Shark v. SolonKR, Resolved: Just governments ought to require that employers pay a living wage.

== FRAMEWORK ==A) "Justice" is beyond merely fairness and giving each their due. The Oxford Dictionary, 2015, defines justice as "just behavior or treatment," and defines 'just' as "based on or behaving according to what is morally right." Further, the resolution demands an 'ought', a moral obligation. Thus, prefer my value as it best represents the distinctions between right and wrong.B) Con drops util and drops all justifications I gave in favor of it. == NEG CASE ==The neg's kritik fails for the following reasons:Contention 1: The social contract is seriously flawed. A) There is no true consent in the social contract. "Central to the Social Contract idea is the claim that we owe allegiance to the law because the benefits we have derived have been voluntarily accepted. This is one place where our autonomy is supposed to come in. That is, having benefited from the Rule of Law when it was possible to leave, I have in a sense consented to it." [1] Hume argues, "Can we seriously say that a poor peasant or artisan has a free choice to leave his country-when he knows no foreign language...and lives from day to day by the small wages which he acquires? We may as well assert that a man, by remaining in a vessel, freely consents to the dominion of the master, though he was carried on board while asleep, and must leap into the ocean and perish the moment he leaves her." [2] Implied consent justifies immoral governments. "The contract argument set forth in the case of refusal to emigrate proves too much...It can be maintained that anyone living under the control of a regime receives something that the regime might call benefits. Ultimately, thus, the benefits argument reduces to the claim that all under the control of state should obey the state." [3] B) The social contract is opposed to feminism. Friend argues, "Virginia Held...argues that social contract theory implicitly relies on a conception of the person that can be best described as 'economic man.' 'Economic man' is concerned first and foremost to maximize his own, individually considered interests, and he enters into contracts as a means by which to achieve this end. 'Economic man', however, fails to represent all persons in all times and places. In particular, it fails to adequately represent children and those who provide them with the care they require, who have historically been women. The model of 'economic man' cannot, therefore, fairly claim to be a general representation of all persons. Similarly, Annette Baier argues that Gauthier’s conception of the liberal individual who enters into the social contract as a means by which to maximize his own individually considered interests is gendered in that it does not take seriously the position of either children or the women." [4] Friend 2: ""Baier argues that Gauthier, who conceives of affective bonds between persons as non-essential and voluntary, therefore fails to represent the fullness of human psychology and motivations. She argues that this therefore leads to a crucial flaw in social contract theory. Liberal moral theory is in fact parasitic upon the very relations between persons from which it seeks to liberate us. While Gauthier argues that we are freer the more that we can see affective relations as voluntary, we must nonetheless, in the first place, be in such relationships (e.g., the mother-child relationship) in order to develop the very capacities and qualities lauded by liberal theory. Certain kinds of relationships of dependence, in other words, are necessary in the first place if we are to become the very kinds of persons who are capable of entering into contracts and agreements...She therefore suggests that we consider other models of human relationships when looking for insight into morality. In particular, she offers up the paradigm of the mother-child relationship...Such a model is more likely to match up with many of the moral experiences of most people, especially women." [5]Contention 2: A libertarian framework is flawedSuch a libertarian framework based on liberty of contract is flawed. Liberty of contract grounding freedom is dangerous. Kant argues: "If we take this definition of freedom then the amount of freedom a person has is the extent to which they can act without being coerced to do (or not to do) something against their will. In a libertarian society you cannot (legitimately) do anything with another's property if they don't want you to, so your only guaranteed freedom is determined by the amount of property you have. This has the consequence that someone with no property has no guaranteed freedom, and that the more property you have, the greater your guaranteed freedom. In other words, a distribution of property is a distribution of freedom, as the libertarians themselves define it. Thus...the libertarians are saying that the best way of promoting freedom is to allow some people to have more of it than others, even when this leads to some having very little or even none." [6] -The resolution is affirmed. - [1] - https://books.google.com...[2] - David Hume, "Of the Original Contract" [3] - https://mises.org...[4] - http://www.iep.utm.edu...[5] - op. cit. [6] - http://tinyurl.com...