Resolved: Legislation to Extend First Amendment Rights to Employees and Students

I have been criticized by some for a perceived over-reliance on semantics. But there is a big difference between my opponent's argument when he mentions "My opponent is essentially trading off one right for another..." and his more recent reference to that same argument where he states that my refutation was "... trading one's rights for another's...". My answer to this latest challenge is, if you consider an employer's power to restrict free speech of an employee, even while the employee is in public or in his own home, a RIGHT, then, yes I am trading that power of repression for the right for one to voice his or her opinion without fear of reprisal, as long as the exercise thereof does not conflict with other existing laws. My opponent also feels that "...the supressing of their employers [I believe he inadvertently erred, since he clearly meant 'employees']..."is the means to that end..." and is thus justified "...to keep order and maintain authority in their workplace...". I argue that free speech and the right to assembly, rather than adversely affecting "order" and "authority", actually improve relations by bringing problems between the employer and the employee out into the open and addressing ways to solve perceived wrongs rather than keeping them "bottled up" until the employee either quits or get fired. Let's set the record straight. I was NOT equating the lack of free speech to slavery and I was not referring to today's workers as "Slaves." I was also not promising that today's workers will end up as slaves. I merely made an analogy between slavery and its benefits to an employer as opposed to the the abolishment of slavery and the benefits of freedom gained by the slaves to the "benefits" of being able to suppress free speech by an employer and the greater benefit to today's workers and students by granting them the freedom of speech. "...efficiency is still higher with the status quo. My opponent does not contest this. On the contrary, I do contest this. The freedom to criticize, to complain about working conditions and other grievances is, I am certain my opponent will agree, a fundamental part of Union contracts, indeed, quite often the reason a majority of workers vote for union representation at their workplace. And recent studies have shown that workers represented by a union have a much HIGHER production record than workers in similar workplaces who are not represented by a union. (Page 36, Scientific American - August 1998 (News and Analysis - Economics) Referenced at http://www3.sympatico.ca... "He makes the argument that rights are more important than efficiency. However, this is not always the case. There are two reasons (As well as another related argument that doesn't fit here) 1, Without efficiency, the world collapses. There is a very real slippery slope. If rights are put over efficiency to too great of an extent, the efficiency of the United States will be lowered far too much. This in turn will lead to (1), the end of civilization. Explanation: There are two key concepts here, that of Classical Republicanism (http://en.wikipedia.org......) and Natural Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org......) As of now, we are fairly well balanced between the ideals of classical republicanism (government being the end the people are means to) and natural rights (people being the end government works to) When the latter is overexercised, it leads to the collapse of civilization and the beginning of the state of nature (or the return according to Locke) (2), end of the world. Explanation: if the United States falls into anarchy, not only will quality of life be decreased, but there will be random people in control of nuclear arms and the most powerful (or what was) country on earth. It would not end well, vengeful people looking for people to blame." The ULTIMATE SLIPPERY SLOPE!!! I find it absolutely preposterous that by granting employees of private industry and students of private schools and universities the rights enjoyed by those in public employment and schools that that would CAUSE massive nuclear war and the end of civilization. Just the term "slippery slope" is the title given to a false argument. Unless my opponent can substantiate these claims with bona fide references, I will not bother to refute their validity further. "...many people will eventually lose the right to privacy under the "penumbra" decided in Roe v. Wade." The "penumbra" cited in Roe vs. Wade is actually being violated as we speak by employers and school officials who rely upon statements made in private "chatrooms" to summarily punish employees or students. The rest of Roe vs. Wade has no bearing on this discussion. "...the economical repercussions would be disastrous if you vote in affirmation of this resolution. The efficiency of the United States would decrease, and eventually lead to the END OF THE WORLD. This is too great a risk to take; by voting for my opponent, you are ending the world as we know it." Too ridiculous to respond. "...Efficiency is more important than natural rights..." The First Amendment (as well as this resolution) does not refer to natural, or inalienable, rights. The right of free speech is a right granted by governments and should be granted to all Americans, regardless of employment or student status. To vote Pro, is a vote for human equality. Please, vote Pro...the world will NOT end in a massive nuclear blast because of your vote. I Promise. Thank you