New Member Tournament: Libertarianism

I apologize for my forfeiture, real life came up and I didn't have time to write an argument. Please give my opponent the conduct vote. As there will be one less round than I have originally planned, I will have to write a short refutation and a summary of my case. Because of this and the unfortunate slow development, this debate will not have a lot of clash. I apologize for this. Because this is mainly my fault, I am fine if my opponent offers refutations and new points in his case that I cannot refute. Refutations 1. When protecting some rights, you must cede others. My opponent's major contention is that when you are protecting people's rights, you inevitably must cede others. Libertarians have a simple refutation of that called the Non-Aggression Principle. It states that one can legally do whatever he or she wishes as long as he or she doesn't initiate violence, at which point your rights are essentially gone, and the government or your victim is free to violate some of your rights by putting you in jail or defending their life[1]. This makes sense, for why should the government be able to stop you from doing things that don't harm others? However, by protecting your rights, they can also not violate other's rights because of the Non-Aggression Principle- after all, if they need to protect your rights, then someone is aggressing and they don't have rights according to the Non-Aggression Principle. "How do you suppose a libertarian government function if it is not funded by the people?" My statement was worded poorly. What I meant was why should the government be able to force people to pay for things that they have arbitrarily declared as immoral and/or moral if it isn't involved with protecting other's rights? "I have a simple question for my opponent. Do you advocate capitalism as the prime motivation for progress? My rebuttal of this point will be dependent on his answer." I do think that the free market and incentives is the prime motivation for progress, because what else could be the primary motivation? Most people do not go into business or get a job because they want to help people. It's because they want to make a money. An example of this is recycling. Recycling certainly is progress because it leads to less waste and more material available. When there is no monetary incentive to recycle, the recycling rate stays relatively low- for example, plastic's recycling rate is 27%[2]. There is a monetary incentive for aluminum, and the rate for aluminum cans is 55.4%[3]. If there was $50 for every aluminum can recycled, the rate would rise to almost 100%. The primary reason for this would be the incentive of money. My Case The main reason I have used to advocate Libertarianism is that it is the most "right", as there is no reason to stop people from doing things that do not harm others. After all, if something does not harm others, then why should it be illegal? My second point was that as Libertarianism leads to the free market, which is more efficient than other markets. Trade is conducted when both sides think that they are better off. Because other systems interfere with this, the free market leads to a better society than other types of markets. Sources [1] http://www.lewrockwell.com... [2] http://earth911.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...