Redistributive Justice

Thanks, Endark!PRO's CASEOverviewCon states: "I may say I own my arm, for if I am a free man, no one else owns it...No one else controls it unless I am a slave; nor is my arm my being. I own it, I use it, but it is not me." Firstly, reiterating arguments is insufficient to address the rebuttals to those arguments I already presented. Also, simply because you are free does not mean that you own yourself, as this implies you can surrender freedom--something Con says is an inalienable right (it's a contradiction). If something is owned, it can also be sold or trade away. If we hold that freedom is an inalienable right, I don't need to own myself to be free--I am not property that can be owned, but rather something beyond ownership: a person. I did prove P1. I stated: "P1 is very straightforwardly demonstrated. 'Own' means to 'possess.' 'Possess' means 'to have.' A thing cannot have itself, because 'to have' implies that said thing has control something other than itself. For example, the phrases 'I have rights,' 'I have a car,' and 'I have a pen' all imply one thing possessing another. Thus, to say, 'a building has itself' is incoherent. The correct verb is not 'has,' but 'is.'" This is important: Con says I never proved P1; yet, as I just showed you, I did. Con DROPS this argument--Con may not attempt to deconstruct or rebut this argument from now on because any such attempt would be an illicit new argument. Con has raised no objection to P2, so my syllogism remains intact: we cannot be self-owners.JusticeThe purpose of an analogy like that is to generate two identical scenarios that differ in a explicitly relevant way, and to compare how, with all other factors held constant, this one difference impacts each scenario. It is not that I am shifting my arguments, it is that Con misunderstands their function.Con says that the situation described in the factory is nigh unheard of in reality. Whether or not the situation is logically implausible is irrelevant as the example is simply illustrating a principle and how said principle functions. Certainly, in real life there will be more nuances to this, but the nuances don't render the core message invalid. Additionally, this resolution is a question of principle, not necessarily of reality; if justice, in principle or in theory, requires redistribution, then it is enough to vote Pro, even if the practical administration of that principle is difficult or impossible.Just because both have agreed to their situation does not make it fair or just. People can consent to unjust acts for a variety of reasons: need and desperation, a lack of information, implicit coercion, etc. I am very sure that "giving each their due" is not the same as "giving each what they consented to have." For the same quality and quantity of work, both workers should, in principle, receive equal remuneration. One person's output is not worth less than the other, so it ought not to be assessed as less than the other in this case.The quote that Con says was rebutting Singer was actually made in response to my C1 (my 4th source), while Singer was my 3rd source. So yes, it was dropped.Con then erroneously asserts that I have failed to show while natural abilities are underserved. In fact, I did. I said: " To talk about "desert" and what someone deserves is to talk about what they have earned or are entitled to. Since a newborn as not earned anything, it is nonsense to talk about desert in that fashion. A newborn is certainly also not entitled to his talents either because his self-ownership is in doubt." Con then proposes that a newborn is entitled to rights; yes, all people are granted certain rights, but this doesn't actually clash with my assertions. I don't have a right to a good singing voice, so I can't claim that my rights were violated when I was born with out one. Similarly, rights cannot be used as a basis for saying that a person deserved those talents they were born with, because they had no right to those talents to begin with. They are arbitrary, and thus, undeserved.Contention 1What you are saying is that "my hand is a part of the rest of my body." This is not saying that you own your hand, rather it is expressing that your hand is part of you. For example, a room in a building is not owned by the building, it is simply part of it. "My" in this case is used to express association. It is your hand, associated with you. Ultimately though, my dropped syllogism should be extend as sufficient for me to win this point.Regarding the first point Con dropped, even if we claim that you have a property right to your talents (which I dispute), this does not mean you deserved those talents in the first place, as you have done nothing to entitle yourself to them or to earn them. If the talents weren't deserved in the first place, then even if they are protected by property rights once you acquire them, that doesn't make them just.As to the second dropped point, that is not the resolution. The resolution is asking whether we should redistribute. This point is explaining that redistribution has links to equality, so if we value equality we should value redistribution.Contention 2Regarding the authors example, cross-apply my arguments about the ability to affirm the resolution on principle or in theory, and that the example is demonstrating a core principle that the nuances of life do not necessarily invalidate. The principle here is that achievement isn't a good standard for desert, as sheer, dumb luck can factor into every person's successes. It is not wrong to take from G to give to H as G was abetted in his success by an unjust accomplice, luck--his winnings are the fruit of the poisonous tree. The means by which he acquired wealth were unjust and arbitrary, and so the wealth itself is tainted.All people are not clones, but that does not justify pointing to arbitrary traits as justification to treat one person better than another. It would be arbitrary to say blacks should be treat worse than whites, gays worse than straights, Canadians worse than Americans, women worse than men--we recognize the immorality in all of these statements because the difference (race, orientation, nationality, gender) have nothing to do with our capacity or worth as human beings. So why should arbitrary traits like luck and innate talent be allowed to distinguish us if things like skins color (just as innate as some talents) aren't? Again, we're looking at the aggregate fitness of A and B. A is more fit than B overall, and thus is more likely to succeed. What if B's talents are in an area already saturated by employees and the industry isn't looking to hire? A's diversity of talent allows him to adapt well to many fields and succeed. Really, Con is trying to suggest that all people are equally capable of success--that's untrue. Insofar as not all people are equally equipped for success, there is a definite disparity present.Contention 3I would disagree--Western society is now full of human rights, many of which positive, such as the right to education, the right to food, the right to healthcare. [1] If you are using rights to say that you don't have to redistribute, then this logic fails. I have a human right to healthcare and education, I have claims on your money, insofar as your tax dollars go to fund healthcare and education, etc. It is not a punishment to set the playing field more evenly, because Hamptons is entitled to an equal shot at success as Juba, but not a better shot just because he was born in a richer society. To fail to equalize the playing field would actually punish Juba for being born in a poor society. Even if the initial distribution of natural assets is neither just nor unjust, we still need redistribution to ensure that those assets are not used to gain an unfair advantage over someone with fewer assets.CON's CASEOverviewCon DROPS his Contentions 1, 2, and 3. He may NOT defend them next round as this would be unfair.What should be the order:R2 - CasesR3 - Rebutting CasesR4 - Defending CasesR5 - Rebutting CasesInstead, Con used R4 to rebut my case, forcing me to defend it. This means I've should have had a chance to rebut Con's defense of his case, but won't. Extend my rebuttals to Con's case; the impacts: (1) Con's case is paradoxical and jeopardizes freedom, (2) Con has failed to prove a right to property exists, (3) it is okay to infringe property rights sometimes, (4) equality of opportunity is a prerequisite for other rights, and (5) a redistributive society violates rights no more than does a libertarian one.These extensions harm, as most of his arguments are predicated on a right to property, which he hasn't show exits and which can be violated given good cause, and since most of Con's arguments about how redistribution is unjust rely on the notion that redistribution violates rights, which a libertarian society (Con's advocacy) also does roughly equally to my advocacy, rights violations are non-unique arguments.Contention 4Con is required to present an alternative solution or show that affirming creates more issues than it solves. If redistribution is the ONLY solution to a problem--a problem Con admits exist--then it has to be our default unless given a better choice. Con has failed to show that his solution is better.VOTING ISSUES 1. Con's have failed to show that a right to property exists--all points based of this right fall because their premise is unsubstantiated.2. Human rights support redistribution3. Equality of Opportunity is necessary for other rights. If rights and justice are linked as Con supposes, then E.O. is just because it enables us to access our rights4. People are not due the arbitrary advantages/disadvantages given to them by nature. The only way to restore fairness (and thus, Justice) is via redistribution Thank you! Please VOTE PRO![1] http://www.un.org...