You are on page 1of 10

NC

I negate. Because ought implies a moral obligation, I value


morality.
Liberty is a constitutive feature of morality. Ethical systems that
do not maintain liberty as their starting point fail because they
make impossible the concept of moral culpability.
Uleman 10 [(Jennifer, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Purchase College) An Introduction to Kants Moral
Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, 1/21/2010] DD
We can summarize these thoughts by noticing how they fit with Kants helpful distinction between Willkr the capacity
to choose and Wille the faculty of practical reason as a whole. Both, as the words themselves suggest, are part of
will.24 And both contribute distinctive elements or components to human freedom. The first, Willkr, is the capacity for
free choice itself, the

capacity to choose at will between alternatives alter- native ends, alternative


metaphysically necessary for
morality since without it praise and blame and responsibility-holding would not make sense: to
be held responsible, to be considered the author of an action, an agent must be the ultimate source
of her choices. Wille, the second term, is the capacity to formulate ends, and to for- mulate action-guiding principles
courses of action, alternative guiding principles of action. For Kant, Willkr is

aimed at serving those ends. Thus does Kant call Wille practical reason itself:25 Wille conceptualizes and formulates in
ways that actually guide practice, or intentional action. For Kant, ends and action-guiding principles formulated by Wille
insofar as it seeks grounds within itself and not in external sources, that is, ends and action- guiding principles formulated
by pure practical reason, count, not surprisingly, as ends and action-guiding principles that are deeply mine. Such ends
and principles are grounded in interests internal, for Kant, to my deepest self, my free rational self. And by

choosing
to act in accordance with such purely rational ends and principles, I choose action that is
given aim and shape by this self. Of course, once I choose a course of action, I am determined I am no longer
exercising a capacity to go this way or that but if I have chosen to act toward ends and on principles
that are truly my own, I am still free in the crucial sense that I am self-determined. These
two components of Kantian freedom a capacity for choice (Willkr) and a capacity to furnish ends and
principles that are my own (Wille) are not reducible to each other, but are both essential components of will, as Kant
understands it. Together, they make Kantian sense of the possibility of a free will.

All humans are entitled to their own conception of the good life.
Respect for the equality of persons commits us to a system of
negative rights wherein it is impossible to impose ones will
coercively upon another.
Fried 05 gender modified [(Charles, Beneficial Professor of Law @ Harvard University) The
Nature and Importance of Liberty, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 2005] DD
I would say that what is important about us, what

makes us moral human beings, is our individual


capacities to think, reason, choose, and value. It is what Kant called our freedom and rationality.2 Individuals,
therefore, are the elementary particles of moral discourse. Our value is our taking individual
responsibility for our lives, and our choices. And if a person is to count as a personand here we have the difficult
questions about the beginning and the end of lifethen we

are all equally valuable in this same way. It is


from that base of our equal responsibility for ourselves that we choose our goods: that we
choose what to make of the only life we will ever have. My liberty, then, is my ability to
choose that life. No one has the right to interfere with that choice, except as it is to further his own good. But that

good of the other is worth no more than mine because [s]he is not worth any more than I
am. There is, therefore, a right of mutual noninterference: an equal right. By the same token,
nobody can interfere with or draft another person to help [her] achieve [her] own good if
the other person has not chosen voluntarily to enlist in that campaign.

Thus the standard is respect for the right to non-interference. The aff world
constitutes a violation because prohibiting something necessarily interferes
with peoples ability to perform a certain action. Merriam Webster defines
prohibition as the act of not allowing something to be used or
done. : a law or order that stops something from being used or
done.
My first contention is that the aff violates the right to noninterference by preventing individuals from generating nuclear
reactors.
Danzico 10. Extreme DIY: Building a homemade nuclear reactor in NYC. BBC
News. head of the BBC Video Innovation Lab
Mr Suppes, 32, is part of a

growing community of "fusioneers" - amateur science junkies who


are building homemade fusion reactors, for fun and with an eye to being part of the solution to
that problem. He is the 38th independent amateur physicist[s] in the world to have
achieve[d] nuclear fusion from a homemade reactor, according to community site
Fusor.net. Others on the list include a 15-year-old from Michigan and a doctoral student in Ohio. "I was inspired because I
believed I was looking at a technology that could actually work to solve our energy problems, and I believed it was
something that I could at least begin to build," Mr Suppes told the BBC. While they might un-nerve the neighbours,

fusion reactors of this kind are perfectly legal in the US. "As long as
they [private citizens] obtain that material [the components of the
reactor] legally, they could do whatever they want," says Anne Stark, senior public information officer for
California's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

My second contention is that the aff violates the right of


companies to freely produce nuclear reactors.
Piquepaille 08. A micro nuclear reactor in your garden? ZD Net. Roland
Piquepaille's Technology Trends, and a former software engineer at Silicon Graphics and
Cray Research.
Imagine a nuclear reactor small enough to be carried by truck and buried in a garden... According to The Guardian, a

U.S. company based in New Mexico, Hyperion Power Generation, has designed
mini nuclear plants to power 20,000 homes. The company has already
received firm orders and expects to deliver about 4,000 'individual' plants between
2013 and 2023. It also said that it has a six-year waiting list. So if you want such a micro nuclear reactor, don't expect to
receive it by 2014. But read more... The HPM will have multiple applications. (Credit: Hyperion Power Generation) Some
of them include industrial ones, such as oil shale and sands drilling and processing or powering U.S. Military facilities. But
"the one that would offer the most basic and direct positive impact on populations in need, is that of providing a power
source to remote communities, both for electricity and to pump and process water." You'll find a larger version of the
above illustration by clicking on the "Community" tab from the applications link mentioned earlier. John Deal, the

Hyperion CEO, says that such micro nuclear reactors should cost about $25 million each.more In the U.S., where people
spent more energy than in other parts of the world, such a reactor should be able to deliver power to only 10,000
households, for a cost of $2,500 per home. But in

developing nations, one HPM could


provide enough power for 60,000 homes or more, for a cost of less
than $400. This is quite reasonable if you agree with Hyperion, which states that the energy from its HPMs will
cost about 10 cents/watt. On its home page, Hyperion gives additional details about these reactors and their safety. "Small
enough to be transported on a ship, truck or train, Hyperion power modules are about the size of a "hot tub"
approximately 1.5 meters wide. Out of sight and safe from nefarious threats ,

Hyperion power modules


are buried far underground and guarded by a security detail. Like a power
battery, Hyperion modules have no moving parts to wear down, and are delivered factory sealed. They are never opened
on site. Even

if one were compromised, the material inside would not be


appropriate for proliferation purposes. Further, due to the unique, yet proven science upon
which this new technology is based, it is impossible for the module to go supercritical, 'melt down' or create any type of
emergency situation. If opened, the very small amount of fuel that is enclosed would immediately cool. The waste
produced after five years of operation is approximately the size of a softball and is a good candidate for fuel recycling." In
"Truck-delivered Micro-Nuclear Reactor for Clean Energy Within Five Years," Edwin Black agrees. "Unlike giant nuclear
reactors requiring ten years to construct under daunting conditions, these concrete 'nuclear batteries' have no moving

The extremely small


fueltoo hot to handle--would immediately cool if exposed to

parts, no potential to go supercritical or meltdown, and reportedly cannot be easily tampered with.
amount of hot nuclear

air, technical sources assert. Moreover, it would take prodigious resources wielded by a government infrastructure to
attempt to enhance the weak radioactive core into a weapons-grade component. The fact is the radioactive fuel is so weak
it will have to be replaced within seven to ten years. The
negligible it will reportedly produce

nuclear waste after five years of spent fuel is so


a mass no bigger than a softball, and that

will be easily recycled, according to atomic energy sources." (The Cutting Edge News, November 10,
2008)

Rawls Overview
1) Under the veil theres no way to weigh between competing ideals. Most people
would agree that we should maximize net benefits and also protect autonomy, but
the Rawlsian framework doesnt tell us which one we ought to prioritize when
they come into conflict. We need a normative ethic to help us decide what type of
good we ought to promote.
2) Theres no unique benefit to the Rawls framework its ultimate conclusion is
that we need to treat everyone equally but that is also the starting point of my
framework. My standard treats everyones freedom as equally inviolable.
3) A government cant go under the veil of ignorance (a) it just doesnt make any
sense the government as an entity cant perform a thought experiment (b) a
good government is not objective because it acts according to the needs of its
citizens.
4) The theory of the veil of ignorance is infinitely regressive, because we continually
have to ask ourselves why we prefer a certain vision under the veil of ignorance,
but all we can ever know is that we prefer it because we believe its true, but that
begs the question of why we believe its true, and so on.
5) The Rawls framework collapses to emotivism because the only thing we can
respond to under the veil of ignorance are what we emotionally or instinctively
belief to be true. This cant be the basis of morality, however, because constantly
doing what our emotions tell us to be true is not normative and wouldnt be the
same for all actors. It also just encourages us to do whatever we want. If the veil
of ignorance collapses to emotivism, it loses as its ability to function as a tool for
policymaking.

On Case

AT: Waste
The waste is only dangerous if disposed of incorrectly experts
says dry casks solve.
Davidson 14 (May 14, Nick, How Safe is Nuclear Waste?
http://www.outsideonline.com/1922621/how-safe-nuclear-waste)
High-level radioactive waste, which emits intense gamma particles that can penetrate
lead, is a bigger problem. Some 270,000 metric tons of itthe size of a football field with
a ten-yard depthwait in temporary storage. "Right now we have no disposal program
for the spent nuclear fuel from power plants, and all of it is just sitting on the surface,"
Lanthrum says. This includes thermally hot and highly radioactive uranium-235 in
ceramic pellets inside alloy fuel rods. These are kept cool in open steel-lined concrete
pools. Terribly dangerous, says Greg Mello, executive director of the Los Alamos Study
Group, which seeks nuclear disarmament and enhanced environmental protection. Dry
casks lined with thick steel and concrete are safer. The already-low radiation levels near
these casks decrease exponentially even a couple inches away, and under both storage
methods the intense radiation drastically declines after five years.

Warming DA
Nuclear power is critical to stop catastrophic warming
Waldman 15 - Susanne, PhD in Risk Communication at Carleton University (Why
we Need Nuclear Power to Save the Environment
http://energyforhumanity.org/climate-energy/need-nuclear-power-save-environment/)
LADI
The idea we might need nuclear power to save the environment may have seen farfetched
thirty years ago, at the height of the anti-nuclear movement. But its an idea that more
and more scientists of all stripes as well as energy experts and even environmentalists
are coming to share. Last month, 75 biodiversity scientists signed an open letter
imploring the environmental and conservation communities to rethink idealistic
opposition to nuclear energy, given the threats to global ecosystems set in motion by
climate change. This open letter follows in the wake of another published a year ago in
the New York Times by climate scientists with a similar message: there is no credible
path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial role for nuclear power.
These scientists who study the earth and the life on it are concerned it is too risky to rely
solely on wind, solar and other so-called green power to replace fossil fuels, which are
still the fastest growing energy sources by a long shot. As these scientists point out,
renewable power sources would require enormous amounts of land, materials, and
money to meet the worlds current and growing energy needs. Wind and solar power are
especially problematic because they are intermittent and cant be dispatched to match
demand. While the quest is on for grid storage options, there has not yet been a
significant storage breakthrough, and any contribution it ends up making may only be
modest. In the meantime other power sources that can run full time are required to take
up the slack. Options for doing so are limited to fossil fuels, biomass that is
comparatively bulky and limited in scale, hydro power that is largely tapped out in some
places, and nuclear power. The advantage of nuclear power is there is no shortage of
suitable sites

Warming causes racism, sexism and endless structural violence


David Naguib Pellow 12, Ph.D. Professor, Don Martindale Endowed Chair University of Minnesota, Climate
Disruption in the Global South and in African American Communities: Key Issues, Frameworks, and Possibilities for
Climate Justice, February 2012,
http://www.jointcenter.org/sites/default/files/upload/research/files/White_Paper_Climate_Disruption_final.pdf

It is now known unequivocally that significant warming of the atmosphere is occurring,


coinciding with increasing levels of atmospheric CO2. Dr. John Holdren, Director of the
White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, prefers the term global climate
disruption to climate change because it more fully captures the harm being done to
the planet (Holdren 2007). The term climate change infers a naturally occurring process rather than a disruption
created by specific human activity. Moreover, the terms global warming and climate change might be construed as
occurring in a uniform, even, gradual, and benign fashion, none of which is true. One solid indicator of Holdrens point is

climate disruptions affect communities, nations, and regions of the globe in


vastly different ways. While contributing the least of anyone to the causes of climate
disruption, people of color, women, indigenous communities, and
the fact that

global South nations often bear the brunt of climate disruption in


terms of ecological, economic, and health burdensthereby giving rise to
the concept of climate injustice (Roberts and Parks 2007). These communities are among
the first to experience the effects of climate disruption, which can include natural
disasters, rising levels of respiratory illness and infectious disease, heat-related
morbidity and mortality, and large increases in energy costs. They also bear the
burdens created by ill-conceived policies designed to prevent climate
disruption. The effects of climate injustice have been evident for years.
Flooding from severe storms, rising sea levels and melting glaciers affect millions in Asia
and Latin America, while sub-Saharan Africa is experiencing sustained droughts. Consider
that nearly 75 percent the worlds annual CO2 emissions come from the global North, where only 15 percent of the global

historic responsibility for climate change is taken into account,


global North nations have consumed more than three times their share of the
atmosphere (in terms of the amount of emissions that we can safely put into the
atmosphere) while the poorest 10 percent of the worlds population has contributed less
than 1 percent of carbon emissions. Thus the struggle for racial, gender, and
economic justice is inseparable from any effort to combat climate
disruption
population resides. If

2NR

Libertarianism
Nuclear power is not inherently tied to the state.
Steele 79. The Case for Nuclear Energy. Free Life: The Journal of the Libertarian
Alliance.
The theme running through Mueller's piece is that nuclear energy is intimately related to the government, and especially
the military. This theme has several variations: (1) The government invented nuclear power for military ends; (2) Nuclear
power is still run by the state, and still has military links; (3) Peaceful nuclear energy is used as an argument to defend The
Bomb. These arguments are thoroughly superstitious. There is supposed to be something inherent in government
introduction, promotion and direction of a particular technique which renders it essentially statist and evil. Mueller writes
that there "were no nuclear power entrepreneurs and no 'market' for nuclear power plants in 1954". But would there have
been such a market if the state had permitted it? Never mind. He concludes: "a domestic energy source built upon the
research and technology of a federal nuclear weapons complex is necessarily an industry that will be subject to large doses
of centralised authoritarian state control" (Mueller's own emphasis, believe it or not) As

a Libertarian[s],
Mueller favours the denationalisation of streets and roads. There
were no entrepreneurs producing transcontinental highways or city
street complexes in 1954, nor are there today (except to state
contract, like the nuclear power industry). Does this mean we have
to oppose streets and roads per se? Mueller presents much evidence
for the fact, disputed by no one, that nuclear energy has been
promoted by politicians, who have repeatedly linked it with nuclear
weapons. He then triumphantly concludes that this industry is
necessarily a tool of war and the state. Necessity, not contingency, is what Mueller has to
demonstrate, but precisely here he presents [there is] no evidence and no
argument. Radar was devised by researchers in the British state postal service, who passed it on to the military,
who in turn developed it and used it to defeat the German state. The Second World War was decided more by radar than
by nuclear bombs, and it is not at all fantastic that the Third World War might be too. Radar was begotten by the state,
born of the state, fed at the state's teat, weaned and potty-trained by the state, told bed-time stories by the state and sent
to school with sandwiches and a kiss each morning by the state. Radar still lives cheek by jowl with the state, and only
ventures out into the big wide world of the free market to earn a little extra pocket money. Modern radar is not the bastard
child of World War II radar. It is the self-same person. Unlike the case of nuclear- generated electricity, which has little
intrinsically to do with H-Bombs, radar in peace is, technically, identical with radar in war. What Libertarian would say
that because of its pedigree, radar is "necessarily an industry that will be subject to large doses of centralised state
control"? Obviously, radar will be used in the free market, perhaps less than today, perhaps more. Obviously, it is a
potential benefit for humankind, and its history is utterly irrelevant. Technology is not statist or Libertarian any more than
science is proletarian or bourgeois. But Muller

has made the astounding discovery


that [if] the worthwhileness of a technology is to be evaluated
according, to the motives of those who sponsor it, or even of those
who first introduced it. Startling consequences follow from this
extraordinary principle. Galileo calculated the area of cannon-balls. Archimedes designed war
machines. Euler wrote a treatise on artillery. How much of science is tainted at source,
the illegitimate offspring of war, branded forever with a Mark of Cain! The overwhelming
majority of the Libertarian movement is, with various degrees of passion, pro-nuclear. Yet, as fellow Libertarians, we all
share with S.L.S. the same fundamental energy policy. Neither privileges nor persecution for atomic power. Leave it to the
people, through the market,to choose. This raised two points: