Motion Focus : Banning things

This house would ban…. Probably comes up more than any other kind of motion Tend to concern an action that is ‘too dangerous’ to be allowed to continue freely in society, e.g plastic surgery The most common ‘ban’ motions are: boxing, plastic surgery, photo shop, abortion, gambling, circumcision, pornography ect.

THW Legalise….. The other side of the coin Concern a suppressed action, that people enjoy, sometimes even need, e.g BDSM Often its an action that continues illegally anyway – within a black market, e.g alcohol during the prohibition era Most common legalise motions are: BDSM/S&M, Euthanasia, Drugs, The Sale of Organs

What the debate isn’t These aren’t debates about whether or not action x is harmful. If it’s a debate, the answer is likely to be : sometimes The real question is – is action x so harmful, that nobody, even those who carry it out safely, should be allowed to do it I.e Just because some people lose their entire livelihoods gambling, does that mean even casual texas hold’em players shouldn’t be allowed to bet?

3 Questions Do people enter into the action consensually and rationally? Is, or would it be the case in the future that, someone’s ability to decide what’s best for themselves is compromised in the case of action x – is there pressure? Chemical imbalances? Hormones? What happens when the notion of liberty of choice goes wrong? Is banning the action an effectively way to control it? Is there a black market? What does that market look like? Does a black market get bigger or smaller when someone’s banned – e,g alcohol v prostitution Who does the action hurt? Why does it hurt them? Does that mean that nobody should be allowed to carry out that action? When it goes wrong, what does that look like? What is actually lost from an individual’s life when something is banned? Could they enjoy other things? Is there are large social cost to action x?

Arguments for banning things Action x is too harmful Who does it harm? What are their interest and rights What does it look like? Why can’t it be regulated away? Why is the aversion of it more important that allowing people to carry the action out? Example: gambling When Gamling goes wrong… Texas Hold’Em players can probably still enjoy a good life without texas hold em’ You have to put someone in charge of gambling, who will always have the incentive to drop regulations, also has the incentive to work with other owners and form a cartel But the gambling addict will struggle to enjoy his life without a house, car, wife and kids

Arguments for banning things Action x has a large social cost/affects a group disproportiately -What does that social cost look like? Who is affected disproportionately -Why does it come about? -Why does that trump individual freedom? E.g slavery would disproportionately affect the poor That would lead to entrenched class divide and social division People make associations from trends – e.g more likely to cross the street for a black guy, people assume those with brown skin weren’t born here Because you may have a right to decide what happens to you but you don’t have a right to affect the treatment and perceptions of an entire social group

Arguments for banning things It can’t be consented to/isn’t in the future We let people do things and make decisions for themselves on the basis that they know best What happens when people make the wrong decision? If that appears to not be true we should make the safest assumption – i.e you don’t like taking a drug that melts your face, you don’t like being cripplingly poor

Arguments for legalising Why the action is a good thing, why should it remain to be a practice carried out Why might people want to do it? Who does it, why is it important to them? What happens to them when they can’t do it Why is that more important to those people than those it harms? Or simply, why does weight matter against a huge harm? E.g car example

Arguments for legalising Action x has a large social cost (of even larger/affects a group disproportiately) -What does that social cost look like? Who is affected disproportionately -Why does it come about? -Why does that trump individual freedom? E.g slavery would disproportionately affect the poor That would lead to entrenched class divide and social division People make associations from trends – e.g more likely to cross the street for a black guy, people assume those with brown skin weren’t born here Because you may have a right to decide what happens to you but you don’t have a right to affect the treatment and perceptions of an entire social group

Arguments for legalisng things Action x is too harmful What is the counter harm? What’s the consequence of this motion Who does it harm? What are their interest and rights What does it look like? Why does it happen? Why can’t it be regulated away? Why is the aversion of it more important that allowing people to carry the action out? Example: gambling When Gamling goes wrong… Texas Hold’Em players can probably still enjoy a good life without texas hold em’ You have to put someone in charge of gambling, who will always have the incentive to drop regulations, also has the incentive to work with other owners and form a cartel But the gambling addict will struggle to enjoy his life without a house, car, wife and kids

Arguments for legalising This action will continue anyway, but in a worse form Where will it continue? Will it be organised? By who? Criminals likely Black markets, or private illegal actions tend to go south when the law isn’t involved There aren’t the protections the law offers The consequences Conditions for employees are worse Often more extreme What protections are missing? MOST IMPORTANTLY : why will this market still exist, because banning things can at least reduce the frequency of an action significantly

Arguments for legalising Freedom of the individual Why, even if an action does harm someone, can’t you do it? Why should your freedom be co-opted to help someone else Why doesn’t the state have a burden to treat you equally? E.g prostitution: why should sex workers have to give up their rights so that a certain idea of their gender should be protected?

Arguments for legalising Why is this problem caused by something else? Why won’t this policy work, attack the mech? OR – Why can this problem be solved in other ways and avoid the ban? Are there certain regulations that could be put into place anyway? Why could something be safe with regulations? Eg. S&M

Arguments for legalising Why is it a free choice? Why could someone reasonably wish this action to happen? Why should we trust the individual, who knows themselves better than the government? Why do the claimed influences not mean there isn’t consent or rational choice? E.g prostitution and money

REMEMBER Who What How Why? Why should we care? GOOD LUCK FOR TODAY’S ROUND