Secession is justified (morally)

My opponent had his argument written, but ran out of time by just a few seconds to post it. To keep up the debate, I would like if you, readers and voters, could read his rebuttal in this link: http://www.mediafire.com...If you could, please disregard the forfeit and vote as usual. RebuttalsContradiction in the argument for Kantian Ethics "When I explained that we have an obligation to remedying violations of morality, I never justified positive obligations."My opponent is basically saying that Kantian ethics does not require us to do something, it only requires us to not do something. He however still maintains that we have "an obligation to remedying violations of morality." This is a flat contradiction. The obligation to rememdy is a positive obligation in and of itself, as it requires us to do something. There is no such thing as a negative obligation to remedy because remedying is an action, not an inaction. Natural Rights for THINGS that are not natural?"However, organizations are prescribed natural rights, and thus may still secede. Organizations are moral agents. Wilmot (4) explains, "[W]e can find cognitive attributes such as perception, reasoning, co-ordination and implementation; and moral elements such as rationality and respect in many organisations; and that organisations on that basis [can] be treated as moral actors with moral dispositions." Thus, states are moral actors and can have natural rights."The quote my opponent presents attempts to put sentient qualities to inanimate things! Organizations cannot rationalize. Organizations cannot respect. Organizations cannot perceive. Organizations cannot reason. The PEOPLE in organizations are the one's who do those things. My opponent conceded that states/organizations are inanimate entities that exist independently of the people who run them. Yet, he turns around and mistakes the moral qualities OF those people as the qualities for these non-sentient political concepts. In short, pro essentially asserted a non-conscious THING the ability to think. In light of the fact that an organization such as a U.S State is mutually agreed to be a THING, I maintain the argument that things cannot think or act in moral manners. An organization/state merely projects the morality of the sentient beings that drive them. It does not mean that the organization itself has somehow become sentient. Therefore, it does not mean that the organization/state can be owed morality or natural rights. Hence, a state cannot be owed a right. ----> A state of America has no "right" to autonomy. Relinquished Sovereignty Argument Defended"Now, my opponent's final limitation on autonomy is the relinquishment of sovereignty. This represents a legal occurance, and what is legally true. However, what is implicated legally is not what ought to be implicated morally"From what I proved in the last argument, the only FORM of obligation that can exist to a THING is a legal form. Objects cannot wield morality or be owed morality. Therefore, the only kind of rule that exists over a concept like the state is a legal one. Now, I am aware that the state must be moral to the people it governs, but I stress that it is actually the PEOPLE of the state that must be moral. If our secession argument was about the right of the PEOPLE of the government to leave America, then I would be fine with that. However, this is about the object, the state itself, the organization itself, being able to secede. The object of the state is only bound by legal inclinations. It is the people that run and operate these entities that are bound by moral inclinations. Therefore, if I can prove it is not legal to secede, I prove that secession is not justified in any form, as legality is the only remaining form that exists for such an object. Extend my relinquished sovereignty argument which proves that secession is illegal. My opponent would have to refute this legal argument to get anywhere. Anarchy"I agree that this is legally true. However, as we can see through Kant's argument, while we are not morally obligated to secede, we are morally obligated to protect our own autonomy and refin from violating that of others. Thus, secession is morally justified, as if we secede, we remove these limitations from our autonomy. If it leads to anarchy, even better. If there is no government, there can be no limitations on autonomy as nobody has legally seceded autonomy to any other body."Pro's entire argument was centered around the assertion that states are moral agents. Having disproved that, I suppose that destroys the foundation of his other contentions. This argument he provides here is also invalidated due to the fact that states are not owed morality. So even if anarchy is good and in line with Kantian ethics, such does not apply to the state which is only bound by legal inclinations. The fact is:1. States are things (both Pro and Con have agreed on this)2. Things are not owed morality3. States cannot be owed a moral right to auonomy Hence the resolution is negated. I urge you to vote CON. Thank you.