Resolved: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization.

John Locke once said "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." Because I agree with this quote I therefore negate the Resolution Resolved: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization. Value: Natural Rights 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. Those Natural Rights include life, liberty, and property. My Value Criterion is: Limited Government I use the criterion of Limited Government to show how our Natural Rights are jeopardized every time we give the government any more control than necessary. Limited government is a government where any more than minimal governmental intervention in personal liberties and the economy is not usually allowed by law, usually but not mandatory, in a written Constitution. A limited government provides no room for bickering on issues; what the people want is what the people get. Compulsory immunization is a violation of Natural Rights and of Limited Government. It is important for me to define government as any authoritative direction or control. Resolutional Analysis: The judge must be we are not here to debate if they immunizations work but whether or not compulsory immunization is justified. Now before we start my case I would like to offer some Definitions: Justice - judgment involved in the determination of rights and the assignment of rewards and punishments. Concerns - a matter that engages a person's attention, interest, or care, or that affects a person's welfare or happiness Public Health - Refers to the well being of the whole community Contention 1) Choice As free people we have the right to pursue happiness as we see fit insofar as this behavior doesn't injure innocent bystanders. We do not, for instance, have the freedom to drive down the freeway blindfolded even if this behavior were to produce copious amounts of happiness in the driver. The problem with compulsory immunizations is not in the act itself but the fact that it threatens our natural rights to liberty. Immunizations between consenting adults infringes upon no one else's rights and this much is beyond dispute. The declaration of independence guarantees our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To deny or infringe these rights in any way without sound reason is unconstitutional and it is unfair. We have a constitution to guarantee us freedom from the tyranny of the majority. It follows from this that we are not at liberty to deny people rights merely because we find their sickness to be sordid. Subpoint a) equal liberty You can also look to John Rawls' Principle of Equal Liberty, in which, to set up a just society, people must be outfitted with a scheme of basic liberties, compatible with the liberties of others. He argues that self-interested rational persons behind the veil of ignorance would choose two general principles of justice to structure society in the real world, without exactly duplicating, libertarianism in its commitment to extensive liberties. Liberties are imposed upon by the government when compulsory immunizations are made legitimate. .Subpoint b) Preserving individual autonomy Autonomy is the right to set your own agenda to conduct your own affairs with a minimum of outside interference. A self-directing freedom and especially moral independence that is given through Natural Rights. It is when the government forces something upon you that you break this right to autonomy and thus threaten liberty and life. It also violates my value criterion to not preserve autonomy. It violates my criterion because government is considered that outside interference and you are allowed to conduct your own affairs without that interference present. Mandates and compulsory things do not allow this and thus are unjust. Contention 2) Safety/security I'd like to point out first that American society and our Constitution are originally based a lot off of John Locke's 2nd Treatise on Civil Government and Locke states that the first purpose of government is for the protection and enlargement of natural rights; life, liberty, and property; without the protection of government, man is free to take another man's natural rights without restriction; this is the state of nature. So, while my opponent claims that life/liberty/justice is our most important value (and believe me, I agree that it IS important), security is a necessity, because without being in a state of security provided by the government, liberty can not be protected, and ultimately we would have no say in our government. Contention 3) Role of Government People need government, the question is the scope of that government's powers. Power is delegated by the people to their government. As such, the people choose what level of power they want to give to their government. Government exists because the people set it up and is legitimate only to the extent that it does only those things that the people gave it the right to do. What this does is it argues that legitimate government is a limited. government based on consent, in which the majority rules but may not violate people's fundamental rights, I.E. their Natural Rights. Even our founding fathers pointed out the issues with an overpowerful and not limited government "We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal; that 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; that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new Government. I'd like to highlight the words, "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or to abolish it." What this is basically saying, is that if the government becomes oppressive/destructive/non-productive, then they are to be removed It is oppressive to force compulsory immunizations as it interferes with the natural rights to life and liberty. Not enough characters to do a real LD , so I can't attack your case this round