Sunteți pe pagina 1din 19

Let Me Say What I Want

I negate the resolution: RESOLVED: In the United States criminal justice system, truth seeking ought to take precedence over attorney-client privilege. I offer the following definitions: Truth-seeking: The pursuit of truth Ought: A moral obligation Attorney-client privilege: The private discussions between a legal client and his or her counsel

My Value Premise for this debate is Freedom, as achieved through Rejecting Coercion. The point to creating a democracy was to not create a totalitarian government. In permitting or condoning coercion, civilized democracies turn into oligarchies run by coercive leaders.

I now proceed to:

Contention 1: Coercion is harmful to society and must be rejected


~0:30

Subpoint A: Coerciveness
The attorney-client privilege is meant to protect individual rights Daniel Northrop 2009 (The Attorney-Client Privilege and Information Disclosed to an Attorney with the Intention that the Attorney Draft a Document to be Released to Third Parties: Public Policy Calls for at Least the Strictest Application of the Attorney-Client Privilege. Fordham Law Review 2009 J.D. degree, magna cum laude, from Fordham University, Law clerk to Honorable Cogan of Eastern District of New York)
The privacy rationale is a second theory frequently used to justify evidentiary privilege. The theory emphasizes that human autonomy, respect for relationships, and respect for the bonds and promises that protect shared information, are important values that must be protected. Consequently, the personal autonomy of a client is a compelling interest that justifies the impairment of the truth-seeking process. If

a client confides in her attorney, compelled disclosure is inherently wrong, violating the right of the individual to control the distribution of private information and to form private loyalties. The result is the infliction of two distinct harms: (1) the embarrassment of having secrets revealed and (2) the forced revelation of confidential information. The fir st harm is shame, the second, treachery. Such a compelled disclosure would harm both the client and the attorney. Although the need for privacy is
not always viewed as a legal interest, the importance of privacy continues to be emphasized in privilege disputes and may help to shed light on why evidentiary privilege is respected and supported in the American justice system.

Congressional subpoena can coerce testimonies regardless of the attorney-client privilege Jonathan Rich 1988 Attorney-Client Privilege in Congressional Investigations Colombia Law Review of 1988
Despite the absence of express constitutional authority, Congress

implied right to investigate and compel testimony is well established, and this power is broadly construed as coextensive with any legitimate legislative purpose. Few courts have actually ruled that an investigation has been impermissibly extended beyond the scope of Congress legitimate purposes. Establishment of the coercive power necessary to enforce the demands of an investigatory committee, through either the threat or effectuation of punishment, has proved more problematic. Congress has two means at its disposal for punishing contumacious witnesses: an implied constitutional authority to directly adjudicate and punish, and an express statutory mechanism ~1:30

Subpoint B: Coercive governments are abusive to their citizens through coercion


Permitting coercion over-empowers the government James Bovard 2011 (Author and policy advisor to The Future of Freedom Foundation, Defining Coercion Down 3/18/2011)
[Coercion is the essence of government in the same way that profit is the essence of private businesses. The common use of the word slavery in the Revolutionary period captured colonists hatred of coercive power that fatally compromised the colonists freedom. Many political thinkers fixation on government benevolence obscures the reality of the growing subjugation of American citizens to government employees. Federal agencies have been able to seize far more power and judges have redefined government coercion out of existence.] Coercion is the essence of government in the same way that profit is the essence of private businesses. The state can impose new prohibitions and restrictions, [and] create new penalties, or impose taxes in order to finance
benefits. It is misleading to conceive of politicians as offering both carrots and sticks: Government must first use a stick to commandeer the money to pay for the carrot. Every increase in the size of government means an increase in coercion either an increase in the amount of a persons paycheck that government seizes or an increase in the number of types of behavior for which a government can jail, imprison, or fine a citizen. Every increase in government spending means an increase in political power and a new pretext to seize private paychecks. In order to understand the contemporary concept of the state, it is important to recognize the radical changes in the concept of coercion that have occurred over the past century in federal courts.

The common use of the word slavery in the disputes of t he Revolutionary period captured colonists hatred of the arbitrary coercive power vested in British government officials and Parliament members. Even if that power was not used by every British colonial official on a daily basis, the mere fact that power existed in the statute books fatally compromised the colonists freedom. In the mid 1800s, Southerners habit of referring to slavery as the peculiar institution indicated their squeamishness about
admitting the degree of coercive power that that institution required. In modern times, we have a new peculiar institution: government coercion. Many

political thinkers fixation on government benevolence obscures the reality of the growing subjugation of American citizens to government employees. Federal agencies have been able to seize far more power over citizens in part because [and] judges and others have redefined many forms of government coercion out of existence. ~1:45

Subpoint C: Coercion dehumanizes the coerced


There is no value to life if coercion is permitted

F. A. Hayek, 1960 (Nobel Prize winner for Economics, The Constitution of Liberty, 1960, p.20,)
By coercion we mean such control of the environment or circumstances of a person by another that, in order to avoid greater evil, he is forced to act not according to a coherent plan of his own but to serve the ends of another. Except in the sense of choosing the lesser evil in a situation forced on him by another, he is unable either to use his own intelligence or knowledge or to follow his own aims and beliefs. Coercion is evil precisely because it thus eliminates an individual as a thinking and valuing person and makes him a bare tool in the achievement of the ends of another. Free action, in which a person pursues his own aims by the means indicated by
his own knowledge, must be based on data which cannot be shaped at will by another. It presupposes the existence of a known sphere in which the circumstances cannot be so shaped by another person as to leave one only that choice prescribed by the other.

~2:10

Contention 2: Rejecting Coercion is of utmost priority


We need to reject all coercion because individual liberty comes first

NYU Professor Sylvester Petro 1974 (Professor of Law at NYU, Toledo Law Review, Spring, p. 480)
However, one may still insist, echoing Ernest Hemingway - "I believe in only one thing: liberty." And it is always well to bear in mind David Hume's observation: "It

is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." Thus, it is unacceptable to say that the invasion of one aspect of freedom is of no importance because there have been invasions of so many other aspects. That road leads to chaos, tyranny, despotism, and the end of all human aspiration. Ask Solzhenitsyn. Ask Milovan Dijas. In sum, if one believed in freedom as a supreme value and the proper ordering principle for any society aiming to maximize spiritual and material welfare, then every invasion of freedom must be emphatically identified and resisted with undying spirit. ~2:40

Contention 3: The value of liberty is more important than prosecution


Richard Wydick 1999 The Attorney-Client Privilege: Does it Really Have Life Everlasting? Kentucky Law Journal 1999
If we depend solely on the utilitarian justification for the attorney-client privilege, then we should indeed be troubled by the shortage of empirical evidence about whether the candor of attorney-client communications would or would not be lessened if the privilege were curtailed at the clients death. The attorney-client privilege has an additional justification, one not mentioned in the Chief Justices opinion for the majority. Professor David Louisell laid the first stones of the additional justification over forty years ago. Louisell suggested that Wigmore despite his extraordinary contributions to evidence law, did lawyers a disservice by stressing utilitarian justifications for the attorney-client privilege and the other main communications privileges, virtually ignoring other possible justifications. Louisell argued that these

communications privileges are not mere exclusionary evidence rules that prevent courts from getting to the truth. There are some things, he wrote, that are: even more important to human liberty than accurate adjudication. One of them is the right to be left by the state unmolested in certain human relations. Explaining further, he wrote: Primarily *the communications privileges+ are a right to be let alone, a right to unfettered freedom, in certain narrowly prescribed relationships, from the states coercive or supervisory powers and from the nuisance of its eavesdropping. ~3:00

Contention 4: I dont reject the state, just the coercion


Edward Younkins, 2000 (Professor of Accountancy and Business Administration at Wheeling Jesuit University in West Virginia, Civil Society: The Realm of Freedom, No 63, June 10, 2000)
[To propose that an activity not be performed coercively is not to oppose the activity, but simply its coercion. If civil society is to be revived, we must substitute voluntary cooperation for coercion. When government undertakes a program, it displaces the voluntary efforts of others and makes voluntary association in civil society appear redundant, with significant negative effects. Accomplishment through free association is morally superior to coercive mandates, and almost always generates more efficient outcomes. It follows that there is a moral imperative for us to reclaim our right to live in a civil society, rather than to have bureaucrats and politicians run our lives]
Recently (and ironically), government projects and programs have been started to restore civil society through state subsidization or coercive mandates. Such coercion cannot create true voluntary associations. Statists who support such projects believe only in the power of political society they don't realize that the subsidized or mandated activity can be performed voluntarily through the private interaction of individuals and associations. They also don't understand that to

propose that an activity not be performed coercively is not to oppose the activity, but simply its coercion. If civil society is to be revived, we must substitute voluntary cooperation for coercion and replace mandates with the rule of law. According to the Cato
Handbook for Congress, Congress should: before trying to institute a government program to solve a problem, investigate whether there is some other government program that is causing the problem ... and, if such a program is identified, begin to reform or eliminate it; ask by what legal authority in the Constitution Congress undertakes an action; recognize that when

government undertakes a program, it displaces the voluntary efforts of others and makes voluntary association in civil society appear redundant, with significant negative effects; and begin systematically to abolish or phase out those government programs that do what could be accomplished by voluntary associations in civil society ... recognizing that accomplishment through free association is morally superior to coercive mandates, and almost always generates more efficient outcomes. Every time taxes are raised, another regulation is passed, or another government program is adopted, we are acknowledging the inability of individuals to govern themselves. It follows that there is a moral imperative for us to reclaim our right to live in a civil society, rather than to have bureaucrats and politicians solve our problems and run our lives. ~3:30

Underview:
Judge: The first issue for you to vote on is the Petro 74 evidence, which urges a rejection of all coercive action. If people were to submit to coercion, then society follows the road towards chaos, tyranny, despotism, and the end of all human aspiration. Any failure to attack this evidence will cost my opponent the round. The next key voting issue is the Wydick 99 evidence that values human liberty *more+ than accurate adjudication. This reinforces the point Petro 74 made, so if Petro 74 is lost, and Wydick 99 still stands, you still vote Neg. Next, you vote Neg because of the two harms Northrop 09 discussed: the shame of having secrets revealed and the treachery of forced revelation. The former leads to the dehumanization the honored economist FA Hayek described to make people the tools of another. The latter is coercive and must be rejected under Petro 74 and Wydick 99. ~4:15

Other things

My theory of rejection
I am not to discouraging voting, but simply rejecting state and federal coercion

Edward Younkins, 2000 (Professor of Accountancy and Business Administration at Wheeling Jesuit University in West Virginia, Civil Society: The Realm of Freedom, No 63, June 10, 2000)
[To propose that an activity not be performed coercively is not to oppose the activity, but simply its coercion. If civil society is to be revived, we must substitute voluntary cooperation for coercion. When government undertakes a program, it displaces the voluntary efforts of others and makes voluntary association in civil society appear redundant, with significant negative effects. Accomplishment through free association is morally superior to coercive mandates, and almost always generates more efficient outcomes. It follows that there is a moral imperative for us to reclaim our right to live in a civil society, rather than to have bureaucrats and politicians run our lives]
Recently (and ironically), government projects and programs have been started to restore civil society through state subsidization or coercive mandates. Such coercion cannot create true voluntary associations. Statists who support such projects believe only in the power of political society they don't realize that the subsidized or mandated activity can be performed voluntarily through the private interaction of individuals and associations. They also don't understand that to

propose that an activity not be performed coercively is not to oppose the activity, but simply its coercion. If civil society is to be revived, we must substitute voluntary cooperation for coercion and replace mandates with the rule of law. According to the Cato
Handbook for Congress, Congress should: before trying to institute a government program to solve a problem, investigate whether there is some other government program that is causing the problem ... and, if such a program is identified, begin to reform or eliminate it; ask by what legal authority in the Constitution Congress undertakes an action; recognize that when

government undertakes a program, it displaces the voluntary efforts of others and makes voluntary association in civil society appear redundant, with significant negative effects; and begin systematically to abolish or phase out those government programs that do what could be accomplished by voluntary associations in civil society ... recognizing that accomplishment through free association is morally superior to coercive mandates, and almost always generates more efficient outcomes. Every time taxes are raised, another regulation is passed, or another government program is adopted, we are acknowledging the inability of individuals to govern themselves. It follows that there is a moral imperative for us to reclaim our right to live in a civil society, rather than to have bureaucrats and politicians solve our problems and run our lives.

Coercion exists because some people cannot find moral methods to resolve issues
Why coercion exists
David Freeman 2013 (Author, editor, and maintainer of Mind-Trek) Many people are severely deficient in many thinking skills. People who cant think soundly about a particular area or topic, tend to substitute for coercion. Sometimes this happens in several areas of a persons life. Example: A parent, lacking the necessary persuasive skills to persuade a child to do the right thing, resorts to coercion, establishing a pervasive and destructive pattern. Coercive political systems are simply the extension of this phenomenon to the level of society. If people tolerate the substitution of coercion for though in
themselves, its no wonder that they support coercive political systems to practice coercion on their behalf.

The governments duty is to protect rights


Freedom is the states foremost duty; it must protect our rights Edward Glaeser 2007 (Professor of Economics at Harvard University Coercive Regulation and the Balance of Freedom, Cato Unbound, 5/11/2007
I start with the view that individual

freedom is the ultimate goal for any government. The ultimate job of the state is to increase the range of options available to its citizens . To me, this is not a maxim, but an axiom that is justified by both philosophy and history. On a basic level, I believe that human beings are the best judges of what is best for themselves. I also believe that the right to make our own decisions is an intrinsically good thing. I also believe that [and] people become better decision-makers through the course of regularly making their own decisions. Moreover, the historical track record looks a lot better for governments that put
freedom first. The liberal democracies, defined by their affection for liberty, have been far better for their citizens, than alternatives, whether Communist or Fascist, that enforced state-sponsored visions of how people should live their lives.

Spare Cards
Government coercion is responsible for the worst atrocities in history Harry Brown 95 (Former Libertarian Party Candidate for President, Director of Public Policy for the DownsizeDC.org, Why Government Doesnt Work, p. 66 -67)
The reformers of the Cambodian revolution claimed to be building a better world. They forced people into reeducation programs to make them better citizens. Then they used force to regulate commercial life. Then they forced office workers to give up their jobs. By the time they were done, they had killed a third of the countrys population, destroyed the lives of almost everyone still alive, and devastated a nation. It all began with using force for the best of intentions-to create a better world. The Soviet leaders used coercion to provide economic security and to build a New Man. At least 10 million people died to help build the New Man. But the workers lives were always Hell, not Paradise. In the 1930s many Germans gladly traded civil liberties for economic revival. But like every other grand dream to improve society by force, it ended in devastation and death. 119 million people have been killed by their own governments in this [past] century. Every time you allow government to use force to make society better, you move closer to Cambodia, the Soviet Union, and Nazi Germany. Our own government can perform with impunity the [same] outrages. These examples are the natural consequence of letting government use force to tax someone else to better your life.

Each rejection of government coercion and endorsement of non-aggression can help change the system

Dr. Ruwart, 93 (Dr. Mary J. Ruwart, Senior Scientist at a major pharmaceutical firm and a former Assistant
Professor of Surgery at St. Louis University Medical School, Healing Our World: The Other Piece of the Puzzle, p.281282, )
CHOOSING YOUR PATH If you've read this far, you are undoubtedly interested in seeing at least some aspects of non-aggression implemented. Several ideas may seem more relevant to you than others. If

you are wondering whether a lone individual like yourself can make a difference, please be assured that you can. Even the smallest contribution can be pivotal. My favorite story illustrating this point is about a blacksmith who failed to put the final nail in a horse's shoe. For lack of a
nail, the horse lost his shoe and went lame. The rider, who was carrying critical news to his king, had to continue on foot. As a result, he reached his sovereign too late. Without this important information, the king lost the battle he was fighting and the kingdom fell to invaders. The humble black-smith was pivotal to the safety of the kingdom. Never

doubt that your contribution is just as important. Remember that the family and friends who talk with you about the win-win world possible through non-aggression will in turn talk to others, who will share the good news. Like a chain reaction, your message of hope will spread throughout our country and the world, bearing fruit in the most unexpected ways. If you do nothing more than extol the virtues of non-aggression to those around you, you will have done much toward manifesting it! Of course, you
needn't stop there. The many groups cited above would welcome your participation. Are there any that excite you? Would you like to join a political campaign or speak on college campuses? Do you perceive a need for other strategies that you could initiate on your own or with

others? Can you implement non-aggressive solutions in the midst of aggression-through-government, much like Guy Polheus and Kimi Gray did (Chapter 11: Springing the Poverty Trap)? All these things-and more-are needed to help others recognize that non-aggression is in every-body's best self-interest. We each have a part to play, a gift to the world that will one day be reflected back to us as better world. Our

world is a joint creation. We all have the power to affect those around us profoundly. Each of us through our own inner wisdom can identify the piece of the puzzle that we can lay in the mosaic. Every piece is needed to construct the whole; never doubt that what you can do, however small it may seem to you, is essential. I urge you to embrace whatever aspect of non-aggression seems most valuable to you and
appropriate to your unique talents. Whether you work behind the scenes or in the limelight, rest assured that the world will take notice. Whatever way you feel moved to participate is a gift you give to yourself and others. Let me be the first to thank you for making the world a better place!

I am not to discouraging voting, but simply rejecting state and federal coercion

Edward Younkins, 2000 (Professor of Accountancy and Business Administration at Wheeling Jesuit University in West Virginia, Civil Society: The Realm of Freedom, No 63, June 10, 2000)
[To propose that an activity not be performed coercively is not to oppose the activity, but simply its coercion. If civil society is to be revived, we must substitute voluntary cooperation for coercion. When government undertakes a program, it displaces the voluntary efforts of others and makes voluntary association in civil society appear redundant, with significant negative effects. Accomplishment through free association is morally superior to coercive mandates, and almost always generates more efficient outcomes. Every time taxes are raised, or another government program is adopted, we are acknowledging the inability of individuals to govern themselves. It follows that there is a moral imperative for us to reclaim our right to live in a civil society, rather than to have bureaucrats and politicians run our lives]
Recently (and ironically), government projects and programs have been started to restore civil society through state subsidization or coercive mandates. Such coercion cannot create true voluntary associations. Statists who support such projects believe only in the power of political society they don't realize that the subsidized or mandated activity can be performed voluntarily through the private interaction of individuals and associations. They also don't understand that to

propose that an activity not be performed coercively is not to oppose the activity, but simply its coercion. If civil society is to be revived, we must substitute voluntary cooperation for coercion and replace mandates with the rule of law. According to the Cato
Handbook for Congress, Congress should: before trying to institute a government program to solve a problem, investigate whether there is some other government program that is causing the problem ... and, if such a program is identified, begin to reform or eliminate it; ask by what legal authority in the Constitution Congress undertakes an action; recognize that when

government undertakes a program, it displaces the voluntary efforts of others and makes voluntary association in civil society appear redundant, with significant negative effects; and begin systematically to abolish or phase out those government programs that do what could be accomplished by voluntary associations in civil society ... recognizing that accomplishment through free association is morally superior to coercive mandates, and almost always generates more efficient outcomes. Every time taxes are raised, another regulation is passed, or another government program is adopted, we are acknowledging the inability of individuals to govern themselves. It follows that there is a moral imperative for us to reclaim our right to live in a civil society, rather than to have bureaucrats and politicians solve our problems and run our lives.

State coercion
John Deming 1992 (Letter to the Editor in THE WALL STREET JOURNAL)
State coercion does not work. Since the American Revolution, thoughtful people have assumed that political coercion was a necessary evil, inherently dangerous but essential to maintenance of a well-ordered community. This assumption is false. Coercion

is not only an evil; it is not necessary because it does not work. The other side of that idea is that freedom works. Liberty leads to the free market and enterprises that serve up the public with products and services they really want. Freedom is not some fragile, Utopian affair that while spiritually desirable is too messy and impractical for the real world. When defined by property rights, freedom

becomes a hardheaded practical thing that leads to societies that exhibit stable, long-term growth and happier, more productive citizens. Freedom is not at all the chaotic quasiHobbesian mess that the politicos would have us believe and which they offer themselves up to fix.

Why coercion exists


David Freeman 2013 (Author, editor, and maintainer of Mind-Trek) Many people are severely deficient in many thinking skills. People who cant think soundly about a particular area or topic, tend to substitute for coercion. Sometimes this happens in several areas of a persons life. Example: A parent, lacking the necessary persuasive skills to persuade a child to do the right thing, resorts to coercion, establishing a pervasive and destructive pattern. Coercive political systems are simply the extension of this phenomenon to the level of society. If people tolerate the substitution of coercion for though in
themselves, its no wonder that they support coercive political systems to practice coercion on their behalf.