Self-Ownership Libertarianism

I thank barebels for this debate. At this time I will defend my case. I am not going to defend all of the arguments I made, because I only need a few to win. P1. SELF-OWNERSHIP SP1. Treating People as Self-Owners with "inviolable" Rights to Themselves as Property leads to Absurd Moral Dilemmas None of Con's comments actually have anything to do with my argument. My argument was that self-ownership creates absurd moral dilemmas, whereby we could not scratch a finger of another person in order to save the whole word. Con's response is that self-ownership will "foster a wholesome sense of personal responsibility" because it makes people accountable for their choices. In other words, Con is 100% non-responsive to my argument. My argument therefore stands. Self-Ownership will result in absurd and clearly false moral conclusions, and is, as result, not a sufficient accounting of how government morally ought to act. This argument alone is sufficient to negate, because it takes out the underlying theory of self-ownership that Con has to advocate for. SP2. Self-Ownership Rewards Luck, Not Hard Work or Autonomy Con argues that because luck impacts people in non-SOL societies, my argument is moot. But this just isn't true. While luck my never be eliminated, it can be mitigated. Redistributive policies, for instance, can minimize the impacts of sheer, dumb luck on our ability to succeed in society. Such policies are contrary to SOL. So, not only is Con's one argument against this point wrong (in that my point isn't moot), but, once you extend my argument, it harms the underlying logic of SOL because it shows that the theory isn't actually protecting people's freedom or equality, but rather it is protecting the lucky just because they are lucky. SP3. Treating People as Property is Morally Problematic Con concedes that under SOL, people could sell themselves into slavery. He states, however, that no one would be desperate enough to do that. But Con is just patently wrong here. If I am in a position where I have no money, where I am starving due to the paucity of resources around, I might contemplate selling myself to a slavetrader just in the hopes that they might give me to someone who would feed me and provide me shelter. History has given us plenty of intsances where people have done this, and it is certainly not inconceivable even today--esp. in an SOL world where governments are not giving aid to the needy. But, regardless, the merely possibility that I could sell myself is theoretically catastrophic for SOL, as I will explain. ---SP3. A. Coercion is present. Con never disputes that coercion is present in someone's decision to become a slave. This destroys SOL on a theoretical level because: 1. SOL permits only uncoerced decisions 2. SOL permits slavery 3. Slavery is not an uncoerced decision Conclusion: SOL is self-contradictory. This argument alone is sufficient to negate, because it takes out the underlying theory of self-ownership that Con has to advocate for. ---SP3. B. Selling myself into slavery, even if it wasn't uncoerced, still invalidates self-ownership. Con just asserts that I can choose to sell myself. Frankly, I don't think Con understands what I am arguing. If something is inherent within me, it is something I cannot sell or change. Self-ownership is inherent within me, which creates the following problem: 1. Under SOL, I will always own myself (inherency) 2. Under SOL, others can own me (slavery) Conclusion: SOL is self-contradictory. This argument alone is sufficient to negate, because it takes out the underlying theory of self-ownership that Con has to advocate for. SP5. Being reliant on Property rights to Ground Freedom is Dangerous Pro talks about coercion, but that's totally tangential to the main point of my evidence. The important part is: "someone with no property has no guaranteed freedom, and that the more property you have, the greater your guaranteed freedom. In other words, a distribution of property is a distribution of freedom, as the libertarians themselves define it. Thus. .. the libertarians are saying that the best way of promoting freedom is to allow some people to have more of it than others, even when this leads to some having very little or even none. " Pro does not rebut any of this analysis. Basically what he is saying then is that, under SOL, people without property have virtually no freedom, so they essentially start out with fewer rights than the rest of us. This is dangerous for several reasons, but, mostly, it is just contradictory to the point of SOL. Throughout this debate, Pro has told us that SOL is about people being responsible for their choices, but here, freedom is assigned not on the basis of choice, but on the basis of wealth. At this point, regardless of what other offense you think Pro has in the debate, you can vote Con. This is because the theory of self-ownership itself is flawed, and so Pro is unable to meet his burden to prove sufficiency as it was defined in R1.