Global Capitalistic Institutions

"Now say Person A wants to Interact with Person B. In order for this interaction to happen Person B MUST lose his/her right to decline action. If Person B willingly engages Person A, then Person B has GIVEN Person A Person B's liberty to choose not to make this interaction." If person B willingly interacts with person A, there is no liberty left to lose. The liberty of deciding whether or not to make the interaction has already been exercised by person B in the act of engaging person A in the first place. Furthermore, I would argue that if a person possesses a liberty, it is their choice whether or not to give it away (regardless of how you may feel about it.) "Like Wise, if Person A FORCES Person B to interact, then Person A has TAKEN Person B's liberty to not interact. Either way, Person B must lose his/her liberty to choose not to interact in order for Person A to have the POWER to interact. My opponent's argument that money, physical prowess, and genuine belief are all examples of how Person A could attain Person B's liberties. This proves that power is gained from the loss of liberties and that point should be flowed to the con." In this case, I would argue that person B never had any liberty in the first place. If a right can be taken or given, it isn't a right. In order for liberty to even exist, an individual must have the ability to defend that liberty. If he or she does not, it is simply a privilege bestowed upon them by someone else. The simple fact that person A had the ability to force person B to do anything shows that person B had no say in the matter before the interaction ever took place. Therefore, there was no liberty to lose. "The government DOES have the power to send the UNITED STATES to war. What are the United States? The land and EVERY SINGLE legal citizen of the U.S. So: yes, the government CAN send us to war. This proves my point judge and should flow to the con." So "every single legal citizen" goes to war? That would be interesting, but no. Only some people, some of whom aren't citizens at all, are sent to fight. They volunteered for that job. That was their choice. "This contradicts my opponent's previous statement. Congress is the government bud. They are who send us to war." But they are not bureaucrats. You make it sound as if the government just does whatever it wants while the citizenry helplessly look on. Every member of Congress was placed their by the will of their constituents. "No. Congress is an centralized entity that we have given power to. This centralized power is what sent us to war, not the people. This proves my point judge and should be flowed to the con." This just shows a revealing ignorance. Congress can hardly be considered centralized. The only time that the members of Congress are physically together is when votes need to be taken. They spend most of their time apart, in their own states. "I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were just an average american who doesn't care about your own freedom. I personally would like to have as much free choice as I can concerning myself...but that's just me apparently." Ad hominem. What I may or may feel about my own freedom is irrelevant to the argument and certainly does not magically make your statements true. I was simply stating that you can't just use unproven premises, regardless of how obvious they seem to you. "The police are SOME of those individuals I mentioned. Any person can perform a citizen's arrest. So: when my opponent tries to argue that "any person is free to do whatever he wishes (and is able) to do, regardless of the effect it has on other people, without consequences." it is obvious that they cannot do WHATEVER with out consequences. A whole multitude of people can prevent or punish it. This completely proves my point judge this argument flows to the con." Now you're just taking my words out of context. I said that "any person is free to do whatever he wishes (and is able) to do, regardless of the effect it has on other people, without consequences." IF there was no government to control them. Nice try, but no cigar. In this day and age, any person who performs a "citizen's arrest" is more likely to be hauled in for assault than anything else. It is a naive and antiquated notion.