Resolved: Blackmail Should Be Legalized

My defense. Economic Exchanges: 1. Criminal coercion My opponents attack here is that it is morally wrong to threaten to kill the cat, thus, the entire action is wrong. The entire action is wrong not because threatening to kill the cat is morally wrong. A person has a LEGAL right to their cat and their money. Another person has no right to force them to choose between these two LEGAL rights. You see one person holds everything; the other person is forcing them to choose. Thus, the coerced choice links into the impermissible threat. You have a legal right to your money and your cat. The other person has no legal right to your money and your cat. 2. Legal Economic Exchange Conceded. If you take this is as a sum total of the “rights” present, the shopkeeper has one legal right (to the golf clubs) and you have one legal right to your money. You are simply offering an exchange. 3. Blackmail If we take blackmail as a “sum of rights” you have two rights (your information –passive – and your money – legal.) The blackmailer shares one of these rights with you (your information – passive.) As such it links a coerced choice, the blackmailer forces you to choose whether you want your money or your information, and a permissible threat, they can release the information. I would like to point out that both the blackmailer and victim share this right of information. As such, they both have an equal share to the information. The blackmailer may be able to do what they want with the information and they can release the information. What I am arguing is that even with this shared right; the blackmailer cannot force the victim to choose between their money and the blackmailer’s share of the information. Both blackmailer and victim have a passive right to the information, something, which has not been refuted “The victim has a right to information about oneself only because other's have a duty not to interfere with the victim's right.” Under this alone, we can say blackmail should stay illegal as the blackmailer is not upholding his societal duty, to not interfere with the victim’s passive right to their information. By their threat, the blackmailer is interfering with two rights: the victim’s passive right to their own information and the victim’s legal right to their money. Thus, blackmail should stay illegal as to uphold these societal duties. Nevertheless, I shall continue. My opponent cites a shoe to show a physical example. I never argued the blackmailer cannot do what they please with the information. It is a permissible threat to release the information to the public at large. It is impermissible to demand money as it is not a legal economic exchange. As I adequately explained above there is an “in the case of blackmail there is an asymmetry of rights not found in either case 1 or 2…In the case of blackmail…the victim has two rights (their money and their secret) and the blackmailer has one right. But, the blackmailers one right is one of the things the victim has a right to (information, the secret). The blackmailer is effectively forcing the victim to choose between one of their two rights (their money or their secret) or suffer consequences.” The shopkeeper has SOLE rights to the clubs, you have SOLE rights to your money and you exchange. Blackmail would be like you buying the clubs, the shopkeeper obtaining half of them and then saying “give me the price of the clubs or I will destroy them all, including your share.” The blackmailer is not saying he will just give away his right to the information; the blackmailer is giving away the victim’s right as well. The blackmailer can simply just give the information away and be done with it; that is their right. But, once they begin coercing the victim into choosing between their right to the information and their right to the money, it is just that, coercion. An original right does matter. They do have a greater claim. Let’s take your divorce scenario. There are two parties, Party A and Party B, without prenuptial agreements. Before the marriage even began, Party A bought a house, after they married Party B moved in. Party A never created a joint ownership of the house. Party B has no legal grounds to claim they have ownership over the house, so, when divorce comes, party A still retains full ownership of the house. My situation more accurately depicts the situation. Even taking my opponent’s depiction, the blackmailer and blackmailee do not willingly come together; they have to be forced to the table by the blackmailer. The blackmailer is offering something which he does not have the right to offer. The blackmailer has the right to reveal the information, but, going along with my opponent’s analogy, the blackmailer offering the victim their information would be like Party B offering Party A the house, even though Party A, by law, still controls the house. Party B (the blackmailer) can reveal this information, if they want, but, Party A (the victim) still controls it. (1) Contractarian: My opponent cites state coercion. Laws which punish criminals are not coercion. It would be more like an exchange. The government and laws are upheld by society. If all of society were to stop following laws, what exactly could the government do? Nothing. They would be powerless to stop the will of the people. Laws are only in place because society wants them to be there. Society is exchanging their right to kill people in return for protection. There is no coercion because the state is just following what society wants. Society is telling those who do not follow society, to follow society simply because they commit crimes, which they inherently agreed to not commit by being part of society to begin with. By being part of society, you are agreeing to pay taxes to the government. Human interaction does not require coercion. Let’s take your two examples, child rearing and schooling. My opponent does not show how depriving your child of say TV is an example of coercion. In this case, the TV is completely owned by the adult. The child is merely asking permission to use what is not theirs. As for the teacher, the teacher controls the grades. They are merely allowing the student to do their work, for the teacher; in return, the teacher gives the student a grade. It’s an exchange. How is a legitimate economic exchange an example of coercion? The shopkeeper is not forcing me to buy from him. Your neighbor has no right to be on your lawn, in the first place. You have a right for him to not be on your lawn. Same for the thief, you have a legal right for him not to be in your house. As for free market capitalism, my opponent says the shopkeeper is being criminally coercive. How exactly? He simply offers an exchange: your right for his/her right. Coercion implies a threat in which one is forced to do something, getting nothing in return. Attacks Contention 1. My opponent’s objection here is that she is not justifying a statement to be true. If that is so, then, my opponent concedes her first contention as they attempt to justify the statement that “The actions behind blackmail are completely legal” therefore, it should be also. Barring that, they take entire parts of blackmail out of context. In my case, I did no such thing. My point about the kitty was by it being your money and your cat. Therefore, no one else can take it from you. Contention 2. You do not have a net benefit simply because you will never be able to find an unbiased third party. If blackmail was legal what stops one of the two parties from blackmailing the third party, then they have to make a contract, etc. If a contract is so unfairly balanced to one side, it results in one of the sides receiving no protection. How does this change blackmail? One of the two sides has no protection already. http://family.findlaw.com...