Property Rights Ought Not Exist in the United States

My opponent's response to my case was interesting, yet flawed. I will start with his definitions. He defines ownership as "legal right of possession." I propose the alternate definition of the " possession with the right to transfer possession to others" from Princeton WordNet 3.1 . ( http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...= ) Prefer my definition over his for two reasons. First, mine is more credible than his because it was a definition crafted by lexicographers from one of the top universities in the United States, while his definition is from a random website. Second, my definition links more directly to justice, which is an objective standard for weighing the round. "Legal right of possession" cannot adequately account for property rights because it could justify any sort of theft as long as the law provides for it; for example, it would justify British theft of American properties as long as British law mandated that British citizens have the right to seize American properties. My definition precludes this because it has a philosophical, rather than a legal, basis. The crux of his case is that because the United States legal system grants individuals the right to property, U.S. citizens should have it. The main problem with this notion is that it fails to respond to my analysis that the United States government DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to grant U.S. citizens property rights. In my first contention, I explained that humans have no inherent right to claim ownership over terrestrial objects because they did not create those objects and because the objects themselves, like trees, often have their own interests that are independent of human consumption. Notice that his response does not even adequately address this because it does not contradict it in any form. Moreover, my contention preempts his rebuttal of "the U.S. government gives these rights" because if humans do not have the right to use terrestrial objects for their personal gain, then individuals do not have the right to divide and allocate these resources. The government is a collective of humans and it thus has the same restrictions and limitations that humans do. Moreover, he argues that "rights are associated with a philosophical theory rather than an intrinsic quality of humans." Note that almost all philosophical theories contend that rights stem from intrinsic human qualities, so this argument is meaningless. His other major response was that people can give themselves property rights. The flaw with this idea is that property rights theory itself is against this notion. If people could give themselves property rights, then they could easily appropriate any objects, including those that belong to others, as their own. However, this would be theft because the rights to use and possess the object in question do not actually belong to that individual. What my opponent proposes is the moral equivalent of theft; he claims that people can choose to appropriate property and goods that do not belong to them simply because it is beneficial to them. Given that this violates property rights, humans cannot choose when to grant themselves property rights. Additionally, just because something benefits an individual does not mean that he has the right to carry out that action. A rapist might derive pleasure from assaulting an innocent child, for example, but that does not mean that he should be permitted to use the child as he pleases. Similarly, it might be beneficial for humans to claim ownership over terrestrial objects, but that does not mean that they should be able to just because they want to. Humans did not create those objects and the objects preexist humans, so they have no claim over those objects. In my second contention, I explained that even if humans do have some inherent right to claim ownership over terrestrial objects, this right belongs to the species as a whole and not to particular humans, meaning that individual conceptions of property rights cannot be implemented. He again responds with "the U.S. government allows it." Again, just because the government allows it does not mean that it is just or correct. The government allowed slavery in the 1800s, for example, but that does not mean that slavery is just. Moreover, since the government is just a collective body of humans, it has the same limitations as humans do, so if humans do not have the right to individually seize goods as their own, then the government also cannot be allowed to permit humans to do so. His other "response" was merely asserting that the rights that I claim do not exist actually do. This is not a response to my argument, so you can extend my second contention. In contention 3, I explained that EVEN IF YOU IGNORE MY FIRST TWO CONTENTIONS, I will win because Native Americans were the original "owners" of the U.S. property. He responds by claiming that this justifies property rights. REMEMBER, THIS CONTENTION ONLY APPLIES IF THE FIRST TWO FALL. IF THEY DO NOT, THEN THIS CONTENTION IS MEANINGLESS. He then claims that Native Americans did not occupy the entirety of present day United States. Here is a map that proves that they did: http://home.comcast.net... This means that they do, in fact, have a claim on the entire United States, so the U.S. does not have the right to grant its citizens property rights IF HUMANS, DO, in fact possess the right to claim individual ownership over terrestrial objects. Thus, because the affirmative case was virtually unchallenged, you should vote affirmative. Thank you.