Libertarianism Kritik



Download 215.46 Kb.
Page1/22
Date conversion08.11.2017
Size215.46 Kb.
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   22

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011

USS Enterprise Lab Libertarianism

Libertarianism Kritik


Libertarianism Kritik 1

1nc regular shell (1/5) 4

1nc regular shell (2/5) 5

1nc regular shell (3/5) 6

1nc regular shell (4/5) 7

1nc regular shell (5/5) 8

1nc story shell (1/6) 9

1nc story shell (2/6) 10

1nc story shell (3/6) 11

1nc story shell (4/6) 12

1nc story shell (5/6) 13

1nc story shell (6/6) 14

1nc – link - “voluntary” payment = coercion 15

1nc – link - coercion disrupts the market 16

1nc – internal link - state = coercive 17

1nc – link/impact - taxation = immoral and fails 18

1nc – impact – coercion causes violence/libertarian peace theory 19

1nc – impact – freedom decision rule 20

1nc – alternative - day-to-day resistance 21


2nc – link - state = coercive 22

2nc – link - ALL taxation = coercive 23

2nc – link – taxation = ownership 24

2nc – link – linear coercion 25

2nc – link – aff doesn’t use competition 26

2nc – AT: permutation 27

2nc – AT: permutation 28

2nc – impact - libertarianism causes peace 29

2nc - AT: libertarian peace theory flawed – [data] 30

2nc – impact – value to life 31

2nc – impact - war 32

2nc – impact – value to life/decision rule 33

2nc –impact – decision rule 34

2nc – impact – moral obligation (1/2) 35

2nc – impact – moral obligation (2/2) 36

2nc – no aff impact - taxation/the state fails 37

2nc – impact - turns the case (1/2) 38

2nc – impact – turns the case (1/2) 39

2nc – alternative – agorism (1/2) 40

2nc – alternative – agorism (2/2) 41

2nc – alternative – agorism – this round is key 42


2nc – alternative – abandoning taxation solves 43

2nc - AT: collectivism good/individualism bad 44

2nc - AT : libertarianism bad/libertarianism flawed - [ignorance] 45

2nc – AT: libertarianism flawed – [human nature] (1/2) 46

2nc – AT: libertarianism flawed – [human nature] (2/2) 47

2nc – AT: libertarianism/privatization causes coercion 48

2nc – framework impact turn – state coercion bad 49

Libertarianism Aff Answers 50

No link – government services = consumer desires 51

Perm: do both – libertarian communism (1/2) 52

Perm: do both – libertarian communism (2/2) 53

No link/impact – libertarian intellectuals disagree 54

Impact turn – libertarianism bad – awesome card (1/4) 55

Impact turn – libertarianism bad – awesome card (2/4) 56

Impact turn – libertarianism bad – awesome card (3/4) 57

Impact turn – libertarianism bad – awesome card (4/4) 58

Impact turn – taxation is good (1/2) 59

Impact turn – taxation is good (2/2) 60


Impact turn – only government can provide social goods 61

Impact turn – libertarianism bad/government good (1/2) 62

Impact turn – libertarianism bad/government good (2/2) 63

Impact turn – coercion good – key to survival and general rights 64

Impact turn – libertarianism causes plutocracy 65

Impact turn – libertarianism causes women oppression 66

Impact turn – libertarianism can’t solve environment 67

Impact turn – government good 68

No impact/alternative - libertarianism flawed – dependency exists 69

Alternative fails – libertarianism = liberalism – vague definitions 70

Alternative fails – coercion inevitable 71

Alternative fails – any residual links revert the revolution 72

Alternative fails/plan solves – the aff is a prerequisite 73

Alternative fails/plan solves – the aff is better and no clear alternative 74

Alternative fails – it’s too simplistic 75




1nc regular shell (1/5)

Taxpayers have a moral right to their income which the aff plan violates – the state can’t identify social goods that could reimburse income, any social goods identified are delivered inefficiently, taxation destroys social goods anyways, and their evidence is biased towards expanded government.


Kuznicki 9 (Jason, facilitator of multiple Cato Institute international publishing projects, Research Fellow and Managing Editor at Cato Unbound [an intellectual think tank publication], prior Production Manager at the Congressional Research Service, Ph.D. in history from Johns Hopkins University, Cato Journal, Book review of The Libertarian Illusion: Ideology, Public Policy, and the Assault on the Common Good, Spring/Summer 2009, Volume 29 Issue 2, http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=0de93721-30a4-4513-87f1-57bf16a8aa5e%40sessionmgr13&vid=2&hid=12, SP)

A taxpayer has a moral claim to all of his honestly acquired income. This claim is stronger than that of any other individual or group. Adding the words "state" or "society" to the claims of others does not change this situation in any relevant sense. This is the heart of libertarian thought on taxation. If lowering taxes changes the state's revenue, a libertarian may find this a fortunate or unfortunate side effect, at his discretion. Hudson, however, disagrees not only with Norquist and Laffer, but also with the libertarian moral claim. He writes. The ability that any of us have to earn income and acquire wealth depends only partly on our own individual efforts. It relies as well on the operation of political, economic, and social institutions that make it possible for any of us to "earn a living." . . . Viewed in this light, those deductions from my paycheck can be seen as reimbursement to society for that portion of my earnings derived from social goods [p. 43]. Although social goods clearly are part of everyone's capacity to earn income, it's a precipitous move to say that the state may therefore tax us. It is by no means clear that the state, among all institutions in society, is best equipped to receive that which we offer in gratitude for social goods. It is doubtful that the state could identify the relevant goods, and that it has supplied, or could supply, any but a few of them effectively. It's even doubtful whether the state could know when taxation itself has become destructive of social goods. Indeed, the state's own incentives run toward overassessing its importance, delivering social "goods" that no one wants, and supplying them in comically inefficient ways. Communitarianism appears unfazed by these concerns, and it proposes adding many new government programs that seem equally likely to fall into these same old traps. It seems that our debt to society is never fully paid, but that society, in the form of the state, is always eager to supply us with more. At what point, if any, is my debt to society—or my debt to a certain very earnest intellectual of highminded ideals—repaid? And why do I find myself having to describe productive work in terms that verge on those of criminal justice?



  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   22


The database is protected by copyright ©hestories.info 2017
send message

    Main page