Zaradi's Prized Tournament: Resource Extraction in Developing Nations

Thanks to Bossy!CON's CASEI have 4 objections that will make here:O1. Necessary LimitsCon writes that "that which arises out of voluntary choice is that which should be." If I voluntary kill someone, is that what should be? Con suggests that any moral system requires people to have the ability to choose, but certainly the ability to breath is a prerequisite to choice, and so we have to have some limits on what voluntary actions can be undertaken.It appears that Con's ultimate goal is to protect people's freedom, and so, under Con's framework, a reasonable restriction to place on actions then would seek to protect this core value. Mills' harm principle articulates such a restriction: "That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." [1] This could be rephrased to say that any action that does not impinge upon or limit the freedom/property of others is permissible.It is important here to note that if Con doesn't accept some kind of restriction he would be essentially justifying murder, theft, rape, and a parade of other horribles. So, assuming that some basic type of restriction is necessary, and this restriction would be designed to protect the freedom and/or the wellbeing of others, I will show that resource extraction actual does harm the freedom and wellbeing of others.Recall that resource extraction promotes disease, leads to environmental refugees, and leads to lower food supplies. There is even evidence that an emphasis on resource extraction promotes destructive war and conflict:“[T]he economic benefits of mining and logging operations accrue to a small business or government elite and to foreign investors. But in case after case, an array of burdens--ranging from the expropriation of land, disruption of traditional ways of life, environmental devastation, and social maladies--are shouldered by the local population...This has led to violent conflict in places like Nigeria's Niger Delta, Bougainville in Papua new Guinea, and several provinces in Indonesia. Rather than full-fledged war, these conflicts usually involve smaller-scale skirmishes, roadblocks, acts of sabotage, and major human rights violations by state security forces and rebel groups. A number of these conflicts, however, have evolved into secessionist struggles.” [2]These effects of unsustainable resource extraction infringe on the freedom, wellbeing, and property of others. If the pollutants dumped by a corporation in the river kill all the fish and wildlife in a given area, I may be unable to find food to feed myself. Resource-driven war (as well as disease) displaces, kills, maims, and otherwise negatively impacts hundreds of people. Higher water levels that result due to extraction related pollution may cause me to leave my own and belongings behind to seek a safe place to live. More immediately, pollutants in my drinking water may directly kill me. Clearly, resource extraction does threaten the freedom, wellbeing, and property of others, and so limits to those kinds of voluntary actions are justified.O2. Not Truly VoluntaryThere is significant evidence to suggest that multinational corporations coerce governments into allowing them to engage in extractive activities [3] or coerce workers into working in substandard conditions. [4] It is important to note that the presence of coercion invalidates the voluntariness, and thus the morality, of the action. As Con writes: "In the same way that you would not say that a slave has chosen to build a monument to his master, any coercive act destroys the ability of a man to choose."O3. Wildlife and Wilderness are not Owned or Held in CommonOwnership implies control. I have control over my body, my laptop, my labor, and thoughts--all of these things are things that I "own." However, it cannot be said that, were I a local farmer, that I "own" the deer that creep into my fields and much on my corn at night. They may be on my property, but yet I have no control over them; they come and go as they please, and do not rely on my for food, freedom,shelter, or companionship as with my pets. They are outside of the domain of my possessions, and so, they are not my property.Similarly, natural landmarks or parks are not under the control of any one person, they are held in common by the society. Every American owns, together, all of our National Parks, and every Marylander owns, together, our State Parks. And, as a citizen of my county, my county's parks and landmarks are also things I own in part.So, why does this all matter? Well, if no one person owns wildlife or wilderness, then it seems like everyone has a right to use those things as resources, but no one can deny others the right to access these things. For instance, I cannot be stopped from visiting Yellowstone since I am a part owner of this. No one citizen or group of citizens can hold hegemony over a resource that is held in common by a broader population.Unsustainable resource extractors destroy wildlife populations and release toxins and engage in activities that cripple the wilderness. These actors deny other people access to resources that everyone should have equal access to. They impose a kind of hegemony over them, and exploit them to the point where my ability to enjoy or access resources I am entitled to is diminished or eliminated altogether. Isn't this a violation of my freedoms and/or property rights.O4. Some actions can be CompelledPositive rights require that certain things be provided for people--in other words, they compel action. It is important to note here that: "in the context of citizens' rights to state enforcement, all rights are positive." [5] Consider, my rights to life, justice, and property require the government to have police forces and to administer courts of law. The government is compelled to act. So, even if individual persons can avoid such compulsions, the government (which is a different kind of agent) cannot. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to compel the government to issue environmental protections in response to my negative rights."Moreover, the point is often made that the moral urgency of securing positive rights may be just as great as the moral urgency of securing negative rights...Whatever is the justificatory basis for ascribing rights--autonomy, need, or something else--there might be just as strong a moral case for fulfilling a person's right to adequate nutrition as there is for protecting that person's right not to be assaulted." [5] In this case, if we agree that I cannot be free if I am dead, then in the interests of my freedom I should be fed and given a reasonably safe atmosphere in which to live. If Con is going to make the claim that *only* voluntary actions are moral, he needs to explain why society should not ever compel people to take certain actions.OFF-CASEMore harms of unsustainable extraction:OFC1. Logging and Mining are Highly Destructive“[M]ining companies use a range of toxic chemicals to treat the ores extracted. The resulting waste streams are often either intentionally dumped or leaked accidentally, contaminating rivers and lakes. As for logging...many timer operations still engage in devastating clear-cutting practices. The toll inflicted by large-scale logging includes soil erosion, more severe flooding, and the destruction of wildlife habitat and fisheries.” [2]OFC2. Extraction Harms Worsening Each Year"If all the strains on the biosphere--apart from environmental pollution--are added up and converted into area magnitudes, it is possible to quantify the ecological footprint that humans leave on the planet. In the past forty years this indicator has changed dramatically: the global ecological footprint increased by more than 150 percent between 1960 and 2000. If this is related to the biologically productive area of the world...it turns out that since the second half of the 1980s the footprint has been larger than the biologically productive area, currently 25 percent larger.” [6]OFC3. Extraction Promotes Corruption"Among economic activities in the developing world, the commercial exploitation of natural resources is particularly susceptible to corruption because bending the rules can result in substantial profits, and the regulated activities typically take place in remote, difficult-to-monitor locations. Illegal harvesting and export of timber has been widespread in countries such as Malaysia, Brazil, Indonesia, Cambodia, Cameroon, and many others.” [7, for further reading, see 8]SOURCES1 - http://en.wikipedia.org...2 - Renner, Michael, 2002 [Senior Researcher-World Watch Institute] The Anatomy of Resource Wars, Worldwatch Paper 162, p. 48-93 - https://books.google.com...4 - https://books.google.com...5 - http://plato.stanford.edu...6 - Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy, 2005, Fair Future: Resource, Conflicts, Security & Global Justice, eds. W. Sachs & T. Santarius, p. 25-67 - Steinberg, Paul F., 2005 [Political Science Professor - Harvey Mudd College] "From Public Concern to Policy Effectiveness: Civic Conservation in Developing Countries," Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy, 8:4, 341-365, p. 3468 - http://www.theguardian.com...