Zaradi's Prized Tournament: Resource Extraction in Developing Nations

Re: My opponent’s first objectionPro’s first objection can be broken into two parts which must be addressed separately. First is the idea that at least some restrictions must be placed on the range of actions available to an individual, in order to prevent things such as murder. Such restrictions are perfectly in-line with my arguments, and I accept my opponent’s formulation of the principle behind them (“[A]ny action that does not impinge upon […] the freedom/property of others is permissible.”). It would be moral to stop murderers, rapists, etc. from violating the rights of others precisely because restricting choice is immoral. When a man takes another man’s life, he is denying him the ability to choose what he does with his body. These things are morally repugnant since they, in themselves, violate rights, so stopping them would not conflict with the philosophy of upholding free choice.My opponent then goes on to attack the prioritization of resource extraction on the basis that it violates the personal autonomy of individuals. I agree that, if these arguments stand, my position crumbles, but if my opponent fails to show how prioritizing resource extraction inherently violates rights, then my case stands.Re: My opponent’s arguments on the so-called rights-infringing results of resource extraction, including the “common property” defenseThe problem that can be seen here is that, if the people surviving off fish in a river or water in a lake do not have a proper claim to that river’s fish or that lake’s water, they are surviving only because those that either are equally non-owners or do have a valid claim on those things let them. 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. If the land really is commonly owned, then it is owned by each one of us, and there is no basis to restrict what an owner of land does with it. If the land is privately owned by the corporations doing the resource extraction, then it would be even more justifiable to cut off the food supply of some in order to increase profits. If the landowner has an obligation to feed those he can feed, then he isn’t allowed to choose, and, as such, cannot act according to any valid moral system. 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? Where is the reasonable basis for the restriction on “restricting access or use”? If anything, my opponent’s restrictions imply that Yellowstone Park is owned by no one, and, if so, there is no reason why it cannot be claimed. There is no reason to think that everyone is “entitled” to the land within Yellowstone Park than there is to think that everyone is entitled to the land in Pro’s backyard.There is also the issue of “indirect” vs. direct violations of rights. If it is true that no one is inherently obligated to provide for anyone else, even necessities such as food or water, then no one can make a claim that another needs to allow him to eat by giving him food. It would be immoral to stop him from eating food he has rightfully obtained by himself, but it would be contra to the prerequisites of any moral system to force one man to act as a slave to another. Even if a landowner has come to rightfully own all of the lakes in Africa, he has no obligation to let anyone drink. It is his property and it cannot be taken away from him no matter the needs of others.Wars, etc., caused by tensions over limited resources in an area cannot be said to be the fault of resource extractors. If they do have the right to choose to do what they wish with the land they can work, then, no matter what they do (assuming that they respect the property that they cannot work), they cannot be blamed for what happens to others. If a war breaks out over a lack of food, it is not the corporation who is at blame – it is he who fired the first gunshot in response.Re: My opponent’s second objectionTwo arguments mitigate these points: the first is that, if 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, in which case he would have already won the debate. Secondly, even 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. What is lacking is a direct link between resource extraction and violence, and, much in the same way as a murderer reading a book doesn’t make reading immoral, there must be a reason to condemn acts not shown to be immoral in themselves just because the actor had also committed condemnable (but not necessarily related) acts. Unless it can be shown that the prioritization of resource extraction leads to oppression and coercion by necessity, then this point is irrelevant to the debate. Re: My opponent’s claims that positive rights existHere, my opponent just assumes that positive rights exist, and that governments are obligated to act out of some basic respect for these rights. There is no justification given for why these rights exist, and, as I have argued, the conception of positive rights is inherently contradictory in nature (how can a morality exist without the right to choose?). He makes the argument that, since you cannot choose how to act if you are dead, others have an obligation to keep you from dying. This can be refuted in the following way: the idea that some have obligations to feed others goes against the nature of morality, so, if any moral system is to exist at all, it cannot include obligations of this sort. That is the extent of the proof against it, as an obligation in morality is as much of a contradiction as having 2 + 2 = 5, and the latter is accepted as false based only from a look at its contradictory nature. Why is it acceptable to let people lose the ability to choose via starvation or whatever else? Because for it to be otherwise would be a rejection of choice itself. It is up to the starving man to find something to eat – that is his choice. It is not up to anyone else to do it for him. Re: Off-case All of my opponent’s arguments in his off-case have been addressed previously, either by showing that the right to do whatever one wishes with his land/common land is inviolable, or by showing that actors that act in immoral ways in some sectors can still act morally in others.On to the next round!