WODC Round Two - Energy

When a bill passes through congress it costs taxpayers two million dollars a day. [1] This doesn't include the costs of writing the bill and having everyones staff read the legalese and decode it for the representative as well the cost of senate and the president looking over it. A conservative (extremely) estimate is that it would cost 25 million to pass this type of bill. This is why any challenge to the status quo, has to be significant enough to overcome the cost of changing. This fact itself means that the majority of the BOP, is on pro. Furthermore, I'm allowed to contradict myself. If I take 3 or 4 methods of attack to negate the resolution, and only one holds up, that will be enough to win. As long as each method of attack is self contained and not "overly" self contradicting, it's fine. Non Aggression Principle The government is there to protect our rights. The United States government was founded with this in mind, and is why it includes the bill of rights. Men/women have a right to self ownership. "The basic axiom of libertarian political theory holds that every man is a self owner, having absolute jurisdiction over his own body. In effect, this means that no one else may justly invade, or aggress against, another's person. It follows then that each person justly owns whatever previously unowned resources he appropriates or "mixes his labor with". From these twin axioms " self-ownership and "homesteading" " stem the justification for the entire system of property rights titles in a free-market society. This system establishes the right of every man to his own person, the right of donation, of bequest (and, concomitantly, the right to receive the bequest or inheritance), and the right of contractual exchange of property titles.[2] When it comes to woman/man, there are only three possibilities to ownerhip (everything else is sub deviations of these three things) 1. Somebody else owns you. 2. Nobody owns you. 3. You own yourself. The first option is a moral abomination. If number one is true than it justifies or is tantamount to slavery. The United States has been there, the history is ugly and we all recognize slavery as wrong. This option isn't worth considering. If my opponent wants to argue that slavery is ethical, I welcome him to try. The second option is also wrong. One understanding of the word ownership is right of use. This is not something we could part with, without doing something unthinkable, such as killing ourselves. You could argue that isn't the true definition of ownership, but regardless of the title, the premise still supports the premises and arguments that follow. The final option is self ownership, and after exploring the other options, and ruling them out, this stands as a truism. [3] The concept of self ownership, helps us to recognize the fact that ownership does exist. A property is either unowned or owned. If it is unowned, than whoever first takes posession of the land/property is rightful owner, who may do with his property what he pleases, so long as he does not violate the non aggression principle, by stealing owned things, or damaging them. (including people, who are self owned). Anthony De Jasay, says it a little better than myself. "[if] taking first possession of a thing is a feasible act of his that is admissible if it is not a tort (in this case not trespass) and violates no right; but this is the case by definition, i.e., by the thing being identified as "unowned." Taking exclusive possession of it is, in terms of our classification of possible acts, a liberty, and as such only a contrary right can obstruct or oppose it. 14 The opponent of this simple thesis is trying to have it both ways: he is both asserting that the thing has no legitimate first owner from whom a second or nth owner could have legitimately obtained it by agreed transfer, and that there is nevertheless somebody who has been and still is entitled to use the thing and therefore can validly object to being excluded from it. But an entitlement to use the thing is an at least partial antecedent ownership claim needing an owner, or the permission of an owner, before it can be made; ownership cannot both exist yet not exist. If, on the other hand, the objectors have been using the thing without being entitled to it, because no third party had excluded them by taking first possession, and because they were unable, unwilling, or uninterested to perform the act of taking first possession themselves (whatever that act may consist of), their enjoyment of the thing was precarious, not vested. Its appropriation by a third party may have deprived them of an uncovenanted advantage, but it did not violate their rights."[4] The government taking ownership of an entire industry would violate the non aggression principle. Negative Environmental impacts "oil consumption by the transportation sector contributes significantly to American greenhouse gas emissions, which contribute to climate change. Climate change will cost Americans hundreds of billions of dollars over the coming decades, as sea levels rise"[5] The United states dependence on oil needs to end. In the next round,, I'll bring up my counter plan and explain how to do that, but for now we just need to know that my opponent's plan reduces the price of oil, encourages more oil consumption, and takes focus off of efforts in green energy by diverting focus, and making green energy more of a financial burden. (when considering comparative cost. These environmental impacts are bad for the world and by extension the United States. " Burning oil is one of the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions and ... a major driver of climate change... if left unchecked....(has) serious security...implications. Burning oil imported from "dangerous or unstable" countries... released 640.7 million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which is the same as keeping more than 122.5 million passenger vehicles on the road.....the gravest consequences of climate change.... threaten(s) to destabilize governments, intensify terrorist actions, and displace hundreds of millions of people due to increasingly frequent and severe natural disasters, higher incidences of diseases such as malaria, rising sea levels, and food and water shortages. A 2007 analysis by the Center for American Progress concludes that the geopolitical implications of climate change could include wide-spanning social, political, and environmental consequences such as "destabilizing levels of internal migration" in developing countries and more immigration into the United States. The U.S. military will face increasing pressure to deal with these crises, which will further put our military at risk and require already strapped resources to be sent abroad. Global warming-induced natural disasters will create emergencies that demand military aid, such as Hurricane Katrina at home and the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami abroad.... Developed countries will be responsible for aid efforts as well as responding to crises from climate-induced mass migration...intelligence experts...recognize that global warming poses serious environmental, social, political, and military risks that we must address in the interest of our own defense."[6] The tenth amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."[7] The United States government doesn't have the legal authority to nationalize the oil industry. I challenge my opponent, to show me where in the constitution, the federal government is authorized to nationalize the oil industry. My opponent won't find that portion of the constitution, it is unethical and not in the best interest of the United States (collection of citizens), to violate it's own laws. If for no other reason, the judges should vote for con on the basis that the resolution is flawed. sources [1] http://www.marketplace.org... [2] http://www.mises.org... [3] The ethics of Liberty, M. Rothbard http://store.mises.org... (purchase book from this location to support a great non profit organization). [4] DeJasay, Anthony (1997). Against politics : on government, anarchy, and order (1. publ. ed.). London [u.a.]: Routledge. p. 173. [5] https://americansecurityproject.org... [6] https://www.americanprogress.org... [7] http://www.gpo.gov...