true laissez faire libertarianism iz dangerous

Contention 1: The Role of the GovernmentP1.The Government should only act to enforce the Imperatives of Perfect Duties.P2. Social Programs and regulation does not meet the standard of a Perfect Duty.C1: Thus, the Government should not act to enforce regulations nor social programs..""Kant's first formulation of the CI states that you are to “act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law... Perfect duties come in the form ‘One mustnever (or always) φ to the fullest extent possible in C’, while imperfect duties, since they enjoin the pursuit of an end, come in the form ‘One must sometimes and to some extent φ in C’" [1]According to the above we see that Kant establishes two duties of that of the government; Perfect Duties and Imperfect Duties. Perfect Duties are those things of which the government must provide to ensure that the government and that society is fully functional. What are these things you may ask? These things are the simple things ensured under that of the Social Contract that you give up for a Civilized Society. These things are indeed key as we can see that this ensures that of a Minarchy at the minimum. What that means is that the Government is to ensure that the people are safe. Everything else falls into that of the Imperfect Duties. Now note that these things may protect and benefit the public, we can see that if they're not of the Social Contract like ideals that they automatically fall into this category and SHOULD NOT be carried out by the government, but by Private entities. “Any action is right if it can coexist with everyone's freedom in accordance with a universal law, or if on its maxim the freedom of choice of each can coexist with everyone's freedom in accordance with a universal law” [2]We can see that if the government intervenes on the behalf on the people to infringe on that of an Imperfect duty that they would undermining humanity to achieve their due ends. We can see and must ensure that the Imperfect Duties are carried out by the Private Entites as things like people's health and Private debt is something that is to be delt with by the individual NOT the government. [3] Kant also argues that Rights are not created by the establishment of government. [4] So this furthers that things like Social Programs are not a right for the people and thus it should not be preformed by the federal government, but instead run by a private company.The finial part of the argument here revolves around Distributive Justice. We can see that the there are two types of rights: Positive Rights and Negative Rights.Positive Rights- Duty to help others, like provide Social Security, Free internet, food stamps, welfare, etc...Negative Rights- Freedom of Speach, Press, property, etc... Freedom from Crime, violence, etc... [5]Nozick, Libertarian Ethics Philosopher, has shown that the federal government shoul only enforce negative rights. [6] The distributive justice is the distrabution of society's burdens and benefits. The Libertarian Principle argues for there being no positive Rights, but negative rights on the grounds that people will work the hardest and for the greatest possible soceity through their own means. This was even acknowledged by Alexis De Tocqueville who noted that the American individualism caused them to be self-entrapenurial and to work towards improvement for their own good and that it also helps society. [7] Though many may argue that this causes a division De Tocqueville saw that America was a Civil nation where they they were treated equally and was the only country that called the waiter "Sir" as if he was a knight.Contention 2: Property rights In the Rapanos V US Supreme Court case, Rapanos's land was over 20 miles away from the nearest waterway and the EPA attacked Rapanos claiming that he had Nexus Waters. This means that simply that his lands were "close" enough to Navigatable Waters, but it was over 20 miles away. Another crime was that it was "Hydrologically connected" and in violation of the Migratory bird test. This means that during the birds migration south for the winter is a bird lands on your land it can be protected by the EPA for it being Hydrologically connected. Under this bill this corrupt protection will be nullified. [8] Things have gotten so obseen that things as simple as drainage ditchages are concidered "Navigatable Waters" by the EPA and that shouldn't be permitted. [9] We can continue to see that some of our natural rights are harmed and destroyed when we come to regulation. As I pointed out in my last contention Nozick shows that we need to protect negative rights over positive rights and in this one we are harming our negative righs via positive rights. Not only should this type of regulation not exist, but regulations in general should not exist. Health care can still exist in a Laizze-Faire economy. It would just be private. How do you think we opperated pre-ACA and still opperate? My opponent also fails to realize that we used to live in many of these worlds, but yet nothing bad actually occured. Today we just have horrid governmental overregulation. We can see that if we simply got out of business the prices would handle themselves and would drive the market to bigger better things which include cleaner food and much more. [10]Sources 1. (http://plato.stanford.edu...) 2. (Lectures and Drafts on Political Philosophy, translated Frederick Rauscher and Kenneth Westphal (in preparation). Relevant contents: "Naturrecht Feyerabend" course lecture, fragments on political philosophy, and drafts of works in political philosophy.)3. (Johnson, Robert. "Kant's Moral Philosophy." The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2012.)4. (http://www.follesdal.net...) 5. (The Objectivist Ethics, Ayn Rand (1961)6. (http://ajjulius.net...) 7. (https://mollydodd.wordpress.com...) 8. (http://www2.epa.gov...) [Use wayback machine for this source]9. (http://dailycaller.com...) 10. (http://www.samefacts.com...)