Resolved: Public health concerns justify government violation of pharmaceutical patents.

Thank you for this debate; it is my first and I am glad to begin with an intelligent conversation. If my understanding of the LD debate style is inaccurate, I ask that you please comment below so that I may be better educated. Let's begin! ï¿½ I. Value: Natural Rightsï¿½ In almost complete contrast to your suggestion of "Public Welfare" being the key value of this argument, I would like to suggest that the protection of an individual's Natural Rights should take precedence to all else when the decision lies with the federal government. ï¿½ For what other reason is government established then the protection of its people's rights? And if they "claim" (as the American government so commonly does) to protect these rights, then aren't they in lockstep with our founders who wrote: ï¿½ "…they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." ï¿½ I would like to make note of the rights listed above: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. The founders knew that life is a cycle of difficulties, and all that one gets from it is a chance to be happy. More importantly, however, the founders, with this clause of the Declaration of Independence, have shown that the ideals America were founded on are derived from John Locke's Second Treatise Concerning Civil Government. Within the pages of this printing, Locke wrote of the natural rights to life, liberty and property, specifically stating: ï¿½ "Every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself. The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his." ï¿½ II. Criterion: Limited Governmentï¿½ I use the criterion of Limited Government to show how, in an unrestricted system, both sides (the consumer and the patent holder) are satisfied. ï¿½ Our Natural Rights are jeopardized every time we give the government any more control than the Constitution allows it. Granted, this great document was not written with a party system in mind, but in all reality, a limited government provides no room for bickering on issues; what the people want is what the people get. In an unrestricted economic system, the consumer wants products at the lowest prices possible, and the those with goods to sell want to sell them at the highest price the consumer will accept. Currently, sanctions and regulations placed on both sides of the deal limit how much products can be bought or sold for. These laws limit fluctuation of the system, but don't provide the best prices for either end. Without these restrictions, consumers would be free to determine what is produced, and how much they pay for it through the basic ideas of free-market economics. Thus, both sides reach their individual goals with no outside interference. ï¿½ III. Rebuttal of Criterion: Prudenceï¿½ This was the portion of your argument that I enjoyed. You cite the definition of prudence "…doing what is wise…being smart," however, you never look beyond how the national government can be wise in the management of their citizens. Prudence begins at the consumer level. From the consumer, to the corporation manufacturing the pharmaceutical, to the patent holder, all the way to the three branches of the federal government, prudence should be evident. ï¿½ While on the consumer level, prudence is as simple as washing one's hands and practicing good everyday hygiene, the main portion of my argument on this point lies not with the consumer (who's illness is not always controllable), but with the patent holder and manufacturer/marketer of the drugs in question. They are in the medical field to earn a living, often at other's expense. They make money off everything from cold medicines to anti-biological agents for the U.S. Military. What difference is it to them where this money comes from? They have stockholders to support and employees to pay; such is the way of the capitalist marketplace. ï¿½ Also, consider the inventor who holds the patent. The government has issued them protection to sell and market their idea/product for a reason. We have an ever present right to property, protected by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. They should, and do, use that protection to make money themselves by selling manufacturing rights to businesses. For them (the patent holder and the medical companies) to not sell and profit from their idea would lack prudence on their part. ï¿½ IV. In Event of Emergency… ï¿½ The government has provided ways for a patent holder to be reimbursed for the use of his idea/product. And while the Fifth Amendment does state, "…nor shall private property be taken for public use…" (What else is a patent if not private property?), this line is followed by a subordinate clause: "without just compensation." The U.S. government has every right to use any idea put forth in writing and approved as a patent, so long as they pay the asking price of the owner, the same way they would pay for anything else. With an administration that is willing to pay upwards of two trillion dollars on a war overseas, any price would be reasonable for protection of a nation's own citizens. Right? ï¿½ In any case, this is evident in the legislation recently up for approval in the District of Columbia and Vermont to issue "compulsory drug licenses" to patent holders that regulate, exactly as I have outlined above, the way in which the government may go about obtaining a pharmaceutical under protection by U.S. patent.