Distributive justice is a just economic system.

It looks to be quite interesting. I would also like to apologize for labeling my case “affirmative” in the first round. It was a mistake. I am arguing for the negative, so from now on, my case will be accurately labeled “negative. ” And with that, I will review my case, and then go on to examine my opponent’s affirmative case. NEGATIVE CASE My opponent has conceded my definitions and my value/criterion. He has thus conceded that if distributive justice does not respect individual rights, it is unjust and thus the resolution is false. I am well able to, and indeed have, proved this is the case. CONTENTION 1: EVERY PERSON HAS AN UNALIENABLE RIGHT TO HIS OWN PROPERTY My opponent has also conceded this contention, thus conceding that “Not a single person has the prerogative to violate any other person’s right to his property. ” I regard this as an obvious fact and thank my opponent for not contesting it. CONTENTION 2: THE ECONOMIC SYSTEM OF DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE VIOLATES THE INDIVIDUAL’S RIGHT TO PROPERTY. This is where I was expecting my arguments to be contested. The entire debate hinges on this issue. My opponent has already conceded that if distributive justice does not respect individual rights, he loses. He has already conceded that the individual’s property rights are absolutely inalienable; that no one can violate them. Therefore, if this contention is true, he loses. If my opponent is to win this debate, HE MUST PROVE THIS CONTENTION FALSE. This is why I was so surprised to find that he has completely dropped this contention. He has not addressed it anywhere in his argument. It has been absolutely ignored. In summary, my opponent has conceded my entire case. He has not contested a single argument. He has dropped every single one of them. He has conceded that if distributive justice does not respect individual rights, I win. He has conceded that distributive justice does not respect individual rights. He has therefore conceded that I win! AFFIRMATIVE CASE Seabiscuit: “Your notion of property rights, require a deliberate subtraction of rights from other people that want to own the same property. ” FACT: This is a misnomer. My opponent says that my conception of property rights requires the subtraction of other people’s rights. However, it is impossible to take away from someone something that they do not possess. No two people can have a just claim on the same property, and therefore only one person can have a legitimate and unalienable right to it. And so, taking away property from someone who wants to own it does not violate their rights as long as they are not the legitimate owner of that property. However, it is strange that my opponent would bring up this argument, because it is in reality one of the best arguments against distributive justice. In fact, considering my opponent is arguing for distributive justice, it is actually his notion of property rights that requires the deliberate violation of rights, except that under his conception, the rights that are being violated belong to the actual proprietor of those rights, not someone who merely aspires to have those rights. The process, inherent in the distributive justice system, which is euphemistically referred to as “redistribution,” actually consists of seizing property (usually money) from its rightful owner, completely contrary to his will, and then giving it to those who did not earn it and do not deserve it (if that isn’t “a deliberate subtraction of rights,” I don’t know what is). Seabiscuit: “He (Nozick) also thinks that its only "just" if the physical process doesn't injure the situation of others. Therefore, by your dialectical justification your required to prove that your laissez faire system isn't inimical to other people. ” FACT: First of all, I would like to point out that my opponent has not empirically proved that Nozick does indeed believe what he says he does; he merely asserts it. More importantly, however, even assuming Nozick did claim this, this entire argument is wholly irrelevant, because I am not Robert Nozick. Just because I cite him as a philosophical authority (which he is), does not mean I concur with all of his beliefs. Refuting an entirely unrelated view of Robert Nozick has no bearing on this debate whatsoever. Contrary to what my opponent says Nozick says, justice will always inherently damage the situation of others. Justice entails giving to someone what he is due, which implies not giving it to someone who also wants, and may need, it, as well as taking it from someone who does not have a just claim on it. Does this justice harm the situation of these needy but undeserving men? Certainly. But is it still justice? Absolutely. Seabiscuit: “What arbitrary process makes it appropriate for the first person with the capacity to discover this land, the owner of it? There is no natural universal declaration on the subject. Therefore it would unjust for the assumption to be made, for example, that I somehow am granted immediate ownership of the entire planet of mars just because I was the first one on the planet. ” FACT: It is true that it the process which determines who discovers what land is sometimes entirely arbitrary. However, this point is entirely irrelevant. While the process by which ownership of property is determined may be arbitrary, the obligations that arise from it are not. For instance, it may be wholly arbitrary that a baby is born on one side of the Rio Grande as opposed to the other, but that does not mean that the United States government is obligated to provide Medicare to Mexicans, or vice-versa. Seabiscuit: “Distributive justice is an artificial system that is required to avoid extinction. ” FACT: And yet here we are, still remarkably un-extinct. The free market has been rampant for decades, even centuries, and the fact is that we are better off for it. It has produced a standard of living unparalleled by any system in the past, for the wealthy and for the poor. And so distributive justice is clearly not required to save the human race from extinction. Seabiscuit: “The system of events in a world without regulation would allow for a number of different process' that hinder the health of the general constituency. For example, Global climate change has been brought on by collective use of fossil fuels and the like, which in your own economically deregulated system would be irreversible, and perpetual. ” FACT: First of all, I would like to point out that this entire argument presupposes the (shaky at best) hypothesis of man-caused climate change. However, this hypothesis is highly debated and contested on many fronts. To just throw a global warming bomb into the debate is completely extraneous to the matter at hand. Furthermore, my opponent seems to confuse regulation with money in this argument. This debate is not about regulation or the lack of it. I have not offered any arguments concerning regulation. Neither should my opponent. Regardless of who holds resources (in this case, fossil fuels), based on whatever economic justice system you choose (distributive, entitlement, etc. ), those resources are always going to be used (thus, according to my opponent, melting the ice caps and drowning adorable fuzzy polar bear cubs). And so, this entire argument is a big non sequitir, completely unrelated to the actual debate. And even if you accept that it is somehow relevant, it doesn’t matter because no matter what you do, resources are always going to be used by somebody. In conclusion, my opponent has dropped and thus entirely conceded my entire case. He has also offered, many of them complete non sequitirs, wholly unrelated to anything being discussed. In short, I have won my case, and I have won his case: I have therefore won the debate.