A government should value the civil rights of its citizens over the welfare of the community.

I negate the claim that individual rights supersede community welfare, on the grounds that for a functional society, both the individual and community deserve to be respected. No definitions will be necessary, as all terms are self-explanatory. The value will be Justice, defined by Amitai Etzioni as the equilibrium between autonomy and social order; a balance between individuals and their communities; if the interests of both are balanced, society will be functioning optimally. The criterion for today is Communitarianism. Etzioni writes, "Respect and uphold society's moral order as you would have society respect and uphold your autonomy." This brings about an equilibrium, because society only institutionalizes the autonomy of the individuals as far as they respect the values and laws of their community. This acts as a check, since the individuals give community its power, and in turn, community grants individuals protection of autonomy. Contention I - A focus on individual rights destabilizes society. A: A focus on rights is unbalanced. The book Civic Repentance outlines the fact that to lead too far towards rights leads to anarchy, and to lean too far towards order leads to authoritarianism. After examining this it is clear that a focus on individual autonomy cannot be tolerated, because doing so will lead to a destabilization of the communitarian equilibrium; as more and more rights are bestowed on citizens, they come to expect more and more privileges, yet with less and less responsibilities. Through the communitarian paradigm, however, we can see that if citizens are not doing their part in community, and not serving even a basic function, community has no obligation to respect that individual's autonomy, on the grounds that society's moral order is being neither respected nor enhanced. B: Excessive liberty dampens respect for law. Gordon Bazemore writes that as people are granted ever more legal rights, they tend to lean on court systems to resolve conflicts, as opposed to one-on-one dispute resolution. This translates into a complete dependence on courts to get the job done, and this will lead to abuse, as people run to the courts for even the most minute incidents; whenever anyone perceives a threat to their rights, that would become ground for legal intervention. The laws and courts of a nation would become abused for personal gain, but only because such rights and privileges were bestowed upon the populace. C: Enhancing individuals weakens the community. Utilitarian philosopher John Stuart Mill and Contractarian philosopher John Locke discussed how, for a society to be functional, individuals must be ready to sacrifice excessive liberty and absolute autonomy for protection in society. With the focus that government puts on rights, individuals have to sacrifice less, and can do more. Abundant autonomy will only lead to further rights violations for citizens, and leads to an overall feeling that sacrificing for society is unnecessary; individuals will begin to believe that they no longer need community, and this will lead to a decay in the moral strength of communities, and will thus lead to increased crime rates. Overall, the focus on individual rights will lead to a perceived lack of need for communities, which means that individuals will be robbing themselves of society's protection. In close, Neither individuals nor society must receive the most attention; however, to achieve balance under this particular condition, the spotlight must be taken off of the individual (to restore the individual's need for community) and overall, restore the balance between autonomy and the moral order of society. Please note that my opponent has not provided an ultimate value or a weighing standard for the round, so everything needs to be weighed through Communitarianism to ensure that the balance between order and autonomy is served. To cover what the PRO has said, let me quickly begin by pointing out that societal welfare equates the well-being of the society, not federal welfare programs as he suggests; therefore, his arguments about federal welfare are really inapplicable in this debate, and you can throw them out the window. He moves on to freedom, talking about these random searches and seizures, and private prisons are also included; two responses here, first of all is going to be that private prisons are not in the best interests of society, so the argument doesn't work for the PRO, but second, my opponent does nothing here to discuss why civil rights are so much more important. When you look at my case keep in mind that absolute freedom must be given up; as far as search and seizure is concerned, all I ask you to keep in mind is that these students are on school property (especially for charter schools) and so while students have some right to privacy, keep in mind that they sacrifice absolute privacy for the safety of the students and staff (remember that we have to maintain a balance between both). Also, notice that my opponent is being extremely specific to the United States, which, while it is a valid example, he cannot base his entire view of the debate on only our own country; however, even if you choose to do so here, the Supreme Court case New Jersey v T.L.O. ruled that such searches and seizures were entirely constitutional, but that searchers had to have 'reasonable suspicion' to prevent power abuse; and, as the United States claims to be a nation of laws, then we would have to accept the decision of the highest court in our land; even if this were an unjust decision, however, then look back to what I've already said about how the PRO is in no way defending a social focus on the civil rights of individuals. To conclude, I'd like to really highlight the last thing my opponent said, and I quote: "So it is not the government that needs to be concerned about our freedom after all. It is us." In this single statement, he has essentially given me the debate; look at the topic: "A GOVERNMENT should value the civil rights of its citizens over the welfare of the community." You've heard it yourself. The government need not be concerned about freedom. In doing so, the PRO has conceded that the government should not be focusing on civil rights; with that forfeiture in mind, I ask you kindly for a CON vote to make sure that both community welfare AND individual rights are respected, balance, and enlarged.