The U.S. Government Ought Not Sell the UnaBomber's Possessions

I'll go Con, then Pro. < > -It is natural that a view on morality is not universally accepted. You'd be hard-pressed to find a moral theory that nobody objects to. Utilitarianism and Locke's Social Contract are also not universally accepted as morally correct. < -Where are some of these principles? I know I can find places where the Categorical Imperative was used. Granting the right to vote to people of all race, and then to both genders is a clear application of the First Maxim (act only if you can universalize). The U.S. government universalized the right to vote. Even then, just because utilitarianism had some role in drafting the Constitution we don't have to throw away the Imperative. <<...and the philosophy of John Locke>> -Are Locke's philosophy and Kant's incompatible in criminal justice? < > -It is better to show that the resolution adheres to our current Constitutional principles. <> -I accept that my maxim was not specific enough, but this maxim is not either. The maxim should be "A criminal's possessions can be sold without his/her permission in order to provide civilly rewarded restitution to said criminal's victims". We are focusing on selling possessions unwillingly. << the Unabomber used many persons as means...>> -That just means the Unabomber's actions were immoral. How does that have a bearing on anything else? << if the second formulation were applied in the manner my opponent proposes, the involuntary imprisonment of rapists and murderers would be morally incorrect, and ought to be discontinues.>> -While the involuntary imprisonment may be 'immoral', it is not 'unjust'. There is a difference between morality and justice. They may lead us to similar conclusions in some places, but different conclusions in others. << The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, I fail to see how the sale of the Unabomber's writings violates this>> -There is absolutely no warrant here. Con says that there is no First Amendment violation here because he doesn't see one. There is no analysis or reasoning behind this claim. -The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech" (the omitted portion is about religion). Confiscating and selling writings, which are considered speech, abridges the Unabomber's freeom of speech. In a legal sense, abridge is defined as "to reduce or lessen in duration, scope, authority, etc.; diminish; curtail" (http://dictionary.reference.com...). When the government confiscates his writings without permission and sells them, they are abridging his freedom of speech. < > -While the social contract theory does say that rights can be compromised when a law is violated, that does not mean that it can justify any rights lost. A violation of a law does not lead to a criminal forfeiting all of his rights, only some of them. You don't say "someone broke the law, therefore we shall void all his rights". A violation of the contract does not lead to a violation of all rights. In this case, we are talking about abridging one of the Unabomber's most fundamental rights: speech. I forgot to source the Categorical Imperative last round, so here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org... Resolution Affirmed.