Resolved: Blackmail Should Be Legalized

Opponent’s CaseHe begins by discussing three different types of economic exchanges. Let us take a look at these examples. Example 1: Extortion. He tells you that if I threaten to kill you kitty unless you give me money, I have done something morally wrong because the act of threatening to kill the kitty is wrong. Hence, the entire action is wrong because one of its constituent parts is morally condemnable. This reasoning will be critical later on in the debate, so please extend it cleanly across the flow. The only reason that we know that this action is condemnable is because one of its parts is condemnable. Example 2: A storekeeper threatens to not sell golf clubs. His analysis is spot on here. The storekeeper has a right to threaten to not sell the material if he does not receive money in exchange.Example 3: Blackmail. He concedes that a blackmailer gains the right to another person’s information once he obtains it through legal means. He then questions why we should permit people to force others to select between two rights. Turn the analysis that the blackmailer gains a right to another person’s information. The moment that my opponent concedes this, he also concedes that the person gains the right to do what he pleases with that information. This is a direct extension of the right to property. If I own something, say a shoe, I have the right to do what I please with it. I can give that shoe away, I can wear it, and I can shoot it with a shotgun. If I have a right to a specific piece of information, I can do what I please with it. I can give it away or keep it safe; the choice is my prerogative. This is adequately demonstrated by the second “exchange” example he provided. In that example, a store owner tells an individual that he will sell the golf clubs to someone else if he does not receive any money. Blackmail fits that definition. The blackmailer owns a piece of information and he is telling that blackmailee that he will give the information that he owns to someone else if he does not receive funds.The fact that someone may have an “original right” to a an object does not mean that he has a greater claim on that object; rather, both individuals with claims on the object must come together and decide how to resolve the competing claims. This can be proven to be empirically true. When two individuals are divorcing, for example, neither side has automatic claim on their household objects or money even if they were the ones who originally brought said objects or money to the arrangement. Both individuals have competing claims on the assets and thus must decide together how to resolve those claims. Blackmail is nothing more than a resolution process. The blackmailer is offering the blackmailee a chance to purchase the rights to the information from the blackmailer. In other words, the two parties are coming together to resolve the competing claims. Just as “trades” are perfectly legal and moral in a divorce process, so is blackmail legal and moral.In the second contention, he discusses a contractarian view of justice, namely that “I would not want to be coerced, so I should not promote coercion.” People who join society want coercion to exist. This is justified by the fact that in order for a society to function at all, coercion must exist and be considered just. The state itself must use coercion in order to achieve its own ends. The state enforces all of its laws through coercion; individuals who break laws are arrested, for example, and people are coerced into paying taxes in exchange for the state’s goods and services. Unless coercion existed, the state, and according to Rawls society because the an effective society depends on the existence of a state, would collapse. Ergo, any individuals in the Original Position would agree that coercion is just because they would want to form a society. (Note that I am arguing that, as a principle, coercion is not unjust and would be wanted by society. I am not arguing that all coercion is just. If he argues this, he is strawmanning.)My opponent might argue that we only want the government to be able to coerce us, and that we do not wish to be coerced by others. This is false because all human interactions require coercion. Parents will want the ability to coerce their children to listen to them; without that ability, children have no incentive to behave properly or to become nurtured. Similarly, teachers will want the ability to coerce their students to do their homework and to study for exams. Even interactions between adults require coercion. My opponent’s Example 2 in Contention 1 of his the previous speech was an example of coercion. If I tell my neighbor to get off of my lawn unless he wants me to take legal action, I am using coercion. If I tell a thief to leave my house or I will defend myself from him and kill him, I am using coercion. If I tell an employee to do his work or I will fire him, I am using coercion. All of these examples demonstrate that coercion is not inherently unjust (as my opponent presumes), that society depends on coercion to function, and that people in the Original Position would want coercion to exist. He tells you that in a free market society, coercion is bad. The problem is that coercion is necessary for capitalism to exist. First, the example he provides of a storekeeper using coercion to obtain the profit of his choice is an example of coercion that is necessary for capitalism to function. The government also has to use coercion to enforce the idea of property rights. Contracts themselves require coercion for enforcement. There is no reason that coercion should be banned because it is both just and because it is necessary for society to function. My CaseHe objects to contention 1 by arguing that it is a fallacy of composition. It is not a fallacy because I am not using it to justify a statement as being true. I am simply using it to claim that something should be legal because no aspect of it is illegal. The only way in which we can evaluate whether or not an action should be legal is if we examine its parts; otherwise, we are simply rejecting it for no reason. My opponent himself was using this type of reasoning in his first contention when he discussed the reason the extortion is wrong. He told us that it is illegal because one of its parts, namely murdering/threatening the kitty, is illegal. Moreover, he is rejecting blackmail for the same reason. By claiming that coercion is bad and then arguing that blackmail is coercive, he is arguing that blackmail is bad because one of its parts is bad. Ergo, this rebuttal is not a reason to ignore my contention. Instead, this contention is basically dropped. The impact is that blackmail should be legalized.In contention 2, I discussed safer contracts. He first argues that sometimes the parties will not actually have information. This is easily resolved in the contract making process; if the blackmailer does not have embarrassing information, then the blackmailee will not agree to the contract. He then says I cannot provide infinite enforcement. That is not a reason to not permit blackmail because I have a net benefit of protecting as many people as possible. In his world, nobody is protected because blackmail is illegal. In mine, I am protecting as many people as possible. The fact that I will not be able to protect all people in practice is not a reason to not protect some people. I outweigh based on magnitude. Finally he says that the parties will be biased. This is true for any contract, but that does not mean that we should not let contracts exist and that we should not protect any contracts. Moreover, since both parties are self-interested, their interests will negate each other and the contract-making process will ensure a fair and agreeable contract exists for both sides. The parties themselves are responsible for this agreement just as parties in a business deal are responsible for their agreements.