On the contrary, I would take exception to the idea of "allowed." There are certain situations where society may frown upon something as immoral or distasteful, but this does not necessarily equate to a rule of law. We would enter into a debate on the philosophy of law and other jurisprudential and meta-law topics here, or possibly an argument about the merits of libertarianism, if that goes further. But I will say that your question included, specifically, "by law." Therefore, it automatically includes a large degree of philosophical and definitional baggage.
I will agree that certain exteralities would need to be defined out, and only a very few professions, if any, would fall into the affirmative position.
Yes, the question is are there any. I can imagine a police force that is motivated by a profit motive, as it is a motivating force, if the incentives are structured correctly. Say, docking pay for false arrests, while simultaneously giving merit awards for beats with low crime rates. This would also involve a strong QA function overseeing the police to ensure no shennanigans. I wouldn't say that this would be the best system, but I can see it being one that society could well accept.
Additionally, I believe we disagree on the meaning of my last sentence in the prior position statement. "Should" additionally carries weight. I would not say that the law "should" do what it does, but it does. The laws regarding profits in certain areas are expedient tools for society's goals. But the "should" of the question requires the philosphical position that society's goals need be resolved through legal maxims, as opposed to other moral, ethical, cultural, or similar structures. Even economic structures. All I said was that society may want to deal witha conflict of interest, and law may be a tool by which to deal with that. But I do not agree that for all human societies, for all aspects, that law should prohibit profit. And therefore, I cannot agree with the affirmative posititon that any particular human activity, by law, as a categorical rule, should be precluded from the profit motive. Society will make certain choices, but that does not mean that in the abstract, the law should be the medium for those choices, or that the choices need have the content of excluding the profit motive.
I see your point on the difference between "should" and "must". I admit to a layman's perspective on the law. I'll have to be more careful crafting the next topic statement. I also should have specified the legal environment with a phrase such as, "by United States federal law" or "under English common law" or "using Maori tribal precedent" or some such.
Still, as Americans debating in America, there is a real environment in which we live. In this environment more and more necessary activities which were once done by government at every level are being 'privatized' into for-profit enterprises. It is under these circumstances that the Resolution is proposed.
There is a prima facie case that necessary and proper human enterprises such as fire departments should not be run on a for-profit basis. Fire departments in fact once were privately run for profit. The decision was made that the risk to public safety was too great to allow houses to burn because of the lack of private insurance and thus public fire departments paid for with tax dollars were created. It is instructive that, when public fire departments were invented in the mid-19th century, there were people opposed to the their creation.
While valid philosophical arguments can be made that carefully crafted incentive schemes could make necessary public functions into profit centers, this is counter to human nature and unnecessarily complicates what should be relatively simple decisions. Thus, it is clear that the Resolution should be decided in the affirmative.
I will agree that certain exteralities would need to be defined out, and only a very few professions, if any, would fall into the affirmative position.
Yes, the question is are there any. I can imagine a police force that is motivated by a profit motive, as it is a motivating force, if the incentives are structured correctly. Say, docking pay for false arrests, while simultaneously giving merit awards for beats with low crime rates. This would also involve a strong QA function overseeing the police to ensure no shennanigans. I wouldn't say that this would be the best system, but I can see it being one that society could well accept.
Additionally, I believe we disagree on the meaning of my last sentence in the prior position statement. "Should" additionally carries weight. I would not say that the law "should" do what it does, but it does. The laws regarding profits in certain areas are expedient tools for society's goals. But the "should" of the question requires the philosphical position that society's goals need be resolved through legal maxims, as opposed to other moral, ethical, cultural, or similar structures. Even economic structures. All I said was that society may want to deal witha conflict of interest, and law may be a tool by which to deal with that. But I do not agree that for all human societies, for all aspects, that law should prohibit profit. And therefore, I cannot agree with the affirmative posititon that any particular human activity, by law, as a categorical rule, should be precluded from the profit motive. Society will make certain choices, but that does not mean that in the abstract, the law should be the medium for those choices, or that the choices need have the content of excluding the profit motive.
Reply
Still, as Americans debating in America, there is a real environment in which we live. In this environment more and more necessary activities which were once done by government at every level are being 'privatized' into for-profit enterprises. It is under these circumstances that the Resolution is proposed.
There is a prima facie case that necessary and proper human enterprises such as fire departments should not be run on a for-profit basis. Fire departments in fact once were privately run for profit. The decision was made that the risk to public safety was too great to allow houses to burn because of the lack of private insurance and thus public fire departments paid for with tax dollars were created. It is instructive that, when public fire departments were invented in the mid-19th century, there were people opposed to the their creation.
While valid philosophical arguments can be made that carefully crafted incentive schemes could make necessary public functions into profit centers, this is counter to human nature and unnecessarily complicates what should be relatively simple decisions. Thus, it is clear that the Resolution should be decided in the affirmative.
Reply
Leave a comment