Zaradi's Prized Tournament: Resource Extraction in Developing Nations

Thanks to Bossy for the debate!INTROSo, Bossy drops my case and my off-case, preferring instead to go for his arguments as a preempt to my ends-based argument. That's fine, but that means that if any of my objections against his case succeed (thereby taking out Bossy's underlying premises) I win the round. Bossy is, to put it simply, putting all his eggs in one basket, and all I need to do is poke one hole in that basket for all the eggs to fall out and break.In this round, I will review Bossy's case and my various objections to it. I will focus a lot on trying to explain concepts through examples, so bare with me if my rebuttals seem to have a bit of a narrative bent. I may also quote Bossy at points; his comments will appear in italics. I apologize in advance for any formatting errors due to C/Ping from Word.CON's CASEO1. Necessary LimitsBossy agrees that voluntary actions should be limited according to the following principle: "[A]ny action that does not impinge upon"the freedom/property of others is permissible." To show that my first objection is valid, then, all I need to do is show that unsustainable resource extraction (hereafter: URE) violates the property rights or freedoms of other people.In my case, I showed that URE is one of the main contributors to climate change in the world. I also showed that climate change leads to several, significant ill-effects, including: millions of environmental refugees, a dearth of food and water resources, and disease, etc.Suppose I am a fisherman in a remote coastal village somewhere in Indochina. I am a hard worker, but I am totally dependent on the land to live. Suppose also that climate change or some other tragedy is impacting the local environmental conditions. By "some other tragedy" I am specifically referring to disasters caused by URE, such as an oil spill or deforestation. These URE-caused alterations have led to a significant rise in the waterline and have killed all the local fish. My home, which lay near the coast, has now been wiped out, as have many of my belongings. I can also no longer feed myself or fish. I am therefore forced to become a refugee. At my refugee camp, the URE-related toxins that have entered the environment reduce the air quality such that I can no longer breath, and I develop respiratory illnesses and diseases which soon kill me.What this example illustrates is that URE is a major contributor in a process that directly impinges on peoples' freedoms (including the freedom of residence, freedom of movement, freedom to choose one"s trade, freedom to engage in a trade, etc.) It also violates the property rights of victims (the man lost his home), and the right to life of victims (where the harms of disease occur.)China is perhaps a prime example of this kind of flagrant rights abuse. Let's say a factory owns a plot of land, but releases massive amounts of pollutants into the air. That toxin-infested air permeates outward, and soon those toxins are spread far beyond the plot of land that the factory owns, negatively impacting the air quality of thousands, if not millions. [1]Imagine the following. You are my neighbor. I am standing on my porch with a gun, and I fire inside your house next door and I kill you. When the police show up, I say: "But I was on my property! I can do what I want on my property." The police would respond by saying, "that does not excuse you from violating the rights and freedoms of others one their property." Surely, the factory, by literally poisoning the air to the point where it can cause disease, is doing something similar to my gun-wielding self. They are behaving on their property in such a way that you are directly harmed on yours, in a fashion whereby your rights are violated.I feel then that these hypotheticals sufficiently illustrate that environmental regulations are necessary to uphold Con's very own goal of freedom, and to uphold the agreed standard of reasonable restrictions on action.O2. Not Truly VoluntaryFirst, Con only attempts to "mitigate" my point; he does not deny that companies engage in coercive tactics to secure the chance to pursue URE. Remember what Con wrote in his first round: "any coercive act destroys the ability of a man to choose." Even "mitigated" coercion, therefore, destroys choice, and is immoral according to Con. Insofar as these companies engage in coercion at all--as Con concedes that they do--their activities are impermissible.Secondly, let"s address these mitigating circumstances anyway, in the interest of thoroughness. "[I]f it is moral emphasize the extraction of resources, then any government that tries to stop a corporation from doing so can be justly retaliated against. My opponent's point here only has any impact if it is shown that corporations don"t have a right to extract resources at their own discretions"The problems with this analysis are that (1) it seems to shift the goalposts inasmuch as Con originally said any coercion was always wrong, and now he is saying that coercion is legitimate in some cases, and (2) if the land is owned by the government (or by the people represented by the government) then they should be able to decide what happens on their land absent any kind of coercion."[E]ven if corporations do engage in legitimately coercive practices directed at innocent individuals, this can only be used to show that those corporations have done condemnable things."Bossy"s whole argument was that URE is just because it was voluntarily chosen (P2 of his syllogism). My response shows that, in many cases, URE was not voluntarily chosen but rather coerced. This collapses Bossy's syllogism, and, by extension, his case.O3. Unowned Property or Property Held in Common "If it is assumed that the land is owned in common, it is absurd to then say that it is moral for one shareholder to eat the fish in the river while it is immoral for another shareholder, with an equal claim, to poison the river."Con really doesn't give a thought here to proportionality. Let's say that he, I, and YYW are cramming for a test, and we decide to order a pizza. The pizza has 12 slices, and we are each equal owners of the pizza. It would be unjust for me to eat 10 of those slices without YYW and Bossy's consent, because, as equal owners, they were entitled to an equal share. We each paid the same, so why should I get more?Similarly, if a river is owned in common, and I gather about 10 fish a day, but the factory poisons the river and wipes out all 1,000 fish, clearly the factory has done something wrong. My case and off-case specifically discuss how URE is disproportionately or massively destructive. Consider the damage that just one oil spill could do, compared to what lonely me could do."It would be arbitrary to say that all own a park but none can do certain things with it--the very idea of ownership at all implies that one has control over it. Why can people visit Yellowstone Park but not blockade it off?" This is in the same vein as the example I just gave. Suppose Bossy and I buy some land (we chip in a million dollars each), and I want to farm on the land and Bossy wants to build a giant, golden axolotl shrine to Airmax. Let's say I fly out to inspect the land we bought and find the Golden Airmax Temple to be already fully constructed, spanning the full length of the plot. I've now effective wasted a million dollars, and Bossy unjustifiably exercised sole control of the land when it was dually owned. Land that is held in common has to be managed and controlled by all partners (unless they cede that right). Returning to the pizza example, I did not control the pizza, WE controlled the pizza--that is a significant point to make. Therefore, no one group of citizens can override the majority, and blockade Yellowstone...or, as I said last round: "No one citizen or group of citizens can hold hegemony over a resource that is held in common by a broader population."Furthermore, Bossy only rebuts the warrant for the argument, not the impact. So, if you buy that if a resource is held in common (e.g. wildlife or land) that all owners need to have equal access to that resource, then you MUST buy into the following impact: UREs "destroy wildlife populations and release toxins and engage in activities that cripple the wilderness. These actors deny other people access to resources that everyone should have equal access to. They impose a kind of hegemony over them, and exploit them to the point where my ability to enjoy or access resources I am entitled to is diminished or eliminated altogether...[T]his a violation of my freedoms and/or property rights."O4. Some actions can be Compelled Con"s arguments against positive rights are twofold: (1) that they haven't been shown to exist, and (2) that they are illogical given the nature of any valid moral systemRegarding his first issue, if we identify something of common value, we can derive positive rights from that. Consider, Con places a massive premium on freedom. If ensuring minimum standards of health, safety, etc. promote freedom, then it may be justified to compel actions towards achieving those goals. Certainly, if I am dead or ill through no fault of my own, then my freedom is limited, so it seems reasonable to mandate some action from able-bodied others to help me in the interests of freedom.And, lastly, to the second point, Con says that moral systems must be voluntary, and that positive rights negate choice. But, Con acknowledges that there are limits to volition; there are some things I cannot do, despite their voluntariness. So, what Con really means is that a moral system must be largely voluntary, because there are always going to be restrictions on choice. Having positive rights only limits, it does not destroy, choice, and so it is not inconceivable that a moral system contain positive rights.Thus, I affirm.SOURCEhttp://en.wikipedia.org...