Pages

Monday, August 16, 2004

More Misc Cards

UPDATE: 8/17 @ 4:30 PM
Just some more miscellanous cards I've stumbled upon, various topics. I don't know how much will be useful for the current topic.

Justice Hugo Black, Majority Opinion, Younger v. Harris (1971, 401 US 37), on the meaning of Federalism
"The concept [of federalism] does not mean blind deference to 'States' Rights' any more than it means centralization of control over every important issue in our National Government and its courts. The Framers rejected both these courses. What the concept does represent is a system in which there is sensitivity to the legitimate interests of both State and National Governments, and in which the National Government, anxious though it may be to vindicate and protect federal rights and federal interests, always endeavors to do so in ways that will not unduly interfere with the legitimate activities of the States."

A solid, balanced definition of Federalism, I think.

N. Stephen Kinsella, "New Rationalist Directions In Libertarian Rights Theory," Journal of Libertarian Studies Vol. 12 No. 2 Fall 1996.Gives a good summary of Hans Herman Hoppe's argumentation ethics, as well as some other libertarian rights justifications.
"[A]rgumentation, as a form of action, implies the use of the scarce resources of one’s body. One must have control over, or own, this scarce resource in order to engage in meaningful discourse. This is because argumentation is a conflict-free way of interacting, by its very nature, since it is an attempt to find what the truth is, to establish truth, to persuade or be persuaded by the force of words alone. If one is threatened into accepting the statements or truth claims
of another, this does not tend to get at the truth, which is undeniably a goal of argumentation or discourse. Thus, anyone engaging in argumentation implicitly presupposes the right of self-ownership of other participants in the argument, for otherwise the other would not be able to consider freely and accept or reject the proposed argument. Only as long as there is at least an implicit recognition of each individual’s property right in his or her own body can true argumentation take place. When this right is not recognized, the activity is no longer argumentation, but threat, mere naked aggression, or plain physical fighting. Thus, anyone who denies that rights exist contradicts himself since, by his very engaging in the cooperative and conflict-free activity of argumentation, he necessarily recognizes the right of his listener to be free to listen, think, and decide."

This always seemed to me to be a ripe foundation for a kritik. Since your opponent is engaging in a discursive activity, he is effectively locked into accepting libertarian norms to avoid a performative contradiction. Kinsella states:
If participants in argumentation necessarily accept particular truths, including norms, in order to engage in argumentation, they could never challenge these norms in an argument without thereby engaging in a performative contradiction. This would establish these norms as literally incontestable truths."


Foreign Policy May/June 2004 "Ranking the Rich 2004," (no author given) is a study showing how generous/effective the rich are in terms of giving financial aid and assistance to the poor. There's lots of neat stuff in here, but this really jumped out at me
"Citizens in rich countries often think of environmental protection in terms of preserving the world for their children and grandchildren—people who do not participate in today's environmental degradation but who will suffer its consequences. Yet today's global poor are already harmed by irresponsible environmental policies. Rich countries are the primary users of scarce global resources, but poor countries are the most likely to be hurt by ecological deterioration and the least capable of adapting. These countries typically have weak infrastructures and social services, making them particularly vulnerable to the floods, droughts, and spread of infectious diseases that global climate change could bring."

Nice impacts, potential for a mindset challenge (only viewing environmental problems "to save the children"), fairness issues brought up.

And finally, something that may actually be of use to those researching the privacy topic Justice Anthony Kennedy, Majority Opinion, Lawrence and Garner v. Texas (2003)
Liberty protects the person from unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places. In our tradition the State is not omnipresent in the home. And there are other spheres of our lives and existence, outside the home, where the State should not be a dominant presence. Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct. The instant case involves liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions.

And also quoted within the opinion
In 1955 the American Law Institute promulgated the Model Penal Code and made clear that it did not recommend or provide for "criminal penalties for consensual sexual relations conducted in private." It justified its decision on three grounds: (1) The prohibitions undermined respect for the law by penalizing conduct many people engaged in; (2) the statutes regulated private conduct not harmful to others; and (3) the laws were arbitrarily enforced and thus invited the danger of blackmail.


NEW:
This might be a stronger pro-privacy card
Edward Bloustein, "Privacy as an Aspect of Human Dignity: An Answer to Dean Prosser," 39 NYU Law Review 962, 973-974 (1964)
"[A] measure of personal isolation and personal control over the conditions of its abandonment is of the very essence of personal freedom and dignity, is part of what our culture means by these concepts. A man whose home may be entered at the will of another, whose conversations may be overheard at the will of another, whose marital and familial intimacies may be overseen at the will of another, is less of a man, has less human dignity, on that account. He who may intrude upon another at will is the master of the other and, in fact, intrusion is a primary weapon of the tyrant."


Another patchwork of random quotable material, courtesy of the friendly Debate Link staff!

No comments:

Post a Comment