I'm not going to follow debating format here, since I don't know it:necessaryJuly 28 2009, 14:11:40 UTC
Outlawing profit would be akin to outlawing life, or the sun: there is no possible way for law to control externalities, and should it control externalities, it should control negative externalities, rather than positive externalities. Mind you, there may be human enterprises regarding which society dose not want to condone profiteering, but this si separate and apart from "be allowed to make a profit." I would insist on an example of such a human enterprise
( ... )
Re: I'm not going to follow debating format here, since I don't know it:ob1quixoteJuly 29 2009, 01:21:11 UTC
Considering the Forensic League format consists of four timed speeches per side, I don't believe we should try to replicate that format here. Evidence can be provided as required, but I believe this is a debate of principles and it's not necessary to show specific harms with facts and figures. However, like formal debating, since I am taking the affirmative, I'll assume the privilege of the last word
( ... )
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
( ... )
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
( ... )
Comments 5
Reply
Reply
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 ( ... )
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 ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment