flexible state-made law. Even worse, the state is a monopolist of taxation, and while those who receive the taxes — the government employees — regard taxes as something good, those who must pay the taxes regard the payment as something bad, as an act of expropriation. As a tax-funded life-and-property protection agency, then, the very institution of government is nothing less than a contradiction in terms. It is an expropriating property protector, "producing" ever more taxes and ever less protection. Even if a government limited its activities exclusively to the protection of the property of its citizens, as classical liberals have proposed, the further question of how much security to produce would arise. Motivated, as everyone is, by self-interest and the disutility of labor but equipped with the unique power to tax, a government agent's goal will invariably be to maximize expenditures on protection, and almost all of a nation's wealth can conceivably be consumed by the cost of protection, and at the same time to minimize the production of protection. The more money one can spend and the less one must work to produce, the better off one will be. Last printed 70 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 71 In sum, the incentive structure inherent in the institution of government is not a recipe for the protection of life and property, but instead a recipe for maltreatment, oppression, and exploitation. This is what the history of states illustrates. It is first and foremost the history of countless millions of ruined human lives. Last printed 71 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 72 Turns Case – Kills Charitable Desires Taking wealth forcefully kills charitable desires. Rothbard, economist, Austrian School, 04 (Murray Rothbard, economist, Austrian School, 04, Welfare and the Images of Charity, p 465) The mistake, they 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 Rothbard’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} Last printed 72 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 73 Turns Case – Poverty Government intrusions into free markets increase poverty – turns case Miller, Director of the Center for International Trade and Economics at The Heritage Foundation, 09 [Terry, Director of the Center for International Trade and Economics at The Heritage Foundation, editor of the Index of Economic Freedom, Government Intervention: A Threat to Economic Recovery, Heritage.org] Countries that respect these principles of economic freedom do far better on average economically than countries in which governments play a more intrusive role . The countries ranked as most free in the 2009 Index of Economic Freedom had average per capita incomes of over $40,000, more than 10 times the income levels in countries where economic freedoms are repressed. Some criticize the free market system as good for the rich but not for the poor. The data show otherwise. When we compare economic freedom scores with poverty levels as measured in the United Nations Human Poverty Index, we find that countries that gained at least 5 points of economic freedom in the decade between 1997 and 2007 moved almost 6 percent of their populations out of poverty on average. Countries that lost at least 5 points of economic freedom, by contrast, saw poverty levels increase. The same positive trends are evident in connection with social development in areas like education, health, child or maternal mortality, and overall life expectancy, as well as in protection of the environment, where countries that are more economically free do a far better job than their less free counterparts. Given these positive long term trends, and the proven good economic results in countries around the world that respect principles of economic freedom and market-based decision-making, I would submit that the first responsibility of policy makers in leading economies, especially in a time of downturn or crisis, is to preserve the capitalist system and to do no harm. Markets are by and large self-correcting. Government interventions, which are almost always designed to restore or protect the status quo ante, impede the corrective action of the market and thus slow recovery. The record of government interference in the economy, whether in the United States or in countries around the world, is not pretty. The TARP and TALF programs, both initiated under the previous administration, are good examples of the problems of government interference in markets. The policy-makers involved argued that the programs were necessary to avoid an immediate melt-down in financial markets. We cannot, of course, know what would have happened in the programs' absence. However, from the perspective of six months following their passage, we can see that their lasting result has been not the hoped-for increase in stability and lending in credit markets, but rather greater uncertainty and volatility. Markets need sure and stable government laws and policies in order to properly price assets. The TARP, in particular, has created confusion and interfered with the establishment of a market-clearing price for the troubled assets in question. There has been a disappointing lack of transparency in the program's decision-making processes that leaves potential investors uncertain of the direction of the market and therefore unwilling to invest. The TARP may have artificially inflated the value of the troubled assets, but it has done little to get them off the books of the financial institutions. Last printed 73 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 74 Turns Case – Poverty Turns case – only the free market allows for social mobility and poverty alleviation. Norberg, senior fellow at Cato Institute, 03 (Johan Norberg, senior fellow at Cato Institute, 2003, “In defense of global capitalism,” p90) That economic freedom is not an enemy of equality comes as a surprise to everyone who has been told that capitalism is the ideology of the rich and the privileged. In fact, this is precisely backward. The free market is the antithesis of societies of privilege. In a market economy, the only way of holding on to a good economic position is by improving your production and offering people good products or services. It is in the regulated economies, with their distribution of privileges and monopolies to favored groups, that privilege can become entrenched. Those who have the right contacts can afford to pay bribes. Those who have the time and knowledge to plow through bulky volumes of regulations can start up business enterprises and engage in trade. The poor never have a chance, not even of starting small businesses like bakeries or corner shops. In a capitalistic society, all people with ideas and willpower are at liberty to try their luck, even if they are not the favorites of the rulers. Globalization contributes to this tendency because it disturbs power relations and emancipates people from the local potentates. Free trade enables consumers to buy goods and services from a global range of competitors instead of the local monopolists. Free movements of capital enable poor people with good ideas to finance their projects. Freedom of migration means that the village's one and only employer has to offer higher wages and better working conditions in order to attract labor, because otherwise the workers can go elsewhere. Root cause of poverty is government interference and lack of free market. Powell, Secretary of State, 04 (Colin L. Powell, U.S army general, Secretary of State, National Security Advisor, Commander-in-chief, U.S. Army Forces Command, Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, 04, http://www.digitalnpq.org/global_services/global%20viewpoint/01-03-05.html) The root cause of poverty is social injustice and the bad government that abets it. Poverty arises and persists where corruption is endemic and enterprise is stifled, where basic fairness provided by the rule of law is absent. In such circumstances, poverty is an assault against human dignity, and in that assault lies the natural seed of human anger. Last printed 74 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 75 Turns Case – Private Sector Solves K solves the aff – when more people have money it is easier to help the poor through the private sector Erich Weede (Professor of Sociology at the University of Bonn) Winter 2008: Human Rights, Limited Government, and Capitalism. http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj28n1/cj28n1-3.pdf The Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises (1920) recognized that economies need private property in the means of production. Without it, a rational allocation of resources is impossible. That is why Mises ([1927] 2005) predicted already in the 1920s that socialism and planning had to end in failure. In more technical terms this insight has been rediscovered by Chinese economists who point out that private, in contrast to public, enterprises prevent “comparative advantage denying” development strategies (Lin, Cai, and Li 2003).5 When communism expanded into the center of Europe, another Austrian economist, Friedrich Hayek (1945), added that only private property permits decentralized decisionmaking and the mobilization of knowledge that is dispersed across millions of minds and cannot be centralized by a bureaucracy. If the economy is to work, we require private property of one’s capability to work, of useful objects or consumption goods, and of the means of production or factories and land. In other words, we need capitalism and economic freedom for the sake of our material wellbeing. Only in prosperous societies is it even conceivable to provide for the material well-being of the disadvantaged and poor groups of people. As an empiricist who tries to analyze the world as it is rather than as one might like it to be, I claim that a primacy of so-called negative rights, of protective rights against state intervention, is a prerequisite for funding positive rights or entitlements for those who might need them. The primacy of negative rights over positive rights is needed for another reason, too. Entitlements necessarily undermine the willingness to work hard. If one rewards a lack of economic success by transfer payments, but punishes outstanding success by progressive taxes, then one should not be astonished to get less success and more failure because of that policy. K solves the aff – economic growth solves back through the private sector Erich Weede (Professor of Sociology at the University of Bonn) Winter 2008: Human Rights, Limited Government, and Capitalism. http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj28n1/cj28n1-3.pdf As expected, economic growth also contributes to important positive rights, such as reducing child hunger (Jenkins, Scanlan, and Peterson 2007).7 Building on Hayek’s (1960: chap. 2) idea that economic freedom does not only improve the lives of those who enjoy it, but also of those who still aspire to it, and that economically unfree societies can benefit from the economic freedom of others , one can provide a deeper explanation of the “advantages of backwardness” than merely by pointing to the transfer of technology from advanced to less developed economies. As argued earlier, the advanced societies are advanced because they established better institutions and property rights before less developed countries. This institutional head start contributed to technological progress . From this perspective, the Chinese economic miracle beginning with Deng’s reforms could be explained by the increase in economic freedom within China, or “creeping capitalism” as well as by the “advantages of backwardness,” which ultimately rest on earlier progress , economic freedom, and capitalism in the West. Our freedom or the West’s focus on negative rights in the past is among the drivers of Chinese and Asian growth (Weede 2006, 2008). To sum up: One may demonstrate historically and econometrically that limited government and economic freedom contribute to prosperity. Only where the state protects the primacy of negative rights or individual liberty, or where it at least moves in the right direction, as China has done since Deng Xiaoping’s reforms in the late 1970s or India since the early 1990s, can economies stand a chance of becoming prosperous enough so that positive rights or entitlements can be funded. Obviously, unfunded entitlements are worse than useless. Last printed 75 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 76 K solves case – capitalism is anti-Darwin – technologies brought by competition help the poor Gary Galles professor of economics at Pepperdine University 2008: Not just survival; Not just of the fittest. http://mises.org/story/2909#1 The most obvious error of the "survival of the fittest" view of capitalism is that markets — even ones as hindered by regulation, taxation, etc., as they are now — dramatically expand the number of people who are fit enough to survive. The wealth and technology that capitalism creates — e.g., the medical miracles that now routinely save previously "unfit" people — demonstrate that capitalism's benefits are not restricted to the fittest. Capitalism, even when undermined and hampered by government intervention, has no peer when it comes to providing more abundant, and therefore cheaper, goods and services for all. And the less it is hampered, the better it achieves those results, without violating individual liberty. That means that virtually all survive better, making capitalism dramatically anti-Darwinian . Over the past two centuries, roughly six times as many people have been enabled to survive on the earth, with dramatically longer lifespans, as well. As Sheldon Richman summarized it, "If under capitalism only the fit survive, it seems to have a knack for making people fit." In enriching most those who are most productive, capitalism allows the survival of billions of people who would not otherwise have survived. In fact, capitalism gives everyone — particularly the weakest, whom it is accused of harming — the best chance not just to survive but to thrive. One of many ways this is revealed is the vast increases in leisure that markets have made possible, while real incomes dramatically increased at the same time. This could not result from "dog eat dog" competition. Last printed 76 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 77 Turns Case K solves case – competition through Capitalism improves cooperation Gary Galles professor of economics at Pepperdine University 2008: Not just survival; Not just of the fittest. http://mises.org/story/2909#1 Survival-of-the-fittest rhetoric also views competition and cooperation as incompatible alternatives. However, competition in markets is competition to discover whom one can most beneficially cooperate with — information that is unattainable without market competition to reveal it. Market competition, properly understood, is the process of improving social collaboration and the mutual gains it creates, not social warfare. This confusion seems to arise from a too-narrow focus on competition in describing markets. The result is that the true central feature of markets — coordinating voluntary choices — is often overlooked, even though it is the antithesis of the law of jungle. Competition arises whenever people are free to make their own choices, because when there are multiple others with whom they may choose to deal, they can advance their well-being by having them compete for the privilege . And when property rights are enforced, that competition rules out force or fraud, which are rampant in the jungle competition that results where property rights are not enforced. Sheldon Richman puts competition and cooperation in proper perspective: For human beings competition is not the negation of cooperation but a form of it. We know this because when competition is forcibly suppressed, cooperation breaks down and something like the real law of the jungle takes its place. Competition is what arises when people are free to choose with whom to cooperate…. Thus freedom plus cooperation equals competition. Those who would banish competition would also have to banish free cooperation. All that would be left would be forced cooperation, with the state dictating the terms … compulsion. K solves their “give poor people a voice arguments” – government force and coercion silence the poor Gary Galles professor of economics at Pepperdine University 2008: Not just survival; Not just of the fittest. http://mises.org/story/2909#1 If competition is always to be termed as survival of the fittest, then the fact of political competition should be analyzed the same way . But critics of voluntary market arrangements fail to apply those same standards to their "solutions," because to do so would destroy their arguments. Government's only comparative advantage is in the use of coercion, yet coercion is seldom necessary to be more survivable. As Rose Wilder Lane put it, "The need for Government is the need for force; where force is unnecessary, there is no need for government." In this regard, one must only ask who is most fit to survive in the environment of arbitrary government power. Those willing to make the most use of coercive power to reward friends and punish enemies tend to rise to the top, as they can plunder more resources, allowing them to bribe or extort their desired results — always at someone else's expense — while those who are the fittest in markets are those most willing and able to serve others . As Sheldon Richman notes, "The 'fittest' are those who best meet the requirements of the system. When society is controlled by the state, those who are skilled at deceit, treachery, and brutality rise, as Friedrich A. Hayek put it, to the top. In a market society, the skills rewarded are creative attentiveness to consumers — entrepreneurship. In each case, the fittest advance and, at least in relative terms, prosper." The contrast between market and political competition is made clear by Murray Rothbard: "It is precisely statism that is bringing back the rule of the jungle — bringing back conflict, disharmony, caste struggle, conquest and the war of all against all, and general poverty. In place of the peaceful 'struggle' of competition in mutual service, statism substitutes … the death-struggle of Social Darwinist competition for political privilege and for limited subsistence." Last printed 77 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 78 Property Rights Key The exercise of property rights free from government intrusion is key to all other rights. Branden, psychotherapist, author, teacher, 94 (Nathaniel Braden, psychotherapist, author, teacher, January 1995, “Individualism and the Free Society, Part 1”, http://www.fff.org/freedom/0195d.asp) [PDM] Force, governmental coercion, is the instrument by which the ethics of altruism — the belief that the individual exists to serve others — is translated into political reality. Although this issue has not been traditionally discussed in the terms in which I am discussing it here, the moral-political concept that forbids the initiation of force, and stands as the guardian and protector of the individual's life, freedom, and property, is the concept of rights. If life on earth is the standard, an individual has a right to live and pursue values as survival requires; a right to think and act on his or her judgment — the right of liberty; a right to work for the achievement of his or her values and to keep the results — the right of property; a right to live for his or her sake, to choose and work for personal goals — the right to the pursuit of happiness. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. We must be free to use that which we have produced, or we do not possess the right of liberty. We must be free to make the products of our work serve our chosen goals, or we do not possess the right to the pursuit of happiness. And — since we are not ghosts who exist in some nonmaterial manner — we must be free to keep and consume the products of our work or we do not possess the right of life. In a society where human beings are not free to own privately the material means of production, their position is that of slaves whose lives are at the absolute mercy of their rulers. It is relevant here to remember the statement of Trotsky: "Who does not obey shall not eat." In a political-economic context, freedom means one thing and one thing only: freedom from physical compulsion. There is nothing that can deprive us of our freedom except other persons — and no means by which they can do it except through the use of force. It is only by the initiation of force (or fraud which is an indirect form of force) that our rights can be violated. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Last printed 78 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 79 AT: Util Utilitarianism doesn’t trump the impact of coercion—individuals can’t be reduced to units of value. Machan, 95 Professor of philosophy, Auburn University, 1995 (Tibor, PRIVATE RIGHTS AND PUBLIC ILLUSIONS, 1995, p. 129) The essential point to note at this juncture is how the idea of the worth and rights of the individual simply cannot find a place in the standard utilitarian cost-benefit analysis favored by many economists. Benefits, according to this approach, are to be measured by what people prefer (or would prefer, if properly informed), while costs are reducible to what people would prefer to do without or avoid if they were properly informed. The kind of value (or worth) individuals have, however, is not just one benefit competing among other benefits...Consider the case where some people are injured or harmed by others. "Since the costs of injury are borne by its victims," Kelman contends, "while its benefits are escaped by its perpetrators, simple cost-benefit calculations may be less important than more abstract conceptions of justice, fairness, and human dignity. Developing this theme more fully, Kelman writes as follows: We would not condone a rape even if it could be demonstrated that the rapist derived enormous pleasure from his actions, while the victim suffered in only small ways. Behind the conception of "rights" is the notion that some concept of justice, fairness or human dignity demands that individuals ought to be able to perform certain acts, despite the harm of others, and ought to be protected against certain acts, despite the loss this causes to the would-be perpetrator. Thus we undertake no cost-benefit analysis of the effects of freedom of speech or trial by jury before allowing them to continue. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ The sacrifice of innocents degrades humanity-- it is an absolute wrong. Anscombe, 93 Professor of Philosophy, Cambridge University, Absolutism and Its Consequentialist Critics, edited by Joram Graf Haber, p. 51-52. Common morality is outraged by the consequentialist position that, as long as human beings can remain alive, the lesser of two evils is always to be chosen. Its defenders maintain, on the contrary, that there are minimum conditions for a life worthy of a human being, and that nobody may purchase anything- not even the lives of a whole community- by sacrificing those conditions. A community that surrenders its members at the whims of tyrants ceases to be anything properly called by that name; and individuals willing to accept benefits at the price of crimes committed upon other individuals degrade their humanity. Common morality allows a certain room for compliance with tyrannical external force, when resistance has become impossible; but there is a line that must be drawn beyond which compliance is excluded, and the example of rabbinic teaching is a guide drawing it. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Last printed 79 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 80 Internal Link Magnifier Every justification for coercion, no matter how legitimate, conditions us to accept further limitations on our liberty. Machan, Research Fellow @ Hoover Institution, Prof. Emeritus Dep. Philosophy at Auburn U, 02 (TIbor R. Machan, Research Fellow @ Hoover Institution, Prof. Emeritus Dep. Philosophy at Auburn U, 2002, Liberty and Hard Cases, pp. xvii-xix) We are not unfamiliar with the hazards of the slippery slope in our own personal lives. If a man hits his child in some alleged emergency, the very act of doing so may render him more amenable to smacking the kid under more typical circumstances. Slapping someone who is hysterical may make it easier to slap someone who is only very upset or recalcitrant or annoying or just too slow fetching the beer from the refrigerator. Similarly, a “minor” breach of trust can beget more of the same, a little white lie here and there can beget lying as a routine, and so forth. Moral habits promote a principled course of action even in cases where bending or breaking the principle might not seem too harmful to other parties or to our own integrity. On the other hand, granting ourselves “reasonable” exceptions tends to weaken our moral habits; as we seek to rationalize past action, differences of kind tend to devolve into differences of degree. Each new exception provides the precedent for the next, until we lose our principles altogether and doing what is right becomes a matter of happenstance and mood rather than of loyalty to enduring values. The same is true of public action. When citizens of a country delegate to government , by means of democratic and judicial processes, the power to forge paternalistic public policies such as banning drug abuse, imposing censorship, restraining undesirable trade, and supporting desirable trade, the bureaucratic and police actions increasingly rely on the kind of violence and intrusiveness that no free citizenry ought to experience or foster. And the bureaucrats and the police tell themselves, no doubt, that what they’re doing is perfectly just and right. Consider, for starters, that when no one complains about a crime—because it is not perpetrated against someone but rather involves breaking a paternalistic law—to even detect the “crime” requires methods that are usually invasive. Instead of charges being brought by wronged parties, phone tapping, snooping, anonymous reporting, and undercover work are among the dubious means that lead to prosecution. Thus the role of the police shifts from protection and peacekeeping to supervision, regimentation, and reprimand. No wonder, then, that officers of the law are often caught brutalizing suspects instead of merely apprehending them. Under a paternalistic regime, their goals have multiplied, and thus the means they see as necessary to achieving those goals multiply too. The same general danger of corrupting a free society’s system of laws may arise when government is called on to deal with calamities. There is the perception, of course, that in such circumstances the superior powers of government are indispensable, given the immediateness of the danger. The immediate benefits— a life saved by a marine—are evident. Yet the dangers of extensive involvement by legal authorities in the handling of nonjudicial problems are no less evident, if less immediate in impact. Last printed 80 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 81 Link Magnifier - Snowballs Coercive efforts fail and snowball into massive atrocities – every invasion of liberty must be forcefully rejected. Harry Browne, former Libertarian presidential candidate, executive director of public policy at American Liberty Foundation, editor of Liberty Magazine, financial advisor and economist, 1995, Why Government Doesn’t Work, p. 66-7 Their better world never materializes because it depends upon coercion to succeed . And coercion never improves society. So government is always promising to do something that’s impossible — such as coercing people to stop taking drugs or abandon their prejudices. When the coercion doesn’t work, the politicians must impose harsher and harsher measures in order to show they’re “serious” about the problem and, inevitably, we come to the abuses we saw in the preceding chapter — such as property seizures and “no-knock” invasions of your home. These aren’t legal mistakes in need of reform. They are the inevitable result of asking government to use coercion to create a better world. Escalation Each increase in coercion is easier to justify. If it’s right to force banks to report your finances to the government, then it’s right to force you to justify the cash in your pocket at the airport. If it’s right to take property from the rich to give to the poor, then it’s right to take your property for the salt marsh harvest mouse. As each government program fails, it becomes “necessary” to move another step closer to complete control over our lives . As one thing leads to another — as coercion leads to more coercion — what can we look forward to? • Will it become necessary to force you to justify everything you do to any government agent who thinks you might be a threat to society? • Will it become necessary to force your children to report your personal habits to their teachers or the police? • Will it become necessary to force your neighbors to monitor your activities? • Will it become necessary to force you to attend a reeducation program to learn how to be more sensitive, or how not to discriminate, or how to avoid being lured into taking drugs, or how to recognize suspicious behavior? • Will it become necessary to prohibit some of your favorite foods and ban other pleasures, so you don’t fall ill or have an accident putting a burden on America’s health-care system? Some of these things — such as getting children to snitch on their parents or ordering people into reeducation programs — already are happening in America. The others have been proposed and are being considered seriously. History has shown that each was an important step in the evolution of the world’s worst tyrannies. Last printed 81 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 82 Internal Link Magnifier—Specific to Poverty Using state based incentives to solve public harms creates a perpetual cycle Hazlitt, founding board member of the Mises Institute, 07 (Henry Hazlitt, founding board member of Mises Institute, 2007 “Can the State Reduce Poverty?” http://www.mises.org/story/2526) From the beginning of history, sincere reformers as well as demagogues have sought to abolish or at least to alleviate poverty through state action. In most cases their proposed remedies have only served to make the problem worse. The most frequent and popular of these proposed remedies has been the simple one of seizing from the rich to give to the poor. This remedy has taken a thousand different forms, but they all come down to this. The wealth is to be "shared," to be "redistributed," to be "equalized." In fact, in the minds of many reformers it is not poverty that is the chief evil but inequality. All schemes for redistributing or equalizing incomes or wealth must undermine or destroy incentives at both ends of the economic scale. They must reduce or abolish the incentives of the unskilled or shiftless to improve their condition by their own efforts; and even the able and industrious will see little point in earning anything beyond what they are allowed to keep . These redistribution schemes must inevitably reduce the size of the pie to be redistributed. They can only level down. Their long-run effect must be to reduce production and lead toward national impoverishment. The problem we face is that the false remedies for poverty are almost infinite in number. An attempt at a thorough refutation of any single one of them would run to disproportionate length. But some of these false remedies are so widely regarded as real cures or mitigations of poverty that if I do not refer to them I may be accused of having undertaken a book on the remedies for poverty while ignoring some of the most obvious. Last printed 82 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 83 Rights outweigh Extinction (1/3) Placing survival over individual autonomy replicates authoritarian regimes of control, subjugating individual rights to the values held by those in power Schroeder, Prof. Law, Duke, 86 (Christopher H. Schroeder, Prof. Law, Duke,1986, “Rights Against Risks,” 86 Colum. L. Rev. 495) Actually, expanding the idea of preservation to include bodily integrity on the basis of quality of life considerations has already pointed the way to a more realistic statement of those individual characteristics worth protecting. The same considerations of quality of life counsel recognizing some freedom of action and initiative within the definition of the morally relevant aspects of the individual. Doing so is consistent with a long political and philosophical heritage. 90 Deeply ingrained in practically all theories of the rights tradition is the vision of a person as capable of forming and entitled to pursue some individual life plan. 91 Given this vision, placing survival or bodily integrity absolutely above all other ends would be tantamount to saying that the life plan that one ought to adopt is that of prolonging life at all costs. That idea is unacceptably authoritarian and regimented. It would be extremely anomalous for a theory supposedly centered on the autonomy of the individual to result in a conception of justice that constrained all individuals to a monolithic result. Individual human beings want more from their lives than simple [*520] bodily integrity, and the conception of an individual, of what defines and constitutes a person, as so limited is peculiarly impoverished. Individuals are capable of formulating and pursuing life plans, of forming bonds of love, commitment, and friendship on which they subsequently act, of conceiving images of self- and community-improvement. Some of these may directly advance interests in human survival, as when dedicated doctors and scientists pursue solutions to cancer or develop chemical pesticides with a view to assisting agricultural self-sufficiency in developing countries. Some may dramatically advance the "quality of life," rather than survival itself, as when Guttenberg's press made literature more widely available or when Henry Ford pioneered the mass production of the automobile. However, even individual initiatives of much less demonstrable impact on the lives of others constitute a vital element that makes human life distinctively human. A just society ought to understand and value this element both in the concrete results it sometimes produces and in the freedom and integrity that are acknowledged when individual liberty to conceive and act upon initiative is respected. Violation of freedom negates the value of human existence and represents the greatest threat to human survival Rand, Philosopher, 89 (Ayn Rand, Objectivist Philosopher, 07-1989, The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism, p. 145) A society that robs an individual of the product of his effort, or enslaves him, or attempts to limit the freedom of his mind, or compels him to act against his own rational judgment, a society that sets up a conflict between it’s ethics and the requirements of man’s nature – is not, strictly speaking, a society, but a mob held together by institutionalized gang-rule. Such a society destroys all values of human coexistence, has no possible justification, and represents, not a source of benefits, but the deadliest threat to man’s survival. Life on desert island is safer than and incomparably preferable than existence in Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany. Last printed 83 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 84 Rights Outweigh Extinction (2/3) Violating rights in the name of survival causes social paralysis and destroys the value to life. Callahan, institute of Society and Ethics, 73 (Daniel Callahan, institute of Society and Ethics, 1973, The Tyranny of Survival, pp. 91-93) The value of survival could not be so readily abused were it not for its evocative power. But abused it has been. In the name of survival, all manner of social and political evils have been committed against the rights of individuals, including the right to life. The purported threat of Communist domination has for over two decades fueled the drive of militarists for ever-larger defense budgets, no matter what the cost to other social needs. During World War II, native Japanese-Americans were herded, without due process of law, to detention camps. This policy was later upheld by the Supreme Court in Korematsu v. United States (1944) in the general context that a threat to national security can justify acts otherwise blatantly unjustifiable. The survival of the Aryan race was one of the official legitimations of Nazism. Under the banner of survival, the government of South Africa imposes a ruthless apartheid, heedless of the most elementary human rights. The Vietnamese war has seen one of the greatest of the many absurdities tolerated in the name of survival: the destruction of villages in order to save them. But it is not only in a political setting that survival has been evoked as a final and unarguable value. The main rationale B. F. Skinner offers in Beyond Freedom and Dignity for the controlled and conditioned society is the need for survival. For Jacques Monod, in Chance and Necessity, survival requires that we overthrow almost every known religious, ethical and political system. In genetics, the survival of the gene pool has been put forward as sufficient grounds for a forceful prohibition of bearers of offensive genetic traits from marrying and bearing children. Some have even suggested that we do the cause of survival no good by our misguided medical efforts to find means by which those suffering from such common genetically based diseases as diabetes can live a normal life, and thus procreate even more diabetics. In the field of population and environment, one can do no better than to cite Paul Ehrlich, whose works have shown a high dedication to survival, and in its holy name a willingness to contemplate governmentally enforced abortions and a denial of food to surviving populations of nations which have not enacted population-control policies. For all these reasons it is possible to There seems to be no imaginable evil which some group is not willing to inflict on another for sake of survival, no rights, liberties or dignities which it is not ready to suppress. It is easy, of course, to recognize the danger when survival is falsely and manipulatively invoked. Dictators never talk about their aggressions, but only about the need to defend the fatherland to save it from destruction at the hands of its enemies. But my point goes deeper than that. It is directed even at a counterpoise over against the need for survival a "tyranny of survival." legitimate concern for survival, when that concern is allowed to reach an intensity which would ignore, suppress or destroy other fundamental human rights and values. The potential tyranny survival as value is that it is capable, if not treated sanely, of wiping out all other values. Survival can become an obsession and a disease, provoking a destructive singlemindedness that will stop at nothing. We come here to the fundamental moral dilemma. If, both biologically and psychologically, the need for survival is basic to man, and if survival is the precondition for any and all human achievements, and if no other rights make much sense without the premise of a right to life—then how will it be possible to honor and act upon the need for survival without, in the process, if the price of survival is human degradation, then there is no moral reason why an effort should be made to ensure that survival. It would destroying everything in human beings which makes them worthy of survival. To put it more strongly, be the Pyrrhic victory to end all Pyrrhic victories. Last printed 84 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 85 Rights Outweigh Extinction (3/3) It is impossible for policymakers to know future consequences – allowing more rights violations will justify worse consequences in the future. Journal of Contemporary Health Law & Policy, 01 (Journal of Contemporary Health Law & Policy, Winter 2001, 18 J. Contemp. Health L. & Pol’y 95, p. 117) The utilitarian principle justifies intentional, harmful acts against other humans to achieve a hoped-for benefit to a greater number of people. It is the wrong approach to public policy decisions. Its most notable proponents have been responsible for much of the misery and strife of the last century. Experience has taught us time and again that public servants, even when crafting policies that appear wholly beneficent, can cause great harm (the so-called "law of unintended consequences"). Humans lack the wisdom and foresight to completely understand the future ramifications of many actions. A father, for example, may believe that it is an entirely good thing to help his daughter with homework every day because they are spending time together and he is showing sincere interest in her life and schooling. By "helping" with homework, however, his daughter may be denied the mental struggle of searching for solutions on her own. She may not develop the mental skills to solve tough math problems, for example, or to quickly find key concepts in reading selections. If even "good" actions can produce undesirable results, how much worse is the case when evil is tolerated in the name of some conjectural, future outcome? Last printed 85 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 86 AT: Impact Calculus Collective safety is no justification for rights violations—leads to slavery, genocide, and wars. Rand, Objectivist Philosopher, 40 (Ayn Rand, Objectivist Philosopher, 1940, “To All Innocent Columnists,” The Journals of Ayn Rand, p. 351) They preach "Democracy" and then make a little addition—"Economic Democracy" or a "Broader Democracy" or a "True Democracy," and demand that we turn all property over to the Government; "all property" means also "all rights"; let everybody hold all rights together—and nobody have any right of any kind individually. Is that Democracy or is it Totalitarianism? You know of a prominent woman commentator who wants us all to die for Democracy—and then defines "true" Democracy as State Socialism [probably a reference to Dorothy Thompson]. You have heard Secretary [Harold] Ickes define a "true" freedom of the press as the freedom to express the views of the majority. You have read in a highly respectable national monthly the claim that the Bill of Rights, as taught in our schools, is "selfish"; that a "true" Bill of Rights means not demanding any rights for yourself, but your giving these rights to "others." God help us, fellow-Americans, are we blind? Do you see what this means? Do you see the implications? And this is the picture wherever you look. They "oppose" Totalitarianism and they "defend" Democracy —by preaching their own version of Totalitarianism, some form of "collective good," "collective rights," "collective will," etc. And the one thing which is never said, never preached, never upheld in our public life, the one thing all these "defenders of Democracy" hate, denounce and tear down subtly, gradually, systematically—is the principle of Individual Rights, Individual Freedom, Individual Value. That is the principle against which the present great world conspiracy is directed. That is the heart of the whole world question. That is the only opposite of Totalitarianism and our only defense against it. Drop that—and what difference will it make what name you give to the resulting society? It will be Totalitarianism—and all Totalitarianisms are alike, all come to the same methods, the same slavery, the same bloodshed, the same horrors, no matter what noble slogan they start under, as witness Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany. Last printed 86 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 87 AT: Util Solves Rights (1/2) Util fails to protect moral rights – it silences rights claims when not grounded in law. Byrnes, JD U Arizona, 99 (Erin Byrnes, JD U Arizona, 1999, “Therapeutic Jurisprudence: Unmasking White Privelege to Expose the Fallacy of White Innocense,” 41 Ariz. L. Rev. 535) Utilitarianism conceives of rights as being cognizable only when they are legally recognized. 236 To the utilitarian, there is no such thing as a moral right because it is not socially recognized . 237 The utilitarian rejection of moral rights can be fatal to affirmative action. Rights in utilitarian rhetoric are synonymous with the idea of a valid claim to act. 238 Put differently, one can be said to hold a valid claim when, and only when, that claim is grounded in a legally or socially recognized right. This normative theory of rights further posits that the exercise of rights is not dependent upon a duty incumbent upon others to acknowledge or respect that right. 239 This is clearly problematic when applied to calls for affirmative action. Instead of conceiving of rights as corresponding with a duty, the utilitarian thinks of rights in terms of "immunity rights," which have a corresponding concept of a "disability." 240 This too is a foreboding concept because affirmative action programs often involve affirmative guarantees, versus a simple right to be free from discrimination. An example of an immunity right is the right to free speech. The right to free speech exists independently of an obligation upon others not to interfere with an individual's right to exercise free speech. 241 The corresponding disability operates upon Congress. The disability prohibits Congress from enacting certain laws abridging the individual's right to free speech, but does not extend so far as to require the passage of legislation which would affirmatively protect or guarantee the immunity right. 242 The immunity right, then, is one that merely involves a freedom from outside interference, a sort of negative right, as opposed to being a right that is affirmatively protected through the imposition of an obligation upon others to honor the right. The distinction made between moral and legal rights, Utilitarianism squarely rejects the recognition of moral rights because moral rights must be understood in terms of a corresponding beneficial obligation. 243 A moral conception of rights dictates that a right is held by an individual "if and only if one is supposed to benefit from another person's compliance with a coercive...rule." 244 Utilitarianism must necessarily reject a conception of rights grounded in morality because the utilitarian doctrine is diametrically opposed to the notion that rights correspond with duties. [*563] Furthermore, utilitarianism renounces moral rights precisely because they exist independent of social recognition or enforcement. 245 Moral rights "are independent of particular circumstances and do not depend on any special conditions," encompassing the distinction between a disability and a duty, is central to the utilitarian argument. 246 like legal affirmation. Thus, moral rights cannot be accepted by the utilitarian because they lack the normative grounding fundamental to utilitarian Utilitarians, therefore, assume that there is a clear delineation between moral rights and the pursuit for overall human welfare, the central tenet of utilitarian doctrine. theory. Last printed 87 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 88 AT: Util Solves Rights (2/2) Utilitarianism fundamentally fails to protect individual rights – “greatest good” claims simply conflict. Byrnes, JD U Arizona, 99 (Erin Byrnes, JD U Arizona, 1999, “Therapeutic Jurisprudence: Unmasking White Privelege to Expose the Fallacy of White Innocense,” 41 Ariz. L. Rev. 535) Moral rights are objectionable not only because they lack social recognition but also because they necessarily imply a correlation between rights and utilitarianism's specific rejection of the tie between rights and duties renders recognition of white privilege nearly impossible. Without this recognition, there can be no meaningful solution. 247 If duties. Again, accepted, moral rights would provide the grounds for the appraisal of law and other social institutions, a system of appraisal antithetical to utilitarianism's rubric of assessment. Moral rights carry with them the expectation that institutions will be erected with an eye towards respect and furtherance of such rights. 248 Such a proposition would certainly require more than just striving towards color-blindness were it applied to affirmative action. Utilitarianism, however, requires that institutions and rights be evaluated solely with respect to the promotion of human welfare, welfare being the satisfaction of overall citizen desires. 249 The assumption, implicit in the foregoing argument, is that moral rights neither fit perfectly nor converge with legal rights. 250 This may not necessarily be the case. David Lyons' "theory of moral rights exclusion" discusses the way in which utilitarians conceive of moral rights working at odds with the utilitarian goal. 251 Lyons' theory describes the way in which a moral right, at some point, gains enough currency to warrant individual exercise of that right. According to Lyons, when a moral right has reached this point, it has achieved the "argumentative threshold" and gains normative force. 252 The potential for this occurrence is precisely what leads to the utilitarian rejection of moral rights. Rejection is predicated on the fact that once the argumentative threshold is Under a system which recognized moral rights, but still organized itself according to the utilitarian goal of achieving human welfare (which is happiness), individual rights would purportedly run headlong into the pursuit of welfare. 254 Though the pursuit of welfare would be deemed morally relevant and would justify a course of action on welfare's behalf , in a scenario where that course of action constituted a mere "minimal increment of utility," it would be incapable of overcoming the argumentative threshold of rights. 255 Thus, the argument is that the recognition of moral rights is diametrically opposed to utilitarianism because in a moral rights regime, rights act as a limitation upon the utilitarian goal of fulfilling as many individual desires as possible. reached, a presumption is created against interference upon the individual exercise [*564] of the right. 253 Last printed 88 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 89 AT: Utilitarianism—Calculation DA Utilitarianism reduces individuals to their mere utility value, making them expendable Schroeder, Prof. Law, Duke, 86 (Christopher H. Schroeder, Prof. Law, Duke,1986, “Rights Against Risks,” 86 Colum. L. Rev. 495) The anxiety to preserve some fundamental place for the individual that cannot be overrun by larger social considerations underlies what H.L.A. Hart has aptly termed the "distinctively modern criticism of utilitarianism," 58 the criticism that, despite its famous slogan, "everyone [is] to count for one," 59 utilitarianism ultimately denies each individual a primary place in its system of values . Various versions of utilitarianism evaluate actions by the consequences of those actions to maximize happiness, the net of pleasure over pain, or the satisfaction of desires. 60 Whatever the specific formulation, the goal of maximizing some measure of utility obscures and diminishes the status of each individual. It reduces the individual to a conduit, a reference point that registers the appropriate "utiles," but does not count for anything independent of his monitoring function. 61 It also produces moral requirements that can trample an individual, if necessary, to maximize utility, since once the net effects of a proposal on the maximand have been taken into account, the individual is expendable. Counting pleasure and pain equally across individuals is a laudable proposal, but counting only pleasure and pain permits the grossest inequities among individuals and the [*509] trampling of the few in furtherance of the utility of the many. In sum, utilitarianism makes the status of any individual radically contingent. The individual's status will be preserved only so long as that status contributes to increasing total utility. Otherwise, the individual can be discarded. Calculation of human life leads to no value to life and the zero point of the holocaust Dillon, Prof. Politics U-Lancaster, 99 (Michael Dillon, Prof. Politics U-Lancaster, 04-1999, Political Theory, vol. 27, no. 2, p. 165) Economies of evaluation necessarily require calculability. Thus no valuation without mensuration and no mensuration without indexation. Once rendered calculable, however, units of account are necessarily submissible not only to valuation but also, of course, to devaluation. Devaluation, logically, can extend to the point of counting as nothing. Hence, no mensuration without demensuration either. There is nothing abstract about this: the declension of economies of value leads to the zero point of holocaust. However liberating and emancipating systems of valuerights-may claim to be, for example, they run the risk of counting out the invaluable. Counted out, the invaluable may then lose its purchase on life. Herewith, then, the necessity of championing the invaluable itself. For we must never forget that, "we are dealing always with whatever exceeds measure." But how does that necessity present itself? Another Justice answers: as the surplus of the duty to answer to the claim of Justice over rights. That duty, as with the advent of another Justice, is integral to the lack constitutive of the human way of being. Last printed 89 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 90 Morality – Key to Prevent Extinction Surrendering ourselves to the state justifies nuclear annihilation. Beres, 94 (Louis Rene, Professor of International Law in the Department of Political Science at Purdue University, spring, Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, Lexis) This, then, is an altogether different kind of understanding. Rather than rescue humankind by freeing individuals from fear of death, this perspective recommends educating people to the truth of an incontestable relationship between death and geopolitics. By surrendering ourselves to States and to traditional views of self-determination, we encourage not immortality but premature and predictable extinction. It is a relationship that can, and must, be more widely understood. There are great ironies involved. Although the corrosive calculus of geopolitics has now made possible the deliberate killing of all life, populations all over the planet turn increasingly to States for security. It is the dreadful ingenuity of States that makes possible death in the billions , but it is in the [*24] expressions of that ingenuity that people seek safety. Indeed, as the threat of nuclear annihilation looms even after the Cold War, 71 the citizens of conflicting States reaffirm their segmented loyalties, moved by the persistent unreason that is, after all, the most indelible badge of modern humankind. Last printed 90 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 91 Morality – Must Reject Every invasion of liberty must be rejected – failure to do so leads to massive atrocities. Harry Browne, former Libertarian presidential candidate, executive director of public policy at American Liberty Foundation, editor of Liberty Magazine, financial advisor and economist, 1995, Why Government Doesn’t Work) 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.37 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.38 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 Last printed 91 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 92 Morality – Key to V2L Moral framing of property and self-ownership is the only ethical system that ensures value to life. Feser, Loyola Marymount Philosophy Professor, 04 <Edward, On Nozick, pg 36-37> In addition to this Kantian principle, however, Nozick appeals to another idea which has a long history in libertarian thought and which many commentators (e.g. Cohen 1995, 67; Wolff 1991, 7-8) take to be the more fundamental element of Nozick’s system. This is the thesis of self-ownership, the notion that each individual human being has complete and absolute ownership of (themselves) himself -- of his body, talents, abilities, and labor (Nozick 1974, 171-172). Or as John Locke, an early proponent of the thesis, put it: “Every man has a property in his own person; this nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his body and the work of his hands we may say are properly his” (1963). You are, that is to say, your own property; you own yourself. Probably for most people, this principle will seem just intuitively correct. But for anyone who doubts it, the main argument given in its defense is that unless we assume the truth of the thesis of self ownership, we have no way of explaining the immorality of many practices we all consider clearly immoral . Take slavery, for example. It is almost universally acknowledged nowadays that slavery is a very great evil. But why is it, exactly? It cannot merely be for the reason that slaves are often treated badly. For slaves are sometimes treated very well by their masters, even forming bonds of affection with them; yet surely, it is still seriously wrong for even a “kindhearted” master to keep a slave. The only way to explain why his is so is that in making someone a slave, a slave owner simply violates the slave’s property rights in himself: No one else can properly own you, because you already own yourself, and a slave owner is in effect stealing from you. Last printed 92 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 93 Morality A libertarian ethic captures your offense because individuals are free to create whatever system they choose – this is impossible under a coercive government. Feser, Loyola Marymount Philosophy Professor, 04 <Edward, On Nozick, pg 92-93> Some individuals within the context of a minimal state may want to do this, of course, and opt to participate, say, in a community that seeks to emulate the freewheeling entrepreneurs of Gait’s Gulch in Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged But others may prefer to set up a socialist society or a hippie commune, while yet others opt instead for a morally austere Puritan commonwealth or Buddhist sangha or Muslim umma. In a sense, then, libertarianism doesn’t even require that people accept the minimal state as the optimal political system ! For people are free to set up, within its boundaries, quasi-states of whatever size and degree of intervention in people’s lives they wish, provided that people are allowed voluntarily either to submit themselves, or refuse to submit, to such more-thanminimal quasistates. All of these societies will be possible within the larger, encompassing framework of the libertarian minimal state. The beauty of the minimal state is that it doesn’t require these differences to be settled. Every individual and group is free to set up whatever arrangements it likes, so long as they do not force everyone else to go along. And this includes non-libertarians. It is usually thought that libertarianism itself requires that everyone live according to a laissez faire capitalist ethos, but that isn’t so . Some individuals within the context of a minimal state may want to do this, of course, and opt to participate, say, in a community that seeks to emulate the freewheeling entrepreneurs of Gait’s Gulch in Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged But others may prefer to set up a socialist society or a hippie commune, while yet others opt instead for a morally austere Puritan commonwealth or Buddhist sangha or Muslim umma. In a sense, then, libertarianism doesn’t even require that people accept the minimal state as the optimal political system! For people are free to set up, within its boundaries, quasi-states of whatever size and degree of intervention in people’s lives they wish, provided that people are allowed voluntarily either to submit themselves, or refuse to submit, to such more-than- minimal quasi-states. All of these societies will be possible within the larger, encompassing framework of the libertarian minimal state. The teachings of the Church, then they can set up their community too, and no one can stop them. Each community can preach to the members of the other if the others are willing to listen, and try to convince them to defect; but they cannot coerce members of the other group to give up their preferred ways, nor can they force members of the other group to support the propagation of their own views. B can’t force members of A to go to Sunday school or to fund the distribution of Bibles; A can’t force the members of B to send their employees to multicultural sensitivity training or to fund the distribution of condoms. True tolerance is a two-way street it requires those who claim to be “tolerant” and “open-minded” not to force others to be; it leaves open the possibility that what some people consider tolerance and open- mindedness, other people have a right to regard as a collapse of ethical and intellectual standards. Some critics of Nozick acknowledge the attractiveness of this proposal, but suggest that it isn’t as fair to all points of view as it sounds: For wouldn’t members of a socialist society constantly be tempted to flee to a neighboring capitalist society, with its greater individual wealth? Wouldn’t people who decide to give up such a life (and thus sell their communally held land) find it difficult to come back to it (due to a rise in land prices) should they change their minds yet again? (Wolff 1991, 135). But surely this sort of objection is rather pathetic - a complaint to the effect that “If we let everyone choose what sort of utopia they’d like to live in, they might not choose the way I’d like them to!” But so what? (Presumably purveyors of Nazi and Communist “utopias” would find it difficult to attract many Jews or “bloodsucking capitalists” to enter into their villages and voluntarily agree to be liquidated. Should we feel sorry for them on that account?) Why should we expect that every utopian experiment will be able to get off the ground? No political philosophy could guarantee that. But libertarianism at least allows everyone to try to attract people to participate in their utopian experiments . It allows even the socialist and liberal egalitarian to make a go of their proposals. By contrast, the socialist or liberal would forbid laissez faire capitalists even the chance to do this. Last printed 93 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 94 Libertarianism Key To Morality Libertarianism is the only moral system – humans are rational and dependent on self-ownership. Edward Feser, philosophy professor, Loyola, ON NOZICK, 2004, p. 50. Other libertarian theorists take other aspects of the moral life and of human nature, understood in more or less Aristotelian terms, to call forth a distinctly libertarian account of rights. Ayn Rand, for instance. argued that the reality of natural rights, and in particular the possibility of forming rights to the resources one needs in order to live, is a precondition for the very survival of man as a rational animal (1964). (Nozick, incidentally, rejected this specifically Randian approach to defending natural rights, though Den Uyl and Rasmussen have challenged his objections. See the essays by Nozick, Den Uyl and Rasmussen in Paul 1981.) Murray Rothbard and Hans-Hermann Hoppe argue that the right of self-ownership is presupposed in the very use of one’s body to act within the world, and in particular in the use of one’s rational faculties and body parts (e.g. one’s mouth) in argumentation, so that one cannot so much as try to argue against self- ownership without falling into a pragmatic self-contradiction. Loren Lomasky (whose position is not precisely an Aristotelian one though it shares a certain family resemblance to such an approach) focuses on the fact that human beings are “project pursuers,” who for the successful execution of their often radically diverse projects require the sort of autonomy guaranteed by libertarian rights. All these accounts, however, have in common the notion that the existence of the rights of self-ownership follows from deeper moral facts that are themselves determined by objective human nature. Last printed 94 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 95 Framework – Rejection Key Radical framing of libertarian politics is key: Relentless attack of state policies is the only way to usher in a capitalist utopia. Rothbard, Dean of Austrian School, Head of Mises Institute, 73 <Murray N., For A New Liberty, The Libertarian Manifesto, http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp#p263> Libertarians favor the abolition of all States everywhere, and the provision of legitimate functions now supplied poorly by governments (police, courts, etc.) by means of the free market. Libertarians favor liberty as a natural human right, and advocate it not only for Americans but for all peoples. In a purely libertarian world, therefore, there would be no "foreign policy" because there would be no States, no governments with a monopoly of coercion over particular territorial areas. But since we live in a Limiting Government world of nation-states, and since this system is hardly likely to disappear in the near future, what is the attitude of libertarians toward foreign policy in the current State-ridden world? [p. 265] Pending the dissolution of States, libertarians desire to limit, to whittle down, the area of government power in all directions and as much as possible. We have already demonstrated how this principle of "de-statizing" might work in various important "domestic" problems, where the goal is to push back the role of government and to allow the voluntary and spontaneous energies of free persons full scope through peaceful interaction, notably in the free-market economy. In foreign affairs, the goal is the same: to keep government from interfering in the affairs of other governments or other countries. Political "isolationism" and peaceful coexistence — refraining from acting upon other countries — is, then, the libertarian counterpart to agitating for laissez-faire policies at home. The idea is to shackle government from acting abroad just as we try to shackle government at home. Isolationism or peaceful coexistence is the foreign policy counterpart of severely limiting government at home. Last printed 95 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 96 A2: Altruism Altruism, even in the context of social services, is immoral. Freedom is a prerequisite to helping people meet basic needs. Kelley, founder and senior fellow of the Atlas Society, 91 (David Kelley, founder and senior fellow of the http://www.objectivistcenter.org/showcontent.aspx?ct=1&h=53) Atlas Society, 1991, “Altruism and Capitalism,” What about someone who is poor, disabled, or otherwise unable to support himself? This is a valid question to ask, as long as it is not the first question we ask about a social system . It is a legacy of altruism to think that the primary standard by which to evaluate a society is the way it treats its least productive members. "Blessed are the poor in spirit," said Jesus; "blessed are the meek." But there is no ground in justice for holding the poor or the meek in any special esteem, or regarding their needs as primary. If we had to choose between a collectivist society in which no one is free but no one is hungry, and an individualist society in which everyone is free but a few people starve, I would argue that the second society, the free one, is morally preferable. No one can claim a right to make others serve him [or her] involuntarily, even if his [or her] own life depends on it . But this is not the choice we face. In fact, the poor are much better off under capitalism than under socialism, or even the welfare state. As a matter of historical fact, the societies in which no one is free, like the former Soviet Union, are societies in which large numbers of people go hungry... * edited for gendered language Altruistic policies are coercive. Embracing objectivism is key. Kelley, founder and senior fellow of the Atlas Society, 91 (David Kelley, founder and senior fellow of the http://www.objectivistcenter.org/showcontent.aspx?ct=1&h=53) Atlas Society, 1991, “Altruism and Capitalism,” In questioning the ethics of altruism, I want to do more than simply raise these troubling questions. I want to outline an alternative ethical philosophy, developed by Ayn Rand. It is an individualist ethics, which defends the moral right to pursue one's self-interest. Altruists argue that life presents us with a basic choice: we must either sacrifice others to ourselves, or sacrifice ourselves to others. The latter is the altruist course of action, and the assumption is that the only alternative is life as a predator. But this is a false alternative, according to Rand. Life does not require sacrifices in either direction. The interests of rational people do not conflict, and the pursuit of our genuine self-interest requires that we deal with others by means of peaceful, voluntary exchange.... [hu]Man[kind]'s primary faculty, his [or her] primary means of survival, is his [or her] capacity for reason. It is reason that allows us to live by production, and thus to rise above the precarious level of hunting and gathering. Reason is the basis of language, which makes it possible for us to cooperate and transmit knowledge. Reason is the basis of social institutions governed by abstract rules. In Rand's view, therefore, the purpose of ethics is to provide standards for living in accordance with reason, in the service of our lives .... How then should we deal with others? Rand's social ethics rests on two basic principles , a principle of rights and a principle of justice. The principle of rights says that we must deal with others peaceably, by voluntary exchange , without initiating the use of force against them. It is only in this way that we can live independently, on the basis of our own productive efforts; the person who attempts to live by controlling others is a parasite. Within an organized society, moreover, we must respect the rights of others if we wish our own rights to be respected. And it is only in this way that we can obtain the many benefits that come from social interaction: the benefits of economic and intellectual exchange, as well as the values of more intimate personal relationships. The source of these benefits is the rationality, the productiveness, the individuality of the other person, and these things require freedom to flourish. If I live by force, I attack the root of the values I seek. The principle of justice is what Rand calls the trader principle: living by trade, offering value for value, neither seeking nor granting the unearned. An honorable person does not offer his needs as a claim on others; he [or she] offers value as the basis of any relationship. Nor does he [or she] accept an unchosen obligation to serve the needs of Last printed 96 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 97 A2: Altruism others. No one who values his [or her] own life can accept a open-ended responsibility to be his [or her] brother's keeper, nor would an independent person desire to be kept. The principle of trade, Rand observes, is the only basis on which humans can deal with each other as independent equals. What I have given you is only a brief summary of Rand's ethical philosophy, the "Objectivist ethics," as she calls it. But I think it is enough to indicate that there is an alternative to the traditional ethics of altruism, an alternative that treats the individual as an end in himself [or herself] in the full meaning of that term. The implication of this approach is that capitalism is the only just and moral system. Altruism is immoral and kills value to life. More, founder of Extropy Institute, 86 (Max More, founder of Extropy Institute, 1986, “THE IMPORTANCE OF SELFISHNESS, THE DANGERS OF ALTRUISM,” http://www.thedegree.org/philn004.pdf) But wouldn’t it be a much better world if everyone was unselfish (or altruistic)? Consider the consequences if everyone managed to behave this way. Person A would deny his or her needs and desires, sacrificing his or her own happiness in favour of Person B’s. But B, not wanting to be selfish, could not accept A’s gifts (material or nonmaterial) and would have to pass them on to C. But C, not wanting to be selfish ... Isn’t the outcome clear? If everyone was altruistic and unselfish, they would all lose and none would gain. A moral ideal which, when consistently followed, leads to that result, is plainly unsatisfactory — unless one’s goal is misery and death. But what if not everyone is moral? What if some people do accept what is bestowed on them? If some people allow themselves to gain they enable the rest to be moral . But why is it good to promote the happiness of others but not the happiness of oneself? If it is immmoral for you to keep a value of any kind, why is it moral for another to keep it? Does being good entail serving other people’s vice? The doctrine of altruism, of self-sacrifice, is riddled with contradictions. Morality becomes a system of self-destruction and unhappiness: you can be moral or you can be practical. Not both. You can sacrifice your life and everything it can give you to others and be moral, or you can pursue your happiness, your selfinterest, and be immoral. Mutual self-sacrifice brings mutual resentment, not pleasure. Last printed 97 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 98 A2: Altruism Altruism is based on a flawed theory of a “malevolent universe” and that to obtain happiness is to only do for one’s self. Ayn Rand, 1964 Russian-American novelist, philosopher, playwright, and screenwriter, author of numerous books including Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. The virtue of Selfishness pg 55-56 -=Max Rispoli=- Every code of ethics is based on and derived from a metaphysics, that is: from a theory about the fundamental nature of the universe in which man lives and acts. The altruist ethics is based on a “malevolent universe” metaphysics, on the theory that man, by his very nature, is helpless and doomed- that success, happiness, achievement are impossible to him- that emergencies, disasters, catastrophes are the norm of his life and that his primary goal is to combat them. As the simplest empirical refutation of that metaphysics- as evidence of the fact that the material universe is not inimical to man and that catastrophes are the exception, not the rule of his existenceobserve the fortunes made by insurance companies. Observe also that the advocates of altruism are unable to base their ethics on any facts of men’s normal existence and that they always offer “lifeboat” situations aas example from which to derive the rules of moral conduct (what should you do if you and another man are in a lifeboat that can carry only one? Etc.) The fact is that men do not live in lifeboats- and that a lifeboat is not the place on which to base one’s metaphysics. The moral purpose of a man’s life is the achievement of his own happiness. This does not mean that he is indifferent to all men, that human life is of no value to him and that he has no reason to help others in an emergency. But it does mean that he does not subordinate his life to the welfare of others, that he does not sacrifice himself to their needs, that the relief of their suffering is not his primary concern, that any help he gives is an exception, not a rule, an act of generosity, not of moral duty, that it is marginal and incidental, in the course of human existence- and that values, not disasters, are the goal, the first concern and the motive power of his life. Last printed 98 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 99 Altruism is moral cannibalism- This will create a cycle of violent actions towards others Ayn Rand, 1964 Russian-American novelist, philosopher, playwright, and screenwriter, author of numerous books including Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. The virtue of Selfishness pg 27-28 -=Max Rispoli=- When a "desire," regardless of its nature or cause, is taken as an ethical primary, and the gratification of any and all desires is taken as an ethical goal (such as "the greatest happiness of the greatest number")—men have no choice but to hate, fear and fight one another, because their desires and their interests will necessarily clash. If "desire" is the ethical standard, then one man's desire to produce and another man's desire to rob him have equal ethical validity; one man's desire to be free and another man's desire to enslave him have equal ethical validity; one man's desire to be loved and admired for his virtues and another man's desire for undeserved love and unearned admiration have equal ethical validity. And if the frustration of any desire constitutes a sacrifice, then a man who owns an automobile and is robbed of it, is being sacrificed, but so is the man who wants or "aspires to" an automobile which the owner refuses to give him and these two "sacrifices" have equal ethical status. If so, then man's only choice is to rob or be robbed, to destroy or be destroyed, to sacrifice others to any desire of his own or to sacrifice himself to any desire of others; then man's only ethical alternative is to be a sadist or a masochist. The moral cannibalism of all hedonist and altruist doctrines lies in the premise that the happiness of one man necessitates the injury of another Today, most people hold this premise as an absolute not to be questioned. And when one speaks of man's right to exist for his own sake, for his own rational selfinterest, most people assume automatically that this means his right to sacrifice others. Such an assumption is a confession of their own belief that to injure, enslave, rob or murder others is in man's self-interest—which he must selflessly renounce. The idea that man's self-interest can be served only by a non-sacrificial relationship with others has never occurred to those humanitarian apostles of unselfishness, who proclaim their desire to achieve the brotherhood of men. And it will not occur to them, or to anyone, so long as the concept "rational" is omitted from the context of "values' "desires," "self-interest" and ethics.' The Objectivist ethics proudly advocates and upholds rational selfishness—which means: the values required for man's survival qua man—which means: the values required for human survival not the values produced by the desires, the emotions, the "aspirations," the feelings; the whims or the needs of irrational brutes, who have never outgrown the primordial practice of human sacrifices, have never discovered an industrial society and can conceive of no self-interest but that of grabbing the loot of the moment. The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash—that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, Last printed 99 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 100 A2: Altruism Spreading the wealth for the sake of the poor destroys “civilized society”- Resulting in the destruction of our existence Ayn Rand, 1964 Russian-American novelist, philosopher, playwright, and screenwriter, author of numerous books including Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. The virtue of Selfishness pg 162-163 -=Max Rispoli=- It is important to note that this type of free protection for the noncontributors represents an indirect benefit and is merely a marginal consequence of the contributors’ own interests and expenses. This type of bonus can not be stretched to cover direct benefits, or to claim as the welfare statists are claiming- that direct hand outs to the nonproducers are in the producer’s own interests. The difference, briefly, is as follows,: if a railroad were running a train and allowed the poor to ride with out payment in the seats left empty, it would not be the same thing (nor the same principle) as providing the poor with first-class carriages and special trains. Any type of nonsacrificial assistance of social bonus, gratuitous benefit or gift value possible among men, is possible only in a free society, and is proper so long as it is nonsacrificial. But, in a free society, under a system of voluntary government financing, there would be no legal loophole, no legal possibility, for any redistribution of wealth. –for unearned support of some men by the forced labor and extorted income of others- for the draining, exploitation and destruction of those who are able to pay the costs of maintaining a civilized society, in favor of those who are unable or unwilling to pay the cost of maintaining their own existence. Altruistic policies results in either death or a loss in value to life, prefer egoism. Biddle, editor and publisher of The Objective Standard, 06 (Craig Biddle, editor and publisher of The Objective Standard, The Objectivist Standard, Spring 2006, Vol. 1, No. 1, “Introducing The Objective Standard,” http://theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-spring/introducing-the-objective-standard.asp) Altruism is not good for one’s life. If accepted and practiced consistently, it leads to death. This is what Jesus did. If accepted and practiced inconsistently, it retards one’s life and leads to guilt. This is what most altruists do. An altruist might not die from his morality—so long as he cheats on it—but nor will he live fully. Insofar as a person acts against the requirements of his life and happiness, he will not make the most of his life; he will not achieve the kind of happiness possible to man. Egoism is good for one’s life. If accepted and practiced consistently, it leads to a life of happiness. If accepted and practiced inconsistently—well, there is no reason to be inconsistent here. Why not live a life of happiness? Why sacrifice at all? What reason is there to do so? In the entire history of philosophy, the number of answers to this question is exactly zero. Last printed 100 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 101 Altruism Bad – Economy Altruism bad – it’s the mindset that created the current financial crisis. Salsman, president of InterMarket Forecasting, Inc., 09 (Richard M. Salsman, president of InterMarket Forecasting, Inc., The Objectivist Standard, Spring 2009, Vol. 4, No. 1, “Altruism: The Moral Root of the Financial Crisis,” http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2009-spring/altruism-financial-crisis.asp) On the premise that a free banking system inadequately served the poor, the Federal Reserve was formed . On the premise that welfare spending is too important to be tied down to an objective system of money, the gold standard was abolished. On the premise that taxpayers have a moral duty to bail out needy banks and careless depositors, the FDIC was established. On the premise that we all have a moral duty to help needy, low-income families “achieve the American dream,” the GSEs were established. On the premise that Americans have a moral duty to preserve America’s financial institutions, Washington is now nationalizing them—ensuring the full politicization of lending, a perpetual flight of private capital, and an endless drain on taxpayers’ wallets. The fact that each of these interventions has caused (and continues to cause) financial-economic turmoil and wealth destruction is, to those who believe the interventions were moral, simply beside the point. By demanding that one consider the needs of others above all else, altruism morally forbids one to consider the facts of reality that conflict with that mandate. Thus, in the case of a banker who embraces altruism, the fact that a loan applicant is not creditworthy matters not; the fact that default rates are rising matters not; the fact that his bank is nearing insolvency matters not. These are mere economic facts, whereas altruism speaks of moral truth—and in any contest between economics (or common sense) and morality, morality always wins. Acceptance of altruism leads people to abandon their self-interest, the profit motive, the basic principles of economics, and the basic principle of America: the principle of individual rights. But these values are essential to good living, to wealth creation, to a healthy economy, and to a just society. America’s financial market is suffering not because of greed or freedom, but because of the widespread acceptance of altruism and the consequent government intervention in banking. The financial crisis is, fundamentally, a moral crisis. The extent to which Americans accept that they have a moral duty to sacrifice for the sake of others is the extent to which they will allow our government to compel us all to do so—by means of further interventions, further subsidies, further controls. To end the crisis, we must acknowledge that government intervention caused it, and we must demand that the government begin removing its coercive hands from the economy. With an eye to the short term, we must demand that it scale back the powers of the GSEs, the Federal Reserve, and the FDIC; and with an eye to the long term, we must demand that the government abolish these agencies entirely and restore a gold standard run by private, currency-issuing banks subject solely to the objective commercial and bankruptcy codes.33 But in order to advocate these reforms, Americans must reject the moral code that stands in the way. We must reject altruism. We must defend each individual’s right to exist, not as a slave to the needs of others, but for his own sake—bankers included. Last printed 101 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 102 A2: Aiding Poverty = Moral, Turns Coercion (non-regulation/barrier affs) Coercion outweighs, conditions like poverty are inevitable, it’s futile to try to solve. Kelley, founder and senior fellow of the Atlas Society, 98 (David Kelley, founder and senior fellow of the Atlas Society, 1998, “A life of one's own,” p68-69) there is not always a hard and fast distinction between the number of alternatives one has and the degree of one’s freedom to choose among them. Theoretically, any obstacle, restraint, or limitation may be looked at in either of two ways: we may view it (1) as something that eliminates one or more alternatives a person would otherwise have available or (2) something that prevents the person from choosing one or more alternatives. The difference lies in whether we consider the limitation as affecting the range of alternatives he has or the process of choosing among them. Advocates of positive freedom have exploited this fact, insisting that lack of a certain opportunity because of poverty, illness, or disability deprives a person of the freedom to choose that opportunity. Conversely, we could in principle view overt coercion, physical force, or violence, not as something that prevents a person from choosing an alternative but as something that removes alternatives he would otherwise have. There are real differences between (1) and (2). One difference is whether the obstacle or limitation is imposed by reality or by other people. When some fact of reality affects the range of alternatives we face, it is wishful thinking to regard it as an obstacle to what we would otherwise be free to do. Facts are facts. The world operates a certain way, according to causal laws, and the constraints imposed by nature are the foundation for human choice, not a barrier to it. A To be sure, farmer plants a field and tends it over the growing season, but a hailstorm destroys the crop before he can harvest it. It would be bizarre to say that the hailstorm abridged his freedom to reap what he has sown. As a natural event, the hailstorm is a misfortune that eliminates the possibility of a harvest. By contrast, if a government price-support regulation forbids the farmer to harvest the crop, the restraint arises from human action and does abridge his freedom to what he otherwise could. Last printed 102 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 103 AT: Have to help the poor In the world of a free market economy, the poor are able to help themselves – turn of the century immigrants prove James A. Dorn (vice president for academic affairs at the Cato Institute and professor of economics at Towson University in Maryland) 1996: The Rise of Government and the Decline of Morality. http://www.cato.org/pubs/catosletters/cl-12.pdf At the turn of the century, there was no welfare state. Family and social bonds were strong, and civil society flourished in numerous fraternal and religious organizations. Total government spending was less than 10 percent of GNP and the federal government’s powers were narrowly limited. Immigrants were faced with material poverty, true, but they were not wretched . There was a certain moral order in everyday life, which began in the home and spread to the outside community. Baltimore’s Polish immigrants provide a good example. Like other immigrants, they arrived with virtually nothing except the desire to work hard and to live in a free country. Their ethos of liberty and responsibility is evident in a 1907 housing report describing the Polish community in Fells Point: A remembered Saturday evening inspection of five apartments in a house [on] Thames Street, with their whitened floors and shining cook stoves, with the dishes gleaming on the neatly ordered shelves, the piles of clean clothing laid out for Sunday, and the general atmosphere of preparation for the Sabbath, suggested standards that would not have disgraced a Puritan housekeeper. Yet, according to the report, a typical Polish home consisted “of a crowded one­ or two­room apartment, occupied by six or eight people, and located two floors above the common water supply.” Even though wages were low, Polish Americans sacrificed to save and pooled their resources to help each other by founding building and loan associations, as Linda Shopes noted in The Baltimore Book. By 1929, 60 percent of Polish families were homeowners—without any government assistance. Today, after more than 50 years of the welfare state, and after spending $5 trillion on antipoverty programs since the mid­1960s, Baltimore and other American cities are struggling for survival. Self­reliance has given way to dependence and a loss of respect for persons and property. The inner­city landscape is cluttered with crime­infested public housing and public schools that are mostly dreadful, dangerous, and amoral —where one learns more about survival than virtue. And the way to survive is not to take responsibility for one’s own life and family, but to vote for politicians who have the power to keep the welfare checks rolling . Dysfunctional behavior now seems almost normal as people are shot daily and the vast majority of inner­city births are to unwed mothers receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children. In addition to the moral decay, high tax rates and regulatory overkill have driven businesses and taxpayers out of the city and slowed economic development. It’s not a pretty picture. In sum, the growth of government and the rise of the “transfer society” have undermined that force to the protection of life, liberty, and property. Markets, both formal and informal, could then be relied on to bring about economic prosperity and social harmony. In a free society, the relationship between the individual and the state is simple. Thomas Jefferson stated it well: “Man is not made for the State but the State for man, and it derives its just of the United States Magazine and Democratic Review, called the “voluntary principle” or the “principle of freedom.” In 1837, O’Sullivan wrote, The best government is that which governs least. . . . [Government] should be confined to the administration of justice, for the protection of the natural equal rights of the citizen, and the preservation of the social order. In all other respects, the voluntary principle, the principle of freedom. . . affords the true golden rule. During the 19th century, most Americans took it for granted that the federal government has no constitutional authorityto engage in public charity (that is, to legislate forced transfers to help some individuals at the expense of others). It was generally understood that the powers of the federal government are delegated, enumerated, and therefore limited, and that there is no explicit authority for the welfare state. In 1794, Madison expressed the commonly held view of the welfare state: “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which grant[s] a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” From a classical­liberal or marketliberal perspective, then, the role of government is not to “do good at the taxpayers’ expense,” but “to prevent harm ” by establishing rules of just conduct and a rule of law. The general welfare clause (art. 1, sec. 8) of the U.S. Constitution cannot be used to justify the welfare state. That clause simply states that the federal government, in exercising its enumerated powers, should exercise them to “promote the general welfare,” not to promote particular interests. The clause was never meant to be an open invitation to expand government far beyond its primary role of night watchman. “With respect to the words ’general welfare,’” wrote Madison, “I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” Yet, what Madison feared happened—as his vision of Last printed 103 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 104 government was overtaken by the views of people who sought to use government, not to prevent harm, but to “do good” at the taxpayers’ expense. Last printed 104 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 105 Free Market/Small Government k2 Freedom Free market capitalism is the foundation for a free society James A. Dorn (vice president for academic affairs at the Cato Institute and professor of economics at Towson University in Maryland) 1987: Government, the Economy, and the Constitution. http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj7n2/cj7n2-1.pdf Capitalism and the Constitution of Liberty Although there is no explicit discussion of capitalism or its relation to constitutional order in the Calculus, whose purpose was to look at the “political organization of a society of free men” (1962, p. v), Dwight Lee holds that a better appreciation of the market system can be gained from studying the logic of constitutional choice. In his paper, he brings out the close ties between politics and economics, noting that “Every economy is a political economy and it is impossible to understand an economic system without taking into consideration the political environment within which that system operates.” Since the principle of voluntary exchange (unanimous consent) rests at the core of a market system, a constitutional order based on the same principle reinforces the logic of the market. Moreover, under a stable rule of law protecting private property and freedom of contract, individuals will have the freedom of choice necessary for the smooth operation of a market price system. As such, there is a close connection between capitalism and the “constitution of liberty.” Lee discusses these ideas and remarks that without effective constraints on government power, and hence on majority rule, the political stability necessary for an effective capitalist economic order will be absent. Government intervention and rent seeking will then distort relative prices and upset the process of social and economic coordination, Lee’s point is simply that markets operate best when government is least intrusive and therefore assumes primarily a protective rather than a redistributive role. For Lee, it is largely immaterial whether the Framers intended to promote a capitalist economic order.9 What is important is that they sought to limit the coercive power of government, and in so doing set the basis for a viable market order.’°As long as there are effective constraints on government’s predatory activities, argues Lee, the free market system will flourish, regardless of the Framers’ original intent concerning the market order. Conversely, Lee cautions that as the property foundations of the market economy are weakened by extralegal changes in the effective constitution (that is, changes occurring outside the formal amendment process), the capitalist order itself will languish as an engine for wealth creation, In his opinion, “We would be better served if our current crop of politicians were less involved in ‘promoting’ capitalism and more involved in limiting the scope of government.” Limitation of government power is key to the free market system, the economy, equal rights and solving poverty James A. Dorn (vice president for academic affairs at the Cato Institute and professor of economics at Towson University in Maryland) 1987: Government, the Economy, and the Constitution. http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj7n2/cj7n2-1.pdf Freedom and Fairness: A Constitutional Perspective Richard Stroup examines the correspondence between freedom and fairness within an institutional setting characterized by private enterprise and constitutional democracy. He argues that individual freedom is best secured when the coercive power of government is limited to the protection of persons and property; and that fairness is best achieved under a stable government by law and a competitive market process in which individuals are free to pursue their interests as long as they respect the equal rights of others. In particular, a free market system, in which individuals can capture the rewards of productive activities but bear the costs of unproductive activities, will spur economic growth as entrepreneurs search for new opportunities to engage in mutually beneficial exchange. In the process, lower income households will benefit as well as higherincome households. Thus, if fairness is viewed both in terms of equality under the law and as an improvement in the well-being of lower-income households, a system of limited government and open markets, argues Stroup, can be viewed as both free and fair. Furthermore, experience shows that an economic system characterized by private property rights, freedom of contract, and widespread reliance on voluntary exchange is more likely to meet these criteria of fairness than a politically directed welfare state. Stroup uses this line of argument, and the fact that government redistributive programs have often been directed more at those with political power than at lower-income households, to caution against overreliance on government transfers to help the poor. Indeed, he notes that massive welfare programs have not really helped the poor. The most successful weapon against poverty has been economic growth, not the tax and transfer programs that have characterized the welfare state. Thus, on grounds of both freedom and fairness, Stroup sees a system based on constitutional protection against direct and indirect takings outperforming the redistributive state. Last printed 105 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 106 Free Market/Small Government k2 Freedom Self ownership is the key to justice and individual freedom Walter E. Williams (John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics and Chairman of the Economics Department at George Mason University) January 15, 1996. THE ARGUMENT FOR FREE MARKETS: MORALITY VS. EFFICIENCY. http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj15n2-3-3.html Freedom's first principle is: Each person owns himself. The transition from socialism to capitalism and the preservation of capitalism require what philosopher David Kelley calls the entrepreneurial outlook on life, which he describes, in part, as "a sense of selfownership, a conviction that one's life is one's own, not something for which one must answer to some higher power'' (Kelley 1994: 4). Once we accept self-ownership as a first principle, we readily discover what constitutes just and unjust conduct. Unjust conduct is simply any conduct that violates an individual's property rights in himself when he himself has not infringed upon the property rights of others. Therefore, acts like murder, rape, and theft, whether done privately or collectively, are unjust because they violate private property. There is broad consensus that government-sponsored murder and rape are unjust; however, not as much consensus is reached regarding theft. Theft being defined as forcibly taking the rightful property of one person for the benefit of another. For individual freedom to be viable, it must be a part of the shared values of a society, and there must be an institutional framework to preserve it against encroachments by majoritarian or government will. Constitutions and laws alone cannot guarantee the survival of personal freedom as is apparent where Western-style constitutions and laws have been exported to countries not having a tradition of individual freedom. U.S. articulation of the right to individual autonomy is enunciated in our Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That statement, which played such an important role in the rebellion against England and in the establishment of the U.S. Constitution, was the outgrowth of libertarian ideas of such thinkers as John Locke, Montesquieu, and Sir William Blackstone. Even in societies with a tradition of freedom, such as the United States, the values supporting that freedom have suffered erosion and have proven an insufficient safeguard against encroachment by the state. As is so often the case, political liberty (democracy) has been used to redistribute income and wealth. The redistributive state, in turn, has had a stifling effect on economic liberty and has reduced individual freedom. Last printed 106 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 107 AT: Cap Bad The alternative results in beneficial forms of capitalism. Only altruism results in the dangerous forms of capitalism that their authors assume. More, founder of Extropy Institute, 86 (Max More, founder of Extropy Institute, 1986, “THE IMPORTANCE OF SELFISHNESS, THE DANGERS OF ALTRUISM,” http://www.thedegree.org/philn004.pdf) Finally, it would be fitting to consider the matter of competition in the context of the pursuit of rational self-interest. Many people say that capitalism is an entirely competitive economic system. They say that competition , while it serves a number of useful purposes, breeds hostility, violence, and unhappiness. The first assertion is false and the second may or may not be true depending on how it is interpreted. Objectivists are principled moral agents, not ‘materialists’ and can therefore happily join in by condemning the “rat race”. The first point to note is that capitalism is both cooperative and competitive. Firms compete within a market but firms also cooperate every time they buy and sell raw materials, semi-finished goods, etc., from each other. Individuals within a firm must cooperate to get their jobs done. Every time anyone buys anything on the free market, cooperation is occurring ; both parties get together to make a mutually beneficial exchange. On the other hand, in a socialist economy you are told what to produce and have little or no choice as to what you consume. Where competition exists in a free market it promotes progress and benefits everyone. In a socialist system, competition is for positions of coercive power. Within a free market — or mixed economy such as ours — more than one type of competition is possible. One can compete in a friendly, relaxed way, always bearing in mind one’s values and rational self-interest. Or one can madly, obsessively, irrationally compete for ends set by other people — whether ‘society’, the company, the government, or parents. This second type of competition is truly a “rat race”, a scrambling for advancement where one’s self-interest and values are lost sight of. It is not competition between those pursuing their rational self-interest that is bad. It is competition between those trying to fulfill their irrational whims (perhaps for wealth or fame), or to conform to standards set by others. It is common for people to wear themselves down developing heart disease, ulcers, and hypertension, to become heavy drinkers, insomniacs, or pillpoppers, with no regard for their happiness. Capitalism does not demand this, and though it does not prevent it (only force, with all its consequences, can do that), it does function better without it. Studies have shown that most successful managers in business are generally pleasant, non-compulsive individuals who are a pleasure to work for . It is altruism which promotes overly strenuous (and misguided) effort since the individual does not matter — only the good of the company/government/ society/one’s parents matters. The rationally self-interested person has a great deal of selfesteem. The altruist lacks self-esteem. And it is lack of self-esteem that leads to neurotic, inappropriately competitive behaviour since the esteem of other people must be earned at all cost to fill the gap. (See Branden’s The Psychology of Self-Esteem for the importance of this factor.) If one has no self-worth one must compete hard to prove oneself to others. Rational people do not need to win, since that implies that you can’t be happy without defeating someone. There is no need to win. To play the game of life according to one’s values, in pursuit of one’s happiness, one’s self-interest, is all that matters. Last printed 107 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 108 Socialism Fails/AT: Cap Bad Socialism empirically fails – don’t buy their Capitalism turns Walter E. Williams (John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics and Chairman of the Economics Department at George Mason University) January 15, 1996. THE ARGUMENT FOR FREE MARKETS: MORALITY VS. EFFICIENCY. http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj15n2-3-3.html Institutions and Wealth F. A. Hayek refers to the rules of several property determined by traditions and values. Those rules consisted in what David Hume called "the stability of possessions,'' "transference by consent,'' and "the keeping of promises'' (Hayek 1984: 321). Nations that have respected the rules of several property have produced social and economic climates far more conducive to the welfare of their citizens than nations that have failed to respect property rights. People in countries with larger amounts of economic freedom, such as the United States, Canada, Australia, Hong Kong, Japan, and Taiwan are far richer and have greater human rights protections than people in countries with limited free markets such as Russia, Albania, China, and every country in Africa. The role of private property and free markets in creating wealth is often overlooked. Factors such as natural-resource endowment, population size, and previous conditions (colonialism) are claimed to explain wealth. Yet those factors cannot explain human betterment. The United States and Canada have relatively small populations, abundant natural resources, and are wealthy. However, if low population density and abundant natural resources were adequate explanations of wealth, one would expect the former Soviet Union and countries on the continents of Africa and South America to be wealthy. Instead, the former Soviet Union, Africa, and South America are home to many of the world's poorest and most miserable people. A history of colonialism is often given as an excuse for poverty but that is a bogus hypothesis. The world's richest country, the United States, was formerly a colony. Canada, Australia, and New Zealand were colonies--and Hong Kong remains a colony. A far better explanation of wealth are the values and traditions that produce the rules of several property. Economics is not an independent variable whose laws are unaffected by the institutional framework within which it operates. Economic efficiency is a by-product of pre-existing cultural and moral norms. The Intellectual Defense of Liberty All too often defenders of free-market capitalism base their defense on the demonstration that capitalism is more efficient in terms of resource allocation and, hence, leads to a larger bundle of goods than socialism and other forms of statism. However, as Milton Friedman frequently points out, economic efficiency and greater wealth should be promoted as simply a side-benefit of free markets. The intellectual defense of free-market capitalism should focus on its moral superiority. In other words, even if free enterprise were not more efficient than other forms of human organization, it is morally superior because it is rooted in voluntary relationships rather than force and coercion, and it respects the sanctity of the individual. The wealth created by free-market capitalism also cultivates civil society. For most of human history, individuals have had to simply eke out a living. With the rise of capitalism and the concomitant rise in human productivity, people were able to satisfy their physical needs with less and less time. Economic progress made it possible for people to have the time to develop spiritually and culturally. The rise of capitalism enabled the gradual extension of civilization to greater and greater numbers of people. As the wealth of nations grew, people had the means to become educated in the liberal arts and to gain greater knowledge about the world around them. The rise of capitalism enabled ordinary people to attend the arts, afford recreation, and contemplate more fulfilling and interesting life activities, and engage in other culturally enriching activities that were formerly only within the purview of the rich. Last printed 108 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 109 Socialism Fails Socialism fails because markets will inevitably survive and thrive – black markets in the Soviet Union prove Walter E. Williams (John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics and Chairman of the Economics Department at George Mason University) January 15, 1996. THE ARGUMENT FOR FREE MARKETS: MORALITY VS. EFFICIENCY. http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj15n2-3-3.html The Vision of Black Markets We should always keep in mind the resiliency of markets. Despite the efforts of socialist regimes, markets tend to survive to one degree or another; they are an irrepressible part of human nature. As Adam Smith ([1776] 1976: 17) wrote, "It is the necessary ... certain propensity in human nature ... to truck, barter, and exchange one thing for another.'' During the 70 years of the Soviet experiment, with massive attempts to suppress markets (including jail, banishment, and death), markets in one form or another survived. The conditions for the formation of markets are always present and explain their resiliency. Those conditions are: (1) private ownership of property, (2) interaction between people who place different valuations on goods, and (3) individual will and selfinterest. Those conditions give rise to markets be they legal or illegal (black) markets. According to some estimates, up to 84 percent of the Soviet people purchased goods and services through the black market or fartsovshiki. The fartsovshiki was also a source of additional employment, and hence income, for as many as 20 million Soviet citizens (Galuszka 1989). According to Automotive News (1985), 60 percent of Soviet citizens used black-market mechanics for auto repairs and another 30 percent purchased gasoline and parts from black-market distributors. Soviet officials could never eliminate black markets and one doubts that they wanted to. After all, the Soviet system may have survived as long as it did because some of its more uglier consequences were mitigated by the presence of black markets. Given the periodic shortages of life's necessities such as food and clothing, there may have been uncontrollable social disorder if Soviet citizens had to do without rather than have a black-market outlet to which they could turn to for relief. The Soviet experience proves that man is by nature a capitalist. The transition from socialism to capitalism requires only that human nature be permitted to flourish. Communism empirically fails – China Erich Weede (Professor of Sociology at the University of Bonn) Winter 2008: Human Rights, Limited Government, and Capitalism. http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj28n1/cj28n1-3.pdf Limited government is the Western “invention” that was the prerequisite for Western progress . Or, one might also say: The early establishment of protective or freedom rights contributed to economic growth and widely shared prosperity. At first those rights were reserved for a small part of the population, but over time most or all of the population enjoyed equal rights.6 The same theory can also explain why the Chinese weight in the global economy further declined under Mao Zedong, but why China rose again after Deng Xiaoping’s reforms (Maddison 1998; Lin, Cai, and Li 2003) and his “creeping capitalism.” The coerced collectivization of agriculture in the 1950s and even more the so-called great leap forward (1959–62) abolished not only private property in land, but for practical purposes also the self-ownership of peasants and, thus, their rights to decide for themselves and to enjoy the fruits of their labor. By abolishing property rights, the Chinese Communist Party reduced incentives to work . Cadre arrogance replaced peasant knowledge. Scarcity prices also were abolished. About 30 to 35 million people died of starvation (Fu 1993; Rummel 1994; Lin, Cai, and Li 2003). Last printed 109 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 110 Cap Solves War Capitalism solves war – economic interdependencies Erich Weede (Professor of Sociology at the University of Bonn) Winter 2008: Human Rights, Limited Government, and Capitalism. http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj28n1/cj28n1-3.pdf Capitalist development contributes not only to prosperity but also to reducing the risk of war . From a human rights perspective, the avoidance of war is a paramount concern because the fog of war has frequently been used as a cover for human rights abuses and war crimes (Apodaca 2001; Harrelson-Stephens and Callaway 2001; Richards, Gelleny, and Sacko 2001).8 Econometric studies (Gartzke 2005, 2007; Russett and Oneal 2001; Weede 2005) are compatible with the following causal relationships between economic freedom, prosperity, and peace: Whether assessed by financial market openness, trade, or property rights, economic freedom contributes to peace. The more trade there is between two states or the more they are economically interdependent, the less likely military conflict between them becomes. In addition to this direct effect of economic freedom on the avoidance of war, there is an indirect effect via prosperity and democracy that is well documented (Lipset 1994; Russett and Oneal 2001; Weede 2005). The freer an economy is, the more prosperous it is likely to be. The more prosperous a country is, the more likely it is to be a democracy. 9 Military conflict between democracies is extremely unlikely. Economic freedom and free trade—that is, the global expansion of capitalism and the corresponding catch-up opportunities for poor countries—constitute the beginning of the causal chain leading to democracy and peace, at least to peace among prosperous or capitalist democracies. Economic freedom and free trade also exert a direct pacifying impact. Therefore, it is preferable to call this set of pacifying conditions the “capitalist (or market-liberal) peace” rather than the “democratic peace.” Economically free countries are less likely to go to war – put away your democracy add-ons because the alt. solves better Erik Gartzke (Associate Professor of Political Science PhD, University of Iowa) 2005: Future Depends on Capitalizing on Capitalist Peace With terrorism achieving "global reach" and conflict raging in Africa and the Middle East, you may have missed a startling fact - we are living in remarkably peaceable times. For six decades, developed nations have not fought each other. France and the United States may chafe, but the resulting conflict pitted french fries against "freedom fries," rather than French soldiers against U.S. "freedom fighters." Tony Blair and Jacques Chirac had a nasty spat over the EU, but the English aren't going to storm Calais any time soon. The present peace is unusual. Historically, powerful nations are the most war prone. The conventional wisdom is that democracy fosters peace but this claim fails scrutiny. It is based on statistical studies that show democracies typically don't fight other democracies. Yet, the same studies show that democratic nations go to war about as much as other nations overall. And more recent research makes clear that only the affluent democracies are less likely to fight each other. Poor democracies behave much like non-democracies when it comes to war and lesser forms of conflict. A more powerful explanation is emerging from newer, and older, empirical research - the "capitalist peace." As predicted by Montesquieu, Adam Smith, Norman Angell and others, nations with high levels of economic freedom not only fight each other less, they go to war less often, period. Economic freedom is a measure of the depth of free market institutions or, put another way, of capitalism. The "democratic peace" is a mirage created by the overlap between economic and political freedom . Democracy and economic freedom typically co-exist. Thus, if economic freedom causes peace, then statistically democracy will also appear to cause peace. When democracy and economic freedom are both included in a statistical model, the results reveal that economic freedom is considerably more potent in encouraging peace than democracy, 50 times more potent, in fact, according to my own research. Economic freedom is highly statistically significant (at the one-per-cent level). Democracy does not have a measurable impact, while nations with very low levels of economic freedom are 14 times more prone to conflict than those with very high levels. But, why would free markets cause peace? Capitalism is not only an immense generator of prosperity; it is also a revolutionary source of economic, social and political change. Wealth no longer arises primarily through land or control of natural resources. Last printed 110 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 111 Economic freedom solves all of their war impacts Erik Gartzke (Associate Professor of Political Science PhD, University of Iowa) 2005: Future Depends on Capitalizing on Capitalist Peace Prosperity in modern societies is created by market competition and the efficient production that arises from it. This new kind of wealth is hard for nations to "steal" through conquest. In days of old, when the English did occasionally storm Calais, nobles dreamed of wealth and power in conquered lands, while visions of booty danced in the heads of peasant soldiers. Victory in war meant new property. In a free market economy, war destroys immense wealth for victor and loser alike. Even if capital stock is restored, efficient production requires property rights and free decisions by market participants that are difficult or impossible to co-ordinate to the victor's advantage . The Iraqi war, despite Iraq's immense oil wealth, will not be a money-maker for the United States. Economic freedom is not a guarantee of peace . Other factors, like ideology or the perceived need for self-defence, can still result in violence. But, where economic freedom has taken hold, it has made war less likely. Research on the capitalist peace has profound implications in today's world. Emerging democracies, which have not stabilized the institutions of economic freedom, appear to be at least as warlike - perhaps more so - than emerging dictatorships. Yet, the United States and other western nations are putting immense resources into democratization even in nations that lack functioning free markets. This is in part based on the faulty premise of a "democratic peace." It may also in part be due to public perception. Everyone approves of democracy, but "capitalism" is often a dirty word. However , in recent decades, an increasing number of people have rediscovered the economic virtues of the "invisible hand" of free markets. We now have an additional benefit of economic freedom - international peace. The actual presence of peace in much of the world sets this era apart from others. The empirical basis for optimistic claims - about either democracy or capitalism - can be tested and refined. The way forward is to capitalize on the capitalist peace, to deepen its roots and extend it to more countries through expanding markets, development, and a common sense of international purpose. The risk today is that faulty analysis and anti-market activists may distract the developed nations from this historic opportunity. Last printed 111 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 112 Free Market = Moral The free market is a moral necessity Walter E. Williams (John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics and Chairman of the Economics Department at George Mason University) January 15, 1996. THE ARGUMENT FOR FREE MARKETS: MORALITY VS. EFFICIENCY. http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj15n2-3-3.html Conclusion The struggle to extend and preserve free markets must have as its primary focus the moral argument. State interventionists stand naked before well-thought-out moral arguments for private ownership of property, voluntary exchange, and the parity of markets. People readily understand moral arguments on a private basis--for example, one person does not have the right to use force against another to serve his own purposes. However, people often see government redistribution as an acceptable use of force. In a democratic welfare state that coercion is given an aura of legitimacy. The challenge is to convince people that a majority vote does not establish morality and that free markets are morally superior to other forms of human organization. Last printed 112 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 113 Coercion Destroys Freedom Government coercion destroys freedom – the free market system is the highest moral ground and will solve all other problems James A. Dorn (vice president for academic affairs at the Cato Institute and professor of economics at Towson University in Maryland) 2005: Why Freedom Matters. http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/dorn-080105.pdf The future of civilization depends on preserving and spreading freedom. As a moral principle, freedom means we ought to respect private property rights, broadly understood as the rights to life, liberty, and property. As a practical matter, when private property rights are protected by law, individuals will be free to trade for mutual gain and be held responsible for their behavior. Social and economic coordination—or what F. A. Hayek called “spontaneous order”—emerges from the voluntary decisions of millions of free people under limited government and the rule of law. Those nations that have failed to adopt freedom as a first principle have also failed to realize the benefits of freedom. They have ignored the great liberal idea, as articulated in The Law by Frédéric Bastiat in the mid-nineteenth century, that “the solution of the social problem lies in liberty.” By “social problem” Bastiat meant the problem of coordination that confronts every society—that is, the problem of satisfying people’s wants for goods and services without central planning. The beauty of the market system, based on private property rights and freedom of contract, is that it allows individuals to continuously adjust to new information about wants, resources, and technology, and to engage in mutually beneficial exchanges. Economic freedom increases the range of choices and thus the wealth of nations. Those countries with greater economic freedom have higher standards of living than those with less freedom (figure 1). Moreover, countries that have liberalized more quickly—as measured by the index of economic freedom—have tended to grow faster than countries that have failed to liberalize or that have liberalized more slowly (figure 2). Economists James Gwartney and Robert Lawson, the authors of the Fraser Institute’s annual Economic Freedom of the World, find that “long term differences in economic freedom explain approximately two-thirds of the variation in cross-country per capita GDP.” It is no secret that countries that have opened to the forces of international trade and have restrained the growth of government have prospered, while those countries that have limited the scope of the market have stagnated. Hong Kong’s consistent adherence to market-liberal principles has resulted in long-run prosperity and the world’s freest economy since 1970. In its 2005 Index of Economic Freedom, the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal once again ranked Hong Kong number one. On hearing the good news, Financial Secretary Henry Tang remarked,“I am pleased virtues we have been upholding to keep Hong Kong flourishing as a free market economy have once again been reaffirmed by the international community.” Those virtues include credibility and reliability, prudence and thrift, entrepreneurial alertness, personal responsibility, respect for others, and tolerance. They are fostered by private property rights, the rule of law, freedom of contract, open trade, low tax rates, and limited government. Nations that have not followed the virtues of Hong Kong have not reaped the long-run benefits of economic freedom. North Korea, Cuba, Sudan, Iraq, and Haiti are but a few examples. The lesson is that the virtues of the market require constant practice if they are to survive and flourish. Government policy must be market-friendly and transparent; it cannot be muddled. Markets discount future effects of current policy changes. If those changes are in the direction of greater economic freedom, they will be immediately rewarded and wealth created . Illiberal trade policies, higher tax rates, increased government spending, erratic monetary policy, and wage-price controls undermine private property rights, send negative signals to the global capital markets, and destroy the wealth of nations. The failure of central planning in the Soviet Union and China has moved those countries in the direction of greater economic freedom, but the ghost of communism still haunts Russia, while the Chinese Communist Party has yet to abandon its monopoly on power. Leaders of emerging market economies need to recognize that economic freedom is an important component of personal freedom, that free-market prices and profits provide useful information and incentives to allocate resources to where consumers (not politicians or planners) deem them most valuable, and that markets extend the range of choice and increase human welfare. Most important, leaders must understand that ultimately economic liberalization requires limited government and constitutionally protected rights. Emerging market economies, especially in Asia, have discovered the magic of the market; they have also found that chaos emerges when the institutional infrastructure necessary for free markets is weakened by excessive government. When politics trumps markets, coercion and corruption follow. The Ethical Basis the ethical basis of the market system is often overlooked, but not by those like Zhang Shuguang, an economist at the Unirule Institute in Beijing, who were deprived of their economic liberties under central planning. He compares the coercive nature of planning with the voluntary nature of the market and concludes: “In the market system . . . the fundamental logic is free choice and equal status of individuals. The corresponding ethics . . . is mutual respect, mutual benefit, and mutual credit.”1 The moral justification for individual freedom is selfevident. In Ethics for the New Millennium, the Dalai Lama wrote:“We all desire happiness and wish to avoid suffering. . . . Ethical conduct is not something we engage in because it is somehow right in itself but because, like ourselves, all others desire to be happy and to avoid suffering. Given that this is a natural disposition, shared by all, it follows that each individual has a right to pursue this goal.” Freedom without rules is Last printed 113 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 114 an illusion. The famous Zen master Shunryu Suzuki wrote in his classic text, Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind: “People, especially young people, think that freedom is to do just what they want. . . . But it is absolutely necessary . . . to have some rules. . . . As long as you have rules, you have a chance for freedom.” The rules necessary for a market-liberal order are rules to protect the private sphere so individuals can pursue their self-interest while respecting the equal rights of others. Without clear rules to limit the use of force to the protection of persons and property, freedom and justice will suffer—and economic development, properly understood, will cease. In 1740 the great liberal David Hume wrote that “the peace and security of human society entirely depend [on adherence to] the three fundamental laws of nature, that of the stability of possession, of its transference by consent, and of the performance of promises” (A Treatise of Human Nature). His legacy of liberty should not be forgotten. Development and Freedom in Economic Analysis and Policy in Underdeveloped Countries, the late Peter (Lord) Bauer argued that economic development and freedom are inseparable: “I regard the extension of the range of choice, that is, an increase in the range of effective alternatives open to people, as the principal objective and criterion of economic development.” Economists have found that countries with secure private property rights create more wealth (as measured by real GDP per capita) than countries in which property is not protected by law. Trade liberalization is vital to the process of development. Voluntary international exchange widens consumers’ range of effective choices and lowers the risk of conflict. There is a saying in China: “Wu wei ze wu shu bu wei”—“If no unnatural control, then there is nothing you cannot do.” In the Tao Te Ching, Lao Tzu advocates the principle of nonintervention ( wu wei) as the ideal way of ruling. The wise ruler says,“I take no action and the people of themselves are transformed. I engage in no activity and the people of themselves become prosperous.” 2 To take no action does not mean to do nothing, but rather , as Chinese scholar Derk Bodde has noted, to refrain from those actions that are “forced, artificial, and unspontaneous.”3 A natural order is one consistent with free markets and free people; it is Adam Smith’s “simple system of natural liberty.”As former Czech President Václav Havel so elegantly stated after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the free-market economy is “the only natural economy, the only kind that makes sense, the only one that can lead to prosperity, because it is the only one that reflects the nature of life itself.”4 Leaders in the West as well as the East should keep the following five lessons in the forefront of their minds as they contemplate future policy decisions: (1) private property, freedom, and justice are inseparable; (2) justice requires limiting government to the protection of persons and property; (3) minimizing the use of force to defend life, liberty, and property will maximize freedom and create a spontaneous market-liberal order; (4) private free markets are not only moral, they create wealth by providing incentives to discover new ways of doing things and increase the range of alternatives; and (5) governments rule best when they follow the rule of law and the principle of noninterference. Last printed 114 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 115 Coercion => War and Genocide Government power inevitably leads to war and mass genocide – limiting the power of the government and fostering individual freedom solves Rudolph Joseph Rummel (professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii) 1994: “Power, Genocide, and Mass Murder.” Journalof Peace Research 31 (1): 1–10 Now for the overview. The principle conclusion emerging from previous work on the causes of war and this project is that power kills, absolute power kills absolutely. The more power a government has, the more it can act arbitrarily according to the whims and desires of the elite, the more it will make war on others and murder its foreign and domestic subjects. The more constrained the power of governments, the more it is diffused, checked and balanced, the less it will aggress on others and commit democide.8 At the extremes of power, totalitarian communist governments murder their people by the tens of millions, while many democracies can barely bring themselves to execute even serial murderers. As listed in Table 1 , this century's megamurderers--those states killing in cold blood, aside from warfare, 1,000,000 or more men, women, and children--have murdered over 151,000,000 people, almost four times the almost 38,500,000 battle-dead for all this century's international and civil wars up to 1987. The most absolute Power, that is the communist U.S.S.R., China and preceding Mao guerrillas, Khmer Rouge Cambodia, Vietnam, and Yugoslavia, as well as Nazi Germany, account for near 128,000,000 of them, or 84 percent . No one of the remaining megamurderers, which include the regimes of Pakistan, 9 wartime Japan, Nationalist China, Cambodia, communist Vietnam, post-War II Poland,10 and communist Yugoslavia, were democratic when it committed its democide. Then there are the kilomurderers, or those states that have killed innocents by the tens or hundreds of thousands, the top five of which were the China Warlords (1917-1949), Atatürk's Turkey (1919-1923), the United Kingdom (primarily due to the 1914-1919 food blockade of the Central Powers and Levant in and after World War I, and the 1940-45 indiscriminate bombing of German cities), Portugal (1926-1982), and Indonesia (1965-87). These are shown in Table 1. Some lesser kilomurderers were communist Afghanistan, Angola, Albania, Rumania, and Ethiopia, as well as authoritarian Hungary, Burundi, Croatia (1941-44), Czechoslovakia (1945-46), Indonesia, Iraq, the Czar's Russia, and Uganda. For its indiscriminate bombing of German and Japanese civilians, the United States must also be included on this list. These and other kilomurderers add almost 15,000,000 people killed to the democide for this century. As listed in Table 2, the most lethal regime in this century was that of the communist Khmer Rouge in Cambodia during 1975 through 1978. In less than four years of governing they exterminated over 31 percent of their men, women, and children; the odds of any Cambodian surviving these four long years was only about 2.2 to 1. As mentioned, the Appendix exemplifies some of the estimates of this killing. The major and better known episodes and institutions for which these and other regimes were responsible are listed in Table 3. Far above all is gulag--the Soviet slave-labor system created by Lenin and built up under Stalin. In some 70 years it likely chewed up almost 40,000,000 lives, over twice as many as probably died in some 400 years of the African slave trade, from capture to sale in an Arab, Oriental, or New World market. In total, during the first eighty-eight years of this century, almost 170,000,000 men, women, and children have been shot, beaten, tortured, knifed, burned, starved, frozen, crushed, or worked to death; or buried alive, drowned, hanged, bombed, or killed in any other of the myriad ways governments have inflicted death on unarmed, helpless citizens or foreigners. The dead even could conceivable be near a high of 360,000,000 people. This is as though our species has been devastated by a modern Black Plague. And indeed it has, but a plague of absolute power and not germs. Adding the human cost of war to this democide total, governments have violently killed over 203,000,000 people in this century . Table 4 breaks down this toll by type of regime. Figure 1 graphs the regime comparisons. Now, democracies themselves are responsible for some of the democide. Almost all of this is foreign democide during war, and mainly those enemy civilians killed in indiscriminate urban bombing, as of Germany and Japan in World War II. It also includes the large scale massacres of Filipinos during the bloody American colonization of the Philippines at the beginning of this century, deaths in British concentration camps in South Africa during the Boar War, civilian deaths due to starvation during the aforementioned British blockade, the rape and murder of helpless Chinese in and around Peking in 1900, the atrocities committed by Americans in Vietnam, the murder of helpless Algerians during the Algerian War by the French, and the unnatural deaths of German prisoners of war in French and American POW camps after World War II. All this killing of foreigners by democracies may seem to violate the principle that power kills, absolute power kills absolutely, but really underlines it. For in each case, the killing was carried out in secret, behind a conscious cover of lies and deceit by those agencies and power-holders involved. All were shielded by tight censorship of the press and control of journalists. Even the indiscriminate bombing of German cities by the British was disguised before the House of Commons and in press releases as attacks on German military targets. That the general strategic bombing policy was to attack working men's homes was kept secret still long after the war. And finally, Figure 2 (one of the most important comparisons on democide and power produced by this project) displays the range of democide estimates for each regime, that is, level of power. As mentioned over 8,100 estimates of democide from over a thousand sources were collected to arrive at a most likely low and high for democide committed by 219 regimes or groups. The totals that have been displayed in previous figures have been the sum of conservatively determined mid-totals in this range. Figure 2 then presents for each type of regime, such as the authoritarian, this range resulting from the sum of all the lows and highs for all the democide of all regimes of that type. The difference between the three resulting ranges drawn in the figure can only be understood in terms of power.11 As the arbitrary power of regimes increase left to right in the figure, the range of their democide jumps accordingly and to such a great extent that the low democide for the authoritarian regime is above the democratic high, and the authoritarian high is below the totalitarian low. The empirical and theoretical conclusion from these and other results is clear. The way to virtually eliminate genocide and mass murder appears to be through restricting and checking power. This means to foster democratic freedom. This is the ultimate conclusion of this project. Last printed 115 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 116 Privatization CP – Private Better than Government Government provision of social services inefficient and ineffective — three reasons. Blank, UMich, 2k (Rebecca M. Blank, UMich, 03-2k, “When Can Public Policy Makers Rely on Private Markets? The Effective Provision of Social Services,” Economic Journal Vol. 110 Issue 462, pC34-C49) First, government inefficiencies might become large enough that even with somewhat higher quality, the cost of allowing government management offsets the benefits. As Stiglitz (1989) has noted, `public management' is itself a public good, and one that is often hard for voters to observe easily. Wolf (1988) reviews a large number of studies on the comparative efficiency of the public and private sector, noting that most -- but by no means all -- of them conclude the private sector is able to operate at lower (in some cases very much lower) costs.[6] Few of these studies focus on social service areas, however. Poterba (1996) notes that it is not clear that the government is markedly less efficient in comparison to the non-profit sector, which provides the primary private-sector alternative to the public sector in many areas of social services in the United States. Second, the more that government is plagued by patronage and corruption problems, the less attractive is the government management of services. Such problems may be one particular reason why the government is less efficient, but they are likely to also affect the quality of services provided, as well as the extent to which the government meets public goals about access and equity in the provision of services. Of course, it is worth noting that corruption in the public sector in many countries often mirrors corruption in the private sector. In this situation, it is unclear which sector is the preferred provider of services. Third, the government may be ineffective in providing higher quality services. Poor management and inefficiencies in the public sector may be causally related to low quality services, in which case the price/quality tradeoff posited above is an inaccurate characterisation; lower prices and higher quality may be complements rather than substitutes. Indeed, in cases where the public sector underpays workers relative to the market, or provides particularly bad managerial oversight, the quality of government-provided services may be very low. (There are plenty of examples of this in my current hometown of Washington, D.C.) The lower the quality of publicly-provided services, the less apparent force there is to the argument that the private sector will provide services at too low a quality level. As Wolf (1988) has noted, there is extensive `nonmarket failure' in government, just as there may be market failure in the private sector. Last printed 116 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 117 Privatization CP – Private Better than Government Private charities are more successful than the government at providing aid Tanner, director of health and welfare studies at the Cato Institute, 96 (Michael Tanner, director of health and welfare studies at the Cato Institute, December 96, Cato Policy Report, “Replacing Welfare”, http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/cpr-18n6-1.html) Private efforts have been much more successful than the federal government's failed attempt at charity. America is the most generous nation on earth. Americans already contribute more than $125 billion annually to charity. In fact, more than 85 percent of all adult Americans make some charitable contribution each year. In addition, about half of all American adults perform volunteer work; more than 20 billion hours were worked in 1991. The dollar value of that volunteer work was more than $176 billion. Volunteer work and cash donations combined bring American charitable contributions to more than $300 billion per year, not counting the countless dollars and time given informally to family members, neighbors, and others outside the formal charity system. Private charities have been more successful than government welfare for several reasons. First, private charities are able to individualize their approach to the circumstances of poor people in ways that governments can never do. Government regulations must be designed to treat all similarly situated recipients alike. Glenn C. Loury of Boston University explains the difference between welfare and private charities on that point. "Because citizens have due process rights which cannot be fully abrogated . . . public judgments must be made in a manner that can be defended after the fact, sometimes even in court." The result is that most government programs rely on the simple provision of cash or other goods and services without any attempt to differentiate between the needs of recipients. Government eligibility requirements skew aid distribution Tanner, director of health and welfare studies at the Cato Institute, 96 (Michael Tanner, director of health and welfare studies at the Cato Institute, December 96, Cato Policy Report, “Replacing Welfare”, http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/cpr-18n6-1.html) In addition to being better able to target individual needs, private charities are much better able to target assistance to those who really need help. Because eligibility requirements for government welfare programs are arbitrary and cannot be changed to fit individual circumstances, many people in genuine need do not receive assistance, while benefits often go to people who do not really need them. More than 40 percent of all families living below the poverty level receive no government assistance. Yet more than half of the families receiving means-tested benefits are not poor. Thus, a student may receive food stamps, while a homeless man with no mailing address goes without. Private charities are not bound by such bureaucratic restrictions. Governmental programs are inefficient; Private charities aren’t Tanner, director of health and welfare studies at the Cato Institute, 96 (Michael Tanner, director of health and welfare studies at the Cato Institute, December 96, Cato Policy Report, “Replacing Welfare”, http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/cpr-18n6-1.html) Private charity also has a better record of actually delivering aid to recipients. Surprisingly little of the money being spent on federal and state social welfare programs actually reaches recipients. In 1965, 70 cents of every dollar spent by the government to fight poverty went directly to poor people. Today, 70 cents of every dollar goes, not to poor people, but to government bureaucrats and others who serve the poor. Few private charities have the bureaucratic overhead and inefficiency of government programs. Last printed 117 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 118 Privatization CP – Private Better than Government A greater diversity of solutions makes private charities more effective Tanner, director of health and welfare studies at the Cato Institute, 96 (Michael Tanner, director of health and welfare studies at the Cato Institute, December 96, Cato Policy Report, “Replacing Welfare”, http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/cpr-18n6-1.html) Second, in general, private charity is much more likely to be targeted to short-term emergency assistance than to long-term dependence. Thus, private charity provides a safety net, not a way of life. Moreover, private charities may demand that the poor change their behavior in exchange for assistance. For example, a private charity may reduce or withhold benefits if a recipient does not stop using alcohol or drugs, look for a job, or avoid pregnancy. Private charities are much more likely than government programs to offer counseling and one-on-one follow-up rather than simply provide a check. By the same token, because of the separation of church and state, the government cannot support programs that promote religious values as a way out of poverty. Yet church and other religious charities have a history of success in dealing with the problems that often lead to poverty. Private Charity causes an attitudinal shift encouraging recipients to escape poverty Tanner, director of health and welfare studies at the Cato Institute, 96 (Michael Tanner, director of health and welfare studies at the Cato Institute, December 96, Cato Policy Report, “Replacing Welfare”, http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/cpr-18n6-1.html) Finally, and perhaps most important, private charity requires a different attitude on the part of both recipients and donors. For recipients, private charity is not an entitlement but a gift carrying reciprocal obligations. As Father Robert Sirico of the Acton Institute describes it, "An impersonal check given without any expectations for responsible behavior leads to a damaged sense of self-worth. The beauty of local [private charitable] efforts to help the needy is that . . . they make the individual receiving the aid realize that he must work to live up to the expectations of those helping him out." Private charity demands that donors become directly involved. Former Yale political science professor James Payne notes how little citizen involvement there is in government charity: Private Charity promotes participatory democracy Tanner, director of health and welfare studies at the Cato Institute, 96 (Michael Tanner, director of health and welfare studies at the Cato Institute, December 96, Cato Policy Report, “Replacing Welfare”, http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/cpr-18n6-1.html) Private charity demands that donors become directly involved. Former Yale political science professor James Payne notes how little citizen involvement there is in government charity: We know now that in most cases of government policy making, decisions are not made according to the democratic ideal of control by ordinary citizens. Policy is made by elites, through special interest politics, bureaucratic pressures, and legislative manipulations. Insiders decide what happens, shaping the outcome according to their own preferences and their political pull. The citizens are simply bystanders. Private charity, in contrast, is based on "having individuals vote with their own time, money, and energy." Last printed 118 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 119 Privatization CP – Health Care Healthcare must transition to a free market economy to succeed Scadlen, Director of Health Policy, 99 (Greg Scandlen, Director of Health Policy, 1999, “Affecting the Demand Side of the Equation”, Cato Institute, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6829) But I want to step back a few paces and look at the bigger picture. Libertarians generally believe in a maximum of freedom and a minimum of coercion in all areas of life. This is all an extension of the thinking of Thomas Jefferson and Adam Smith but it is even more appropriate today than it was 250 years ago. People today are better educated and have much better access to the tools of information and communications needed to make informed decisions. It is quite an achievement that we have gotten to this point today -- at the sunset of the 20th Century. This entire century has been a bloody struggle between freedom and totalitarianism in all its forms -- fascism, socialism, and personal dictatorships. For the most part freedom has won. Command and control economies have failed everywhere, to be replaced with the discipline and innovation of market economies. Everywhere, that is, except in health care. Whether in the United States or other industrialized countries, people have come to view health care as either a right or an entitlement that should be provided freely and on demand. Costs don't matter because someone else always pays the bill. I don't have to tell you where this kind of thinking leads. Because there is no restraint on the demand for services, the people who pay the bills, usually the government or employers, have to control the supply of those services. There are many ways to reduce supply -reduce the number of service providers, ration the amount of services allowed, create long waiting lines, direct denial of care -- but they all amount to the same thing -- preventing people from getting services they want to have and feel they need. This phenomenon is not confined to the United States. A recent article in Health Affairs reviewed public opinion surveys in five different English-speaking countires -- the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Each of these countries has its own unique health care system, but in every case the level of popular discontent with health care was roughly the same. Whether the system is employersponsored, single-payer, nationalized health services, mandated coverage, or any combination of these, the essential message to the people is the same. They are being told that, when it comes to health care, they have a right to whatever they want, whenever they want it, and it will all be free or nearly so. This is, of course, a bald-faced lie. And the people are beginning to figure that out. And the people are becoming furious that they've been lied to. Now that we've tried every imaginable way to limit the supply of services, there is only one strategy left -- change the demand side of the equation. We have to tell people the truth for a change. We have to say, "Here is what our system can afford to spend on health care. We will try to allocate these funds fairly among the population. But if you want more, you will have to pay for it yourself." People are then free to make their own value judgments about what is and is not important to them, rather than simply accepting the judgments of a third party. There will be trade-offs, of course. We don't all get to send our kids to Harvard, but we don't feel that life is unfair because of it. We gather our resources and do the best we can with what we have. Some people may be willing to sacrifice a new car in order to pay for Harvard, others are not. But this is a judgment that can be made only by the family involved. And so it must be in health care. Last printed 119 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 120 Privatization CP Solvency Only the counterplan solves – informal private networks are not only solve poverty but protect key values Walter E. Williams (John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics and Chairman of the Economics Department at George Mason University) January 15, 1996. THE ARGUMENT FOR FREE MARKETS: MORALITY VS. EFFICIENCY. http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj15n2-3-3.html Ultimately, the struggle to achieve and preserve freedom must take place in the habits and minds of individuals. And, as admonished by the Constitution of the State of North Carolina (Art. I, Sec. 35), "The frequent reference to fundamental principles is absolutely necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty.'' It is those fundamental principles that deliver economic efficiency and wealth, not the other way around. Fundamental moral principles or values are determined in the arena of civil society. Values such as thrift, hard work, honesty, trust and cooperative behavior, based on shared norms, are the keys to improving the human condition and provide the undergirding for a free-market economy. Just as important are such social institutions as respect for private property, sanctity of contracts, educational institutions, clubs, charities, churches, and families. All those institutions provide the glue to hold society together in terms of common values and provide for the transmission of those values to successive generations. Too often informal institutions and local networks are trivialized and greater favor is given to the intellectual's narrow conception of what constitutes knowledge and wisdom. The importance of informal networks such as friends, church members, neighbors, and families cannot be underestimated-as demonstrated in the following example of small proprietorships.[1] The critical determinants of a proprietor's success are perseverance, character, ability, and other personal characteristics. Banks seldom finance the establishment of such business. Most small businesses are financed through friends and family. The reason is that those are the people who have the lowest cost in acquiring the necessary information about the proprietor's characteristics deemed critical for success . Also, friends and family, who lend the proprietor money, have a personal stake in the business and have an incentive to moderate their likely bias in favor of the borrower. Clearly, a formal lending institution could query friends and relatives. However, the information obtained would have greater bias because friends and relatives would not have sufficient stake in the business to offset any personal bias they had in favor of the borrower. Last printed 120 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 121 Privatization CP – Charity Non-profits and voluntarism are effective at providing social services under a free market model Beito, Assoc. Prof. U-Alabama, Gordon, Prof. USC, and Tabarrok, V/P & Research Director Independent Institute, 02 (David Beito, Assoc. Prof. U-Alabama, Peter Gordon, Prof. USC, Alexander Tabarrok, V/P & Research Director Independent Institute, UMich Press: 2002, “Toward a Rebirth of Civil Society,” The Voluntary City, ed. Beito, Gordon, and Tabarrok, pp. 1-3) The authors of this volume join the debate on the higher ground. They argue that the scope for markets is wider than is now recognized and present exciting evidence that voluntary and contractual arrangements can also develop communities and deliver social services. In part, the evidence comes from a rediscovery of the history of voluntarism in social services. David Beito (chapter 8) and David Green (chapter 9), for example, recount the remarkable history of fraternal orders and friendly societies in nineteenth century America and Great Britain. The fraternal orders and friendly societies provided their members with medical care, unemployment insurance, sickness insurance, and many other social services before the welfare state. Nor were these institutions marginal to their times; Green notes, for example, that "When the British government introduced compulsory social insurance for 12 million persons under the 1911 National Insurance Act, registered and unregistered voluntary insurance associations already covered at least 9 million individuals." The example of fraternal orders and friendly societies is an important one because it illustrates that the authors do not have a blinkered view of either markets or human nature. With respect to markets, too often the vital role of the non-profit sector has been ignored. Proponents of markets, especially neo-classical economists, tend to argue as if the profit-maximizing firm were always and everywhere an ideal and any attenuation of profit incentives, whether in a nonprofit firm or in a government bureaucracy, an welcome divergence from this ideal. Proponents of government, while more supportive of the idea/ideal of non-profits, have tended to see Yet, in contrast to both views, the nonprofit sector in the United States today accounts for some 10 percent of GDP and nearly 15 percent of total employment (Sokolowski and Salamon, 1999).3 Moreover, the non-profit sector is a major player in such important industries as the non-profit sector in capitalist societies as weak, frail and entirely marginal to the dominant ethos. health, education, and high culture (and it was a major player in these industries long-before receiving any tax breaks or other regulatory advantages). The authors of this volume manifestly include non-profits in the market sector. The inclusion is important because by focusing on for-profit firms proponents of markets may have overstated the case for markets narrowly conceived. Yet by ignoring the role of non-profits, opponents of markets may Alternatively put, what conventional economics refers to as market failure may actually be a limited set of problems associated with for-profit firms and markets. If the term "market" is broadened to include non-profit firms and other voluntary but not for-profit organizations, the scope of such failure may be diminished.4 Thus, rather than saying that the authors of this volume argue for a have understated the case for markets broadly conceived. larger role for markets, it is more revealing to say that they argue for a larger role for civil society.5 One virtue of the term civil society is that it is not wrapped up in the same baggage as particular, to favor civil society is not necessarily to regard self-interest as the the term markets; in sole or even most important motivator of human action. Unfortunately, the market/government debate has often proceeded as if it were a debate between self-interest and other-regardingness. Yet there is growing support for the view that our ancestors learned to forge connections and developed a social nature for the practical reason that such connections enhanced survival, just as did their capacity for self-interest (Ridley 1996; Wright 2000). Humans are neither purely selfinterested nor purely other-regarding; humans are individuals who join groups and they possess all the skills appropriate to such a classification. It should come as no surprise then that otherregardingness is not absent from markets and self-interest is not absent from government. The issue, therefore, is not human nature but rather how different institutions channel human nature. Adam Smith argued that markets channel self-interest into socially beneficial directions - this is the meaning of his famous statement, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."6 The public choice school of political economy argues that government institutions often channel self-interest in socially undesirable directions (e.g. Gwartney and Wagner 1988). But as of yet, there is no well-developed theory of how other-regardingness is channeled by civil society or by government. Although such a theory is not developed here, the authors provide some case-studies of the former process that we think will help to motivate such theory as well as stimulate more historical study. voluntary arrangements that were used in the past (and that in some cases are returning today) had much to offer. An overview of these episodes is presented in the transitions accompanying each The authors argue that the section of the book. (Tabarrok's epilogue (chapter 15) also offers an overview of the papers from the perspective of economics and market-failure theory.) The point we wish to emphasize here is that the welfare state did not so much create new institutions as crowd-out the civic associations that people had spontaneously fashioned to provide “public goods,” “safety nets” and even law and order. Were the spontaneously created institutions of the civil society better than the government institutions which replaced them?7 The papers in this volume cannot definitively answer this question, but it is remarkable enough that they show the question is real. Last printed 121 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 122 Privatization CP Solvency—Volunteer/Non-Profit The Market through increased involvement in volunteer efforts solves coercion and achieves more effectiveness than the sate. Beito, Assoc. Prof. U-Alabama, Gordon, Prof. USC, and Tabarrok, V/P & Research Director Independent Institute, 02 (David Beito, Assoc. Prof. U-Alabama, Peter Gordon, Prof. USC, Alexander Tabarrok, V/P & Research Director Independent Institute, UMich Press: 2002, “Toward a Rebirth of Civil Society,” The Voluntary City, ed. Beito, Gordon, and Tabarrok, pp. 8-9) Rather than undermining community, civil society may take root in the communal spaces, facilities and institutions now taking shape in response to market demands . A possible example is enhanced political participation by property owners in the direct governance of their major financial asset, their home. The primacy of local politics is well known and CID politics are as local as governance becomes. We do not yet know much about the links between CIDs and civil society but the pairing appears to be a more promising solution to the crisis in civic engagement than the spatial determinism of the New Urbanists which banks on mandated porches and bay windows to do the job. If Americans are experiencing another Great Awakening, as Robert Fogel (2000) argues, then what some deride as an escape from community life could in fact become an escape to community. At its most promising, civic engagement could revive voluntary groups that supercede many of the welfare, environmentalist, and regulatory agencies of the modern state. Just a few years before the fall of the Berlin Wall, Nobel prize-winner James M. Buchanan (1990) worried that unless a constraining constitutional structure is resurrected, the overreaching state will continue to grow. Yet, it is no longer simply a one-way street; powerful forces are at work expanding both liberty and prosperity. The episodes documented in this collection show that we are rediscovering a rich array of voluntary institutions and arrangements that were crowded-out and regulated out-of-existence by the twentieth-century fling with socialism and progressivism. Many of these voluntary institutions are making a return. After a century of debate there is now widespread agreement that markets enhance material welfare and reduce conflict. The Voluntary City shows that the scope for markets broadly conceived, i.e. the scope for civil society, is even larger than the current consensus recognizes. The voluntary arrangements of civil society are capable of producing a host of socalled public goods such as aesthetic and functional zoning, roads, planning and other aspects of physical urban infrastructure. Civil society can also produce social infrastructure including education, conflict resolution, crime control and many of the social services currently monopolized by the welfare state. Having done all this, can voluntarism foster civic resources in the modern age? Can it restore a “civic voice”? Communitarian theorists Michael Sandel (1996) and Robert Putnam (2000) fear a crisis for modern democracies unless the “civic strand of freedom” is strengthened. Can voluntary institutions do all this in a bottomup fashion? If they can, then the events accompanying the fall of the Berlin Wall are much more auspicious than even the most daring have yet suggested. The payoffs from reduced state influence include expanded liberty and prosperity -- and perhaps much more. Last printed 122 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 123 Privatization CP – Good Character Relying upon more privatized forms of social welfare promotes good character, which solves best. Beito, Assoc. Prof. U-Alabama, 02 (David Beito, Assoc. Prof. U-Alabama, UMich Press: 2002, “Medical Care through Mutual Aid,” The Voluntary City, ed. Beito, Gordon, and Tabarrok, pp. 219-220) Historically governments have usually played the leading role in providing basic income support , laying down a line below which no one should fall. But no less important, before the welfare state, private voluntary organizations took the lead in providing contingent income support and contingent expense coverage. As we have seen, in both Britain and Australia the friendly societies and to a lesser extent the trade unions provided income during sickness, as well as supplying medical services. This was quite apart form the efforts of charitable organizations. But the friendly societies were not merely benefit societies. They also sought to promote good character , a facto of great importance for classical-liberal thought, which tends to take good conduct and a desire for a better life for granted and consequently to assume that every person will readily become an ambitious, self-reliant, participating citizen. In the 1860s and 1870s, when the poor law was becoming more lenient, the wholesome influence of the friendly societies and other institutions like the Methodist and other nonconformist churches proved sufficient to maintain a strong commitment to liberty and self-reliance. In the years after World War II, when such institutions had lost their influence, welfare leniency produces a different result, measured in family breakdown and growing personal dependency. Does the history of the friendly societies offer any lessons for modern welfare reformers? Perhaps the most important message is that the friendly societies are not just benefit societies. Unlike state welfare programs, the friendly societies treated people as if they had a moral dimension to their character . Marvin Olasky’s (1992) The Tragedy of American Compassion describes how nineteenth-century American charities avoided the mistakes of twentieth-century welfare programs. They did not treat the poor as victims of circumstance in need of cash handouts but attended to their moral, spiritual dimensions in the hope of restoring them to full independence and the enjoyment of liberty that followed. Like the mutual-aid associations, they appealed to the better side of human nature, enabling people to face new challenges of self-organization and leadership. The next generation of welfare reforms should learn from this experience by calling forth the best in people. The neglected history of welfare before the welfare states shows that even at much lower levels of personal prosperity, if we allow sufficient space for human ingenuity, some of the finest welfare institutions known to humankind can flourish. Last printed 123 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 124 Privatization Good - Efficiency Privatization promotes choice and increases quality of services to all people growth. The The case for privatization includes other claims besides improved efficiency, budget savings, and increased economic key word is choice. Advocates claim that privatization will enlarge the range of choice for individuals while serving the same essential functions as do traditional programs. Thus, if Social Security were privatized, the Federal government would still require people to put aside funds for retirement but would allow them to choose their own retirement investments. Educational vouchers would of services from public agencies to private contractors might permit greater choice among suppliers. Proponents not abolish laws requiring children to go to school but would allow families to choose which one. Asset sales and shifts of privatization maintain that greater choice would serve the interests of equity. The rich have always been able to afford private schools; educational vouchers would give the middle classes and the poor that ability. Social Security, they say, favors whites, whose longer life expectancy enables them to receive greater retirement benefits than do blacks; privatization would allegedly correct that bias. According to the privatizers, greater freedom of choice will gener ally lead to a more just distribution of benefits. Product choice because of privatization will resolve the inefficiency preventing high quality goods and services Choice is unquestionably the single strongest point in the case for privatization. The uniformity of public programs and services is often a grave limitation. Even where it is not logically required, the demands of equal treatment are often interpreted to prohibit heterogeneity in public services. Rules requiring uniform pricing also impede the production of varied services, especially those of high quality. These barriers to heterogeneity have long been a weakness of public services, but the problem grows more serious as personal income increases with economic growth. Larger numbers of consumers demand the more varied, specially designed services available previously only to those with the highest incomes. This demand for quality—or rather for different qualities — constitutes a source of dissatisfaction with the public sector that may be expected to grow. Last printed 124 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 125 Privatization CP – Education Solvency Education is best solved by the private sector because of accountability—their adoption despite public education proves. Tooley, Prof. Education Policy U-Newcastle, 02 (James Tooley, Prof. Education Policy U-Newcastle, UMich Press: 2002, “Education in the Voluntary City,” The Voluntary City, ed. Beito, Gordon, and Tabarrok, pp. 247-248) A broad range of evidence from Victorian England and Wales and nineteenth-century America shows how near-universal schooling was achieved before the state intervened in education. The evidence suggests that the impact of state intervention was to curb what was already flourishing—so much so that the picture of education in this and previous centuries seems far bleaker than it would have been had the private alternative not been suppressed and supplanted. In present-day India state education is singularly failing to meet the needs of the poorest citizens . (Much the same could be said of state education in America and Britain.) Private schools have arisen to fill the gaps left by state education despite the fact that governments put all sorts of roadblocks in the way of their flourishing. Why do parents, given the availability of free state education, send their children to private schools? The PROBE research unequivocally answers this question: the parents are refugees from a state sector that has failed them. Teachers in the public sector showed a cavalier lack of interest in teaching. Private schools were better. The burgeoning privateeducational sector in Brazil, Colombia, Argentina, Russia, and elsewhere demonstrates the widespread desire for better schools. In India and elsewhere around the world the factor that gives private schools their edge, and that will always give private schools their edge, is their accountability. Private schools are concerned that they keep parents' custom and so ensure that what is provided within the schools is desirable to them. In short, education is not something that we need the state to provide , nor is it something that we should wish the state to provide. If we want an educational system that lifts people out of poverty, is responsive to demand, and is successful and innovative, we must look instead to the voluntary city. Last printed 125 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 126 Privatization CP Solvency—Education Privatization in Education allows for better competition and thus, higher quality education. Hart, Andrew E. Furer Prof. Econ. Harvard, Shleifer, Prof. Econ. Harvard, and Vishny, Eric J. Gleacher Distinguished Service Prof. Finance U-Chicago Grad. School of Business, 97 (Oliver Hart, Andrew E. Furer Prof. Econ. Harvard, Andrei Shleifer, Prof. Econ. Harvard, Robert W. Vishny, Eric J. Gleacher Distinguished Service Prof. Finance U-Chicago Grad. School of Business, 11-1997, “The Proper Scope of Government: Theory and an Application to Prisons,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/shleifer/ files/proper_scope.pdf) An important example that goes outside of our basic model is the provision of schooling. For schools, the damage to quality from cost cutting, b(e), may be large, but innovation is probably important, and the incentives of publicly employed teachers, especially when they are protected by unions, are weak. Our propositions, therefore, do not give a clear answer as to which arrangement is superior. The key aspect of schools, however, is the potential for ex post competition. In voucher arrangements combined with school choice, the government pays for each child’s education, but children and parents select schools . We conjecture that the case for such private arrangements is extremely strong. School choice would force private schools to compete for students by providing higher quality, since schools cannot compete in price when students pay with vouchers. This competition should significantly reduce the incentive to cut quality while cutting costs, as well as increase the incentive to innovate quality. Indeed, the available evidence suggests that competition between schools is associated with a higher quality of education {Hoxby 1994}. Last printed 126 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 127 AT: “Free-rider” Free-rider theory is a lie—charity through non-profits solves. Tabarrok, V/P & Research Director Independent Institute, 02 (Alexander Tabarrok, V/P & Research Director Independent Institute, UMich Press: 2002, “Market Challenges and Government Failure: Lessons from the Voluntary City,” The Voluntary City, ed. Beito, Gordon, and Tabarrok, pp. 412) Daniel Klein's chapter on American turnpikes (chapter 14) makes t contributions to The Voluntary City. On the surface level it is a refutation by existence: private turnpike companies built thousands of miles of roads in early America, belying the arguments that government provision was necessary. Indeed, such roads were built because gave merit failed to provide roads of sufficient quantity or quality. On a deeper level, Klein uses the history of turnpike companies to empirically challenge models that treat the "free-rider" problem as ubiquity and insurmountable. Klein notes that toll regulation, as well as technological factors, made for-profit provision of turnpikes unprofitable. The indirect benefits of a road connecting a town to larger markets were large but mostly unexcludable. According to the standard model turnpikes at all should have been built. Yet in the states Klein examines, hundreds of turnpikes built thousands of miles of road. How was the free-rider problem overcome? Klein points to importance of social pressure, public spiritedness, and social pressure, public spiritedness, and social esteem. Turnpike organizers would gather together all the leading members a town at a local inn and make their case for the benefits of a new road. Rousing speeches, boosterism, and calls for generosity would generally call forth donations for the public good. When the road was complete the leaders of the drive and the large contributors could take satisfaction in the public gratitude and esteem that their efforts earned. Would such efforts work today in an age of (supposedly) greater anomie and disconnectedness from community? Klein is optimistic, pointing to the billions raised by the nonprofit sector through entirely voluntary means. The extreme self-interest assumption upon which the strong version of the free-rider hypothesis rests is also coming under closer scrutiny. Evolutionary psychologists argue that pure altruism is limited to kin. Humans, however, come into the world not only with a "propensity to truck, barter, and exchange," as Adam Smith said, I also with the corollary propensities "to learn how to cooperate, to discriminate the trustworthy from the treacherous, to commit themselves to be trustworthy, [and] to earn good reputations" (Ridley 1996, 249). Cooperation is therefore much more prevalent than simple economic models would predict.8 Last printed 127 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 128 Privatization CP Solvency–Health Care Eliminating licensing requirements for medical establishments and restrictions on medical supplies, deregulating health insurance, and eliminating subsidies such as Medicaid key to greater effectiveness and availability of health care. Hoppe, Prof. Emeritus of Econ, University of Nevada, 93 (Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Prof. Emeritus of Econ, University of Nevada, 04/1993, “A Four-Step Health-Care Solution,” Mises Institute, http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=279) It's true that the U.S. health care system is a mess, but this demonstrates not market but government failure. To cure the problem requires not different or more government regulations and bureaucracies, as self-serving politicians want us to believe, but the elimination of all existing government controls. It's time to get serious about health care reform. Tax credits, vouchers, and privatization will go a long way toward decentralizing the system and removmg unnecessary burdens from business. But four additional steps must also be taken: 1. Eliminate all licensing requirements for medical schools, hospitals, pharmacies, and medical doctors and other health care personnel. Their supply would almost instantly increase, prices would fall, and a greater variety of health care services would appear on the market. Competing voluntary accreditation agencies would take the place of compulsory government licensing--if health care providers believe that such accreditation would enhance their own reputation, and that their consumers care about reputation, and are willing to pay for it. Because consumers would no longer be duped into believing that there is such a thing as a "national standard" of health care, they will increase their search costs and make more discriminating health care choices. 2. Eliminate all government restrictions on the production and sale of pharmaceutical products and medical devices. This means no more Food and Drug Administration, which presently hinders innovation and increases costs. Costs and prices would fall, and a wider variety of better products would reach the market sooner. The market would force consumers to act in accordance with their own--rather than the government's--risk assessment. And competing drug and device manufacturers and sellers, to safeguard against product liability suits as much as to attract customers, would provide increasingly better product descriptions and guarantees. 3. Deregulate the health insurance industry. Private enterprise can offer insurance against events over whose outcome the insured possesses no control. One cannot insure oneself against suicide or bankruptcy, for example, because it is in one's own hands to bring these events about. Because a person's health, or lack of it, lies increasingly within his own control, many, if not most health risks, are actually uninsurable. "Insurance" against risks whose likelihood an individual can systematically influence falls within that person's own responsibility. All insurance, moreover, involves the pooling of individual risks. It implies that insurers pay more to some and less to others. But no one knows in advance, and with certainty, who the "winners" and "losers" will be. "Winners" and "losers" are distributed randomly, and the resulting income redistribution is unsystematic. If "winners" or "losers" could be systematically predicted, "losers" would not want to pool their risk with "winners," but with other "losers," because this would lower their insurance costs. I would not want to pool my personal accident risks with those of professional football players, for instance, but exclusively with those of people in circumstances similar to my own, at lower costs. Because of legal restrictions on the health insurers' right of refusal--to exclude any individual risk as uninsurable--the present health-insurance system is only partly concerned with insurance. The industry cannot discriminate freely among different groups' risks. As a result, health insurers cover a multitude of uninnsurable risks, alongside, and pooled with, genuine insurance risks. They do not discriminate among various groups of people which pose significantly different insurance risks. The industry thus runs a system of income redistribution--benefiting irresponsible actors and high-risk groups at the expense of responsible individuals and low risk groups. Accordingly the industry's prices are high and ballooning. To deregulate the industry means to restore it to unrestricted freedom of contract: to allow a health insurer to offer any contract whatsoever, to include or exclude any risk, and to discriminate among any groups of individuals. Uninsurable risks would lose coverage, the variety of insurance policies for the remaining coverage would increase, and price differentials would reflect genuine 4. Eliminate all subsidies to the sick or unhealthy. Subsidies create more of whatever is being subsidized. Subsidies for the ill and diseased breed illness and disease, and promote carelessness, indigence, and dependency. If we eliminate them, we would strengthen the will to live healthy lives and to work for a living. In the first instance, that means abolishing Medicare and Medicaid. Only these four steps, although drastic, will restore a fully free market in medical provision. Until they are adopted, the industry will have serious problems, and so will we, its consumers. insurance risks. On average, prices would drastically fall. And the reform would restore individual responsibility in health care. Last printed 128 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 129 Privatization – Mormon Church Proves Mormon Church proves that private social service programs solve better Rothbard, 78 (Murray Rothbard, former teacher at Brooklyn Polytechnic Institute, “For A New Liberty”, p. 185-6, Google Scholar) [PDM] Other members are rehabilitated as self-employed, the church may aid with a small loan, and the member's priesthood quorum may guarantee repayment from its funds. Those Mormons who cannot be placed in jobs or rehabilitated as selfemployed "are to be given, in so far as possible, work at productive labor on Church properties." The Church is insistent on work by the recipient as far as possible: It is imperative that people being sustained through the bishops' storehouse program work to the extent of their ability, thus earning what they receive.... Work of an individual on welfare projects should be considered as temporary rather than permanent employment. It should nevertheless continue so long as assistance is rendered to the individual through the bishops storehouse program. In this way the spiritual welfare of people will be served as their temporal needs are supplied. Feelings of diffidence will be removed. 13 Failing other work, the bishop may assign welfare recipients to aid individual members reimbursing the Church at prevailing wage rates. In general, in return for their assistance, the welfare recipients are expected to make whatever contributions they can to the Church welfare program, either in funds, produce, pr by their labor. 14 Complementary to this comprehensive system of private aid on the principle of fostering independence, the Mormon Church sternly discourages its members from going on public welfare. "It is requested that local Church officers stress the importance of each individual, each family and each Church community becoming self-sustaining and independent of public relief." And: "to seek and accept direct public relief all too often invites the curse of idleness and fosters the other evils of dole. It destroys one's independence, industry, thrift and self-respect." 15 There is no finer model than the Mormon Church for a private, voluntary, rational, individualistic welfare program. Let government welfare be abolished, and one would expect that numerous such programs for rational mutual aid would spring up throughout the country. Last printed 129 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 130 Privatization CP – Empirical Solvency Privatization empirically solves-Vermont Smith, Senior Fellow in Health Care Reform at The Heritage Foundation's Center for Health Policy Studies, 09 (Dennis G. Smith, Senior Fellow in Health Care Reform at The Heritage Foundation's Center for Health Policy Studies, 3/25/2009, “The Role of Long-Term Care in Health Reform”, The Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/tst032509c.cfm) Reform should offer more alternatives to Medicaid in order to divert people from needing Medicaid in the first place and Medicaid itself must be rebalanced. In this respect, Vermont provides a model for serious consideration. Patrick Flood, Deputy Secretary of the Vermont Agency of Human Services, has described how Vermont has abandoned the out-dated Medicaid structure of long-term care, and leveled the playing field between institutional and home care with the option of self-direction: In 2005, Vermont received approval from CMS for an 1115 Waiver to re-design our Medicaid long term care system. The goals for the Waiver were to: * Provide equal access to either a nursing home or home based care services * Serve more people * Manage the overall costs of long term care. Last printed 130 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 131 Privatization CP AT: Market Failure Market Solutions are best—flexibility and coercive government prove. Even if markets are challenged, they still are superior than inefficient government institutions. Tabarrok, V/P & Research Director Independent Institute, 02 (Alexander Tabarrok, V/P & Research Director Independent Institute, UMich Press: 2002, “Market Challenges and Government Failure: Lessons from the Voluntary City,” The Voluntary City, ed. Beito, Gordon, and Tabarrok, pp. 412) Conclusions The theoretical empiric skips lightly from a mathematical model of a market in which optimality fails to a conclusion of "market failure" to a policy prescription for government intervention. Each step of the process is fraught with danger. Models cannot tell us how private actors will innovate to surmount challenges . Meade's model failed as a description of the apple/bee market because he assumed from the beginning that markets in externalities could not exist. This is not to say that it is possible to create a market for every externality. It is instead to point out that what makes such a market possible for bees and blossoms are facts about bees and blossoms that are unlikely to be known to an economist. Neil Skaggs and 1 Lon Carlson (1996, 543) write that where collective-consumption goods are involved, "the market has no choice but to fail." In truth, however, there are many such choices from internalization to large-scale development, contractual and legal innovations, tie-in sales, creation of private substitutes, and provision through nonprofit firms and socially motivated organizations.28 Upon empirical examination "market failure" often turns out to be better described as 'imagination failure." "Market challenge" is a better term than "market failure." Market-challenge theory can identify areas where empirical investigation is likely to be especially valuable and interesting. Empirical investigation may discover market failure, or it may discover practices and institutions that help markets to succeed in the face of challenges. Even supposing that a market challenge is not met or is met poorly it does not follow that government action is a superior alternative. The public-choice school of political economy has reminded us that politicians and bureaucrats are as self-interested as entrepreneurs and that markets often channel self-interest into socially productive arenas better than do government institutions. What Sort of Civilization Do we Want? This volume is entitled The Voluntary City, but it could equally justly have been called The Voluntary Civilization. Cities are the birthplaces of most innovations in art, culture, and science, and they are the engines of economic growth (Jacobs 1969; Bairoch 19X8). The city is thus the root of civilization. Indeed the etymology of the word "civilization" is found in the Latin word civic meaning an inhabitant of a city. Crime, housing, transport, education, order, political governance — these are issues related to cities, but seen in a larger light they are also issues that every civilization must grapple with. Are civilizations best governed coercively from the top down or are they best governed by the institutions of private ordering—markets, contracts, property rights, and decentralized law? Many of the chapters in The Voluntary City suggest that private ordering offers performance superior to the coercive institutions of government. In the case of housing, roads, city planning, and so forth, arguments of this sort may be enough to decide the issue But, recalling Ambrose Bierce, if the lighthouse is maintained for the friend rather than for the lamp, it is no use complaining that the lamp is poorly lit and of little aid to passing ships. In these cases The Voluntary City raises questions of political constitutions and metarules of governance. In other cases, a question of values arises. If the purpose of public education is indoctrination then there is no use complaining that public education is expensive and all too often fails to teach the basic skills of reading, writing, and arithmetic. The same issues arise with respect to public police. The choice of public versus private becomes in these cases a choice of values. What sort of civilization do we want? Sparta or Athens? A civilization in which a dominant majority imposes its view of the good? Or a civilization that is open to all equally? A civilization of indoctrination in common values or one of tolerance? The question cannot be answered here, but it can be said that if we are to achieve the voluntary civilization, we must begin with The Voluntary City. Last printed 131 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 132 Privatization CP Solvency—Military Outsourcing in the military is good—most qualified and competitive personnel get contracts. Rhea, reporter Military & Aerospace Electronics, 04 (John Rhea, reporter Military & Aerospace Electronics, 02-2004, “In praise of outsourcing,” Military & Aerospace Electronics Vol. 15 Issue 2, p10) WASHINGTON—In the wake of the war in Iraq, following revelations of Halliburton Corp. overcharging the Pentagon for rebuilding the Iraqi oil fields, outsourcing is coming under attack again. This has been a smoldering issue for at least 40 years, by my observation, and I think it’s time to speak out in support of this practice. I hope to do so as a taxpayer and not as an employs of a magazine published for the defense industry. Simply put, it's a matter of dividing up the work to support the country's national defense so that each function is performed by the organization best suited to perform it. The core competency of the armed forces is warfighting, not all the mundane tasks of logistics support . A century ago, the efficiency expert Frederick Winslow Tayk said, "every job in a company should be accomplished by the lowest-paid person capable of doing it." I wouldn't go that far, but I think he was on to something. Clearly, the defense establishment is not qualified to produce sophisticated weapon systems. That's why have a defense industry in this country. Last printed 132 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 133 Privatization CP Solvency—Military Military outsourcing can assure open competition and therefore better efficiency and technology through EPIC or FFP contracts. Rhea, reporter Military & Aerospace Electronics, 04 (John Rhea, reporter Military & Aerospace Electronics, 02-2004, “In praise of outsourcing,” Military & Aerospace Electronics Vol. 15 Issue 2, p10) The issue isn't in-house vs. contracting out, I submit, but rather the way the outsourcing is managed. The key to any viable outsourcing program is assuring open competition among those films best qualified to do the job. This is where Halliburton—headed by Vice President Dick Cheney from 1995 to 2000—is a legitimate target of criticism. As taxpayers, executives of defense companies should be just as outraged as everybody else. In that regard, the method of contracting does make a difference. During the Apollo days of the 1960s, NASA officials took great pride in shifting the agency's contracts from the conventional cost-plusfixed-fee (CPFF) mode, in which the contractors were actually motivated to run up costs in order to run up costs in order to maximize their profits, to the more competitive cost-plus-incentive fee (EPIC) and the even more competitive firm-fixed-price (FFP) contracts, in which the contractors had to live by their own initial bids. Outsourcing has had remarkable success throughout American industry in allowing companies to focus on their core competencies. Rather than rolling it back, I think imaginative executives in the defense industry could explore useful ways to extend this concept into other industries that have traditionally been dominated by inhouse government operation. What they would bring to the party, to use the old Silicon Valley metaphor, is their management capabilities and their technology. I think all of us taxpayers would be well served. Last printed 133 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 134 Privatization CP Solvency—Prisons Prisons are getting overcrowded—privatization key to solve, and are more efficient than government solutions. Joel, Research Assistant at Heritage Foundation, 88 (Dana Joel, Research Assistant at Heritage Foundation, 05-24-1988, “A Guide to Prison Privatization,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder #650, http://www.heritage.org/research/crime/bg650.cfm) INTRODUCTION America has been getting tougher on lawbreakers. This is something that the public long has been demanding. The problem it creates, however, is a shortage of prison capacity to hold the increased numbers of convicted criminals. This has led to: prison overcrowding, sometimes prompting court actions against penal systems; rapidly rising operational outlays; and taxpayer resistance to the cost of new prisons. A partial answer to the problems of prison overcrowding and high costs may be the "privatization" of prisons. By using the private sector to build or manage prisons, many states believe that they can reduce costs. So far, most state correction agencies have used the private sector only to manage minimum-secure or non-secure "community" correction centers, such as juvenile institutions and halfway houses. Currently over half the states have passed legislation to allow for this form of prison privatization. Nine states may be going beyond this; they have passed laws enabling private companies to operate adult "confinement" state prisons.1 Other states, including Indiana, Kentucky, and Minnesota, considering similar legislation. Court Ordered Relief Costs and overcrowding problems are the driving force behind the privatization phenomenon. As a national average, it costs roughly $20,000 per year to keep an inmate in prison. There are approximately 650,000 inmates in state and local prisons, double the number five years ago. This costs taxpayers an estimated $18 billion each year. More than two thirds of the states are facing serious overcrowding problems, and many are operating at least 50 percent over capacity. Some 41 states, including California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Texas are under court order to relieve the overcrowding.2 If they do not do so, many convicts who have not served full sentences will have to be released. Cost comparisons between private and government operation of prisons show frequent cost savings under private management. While the national average cost to hold a prisoner in a government run prison is $40 per inmate a day, many privately run prisons charge the government significantly lower fees. U.S. Corrections Corporation, which operates the Marion Adjustment Center in St. Mary, Kentucky, charges Kentucky a daily fee of $25 per inmate. In 1986, this private firm saved Kentucky an estimated $400,000. Similarly, Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) charged Bay County in Florida $29.81 per them per inmate to operate the Bay County Jail. Before privatization of the facility, the daily cost was $38 per inmate. In 1985, CCA's first year to operate the jail, the corporation saved the county approximately $700,000.3 Last printed 134 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 135 Privatization CP Solvency—Immigrant Detention Centers Federal Privatization of prisons is moving slowly, but can be effective for immigrant detention centers. Joel, Research Assistant at Heritage Foundation, 88 (Dana Joel, Research Assistant at Heritage Foundation, 05-24-1988, “A Guide to Prison Privatization,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder #650, http://www.heritage.org/research/crime/bg650.cfm) PRIVATIZATION AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL Compared with state and local activity, prison privatization at the federal level is moving very slowly. Yet it was the federal government that triggered the recent spate of prison privatization when it began to contract out for the imprisonment of illegal aliens in the early 1980's. At that time, the federal government also made inmate labor available to private firms, primarily to test the feasibility of private prison work programs. Currently, the main areas of federal prison privatization include holding illegal aliens awaiting deportation, operating halfway houses, providing medical, food, and educational services, and managing minimumsecurity facilities. The major private correction centers for federal offenders include: · Hidden Valley Ranch, in California, which confines approximately 60 juveniles for the Bureau of Prisons (BOP). · Behavioral Systems Southwest, also in California, which retains minimum-security illegal aliens for the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). · Corrections Corporation of America in Tennessee, which operates a minimum-security detention center for the INS in Houston, Texas. · Wackenhut Services, Inc. of Florida, which has a contract with the INS to construct a minimum-security facility in Colorado for 167 inmates. The company also has contracts with the U.S. Marshals Service, the Bureau of Prisons, and the Department of Labor to operate a job-corps center for 600 violators. Within the last year, the federal Bureau of Prisons has proposed contracting with a private firm for a new 500bed minimum-secure facility for illegal aliens. In addition, the Bureau has considered contracting for facilities to house "special needs" prisoners, such as juveniles, women, protective custody cases, and for prisoners needing medical services. However, the Bureau of Prisons has been hesitant to contract out the more "mainstream" prisoners such as those imprisoned in the Federal Correctional Institutions and the U.S. Penitentiary System. Last printed 135 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 136 Privatization CP Prisons—AT: Questions of Authority/Responsibility Government still has full authority—Prisons can only hold inmates. Joel, Research Assistant at Heritage Foundation, 88 (Dana Joel, Research Assistant at Heritage Foundation, 05-24-1988, “A Guide to Prison Privatization,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder #650, http://www.heritage.org/research/crime/bg650.cfm) Question #1. Does Privatization Mean Government Abrogates Its Responsibility? Should the private sector be responsible for a function traditionally performed by the government sector? Or is it possible for the government to delegate certain areas of responsibility to the private sector while continuing to maintain full authority? Experience shows that prison privatization does not mean that the government relinquishes its responsibility. The government still would select the inmates to be placed in private prisons, choose the type of facility to be contracted out, oversee the contractor's disciplinary practices and, most important, evaluate the contractor's performance. Last printed 136 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 137 Privatization CP Prisons—AT: “Creaming” Creaming is not a problem—States can choose who goes where. Joel, Research Assistant at Heritage Foundation, 88 (Dana Joel, Research Assistant at Heritage Foundation, 05-24-1988, “A Guide to Prison Privatization,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder #650, http://www.heritage.org/research/crime/bg650.cfm) Question #2. Is "Creaming" a Problem? Does privatization mean the private sector will take the more "favorable" prisoners leaving more difficult inmates for the government? This is unlikely. Most states retain the right to place inmates in privately run prisons.12 Last printed 137 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 138 Regulations and laws check contractors from cutting corners. Joel, Research Assistant at Heritage Foundation, 88 Privatization CP Prisons—At: Profit-making → Cutting Corners (Dana Joel, Research Assistant at Heritage Foundation, 05-24-1988, “A Guide to Prison Privatization,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder #650, http://www.heritage.org/research/crime/bg650.cfm) Question #3. Does Profit Conflict with Good Practice? Can the economic objectives of running a prison be met without conflicting with the operational objectives? Critics of privatization claim that contractors will cut comers at the expense of the prisoner's welfare. The contracting process significantly reduces such dangers. Contractors must abide by state laws, regulations, and policies and are held accountable for fulfilling these obligations. If the state is dissatisfied, it can refuse to renew the contract. Some states, such as New Mexico and Tennessee, also include termination clauses within contracts in the event a contractor provides inadequate service. In addition, contractors are watched very closely by the courts, the press, civil-rights groups, and prison-reform groups. Such close scrutiny forces the contractor to maintain adequate standards. Last printed 138 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 139 Privatization CP Prisons—At: Current Employees Losing Jobs Private Prisons would require lots of workers which ensures jobs and high wages. Joel, Research Assistant at Heritage Foundation, 88 (Dana Joel, Research Assistant at Heritage Foundation, 05-24-1988, “A Guide to Prison Privatization,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder #650, http://www.heritage.org/research/crime/bg650.cfm) Question #4. Are Current Prison Employees Threatened by Privatization? The public employee unions representing public sector prison workers, such as the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal. Employees (AFSCME), fear that extensive privatization will reduce salary and fringe benefits for prison workers. Private contracting poses much less of a threat than the unions claim. In common with most contracting practices at the state and local levels, state employees usually receive first refusal for jobs with the private contractor. And because the correctional system is highly labor-intensive, prison operation requires a large work force. Studies also suggest that wage rates in privately run prisons are the same or are higher than in government-run prisons. Last printed 139 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 140 Privatization CP Prisons—AT: Strikes Private Prison Guard Strikes are unlikely and can be quelled anyway. Joel, Research Assistant at Heritage Foundation, 88 (Dana Joel, Research Assistant at Heritage Foundation, 05-24-1988, “A Guide to Prison Privatization,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder #650, http://www.heritage.org/research/crime/bg650.cfm) Question #5. Are Private Prison Guards Permitted to Strike? Critics argue that while public guards cannot strike, private guards can strike under the protection of the National Labor Relations Act. However, many contracts can contain provisions denying these private employees the right to strike. In cases where no such provision exists, private guards nevertheless are likely to be discouraged from striking. Correction agencies can threaten to terminate a contract, which would mean the loss of their jobs. In any event, should a strike occur, authorities could call in the National Guard or state police, as they would to quell a severe disruption in a state-run prison. Last printed 140 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 141 Rebidding and contract review ensure efficiency in private prisons over the long-term. Joel, Research Assistant at Heritage Foundation, 88 Privatization CP Prisons—At: Long-term Privatization → Inefficiencies (Dana Joel, Research Assistant at Heritage Foundation, 05-24-1988, “A Guide to Prison Privatization,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder #650, http://www.heritage.org/research/crime/bg650.cfm) Question #6. Will Service Quality and Flexibility be Maintained? Some policy makers maintain that the quality of management in private prisons will tend to be high at first, because of competition and the desire to win contracts. However, they question the private sector's ability to sustain high-quality standards. They reason that, with the contract securely in their hands, private managers in the long-run are unlikely to maintain high standards. Moreover, they claim, once a long-term contract is signed, government loses its flexibility in practice it is not able to use or discard private services as needs change. Contracting standards, however, are likely to improve over time as more firms enter the market and competition increases. Periodic rebidding, as the National Institute of Justice recommends, will create incentives for firms to improve constantly the quality and cost-efficiency of their performance. Studies on the contracting out of other federal and municipal services show significant cost savings over the long term. Between 1981 and 1984, for example, municipal janitorial services contracting with the Department of Housing and Urban Development showed cost savings of 73 percent. Similarly, municipal overlay construction showed a 96 percent cost saving.13 Frequent government review of contracts and careful monitoring of performance will ensure long-range efficiency. Last printed 141 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 142 Privatization CP Prisons—Privatization Better Privatizing prisons costs the government less—3 reasons. Joel, Research Assistant at Heritage Foundation, 88 (Dana Joel, Research Assistant at Heritage Foundation, 05-24-1988, “A Guide to Prison Privatization,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder #650, http://www.heritage.org/research/crime/bg650.cfm) Question #7. Can Public and Private Costs be Compared? Given the difficulties inherent in measuring the true "cost" of a prison inmate, can government really be sure it saves with privatization? Comparing costs in the private and public sectors admittedly is not easy. Accounting procedures differ and quality is difficult to compare. Routine monitoring of private contractors may be a hidden cost of privatization, just as taxes paid by the contractor may be a hidden additional benefit. Despite accounting difficulties, the evidence to date shows strong cost advantages of private operation over government operation due to such factors as the absence of civil service regulation, lower privatesector pension and benefit costs, and improved productivity. But to measure these savings accurately, agencies need to review their accounting procedures. Many states and counties are doing this, just as cities have done so to gauge the savings of contracting out municipal services. At the federal level, the President's Commission on Privatization recommends that the Bureau of Prisons and the Immigration and Naturalization Service conduct cost-analysis studies, using standards for measuring annual expenditures that are used by contractors.14 Last printed 142 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 143 Privatization CP Prisons—AT: Liability Problems Liability problems don’t matter—most agree that the government retains overall authority, and issues are resolved through contracts anyway. Joel, Research Assistant at Heritage Foundation, 88 (Dana Joel, Research Assistant at Heritage Foundation, 05-24-1988, “A Guide to Prison Privatization,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder #650, http://www.heritage.org/research/crime/bg650.cfm) Question #8. How Can Liability Concerns be Resolved? Who is legally responsible for the violation of a prisoner's rights? Who is liable if a private prison employee is injured? If a prisoner escapes and injures. a private citizen, is the state or the private operator held accountable? And assuming the government is liable, will liability costs to the government be higher or lower with private prison operation? Such questions are important in the debate on prison privatization. Yet the matter of liability has not slowed privatization significantly. Critics and proponents of privatization agree that while the contractor has accepted responsibility to operate or manage a prison facility, government still retains overall authority and liability. In fact, the Civil Rights Act specifies that while the private sector may manage "places of confinement," the government is to have ultimate custody over prisoners. A contract, of course, can contain indemnification clauses absolving the agency from certain legal damages. In many cases, the contractor is required to carry large insurance policies for the government agency's protection.15 The 1988 Report by the President's Commission on Privatization notes that the liability issue depends very much on the nature of state tort laws and specific provisions within the contract . According to the report, the American Bar Association, with support from the National Institute of Justice, is completing a model prison contract to deal with liability and other issues.16 Last printed 143 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 144 Privatization CP Prisons—AT: Use of Force Private guards can be allowed to use force, but this is up to specific contracts. Joel, Research Assistant at Heritage Foundation, 88 (Dana Joel, Research Assistant at Heritage Foundation, 05-24-1988, “A Guide to Prison Privatization,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder #650, http://www.heritage.org/research/crime/bg650.cfm) Question #9. What About the Use of Force? Should private security guards carry guns? When is the use of deadly force by a private guard justified? Should guards use force only for self-protection, or under the same conditions as state officials? What about emergency situations, such as a prison escape? While these are understandable concerns, most states have resolved the issue by defining in statute the right of private officials to use reasonable force. Lawmakers believe it is necessary that contractors have the same standards for establishing security as correction agencies, and that inmates view private prison officials as holding the same authority as government officials. Massachusetts, for instance, allows private guards to use deadly force with discretion. However, the state Commissioner of Corrections enforces regulations to ensure security and order. Similarly, New Mexico allows prison contractors to designate "peace officers," who are armed within the prison facility, outside the facility when transporting inmates, and may use deadly force in the event of an escape. Nevertheless, the right to use force, especially deadly force, is seen as a last resort. Private guards normally are unarmed. In some privately operated prisons, such as the Bay County Jail in Florida, most guards are licensed to carry guns but only do so if there is a crisis, such as an attempted escape. Moreover, if an escape is successful, private prison officials normally would rely on the police force to apprehend the prisoner.17 Last printed 144 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 145 Privatization CP Solvency—Prisons Privatization is succeeding in various states, proving federal privatization would solve. Joel, Research Assistant at Heritage Foundation, 88 (Dana Joel, Research Assistant at Heritage Foundation, 05-24-1988, “A Guide to Prison Privatization,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder #650, http://www.heritage.org/research/crime/bg650.cfm) Privatization is a practical and innovative solution to the problems of overcrowding and high costs facing the U.S. prison system. Many states are recognizing this, contracting out services, contracting out inmates' labor to private firms, and seeking private financing for prison construction. An increasing number of states are contracting out the entire operation of prison facilities. The federal government has been less active, limiting itself to contracting out facilities holding illegal aliens and juvenile offenders. Many jurisdictions are unsure of prison privatization, fearing a loss in service, problems with liability, and threats to the jobs of prison personnel. As more and more jurisdictions experiment successfully with privatization, however, their experience should demonstrate privatization's value. Last printed 145 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 146 Privatization CP – Solves Terrorism Privatization solves terrorism. Powell, Secretary of State, 04 (Colin L. Powell, U.S army general, Secretary of State, National Security Advisor, Commander-in-chief, U.S. Army Forces Command, Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, 04, http://www.digitalnpq.org/global_services/global%20viewpoint/01-03-05.html) In the United States, we understand that the war on terrorism cannot be won unless we confront the social and political roots of poverty. We want to bring people to justice if they commit acts of terrorism, but we also want to bring justice to people. We want to help others achieve representative government that provides opportunity and fairness. We want to unshackle the human spirit so that entrepreneurship, investment and trade can flourish . This goal is the indispensable social and political precondition for sustainable development; it is the means by which we will uproot the social support structures of terrorism. Last printed 146 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 147 Privatization CP – Poverty and Democracy Economic development key to solving poverty and democracy. Powell, Secretary of State, 04 (Colin L. Powell, U.S army general, Secretary of State, National Security Advisor, Commander-in-chief, U.S. Army Forces Command, Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, 04, http://www.digitalnpq.org/global_services/global%20viewpoint/01-03-05.html) It is clear that development, democracy and security are inextricably linked. Poverty alleviation cannot succeed without sustained economic growth, which requires that policymakers take seriously the challenge of good governance. At the same time, new and often fragile democracies cannot be reliably sustained, and democratic values cannot be spread further, unless we work hard and wisely at economic development. And no nation, no matter how powerful, can assure the safety of its people as long as economic desperation and injustice can mingle with tyranny and fanaticism. Last printed 147 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 148 Education CP–1NC? Text: The United States federal government should enact the Public Education Tax Credit Act to provide education tax credits to persons living in poverty. Solves coercion—families are able to choose where their money goes without government distortion of citizen behavior. Schaeffer, policy analyst, Cato’s Center for Educational Freedom, 07 (Adam B, Schaeffer, policy analyst, Cato’s Center for Educational Freedom, 12-05-2007, “The Public Education Tax Credit,” CATO Institute, Policy Analysis No. 605) Most prominent among these practical advantages is that credits maximize direct payment of education expenses by parents, a factor strongly correlated with academic achievement and efficiency. 46 Non-refundable personal use tax credits are simply targeted tax cuts that allow parents to spend more of their own money on their children’s education. Allowing taxpayers to direct their own money where they choose puts the decisionmaking power at the source of the funds, with the individuals most interested in ensuring that it is well spent. In addition, every scholarship organization has large incentives to encourage direct payment by parents, as much as they are able, so that the organization itself can support more families in need. Sometimes, as is the case with the scholarship program administered by the Black Alliance for Educational Options in Philadelphia, volunteering at the school of choice is used as an alternative or addition to parents’ direct payments. In all cases, parents are more directly involved and invested in their children’s education. Taxpayers’ direct control over their own money also translates into less distortion of citizen behavior with tax credits than with vouchers. 47 Generally, fiscal conservatives oppose the government encouraging or discouraging behavior through the tax code. However, the current system massively distorts behavior by taxing the public and disbursing money directly to district schools, affording neither taxpayers nor educational consumers any control over the use of those funds. In such a system, allowing parental choice alone, as vouchers do, helps because some market forces are introduced. The actual taxpayers, however, are still allowed no discretion over where their money goes under government voucher programs. Education tax credits minimize coercion and market distortion by allowing taxpayers to spend their money wherever they like, as long as it is on education. The government still distorts taxpayer behavior, but taxpayers directly control where their money goes within the education sector of the economy. Health care reform offers a useful comparison. The general hierarchy of free-market health care reform preferences looks like this: worst—direct government, single third-party-payer system (vouchers); better—tax subsidized, employer third-party-payer system; much better—tax subsidized, individual-payer system (tax credits); best—unsubsidized free-market system. Health care reform does not begin with a fully statefinanced and state-run medical system, but education reform does begin with a state monopoly. Vouchers are therefore viewed by many school choice supporters as a major step forward. Tax credits, however, are an even better market reform. They are less economically distorting than direct government payments because they allow discretion on the part of the taxpayer within an economic sector. Short of a policy under which the government shuts down all of its schools and no longer assesses education taxes, tax credits offer the minimum amount of behavior distortion. Last printed 148 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 149 The Public Education Tax Credit Act provides tax credits towards parents paying for private education, solving for education best. Coulson, director of Cato's Center for Educational Freedom, 08 (Andrew J. Coulson, director of Cato's Center for Educational Freedom, 09-10-2008, “Markets vs. Monopolies in Education: A Global Review of the Evidence,” CATO Institute, Policy Analysis No. 620) Contrary to the expectations of many conservative and liberal education commentators in the United States, there is little evidence that government regulation improves the operation of the marketplace. It is actually the freest, Education CP – Solvency–Tax Credits → Best Education most market-like education systems that demonstrate the greatest margin of superiority over state schooling. These findings present an opportunity and a challenge for U.S. education policymakers. The opportunity is obvious: it is clearly possible to structure the provision of schooling in ways that will greatly improve educational outcomes. The challenge is to find ways of doing so that will ensure all families have ready access to the marketplace without compromising key features of markets that are responsible for their superior performance: professional autonomy for educators, unfettered choice for parents, and some direct payment of tuition by parents. The solution to that policy challenge lies in twin realizations: first, that the goal is not universal participation in a particular government program but rather universal access to the education marketplace ; and second, that while direct payment of tuition by parents is crucial, even partial parental co-payments can have a significant salutary effect. The first realization means that it is unnecessary and indeed undesirable to subsidize tuition for families who can already well afford it. Education markets work best when families pay directly for their own children’s education, and so the ideal education policy is one that makes it easier for parents to assume that financial responsibility themselves. The second realization comes from research showing that there is a diminishing return to the share of funding from parental fees.14 Schools become more efficient as the share of funding that comes from parents grows larger, but the additional bang for each additional buck declines as parents’ share of total funding approaches 100 percent. In other words, the expected improvement in school efficiency when parental fees go from zero percent to 10 percent of total cost is larger than when the fees rise from 90 to 100 percent. This means that even low-income parents can enjoy a significant improvement in school efficiency by directly contributing a modest amount toward their children’s education. A policy for accomplishing this delicate balancing act of ensuring universal access to an education marketplace that remains free and vigorously competitive has already been proposed by the Cato Institute: The Public Education Tax Credit Act. This legislation derives its name from the fact that it is designed to fulfill the goals and ideals of public education through a combination of tax credits. In essence, people who pay for the education of an eligible child, whether their own or someone else’s, receive a dollar-fordollar tax cut based on the amount they spend (up to a pre-set, perchild maximum). Hence, families who pay for their own children’s education receive a tax cut, and individual and business taxpayers who pay for other children’s education (whether directly or through donations to nonprofit scholarship funds) also see a dollar-for-dollar reduction in the taxes they owe. The total amount of any credits/scholarships for which a given child is eligible depends on his or her parents’ income, ensuring that the program offers the greatest benefit to those who need it most. The scholarships offered by nonprofit organizations and funded through tax-credited donations ensure that even the lowest-income families can easily afford to choose between public and private schools. Such a system, described in detail in a paper by Adam Schaeffer, ensures universal access to the education marketplace while impeding as little as possible the conditions required for its success.15 Last printed 149 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 150 Education CP Solvency–Education Schooling should be minimally regulated and paid for by parents, not the government. Coulson, director of Cato's Center for Educational Freedom, 08 (Andrew J. Coulson, director of Cato's Center for Educational Freedom, 09-10-2008, “Markets vs. Monopolies in Education: A Global Review of the Evidence,” CATO Institute, Policy Analysis No. 620) Across time, countries, and outcome measures, private provision of education outshines public provision according to the overwhelming majority of econometric studies. Findings of a statistically significant advantage for private schooling outnumber findings of a significant advantage for public schooling by a ratio of nearly 8 to 1, and the statistically significant advantage for private schools outnumbers by a ratio of 5 to 1 statistically insignificant findings. However, since the funding and regulatory structures of “public” and “private” schools vary widely, this breakdown of the research is insufficiently detailed to be of real use to policymakers. If we want to ascertain the merits of real market reform in education, we must compare genuinely market-like private school systems (which are minimally regulated and are funded, at least in part, directly by parents) with state school monopolies protected from significant market competition (such as the typical U.S. public school system). When we assess the evidence using these more specific criteria, the results are more stark: There are 35 statistically significant findings of market-like education systems outperforming government monopoly schooling, and only two findings of the reverse, for a ratio of more than 17 to 1 in favor of free education markets. There is but a single statistically insignificant finding among market versus monopoly comparisons, and every finding comparing the efficiency of market and monopoly schooling is both statistically significant and favors markets. These results discredit the notion, prevalent in both conservative and liberal political circles, that the content of schooling must be overseen by the state in order for schools to achieve optimum performance. It is in fact the least regulated market school systems that show the greatest margin of superiority over state schooling. In order to better serve families, policymakers should thus endeavor to provide universal access to minimally regulated education markets in which parents, whenever possible, directly pay at least some of the cost of their children’s education. Education tax credit programs capable of accomplishing that objective have already been proposed elsewhere, and partial, scaled-down versions of such programs are already operating in several U.S. states.16 Last printed 150 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 151 Education CP – Solvency–Education–Tax Credits Nonrefundable education tax credits serve can provide better educational opportunities through private schools, and are better than current school voucher programs. Schaeffer, policy analyst, Cato’s Center for Educational Freedom, 07 (Adam B, Schaeffer, policy analyst, Cato’s Center for Educational Freedom, 12-05-2007, “The Public Education Tax Credit,” CATO Institute, Policy Analysis No. 605) Public education is an end, not a means. For a democratic nation to thrive, its schools must prepare children not only for success in private life but for participation in public life. It must foster harmonious social relations among the disparate groups in our pluralistic society and ensure universal access to a quality education. Unfortunately, the American school system has long fallen short as a means of fulfilling these purposes. This paper offers a more effective way of delivering on the promise of public education, by ensuring that all families have the means to choose their children’s schools from a diverse market of education providers. All education providers— government, religious, and secular— can contribute to public education because all can serve the public by educating children. Educational freedom can most effectively be realized through nonrefundable education tax credits— for both parents’ education costs for their own children and taxpayer donations to nonprofit scholarship funds. This paper argues that tax credits enjoy practical, legal, and political advantages over school vouchers . These advantages are even more important for choice programs that target low-income children, as tax credits mitigate some disadvantages inherent to targeted programs. It also contends that broad-based programs are superior to narrowly targeted ones, even when the goal is specifically to serve disadvantaged students. Targeted programs are fundamentally inferior—in both practical and strategic terms—to broad-based programs that include the voting middle class. Finally, accountability in education means accountability to parents and taxpayers. Education tax credits afford this accountability without the need for intrusive government regulations that create political and market liabilities for school choice policies. To date, school choice policy has spread and grown only slowly, in part because of inadequate legislation. Existing school choice laws fall short in terms of both market principles and political considerations. Pursuing a policy that follows more closely what works economically and politically should increase the likelihood of long-term legislative success, program success, program survival, and program expansion. The Public Education Tax Credit Act is model legislation that could provide tax credits toward education to produce a free and vibrant system of education. Schaeffer, policy analyst, Cato’s Center for Educational Freedom, 07 (Adam B, Schaeffer, policy analyst, Cato’s Center for Educational Freedom, 12-05-2007, “The Public Education Tax Credit,” CATO Institute, Policy Analysis No. 605) The Public Education Tax Credit Act, model tax credit legislation that embodies these principles and conclusions, is presented in Appendix B. This bill provides a comprehensive framework for transforming a state’s education system from a government monopoly into a system of educational freedom for all citizens. Because it is comprehensive and attempts to address all known problems with existing programs, the legislation can appear complicated at first glance. Extensive endnotes to Appendix B explain the purpose and meaning of many provisions, and Appendix A provides examples that should help clarify how the individual provisions will make the program as a whole work seamlessly. The model legislation attempts to balance political and market concerns in a way most likely to produce a free and vibrant system of public education characterized by choice and progress. This comprehensive education reform may look daunting in its complexity but is in fact quite simple. The Public Education Tax Credit Act allows all taxpayers, businesses, and individuals to claim dollar-for-dollar credits on their state sales and income taxes and the education portion of local property taxes for education expenses, both for personal use on their own child or for donations to support children who need financial aid to get a good education. Fortunately, good policy is often good politics. Last printed 151 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 152 Education CP Solvency–Education–Tax Credits Best Education Tax Credits are the best way to solve for coercion in the Education sector—legal and popularity issues prove. Schaeffer, policy analyst, Cato’s Center for Educational Freedom, 07 (Adam B, Schaeffer, policy analyst, Cato’s Center for Educational Freedom, 12-05-2007, “The Public Education Tax Credit,” CATO Institute, Policy Analysis No. 605) All of the factors discussed above make tax credits more likely than vouchers to be passed, sustained, and expanded, especially if they are initially small. Greater legal viability makes tax credits more likely than vouchers to be passed in more states, more likely to avoid litigation, and more likely to be sustained when they are challenged in court. The fact that tax credits are not government funds makes them less likely to come with burdensome regulations on private schools and leaves participating schools less vulnerable to added regulation in the future. These facts bring together a coalition for tax credits that is larger and more energetic than the constituency for vouchers, which suggests a greater chance of passage and sustainability. The selfimplementing nature of tax credits ensures that families and private organizations are the chief actors in the marketplace, eliminating both the cost and potential trouble that a government voucher authority creates. These factors also build a larger and more powerful political constituency for the program than can be built through vouchers, establishing a diverse range of institutions and individuals directly invested in the program. Finally, education tax credits are simply more familiar, less threatening, and more popular than vouchers. Education tax credits are the preferable vehicle for educational freedom wherever they are feasible.55 Tax Credits preferable to other government school choice programs—legal and popularity issues. Schaeffer, policy analyst, Cato’s Center for Educational Freedom, 07 (Adam B, Schaeffer, policy analyst, Cato’s Center for Educational Freedom, 12-05-2007, “The Public Education Tax Credit,” CATO Institute, Policy Analysis No. 605) Because tax credits are not government funds they are less likely to be challenged in court and more likely to survive when challenged. Because tax credits are not government funds, they make unwarranted government regulation of participants less likely, thus bringing more support to the coalition from conservative individuals and interest groups. Tax credits are also more popular with the general public and incite less unified opposition from Democratic politicians. Perhaps most important, tax credits directly involve higherincome individuals and businesses in the program. These groups have more to gain with the passage of tax credits than with vouchers, and their organized support and resources make tax credit programs more likely to survive and expand after passage. Last printed 152 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 153 Education CP Solvency–Education–Tax Credits Solve Coercion Tax credits allow both consumer and producer freedom solving for coercion. Schaeffer, policy analyst, Cato’s Center for Educational Freedom, 07 (Adam B, Schaeffer, policy analyst, Cato’s Center for Educational Freedom, 12-05-2007, “The Public Education Tax Credit,” CATO Institute, Policy Analysis No. 605) For a market to operate effectively, both consumers and producers must be free of undue regulation. Consumer freedom is an explicit part of the school choice concept and readily understandable by most supporters. Producer freedom is equally necessary for a well-functioning school choice program but is largely overlooked or misunderstood. The primary problem with the regulations most commonly seen in school choice programs is that they limit the size and diversity of supply in educational choices. Producer freedom means allowing education providers to offer a diverse menu of options from which consumers can choose. This is essential to meaningful consumer choice. Specialization and the division of labor are the core attributes of free markets, and without these any market will be crippled. If the government mandates that all schools supported by vouchers or tax credits must follow a particular curriculum, for instance, then in practice parents have only one curriculum to choose from and therefore little effective freedom of choice. Likewise, if all schools supported by vouchers or tax credits are required to admit students on a first-come or random lottery basis (such as in the Milwaukee voucher program), then the schools will be incapable of tailoring their mission and pedagogy to serve students with particular needs, characteristics, or interests. The result will be a lack of diversity in the kinds of schools from which parents can choose. Children do not all learn in the same way; some, for instance, may thrive in an environment of self-direction while others need a more structured environment to succeed. Many schools help children excel through immersion in an environment animated by a particular religion, philosophy, or mission. If schools have no control over their admissions policies, and hence are unable to ensure the commitment of their students to the institution’s values and mission, their ability to shape their environments and character is impeded. While every child must be served by the education system as a whole, it is unrealistic to imagine that every child can be well served by every school within that system. Even the traditional public school system sends hundreds of thousands of children with special needs to the private sector to be educated because it is unable to serve these students itself.86 The notion that every public school must and can serve every student is a myth. Parents overwhelmingly share a deep concern about a core set of academic outcomes—reading, writing, arithmetic, and social studies—and schools will be forced to compete with each other on the basis of those results. Some parents might demand test results in particular grades for comparison, and some might demand real-world evidence of success such as student admission rates to competitive high schools from a particular grade school, or to competitive colleges from a high school. Most parents are interested in all of these measures. The overwhelming majority of parents want their children to succeed and will hold schools more broadly and meaningfully accountable for that success than any suite of state-mandated tests.87 A school choice program arms parents with the freedom to leave a school if they are dissatisfied, and that is the most effective accountability system of all. Last printed 153 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 154 Healthcare Vouchers CP Text: The USFG should institute a voucher system for Medicare enrollees. The USFG should give consumers who purchase their own coverage the same tax break as workers with job-based coverage. The USFG should give clinicians the freedom to practice medicine across state lines. Government reforms fail – privatization key to universal healthcare. Cannon, director of health policy studies at CATO, 7-16-09 (Michael F. Cannon, policy analyst, B.A. in American government from the University of Virginia, and master’s degrees in economics and law & economics (J.M.) from George Mason University, director of health policy studies at the CATO institute, July 16, 2009, “Let Customers Control The Money And Market Will Cure Health Care”, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10363) /AC Letting consumers control the money requires two steps. First, Congress should give Medicare enrollees a voucher, let them choose any health plan on the market, and let them keep the savings if they choose an economical plan. Medicare could even give larger vouchers to the poor and sick to ensure they could afford coverage. Second, Congress needs to give consumers who purchase their own coverage the same tax break as workers with job-based coverage. Leveling the playing field — whether with tax credits, a standard deduction for health insurance or "large" health savings accounts — would boost purchases of non-job-based coverage, which is critical to cutting the overall number of uninsured. As important, it would give workers control over the entire $10,000 Orszag mentioned, for a total effective tax cut of $532 billion each year. Consumers would eliminate wasteful spending quickly, because they would keep the $3,000 in savings. We should also eliminate harmful regulation. State health insurance regulations prevent people from purchasing health plans available in other states, and increase premiums by 15%. Similar regulations block competition from more efficient health plans and providers by preventing doctors from taking their licenses from state to state. Americans deserve the freedom to purchase coverage across state lines. One study estimated that that move alone could cover 17 million uninsured Americans without costing taxpayers a dime . Compare that with Sen. Ted Kennedy's reform bill, which spends $1 trillion and covers just 16 million uninsured. Giving clinicians the freedom to practice medicine across state lines would eliminate barriers for retail clinics and economical health plans like Kaiser Permanente, which leads the market in electronic medical records and coordinated care. If we did that, Congress wouldn't need to throw $30 billion at ineffective pilot programs that try to coordinate care. Critics fear that market-based reforms would leave sick workers unable to obtain coverage . Yet that is already happening as employers drop coverage or eliminate jobs. In reality, these reforms would relieve, if not erase, that problem. Leveling the playing field will force employers to give sicker workers more than the average $9,000 or $10,000 "cash-out," which will help them purchase coverage. When workers buy coverage directly from an insurer, far fewer will end up uninsured when they lose a job. Finally, large HSAs would provide a tax relief even to those who are too sick to obtain coverage at all. Perfection is not possible, of course. Former Senate Majority Leader and would-be Obama adviser Tom Daschle acknowledges, "Even if we achieve 'universal' coverage, there will be some percentage of people who still fall through the cracks." The same is true of a free market. The advantage of markets is that innovation and competition fill in those cracks. A government-run, "universal" system makes them wider. Last printed 154 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 155 Health Care Solvency Government healthcare is inefficient and wasteful – the counterplan solves better. Cannon, director of health policy studies at CATO, 7-16-09 (Michael F. Cannon, policy analyst, B.A. in American government from the University of Virginia, and master’s degrees in economics and law & economics (J.M.) from George Mason University, director of health policy studies at the CATO institute, July 16, 2009, “Let Customers Control The Money And Market Will Cure Health Care”, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10363) /AC Fortunately, Obama has an exit strategy: "If there is a way of getting this done where we're driving down costs and people are getting health insurance at an affordable rate, and have choice of doctor, have flexibility in terms of their plans, and we could do that entirely through the market, I'd be happy to do it that way." Well, there is a way: Let individuals control their health care dollars , and free them to choose from a wide variety of health plans and providers. If Congress takes those steps, innovation and market competition will make health care better, more affordable and more secure. Experts suggest that one-third of U.S. health care spending, or about 6% of GDP, is pure waste. The reason is simple: Government controls half of our nation's health care dollars, and lets employers control an additional quarter. And nobody spends other people's money as carefully as they spend their own. Office of Management and Budget director Peter Orszag told Congress last year: " Imagine what the world would be like if workers (understood) that today it was costing them $10,000 a year in take-home-pay for their employer-sponsored insurance, and that could be $7,000 and they could have $3,000 more in their pockets today if we could relieve these inefficiencies out of the health system ." Nothing will increase consumers' understanding like giving them that $10,000 directly. Last printed 155 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 156 Solvency - Healthcare Privatization yields better results – government approaches fail. Kling, economist, 08 Arnold Kling, economist on the staff of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System from 1980-1986, served as a senior economist at Freddie Mac from 1986-1994. June 17, 2008 Kling received his Ph.D. in economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1980. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9478 Our system is confounded by complex patients, meaning those with ailments affecting more than one part of the body. These are the patients who incur the greatest healthcare costs. They include patients with diabetes — and patients like my father. He was hospitalized with a broken hip, but he was also on medications for his heart, undergoing treatment for cancer, and vulnerable to poor circulation in his legs. The fantasy that prevention will be a panacea to lower health costs does not jibe with the reality that even state-of-the-art prevention does not stop people from growing old. Electronic medical records represent another false panacea. Paper records are a symptom, not the cause, of fragmentation and mismanagement. A dysfunctional process will not be turned around simply with a new computer system. Information technology can be used successfully only after procedures have been rationalized and reorganized. The autonomous, self-directed doctors produced by our medical schools are not suited to treating complex patients. Instead, what we need are team players, implementing consistent corporate policies. Independent skilled craftsmen, flying by the seat of their pants, can add a deck to your house. That will not work for building a skyscraper. My father first entered the hospital on January 11. Over the next two weeks, he was in eight different units. With each move, the person in charge of his care changed. The problems that were allowed to slip through the cracks ultimately proved more damaging than the problems for which he was treated. When a corporation attempts to build a new headquarters or a new information system, a project manager is appointed to oversee the effort. Similarly, when a complex patient enters the healthcare delivery system, he or she needs a single case manager. This case manager will improve communication with the patient and family, ensure coordination among specialists, and overcome potential gaps in responsibility. Our system for compensating doctors is flawed. Reimbursement for procedures works fine for a patient with a single ailment, but it tends to backfire in the case of complex patients. For the latter, incentives should promote quality care, based on standards and benchmarks. I have in mind a system in which doctors have to answer to corporate management and corporate management has to answer to patients. The goal would be to obtain consistent, high-quality outcomes. Doctors would be well compensated for following standard corporate guidelines, for proposing useful improvements to those guidelines, and for good results that come from deliberately deviating from guidelines. They would be penalized for not living up to guidelines or for bad results that come from deliberately deviating from guidelines. Many reformers, including New America Foundation scholar Shannon Brownlee, author of Overtreated, see a potential for government to solve the problems of fragmentation, inconsistency, and mismanagement in healthcare delivery. I am skeptical. For example, Brownlee and others advocate pay for performance, or "P4P." This system would compensate doctors on the basis of guidelines set by government. But government is not well positioned to make this work. Indeed, a recent attempt at P4P in the United Kingdom saw physician pay rise by 20 percent, with very little improvement in quality. Any compensation system, whether administered by corporations or by government, sets up a game between managers and employees. The manager tries to get the largest possible change in employee behavior for the smallest possible increase in compensation. The employee's goal is the opposite. Government tends to be a loser in this game, because it lacks the flexibility to adapt and because concentrated employee interest groups have veto power. Corporate compensation schemes are far from perfect. However, under the pressure of market competition , the private sector is more likely than government to continuously adapt payment structures in order to achieve better alignment between doctor compensation and patient interests. Last printed 156 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 157 Solvency - Healthcare Free market solves better than government programs. Cannon and Enthoven, director of health and policy studies at the CATO institute, 5-13-08 (Cannon, Michael F. and Alain C. Enthoven. Cannon is a policy analyst with a B.A. in American government from the University of Virginia, and master’s degrees in economics and law & economics (J.M.) from George Mason University, "Markets Beat Government on Medical Errors." May 13, 2008. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9394 (accessed July 21, 2009) /AC These errors occur all too frequently. The Institute of Medicine , a non-partisan research organization chartered by Congress, estimates that 50,000 to 100,000 hospital patients die in the United States each year as a result of preventable errors. That's almost three to six times the 18,000 Americans the IOM estimates die each year because they lack health insurance. Medical errors are pervasive in part because the way we pay doctors and hospitals leaves them with too little direct incentive to improve patient safety. For the most part, insurers pay providers on a "fee-forservice" basis: for each service a doctor performs, he collects a fee. That creates an obvious incentive to recommend more tests and treatments, even if those services offer little or no benefit to the patient. The problem goes beyond wasteful spending, however. If, through negligence, a healthcare provider causes a patient to require more services, he can often collect additional fees. Medicare, the federal health care program for the elderly, provides an example. When Congress created Medicare in 1965, it assuaged doctors' fears about government-run medicine by agreeing to pay providers on a fee-for-service basis. When a hospital discharges a patient, Medicare cuts the hospital a check based on the patient's diagnosis, and cuts checks to the doctors who treated him. If, however, someone made a mistake that injured the patient and caused him to receive more services — if, say, he acquired a preventable infection, or received the wrong medication, or was injured in a fall, or developed bedsores, or underwent surgery on the wrong body part — then Medicare will send the doctors more checks, and might also increase the amount it pays the hospital. Imagine remodeling your kitchen and paying the contractor extra to fix your garage door because he backed his truck into it. When Medicare and private insurers reward medical errors this way, Americans pay higher taxes and insurance premiums to cover the costs of other people's mistakes. After forty years, Medicare has finally wised up to this perverse financial incentive. Medicare officials have announced that starting this October, they will no longer pay the added costs associated with a list of obvious medical errors. Private feefor-service plans such as WellPoint and BlueCross/BlueShield are following Medicare's lead, as they usually do in matters of provider reimbursement. Yet this is hardly a case of government beating the market. Markets developed an antidote to this perverse incentive decades ago by creating arrangements that force hospitals and insurers to bear the financial costs of their own errors. In prepaid group practices like Kaiser Permanente, providers receive a fixed amount of money per patient. If an error leads to additional services, the added expense comes right out of Kaiser's bottom line. As Donald Berwick and Sachin Jain of Harvard Medical School write, "The prepaid group practice model is particularly conducive to improving safety...because the practice itself (and not the insurers or patients) must pay the costs of poor quality." If anything, government prevents markets from improving patient safety. A raft of government interventions favor fee-for-service medicine and inhibit competition by plans with greater incentives to reduce errors. Medicare, the nation's largest purchaser of medical services, is almost entirely fee-for-service. Federal and state tax laws give larger tax breaks to people or groups that choose more costly care, and favor employer-based coverage, which usually denies workers the ability to choose their health plan. Last printed 157 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 158 Healthcare CP - Deregulate Counterplan text: The USFG should relinquish all regulatory and licensing authority over the medical industry. The market is the only way to expand healthcare to those in poverty. Crovelli, Scholar at UColorado, 2007 (Mark R. Crovelli, Scholar at the University of Colorado, July 16, 2007 “Socialized Healthcare Is Not Cheaper Than Free Market Healthcare” http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/crovelli7.html ) /A.C. In order for any good or service to become cheaper and more widely available, one of two things must occur: 1) the production of the good or service must increase, or 2) the demand for the good or service must decrease. The second of these alternatives is very unlikely to occur in the healthcare industries in the United States over the next couple of decades, simply because the giant Baby Boomer generation is entering the stage of life when the demand for healthcare services tends to be highest. That leaves us with one, and only one, alternative. In order for healthcare services to become cheaper and more widely available in the United States, the supply of doctors, the supply of hospitals, and the availability of medical supplies and drugs must be increased in order for the price of these goods and services to fall and thus become more widely available to everyone. Once this obvious economic fact is recognized, it sheds a great deal of light on the healthcare promises of the current batch of presidential contenders. No presidential contender (with the lone exception, again, of Dr. Ron Paul), has ever promised that his (or, equally importantly, her) healthcare reforms will actually serve to increase the supply of healthcare goods and services. (Have you ever, for example, even heard a politician state that we need more doctors?) On the contrary, they strangely (and wrongly) view the supply of doctors and the supply of other healthcare goods as unchangeably fixed, and their so-called healthcare reforms thus only propose to divvy up the existing healthcare pie in different and politically-motivated ways. Since their proposed socialist reforms do not actually aim to increase the supply of doctors, medicine, and hospitals, it should be obvious that their proposals will not deliver what they claim they will deliver. The proposals logically cannot, in other words, decrease the price of healthcare or make it more widely available to everyone. For, on the one hand, if there is no increase in the supply of these goods and services, the price for these goods and services will remain exactly the same. Prices are determined by the supply of a good and the demand for it, and thus high prices cannot be altered simply by wishing them to change or changing the group who pays them. High prices can only be lowered by increasing the supply of the good or service. On the other hand, it should also be obvious that these proposals will not make healthcare more widely available to everyone, because they do not propose to increase the supply of healthcare services. They simply aim to distribute the existing supply of healthcare services somewhat differently. The proposals, in other words, do not aim to create more healthcare services that will make everyone better off; rather, they simply propose to take healthcare services from some people and give them to other people. They propose healthcare robbery, and nothing more. The answer to these questions is deceptively simple: The government of the United States has (through its arbitrary regulation and licensing of doctors, medical schools, hospitals, prescription drugs, and other medical goods) artificially restricted the supply of these goods and services below what would exist in the absence of these regulations. Were it not for these licensure and other regulatory acts by the U.S. government , entrepreneurs and individuals (spurred by the high price of these goods and services ) would be flocking into the healthcare industries in droves, thus increasing the supply of these goods and services. Medical schools would be opening left and right, and students would be flocking to those schools in the anticipation that they would earn large incomes as doctors. Potential drug manufacturers and medical equipment manufacturers would jump at the chance to enter the market, lured by the promise of high profits, were it not for suffocating government regulations that economically bar entry. The end Last printed 158 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 159 result of freeing the market for medicine would be the necessary increase in the supply of healthcare goods and services, a consequent drop in prices, and the availability of healthcare goods and services would thus multiply exponentially – for everyone. The size of the healthcare pie has thus artificially been restricted to its current size by government licensure laws and other stifling regulation – the supply of doctors and medicine is not naturally any more fixed than is the supply of potato chips. The healthcare pie can and would be increased by simply freeing the market and ridding it of burdensome government interference. Last printed 159 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 160 Privavitzation Solvency - Econ Privatization of social services spurs economic growth. Tanner, director of health and welfare studies, 9-27-96 Michael D. Tanner, director of health and welfare studies at the CATO Institute, September 27, 1996, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6290)/AC As America moves into the 21st century, two public policy issues are becoming increasingly important. We need to reform our soon-to-be-bankrupt entitlement programs, such as Social Security, and we need to spur economic growth, create jobs and improve wages. Recent evidence suggests that it may be possible to solve both problems simultaneously. Americans understand that the Social Security system will start losing money by 2012 and will be completely insolvent by 2029. The rate of return for young workers grows steadily worse. Indeed, most young workers will receive a negative return on their Social Security taxes -- less than they paid in. However, less attention has been paid to the impact of Social Security on the economy. Virtually everyone agrees that countries that save and invest more grow faster and have more rapid improvements in their standards of living. Yet Social Security's pay-as-you-go financing mechanism reduces national savings, leading to a decline in capital investment, national income and economic growth. The United States has the lowest national savings rate in the industrialized world. One of the principal reasons for the low national savings rate is the large deficits run by the federal government. There has also been a significant decline in personal savings. That is particularly important because, with the government a negative saver, personal savings have become an increasingly important component of national savings. However, personal savings have declined to barely more than 4 percent of personal disposable income, from a high of more than 9 percent during the 1970s. Clearly, the Social Security tax reduces private savings. Workers are required by law to pay Social Security taxes. That precludes their investing those lost wages in private savings or investments. Some might argue that that wouldn't matter, if the private savings and investment were replaced by government savings and investment. However, even granting that rather dubious premise, approximately 86.5 percent of the money collected in Social Security taxes is not saved or invested in any sense of the word; that money is simply paid out in the form of benefits. Moreover, "investment" of the remaining 13.5 percent is more semantic than real. That money is used to purchase federal Treasury obligations that are credited to the Social Security Trust Fund; the government then uses the money it has borrowed from the trust fund to meet current operating expenses. The present trust fund surpluses are a temporary phenomenon. Beginning as early as 2012, every penny collected in Social Security taxes will be used to pay benefits. Indeed, the payroll tax will not be sufficient to pay all the benefits that are promised, which will force the federal government to turn in the bonds in the trust fund to obtain the cash needed to finance benefits. The current Social Security system is helping to reduce private savings and limit the pool of capital available for new investment. In addition, by reducing savings and capital accumulation, Social Security reduces the ratio of capital to workers, leading to a reduction in productivity. As a result, wages are lower than they would otherwise be. A privatized Social Security system would allow people to invest their Social Security taxes in financial assets such as stocks and bonds. The movement of so much capital into private markets would have a significant impact on economic growth. Professor Martin Feldstein of Harvard University, for example, estimates that "the combination of the improved labor market incentives and the higher real return on savings has a net present value gain of more than $15 trillion, an amount equivalent to 3 percent of each future year's GDP forever." America is currently going through one of the slowest periods of economic growth since the Great Depression. If privatizing Social Security can increase growth, raise wages and provide more jobs -while ensuring a dignified retirement for future retirees -- isn't that a nice bonus? Last printed 160 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 161 Charity CP Counterplan text: the USFG should create a charitable tax exemption of up to 20,000 dollars for donations targeted towards charities aimed at poverty relief and prevention in the United States. Counterplan solves best – charities cut dependence and are more efficient and innovative than government programs. Tax exemption key to shift resources from government to private sector. Kling, economist, 06 (Arnold Kling, economist on the staff of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System from 1980-1986, served as a senior economist at Freddie Mac from 1986-1994. Kling received his Ph.D. in economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1980. “Libertarianism and Poverty”, June 5, 2006 http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9478)/A.C. The Role of Charitable Organizations Charitable organizations are better than government as a source of aid. First, it is easier for donors to hold charitable organizations accountable than it is for taxpayers to hold government accountable . A failed government program can go on forever. An ineffective charity has a more difficult time obtaining funding. Charitable organizations tend to be more "hands-on" with the needy than are government organizations. For example, although I cannot say that I am particularly happy that my daughter volunteered to go on a project with this organization, it clearly is going to put her in direct contact with poor people, which is better than going on an international "mission" where you stay in 4-star hotels. Those organizations that work directly with poor people stand a better chance of learning how to meet their needs than people who lobby in Washington on behalf of the poor. Nongovernmental organizations will tend to be more innovative. They can be leaner, and they can operate with what the military would call a high "tooth to tail" ratio. Charitable organizations are better suited to dealing with the pathology of poverty. When people get checks from the government, they tend to think of this as an entitlement . They are getting money in exchange for doing nothing . They learn that this is how you get money -- you take it from others. Taking money from others is what criminals do. Productive people get money from other people by exchanging something of value. Charities are in a position to demand something of value from their clients, even if that "something" is nothing more than a human "Thank you." Charities are also in a position to set the terms under which their clients receive aid and to cut off clients who fail to comply with those terms. Charities can be flexible in how they handle individuals. One person may need transportation to a job. Another person may need drug rehabilitation. With hands-on involvement and with flexibility, charitable organizations are more likely to discover solutions to the pathologies of poverty. Charitable organizations are flawed, to be sure. On average, I think that profitable companies are better managed than nonprofits. But every organization has its flaws, and charitable organizations are less flawed than government alternatives. In fact, I think that one of the factors that inhibits the effectiveness of NGO's is that many of them are dependent on government grants for support. This forces the NGO to put much of its effort into satisfying the bureaucrats who provide the funding. That requires resources and skill sets that have nothing to do with solving the problems of people in need. A Charitable Exemption? Under our current tax system, donations to charity are a deduction from income. If your tax bracket is 25 percent and you give $1000 to charity, then this reduces your tax bill by $250, so that the donation only costs you $750 after taxes. My proposal (which I suspect is not original) is that, on top of the current deduction for charitable contributions, we create a large charitable exemption, of, say $20,000. That would mean that you could donate up to $20,000 and have that amount taken off your taxes. Thus, the after-tax cost of your donation would be zero. For people whose annual tax obligation is less than $20,000, the income tax would essentially be optional. You could pay your taxes, or you could give an equivalent amount to charity. A charitable exemption would have the effect of shifting resources from government to private charities. I believe that would be a net plus for people in need. A charitable exemption would increase the proportion of money going to NGO's that comes from private donors rather than government. I think that the effect of this would be to reward NGO's more for effectiveness and less for their ability to work the system to obtain government funding. Last printed 161 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 162 Charity CP - Solvency Privatizing social services is a prerequisite to eliminating poverty. Blanchette, Research Fellow, 07 (Jude Blanchette, Henry Hazlitt Research Fellow at the Foundation for Economics Education, “The Shortcomings of Government Charity” May 2007, The Freeman Volume: 57 • Issue: 4 http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-shortcomings-of-governmentcharity/) /A.C. For large charities such as the Salvation Army and smaller local charities run by churches and other private organizations, the fight against poverty has been going on for the past 150 years. Tragically, standing in their way has been the federal government. Besides an effort to wage “war” on poverty beginning in the 1960s, the federal government has attempted to intercede and dole out aid since the beginning of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. These interventions have proven costly and yielded disastrous results. By continually siphoning funds away from the private sector, lawmakers and bureaucrats further diminish the ability of civil society to deal with the problem of poverty. (As Charles Murray shows in Losing Ground, poverty was declining steadily through the 1950s and 1960s up until the Great Society programs kicked in during the early 1970s.) If the plight of the poor is to be truly addressed, Americans should study the lessons of the past. Earlier in the twentieth century, private charities offered a more effective cure for chronic indigence , and it was through mutually beneficial activities and voluntary funding that the spirit of American compassion was unleashed. In the best interests of the poor, the government should withdraw itself completely from all activities designed to help them and allow civil society its full range of motion. Unfortunately, most social commentators see increased state action as the best (indeed, the only) way to fight poverty. With apologies to Ian McEwan, the welfare state has become “the repository of collective fantasy.” Private charities, they often argue, financed by volunteers and private donations, cannot meet the immense burden of welfare provision. Advocates of public assistance see “private enterprise” as an economic system that functions on Hobbesian self-interest and that would leave the poor to suffer if profit could not be squeezed from their labor. Many proponents of laissez faire recognize these common protestations, but are unable to provide cogent rebuttal. On the surface it would seem that only government, with its vast infrastructure and immense financial resources, can improve the plight of the poor. Private charities, subject to the vagaries of voluntary donations, are a far less reliable source of income. Yet if this were the case, how is it that after more than 40 years since the Great Society and more than $8 trillion spent (in 2000 dollars) so little headway has been made by the government in alleviating poverty? This is not to say that poverty has not diminished in America . Indeed, the market economy has virtually eliminated extreme poverty in the United States. The average poor American lives a lifestyle that would be envied by most of the world’s citizens. But this is a product of the market economy not government handouts. It is only through wealth creation, not wealth distribution, that we see the wellspring of human progress. Last printed 162 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 163 Charity CP - Solvency Private charities solve the aff. Awenius, retired attorney, 84 (Robert Awenius, retired attorney, “Why Not Private Charity”, November 1984 The Freeman Volume: 34 Issue: 11 http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/why-not-private-charity/) /A.C. For some period of time there has been considerable evidence that private charity is superior to government welfare as a means of overcoming poverty in America. Empirical data suggests that private charity indeed would do more for the poverty-level families of this nation than is being achieved under the present welfare system. However, we must not conclude that this seemingly radical plan is anything new in the annals of mankind. In the nineteenth century one of England’s most powerful voices for social reform, Charles Dickens, professed a belief in private charity as opposed to public charity. He opposed government charity because of its ineffectiveness. He was convinced that the polestar of charity was the human being’s innate concern for another creature. He felt that the aid and assistance extended by private persons was more powerful , useful, and kind than the charity of government . Just to cite his views is to affirm the favored position of private charity, as in the following statement: Following the Napoleonic Wars much discontent and unrest prevailed in England, but instead of revolution the Victorian Age brought relative peace, manifested by great reforms such as the Reform Acts of 1832, the Factory Reform of 1833, and the Poor Laws of 1834. With these reforms passed, the general bent of the programs was to treat the symptoms of poverty, not the causes. As a result, there was a great alienation of the working masses and only partial satisfaction within the commercial and industrial strata of society. That is the very same complaint we hear today concerning our welfare laws: alienation of welfare clients and complaint of the taxpayers who are shouldering the burden of the necessary taxation to support the system. Today in the United States the bulk of the donating public make their contributions to philanthropy by taxes through their government or privately to organized charities. There is negligible warmth of heart between the public donors (taxpayers) and the recipients —albeit, there is slight concern by those giving funds as to direct knowledge of the state of affairs or indigency of the beneficiaries. There is undoubtedly more concern in this regard in the case of private charities. Also, there is some little suspicion on the part of many contributors that a considerable number of those who ask for charity are undeserving. This same attitude was true during Dickens’ time when, beginning about 1818, the upper classes made attempts to protect themselves by forming a Mendicity Society, where subscribers contributed funds to the Society rather than give directly to beggars. The Society investigated each case to see if each had merit. Last printed 163 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 164 Charity CP - Solvency Government programs are ineffective and trade-off with private efforts. Awenius, retired attorney, 84 (Robert Awenius, retired attorney, “Why Not Private Charity”, November 1984 The Freeman Volume: 34 Issue: 11 http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/why-not-private-charity/) /A.C. The adoption of welfare state procedures and plans tends to encourage the destructive activity of the modern state in the mass liquidation and redistribution of wealth. The normal and hitherto accepted role of government has been to maintain law, justice, and order, defend the nation abroad, and to permit every man the ownership of his property. In general, the government’s business in the past was to protect the common welfare of its citizens. The destructive effect of the welfare state is manifested in its expropriation, taxation, or arbitrary creation of money and credit—all done in the name of the poor. The effect of this damaging tendency is to abolish the independent citizen and foster the idea that all the people should look to Washington for subsistence—i.e., to become parasites, wholly dependent on government for all their needs and wants. With this tendency, the politicians follow a short-term expediency of approving sophisticated theft (in redistributing the wealth) without regard to ultimately damaging long-term results. The very people who have done so much and will do so much in aiding private charity—the great middle class—are economically squeezed by the welfare state and find its capacity to support private charity greatly diminished. Last printed 164 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 165 Charity CP - Solvency Charitable poverty relief programs are better than government-directed social services. Reed, adjunct scholar, 01 (Lawrence W. Reed, an adjunct scholar of the Mises Institute, president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Midland, Michigan, “Charity and Free Will”, 8/9/2001 http://mises.org/story/751)/A.C. President Bush is right to recognize the fruitful role of America’s private, faith-based "armies of compassion." For many reasons, such groups are far more effective in solving social problems—poverty, homelessness, and illiteracy, to name a few—than are government programs and bureaucracies. They treat the whole person, which means they get to the root of problems that stem from spiritual , attitudinal, and behavioral deficiencies. They demand accountability, which means they don’t simply give the needy a check every two weeks without expecting the needy to do much in return or change destructive patterns of behavior. And if they don’t produce results, they wither; the parishioners or others who voluntarily support them will put their mites elsewhere. When a government program fails to perform, its lobbyists make a case for more funding, and they usually get it. Last printed 165 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 166 CP Solves Coercion CP solves coercion. Reed, adjunct scholar, 01 (Lawrence W. Reed, an adjunct scholar of the Mises Institute, president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Midland, Michigan, “Charity and Free Will”, 8/9/2001 http://mises.org/story/751)/A.C. From start to finish, what private charities do is a manifestation of free will. No one is compelled to provide assistance. No one is coerced to pay for it . No one is required to accept it. All parties come together of their own, individual volition. And that’s the magic of it. The link between the giver, the provider, and the receiver is strong precisely because each knows he can walk away from it at the slightest hint of insincerity, broken promises, or poor performance. Because each party is giving of his own time or resources voluntarily, he tends to focus on the mission at hand and doesn’t get bogged down or diverted by distant or secondary agendas, like filling out the proper paperwork or currying favor with the political powers-that-be. Last printed 166 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 167 Charity CP - Solvency Private charity best – targets causes, not symptoms. Johnston, economist, 98 Jim Johnston, economist and a member of the board of directors of the Heartland Institute ,‘Welfare and Charity: Yes, There Is a Difference”, Juny/July 1998 http://www.newcoalition.org/Article.cfm?artId=768 There are probably more solutions than there are causes for poverty. The reason is that many "solutions" are not well considered, and sometimes they actually worsen the condition of the poor. Clearly, effective help for the poor takes more than just good intentions. Wealth and poverty have been important topics in economics for more than 200 years since Adam Smith, a professor of moral philosophy, published The Wealth of Nations in 1776. One of the most important contributions made recently to the literature is by Jennifer Roback Morse , a fellow economist who is a person of deep religious conviction. Morse has compared government welfare and private charity in a way that helps to understand the issue in a new light. She points out that private charity operates to treat particular causes of poverty. The help is tailored to the individual person. By contrast, government welfare does not, and should not, discriminate among recipients. The discretion of social workers must be circumscribed in order to reduce corruption in the system. Last printed 167 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 168 Charity CP - Solvency Federal programs instill dependency. Charity action is the only way to solve poverty. Blanchette, Research Fellow, 07 (Jude Blanchette, Henry Hazlitt Research Fellow at the Foundation for Economics Education, “The Shortcomings of Government Charity” May 2007, The Freeman Volume: 57 • Issue: 4 http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-shortcomings-of-governmentcharity/) /A.C. The primary reason private charity is more effective and more humane in providing for the poor lies in how aid is given, not simply how much is given. If administered indiscriminately, any type of aid renders the recipient in a worse predicament than before, for now he is dependent on the handouts of others. As Isabel Paterson wrote in The God of the Machine: “[T]ake the case of a truly needy man, who is not incapacitated, and suppose that the philanthropist gives him food and clothes and shelter—when he has used them, he is just where he was before, except that he may have acquired the habit of dependence.” Economist and Freeman columnist Walter E. Williams comes to a similar conclusion in More Liberty Means Less Government, labeling indiscriminate aid “animal compassion.” Writes Williams: “Compassion towards animals includes making sure the animal has adequate food and water, medical attention and when needed, suitable shelter, and a toy or two for entertainment. . . . Animal compassion bears none of the hardships and complexities of human compassion. You don’t have to instill lessons of independence. In fact, independence is a negative.” Like any other government monopoly (public schools, the post office), public charity is insulated from competition and financial loss, and thus inefficient spending is inevitable. Indeed, bureaucrats have an incentive to recruit recipients in order to justify bigger budgets. With the need to control costs diminished, aid can be handed out regardless of conditions or situations facing potential recipients. By way of comparison, private charities, churches, and mutual-aid societies are faced with economic realities and must attempt to decide who truly merits aid, as well as how to best bring about the recipient’s economic independence. An admittedly subjective process, this helps to eliminate freeloaders , thus allowing more resources to be directed to the deserving poor. As law professor Richard A. Epstein writes in Principles for a Free Society: “Since charitable budgets were—as they are today—limited, if not fixed, a primary concern was how to maximize the benefits over all the indigent: that is, how to prevent scarce resources from being drained off by those who were not really needy or who had, in fact, resources of their own; and then to channel those resources to those who were most in need.” Last printed 168 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 169 Charity CP - Solvency Abolishing federal programs is the first step to solving poverty – allows private sector to grow. Blanchette, Research Fellow, 07 (Jude Blanchette, Henry Hazlitt Research Fellow at the Foundation for Economics Education, “The Shortcomings of Government Charity” May 2007, The Freeman Volume: 57 • Issue: 4 http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-shortcomings-of-governmentcharity/) /A.C. History shows that it is only through private voluntary solutions that we see true human compassion. Organizations and individuals, in the spirit of compassion, provided poverty relief that embraced generosity, but recognized the dire consequences of haphazardly given aid. Most social workers of a century ago understood that good character, self-reliance, and strong social ties were virtues that must be instilled in the poor if there were to be any gains made in alleviating poverty. Before the Depression private solutions played an important moral and material role for the poor. Whereas government relies on coercion, charities and fraternal societies embody the qualities that make volunteerism socially advantageous. Conversely, the past 70 years have shown that government has not prudently handled, and cannot prudently handle, the plight of the poor. Rather than help those in need of assistance during times of trouble, the federal government has imprisoned them in a political power game, resulting in increased dependence. Only abolition of the government dole will allow the private sector to once again achieve the levels of social welfare seen in the past. Last printed 169 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 170 Charity CP - Solvency Private charity is superior to government programs – treats the root cause and is supported by empirical evidence of efficiency. Awenius, retired attorney, 84 (Robert Awenius, retired attorney, “Why Not Private Charity”, November 1984 The Freeman Volume: 34 Issue: 11 http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/why-not-private-charity/) /A.C. The sheer cost and inconclusiveness of government charity is of itself a telling argument in support of private charity. In general, government is grossly inefficient, and coupled to this is the cupidity of the vested bureaucracy that feeds on the money flowing from the Federal treasury. Our concern is to aid and assist the people in the nation by a method that does the most for them, and to shun measures that do not treat the causes of poverty. In general, we all are our brothers’ keepers and we should undertake that responsibility, but along avenues that truly raise the poor to a productive place in our society. The history of man’s climb from savagery to a civilized status would indicate that the truest, surest, and most efficient method of aiding a poor man is along the lines of free-choice inducements . When a poor man sees that work will provide more material reward than idleness on a government dole, he will choose work. With private charity dispensing funds to the poor, the nation would avoid the stultifying vice of idleness providing more gain than derived from common labor. Thus, private charity would accomplish more for the poor than government charity. And with private charity directing the dispersing of funds, there is a far Welfare itself is a problem. greater likelihood of these monies treating the causes of poverty than simply treating the symptoms. Therefore, the writer believes there is an estimable case for the general adoption of private charity in place of public charity. Last printed 170 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 171 Government Programs Fail Government programs fail because they encourage dependency – exacerbates aff harms. Blanchette, Research Fellow, 07 (Jude Blanchette, Henry Hazlitt Research Fellow at the Foundation for Economics Education, “The Shortcomings of Government Charity” May 2007, The Freeman Volume: 57 • Issue: 4 http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-shortcomings-of-governmentcharity/) /A.C. According to Merriam-Webs ter’s Collegiate Dictionary, poverty is “a lack of money or material possessions,” and on the surface money would seem to be the obvious remedy. But if reducing poverty were simply a matter of transferring funds from rich to poor, then the “War on Poverty” should have been won years ago. In Losing Ground, Murray chronicles the failures of federal social policies from 1950–1980, concluding, “The first effect [of government policy] . . . was to make it profitable for the poor to behave in the short term in ways that were destructive in the long term. Their second effect was to mask these long-term losses—to subsidize irretrievable mistakes. We tried to remove the barriers to escape poverty, and inadvertently built a trap.” The “trap” was built through the largess of the federal government, which exacerbated the dependency of the poor on handouts, and supported decisions that furthered damaging behavior. Observing the English Poor Laws in 1835, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in Memoirs on Pauperism: “Man, like all sociallyorganized beings, has a natural passion for idleness. There are, however, two incentives to work: the need to live and the desire to improve conditions of life.” In effect, the government destroys both of these incentives. By receiving food, shelter, and most other necessities, welfare recipients aren’t faced with the need to provide for themselves. Likewise, by supporting all lifestyle decisions, both good and bad, government insulates the poor from having to face the consequences of unfavorable choices. Tocqueville was prescient in his critique of government welfare, forecasting, “I have said that the inevitable result of public charity was to perpetuate idleness among the majority of the poor and to provide for their leisure at the expense of those who work.” By traditionally allocating the bulk of its resources as cash payments, the government increased dependency and neglected to address the causes of perpetual poverty. Welfare Reform Last printed 171 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 172 Private/Public Trade Off Plan trades off with private charity efforts. Johnston, economist, 98 Jim Johnston, economist and a member of the board of directors of the Heartland Institute ,‘Welfare and Charity: Yes, There Is a Difference”, Juny/July 1998 http://www.newcoalition.org/Article.cfm?artId=768 Rather than giving relief, government welfare adds to the misery of the poor. But that is only half of the problem with government welfare. Jennifer Roback Morse points out that the system tends to corrupt potential donors to charity as well. It gives those able to finance real solutions to poverty an excuse, "I gave to the tax collector." People latch on to the political rhetoric that the problems of poverty are being adequately handled by government. Knowing that they are already being taxed to support those programs, they choose to give less to private charity. In the process, they lose the direct contact with the deserving poor and with it the redemptive quality which charity has for the donor. The distortions of government welfare do not end there. Since charitable groups feel the double squeeze of increased numbers of applicants and reductions in private donations, these agencies turn increasingly to government for financial support. They become, in essence, government contractors, maintaining constituencies for the political establishment. Last printed 172 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 173 Public/Private Tradeoff Plan completely crowds out charitable giving – perceived as sufficient in the private eye. Garret and Rhine, economic researchers, 09 Thomas A. Garrett and Russell M. Rhine, economic researchers at the Federal Reserve,“Government Growth and Private Contributions to Charity”, July 2009 http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2007/2007-012.pdf)/A.C. Economists have developed several theories as to why individuals make charitable donations (see Eckel et al. 2005 and Andreoni 1989, 1990, 2006). The theory of perfect altruism assumes that donors are concerned with the total amount of funds that a charity receives . If the charity receives funding from other sources, including governments, the donor will reduce his or her contribution by that amount . The implication is that government spending completely crowds out charitable giving if, in the eyes of the donor, the appropriate funding level is met. Perfect altruism is hypothesized to result in full crowding out regardless of whether fiscal illusion is present (Eckel et al. 2005).4 Last printed 173 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 174 Free Market Charity Lower tax rates induce charitable giving – studies prove. Benzing, economics professor, 04 (Cynthia Benzing, Ph.D Drexel University, Associate Dean of the College of Business and Public Affairs, Chairperson and Professor of Economics and Finance, Thomas Andrews “The effect of tax rates and uncertainty on contributory crowding out”, September 2004, Atlantic Economic Journal http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6413/is_3_32/ai_n29125440/pg_11/?tag=content;col1) /A.C. According to the results of this experiment, uncertainty and tax rates significantly influence both the rate of voluntary contributions and the crowding out effect. Subjects voluntarily contributed a higher percentage of income when the tax rate was low and subjects were uncertain as to whether they would be disadvantaged. This leads one to conjecture that low income individuals with less education and skills may be more inclined to voluntarily contribute to income support and social programs because their probability of needing such support is higher. High income, two wage earning families are less likely to ever need welfare, food stamps, etc. and, consequently, are less inclined to voluntarily contribute to such programs. If this is the case, then taxation to compel the contribution of higher income individuals may well increase the supply of income support and social programs. This study points to progressive taxation as a means of maintaining or increasing the supply of social programs. With respect to crowding out, 97 percent of contributions were crowded out when tax rates were increased from 0 to l0 percent. Taxes trade off with charity. Garret and Rhine, economic researchers, 09 Thomas A. Garrett and Russell M. Rhine, economic researchers at the Federal Reserve,“Government Growth and Private Contributions to Charity”, July 2009 http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2007/2007-012.pdf)/A.C. We obtained the interesting result that a decrease in state and local government spending on education increases private giving to education, and that increased education giving then leads to a reduction in federal government spending on education. We argued that this one-way relationship is a result of changing fundraising efforts and the nature of state and local government versus federal government education expenditures (general appropriations versus grants, respectively) and the relative size of each toward total education expenditures. In addition to a reduction in private charitable contributions resulting from government spending on charitable organizations , government growth itself, ignoring the destination of government spending, may reduce private charitable contributions. Private contributions may decrease because of reduced disposable income that results from higher taxes used to fuel future government growth. Last printed 174 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 175 Privatization Good – Econ Failure to privatize collapses the economy Bresiger, business writer & editor, 08 Gregory Bresiger, business writer & managing editor of Traders Magazine, “The Non-Issue that Should be an issue”, 7/3/2008, Von Mises http://mises.org/story/3020) /A.C. history has endless episodes of nations that experienced incredible economic and social problems owing to the government, which took over bigger and bigger pieces of the economy. If the will of the people demands higher and higher public expenditures, if more and more means are used for purposes for which private individuals have not produced them, if more and more power stands behind this will, and if finally all parts of the people are gripped by entirely new ideas about private property and the forms of life — then the tax state will have run its course and society will have to depend on other motive forces for its economy than self-interest. This limit … can certainly be reached. Without doubt, the tax state can collapse. But they do matter, according to one of the great economic historians, Joseph Schumpeter. Indeed, Last printed 175 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 176 A2: Perm: Do Both 1. Extend _____ - government programs are inefficient because they inflate the growth of an already bloated bureaucracy. Private efforts are superior because they target social causes rather than symptoms – the plan is net worse. 2. Mutually exclusive: the government can’t intervene and privatize simultaneously. [here’s some evidence…] Blanchette, Research Fellow, 07 (Jude Blanchette, Henry Hazlitt Research Fellow at the Foundation for Economics Education, “The Shortcomings of Government Charity” May 2007, The Freeman Volume: 57 • Issue: 4 http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-shortcomings-of-governmentcharity/) /A.C. History shows that it is only through private voluntary solutions that we see true human compassion. Organizations and individuals, in the spirit of compassion, provided poverty relief that embraced generosity, but recognized the dire consequences of haphazardly given aid. Most social workers of a century ago understood that good character, self-reliance, and strong social ties were virtues that must be instilled in the poor if there were to be any gains made in alleviating poverty. Before the Depression private solutions played an important moral and material role for the poor. Whereas government relies on coercion, charities and fraternal societies embody the qualities that make volunteerism socially advantageous. Conversely, the past 70 years have shown that government has not prudently handled, and cannot prudently handle, the plight of the poor. Rather than help those in need of assistance during times of trouble, the federal government has imprisoned them in a political power game, resulting in increased dependence. Only abolition of the government dole will allow the private sector to once again achieve the levels of social welfare seen in the past. Entitlement programs impede anti-poverty efforts – plan would a net disad to the counterplan. Awenius, retired attorney, 84 (Robert Awenius, retired attorney, “Why Not Private Charity”, November 1984 The Freeman Volume: 34 Issue: 11 http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/why-not-private-charity/) /A.C. Welfare tends to impede progress against poverty. Since welfare offers incentives counter to self-sufficiency and production, relatively few of those on welfare will have the heart or sufficient will or resolution to become self-sufficient and pay their own way in the world. Thus, welfare tends toward diminished productivity and production and it encourages those on the welfare rolls to accept unemployment. This insidious Federal dole induces idleness among its beneficiaries, subsidizes this very indolence, and results, for example, in the loss of hope of the poor owning their homes, accumulating any savings, or to educate their children for a better future than their parents realized. The economic future of this nation depends on production of more and more material wealth, but the welfare state presents us with a paradox: namely, welfare benefits go to people who—for various reasons— are relatively unproductive; but money for welfare comes from persons who are relatively productive. Thus we have a Federal dole system that sustains—and increases—poverty. Last printed 176 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 177 A2: L/T – We Reform/Decrease Spending Reform fails: the savings is just reallocated to other programs. Privatization is key. Blanchette, Research Fellow, 07 (Jude Blanchette, Henry Hazlitt Research Fellow at the Foundation for Economics Education, “The Shortcomings of Government Charity” May 2007, The Freeman Volume: 57 • Issue: 4 http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-shortcomings-of-governmentcharity/) /A.C. Yet in many ways PRWORA has failed. HHS can claim success since its enactment because of statistical chicanery. Fewer and fewer individuals are now eligible for cash assistance, and since only those receiving monthly payments are counted on the welfare roles, the program is deemed a success. Yet as Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute concludes, “[W]elfare reform has done little to make individuals self-sufficient. Even after leaving welfare, most former recipients continue to rely on a wide variety of noncash government assistance programs .” At the same time that cash assistance has decreased, noncash handouts have increased markedly. According to the New York Times (2003), “[F]ederal and state welfare money spent on cash assistance declined 44 percent in 2002, from 77 percent in 1997. The proportion allocated to various types of noncash assistance shot up to 56 percent, from 23 percent in 1997. And the Associated Press reported in February, The welfare state is bigger than ever despite a decade of policies designed to wean poor people from public aid. Last printed 177 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 178 1NC – Alternative The alternative is to reject the coercive policies of the affirmative. By embracing negative freedoms, the free market will alleviate social ills, turning the case. Rothschild, University of Linz, Vienna, Austria, 03 (Kurt Rothschild, University of Linz, Vienna, Austria, 2003, Reflections on an anniversary: Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom, Journal of Economic Studies, Volume 30, Number 5, pp. 548-557(10), IngentaConnect) jz The usual distinction between “negative” and “positive” freedom is that the first demands that individuals should not be interfered with when carrying out their desired actions (which in turn must not interfere with the plans of other people), while “positive” freedom is concerned with the question to what degree individuals are given the opportunity to choose between different actions. Nothing speaks against adopting one's personal preference as a concept of “Freedom” which includes both aspects, the positive and the negative one. Amartya Sen or John Rawls are the outstanding examples of social scientists adopting such a view. But this wider perspective leads to a more complicated situation when it comes to practical applications of one's “philosophy”. While policies and institutions – in both politics and economics – may very well foster at the same time both positive and negative freedoms, there are also frequent cases where the two come into conflict. Then, difficult problems of trade-offs can arise[2]: How much can be taken away from some people (e.g. through taxes) reducing the degree of their (negative) freedom, in order to increase the degree of (positive) freedom of some other people (e.g. through subsidies). Friedman gets rid of such difficult choices in his abstract and practical deliberations by making negative freedom a dominant and sole target. He draws a sharp division “between equality of rights and equality of opportunity , on the one hand, and material equality or equality of outcome on the other” (p. 195). While he accepts the first target, he rejects the second because it might come into conflict with the first. This confrontation of the two supposedly contradictory alternatives has two decisive flaws. First, equality need not (and cannot in practice) be a question of complete equality, but only of degrees of equality which makes it unnecessary to draw a sharp either-or line, and second, the two alternatives are not completely independent of each other. In particular, equality of opportunity is not independent of the degree of equality or inequality of material means. Friedman, however, insists that the first alternative has to be the dominant principle of a “free” society. This does not mean that he does not care about social and other societal problems. He does. But in his view they should as far as possible be left to voluntary private activities with state interference kept at a minimum, because coercion is abhorred. “I find it hard, as a liberal, to see any justification for graduated taxation solely to redistribute income. This seems a clear case of using coercion to take from some in order to give to others and thus to conflict head-on with individual freedom” (p. 174). Added to this rejection of coercion is Friedman's belief that the undisturbed free market with its efficiency can contribute to an alleviation of social problems. Government motives and actions are regarded with doubt and distrust . This brings problems connected with Friedman's approaches to capitalism and government. Freedom – both in its wider and narrower (Friedman-type) sense – can be divided into political and economic freedom. In both cases, the problem is – for Friedman the only one – that powerbased coercion can force people to act differently from what they really want to do. In the political field, this raises the question: how far the state should be allowed to interfere into private decisions. This will be dealt with later. But political freedom is also connected with economic freedom, which deals with freedom for transactions in the economic sphere. For Friedman, with his stress on negative freedom and his scepticism about government power, which would be enhanced by controlling economic affairs, economic freedom achieves priority. “Freedom in economic arrangements … is an end in itself … and is also an indispensable means toward the achievement of political freedom” (p. 8, italics added). Last printed 178 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 179 Alternative – Rejection We should reject coercion for deliberative democracy. Medearis, Department of Political Science, University of California, Riverside, 05 (John Medearis, Department of Political Science, University of California, Riverside, 2005, Social Movements and Deliberative Democratic Theory, British Journal of Political Science, 35 : 53-75 Cambridge University Press) I adopt a view of coercion rooted in the current conceptualization of deliberation itself. Indeed, before offering a definition, it is worth exploring the close connection between non-coercion and deliberation. One of the deliberative theorists’ basic premises is that only those decisions are legitimate that are – or could be – supported by citizens for reasons they have reflected upon and think are good ones. Coercion, simply as it is conventionally understood – as compelling through force or threats – stands in obvious contrast to such a notion of deliberation . For coercion, in this quite ordinary sense, would bypass the attempt to gain reasoned support. This is surely why Dryzek contrasts ‘coercion’ with ‘persuasion’ and contends that deliberative democratic theory in general (not just his variety) rejects ‘coercion’.11 A principled rejection of coercion runs deep in the writings of Habermas and Rawls, who have not only endorsed deliberative democracy, but, more importantly, provided much of its intellectual apparatus. In a frequently-cited formulation, Habermas writes that ‘participants in argumentation cannot avoid the presupposition that …the structure of their communication rules out all external or internal coercion other than the force of the better argument and thereby also neutralizes all motives other than that of the cooperative search for truth.’12 Such a co-operative search for truth, or ‘action oriented to reaching understanding’, is the principled heart of at least one major strand of deliberation .13 A similar understanding of coercion is clearly also embedded in Rawls’s central insistence that parties to deliberation offer each other reasons and forms of cooperation that they can accept, as he puts it, ‘for the right reasons’ – and not merely because of a ‘balance of political and social forces’ or ‘sanctions’.14 Likewise, a number of central features of Gutmann and Thompson’s influential deliberative writings would seem to rule out coercion: their Rawlsian commitment to ‘reciprocity’, one of three putative deliberative values, which involves a sole reliance on ‘reasons that are shared or could come to be shared’; their stringent demand that people who disagree ‘continue to reason together to reach mutually acceptable decisions’; and their disapproval of outcomes that turn, strategically, on actors’ self-interests.15 Bohman, similarly, makes the exposing of coercion one of the three conditions of deliberative legitimacy in pluralistic societies.16 Of course, deliberative democrats do not claim that politics can be entirely non-coercive, any more than they claim politics can be entirely deliberative. But they do claim that decisions are democratically legitimate only in so far as they are deliberative. And thus from their perspective, decisions are democratically legitimate only in so far as the processes from which they result are non-coercive. Last printed 179 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 180 Alternative – Rejection Reject coercion in favor of capitalism and individual rights. Biddle, editor and publisher of The Objective Standard, 06 (Craig Biddle, editor and publisher of The Objective Standard, The Objectivist Standard, Spring 2006, Vol. 1, No. 1, “Introducing The Objective Standard,” http://theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-spring/introducing-the-objective-standard.asp) In the realm of politics, we recognize that in order to take life-promoting action, a person must be free to do so; he must be free to act on the judgment of his mind, his basic means of living. The only thing that can stop him from doing so is other people, and the only way they can stop him is by means of physical force. Thus, in order to live peacefully together in a society—in order to live together as civilized beings, rather than as barbarians—people must refrain from using physical force against one another. This fact gives rise to the principle of individual rights, which is the principle of egoism applied to politics. The principle of individual rights is the recognition of the fact that each person is morally an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; therefore, he morally must be left free to act on his own judgment for his own sake, so long as he does not violate that same right of others. This principle is not a matter of personal opinion or social convention or “divine revelation”; it is a matter of the factual requirements of human life in a social context. A moral society—a civilized society—is one in which the initiation of physical force against human beings is prohibited by law. And the only social system in which such force is so prohibited — consistently and on principle—is pure, laissez-faire capitalism. Capitalism—which, contrary to widespread mis-education, is not merely an economic system—is the social system of individual rights, including property rights, protected by a strictly limited government. In a laissez-faire society, if people want to deal with one another, they may do so only on voluntary terms, by uncoerced agreement. If they want to receive goods or services from others, they may offer to exchange value for value to mutual benefit; however, they may not seek to gain any value from others by means of physical force. People are fully free to act on their own judgment and thus to produce, keep, use, and dispose of their own property as they see fit; the only thing they are not “free” to do is to violate the rights of others. In a capitalist society, individual rights cannot legally be violated by anyone—including the government. Last printed 180 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 181 Alternative: Imagination Rejection of the collectivist welfare policies of the aff is critical to imagining a better world. Only through this can we establish concrete foundations for reasonable change. Ebeling, president of Foundation for Economic Freedom, 06 (Richard Ebeling, president of Foundation for Economic Freedom, October 2006, “Principles Must Come Before Politics,” http://www.nassauinstitute.org/articles/article636.php?view=print) The real political task, however, is not to try to attract votes or nudge policy in the context of the existing bell curve of voter preferences. Rather, it is to move the curve in the direction of individual freedom, limited constitutional government, and a truly free market. In other words, the task is to shift the curve's dome over to where its individualist tail end is today, so that someday the middle mass of voters will more or less hold views generally consistent with classical-liberal ideas. But this requires looking beyond what is politically expedient today. Indeed, it requires ignoring what seem to be the boundaries of the politically possible and instead thinking in terms of the politically desirable . If policies really consistent with individual freedom are ever to be implemented, we must first explain to our fellow citizens what such a society of freedom would look like, how it would work, and why it is desirable. They must slowly but surely come to see the vision of liberty. Maybe part of the reason so many people seem unable or unwilling to think beyond five minutes is that they are so infrequently challenged to do. Maybe our fellow citizens find it hard to break out of the current mindset of the existing interventionist welfare state because they are too rarely offered a clear and consistent case for the classical-liberal ideal and why it would be good for them and others they care about. Maybe people are often trapped in the policies of the short run precisely because they almost never are presented with a political and economic philosophy of freedom for the long run. Politics will always only reflect the existing distribution of people's political views. Political campaigns , therefore, will never be the primary method for transforming society from less free to more free. This will only happen outside of the narrow political process through a change in the climate of ideas. Though most people don't know it, they are guided by an implicit set of political and economic principles when they think about and decide on what they want government to do. These principles are the ideological residues of nineteenth- and twentieth-century collectivism. They need to be replaced with a new set of political and economic principles, those of classical liberalism. When a sufficient number of our fellow citizens accept classical liberalism, politics will follow principle and the interventionist welfare state will be opposed and finally abolished. This is why a radical change in principles must come before any successful change in politics. Last printed 181 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 182 Alternative: Imagination – A2: Can’t Imagine Confinement to the “politically possible” make change impossible. Prefer the reformist policies of the alternative. Ebeling, president of Foundation for Economic Freedom, 06 (Richard Ebeling, president of Foundation for Economic Freedom, October 2006, “Principles Must Come Before Politics,” http://www.nassauinstitute.org/articles/article636.php?view=print) At the same time, there are many people who talk about dealing with the dangers of bigger and bigger government and the budgetary burdens it imposes on all of us. But, again, rather than focusing on fundamentals, theirs is often only an attempt to find short-term gimmicks to deal with the problems. This, too, is the result of focusing on politics. It's often pointed out that the political preferences of voters are distributed in the shape of a bell curve . At the ends are the political "extremists," collectivists and individualists respectively. In between, under the dome, are the vast majority of voters who are somewhere "in the middle." If a politician is to be elected, it is explained, he [or she] must appeal to a significant number in that middle, since there are just not enough votes at either end of the curve to win an election. Thus he [or she] must weave together a patchwork of inconsistent and often contradictory positions that will reflect the diverse political views of his potential constituents. This also limits what market-oriented think tanks in either Washington or in the various state capitals can offer as policy options in the debates about the role of government. Even while seeming to be nudging the debate more in a free-market, smaller government direction, the boundaries in which they can frame their proposals are constricted by what the politicians consider "politically possible." Beyond those boundaries the policy advocate becomes a "kook," a pie-in-the-sky "nut," an extremist who does not realize that "nobody" is going to take those views seriously. The policy advocate risks losing political legitimacy and a hearing in the halls of power-which is why his organization is located in that center of political decisionmaking. This often means that policy proposals are "watered down" to be politically acceptable . Even the defense of a policy is often couched in terms designed to avoid the impression that its advocates support anything as radical as, well, laissez faire and the end to the interventionist welfare state. Any detailed and fundamental discussion of government policy is therefore implicitly ruled out of court. Once attention is focused on influencing what government is doing right now, the debate is defined by what is politically practicable today. Last printed 182 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 183 Alternative Solvency Alt – view the invisible victims Walter E. Williams (John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics and Chairman of the Economics Department at George Mason University) January 15, 1996. THE ARGUMENT FOR FREE MARKETS: MORALITY VS. EFFICIENCY. http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj15n2-3-3.html Demystification of the State A. V. Dicey (1914: 257) wrote: The beneficial effect of State intervention, especially in the form of legislation, is direct, immediate, and so to speak visible, whilst its evil effects are gradual and indirect, and lie outside our sight.... Hence the majority of mankind must almost of necessity look with undue favour upon government intervention. This natural bias can be counteracted only by the existence, in a given society, ... of a presumption or prejudice in favour of individual liberty, that is of laissez-faire. One can hardly determine the casualties of war simply by looking at survivors. We must ask what happened to those whom we do not see. Similarly, when evaluating interventionist public policy we cannot evaluate it simply by looking at its beneficiaries. We must discover its victims. Most often the victims of public policy are invisible. To garner greater public support against government command and control, we must somehow find a way to make those victims visible. In all interventionist policy there are those who are beneficiaries and those who are victims. In most cases the beneficiaries are highly visible and the victims are invisible. A good example is the minimum wage law. After enactment of an increase in the minimum wage law, politicians accompanied by television crews readily point to people who have benefitted from the legislation. The beneficiaries are those with a fatter paycheck. Thus, the politician can lay claim to the wisdom of his legislation that increased minimum wages. Moreover, the politician is also a beneficiary since those now earning higher wages will remember him when election time comes around. By parading minimum wage beneficiaries across the stage, those who oppose minimum wage increases can be readily portrayed as having a callous, mean-spirited disregard for interests of low-wage workers. A political strategy of those who support liberty should be that of exposing the invisible victims of minimum wage laws. We need to show those who have lost their jobs, or do not become employed in the first place, because their productivity did not warrant being employed at the minimum wage. We should find a way to demonstrate jobs destroyed by minimum wages such as busboys, gasoline station attendants, and movie ushers. We must show how marginally profitable firms have been forced out of business, though surviving firms may have the same number of employees. We should show how capital was artificially substituted for labor as a result of higher mandated wages and how firms have adjusted their production techniques in order to economize on labor. The particular adjustments firms make in response to higher mandated wages are less important than the fact that adjustments will be made. A more dramatic example of the invisible victims of interventionist state policy can be found in the regulation of medicines and medical devices, as in the case of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States. Essentially, FDA officials can make two types of errors. They can err on the side of undercaution and approve a drug with dangerous unanticipated side effects. Or they can err on the side of overcaution, not approving a useful and safe drug, or creating costly and lengthy drug approval procedures. Errors on the side of undercaution lead to embarrassment and possibly loss of bureaucratic careers and promotions because the victims of unsafe drugs will be visible through news stories of sick people, congressional investigations, and hearings. However, errors on the side of overcaution, through extensive delay in the approval of drugs--as in the cases of propranolol, Septra, and other drugs--impose virtually no costs on the FDA. Victims of FDA errors on the side of overcaution are mostly invisible to the press, the public, and politicians. Those victims should be made visible. Once the FDA (or some other approving agency) approves a drug widely used elsewhere with no untoward effects, we should find people who died or needlessly suffered as a result of the FDA's delay. For political efficiency we cannot simply offer intellectual arguments. We must get pictures and stories of FDA victims in an effort to appeal to a sense of fair play, decency, and common sense among the citizenry. But there is also a role for intellectual arguments in the sense of teaching people that any meaningful use of "safe'' must see safety as a set of tradeoffs rather than a category. The attempt to get a "safe'' drug means that people will die or needlessly suffer during the time it takes to achieve greater safety. That toll must be weighted against the number of people who might die or become ill because of the drug's earlier availability and attendant unanticipated harmful side effects. People should also be taught to understand that if a 100 percent safe drug is ever achieved, it will be the only thing in this world that is 100 percent safe. Last printed 183 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 184 A2: Objectivism not accepted That’s irrelevant. Even if objectivism isn’t accepted, its ideas are still valid. Locke, Dean’s Professor of Motivation and Leadership at the Robert H. Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland and Becker, Professor of Management, Department of Business Administration at the University of Delaware, 98 (Edwin A. Locke, Dean’s Professor of Motivation and Leadership at the Robert H. Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland and Thomas E. Becker, Professor of Management, Department of Business Administration at the University of Delaware, “Rebuttal to a Subjectivist Critique of an Objectivist Approach to Integrity in Organizations,” The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, No. 1 (Jan., 1998), pp. 170-175, JSTOR) Although they recommend caution in inter- preting academic inattention to Objectivism, Barry and Stephens imply that the lack of men- tion of Rand in several scholarly compendia is evidence that "objectivism has no legitimate standing in the discipline of moral philosophy" (1998: 163). One could respond by accepting the authors' premise and noting that Rand is mentioned in other scholarly compendia: The Hutchinson Dictionary of Ideas (1994), Kersey's (1989) Women Philosophers, and Reese's (1996) Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion. However, Barry and Stephens are quite correct in declar- ing that Objectivism is profoundly at odds with modern and postmodern philosophy. In fact, this is true to a much greater extent than the authors indicate: the conflict applies to every branch of philosophy (metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and art) and to the entire approach to philosophical issues (cf., Peikoff, 1991). However, the disdain of modern philosophers regarding Objectivism is irrelevant in assessing Objectivism's validity. Reason-not appeals to authority-is the only valid basis for evaluating ideas. Arguments from authority are invalid be- cause they rest upon the fallacious assumption that the opinions of so-called experts are neces- sarily true. Certainly, one may take the opinions of experts into account in arriving at everyday decisions, but one must never substitute others' opinions for one's own thinking. An independent, logical mind-not blind reliance on authority-is the appropriate tool for gathering knowledge and evaluating ideas. Also, one must choose "experts" carefully. There is a spe- cial reason why most modern philosophers do not qualify as experts on philosophy. Since the time of Immanuel Kant (the late eighteenth cen- tury), philosophy has been dominated by skep- ticism-the doctrine that one cannot be certain of anything. This means that qua philosophers, most modern philosophers have nothing to say, other than to reassert that we cannot know any- thing (Hull, 1993). In attempting to support their contention that Objectivism is not a legitimate philosophy, Barry and Stephens also refer to "numerous" contradictions and inconsistencies that, suppos- edly, have been "effectively documented" (1998: 163). Unfortunately, because the authors do not explain what these purported contradictions and inconsistencies are, the reader is led, once again, to rely on the opinions of other people (in this case, the critics). Hence, this is another vari- ation of the argument from authority. As such, we should give it as little credence as the ab- sence of Rand's name from some particular dic- tionary of philosophy. Last printed 184 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 185 A2: Objectivism political favors Their authors don’t distinguish between political and economic power. Locke, Dean’s Professor of Motivation and Leadership at the Robert H. Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland and Becker, Professor of Management, Department of Business Administration at the University of Delaware, 98 (Edwin A. Locke, Dean’s Professor of Motivation and Leadership at the Robert H. Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland and Thomas E. Becker, Professor of Management, Department of Business Administration at the University of Delaware, “Rebuttal to a Subjectivist Critique of an Objectivist Approach to Integrity in Organizations,” The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, No. 1 (Jan., 1998), pp. 170-175, JSTOR) Objectivism does not overlook the ex- istence of political power. The assertion that Objectivism somehow condones the oppression of human beings reveals a failure to distinguish between economic and political power. It also reveals a profound misunderstanding of the phi- losophy. Objectivism explicitly and consistently argues for individualism, for individual rights, for personal responsibility, for independence, for justice, and for integrity (Peikoff, 1991; Rand, 1943, 1957, 1964). Objectivism is procapitalist and, hence, favors granting economic power to those who have earned it through their own pro- ductivity. However, this does not mean that Ob- jectivism sanctions political favors to the "intel- lectually elite" or to anyone else. In sum, in contrast to Barry and Stephens' argument, Last printed 185 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 186 AT: Alt is Violent/Justifies Violence Refusal is not violent – their logic is 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 It is important for the arguments we have been considering that the refusal to give should be sharply distinguished from aggressive actions of various sorts, such as directly attacking the supplicants who are pleading for assistance. That distinction is important because everyone agrees that it may be permissible to use force to stop one person from attacking another. Indeed, in classical liberal political philosophy (indeed in the Kantian political philosophy), that is the only basis on which the use of force may be justified.13 A promising line of attack, then, for the liberal defender of welfare provision might be to challenge that distinction. Last printed 186 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 187 Americans want Smaller Government Americans want smaller government when taxes matter Boaz, Cato's executive vice president, 09 (David Boaz, Cato's executive vice president, 6/23/09, CATO Institute, http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/06/23/americans-wantsmaller-government/) A new Washington Post-ABC News poll again shows that voters prefer “smaller government with fewer services” to “larger government with more services”:Obama has used the power and financial resources of the federal government repeatedly as he has dealt with the country’s problems this year, to the consternation of his Republican critics. The poll found little change in underlying public attitudes toward government since the inauguration, with slightly more than half saying they prefer a smaller government with fewer services to a larger government with more services. Independents, however, now split 61 to 35 percent in favor of a smaller government; they were more narrowly divided on this question a year ago (52 to 44 percent), before the financial crisis hit.The Post calls a 54 to 41 lead for smaller government “barely more than half,” which is fair enough, though it’s twice as large as Obama’s margin over McCain. It’s also twice as large as the margin the Post found in the same poll in November 2007.I’ve always thought the “smaller government” question is incomplete. It offers respondents a benefit of larger government–”more services”–but it doesn’t mention that the cost of “larger government with more services” is higher taxes. The question ought to give both the cost and the benefit for each option. A few years ago a Rasmussen poll did ask the question that way. The results were that 64 percent of voters said that they prefer smaller government with fewer services and lower taxes, while only 22 percent would rather see a more active government with more services and higher taxes. A similar poll around the same time, without the information on taxes, found a margin of 59 to 26 percent. So it’s reasonable to conclude that if you remind respondents that “more services” means higher taxes, the margin by which people prefer smaller government rises by about 9 points. So maybe the margin in this poll would have been something like 59 to 37 if both sides of the question had been presented. Last printed 187 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 188 Random AT: Federal funding o/w investment Increased funding doesn’t guarantee success Smith, Senior Fellow in Health Care Reform at The Heritage Foundation's Center for Health Policy Studies, 09 (Dennis G. Smith, Senior Fellow in Health Care Reform at The Heritage Foundation's Center for Health Policy Studies, 3/25/2009, “The Role of Long-Term Care in Health Reform”, The Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/tst032509c.cfm) More money does not mean better quality. Last month, the Nelson Rockefeller Institute of Government issued a report, Medicaid and Long-Term Care: New York Compared to 18 Other States. It concludes, "[u]nfortunately, New York's broad range of services and higher spending have not produced a higher quality of care. The state is about average or slightly above average on measures of quality. The comparisons in this report show that New York has room to improve quality and lower costs."[8] Last printed 188 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 189 AT: Rimal Authoritarianism won’t solve the resource crunch Leeson 79 Adjunct Professor at the University of Oregon School of Law, Former Professor of Political Science at Willamette University, Former Judicial Fellow for the U.S. Supreme Court and Justice for the Oregon State Supreme Court [Susan, “Philosophical Implications of the Ecological Crisis: The Authoritarian Challenge to Liberalism” Polity Vol. 11, No. 3, pg. 303-318, jstor] whether solutions to the problems presented by the ecological crisis can be realized by authoritarianism is open to question. In the first place, the authoritarian prescription is too simple. Necessary changes which require new ideologies and political structures are much more complicated than the mere imposition of authoritarian constraints. Faith in technological solutions still is strong, as is the belief that each of us individually can survive the competition for scarce resources. The continued appearance of abundance, bolstered by the faith that new ways to cope with the environment will be found, provides no incentive to accept the strong arm of authoritarianism as a preventive of ecological collapse. And by the time the environment has degenerated to the point where authoritarian limits are deemed acceptable, even an almighty Leviathan may find it impossible to salvage the situation. Hardin argues that the commons can tolerate only so much abuse; and the clear implication is that once the carrying capacity is exceeded, nothing, not even the harshest governmental measures, can restore its health. Secondly, the authoritarian prescription is inadequate since it re- sponds only to the effects of the ecological crisis but does not seek to remedy its causes. The Soviet Union, a model of authoritarian political and social control, is not proving any more adept than the United States at finding solutions to the ecological crisis. 43 Both In the lack of persuasive responses, Hardin, Heilbroner, and Ophuls argue strong cases for authoritarianism. But societies share a commitment to industrial growth and attempt to maintain social stability through the promise of material abundance.44 Since neither system seems capable of imposing the requisite restraints, the impact of industrialization must be scrutinized as closely as the structures of government before the search for solutions can produce tangible results. Actually, indifference to the causes of the ecological crisis is authoritarianism's more serious shortcoming, being mainly a reaction against the defects of liberalism highlighted by the ecological crisis: modern man's relentless quest for happiness through unrestrained material acquisition in disregard of the limits imposed by the availability of natural resources. While it is true that the growing tension between limited resources and unlimited desires renders difficult decisions inevitable , analysis of the arguments presented by Hardin, Heilbroner, and Ophuls will expose the inadequacy of authoritarian constraints as a solution Last printed 189 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 190 AT: Rimal – AT: Majority Checks Mutual coercion wont solve - they lack the knowledge and incentive to protect the environment and will perpetuate tyrannical coercion Leeson 79 Adjunct Professor at the University of Oregon School of Law, Former Professor of Political Science at Willamette University, Former Judicial Fellow for the U.S. Supreme Court and Justice for the Oregon State Supreme Court [Susan, “Philosophical Implications of the Ecological Crisis: The Authoritarian Challenge to Liberalism” Polity Vol. 11, No. 3, pg. 303-318, jstor] Hardin's solution would be reasonable if it could be assumed that the majority is aware of threats to the commons and knows the measures needed to prevent its destruction. But this is the very knowledge which Hardin asserts individuals lack. Individual "rationality," or self-interest, Hardin says, is what leads to the destruction of the commons. How self- interested individuals are to be transformed into a public-spirited, wise majority is a problem Hardin does not address. The knowledge required to use the commons wisely will not result automatically from the majority's power to impose its will on the minority. Hardin also ignores the possibility that the majority might act un- justly; that is, coerce the minority for its own immediate pleasure rather than for the preservation of the commons and the wellbeing of future generations. That mutual coercion might degenerate into majority tyranny is a possibility that Hardin does not acknowledge, nor does his prescription provide a solution.46 Last printed 190 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 191 AT: Rimal – Doesn’t Solve Resources An authoritarian government would fail to conserve resources Leeson 79 Adjunct Professor at the University of Oregon School of Law, Former Professor of Political Science at Willamette University, Former Judicial Fellow for the U.S. Supreme Court and Justice for the Oregon State Supreme Court [Susan, “Philosophical Implications of the Ecological Crisis: The Authoritarian Challenge to Liberalism” Polity Vol. 11, No. 3, pg. 303-318, jstor] Heilbroner's argument leads to a similar predicament. As pessimistic as he is in Inquiry Into the Human Prospect, he does see hope that the psychological need for authority-the "trait of obedience"-will be powerful enough to force men to acquiesce to authoritarian controls before it is too late.47 Heilbroner doubts that men will consent to the authority of reason or engage in discussion about the need for govern- ment. He predicates his only hope for survival on a government which presupposes the unwillingness if not the incapacity of men to exercise reason. For Heilbroner the Hobbesian fear of violent death at the hands of one's fellow man is the fear of extinction from environmental de- struction. In both cases salvation is sought in the coercive power of the Leviathan. Ironically, it was the unleashing of the passion for material abundance, legitimized by Hobbesian natural right, amplified by Locke, combined One is left wondering what endowed the authoritarian power with the wisdom to rule which everyone else lacks. Indeed, none of the prescriptions for Leviathan includes measures to insure its wisdom or political skill. Surely, it takes more than brute force to make wise use of scarce resources, balance population with resources, and decide on appropriate levels and uses of technology. It will require skill to persuade modern men that the industrial capacities of the society ought not be developed without regard to the supply of natural resources, and to persuade them to exercise restraint when no immediately ap- parent reasons exist. with the rejection of the classical commitment to reason and proper limits that caused the ecological crisis. Last printed 191 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 192 AT: Rimal – Author Indict Their authors contradict themselves Leeson 79 Adjunct Professor at the University of Oregon School of Law, Former Professor of Political Science at Willamette University, Former Judicial Fellow for the U.S. Supreme Court and Justice for the Oregon State Supreme Court [Susan, “Philosophical Implications of the Ecological Crisis: The Authoritarian Challenge to Liberalism” Polity Vol. 11, No. 3, pg. 303-318, jstor] Ophuls' new position still traps him between competing political traditions. He wishes to affirm the basic materialism of Enlightenment thought, which attempts to explain the human situation in terms of biological survival and man's relationship to physical nature. At the same time he hopes for the revival of classical politics while yet refusing to affirm the classical faith in an objective good that can guide man in the selection of appropriate ends for his life.51 Like Rousseau and many contemporary thinkers, Ophuls wants the best of the classical and mod- ern worlds, irrespective of the wide epistemological gulf separating clas- sical Greek thought from the Enlightenment. Last printed 192 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 193 AFF—Utilitarianism Good—Rights Utilitarianism upholds self-ownership and thus liberty. Bailey, lecturer Politics at Princeton, 97 (James Bailey, lecturer Politics at Princeton, 1997, Utilitarianism, Institutions, and Justice, Oxford University Press, p. 160) I have also tried to show that attempts to subvert utilitarianism through appeals to formal properties about theories of justice—such as finality and publicity—do not work either. The finality of utilitarianism is unlikely to be in jeopardy in a world in which people cannot suffer horrible acts as patients or alienating acts as agents. The rules protecting self-ownership, which are necessary to prevent exploitation, also forbid the horrible acts and allow individuals the liberty to do much of what they see as with their lives. The question of utilitarianism's subversion in its finality by grossly, unfair distributive arrangements is answered by a set of institutions in which no deep suffering is allowed and a generous provision is made for educational opportunities for all. Utilitarianism is best – it protects rights while not totally rejecting all policies that might infringe. Harvey, J.D. Yale, 02 (Philip Harvey, J.D. Yale, Spring 2002, “Human Rights and Economic Policy Discourse: Taking Economic and Social Rights Seriously,” 33 Colum. Human Rights L. Rev. 353) Perhaps the clearest illustration of this compromise or balancing principle is the distinction drawn in constitutional jurisprudence between the standard of review applied by courts in deciding whether Laws that do not infringe on certain constitutionally protected rights will pass muster if there is a mere rational basis for their enactment, whereas laws that do infringe on such rights require more compelling justification, with the level of justification varying depending on the right at issue. 196 Human rights claims have bite precisely because they declare that certain actions may be improper, even if those actions are supported by a majority of the population, indeed, even if the actions in question would increase the total utility of the population as a whole. But it is not necessary to take the position that rights-based claims should always trump conflicting utilitymaximizing purposes. 197 It should be possible to honor multiple goals in public policy decisionmaking. legislative enactments comply with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Util protects rights in social and constitutional hierarchies. Bailey, lecturer Politics at Princeton, 97 (James Bailey, lecturer Politics at Princeton, 1997, Utilitarianism, Institutions, and Justice, Oxford University Press, p. 153-154) Even in a world full of rules and institutions—like that of Imperfectia—there is still normative work for utilitarianism to do. The foundation for this work stems from an argument in chapter 1 that the work of utilitarianism is more likely a form of local rather than global maximizing, of making the best use of new information and opportunities on the margin rather than a complete revolution of social relations. In imperfect worlds, this work thus includes local maximization, constitutional change, and exceptional case guidance. In addition there is a kind of distinctive normative work specifically for utilitarians in venal oligarchies. To provide anything like a full theory of any of these things here would require an entire new book. What I do provide is merely a series of thumbnail sketches of the problems. The aim is to show that there is still plenty of value in a consciously held global theory of utilitarianism, and therefore we should not fall hack only on common sense and whatever reasonable institutions are lying about. Last printed 193 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 194 AFF—Utilitarianism Good—Life over Rights Upholding life is the ultimate moral standard. Uyl and Rasmussen, Prof.’s Philosophy Bellarmine and St. John’s, 81 (Douglas Den Uyl and Douglas Rasmussen, Prof.’s Philosophy Bellarmine and St. John’s, 1981, Reading Nozick, p. 244) Rand has spoken of the ultimate end as the standard by which all other ends are evaluated. When the ends to be evaluated are chosen ones the ultimate end is the standard for moral evaluation. Life as the sort of thing a living entity is, then, is the ultimate standard of value; and since only human beings are capable of choosing their ends, it is the life as a human being-man's life qua man-that is the standard for moral evaluation. Life is the end toward which all purposeful action is directed. Uyl and Rasmussen, Prof.’s Philosophy Bellarmine and St. John’s, 81 (Douglas Den Uyl and Douglas Rasmussen, Prof.’s Philosophy Bellarmine and St. John’s, 1981, Reading Nozick, p. 244-245) Why should this be the standard for moral evaluation? Why must this be the ultimate moral value? Why not "death" or "the greatest happiness for the greatest number"? Man's life must be the standard for judging moral value because this is the end toward which all goal-directed action (in this case purposive action) is directed, and we have already shown why goal-directed behavior depends on life. Indeed, one cannot make a choice without implicitly choosing life as the end. Life is the prerequisite to all other value. Uyl and Rasmussen, Prof.’s Philosophy Bellarmine and St. John’s, 81 (Douglas Den Uyl and Douglas Rasmussen, Prof.’s Philosophy Bellarmine and St. John’s, 1981, Reading Nozick, p. 245) In so far as one chooses, regardless of the choice, one choose (value) man's life. It makes no sense to value some X without also valuing that which makes the valuing of X possible ~:notice that this is If one lets X be equivalent to "death" or "the greatest happiness for the greatest number," one is able to have such a valuation only because of the precondition of being a living being. Given that life is a necessary condition for valuation, there is no other way we can value something without also (implicitly at least) valuing that which makes valuation possible. different from saying "that which makes X possible"). Last printed 194 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 195 Utility can’t be maximized in the long term by violating rights. Goodin, fellow Philosophy, Australian National Defense U, 90 AFF—AT: Util → No Rights (Robert Goodin, fellow Philosophy, Australian National Defense U, 1990, The Utilitarian Response, p. 148) Robert Goodin, fellow in philosophy, Australian National Defense University, THE UTILITARIAN RESPONSE, 1990, p. 148 My main argument, though, is that at the level of social policy the problem usually does not even arise. When promulgating policies, public officials must respond to typical conditions and common circumstances. Policies, by their nature, cannot be case- by-case affairs. In choosing general rules ot govern a wide range of circumstances, it is extraordinarily unlikely that the greatest happiness can ever be realized by systematically violating people’s rights. Liberties or integrity – or even, come to that, by systematically contravening the Ten Commandments. The rules that maximize utility over the long haul and over the broad range of applications are also rules that broadly conform to deontologists’ demands. Utilitarianism Protects Fairness Barrow, Prof. Simon Fraser U, 91 (Robin Barrow, Prof. Simon Fraser U, 1991, Utilitarianism, p. 29) However the principle of justice may also be equated with the principle of fairness, and utilitarianism does have such a principle, as it must do, since a fully fledged ethical theory tells us what is right, and no account of what is right can compete if it makes no reference to the distribution of the good. Last printed 195 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 196 AFF—AT: Freedom Outweighs Libertarianism denies emotional satisfaction outside that of freedom. Locke, Writer for American Conservative, 05 (Robert Locke, Writer for American Conservative, “Marxism of the Right,” 3-14-2005, “Marxism of the Right,” The American Conservative, http://www.amconmag.com/2005_03_14/article1.html) The most fundamental problem with libertarianism is very simple: freedom, though a good thing, is simply not the only good thing in life. Simple physical security, which even a prisoner can possess, is not freedom, but one cannot live without it. Prosperity is connected to freedom, in that it makes us free to consume, but it is not the same thing, in that one can be rich but as unfree as a Victorian tycoon’s wife. A family is in fact one of the least free things imaginable, as the emotional satisfactions of it derive from relations that we are either born into without choice or, once they are chosen, entail obligations that we cannot walk away from with ease or justice. But security, prosperity, and family are in fact the bulk of happiness for most real people and the principal issues that concern governments. Libertarians try to get around this fact that freedom is not the only good thing by trying to reduce all other goods to it through the concept of choice, claiming that everything that is good is so because we choose to partake of it. Therefore freedom, by giving us choice, supposedly embraces all other goods. But this violates common sense by denying that anything is good by nature , independently of whether we choose it. Nourishing foods are good for us by nature, not because we choose to eat them. Taken to its logical conclusion, the reduction of the good to the freely chosen means there are no inherently good or bad choices at all, but that a man who chose to spend his life playing tiddlywinks has lived as worthy a life as a Washington or a Churchill. Furthermore, the reduction of all goods to individual choices presupposes that all goods are individual. But some, like national security, clean air, or a healthy culture, are inherently collective. It may be possible to privatize some, but only some, and the efforts can be comically inefficient. Do you really want to trace every pollutant in the air back to the factory that emitted it and sue? Last printed 196 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 197 AFF—Consequentialism Key (1/2) Their moral imperatives revolve around a flawed libertarian method- consequences must be evaluated first to escape the cycle Friedman, Political Science at Bernard University, 97 (Jefferey Friedman, PoliSci Bernard U, 1997, "What's Wrong with Libertarianism," Critical Review, Volume: 3, pp. 435-436) The effect of libertarian straddling on libertarian scholarship is suggested by a passage in the scholarly appendix to Boaz’s collection of libertarian essays, The Libertarian Reader. There, Tom G. Palmer (also of the Cato Institute) writes that in libertarian scholarship, “the moral imperatives of peace and voluntary cooperation are brought together with a rich understanding of the spontaneous order made possible by such voluntary cooperation, and of the ways in which coercive intervention can disorder the world and set in motion complex trains of unintended consequences” (Boaz r997b, 416, emphasis added). Palmer’s ambiguous “brought together” suggests (without coming right out and saying) that even if there were no rich understanding of spontaneous order, libertarianism would be sustained by “moral imperatives?’ But in that case, why develop the rich understanding of spontaneous order in the first place, and why emphasize its importance now that it has been developed? Spontaneous order is, on Palmer’s own terms, irrelevant, since even if a rich understanding of it yielded the conclusion that markets are less orderly or less spontaneous than states, or that the quality of the order they produce is inferior to that produced by states, we would still be compelled to be libertarians by moral imperatives. The premise of the philosophical approach is that nothing can possibly trump freedom-cum-private property. But if libertarian freedom is an end in itself and is the greatest of all values, one’s endorsement of it should not be affected in the slightest by such empirical questions as whether libertarianism would spell starvation or warfare. The premise of the empirical approach is, conversely, that such consequences do matter. Why investigate the effects of libertarianism if they could not conceivably outweigh the putative intrinsic value of private property? If a priori reasoning tells us that laissez-faire capitalism is just, come what may, then why should we care to find out what may, in fact, come? Last printed 197 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 198 AFF—Consequentialism Key (2/2) Policy must be viewed through a consequentialist framework- slipping into the libertarian mindset only recreates the root cause of the affirmative harms Friedman, Political Science at Bernard University, 97 (Jefferey Friedman, PoliSci Bernard U, 1997, "What's Wrong with Libertarianism," Critical Review, Volume: 3, pp. 458-459) On the one hand, the reclamation of the Enlightenment legacy can lead in far more directions than the political—science path I have suggested. It is surely important to launch anthropological, economic, historical, sociological, and psychological investigations of the preconditions of human happiness. And post-libertarian cultural historians and critics are uniquely positioned to analyze the unstated assumptions that take the place of the requisite knowledge in determining democratic attitudes. A prime candidate would seem to be the overwhelming focus on intentions as markers for the desirability of a policy. If a policy is well intended, this is usually taken to be a decisive consideration in its favor. This heuristic might explain the moralism that observers since Tocqueville have noticed afflicts democratic cultures. To date, this phenomenon is relatively unexplored. Analogous opportunities for insightful postlibertarian research can be found across the spectrum of political behavior. What is nationalism, for example, if not a device that helps an ignorant public navigate the murky waters of politics by applying a simple “us-versus-them” test to any proposed policy? Pursuit of these possibilities, however, must be accompanied by awareness of the degeneration of postwar skepticism into libertarian ideology. If the post-libertarian social scientist yields to the hope of re-establishing through consequentialist research the antigovernment politics that has until now been sustained by libertarian ideology; she will only recreate the conditions that have served to retard serious empirical inquiry. It is fashionable to call for political engagement by scholars and to deny the possibility that one can easily isolate one’s work from one’s political sympathies. But difficulty is no excuse for failing to try. Libertarians have even less of an excuse than most, since, having for so long accused the intellectual mainstream of bias and insulation from refutation, they should understand better than anyone the importance of subverting one’s own natural intellectual complacency with the constant reminder that one might be wrong. The only remedy for the sloppiness that has plagued libertarian scholarship is to become one’s own harshest critic. This means thinking deeply and skeptically about one’s politics and its premises and, if one has libertarian sympathies, directing one’s scholarship not at vindicating them, but at finding out if they are mistaken. Last printed 198 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 199 AFF—AT: Libertarian Consequentialism Libertarian consequentialism does not exist- the arguments are contradictory Friedman, Political Science at Bernard University, 97 (Jefferey Friedman, PoliSci Bernard U, 1997, "What's Wrong with Libertarianism," Critical Review, Volume: 3, pp. 435-436) There is a deeper problem with the consequentialist approach, however, than the fact that there seems to be, at the present moment, no adequate consequentialist reason for favoring libertarianism. This is that consequentialism is inherently an “at the present moment” proposition. Even if there were some reason to think that all government action has bad consequences, an empirical claim of this sort is, by nature, open to falsification in the future. So libertarian consequentialists could never rest easy. They would always have to keep an open mind; for them, the task of studying the changing world would never end. They could never be sure that new observations would not demand new political conclusions. They would, accordingly, have to maintain much more psychological distance between themselves and their politics than libertarians are accustomed to. Consequentialism is conducive to scholarship and to scholarly habits of mind, not to ideology and political crusading. Last printed 199 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 200 AFF—Utilitariarianism Good (1/2) Governments must weigh consequences Harries, editor and founder of National Interest, Senior Fellow at Centre for Independent Studies, 94 (Owen Harries, editor and founder of National Interest, Senior Fellow at Centre for Independent Studies, Spring 1993/1994, “Power and Civilization,” The National Interest) Performance is the test. Asked directly by a Western interviewer, “In principle, do you believe in one standard of human rights and free expression?”, Lee immediately answers, “Look, it is not a matter of principle but of practice.” This might appear to represent a simple and rather crude pragmatism. But in its context it might also be interpreted as an appreciation of the fundamental point made by Max Weber that, in politics, it is “the ethic of responsibility” rather than “the ethic of absolute ends” that is appropriate. While an individual is free to treat human rights as absolute, to be observed whatever the cost, governments must always weigh consequences and the competing claims of other ends. So once they enter the realm of politics, human rights have to take their place in a hierarchy of interests, including such basic things as national security and the promotion of prosperity. Their place in that hierarchy will vary with circumstances, but no responsible government will ever be able to put them always at the top and treat them as inviolable and over-riding. The cost of implementing and promoting them will always have to be considered. Moral absolutism suffers from tunnel vision that generates evil and political irrelevance Isaac, PhD.Yale, Prof. PoliSci Indiana-Bloomington, dir. Center for the Study of Democracy and Public Life, 02 (Jeffrey C. Isaac, PhD.Yale, Prof. PoliSci Indiana-Bloomington, dir. Center for the Study of Democracy and Public Life, Spring 2002, “End, Means, and Politics,” Dissent Magazine, vol. 49, no. 2) As writers such as Niccolo Machiavelli, Max Weber, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Hannah Arendt have taught, an unyielding concern with moral goodness undercuts political responsibility. The concern may be morally laudable, reflecting a kind of personal integrity, but it suffers from three fatal flaws: (1) It fails to see that the purity of one’s intention does not ensure the achievement of what one intends. Abjuring violence or refusing to make common cause with morally compromised parties may seem like the right thing; but if such tactics entail impotence, then it is hard to view them as serving any moral good beyond the clean conscience of their supporters; (2) it fails to see that in a world of real violence and injustice, moral purity is not simply a form of powerlessness; it is often a form of complicity in injustice. This is why, from the standpoint of politics--as opposed to religion-pacifism is always a potentially immoral stand. In categorically repudiating violence, it refuses in principle to oppose certain violent injustices with any effect; and (3) it fails to see that politics is as much about unintended consequences as it is about intentions; it is the effects of action, rather than the motives of action, that is most significant. Just as the alignment with “good” may engender impotence, it is often the pursuit of “good” that generates evil. This is the lesson of communism in the twentieth century: it is not enough that one’s goals be sincere or idealistic; it is equally important, always, to ask about the effects of pursuing these goals and to judge these effects in pragmatic and historically contextualized ways. Moral absolutism inhibits this judgment. It alienates those who are not true believers. It promotes arrogance. And it undermines political effectiveness. Last printed 200 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 201 AFF—Utilitariarianism Good (2/2) In a nuclear world, you have to weigh consequences Bok, Prof. Phil. Brandeis, 88 (Sissela Bok, Prof. Phil. Brandeis, 1988, Applied Ethics and Ethical Theory, ed. David Rosenthal and Fudlou Shehadi, pp. 202-203) The same argument can be made for Kant’s other formulations of the Categorical Imperative: “So act as to use humanity, both in your own person and in the person of every other, always at the same time as an end, never simply as a means”; and “So act as if you were always through actions a law-making member in a universal Kingdom of Ends.” No one with a concern for humanity could consistently will to risk eliminating humanity in the person of himself and every other or to risk the death of all members in a universal Kingdom of Ends for the sake of justice. To risk their collective death for the sake of following one’s conscience would be, as Rawls said, “irrational, crazy.” And to say that one did not intend such a catastrophe, but that one merely failed to stop other persons from bringing it about would be beside the point when the end of the world was at stake. For although it is true that we cannot be held responsible for most of the wrongs that others commit, the Latin maxim presents a case where we would have to take such a responsibility seriously—perhaps to the point of deceiving, bribing, even killing an innocent person, in order that the world not perish. Last printed 201 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 202 Aff – Objectivism =/= Moral Objectivism is immoral Barry and Stephens 98 Professor of Sociology at Vanderbilt University and Associate Professor Emeritus of Management at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University [Bruce and Carroll U., “Objections to an Objectivist Approach to Integrity” Academy of Management Review Volume 23, No. 1, pg 162-169, jstor] The merits of good intentions notwithstanding, we argue in this article that Becker's proposed conceptualization of organization-based integrity is seriously flawed. Scholars from Simon (1947) to Shepard, Shepard, Wimbush, and Stephens (1995) have contended that both the organizational sciences as an academic discipline and business as a social institution have evolved as purportedly value free and, therefore, are exempt from the moral obligations inherent in other social spheres. Our critique of objectivism rests on the fact that its account of integrity provides no philosophical advance be- yond the amoral theory of commerce; in essence, objectivism constitutes a pseudo-ethical apologia for self-interested business as usual. We develop this critique through three lines of argument. First, we argue that objectivism is of dubious value as a system of thought that can define the moral underpinnings of integrity in a meaningful way. Second, we contend that the contribution objectivism makes to understanding the moral dimensions of integrity is inferior to those contributions provided by alternative (and, incidentally, better-established) approaches to workplace ethics. Third, we argue that the application of ethical principles gleaned from objectivist writings to the subject of workplace integrity overestimates the agency of free will and understates the role of social power as a critical factor in understanding discretion and behavior in organizational life. Last printed 202 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 203 Aff – Objectivism not Ethical Objectivism doesn’t solve ethics Barry and Stephens 98 Professor of Sociology at Vanderbilt University and Associate Professor Emeritus of Management at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University [Bruce and Carroll U., “Objections to an Objectivist Approach to Integrity” Academy of Management Review Volume 23, No. 1, pg 162-169, jstor] Rand's philosophy is decidedly un-postmodern, which may in small part account for her pariah status within contemporary academe. However, the exclusion of Rand from the academic mainstream of moral philosophy seems to reflect dissatisfaction less with the focus or ideology of her analysis than with its execution. Critics (see especially O'Neill, 1971, and Rob- bins, 1974; see also several essays contained within Den Uyl & Rasmussen, 1984) have effectively documented numerous logical contradictions and inconsistencies within her writings and have taken issue with the ideological stric- ture with which she has defended her views and dismissed her critics. Moreover, critics note (and amply document) that Rand constructs false dichotomies, placing her views in opposition to (and, ultimately, above) factitious assessments of the sorry state of human nature and social institutions. For example, according to Rachels, Rand depicts any degree of altruism as so selfabnegating that nobody, with the possible exception of certain monks, would find it congenial. As Ayn Rand presents it, altruism implies that one's own interests have no value, and that any demand by others calls for sacrificing them. If that is the alternative, then any other view, including [ob- jectivism], will look good by comparison. But this is hardly a fair picture of the choices . (1986: 71; emphasis in original) With a penchant for straw-man argumentation, Rand's analysis often appears to take the form of a solution in search of a problem. Rachels (1986) classifies Rand's philosophy in the broad category of ethical egoism, which fails to meet at least oneand arguably both-of his criteria for the moral minimum . Briefly stated, Rachels assumes that most theories of economics, and, by inference, of commerce, rely on a model of self-interest. To advance one's own interests is to be pragmatic and (often) hedonistic; ethics come into play only when the interests of others are incorporated into the calculus of personal and business decision making. The moral minimum consists of two components: rationality and impartiality. At first glimpse, Rand's objectivism, with its emphasis on rationality and goal orientation, appears to fulfill the initial criterion. However, Hobbes' (1651/1950) argument that unalloyed pursuit of selfinterest does not result in maximization of individual or social-system utilities casts the rationality of such a strategy into some doubt. And the Randian insistence on the primacy and the moral superiority of personal goals clearly violates the impartiality criterion, since it privi- leges the self above others. Thus, Rand's theory of objectivism has met with disapprobration within the discipline of philosophy, not on the basis of its ideology but because of its failure to meet the basic standards of rigor in the field. According to Rachels, an ethicist of no discernible ideological bent, "Theories that reject the minimum conception encounter serious difficulties because they do so. Most philosophers have realized this, and so most theories of morality incorporate the mini-mum conception, in one form or another. They disagree not about [the parameters of] the minimum, but about how it should be expanded" (1986: 11). Becker acknowledges the existence of alternative approaches to ethics, but he makes no attempt to reconcile them with objectivism. Rather, he asserts that the intention behind his objectivist focus is to present a perspective that has not received attention in the business ethics literature. A tacit assumption lurking behind this statement is that Rand's objectivism is a legitimate theory of moral philosophy that has simply escaped the parochial purview of busi- ness ethicists. On the contrary, objectivism is a school of thought whose coherence and value have escaped the legitimation of essentially the entire discipline of moral philosophy. Last printed 203 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 204 Aff – Objectivism Fails Objectivism as a framework fails Barry and Stephens 98 Professor of Sociology at Vanderbilt University and Associate Professor Emeritus of Management at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University [Bruce and Carroll U., “Objections to an Objectivist Approach to Integrity” Academy of Management Review Volume 23, No. 1, pg 162-169, jstor] BUSINESS ETHICS AND OBJECTIVISM Because objectivism holds little currency among scholars of moral philosophy, does that mean, by extension, that it has nothing of value to say to business ethicists or others who con- template moral dilemmas in workplace set- tings? Objectivism sometimes is touted as an appropriate strategy for the practice of leadership (e.g., Lipper, 1989) and has drawn sporadic attention from management scholars as a vehicle for analyzing business issues (e.g., Locke & Woiceshyn, 1995, on business honesty). However, we challenge the usefulness of objectivism as a theoretical framework that provides guidance for making decisions and managing situations in business contexts involving a wide variety of ethical ambiguity. For the purpose at handconceptualizing individual integrity-we focus on the dichotomy in Randian thought between egoism and altruism, which also can be thought of as a tension between self-interest and collectivism, between individ- ualism and communitarianism, or between pride and humility. A basic objectivist principle is that humans are objectively selfish, focused on achieving their own individual happiness as the highest moral purpose of rational existence (Rand, 1964). Objectivists describe altruism, in contrast, as irrational and, hence, determinative of undesir- able outcomes. By placing others above self, according to Rand, one denies self-sufficiency, eschews personal happiness, and compromises individual rights. Rand describes "sacrifice" as the antithesis of rationality, labeling it "the sur- render of the right to the wrong, of the good to the evil" (1957: 955). She defends self-interested or "selfish" behavior by contrasting it with an extreme alternative that takes the form of abject sacrifice: [T]he most selfish of all things is the independent mind that recognizes no authority higher than its own and no value higher than its judgment of truth. You are asked to sacrifice your intellectual integrity, your logic, your reason, your standard of truth-in favor of becoming a prostitute whose standard is the greatest good for the greatest number. (1957: 955-956) Rand asserts that no philosophy, save her own, takes seriously the interests of the individ- ual versus the overweening collective. Her defense of egoism and critique of altruism is, however, based on a false distinction between the two. Social contractarians as ideologically and temporally disparate as the individualists Hobbes (1651/1950) and J. Locke (1690/1988) and the social democrat Rawls (1971) have consid- ered the central task of political philosophy to be the determination of a delicate balance among individuals, community, and state. An alternative view (e.g., O'Neill, 1971) re- gards altruism not as the opposite of egoism but as one representation of it. Objectivists assume that humans can reap value and attain virtue only through the satisfaction of the self. But, of course, in genuine societies we find ourselves mutually interdependent and often motivated to assist others in order to achieve broader out- comes that serve our own individual interests . As O'Neill puts it, altruism should be thought of "as a particular expression of psychological egoism, in which the ego is organized in such a way as to encompass the welfare of others as a significant aspect of its own identity" (1971: 201). The egoism/altruism issue provides a vehicle for demonstrating that contemporary business ethicists have not missed or ignored the objec- tivist perspective as a way to understand the moral underpinnings of integrity; they have moved beyond it. Consider two recent theo- retical perspectives on business ethics: (1) Solomon's (1992) neo-Aristotelian framework and (2) Donaldson and Dunfee's (1994) integrative social contracts theory (JSCT). Last printed 204 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 205 Aff - Objectivism Kills Liberty Objectivism kills liberty Barry and Stephens 98 Professor of Sociology at Vanderbilt University and Associate Professor Emeritus of Management at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University [Bruce and Carroll U., “Objections to an Objectivist Approach to Integrity” Academy of Management Review Volume 23, No. 1, pg 162-169, jstor] The objectivist emphasis on rational egoism is pervasive: the individual's need to cultivate self-interest and eschew altruism underlies objectivist analyses of economics, business, em- ployer-employee relations, the role of govern- ment, social welfare, and more. Becker, extend- ing this perspective to workplace integrity, observes that acting with integrity means acting rationally. But, as Becker notes, not everyone does so; in objectivist terms one must first possess rational convictions, which requires a sense of purpose and long-range objectives. Missing from Becker's analysis (and from Rand's) is a coherent treatment of the role of personal and institutional power as a structural determi- nant of the ability of individuals to act rationally in an objectivist sense. This omission is more than simply a theoretical shortcoming; it ex- poses a threat that objectivism in action as a guide to workplace behavior may undermine the very principles of liberty and social mobility its advocates purport to cherish. Rand paints a stark contrast between intellec- tual and physical labor as the basis for defining productive capacity and social contribution: "The man who does no more than physical la- bor, consumes the material value-equivalent of his own contribution to the process of produc- tion, and leaves no further value neither for him- self or others" (1957: 988). She argues, in essence, that those who contribute intellectually are humanity's benefactors, but those whose efforts and contributions take other forms are society's dependents, adding less value than what they receive. THE MISSING ROLE OF POWER Presumably, few (especially in aca- deme) would disagree that intellectual contribu- tions to society and culture are important and valuable. There is cause for alarm, however, when the self-styled makers of such contributions assume for themselves the right to identify the appropriate ends and means of others. Rand writes: You ... call it unfair that we, who had dragged you out of your hovels and provided you with modern apartments, with radios, movies and cars, should own our palaces and yachts-you decided that you had a right to your wages, but we had no right to our profits, that you did not want us to deal with your mind, but to deal in- stead, with your gun. Our answer to that was: "May you be damned!" Our answer came true. You are. (1957: 989) Although such passages as this can be dressed up as a defense of economic libertari- anism over the instability of class struggle, the missing variable of power puts it in a different light. Objectivists claim for all members of soci- ety the right to think and contribute and be left alone to pursue happiness but, at the same time, reserve for those who control intellectual capital the power to decide economic and social struc- ture and to manage the institutions through which culture is created and disseminated. The objectivist tells relatively powerless members of society that they are free to think and act and grow and prosper yet preaches, at the same time, a radical laissez-faire interpretation of po- litical economy (see Machan, 1984) that is more likely to solidify existing imbalances of power and preserve elite privilege than to create con- ditions for social transformation and upward mobility. One can observe this conceptual discord be- tween power and Randian rationality in prac- tice within the examples of workplace integrity discussed by Becker (1998: 159). Becker describes a hypothetical manager who rates subordinate performance based on productivity rather than on social or emotional pressure from other in- volved parties. Becker argues that this manager exhibits integrity because rational self-interest is served by the manager's devotion to indepen- dent judgment, the virtue of productivity, and fairness. On the surface these seem to be rea- sonable standards of conduct. Lurking under- neath, however, is the issue of this manager's knowledge (and, by extension, power) regarding the organization's true productivity and reward objectives. Becker writes that rationality requires "the dis- cipline of purpose and a long-range course of ac- tion" (1998: 159). But, in reality, the employer of his hypothetical manager (or any employer of any worker, for that matter) is under no obligation to provide the information needed to generate an informed agenda of self-interest that can be "ra- tionally" reconciled with the Last printed 205 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 206 goals and purposes of the larger organization. Rarely do economic and labor market conditions afford employees- managerial or otherwise-the power to insist that employers provide the information they need. Ob- jectivism places no ethical imperative on employ- ers to empower workers with such knowledge, nor does it envision a macroeconomic system that ex- pands the often limited mobility of workers to change employers in response to dissatisfaction with existing conditions. In this sense objectivism relegates the dynamics of social power to the sta- tus of a background variable operating indepen- dently of human agency. An alternative view is that the struggle to build just societies (Rawls, 1971) and just organizations (Donaldson, 1982) en- tails restructuring power relations to an optimum, at which chaos and inefficiency do not prevail, yet each person is free to enact his or her goals to the greatest extent, while allowing every other person to do the same. Last printed 206 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 207 Aff – Objectivism Bad Objectivist philosophy fails to solve morality and hurts the individual worker they try to help Barry and Stephens 98 Professor of Sociology at Vanderbilt University and Associate Professor Emeritus of Management at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University [Bruce and Carroll U., “Objections to an Objectivist Approach to Integrity” Academy of Management Review Volume 23, No. 1, pg 162-169, jstor] An objectivist account of integrity gives organ- izational actors the franchise to act with integ- rity when they demonstrate loyalty to interests and objectives over which they have limited control. Loyalty to rational convictions sounds reasonable in theory but looks suspiciously like a perpetuation of social status inequality in practice. Conceptualizing integrity in terms of correspondence between values and behavior gives rise to an acceptable, if morally neutral, approach to the subject. Overlaying Randian ob- jectivism as the basis for linking behavior and principle displaces moral neutrality with a de- mand that we accept selfish egoism as a build- ing block of integrity. The objectivist's central tenet of rationality may be seductive to the pos- itivist social scientist. However, as a means for understanding integrity in organizations, this tenet offers an ethical perspective that is widely discredited, structurally flawed, limited in scope compared to alternative perspectives on busi- ness ethics, and ultimately threatening to the very autonomy and future prospects of individ- ual workers that the objectivist purports to defend. CONCLUSION Last printed 207 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 208 Aff – OBJ Bad: Genocide Turn: Objectivism justifies suffering, despair and genocides Gerald Porter, 1995 Writer for the Swaraj foundation, “The White Man's Burden, Revisited”, http://www.swaraj.org/shikshantar/resources_porter.html -=Max Rispsoli=- Philosophers such as Sloan (1992), Pearce (1971, 1974), Griffin (1989, 1993), Berman (1981), and Bowers (1993) have analyzed the core metaphysical and epistemological assumptions that provide the foundation of the modern mindset that have led Western societies to the brink of human and environmental disaster. At the root of this worldview is an objectivist position which holds that the subject and object are wholly separate and divorced, that the mind and body are essentially disconnected. Knowledge— or at least all legitimate knowledge — of the outside world is derived from sense experience and cannot come directly from intuition, inspiration, or spiritual insight. Like the prisoners in Plato’s cave, we tend to live in a world of shadows where we substitute our representations of reality for reality itself, a peculiar way of seeing conditioned by the materialistic education provided by modem schooling. Socialization in modern Western society induces the separation of subject and object, and consequently the self is experienced as progressively more disengaged from the world. As a result, the self is isolated and reduced to a mere ghost in the machine. An inevitable consequence of the artificial separation of mind and body is the now traditional conviction that mind as discursive thought is purer and loftier than the comparatively crude and debased body (Sloan 1992; Pearce 1971, 1974). Although contemporary thought denies that the separate mind is constitutionally different from the body, it persists in thinking of the body as subservient in function and value to the higher organizing principle of mind. The emphasis in Eurocentric thought on hierarchy and evolution makes it difficult for modernists to consider that mind and body could be functionally different but qualitatively equal. The modernist mindset has inevitably led to the arid vision of a dead, purposeless, meaningless universe that is absent of God and devoid of ultimate value or meaning. This dead and purposeless world has inevitably led to untold personal misery and despair. On a societal level, it has deprived people of the perennial values of basic humanity that might have prevented the tragedies of projected and externalized self-hatred that arises when the self is cut off from meaning, such as the Holocaust not just of Jews in Europe , but in Cambodia and Uganda, and now in the former Yugoslavia. The brutal persecution and dehumanization found virtually everywhere in the world are made possible by the modem worldview’s denial of the sacred and moral relativism. While modernism is not the only worldview that can lead to tragedy and human degradation, it is the primary ideological architect of such in our time. Last printed 208 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 209 Aff – OBJ Bad: Politics Sacrifice will give politics the need to call for war and genocide Louis Rene Beres, 1994 Professor of International Law in the Department of Political Science at Purdue University, Spring,, Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, LexisNexis The State requires its members to be serviceable instruments, suppressing every glimmer of creativity and imagination in the interest of a plastic mediocrity. Even political liberty within particular States does nothing to encourage opposition to war or to genocide in other States. Since "patriotic self-sacrifice" is demanded even of "free" peoples, the expectations of inter-State competition may include war and the mass killing of other peoples. In the final analysis, war and genocide are made possible by the surrender of Self to the State. Given that the claims of international law n35 are rendered [*14] impotent by Realpolitik, this commitment to so-called power politics is itself an expression of control by the herd. Without such control, individuals could discover authentic bases of personal value inside themselves, depriving the State of its capacity to make corpses of others. Last printed 209 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 210 AFF – A2: Objectivism Morality Impact View their impacts with skepticism – objectivists are hacks that throw terms like morality around. Wolf, Partner, Hogan & Hartson Law, internationally renowned privacy lawyer, No Date (Chris Wolf, Partner, Hogan & Hartson Law, internationally renowned privacy lawyer, No Date, “What's REALLY Wrong With Objectivism?” http://www.jeffcomp.com/faq/wrong.html) The concepts of 'evil,' 'evasion,' and 'inherently dishonest ideas' are psychological concepts that do not belong in philosophy. These concepts merely serve to give Objectivists unrestricted license to morally condemn other human beings. As a result, Objectivists end up treating their intellectual opponents (and each other) as people who can be despised and hated. This is what has torn the Objectivist movement apart for the last thirty years, and will continue to do so. The players change, but the game remains the same. The power of moral judgment is enormous. The power to pronounce someone as an evil evader is the greatest power of all. By making such power available, subject only to whim, with no objective facts or principles to restrain it, Ayn Rand has unleashed a reign of intellectual terrorism. She has transformed many honest, well-meaning individuals into unjust dogmatic moralizers. This propensity to engage in unjust moral condemnation is also what keeps Objectivism a tiny, insignificant intellectual movement that has all the appearance of a religious cult, and is seldom taken seriously in the academic world. People of self-esteem will not remain in a movement where a single mistake can result in having one's character, morality, and honesty attacked. In the same vein, spokesmen for other philosophical movements will not debate, nor take seriously, Objectivists who constantly attack their opponents' morality and intellectual honesty. If you have ever wondered why so many Objectivists are so quick to pronounce their opponents as evil and dishonest, it's because they are honestly convinced that their opponents are evil and dishonest. If your only criterion for pronouncing someone to be evil and dishonest is the conclusion, "He can't be holding that idea honestly," then virtually anyone who opposes you can be instantly transformed into a dishonest evader. This also means that Objectivists who agree with Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff's psychological concepts of 'evil', 'evasion,' and 'inherently dishonest ideas,' will automatically end up insulting many of their opponents. Such an Objectivist, upon deciding that his opponent is expressing an inherently dishonest idea (and is therefore evading), will immediately declare his opponent to be a dishonest evader. Needless to say, if the opponent is holding his idea honestly, he will be immediately offended at having his character and honesty smeared in so unjust a manner. He will quite properly take it as an insult. Last printed 210 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 211 AFF – Objectivism Bad – Morality Turn: Objectivist standards of morals beg the question of what is moral, resulting in illegitimate justifications. Huemer, Department of Philosophy at the University of Colorado, Boulder, No Date (Michael Huemer, Department of Philosophy at the University of Colorado, Boulder, No Date, “WHY I AM NOT AN OBJECTIVIST,” http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/rand.htm#5) If you take the Objectivist theory of meaning, however, which rejects the analytic/synthetic distinction and identifies meaning with reference, then this sort of answer cannot be legitimate. It cannot ever be legitimate to answer "How do you know that A is B?" by saying that this is implicit in the meaning of "A". For on the Objectivist theory of meaning, everything that is true of A is implied in the meaning of "A", and everything that is not true of A contradicts the meaning of "A". Therefore, if something's being implied in the meaning of our words was a sufficient explanation for how we knew it, we would be omniscient. That is, if we know every fact that is implied in the meanings of our words (every fact the denial of which is contradictory), then, if the Objectivist theory of meaning is also correct, we know every fact. Since this is not the case, the Objectivist has to say that even the things that are implied in the meanings of our words need to be proven - specifically, they require observational evidence. For example, when asked how we know that gravitational attraction is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the bodies, it is not correct to say we know this because the denial of it is contradictory. The denial of it is contradictory, on the Objectivist theory, but that does not explain how we know it. To explain how we know it, one would have to detail certain scientific experiments and observations of the solar system. For the Objectivist scientist, to defend a theory by saying the denial of it is contradictory, is just begging the question. We don't know whether it is contradictory until we first find out whether it is true. Thus, it can not be an adequate answer to my question, "How do you know that what promotes life is good?" to say that the denial of this proposition is contradictory or that it is implied in the meaning of "good", if the Objectivist theory of meaning is correct. For such a reply would simply beg the question - the denial of the proposition in question is a contradiction, on the Objectivist view, if and only if it is true that what promotes life is good. We still need an explanation of how we know it is true - i.e., what observations lead to this conclusion, and exactly what is the form of the inference by which they lead there. In other words, even if "good" means "promotes life", on the Objectivist epistemology and philosophy of language, you still have to prove that this is what "good" means, by empirical (sensory) evidence. I have never seen such a proof. Last printed 211 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 212 AFF – Objectivism Bad – Genocide Objectivism and egoism creates a mindset that justifies genocidal actions. Huemer, Department of Philosophy at the University of Colorado, Boulder, No Date (Michael Huemer, Department of Philosophy at the University of Colorado, Boulder, No Date, “WHY I AM NOT AN OBJECTIVIST,” http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/rand.htm#5) What enables egoists to make replies like this is that it is almost impossible to assess the probabilities of all these possibilities in any definitive manner. However, what needs to be kept in mind is that, on the egoist's view, the fact that the other person is a sentient being, with a life of his own, is not what counts. All that counts is that he has a potential to serve my life, or to hamper it if I destroy him. Therefore, how I treat him need not be , in principle, any different from the way I treat inanimate objects. Sure, if there's a heap of trash lying on the sidewalk, it's possible that the heap of trash will someday be useful for something. It's also possible that destroying it will have some negative effects on me. Some insane trashlover might get mad at me, though I have no reason to think that this is so. But none of this would prevent me from removing a heap of trash that I found on the sidewalk, if it was getting in my way. You don't save just anything that might be useful. If egoism is true, I should take exactly the same fundamental attitude towards other human beings as to inanimate objects: if I decide that the likelihood of their being useful to me is sufficiently low and the likelihood of my suffering ill effects of destroying them also sufficiently low, then I will go ahead and remove them. Every day I throw away objects that have more likelihood of being useful to me some day than a homeless person on the street does. Every day I take actions, like crossing the street, that involve more risk to my person than is involved in destroying the homeless man in my hypothetical example. But even if the egoist is able to think of some very plausible harm that I would be likely to suffer from killing another person, I will just modify the example to remove it. In other words, I stipulate that the homeless guy is not a potential client of my company, he is not going to get a job, he does not have a gang of friends to defend him, the passers-by on the street will not be angry with me, etc. And the question is, then does it seem that it's right to kill him? Last printed 212 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 213 AFF – OBJ Bad: Rights Objectivism’s free market model justifies Darwinistic control of humanity and loss of rights— corporations must control human capital Christina M., Anastasia, 2005 A Review of Objectivism, January, http://www.onlineadjunct.biz/OJECTIVISM.pdf -=Max Rispoli=Rejecting the concept of a laissez-faire capitalistic market, Barry and Stephens (1998) argue that the fundamental principles of objectivism must be questioned and critiqued. The authors go on to say “Our critique of objectivism rests on the fact that its account of integrity provides no philosophical advance beyond the amoral theory of commerce; in essence, objectivism constitutes a pseudo-ethical apologia for self-interested business as usual”(p. 163). However, the authors claim that because the philosophy is not mentioned in several academic periodicals that it does not deserve recognition. This unfortunate view shows bias and weakens the argument by asking the question, “Can a philosophy be discounted simply because it was conceived by a non academic?” Hitchens (2001), states “A number of successful and smart dot-com moguls have recently gone public as Randian or Objectivist models.” (p.1). Hitchens (2001) goes on to say, “Once again, it is difficult to see what is specifically Objectivist about certain positions, just as it can be 14 hard to discern the difference between "the virtue of selfishness" as Rand pugnaciously phrased it, and the milder statements of "enlightened self-interest" that date back at least as far as Adam Smith and his injunction that it is "not from the benevolence" of the merchant that we expect our on-time delivery of needed commodities” (p.2). Yet again, presenting another argument against a laissez-faire capitalistic market, authors Knights and Mueller (2004) warn “The danger of the objective approach is to slip into a reification of the so- called objective features of strategy and the context in which it resides”(p56). “The realm of the 'objective' exists through structures, capital markets, corporate governance structures, and labour and product markets. The often economics-based literature treats these as 'objective' in the sense that structures are independent of the actions of any one agent.” The authors go so far as to hint that Objectivism falls into a Darwinist category. They continue their argument with, “Here corporations are seen to depend almost completely on the resources that they can command, balanced against the pressures generated externally in the environment. Strategy will be based on identifying the most critical resources for the survival of the organization and ensuring some degree of control over them.” Last printed 213 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 214 AFF – OBJ Bad: Environment/Global Warming [1/2] 1. Objectivism dooms humanity to environmental destruction and exploitation Michael Swierczek, 2007 , Another experience with Objectivism and http://world.std.com/~mhuben/swierczek_1.html -=Max Rispoli=- Libertarian ideas., 1/28 When discussing the economy in “Capitalism,” Ayn Rand postulates that recessions and depressions are always the result of government interference with capitalism. She also believed gold should be an objective monetary standard. The case can be argued to use precious metals as money. Even if this will lessen the chances of economic turmoil, it can not guarantee stability. This is a statement of hope, not fact. If there is a drought, farmers will starve. If That tactic occurs more than once in Objectivist and Libertarian literature: assuming laissez-faire capitalism will solve for a problem simply because no counterexample exists. Another example is monopoly. Ayn Rand states that, in true capitalism without government interference, an abusive monopoly is impossible. Of course, since such a system hasn’t existed, no one may offer a counterexample. I would like to pose a hypothetical one: addictive narcotics. Assume crest starts placing nicotine and heroin in its toothpaste. With no government interference, they have no need to label their products or use a disclaimer. If other toothpaste manufacturers follow suit, in a few years we’re all hooked on nicotine toothpaste. If not, Crest has a coercive monopoly. Either way, nothing an Objectivist or Libertarian would call illegal has happened, but an evil has been done. Consider environmentalism. This is where I first found a weakness in Objectivism. Ayn Rand, and other Libertarians, made extensive use of the “Straw Man” logical fallacy in this arena. To use this fallacy, a person sets up a weaker version of the argument and disproves it. Ayn Rand, Objectivists, and Libertarians do this by comparing all environmentists to people who want to preserve forests for the sake of the spotted owl. That scenario is not the prime motivator for most environmentalists. The primary issues for most environmentalists include toxic chemical dumping, depletion of natural resources, and global warming. Objectivists and Libertarians do there is a fire, people will be unemployed. If a disease ravages an area, the economy will suffer. allow the survivors and relatives to sue companies that dump toxic wastes illegally. This is small consolation to the dead. Existing non-laissez-faire regulations attempt to discourage such dumping before people die, not after the damage is done. Look at the depletion of resources. Government-regulated fisheries and hunting preserves maintain population levels sufficient to replenish themselves as time goes on. Unregulated fisheries and hunting grounds are rendered barren by extensive over-harvesting. The initial capitalist gain is higher, but in the long run much valuable material is lost. Finally, global warming is a tremendous issue. Animals, humans, and human industry consume oxygen and carbon to produce carbon dioxide. Plants and plankton consume carbon dioxide to produce oxygen and carbon. The number of humans and the amount of human industry is increasing geometrically. The amount of plants, trees, and plankton are being decreased geometrically. Eventually – in ten, fifty, five hundred, of ten thousand years, the effects will be felt. When is not important, because Libertarianism and Objectivism possess ZERO governing mechanisms for slowing this change. There is no deterrent to stop a laissez-faire industry from burning garbage now, and there won’t be one in three thousand years. If something is to be done, it must be done now. Even if you dispute global warming – and that can only be done by refusing to acknowledge facts – you cannot deny increase rates of skin cancer, lung cancer, and other lung diseases. Unregulated pollution of any sort has a definite negative effect. There are no Libertarian or Objectivist solutions to these issues, except the handy ostrich tactic of sticking your head in the ground and refusing to acknowledge them. Last printed 214 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 215 AFF – OBJ Bad: Environment/Global Warming [2/2] Environmental destruction leads to extinction. Diner, 1994 (Major David N, Judge Advocate General's Corps, United States Army, Military Law Review, 143 Mil. L. Rev. 161, l/n) humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the By causing widespread extinctions, dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically, each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, 80 mankind may be edging closer to the abyss. Last printed 215 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 216 AFF – Objectivism Bad – A2: Ethical Egoism There’s no such thing as ethical egoism – the theory is incorrect and it justifies atrocities. Huemer, Department of Philosophy at the University of Colorado, Boulder, No Date (Michael Huemer, Department of Philosophy at the University of Colorado, Boulder, No Date, “Critique of "The Objectivist Ethics",” http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/rand5.htm) Rand endorsed a version of 'ethical egoism': the view that a person should always do whatever best serves his own interests. I have discussed the following objections to this doctrine in my "Why I Am Not an Objectivist", so I will be brief here. Here is one general argument against egoism: 1. If ethical egoism is true, then if you could obtain a (net) benefit equal to a dime by torturing and killing 500 people, you should do it. 2. It is not the case that, if you could obtain a (net) benefit equal to a dime by torturing and killing 500 people, you should do it. 3. Therefore, egoism is not true . This argument is very simple, but that should not fool us into thinking it is therefore illegitimate. It is true that an egoist could simply deny 2, proclaiming that in that situation, the mass torture and killing would be morally virtuous. Any person can maintain any belief, provided he is willing to accept enough absurd consequences of it. Here is a second argument against ethical egoism: it contradicts Rand's own claim that each individual is an end-in-himself and that it is therefore morally wrong to sacrifice one person to another. For either Rand meant that an individual life is an end-in-itself in an absolute sense--as discussed in my objection (i) above; or she meant that an individual life is an end-in-itself in a relative sense--i.e., for that individual. Assume she meant it in a relative sense. In this case, Smith's life is an end-in-itself for Smith. But since Smith's life is not an end-in-itself for Jones, there has been given no reason why Jones should not use Smith or sacrifice Smith's life for Jones' benefit. In fact, for Jones, Smith's life can only have value as a means, if it has any value at all, since for Jones, only Jones' life is an end in itself. Now, assume she meant it in an absolute sense. In that case, she contradicted her agent-relative conception of value. Furthermore, she generated a general problem for ethical egoism. If the life of my neighbor, Jones, is an end-initself in an absolute sense, and not just relative to Jones, then why wouldn't it follow that I ought to promote the life of my neighbor, for its own sake? But this is not what Rand wants--she claims that my own life is the only thing I should promote for its own sake. Last printed 216 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 217 AFF – Objectivism Bad – Racist/Exceptionalist/ Extinction Objectivism is bad – promotes a Western exceptionalist mindset that entrenches racist principles. This results in genocide and nuclear war. Stambanis, politics and philosophy major at Monash University, Australia, 96 (Rebecca Stambanis, politics and philosophy major at Monash University, Australia, April 19, 1996, “Objectivists' hidden agenda a Klan mentality,” http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/1996_jan-dec/04/04-19-96tdc/04-19-96d07-002.htm) In contrast, I find the objectivist leaders to be very different. They are smart men who have risen to the top of a highly competitive vocation. They are good with words and body language, are masters of rhetoric and they can act out the emotions in which their followers revel -- especially righteous indignation and contempt. They draw pleasure from being able to affect and control a crowd (even if it results in the unjust and "irrational" use of force). They are utterly cynical people. They have set the stage alight for new discourses of racism and sexism and they preach the words of Western, white supremacy. They breed an intellectual and cultural arrogance in an attempt to eliminate non-Western and non-Aryan people. Hence, the ideas that flow from their mouths are tainted with savagery. They serve to silence the voices of the "other" and consign their histories and experiences to the margins and to subsume all experience to the dominant Western outlook. They reject all specters of social fragmentation with the project of pursuing a rational, scientific understanding of natural and social reality based on one single theoretical discourse; that of Western, white civilization. In denying the complexity of everyday life, "objectivists" think that their singular belief system can hope to explain it all, and it is used as a means of imposing Euro-American ideas of rationality and objectivity on other peoples . As Hull himself stated "there is a right way and there is a wrong way" -- and the correct method is of course that of the Western, white man (which is hardly surprising considering that Hull fits this totalizing description perfectly). Furthermore, they argue that multiculturalism and postmodernism, as promotions of diversity, are evil diseases as they regard all cultures are morally equal when in fact they are not. After all, it was our great Western civilization that put the baseball cap on our heads, asserts Hull, and all that non-Western thought has shown us is how "not" to do it. Gee, three cheers for the West!! Have you ever heard a claim that is so intrinsically elitist, overtly discriminatory and highly irrational (in true Ayn Rand style)? If Western civilization is the objectively superior culture, then why are so many Americans engulfed in despair? The first time I heard this, I assumed that no one could take it seriously. But then I realized that I was asserting too much rationality and decency toward these people. I found that they really believe that scientific progress, technology and domination provides a legitimate endorsement for Western, white supremacy. As Herbert Marcuse stated, it is this kind of unrepressed implementation of modern science, rationalism and supremacy that ends in concentration death camps, mass exterminations and the atom bombs. But my most depressing finding of all was the degree to which ordinary people are perfectly content to believe this "objectivist" nonsense, as long as it makes them feel good. Last printed 217 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 218 AFF – A2: Imagination Alt Imagination fails – can’t change reality. Biddle, editor and publisher of The Objective Standard, 06 (Craig Biddle, editor and publisher of The Objective Standard, The Objectivist Standard, Spring 2006, Vol. 1, No. 1, “Introducing The Objective Standard,” http://theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-spring/introducing-the-objective-standard.asp) We hold that reality is an absolute—that facts are facts, regardless of anyone’s hopes, fears, or desires. There is a world independent of our minds to which our thinking must correspond if our ideas are to be true and therefore of practical use in living our lives, pursuing our values, and protecting our rights. Thus, we reject the idea that reality is ultimately determined by personal opinion or social convention or “divine decree.” An individual’s ideas or beliefs do not make reality what it is, nor can they directly change anything about it; they either correspond to the facts of reality, or they do not. A person might think that the Sun revolves around the Earth (as some people do); that does not make it so. Last printed 218 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 219 Aff – AT: Free Market Solves/Turns Case No moral common good exists – arguments that the free market will provide for those in poverty are loose predictions and are nto morally motivated Barry and Stephens 98 Professor of Sociology at Vanderbilt University and Associate Professor Emeritus of Management at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University [Bruce and Carroll U., “Objections to an Objectivist Approach to Integrity” Academy of Management Review Volume 23, No. 1, pg 162-169, jstor] I fully accept, however, that solidarity is desirable for and conducive to the stability of the welfare state, although I will not venture an opinion as to whether it is necessary. I also realize that questions of stability and legitimacy have a lot to do with each other (stability may for instance depend upon the state's beingperceived as legitimate) but I still insist that the two questions should be kept distinct analytically. Needless to say, in an all-things-considered judgment, the question of what makes the welfare state function (a question of which stability is a part) will have to be addressed but that is not what I do here. Besides, it is hardly a question best dealt with by philosophers. I will concentrate on the normative question of legitimacy2. One thing to note here is that for solidarity to do anything at all for the legitimacy of a certain state arrangement it has to be solidarity on a state wide level. "Those very sentiments of loyalty and solidarity" mentioned above are sentiments for all people within the same state. When the existence of, or the likelihood of, such sentiments is made a component of legitimation, a picture is called to mind of a consensus oriented society with a substantially moral common good that commands everyone's allegiance. The unreality of this picture aside, integrating such sentiments in the legitimation of the welfare state is to make the strength of the justice claims of the less fortunate dependent upon the moral motivation of the more fortunate. I do not accept that. Legitimation requires moral argument, not loose predictions about what people may or may not be morally motivated Last printed 219 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 220 Aff – Moral Obligation to Solve Poverty Obama says there’s a moral obligation to solve poverty. Associated Press, 7/10 (Associated Press, 7/10/09, http://www.startribune.com/politics/50466297.html) L'AQUILA, Italy - President Barack Obama says wealthy countries have a moral obligation to fight poverty and hunger around the world. He says there are national security reasons for these nations to help boost food supplies, too. The U.S. president spoke Friday at a news conference at the end of a summit of the Group of Eight developed nations in Italy. He said world leaders had agreed to invest $20 billion to combat world hunger. Government has moral obligation to solve poverty to prevent extinction. Vaughan, Assistant Professor, political science, 08 (Sharon K. Vaughan, Assistant Professor, political science, Morehouse College, 08, Poverty, Justice, and Western Political Thought, p 163) In chapters 3 and 5, we saw how the problem of poverty exposed tensions in Locke and Tocquevil|e’s work, and liberalism in general. Both theorists held firm commitments to liberal values including private property and limited government, while at the same time they believed that human beings were morally equal. When individuals lack subsistence or the ability to care for themselves, Locke believed that government had a moral obligation to act because of God’s law to promote the preservation of humankind. This was his moral justification for public aid for the poor. While other liberals, like Tocqueville and Smith resisted public aid, modern liberals are not only supportive of it, but they also do not appeal to any theological or metaphysical justifications for it. Last printed 220 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 221 Aff – Rimal/Liberty Bad Authoritarianism and constraints are key to avoid overpopulation and resource crunch that will end life Leeson 79 Adjunct Professor at the University of Oregon School of Law, Former Professor of Political Science at Willamette University, Former Judicial Fellow for the U.S. Supreme Court and Justice for the Oregon State Supreme Court [Susan, “Philosophical Implications of the Ecological Crisis: The Authoritarian Challenge to Liberalism” Polity Vol. 11, No. 3, pg. 303-318, jstor] resources are finite. The conditions that make life possible are being threatened by overpopulation and by industrial processes which deplete resources and pollute air and water. Typically, the crisis is considered the result of in- creasing shortages in the physical environment. However, a more complete understanding of the ecological crisis requires an examination of human nature, especially as it has been reflected in and shaped by modern political thought since the Renaissance. Modern political thought, in a departure from classical modes of reasoning, emphasized secularism, materialism, individualism, and individual rights-the cornerstones of the political ideology of liberalism and the foundation of the American political system. The resulting view of man's relations to his fellow man and to the physical environment makes solutions to the ecological crisis particularly difficult in the United States because, contrary to the liberal ideology and political institutions so long enjoyed here, solutions will require constraints on individual and group behavior. The radical departure of Essays on the ecological crisis usually stress the point that modern political philosophy from the classical tradition becomes apparent on recalling Plato's Republic, in which Socrates and the interlocutors sought to discover the meaning of justice as it appeared in the soul and in the city. Their dialetical search for a just "City in Speech"-a hypothetical city-led them first to the simple city which provided for man's basic needs. It was well ordered but assured adequate provisions for only the necessities of life. Though Socrates called it the city healthy, Glaucon called it a "city of pigs," for it failed to satisfy man's desire for those comforts and conveniences which go far beyond life's necessities. This point forced the interlocutors to continue the search for the City in Speech, examining not only the requirements of justice but the nature of human desires and the source of proper limits for the soul and the city.' Creation of the just City in Speech reflected the ancient human beings must control their desires, and the discovery and implementation of proper controls, said Socrates, required rule by philosophers. In order for the City in Speech to come into being, philosophers would have to become kings or vice versa. But since chances of wisdom coinciding with consent were slight, Socrates understanding that completed the dialogue by showing how the City in Speech could degenerate because of the triumph of governing principles other than wisdom. The City Its creation in the dialogue, however, exposed enduring political problems, among them how to control human desires for material comforts and conveniences. The classical tradition assumed that part of the art of governing was the control of such desires.2 In many ways modern political philosophy stood this classical tradition on its head by emphasizing popular consent rather than philosophic wisdom as a major goal of politics. Individual rights and liberties became the source of limits on governmental authority . Government came to be understood as originating from a contract agreed to by autonomous individuals. And the pursuit of happiness became largely a pursuit of material goods for which there were no natural limits. This modern political philosophy has nurtured the liberal tradition in America. One of the major accomplishments of the Founders was creation of a political system that legitimized the pursuit of material comforts, that thinkers in the classical tradition had sought to harness. However, the success of the Founders' experiment in liberal government depended on the infinite availability of the natural resources necessary for such pursuits . Contemporary discovery of the earth's "carrying capacity," or lim- its to nature's "commons," appears to jeopardize the continued success of the American experiment. If American political ideology and institutions have been successful in encouraging pursuit of happiness through material acquisition, they appear incapable of imposing the limits which are required to forestall ecological disaster . This incapability, in turn, leads to arguments that popular government must give way to authoritarianism. But if authoritarianism is the in Speech was left to stand only as a standard by which to evaluate actual political communities. response to the inability of popular government to impose the limits required to avoid ecological disaster, such a response merely reflects the crisis to which modern political philosophy and liberalism have led; it is not itself a solution. There is no assurance that authoritarianism is any more capable of proper limits than is popular government. Perhaps the best illumination of the dilemma posed by the ecological crisis is a review of the philosophy of John Locke, whose thought profoundly influenced the Founders of the American republic. Last printed 221 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 222 Aff – Rimal Constitutional liberties encourage an unsustainable relationship with natural resources Leeson 79 Adjunct Professor at the University of Oregon School of Law, Former Professor of Political Science at Willamette University, Former Judicial Fellow for the U.S. Supreme Court and Justice for the Oregon State Supreme Court [Susan, “Philosophical Implications of the Ecological Crisis: The Authoritarian Challenge to Liberalism” Polity Vol. 11, No. 3, pg. 303-318, jstor] Lockean thought legitimated virtually endless accumulation of material goods; helped equate the process of accumulation with liberty and the pursuit of happiness; helped implant the idea that with ingenuity man can go beyond the fixed laws of nature, adhering only to whatever temporary laws he establishes for himself in the process of pursuing happiness; and helped instill the notion that the "commons" is served best through each man's pursuit of private gain, because there will always be enough for all who are willing to work. In short, Lockean philosophy led to a strong ideology of man's relationship to man and the earth, in which autonomous individuals seek comfort and enjoyment through hard work and material acquisitions. Such beliefs, added to the doctrine of inalien- able rights and the argument of limited government, have played a significant role in the design of the American Constitution and political Last printed 222 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 223 Aff – Rimal Private property and liberty encourages unsustainable resource consumption Leeson 79 Adjunct Professor at the University of Oregon School of Law, Former Professor of Political Science at Willamette University, Former Judicial Fellow for the U.S. Supreme Court and Justice for the Oregon State Supreme Court [Susan, “Philosophical Implications of the Ecological Crisis: The Authoritarian Challenge to Liberalism” Polity Vol. 11, No. 3, pg. 303-318, jstor] Less than forty years after the adoption of the Constitution, Alexis de Tocqueville observed that in America, "Nothing checks the spirit of enterprise." He noted that the enjoyment of liberty could not be separated from the "productive industry" fostered by free enterprise.14 The dream of life lived for the enjoyment of liberty (freedom to pursue abundance through productive enterprise) and happiness (the securing of abun- dance) appeared to be coming true. Nothing in the constitutional structure threatened the dream, and it was increasingly clear that government in the United States existed to secure the blessings of property, just as Locke had taught. By the nineteenth century the radically secular orientation of American liberalism was bolstered by developments in modern natural science.15 Scientific advances provided new insights into the workings of the physical environment and ways to control it. Technology and industrial- ism provided seemingly unlimited opportunities to create the material abundance associated with happiness. Liberalism, argues Louis Hartz, proved its real strength in driving out any ideological forces which sought to compete with growing visions of abundance and happiness on earth.16 Although liberal ideology and institutions nurtured the commitment to material abundance and earthly happiness in America, they neglected to instill an understanding of America's dependence on natural resources. Foreign observers saw the dependence much more clearly. For example, Tocqueville noted that: The physical causes, independent of the laws, which contribute to promote general prosperity, are more numerous in America than they have been in any other country in the world, at any other period of history. In the United States not only is legislation democratic, but Nature herself favors the cause of the people.17 However, John Stuart Mill contended that despite such conditions un- limited growth was impossible because the resources of nature were not infinite. Mill considered nature's physical limits a blessing and looked forward to a "stationary state" in which population and capital would be balanced. He said such a state would still man's productive passions and allow him to cultivate social and moral endowments.l8 Nineteenth-century German biologist Ernest Haeckel coined the term "ecology" in his effort to point out man's dependence on his physical environment. Every system, he argued, reflects three qualities-interde- pendence, complexity, and limitation.l9 But ecological lessons ran contrary to the liberal belief that nature could and must be conquered to serve man's purposes. And repeated warnings in this century that man could exceed the carrying capacity of the environment if he did not limit population or industrial processes have gone largely unheeded.20 Last printed 223 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 224 Aff – Rimal Welfare is key to avoid the resource crunch that will end all life Leeson 79 Adjunct Professor at the University of Oregon School of Law, Former Professor of Political Science at Willamette University, Former Judicial Fellow for the U.S. Supreme Court and Justice for the Oregon State Supreme Court [Susan, “Philosophical Implications of the Ecological Crisis: The Authoritarian Challenge to Liberalism” Polity Vol. 11, No. 3, pg. 303-318, jstor] Of late, the warnings have intensified, notably in the reports of the Club of Rome. In 1972 a sophisticated computer model developed by the Club projected that unless population or industrialization is curtailed drastically, worldwide collapse of the ecosphere will occur within 100 years.21 In 1974 an updated study responded to many of the criticisms leveled at the 1972 report but came to only slightly more optimistic conclusions: survival is possible, but only if man diverts from the path of "undifferentiated growth" to "organic growth." That is, growth compatible with the requirements and limits of physical nature: For the first time in man's life on earth, he is being asked to refrain from doing what he can do; he is being asked to restrain his eco- nomic and technical advancement, or at least to direct it differently from before; he is being asked by all the future generations of the earth to share his good fortune with the unfortunate-not in a spirit of charity, but in a spirit of survival.22 Tyranny is inevitable – its only a question of how quickly we allow it to form Leeson 79 Adjunct Professor at the University of Oregon School of Law, Former Professor of Political Science at Willamette University, Former Judicial Fellow for the U.S. Supreme Court and Justice for the Oregon State Supreme Court [Susan, “Philosophical Implications of the Ecological Crisis: The Authoritarian Challenge to Liberalism” Polity Vol. 11, No. 3, pg. 303-318, jstor] who now foresee and advocate authoritarianism as the only workable response to ecological problems anticipate the demise of the liberal experiment in much the same way Socrates anticipated the demise of democracy in Book vIII of the Republic. Socrates argued that democracy inevitably leads to tyranny because of the refusal of the many to accept proper limits. The absence of limits leads to chaos, which in turn gives way to tyranny because any order is better than no order. The democratic man, unable to distinguish right from wrong, proper from improper, eventually accepts tyranny in preference to the chaos which makes life unlivable . Hardin, Heilbroner, and Ophuls suggest that modern man is, or soon will be, in a similar situation with respect to the ecological crisis. Despite the hopes of "technological optimists" the carrying capacity of the earth is bound to be exceeded unless rigid limits are imposed. Faced with chaos and extinction, modern man will find authoritarianism the only alternative. Ironically, those Last printed 224 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 225 Aff – Rimal AT: Authoritarianism Bad Mutual coercion agreed upon by the majority will check bad instances of coercion Leeson 79 Adjunct Professor at the University of Oregon School of Law, Former Professor of Political Science at Willamette University, Former Judicial Fellow for the U.S. Supreme Court and Justice for the Oregon State Supreme Court [Susan, “Philosophical Implications of the Ecological Crisis: The Authoritarian Challenge to Liberalism” Polity Vol. 11, No. 3, pg. 303-318, jstor] Hardin contends that coercion is the only remedy. As a safeguard against arbitrary coerion, he prescribes "mutual coercion mutually agreed upon by the majority of the people affected." 45 Presumably, majority rule will reduce the possibility of arbitrariness since it will merely coerce the minority to behave in ways that will not destroy the commons. Last printed 225 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 226 Aff – Rimal Uniqueness A global authoritarian revolution is coming – there is a lack of political interest in the promotion of democratic freedoms. Windsor, director of Freedom House; Gedmin and Liu, presidents of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty & Radio Free Asia, 09 (Jennifer Windsor, director of Freedom House; Jeffrey Gedmin and Libby Liu, presidents of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty & Radio Free Asia, June 2009, “Undermining Democracy: 21st-Century Authoritarians,” http://www.underminingdemocracy.org/overview/) When asked not long ago about the effectiveness of the European Union’s posture toward an increasingly assertive and illiberal Russia, former Czech president and European democracies had lost their voice and needed to take a firmer, more open stand against abuses by their large and strategically important neighbor to the east. * He warned that today’s Russia is advancing a new form of authoritarianism, with methods of control that are significantly more sophisticated than the communist-era dissident Vaclav Havel argued that the classic totalitarian techniques of the Soviet Union. Finally, the former Czech leader lamented that as democratic states increasingly gave primacy to economic ties in The Kremlin was intensifying its repression of the political opposition, independent journalists, and civil society organizations, but the response from established democracies had softened to the point of inaudibility. Havel was referring only to Russia, but he could just as easily have been speaking of China, another authoritarian country whose high rates of economic growth and rapid integration into the global trading system have had the effect of pushing the issues of democratic governance and human rights to a back burner. China, like Russia, has modernized and adapted its authoritarianism, forging a system that combines impressive economic development with an equally impressive apparatus of political control. As in Russia, political dissidents and human rights defenders in China continue to challenge the regime. Chinese activists their relations with Russia, the promotion of human rights was being shunted to the margins . recently published “Charter 08,” a human rights and democracy manifesto that draws its inspiration from Charter 77, the Czechoslovak human rights movement of which Havel himself was a founder. But while Europe’s anticommunist dissidents were the focus and beneficiaries of a worldwide protest movement, the Chinese intellectuals who endorsed Charter 08 labor in virtual anonymity. Few in the United States and Europe are familiar with the name of Liu Xiaobo, a respected literary figure and leader of Charter 08, who has been imprisoned by the Chinese authorities since December 8, 2008, for his advocacy of democracy and the rule of law in China. Havel too spent years in jail during the Soviet period for questioning the communist authorities’ monopoly on power and their denial of basic human and democratic rights. But the world paid attention to his plight; even government leaders raised his case in meetings with communist officials. In China, Liu remains in Today’s advocates for freedom may be receiving less attention, and less assistance, from their natural allies in the democratic world because the systems that persecute them are poorly understood in comparison with the communist regimes and military juntas of the Cold War era. As a result, policymakers do not appear to appreciate the dangers these 21stcentury authoritarian models pose to democracy detention and effectively incommunicado, and democratic leaders rarely speak out publicly on his behalf. and rule of law around the world. It is within this context of shifting and often confused perceptions of threats and priorities that Freedom House, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and Radio Free Asia undertook an examination of five pivotal states—Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, and Pakistan—to advance our common understanding of the strategies and methods these regimes are employing, both within and beyond their borders, to impede human rights and democratic development. The countries assessed in Undermining Democracy were selected because of their fundamental geopolitical importance. They are integrated into larger economic, political, and security networks and exert a powerful influence on international policy at the regional and global levels. geographically, economically, ideologically, and politically diverse. However, they are also Iran, a unique authoritarian polity ruled by Shiite Muslim clerics, looms over the Middle East. The governing cliques in Russia cloak their kleptocracy in a contradictory blend of Soviet nostalgia and right-wing nationalism. Venezuela is ruled by a novel type of Latin American caudillo who holds up Fidel Castro as his mentor. China sets the standard for authoritarian capitalism, with rapid economic growth sustaining a single-party political system. Pakistan, a South Asian linchpin, is faltering under the legacy of military rule and an extremist insurgency. Three of these countries—Iran, Russia, and Venezuela—are heavily dependent on oil and gas exports, and exhibit all of the peculiar distortions of so-called petrostates. The present analysis comes at a time of global “political recession.” According to recent findings from Freedom in the World, Freedom House’s annual survey, political rights and civil liberties have suffered a net global decline for three successive years, the first such deterioration since the survey’s inception in 1972. Freedom House’s global analysis of media independence, Freedom of the Press, has shown a more prolonged, multiyear decline. While the consolidated authoritarian systems of China, Russia, and Iran are rated Not Free in Freedom in the World, and the rapidly evolving, semi-authoritarian states of Pakistan and Venezuela are currently rated Partly Free, all five have played an important role in contributing to the global setbacks for democracy. Last printed 226 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 227 Aff – Rimal Uniqueness Authoritarianism is spreading globally – it’s already enmeshed in global political and economic institutions. Eckert, Reuters Asia Correspondent, 6-4 (Paul Eckert, Reuters Asia Correspondent, June 4, 2009, “Democracy seen threatened by new authoritarianism,” http://uk.reuters.com/ article/idUKTRE55344V20090604?sp=true) China, Iran, Russia and Venezuela form a clique of authoritarian states that use their wealth and influence to undermine global democracy and rule of law, a study by U.S.-funded agencies said on Thursday. The report, released on the 20th anniversary of China's suppression of the Tiananmen democracy movement, says these states' challenge to Western democratic institutions represents a far "murkier picture" than the Cold War because they are integrated into the global economy and world bodies. "Policymakers do not appear to appreciate the dangers these 21st century authoritarian models pose to democracy and rule of law around the world," said the WASHINGTON (Reuters) study by Freedom House, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and Radio Free Asia, all prominent U.S. democracy-promotion bodies. "Just as they rule without law within their borders, authoritarian regimes are eroding the international rules and standards built up by the democratic world over the past several decades, threatening to export the instability and abuses that their systems engender," it said. The study said manufacturing and trading power China and petro-states Iran, Russia and Venezuela shared strong similarities despite their distinct political systems and backgrounds. Authoritarian capitalist China and Russia have built systems that twin "impressive economic development with an equally impressive apparatus of political control ," it said. CURBS ON OPPOSITION, MEDIA Shiite Muslim clergy-ruled Iran and Venezuela, run by "a novel type of Latin American" strongman, held managed elections amid curbs on the opposition and on media, it said. Ruling powers in the four states buttressed their control with tight restrictions on the Internet and media, promotion of nationalist versions of history in school textbooks and use of state wealth to serve their own interests , said the report. Internationally, China has built a strong following in Africa and Latin America with generous no-strings-attached aid packages. Russia, Iran and Venezuela have used oil wealth to support regional client s, said the report. "At the regional and international level, these authoritarian regimes are undercutting or crippling the democracy-promotion and human rights efforts of rules-based organizations," it said. Targets included the United Nations, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), and the Organisation of American States (OAS), added the report. The report also included Pakistan because of its struggling democracy, history of military rule and growing extremist insurgency. Last printed 227 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 228 AFF – Privatization F ails Privatization Fails More Than Succeeds Vestal, Staff Writer of Stateline.org, 06 (Christine Vestal, Staff Writer of Stateline.org, 8/4/06, “States Stumble Privatising Social Services”, http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=131960) Advocates for the poor worry that putting too much responsibility in the hands of profit-motivated companies could endanger the vulnerable people the programs are intended to help. Federal rules require state employees to make final decisions for some entitlement programs, but letting a private contractor make the initial eligibility cut could have a profound effect on welfare outcomes, they say. Supporters of privatization argue that antiquated state eligibility systems no longer are cost-effective, and say improvements best can be accomplished by a high-tech, profit-motivated contractor with incentives to operate efficiently. Texas policy-makers say their plan not only will save taxpayer dollars but modernize the social services eligibility process, allowing people to apply for support over the Internet, by fax, through call centers and at self-serve kiosks. Currently social services applicants must travel to their local social service offices during business hours and wait in line to talk to a caseworker. Daniels, who left his post as Bush’s top budget advisor to run for governor in 2003, grabbed headlines this year when he privatized an Indiana toll road, granting a 75-year lease to a foreign consortium for $3.8 billion. Most agree that the state welfare eligibility process – with long lines, limited office hours and error rates in the 25 percent rage -- needs improvement. But advocates for the poor argue that the problems result from underfunding and understaffing, not lack of expertise. “The only people with experience in the complex and sensitive work of determining welfare eligibility are state workers. Why would you hire a high-tech company to do that?” asks Stacey Dean of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, an advocacy group for the poor. Other privatization critics argue that transferring public services to private companies has been plagued by quality-of-service problems for the last two decades. The concept makes sense and state policymakers always are eager to save money, but in practice, privatization has failed more than it has succeeded, says Mildred Warner, a privatization expert at Cornell University. In an analysis of privatization of state and local services over the last 20 years, Warner concluded that the majority of projects failed because of deteriorating quality of service. And in more than half the cases, the projects did not save taxpayer dollars, she said. Privatization Raises Death Rate BBC News, 09 (1/15/09, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7828901.stm) The researchers examined death rates among men of working age in the post-communist countries of eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union between 1989 and 2002. They concluded that as many as one million working-age men died due to the economic shock of mass privatisation policies. Following the break up of the old Soviet regime in the early 1990s at least a quarter of large state-owned enterprises were transferred to the private sector in just two years. This programme of mass privatisation was associated with a 12.8% increase in deaths. The latest analysis links this surge in deaths to a 56% increase in unemployment over the same period. However, it found some countries with good social support networks withstood the turmoil better than others. Where 45% or more of the population were members of at least one social organisation, such as a church group or labour union, mass privatisation did not increase mortality. But Russia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia were worst affected, with a tripling of unemployment and a 42% increase in male death rates between 1991 and 1994. Last printed 228 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 229 Aff – Privatization Bad: Investment Individual investors will be less profitable than the government ensuring the failure of privatization Anrig, vice president of policy at The Century Foundation, is the author of The Conservatives Have No Clothes: Why Right-Wing Ideas Keep Failing, 04 (Greg Anrig, vice president of policy at The Century Foundation, is the author of The Conservatives Have No Clothes: Why RightWing Ideas Keep Failing, 12/14/2004, “Twelve Reasons Why Privatizing Social Security is a Bad Idea”, The Century Foundation) Privatization advocates like to stress the appeal of "individual choice" and "personal control," while assuming in their forecasts that everyone's accounts will match the overall performance of the stock market. But studies by Yale economist Robert J. Shiller and others have demonstrated that individual investors are far more likely to do worse than the market generally, even excluding the cost of commissions and administrative expenses. Indeed, research by Princeton University economist Burton Malkiel found that even professional money managers over time significantly underperformed indexes of the entire market. Moreover, a number of surveys show that most people lack the knowledge to make even basic decisions about investing. For example, a Securities and Exchange Commission report synthesizing surveys of investors found that only 14 percent knew the difference between a growth stock and an income stock, and just 38 percent understood that when interest rates rise, bond prices go down. Almost half of all investors believed incorrectly that diversification guarantees that their portfolio won't suffer if the market drops and 40 percent thought that a mutual fund's operating costs have no impact on the returns they receive. While predictions vary significantly about how investment markets will perform in the decades ahead, it's safe to say that any growth in individual accounts under privatization will be significantly lower than what the overall markets achieve. Last printed 229 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 230 AFF— Privatization Fails Prisons Privatization in Prisons worse than government control—corruption and undertraining proves. Hart, Andrew E. Furer Prof. Econ. Harvard, Shleifer, Prof. Econ. Harvard, and Vishny, Eric J. Gleacher Distinguished Service Prof. Finance U-Chicago Grad. School of Business, 97 (Oliver Hart, Andrew E. Furer Prof. Econ. Harvard, Andrei Shleifer, Prof. Econ. Harvard, Robert W. Vishny, Eric J. Gleacher Distinguished Service Prof. Finance U-Chicago Grad. School of Business, 11-1997, “The Proper Scope of Government: Theory and an Application to Prisons,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/shleifer/ files/proper_scope.pdf) Finally, the choice of whether to privatize prisons depends on the importance of corruption and patronage. Patronage does not appear to be a huge problem in prison employment in the United States, since the union premium as of this writing is not large. Corruption appears to be a greater concern, at least judging from the available anecdotal evidence. To begin, private prison companies are very active politically. For instance, ESMOR evidently lobbies politicians and makes political contributions to receive contracts {The New York Times, July 23, 1995}. The wife of Tennessee governor Lamar Alexander invested early and profitably in the stock of Corrections Corporation of America, which subsequently got involved very deeply in the privatization of Tennessee prisons with the governor’s endorsement {The New Republic, March 4, 1996, p. 9}. A related problem is that contract enforcement cannot be taken for granted. The INS report concludes that ESMOR’s changes in policies “hindered INS ability to effectively perform its oversight functions.” The report also notes that ESMOR told its guards not to share information with the INS officials working on the premises, and in one instance encouraged the INS to reassign an officer who complained about the performance of the Elizabeth, New Jersey, facility several months prior to the riot. The report indicates that ESMOR violated the contract in some instances, and also pursued policies preventing the INS from enforcing the contract . But it is also clear from the report that the INS did not do what it could to enforce this contract. The INS report vividly illustrates how a government bureaucracy with relatively weak incentives has trouble enforcing a contract with a private supplier determined to reduce its costs, even if this involves violations of the contract and not just the issues on which the contract is silent. In sum, our model suggests that a plausible theoretical case can be made against prison privatization. This case is weakened if competition for inmates can be made effective, but strengthened by the relevance of political activism by private contractors. One instance in which the case against prison privatization is stronger is maximum security prisons, where the prevention of violence by prisoners against guards and other prisoners is a crucial goal {The New York Times Magazine 1995}. In many cases, the principal strategy for preventing such violence is the threat of the use of force by the guards. We have shown that it is difficult to delineate contractually the permissible circumstances for the use of such force. Moreover, hiring less educated guards and undertraining them—which private prisons have a strong incentive to do—can encourage the unwarranted use of force by the guards. As a result, our arguments suggest that maximum security prisons should not be privatized so long as limiting the use of force against prisoners is an important public objective. Consistent with this view, only 4 of the 88 private prisons in Thomas’s {1995} census of private adult correctional institutions in the United States are maximum security. In contrast, private halfway houses and youth correctional facilities, where violence problems are less serious, are common {Shichor 1995}. Last printed 230 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 231 AFF—Privatization Doesn’t Solve Military Contracting military personnel is cost-effective—no competition or flexibility. Avant, Assoc. Prof. PoliSci & Int’l Affairs at George Washington U, 04 (Deborah Avant, Assoc. Prof. PoliSci & Int’l Affairs at George Washington U, 06/07-2004, “Mercenaries,” Foreign Policy no. 143) "Military Contractors Are Cheaper than Regular Soldiers" Prove it. Numerous studies on privatization and outsourcing suggest that two conditions must be present for the private sector to deliver services more efficiently than the government: a competitive market and contractor flexibility in fulfilling their obligations. But governments frequently curtail competition to preserve reliability and continuity. For instance, military contractor Kellogg, Brown & Root (a subsidiary of Halliburton) won a no-bid contract to rebuild Iraqi oil fields in 2003 because the Pentagon determined it was the only company with the size and security clearances to do the job. Moreover, governments often impose conditions that reduce contractors' flexibility. For example, when the U.S. Army outsourced ROTC training in 1997, a long list of requirements for trainers resulted in a higher estimated cost than that of the previous program. A 2000 report on logistics support in the Balkans by the U.S. government's investigative arm, the General Accounting Office (GAO), faulted the military for poor budgetary oversight. Perhaps most telling, cost-effectiveness is not one of the three reasons for outsourcing listed in a 2003 GAO report on military contracting. (The reasons: to gain specialized technical skills, bypass limits on military personnel that can be deployed to certain regions, and ensure that scarce resources are available for other assignments.) News reports on the war in Iraq have noted the relatively high salaries of contractors--some $20,000 per month, triple or more what active-duty soldiers earn--but such figures fail to explain whether contractors are indeed cost-effective. Some analysts argue that contractors are ultimately cheaper because they allow the military to avoid the expense of recruiting, training, and deploying personnel. However, most contractors are recruited and trained by governments at some point in their careers. In addition, U.S. military leaders have voiced concern that the lure of corporate contractors undermines Army personnel retention--a worry shared by military leaders from Britain to Chile. Last printed 231 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 232 AFF – Privatization Fails: Healthcare Privatized healthcare is inefficient and exclusive compared to government run healthcare Marqusee, author of Wicked Messenger: Dylan in the 1960s and Redemption Song: Muhammed Ali and the Sixties, 06 (Mike Marqusee, author of Wicked Messenger: Dylan in the 1960s and Redemption Song: Muhammed Ali and the Sixties, 1/31/06, “The Privatization of Healthcare, http://www.counterpunch.org/marqusee01312006.html) To most people in the USA, where access to medical care is a major anxiety, my recent NHS experience will sound like a utopian fantasy. It's not that the US lacks doctors and nurses; it has more than twice as many per head as the UK and ten times as many as India. And it's not that it doesn't spend lavishly, devoting 15% of GDP to health care, a higher proportion than any other country. The problem is a profligate and chaotic health care system governed by the priorities of private profit. This is a system that excludes 14% of the population--the 45 million Americans without health insurance--and leaves most of the rest with only partial and often expensive coverage. The Institute of Medicine estimates that at least 18,000 Americans die prematurely each year solely because they lack health insurance. And a half times as much per capita on health care than Britain, people in the US are likely to live less long and spenlthough the US spends two ad more years in ill health than people in Britain. The child mortality rate is 33% higher in the US than in the UK, and the same as in Malaysia, where per capita income is only one tenth the USA's. And these average rates disguise extreme inequality within the USA. Child mortality among African-Americans is twice the national average and higher than in Sri Lanka or Kerala. A baby boy from a family in the wealthiest 5% will enjoy a life span 25% longer than a child born in the poorest 5%. Meanwhile, thanks to the billing and accountancy required by a fragmented, privatised system, a quarter of US spending on health is swallowed up by administration: $400 billion a year, four times the combined health budgets of the 62 lowest-spending countries in the world, including India and China. Other costly chunks go on marketing, on profits for shareholders and on lobbying politicians to ensure those profits remain healthy--whatever the cost to the health of the nation as a whole. Now Tony Blair wants to import this madness into Britain. Thatcher did her best to undermine the NHS--cutting services, raising charges, squeezing out dentistry and eyecare, imposing an "internal market that prioritised balancing the books over clinical need. But she never dared propose the kind of far-reaching changes currently being sought by Blair's cabinet. Just as only Nixon could go to China, only a Labour government could so compromise the NHS's founding principles. For the first time, NHS primary care provision is being franchised out to private sector entities, including US-based health care giants. NHS hospitals are being asked to "compete with private counterparts in providing operations on the cheap. Capital investment in new facilities is mortgaged to private finance--which takes no risk but is guaranteed a long-term income stream from the taxpayer. An ever increasing proportion of NHS spending is winding up in corporate coffers. Last printed 232 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 233 AFF – Privatization Doesn’t Solve Social Security Eliminating Social Security would destroy the well-being of 2/3 of retirees Anrig, vice president of policy at The Century Foundation, is the author of The Conservatives Have No Clothes: Why Right-Wing Ideas Keep Failing, 04 (Greg Anrig, vice president of policy at The Century Foundation, is the author of The Conservatives Have No Clothes: Why RightWing Ideas Keep Failing, 12/14/2004, “Twelve Reasons Why Privatizing Social Security is a Bad Idea”, The Century Foundation) Much is at stake in this debate. More than 96 percent of workers pay Social Security taxes, which entitles them to collect benefits from the program. More than 47 million Americans today receive checks from the Social Security system. Although the average monthly payment to those individuals is a modest $895, Social Security constitutes more than half of the income of nearly two-thirds of retired Americans. For one in six, it is their only income. Like past generations of Americans, today’s workers of all ages will need Social Security to protect them against forces beyond their control— economic ups and downs, inflation, fluctuating investment markets, and possible disability or Social Security benefits have been essential in even the best of times, and they will be all the more important in an increasingly global economy with large and growing federal budget and trade deficits. Addressing Social Security’s potential long-term financing challenges by taking the dramatic step of diverting its payroll taxes to create new personal accounts would represent a radical departure; it also would be a bad idea. Here are twelve reasons why less costly, less risky, and less premature death of a family member. painful changes should be considered instead: Privatizing Social security would leave millions unprotected from death and disability Anrig, vice president of policy at The Century Foundation, is the author of The Conservatives Have No Clothes: Why Right-Wing Ideas Keep Failing, 04 (Greg Anrig, vice president of policy at The Century Foundation, is the author of The Conservatives Have No Clothes: Why RightWing Ideas Keep Failing, 12/14/2004, “Twelve Reasons Why Privatizing Social Security is a Bad Idea”, The Century Foundation) "Rate of return" calculations neglect the value of Social Security's insurance protections. Of the 45 million Americans who collect payments from the Social Security program, over one-third (almost 17 million) are not retired workers. Among those currently receiving Social Security payments are 5 million spouses and children of retired and disabled workers, 7 million spouses and dependent children of deceased workers, and 5 million disabled workers. Proposals to privatize Social Security involve shifting some of the money financing the current insurance program into investment accounts assigned to each worker. But the payroll taxes carved out to pay for personal accounts are resources that are need to support today's payments to recipients of Social Security's survivors and disability insurance as well as retirement benefits. Simple arithmetic suggests that every dollar shifted from Social Security programs to personal accounts is a dollar less to provide guaranteed income to the 37 percent of beneficiaries who are not retired workers. The three alternatives put forward by the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security would, in the absence of individual accounts, restore long-term Social Security solvency either largely or entirely through benefit reductions that would apply to all beneficiaries-including the disabled. In the principal proposals put forward by the Commission, the reduction in disability benefits was draconian, with cuts ranging from 19 percent to 47.5 percent after the year 2030. The commission itself somewhat disavowed this aspect of its proposals, suggesting that a subsequent commission or other body that specializes in disability Economists Peter A. Diamond (MIT) and Peter R. Orszag (Brookings) have noted that the disabled would have limited ability to mitigate the effects of these benefit reductions by securing income from individual accounts. One reason is that their individual accounts often would be meager, since those who become disabled before retirement age may have relatively few years of work during which they could make contributions to their accounts. Second, under the commission proposals, disabled beneficiaries (like all other beneficiaries) would not be allowed access to their individual accounts until they reached retirement age. As the Bush commission itself acknowledged, preserving existing disability and survivor's insurance greatly escalates the cost of financing private accounts. It is difficult to imagine how any Social Security privatization plan can avoid significant cuts in those essential protections. policy might revise how its plans apply to the disabled. Last printed 233 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 234 AFF – Privatization Doesn’t Solve Social Security Privatizing Social Security worsens it’s budget crisis Anrig, vice president of policy at The Century Foundation, is the author of The Conservatives Have No Clothes: Why Right-Wing Ideas Keep Failing, 04 (Greg Anrig, vice president of policy at The Century Foundation, is the author of The Conservatives Have No Clothes: Why RightWing Ideas Keep Failing, 12/14/2004, “Twelve Reasons Why Privatizing Social Security is a Bad Idea”, The Century Foundation) Social Security is funded by a flat tax of 12.4 percent of each worker's wage income, up to $90,000 in 2005, split evenly between employers and employees. About four out of five of those tax dollars go immediately to current beneficiaries, and the remaining dollar is used to purchase U.S. Treasury securities held in the system's trust funds. Beginning in 2018, well after the huge generation of baby boomers born between 1946 and 1964 begins to retire, a portion of general income tax revenues will be needed to pay interest and eventually principal on those bonds to fully finance benefits. A "crisis" is not forecast to arise until the program becomes entirely "pay as you go" again (as it was throughout its history before 1983) in either 2042 according to the trustees' forecast or 2052 according to the Congressional Budget Office. (By way of perspective, in 2052 the oldest surviving baby boomers will be 106 years old and the youngest will be 88.) Diverting 2 or 4 percent of payroll to create private accounts as proposed by the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security doesn't sound very radical, but it would shorten significantly the time until current benefit levels could only be sustained by raising taxes. In part, this is because funds now being set aside to build up the trust funds to provide for retiring baby boomers would be used instead to pay for the privatization accounts. The government would have to start borrowing from the private sector almost immediately to be able to meet commitments to retirees and near-retirees. As the figure below shows, the trust funds would be exhausted much sooner than the thirty-eight to forty-eight years projected if nothing is done. In such a short time frame, the investments in the personal accounts will not be nearly large enough to provide an adequate cushion. The upshot: a much larger share of today's workers would confront large benefit cuts, or tax increases, than if no changes were implemented. Last printed 234 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 235 AFF – Privatization Doesn’t Solve Social Security Privatizing Social Security would slow the economy, increase national debt, and worsen the program’s financial situation Anrig, vice president of policy at The Century Foundation, is the author of The Conservatives Have No Clothes: Why Right-Wing Ideas Keep Failing, 04 (Greg Anrig, vice president of policy at The Century Foundation, is the author of The Conservatives Have No Clothes: Why RightWing Ideas Keep Failing, 12/14/2004, “Twelve Reasons Why Privatizing Social Security is a Bad Idea”, The Century Foundation) Privatizing Social Security will escalate federal deficits and debt significantly while increasing the likelihood that national savings will decline-all of which could reduce long-term economic growth and the size of the economic pie available to pay for the retirement of the baby boom generation. The 2004 Economic Report of the President included an analysis of the fiscal impact over time of the most commonly discussed privatization proposal by the president's commission. It found that the federal budget deficit would be more than 1 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) higher every year for roughly two decades, with the highest increase being 1.6 percent of GDP in 2022. The national debt levels would be increased by an amount equal to 23.6 percent of GDP in 2036. That means that, thirty-two years from now, the debt burden for every man, woman, and child would be $32,000 higher because of privatization. [Corrected figure] One impact of those seemingly abstract numbers after privatization is that interest rates are likely to be substantially higher, raising the cost to the average household of mortgages, car loans, student loans, credit cards and so on. As a result, the economy would be likely to grow more slowly than it would otherwise. Creating private accounts with increased federal borrowing at first blush would seem unlikely to affect national savings, because additional savings in the new accounts would offset exactly any new government borrowing to pay for those accounts. Economists believe that increased national savings, especially in a country with savings levels as low as they are in the United States, can increase growth by keeping interest rates low and financing investments in productive activities. But privatization is actually more likely to reduce than increase national savings. Diamond and Orszag point out that evaluating the overall effect on national savings requires taking into account the likely responses of government, employers, and households. Historically, neither the government nor businesses have changed their spending levels consistently in response to large changes in deficit levels. But households that consider the new accounts to constitute meaningful increases in their retirement wealth might well reduce their other saving. Diamond and Orszag argue, "If anything, our impression is that diverting a portion of the current Social Security surplus into individual accounts could reduce national saving." That, in turn, would further weaken economic growth and our capacity to pay for the retirement of the baby boomers. Last printed 235 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 236 AFF – Privatization Doesn’t Solve Social Security Privation of social security has empirically failed Anrig, vice president of policy at The Century Foundation, is the author of The Conservatives Have No Clothes: Why Right-Wing Ideas Keep Failing, 04 (Greg Anrig, vice president of policy at The Century Foundation, is the author of The Conservatives Have No Clothes: Why RightWing Ideas Keep Failing, 12/14/2004, “Twelve Reasons Why Privatizing Social Security is a Bad Idea”, The Century Foundation) Advocates of privatization often cite other countries such as Chile and the United Kingdom, where the governments pushed workers into personal investment accounts to reduce the long-term obligations of their Social Security systems, as models for the United States to emulate. But the sobering experiences in those countries actually provide strong arguments against privatization. A report this year from the World Bank, once an enthusiastic privatization proponent, expressed disappointment that in Chile, and in most other Latin American countries that followed in its footsteps, "more than half of all workers [are excluded] from even a semblance of a safety net during their old age." Other cautionary points made in the World Bank report and other studies about the experience in Chile: Investment accounts of retirees are much smaller than originally predicted-so low that 41 percent of those eligible to collect pensions continue to work. Voracious commissions and other administrative costs have swallowed up large shares of those accounts. The brokerage firm CB Capitales calculated (see english language discussion by Stephen Kay here) that when commission charges are taken into consideration in Chile, the total average return on worker contributions between 1982 and 1999 was 5.1 percent-not 11 percent as calculated by the superintendent of pension funds. That report found that the average worker would have done better simply by placing their pension fund contributions in a passbook savings account. The transition costs of shifting to a privatized system in Chile averaged 6.1 percent of GDP in the 1980s, 4.8 percent in the 1990s, and are expected to average 4.3 percent from 1999 to 2037. Those costs are far higher than originally projected, in part because the government is obligated to provide subsidies for workers failing to accumulate enough money in their accounts to earn a minimum pension. In the United Kingdom, which began encouraging workers to divert payroll taxes to personal investment accounts in 1978, many citizens were victimized by poor investment choices as well as unscrupulous brokers. The national government was left with substantial new administrative expenses, lost tax revenues, and responsibilities to bail out some failed private pension plans. Indeed, the problems were so wide-ranging that even the most enthusiastic supporters of private accounts now say that the United Kingdom simply did not do it right. A British government commission headed by Adair Turner reported in October 2004 that Britain had been living in "a fool's paradise" by thinking it had solved its pension problems. According to pension experts at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the Adair Turner report has sounded alarm bells. "What looked like a very good idea from a financial perspective in cutting costs has put pensioner poverty, which had been all but eradicated, back on the agenda." Last printed 236 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 237 AFF – Privatization Doesn’t Solve Social Security Management costs and fees mitigate returns in a privatized Social Security system Anrig, vice president of policy at The Century Foundation, is the author of The Conservatives Have No Clothes: Why Right-Wing Ideas Keep Failing, 04 (Greg Anrig, vice president of policy at The Century Foundation, is the author of The Conservatives Have No Clothes: Why RightWing Ideas Keep Failing, 12/14/2004, “Twelve Reasons Why Privatizing Social Security is a Bad Idea”, The Century Foundation) Brokerage houses, banks, and mutual funds have been very active in the campaign to privatize Social Security. Small wonder, since they stand to gain enormous fees if billions of dollars are shifted each year from Social Security payments into accounts under Wall Street management. Of course, those fees must come from somewhere, namely from the balances in individual accounts. Among the one hundred best stock mutual funds, management fees range from 0.2 percent per year to 1.4 percent of the asset value of an account. The average is near the high end of that range, however, and many mutual funds charge substantially more. Smaller accounts require proportionately larger management fees because many costs such as gathering and mailing out information do not depend on account size. Indeed, most mutual funds actively discourage small accounts by setting a minimum opening deposit of $1,000 to $3,000. Experience in the United Kingdom offers a warning about what the future could bring regarding management costs. Workers there have been allowed to open private accounts starting in 1988, since which time management fees and marketing costs among financial intermediaries have eaten up an average of 43 percent of the return on investment. Privatized social security leaves young people worse off Anrig, vice president of policy at The Century Foundation, is the author of The Conservatives Have No Clothes: Why Right-Wing Ideas Keep Failing, 04 (Greg Anrig, vice president of policy at The Century Foundation, is the author of The Conservatives Have No Clothes: Why RightWing Ideas Keep Failing, 12/14/2004, “Twelve Reasons Why Privatizing Social Security is a Bad Idea”, The Century Foundation) Social Security privatization is often sold to young adults as a much better deal for them than the current system. But two recent studies show that if Social Security is converted to a system of private accounts, younger generations will be the ones who bear the costs of transforming the program. The added costs arise from the huge increases in federal borrowing needed to finance the new accounts while continuing to direct payroll taxes toward existing benefits for current retirees. According to the Congressional Budget Office, "to raise the rate of return for future generations by moving to a funded system, some generations must receive rates of return even lower than they would have gotten under the pay-as-you-go system." A July 2004 Congressional Budget Office analysis of a private account proposal by the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security compares it with the existing system. It looked at two scenarios for the traditional Social Security system, one with payments continuing in full indefinitely and the other with the trust funds becoming depleted in a few decades and payments shrinking to three-fourths their current level. In both scenarios, nearly all birth cohorts at all income levels born from the 1940s through the first decade of the 21st century on average do worse under the proposed system of private accounts. Only individuals in the lowest earning quintiles from the 1950s and the 1990s do slightly better, on average. Even assuming a worst case scenario where the trust funds evaporate and benefits are cut substantially, cohorts from the 1960s to 2000s would see reductions with private accounts between 1 percent and 17.5 percent on average , depending on their income and birth year. An earlier analysis by economists Henry Aaron, Alan Blinder, Alicia Munnell, and Peter Orszag used the broad outlines of then-Governor Bush's Social Security privatization proposals to compare retirement benefits under current law to those if private accounts were introduced. They found that benefits for an average earning worker who retired in 2037 at age 67 (someone aged 34 today) would be 20 percent lower than they are now given historical rates of return over a fifty-year period. Last printed 237 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 238 AFF – Privatization Doesn’t Solve Social Security Privatized social security inadvertently discriminates against women Anrig, vice president of policy at The Century Foundation, is the author of The Conservatives Have No Clothes: Why Right-Wing Ideas Keep Failing, 04 (Greg Anrig, vice president of policy at The Century Foundation, is the author of The Conservatives Have No Clothes: Why RightWing Ideas Keep Failing, 12/14/2004, “Twelve Reasons Why Privatizing Social Security is a Bad Idea”, The Century Foundation) The Social Security system is gender-blind. None of its provisions treat women differently from men. But that does not mean that the results are gender-neutral. Various cultural and biological differences add up to the fact that Social Security is much more essential, and a much better deal, for women than for men. Of all groups, none has more to lose from the privatization of Social Security than women. Compared to the average man, the average woman works fewer years outside the home, earns less per year, and lives longer after retiring. Together, these differences mean that women depend more than men do on spousal and survivors' benefits, they collect benefits for more years than men do, and a greater proportion of their total retirement income comes from Social Security. Since women on average work fewer years at lower pay, they contribute less in payroll taxes over their lifetimes than do men. But in their various roles as retirees, spouses, and widows, women collect Social Security benefits for more years than men. The result is that women get more net benefits over their lifetimes than do men. There are fourteen women for every ten men aged 62 or older. Above age 85, this ratio reaches twenty-four women per ten men. Consequently, 60 percent of all Social Security beneficiaries are women. Among those receiving survivor and disability benefits, women and children constitute 85 percent. Women also depend more on Social Security. Older women who are not part of a couple (either widows, divorcees, separated, or never married) get 51 percent of their income from Social Security, and 25 percent of them have no income but Social Security. For men in The poverty rate for older women is almost twice that of older men (in 1997, 13.1 percent versus 7.0 percent). For older women who are not in a couple, the rate gets much higher: more than one in four lives below the poverty line. Fewer than half of them had incomes in 1997 above $1,000 per month. Without Social Security's guaranteed benefits, the already marginal income security for older women would be much worse. In the same situation (a far smaller proportion of the total), the figures are 39 and 20 percent, respectively. spite of the improvement in employment opportunities for women, the role of homemaker and primary parent still falls unequally on wives and mothers. Private accounts would jeopardize income that wives, widows, and divorcees now receive under Social Security. The more individual control that passes to workers, the fewer rights their dependents will retain to secure retirement income. If the guarantees and redistributive features of Social Security are replaced with a system that provides benefits according only to how much a worker earns over that worker's lifetime and how fortunate that worker is in financial markets, the average woman, especially the average widow, will lose security and income from already low levels. Beneficiaries would not be protected from inflation or other market variations Anrig, vice president of policy at The Century Foundation, is the author of The Conservatives Have No Clothes: Why Right-Wing Ideas Keep Failing, 04 (Greg Anrig, vice president of policy at The Century Foundation, is the author of The Conservatives Have No Clothes: Why RightWing Ideas Keep Failing, 12/14/2004, “Twelve Reasons Why Privatizing Social Security is a Bad Idea”, The Century Foundation) Social Security privatization plans, including all three recommended by the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security, require retirees to convert the lump sums in their personal accounts into annuities that provide them with monthly payments until their death. The reason for that is that otherwise retirees could outlive their nest eggs, or even squander them, requiring taxpayers to bail them out. The market for annuities, which are financial contracts sold by insurance companies, is very thin now, with relatively few bought and sold. Such a market would probably develop under privatization, but it is unlikely that those annuity payments would increase in line with inflation, as today's Social Security benefits do. Without inflation protection, the purchasing power of retirees' pensions would fall precipitously during times when prices are rising rapidly. Because insurance companies would bear significant new risks for offering inflation protection, they would be likely to charge very substantial fees over and above the already steep 10 percent that they now charge. Last printed 238 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 239 Aff – Privatization leads to Monopolies Free Market Leads to Monopolies Mandell, prof of Political Science, 02 (Betty Mandell, Emeritus Faculty Walter http://www.wpunj.edu/~newpol/issue33/bmande33.htm) Adamson Prof of Political Science, 2002, Eliot Sclar, a Columbia University sociologist and privatization critic, argues that the free markets inevitably collapse into monopolies. The theory of the free market is based on a concept of each individual buyer and seller pursuing his or her own gain independent of the others. All buyers and sellers presumably have equal knowledge (or ignorance) about product quality and prices in the market. Buyers need only to seek out the lowest priced seller. On the production side, sellers adopt production methods that keep costs as low as possible. All producers presumably have all the technical possibilities for producing the goods and each chooses the least costly means to do so. Under these conditions, the market is said to be competitive. Profit maximizing for each producer and satisfaction- maximizing for each consumer are highly predictable. The problem with this model, according to Sclar, is that the barriers to market entry for additional sellers are often high and purchasers often don't have access to good information on which to base their decisions to buy. The real economy is not a level playing field, but a "mountainous terrain that includes several high peaks from which well- endowed corporate and individual warriors swoop down to seize targets of opportunity." There is some real competition, mostly between small businesses, but the tendency is to try to monopolize the market in order to maximize profits. Small businesses generally don't have the capital to handle large contracts over a long period of time. There is another reason, in addition to Sclar's, disproving the idea that privatization follows the Pareto principle. Privatization begins with getting government money. How is the Pareto principle followed when prisoners are forced to be in private prisons? And how is the Pareto principle followed when the government gives private corporations money to build and run those prisons? There is no buyer and seller. And since private schools depend on government money in the form of vouchers, there is no free enterprise commerce. If someone starts a private school and competes with public schools on an equal basis, that is free market competition, but the use of vouchers (government money) destroys that. Last printed 239 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 240 Aff – Privatization Fails Privatization Not Efficient Towns, Ranking Democratic member, 97 (Rep. Edolphus Towns, Ranking Democratic Member, 11/4/97, “Social Services Privatization: The Beneftis And Challenges To Child Support Enforcement Programs”, Hearing before the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight House of Representatives) [Sohn] Privatization is the shifting of activities or functions from the governmental sector to the private sector through vouchers, contracts or joint ventures. Before we begin that shift, we should ask whether the activity is uniquely governmental; whether privatization would improve the economy and efficiency of the activity and whether there is some reason to transfer a revenue stream from public to private hands. According to the Urban Institute, there is no evidence that private service delivery is more effective than public service delivery. The effectiveness of any service delivery depends on the same key factors that the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight have always considered: authority, accountability, and clarity. The General Accounting Office found that privatization in the social service arena may be difficult to achieve because of a lack of qualified bidders. In addition to possible contractor inexperience, there may also be a problem with governmental inexperience in developing contract specifications, reviewing contractor bids, negotiating bond and performance issues and monitoring overall outcomes. Mr. Chairman, I hope that we consider those findings today and determine if those problems still exist. Privatization Creates Disaster Lantos, US Congressman, 97 (Tom Lantos, US Congressman, 11/4/97, “Social Services Privatization: The Beneftis And Challenges To Child Support Enforcement Programs”, Hearing before the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight House of Representatives) [Sohn] Mr. Chairman, many of my friends on the other side of the aisle tend to view government as a disaster and they are all too eager to solve a problem by turning it over to the private sector. Is Medicare too expensive? Bring in private-sector HMOs. Irritated by the IRS? Let's hire private companies and sign a contract. But back in California, we have learned an important lesson: The private sector can create some spectacular boondoggles of their own at the expense of the taxpayer. California's experience with contracting out government services to the private sector involves a Fortune 500 Corporation, a big pot of tax dollars, and a computer system that is stuck in an endless loop of delays, cost overruns, and excuses. Last printed 240 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 241 Aff – Public Spending Good/Privatization Bad Public spending stabilizes the economy; privatization of the financial system would destroy modern economics as we know it Starr, “Professor of Sociology and Public Affairs, and Stuart Professor of Communications and Public Affairs, Princeton University”, 87 (Paul Starr, “Professor of Sociology and Public Affairs, and Stuart Professor of Communications and Public Affairs, Princeton University”, 19872, Limits of Privatization, Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science, Vol. 36, No. 3, Prospects for Privatization, pp. 124-137) The conservative proponents of privatization see a zero-sum relationship between government and the economy. The bigger the public sector, the smaller the private economy. The more public spending, the less private savings and investment. Hence, in this simple view, privatization is certain to increase savings, investment, productivity, and growth.If government spending truly retarded economic development, the Western economies with the highest ratios of public expenditures to gross national product would grow the slowest. However, comparative studies show that not to be the case.5 The conservative view of government as an economic black hole misses what government adds to the productive resources of society and overstates what govern ­ ment takes away. First, much public spending represents investment in human and intangible capital as well as physical infrastructure. In the United States, the structure of the Federal budget (which fails to distinguish capital expenditures) and the national income accounts (which treat all government expenditures as consumption) obscure these contributions of public spending to the country's capital stock and long­run economic development.6 And, second, much of the contemporary increase in public spending has come in the form of transfer payments, which redistribute income but do not exhaust resources that would otherwise be available for investment. To be sure, some governments have heavily subsidized inefficient industries, but others have used public programs to reduce opposition to industrial change by cushioning workers against unemployment and retraining them for jobs in expanding sectors. The effect of government on economic growth depends principally on the character of its intervention. The case for privatization as a means of bringing about deep reductions in government activity also neglects the contribution of increased public expenditure to economic stabilization. We have far from abolished the business cycle, but the cycle has been much less severe in the last half century now that the scale of taxa tion and spending provides governments with the tools of fiscal management that they formerly lacked. Nor is there the slightest chance that governments will unload responsibility for the stability of the economy and the financial system. The voters will not allow it. Nor will the banks. When Continental Illinois was on the verge of collapse in 1984, the Reagan administration did not hesitate to rescue it . Governmental assumption of risk, whether for the potential insolvency of pension funds, savings and loans associations, or the international financial system, shows every sign of continuing. In these persistent patterns, there is a lesson about the limits of privatization. Though there is disagreement about the instruments of policy, there is no doubt that governments will continue to be held accountable for economic growth and security. Disengagement from macroeconomic management is impossible. Last printed 241 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 242 Aff – Privatization Bad Public services, such as Social Security ensure the welfare of the poor; privatization harms the poor Social Security is another, though quite different, example of the capacity of government to open up possibilities closed off in the market. Insurance markets suffer from severe problems of moral hazard and adverse selection. By creating a single risk pool. Social Security provides protection to those who could not afford it at market rates.18 The argument that Social Security penalizes disadvan taged minorities overlooks some crucial facts. Although blacks collect retirement benefits for fewer years on average, the progressive benefit structure of Social Secu rity enables them to collect more during those years than they would from private policies. (In any event, private insurance firms could not charge blacks less than whites for annuities because it would be unconstitutional for them to use racial classifications. The only way for blacks to derive savings because of a lower life expectancy would be to buy less coverage.) The privatization of Social Security would, therefore, reduce the income of the black elderly and make many more of them dependent on meanstested welfare benefits. In addition, blacks and other disadvantaged minorities depend especially on the other components of Social Security, such as disability, health insurance, and survivors benefits. Because of their higher costs in these areas, many of them could not purchase privately the full package of Social Security benefits. On the whole, Social Security is a bargain for low-income groups. It is simply disingenuous of privatization advocates to claim that the poor would benefit from a change that eliminates the progressive benefit structure and sends them into a private market that for good reason is shy of serving people certain to have higher health insurance, disability, and survivors' claims. The alternative fails to take into account the welfare state Henig, political science professor, 90 (Jeffrey R. Henig, political science professor, 1990, Privatization in the United States: Theory and Practice, Political Science Quarterly) Marginality of the laissez faire perspective. BY THE MIDDLE OF THIS CENTURY, LAISSEZ FAIRE THEORIES OF THE PROPER SCOPE OF Laissez faire theorists saw a sharp distinction between the realm of the market and the realm of government. The former was identified with individual freedom, creativity, and progress; the latter with coercion. Central to the failure of this perspective was an inability to account for institutionalization and broad popularity of the welfare state. A clear majority of Americans had come to accept at least the basic elements of the welf . AFTER YEARS OF GOVERNMENT HAD LOST THEIR CREDENCE. INTENSE CONTROVERSY, THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT'S ROLE IN PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF RACIAL MINORITIES WAS GENERALLY RECOGNIZED. MOST SECURELY ENGRAINED IN THE PUBLIC CONSCIOUSNESS AS LEGITIMATE PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITIES WERE A RANGE OF SERVICES TRADITIONALLY PROVIDED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT, INCLUDING POLICE AND FIRE PROTECTION, SANITATION, STREET REPAIR, ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, AND A MORE RECENTLY ESTABLISHED ROLE FOR THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT AS GUARDIAN AGAINST HARSH FEATURES OF UNREGULATED MARKETS. IN THIS CONTEXT, TO VIEW GOVERNMENT EXPANSION SIMPLY AS AN IMPOSITION SEEMED OBSOLETE AND QUAINT. Counterpoised to the laissez faire perspective were two alternative explanations. One, rooted in the values of the Progressive movement in the United States, saw government as the legitimate vehicle for pursuing a broad public interest that transcended individual and parochial interests. The other, representing an evolution of basic economic concepts, saw government expansion as an inevitable response to market failures. The broad acceptance of the outlines of the welfare state posed a political challenge to conservatives, as well as an intellectual challenge to conventional economists. CONSERVATIVE POLITICIANS HAD TO COME TO TERMS WITH THIS POLITICAL LANDSCAPE OR RISK CONSIGNING THEMSELVES TO PERMANENT MINORITY STATUS. THE MASSIVE REJECTION OF BARRY GOLDWATER'S PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDACY BY THE AMERICAN VOTERS IN 1964 BROUGHT THIS MESSAGE HOME IN STARK AND CONVINCING TERMS. THE RESPONSE WAS A GRADUAL SHIFT IN THE TERMS OF DEBATE. CONSERVATIVES NEEDED TO REASSURE THE PUBLIC Last printed 242 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 243 THAT THEIR ATTACK ON THE SIZE AND STRUCTURE OF THE GOVERN MENTAL APPARATUS DID NOT NECESSARILY ENTAIL THE WHOLESALE REJECTION OF THE BROAD GOALS THAT HAD COME TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH LIBERALISM AND THE WELFARE STATE. Last printed 243 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 244 Aff – Corporations Bad Corporations running the privatized economy are analogous to big governments Henig, political science professor, 90 (Jeffrey R. Henig, political science professor, 1990, Privatization in the United States: Theory and Practice, Political Science Quarterly) The first of these themes involved the analogy between government and private monopolies. Characterizing government as a public monopoly ACCOMPLISHED THREE THINGS. FIRST, IT Made criticisms of big government more accessible and acceptable to a mass public that already had internalized the association between monopoly and inefficiency, unresponsiveness, and waste. SECOND, IT gave criticisms of big government an anchor in traditional microeconomic theory at the very time that the assumption that economists could provide an objective and scientific underpinning for public policy was on the rise. THIRD, it made an important step toward expanding the hegemony of economic theory. Economists previously had based their claim to expertise upon the distinctiveness of the economic sphere; the analogy Last printed 244 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 245 AFF – AT: Privatization Privatization Not Efficient Towns, Ranking Democratic member, 97 (Rep. Edolphus Towns, Ranking Democratic Member, 11/4/97, “Social Services Privatization: The Beneftis And Challenges To Child Support Enforcement Programs”, Hearing before the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight House of Representatives) Privatization is the shifting of activities or functions from the governmental sector to the private sector through vouchers, contracts or joint ventures. Before we begin that shift, we should ask whether the activity is uniquely governmental; whether privatization would improve the economy and efficiency of the activity and whether there is some reason to transfer a revenue stream from public to private hands. According to the Urban Institute, there is no evidence that private service delivery is more effective than public service delivery. The effectiveness of any service delivery depends on the same key factors that the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight have always considered: authority, accountability, and clarity. The General Accounting Office found that privatization in the social service arena may be difficult to achieve because of a lack of qualified bidders. In addition to possible contractor inexperience, there may also be a problem with governmental inexperience in developing contract specifications, reviewing contractor bids, negotiating bond and performance issues and monitoring overall outcomes. Mr. Chairman, I hope that we consider those findings today and determine if those problems still exist. Privatization Creates Disaster Lantos, US Congressman, 97 (Tom Lantos, US Congressman, 11/4/97, “Social Services Privatization: The Beneftis And Challenges To Child Support Enforcement Programs”, Hearing before the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight House of Representatives) Mr. Chairman, many of my friends on the other side of the aisle tend to view government as a disaster and they are all too eager to solve a problem by turning it over to the private sector. Is Medicare too expensive? Bring in private-sector HMOs. Irritated by the IRS? Let's hire private companies and sign a contract. But back in California, we have learned an important lesson: The private sector can create some spectacular boondoggles of their own at the expense of the taxpayer. California's experience with contracting out government services to the private sector involves a Fortune 500 Corporation, a big pot of tax dollars, and a computer system that is stuck in an endless loop of delays, cost overruns, and excuses. Last printed 245 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 246 AFF – Privatization – AT: Costs Less Privatization costs less argument is NOT valid Greene, 05 (Judith Greene, Senior Justice Fellow from Center on Crime, Communities & Culture, 2005, http://archive.epinet.org/real_media/010111/materials/greene2.pdf) The proponents of prison privatization have argued that market pressures will inevitably produce both greater cost efficiencies and quality improvements in correctional services. Their explanations about how the market works to effect these outcomes range from the general thesis that inefficient providers of low quality, costly services will be driven out of the marketplace by competition, to specific arguments about how privatization dislocates the public sector union power which many believe stands as the chief barrier to better public service delivery at a lower cost. But there is little in the existing body of academic research comparing the costs and/or quality of privatized corrections that addresses whether, or to what extent, or in what ways these arguments are valid. In a recent assessment of the national experience with privatization, a team of researchers led by Douglas McDonald at Abt Associates has concluded on the topic of cost savings that, “The few existing studies and other available data do not provide strong evidence of any general pattern.” Research recently completed by this author comparing private and public facilities in Minnesota was specifically designed to explore the impact of cost savings and profit taking on the quality of prison services and programs. The findings present strong evidence that the widely publicized disasters in Ohio, Texas, New Mexico, and Louisiana are emblematic of a pattern of basic structural problems: staffing deficiencies, insufficient program services, faulty prisoner classification and security systems. While performance problems of such severe magnitude are not yet common in the private prison industry, violent incidents are not isolated to a few facilities. A recent survey of private prisons by James Austin compared the rates of major incidents in private and public prisons of comparable security levels and found that private prisons had fifty percent more inmate-on-staff assaults and two-thirds more inmate-on-inmate assaults. These ominous signs are fueling a mounting perception that in pursuit of profits, private prison managers are heedless of the essential requirements necessary for delivery of safe and humane correctional services. Last printed 246 Coercion Dartmouth 2K9 247 AFF – Cap Bad Capitalism Destroys Millions Doyle, Committee for a Workers' International, 09 (Clare Doyle, Committee for a Workers' International, 2/2/09, http://www.socialistalternative.org/news/article11.php?id=1019) The researchers pointed to Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia along with Russia and Kazahkstan as the worst affected in the early 1990s with a 42% increase in the male death rate between 1991 and 1994. Now, these countries are amongst the first to be hit by the new tsunami of capitalist destruction. Russia has seen mass protests in more than 50 cities against the government's attempts to make workers and middle class people pay for the crisis of their chosen system. Latvia and Lithuania (as well as Bulgaria) have seen street battles between police and angry protesters last week. Estonia has gone, like them, from a high growth rate to a contraction of 3.5% and its government's popularity is plummeting. As workers and students in Eastern Europe begin to identify with and follow the example of those in Athens, Paris and Rome, a new era opens up. Millions were killed and maimed under Stalin. More millions have had their lives wrecked by capitalism. Now mass struggle for a genuine democratic socialist alternative is firmly back on the agenda. Last printed 247 ...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 12/20/2010 for the course K 101 taught by Professor Staff during the Fall '10 term at UMass Lowell.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online