The death penalty can produce irreversible miscarriages of justice.  Juries are imperfect1, and increasing the stakes of the verdict can pervert justice in a couple of ways. First, implementation of the death penalty is often impacted by jury members' social, gender-based or racial biases2, disproportionately impacting certain victimized groups in society and adding a certain arbitrariness to the justice system. A 2005 study found that the death penalty was three to four times more common amongst those who killed whites than those who killed African Americans or Latinos, while those who kill women are three and a half times more likely to be executed than those who kill men2. Regional differences in attitudes towards the death penalty can also introduce elements of randomness into sentencing. For instance, in Illinois, a person is five times more likely to get a death sentence for first-degree murder in a rural area than in Cook County2. Finally, the fear of wrongful execution can also pervert justice by biasing juries towards returning an innocent verdict when they would otherwise be deemed guilty3. When they are told that the consequence of a guilty verdict is death, they are likely to find some kind of reasonable doubt to avoid being responsible for the death of that criminal. This means that more criminals who would've otherwise been convicted do not get charged. In this sense the death penalty can pervert the goals of justice and prolong the difficult process for victims' families. 1 "Saving Lives and Money." The Economist. March 12, 2009. Accessed June 5, 2011. 2 Turow , Scot. "To kill or not to kill," The New Yorker, January 6, 2003. Accessed June 3, 2011, 3 Death Penalty Information Center. Accessed June 8, 2011.


Wrongful convictions are irreversible.  There are an alarming number of wrongful convictions associated with the death penalty1. So far, more than 130 people who had been sentenced to death have been exonerated2. In many cases, unlike those who have been sentenced to life in prison, it is impossible to compensate executed prisoners should they later be proven innocent. The state should not gamble with people's lives. The chance of wrongful execution alone should be enough to prove the death penalty is not justifiable. 1 European Union Delegation to the USA. "EU Policy Against the Death penalty." October 10, 2010. Accessed June 5, 2011. 2 "Saving Lives and Money." The Economist. March 12, 2009. Accessed June 5, 2011.


State-sanctioned killing is wrong.  The state has no right to take away the life of its citizens. By executing convicts, the government is effectively condoning murder, and devaluing human life in the process. Such acts violate the right to life as declared in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights1 and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment2. On top of this, the state forces executioners to actively participate in the taking of a life, which can be unduly traumatizing and leave permanent psychological scars. Thus, a humane state cannot be one that exercises the death penalty. 1 Amnesty International. "Abolish the Death Penalty." Accessed June 5, 2011. 2 European Union Delegation to the USA. "EU Policy Against the Death penalty." October 10, 2010. Accessed June 5, 2011.


The fact that juries are prone to several biases is not a flaw inherent or unique to capital punishment. If there are racial or prejudicial issues in sentencing, these are likely to present themselves just as often in cases where the punishment is life in prison. It is equally problematic for people to die or spend decades in jails for crimes they did not commit. These errors suggest that the judicial process may need some reform, not that the death penalty should be abolished. Implementation errors that result in discrimination can and should be corrected. Moreover, there is little evidence that these biases are even present in most death penalty cases1. A study funded by the National Institute of Justice in the US found that differences in sentencing for white and non-white victims disappeared when the heinousness of the crimes were factored into the study1. Thus, factors relating to the crime, not the race, of the accused accounted for some of the purported racial disparities that were found. Finally, jurors must be "death- qualified" in such cases, meaning that they are comfortable sentencing someone to death should the fact indicate their guilt2. Thus, it is unlikely that many jurors will abstain from a guilty verdict because they are uncomfortable with the death penalty. 1 Muhlhausen, David. "The Death Penalty Deters Crime and Saves Lives," August 28,2007. Accessed June 5, 2011. 2 Haney, Craig. "Juries and the Death Penalty." Crime and Delinquency. Vol 26 no 4. October 1980.


Justice is priceless. Even if the death penalty is more expensive than other punishments, that is not sufficient reason to ban it. Fair and proportionate punishments should be independent of financial considerations. Further, there are ways to make the death penalty less expensive than it is today. Shortening the appeals process or changing the method of execution could reduce its costs1. 1 "Saving Lives and Money." The Economist. March 12, 2009. Accessed June 5, 2011.


Excluding cases of rape, the woman exercises any right to choose in causing conception initially. Afterward, even if a woman has a right to her body and to "choice", this right is overridden by the fetus's right to life. And, what could be more important than life? All other rights, including the mother's right to choice, surely stem from a prior right to life; if you have no right to any life, then how do you have a right to an autonomous one? The woman may ordinarily have a reasonable right to control her own body, but this does not confer on her the entirely separate (and insupportable) right to decide whether another human lives or dies.


Women have a right to choose  Women should have control over their own bodies; they have to carry the child during pregnancy and undergo childbirth. No one else carries the child for her; it will be her responsibility alone, and thus she should have the sole right to decide. These are important events in a woman’s life, and if she does not want to go through the full nine months and subsequent birth, then she should have the right to choose not to do so. There are few – if any – other cases where something with such profound consequences is forced upon a human being against her/his will. To appeal to the child’s right to life is just circular – whether a fetus has rights or not, or can really be called a ‘child’, is exactly what is at issue. Everyone agrees that children have rights and shouldn’t be killed; a fetus is not a life yet.


Denying someone life because of the circumstances of their conception is unfair. They had no say in these circumstances, and were, instead, simply given life. It does not matter what the conditions of this life were. It is still wrong to kill life, particularly an unborn baby. The child has a right to life just as much as that woman had the right to not be raped. The rapist violated her rights. Aborting the child would be violating the child's right to life. In 2004, only 1%1 of women cited rape as their reason for abortion, so this is more an exception than a reason for legalizing abortion.  1 L.B Finner et al


There are practical problems with banning abortion  Not only is banning abortion a problem in theory, offending against a woman's right to choose, it is also a practical problem. Enforcing an abortion ban would require a quite degrading and inhumane treatment of those women who wished to have their fetus terminated. Moreover, if pregnant women traveled abroad, they would be able to have an abortion in a country where it was legal. Either the state takes the draconian measure of restricting freedom of movement, or it must admit that its law is unworkable in practice and abolish it. The middle way of tacitly accepting foreign terminations would render hypocritical the much-vaunted belief in the sanctity of life. The demand for abortions will always exist; making abortion illegal, will simply drive it underground and into conditions where the health and safety of the woman might be put at risk.1  Example: Polish women, living in a country with extremely restrictive abortion laws often go abroad to the Netherlands, Germany and Austria for abortions.2 Women who are not lucky enough to live in environments such as the EU may be forced to go to foreign countries and undergo underground, unsafe abortions.  1 WARSAW BUSINNES JOURNAL


Practical considerations should not influence the legislation of an issue of principle.  Many laws have difficulties pertaining to implementation, but these do not diminish the strength of the principle behind them: people will kill other people, regardless of your legislating against it, but it does not follow that you shouldn't legislate against it. Even though the Netherlands had more liberal drugs' laws than in England, this did not lead, and nor should it have led, to a similar liberalization here.  As far as underground abortions are concerned, the problem is one of the implementation of the law. If the law were properly enforced, underground abortions would not be offered in the first place.


What right does anyone have to deprive another of life on the grounds that he deems that life as not worth living? This arrogant and sinister presumption is impossible to justify, given that many people with disabilities lead fulfilling lives. What disabilities would be regarded as the watershed between life and termination? All civilized countries roundly condemn the practice of eugenics.


Rape victims have no choice when it comes to getting pregnant, therefore they should have the right to terminate the pregnancy  Women, and in some cases girls, who have been raped should not have to suffer the additional torment of being pregnant with the product of that ordeal. To force a woman to produce a living, constant reminder of that act is unfair on both mother and child.  In cases where the rape victim cannot afford or is not ready to have a child, abortion can do both the victim and the unborn baby a favor. There are cases where school students are impregnated through rape. Pregnancy itself is a constant reminder of the sexual assault they underwent and might cause emotional instability, which will affect their studies, and subsequently their future. Babies born to unready mothers are likely to be neglected or would not be able to enjoy what other children have, be it due to financial reasons or the unwillingness of the mothers to bring up the "unwanted children".  1 SECASA


There can be medical reasons for terminating a pregnancy  There are cases in which it is necessary to terminate a pregnancy, lest the mother and/or the child die. In such cases of medical emergency and in the interest of saving life, surely it is permissible to abort the fetus.  Also, due to advances in medical technology it is possible to determine during pregnancy whether the child will be disabled. In cases of severe disability, in which the child would have a very short, very painful and tragic life, it is surely the right course of action to allow the parents to choose a termination. This avoids both the suffering of the parents and of the child.1  1 PRO-Life Information


Yes, our societies do strive to affirm life as much as possible, and to make the quality of life of our citizens as high as possible. Foetuses do not apply here because they:  a) are not lives, are not human until fairly late  b) if they are born as unwanted children, and the mother is effectively forced to give birth, the quality of life of both the child and the mother will be lowered, and that is what really goes against the principle of life affirmation.


Women do not "want" abortions. They find themselves in a position in which abortion is the less bad between bad alternatives. This argument is important in explaining that abortion is not about a malicious desire to "kill babies" or even to express their right to choose; it is about allowing women to make the best choice.


Legalizing abortions leads to irresponsible sexual behavior  Abortion shouldn't be a form of birth control when other forms are readily available. With contraception being so effective, unwanted pregnancies are typically a result of irresponsible sexual behavior. Such irresponsible behavior does not deserve an exit from an unwanted pregnancy through abortion. In Mexico City, a year after abortion was legalized, the frequency increased.1  1 LIFESITE NEWS


A fetus is a life from conception, therefore abortion is murder  It is unquestionable that the fetus, at whatever stage of development, will inevitably develop the ability to feel and think and be conscious of its own existence. The unborn child will have every ability, and every opportunity that you yourself have, if you give him or her the opportunity. The time-restrictions on termination had to be changed once, when it was discovered that feeling developed earlier than first thought, so they are hardly impeccable safe-guards behind which to hide: In the UK, the restriction was moved from 28 weeks to 24 weeks in 1990, due to scientific discoveries.1 Human life is continuum of growth that starts at conception, not at birth. The DNA that makes a person who they are is first mixed at conception upon the male sperm entering the female egg. This is when the genetic building blocks of a person are "conceived" and built upon. The person, therefore, begins at conception. Killing the fetus, thus, destroys a growing person and can be considered murder. Ronald Reagan was quoted in the New York Times on September 22, 1980 saying: "I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born." in the 1980 presidential debate.2  1 THE TELEGRAPH


Legalizing abortion defies the principle of life affirmation  Every life presents an inherent value to society. Every individual has the potential to contribute in one way or another, and taking the child's life before it has even had a chance to experience and contribute to the world undermines that potential. Even more, the underlying philosophical claim behind abortion is that not every life is equally valued and if a life is 'unwanted' or 'accidental' it is not worth enough to live. That kind of thinking goes directly against the life-affirming policies and philosophies of most countries, and peoples themselves.


Most abortions are performed out of convenience  Most abortions are performed entirely voluntarily by women that have the means to raise a child, but simply don't want to. While emergency abortions or abortions under trying circumstances such as rape are held out as reasons to continue to have abortions, they are infrequent and serve more to provide cover for voluntarily "life-style" abortions. This is wrong. For example: In 2004, only 7% of women in the US cited health risk as the reason for abortion. Most had social reasons, i.e. were not ready, did not want a baby, a baby would interfere with their career etc.1  1 L.B Finner et al


Are we really talking about a 'life?' At what point does a life begin? Is terminating a foetus, which can neither feel nor think and is not conscious of its own 'existence,' really commensurable with the killing of a 'person?' There rightly are restrictions on the time, within which a termination can take place, before a foetus does develop these defining, human characteristics. If you affirm that human life is a quality independent of, and prior to thought and feeling, then you leave yourself the awkward task of explaining what truly 'human' life is. A foetus is not a life until it fulfils certain criteria. Before 24 weeks, a foetus does not feel pain, is not conscious of itself or its surroundings. Until a fetus can survive on its own, it cannot be called a life, any more than the acorn can be called a tree.


The assertion that obtaining an abortion is always the result of irresponsible behaviour is disrespectful to every woman undergoing an abortion. Using birth control is a completely different decision from getting an abortion. Besides, contraception, though effective, is still not accepted, available or affordable for women in certain countries. Moreover, even when legalized, abortion will only be a last resort in the cases where the quality of life of the baby or mother or both will be in danger.


Experience teaches us that if you simply remove the government then those who are currently strong get stronger and those who are weak get destroyed. Tackling issues such as prejudice in the workplace, health and safety, protecting the vulnerable, managing immigration and a million others require not only the involvement of the state but for a government that is actively engaged in countering private interests. To allow the market to run unfettered seems unlikely to protect the rights of the individual but, rather would cede hard fought rights to the rapacious interests of corporations.  Without compulsion by government, it is unlikely that the disadvantaged in society would be paid much heed [i] .  [i] "Libertarianism". Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy


A growing alliance that defies party lines and the definitions of the last century  A libertarian agenda is one that draws people from across the political spectrum. The crisis in the financial sector has confirmed for many that government and large financial institutions have simply got too close. Republicans say they can reduce the size of government but never do, Democrats say they can regulate corporations but show no sign of doing so.  The primary reason why people can approach libertarianism from across the political spectrum is that, as a philosophy, it doesn’t seek to judge individual policies. So policies traditionally associated with the left – the legalization of drugs or gay rights – as well as those of the right - independence for schools and reducing taxation – both fall within a Libertarian agenda that simply says that none of these issues are any business of the state [i] .  [i] Brian Micklethwaite. “How to Win The Libertarian Argument”. 1990


The appropriate response, in a democracy, to a hegemonic political class is not to scrap the State altogether but simply to vote for someone else.  It is also interesting to note the large number of people who are claiming that ‘nothing can be done’ or that ‘voting never changes anything’ are themselves elected representatives.  In those countries where there is a dominance of two major parties, those parties also tend to reflect a wide diversity of views, thus in the United States and Britain there can be as much division within the parties as between them.  The fact that there is a broad consensus on certain key issues, such as the general structure of the economic model, reflects not the imposition or a worldview but the assumption of a worldview shared by the vast majority in those societies.


Neither citizen nor subject, consumer nor customer: the supremacy of the individual  A sensible Libertarian position accepts the rights of people to do whatever they like as long as it doesn’t infringe upon the life of anyone else. That may sound like something that anyone could sign up to but the reality is not so simple. The Right may defend corporate greed and the Left government intervention but there is a clearer principle; I have the right not to have my air poisoned by your chemical company which means I don’t have to pay for any government body to clear up the mess.  The Oglala Sioux activist and actor, Russell Means has argued that “A libertarian society would not allow anyone to injure others by pollution because it insists on individual responsibility.”  All too often the line between consumer and citizen is blurred because the interest of both state and private actors have become conjoined leaving little or no room for the individual between them. A libertarian approach would break that cozy consensus.


It is impossible in any modern state to pretend that the state simply isn’t there or that individuals on their own can act against multinationals or government departments and agencies.  The Libertarian perspective is the stuff of fantasy; neither taxes nor markets are going anywhere anytime soon however much a ragbag of theorists may wish for it.  Benjamin Franklin argued that “All property, indeed, except the savage's temporary cabin, his bow, his matchcoat and other little Acquisitions absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the creature of public Convention. Hence, the public has the rights of regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the quantity and uses of it. All the property that is necessary to a man is his natural Right, which none may justly deprive him of, but all Property superfluous to such Purposes is the property of the Public who, by their Laws have created it and who may, by other Laws dispose of it.” [i]  The point is that an individual cannot walk up to a chemical plant and tell them to move it, only a government, elected through collective action can do that.  [i] Franklin, Benjamin, ‘Benjamin Franklin to Robert Morris’, 25 December 1783, in The Founders’ Constitution, Vol. 1. Chapter 16, Document 12,


There is very little meaningful choice left in many societies with the major parties all singing from the same score  One of principal reasons for the growth of libertarian parties, especially in the West, is the dominance of one particular ideological viewpoint that is broadly shared by all the major parties.  As a result anyone who does not share this viewpoint are effectively disenfranchised and have the world view of a de facto governing class imposed upon them. The only sensible response is to reduce the impact of that government altogether.  Indeed in the United States, where the libertarian argument has been made most vociferously, the entire political system is designed on the predicate of a minimalist state and is poorly designed to deal with the behemoth that the Federal Government has become.


The reduction in the size of the state is a process and not an event. Rolling back the state can be done over time giving people responsibility and power over their lives on a growing range of issues. The presumption that the state should only act when individuals can’t, however, would reverse the direction of legislation which has tended to see the intervention of the state into the lives of its citizens as beneficial in and of itself – not just the nanny state but the further assumption that ‘nanny knows best’.  The role of government should only to be that all have equal access to the available freedoms and that those freedoms are not abused. These principles are known as the law of equal liberty  and the non-aggression principle between the two of them they comfortably control and define the role of the state.


Libertarianism is not about abolishing the state, simply about returning it to an appropriate size. In the era following WWII the state in most Western nations expanded into almost every area of citizen’s lives. In the USA in 1929 government expenditures accounted 9.46% by 2008 this had risen to 35%, this is mirrored elsewhere, in Sweden at the beginning of the 20th century government expenditure was 7% of GDP, it has now risen to over 50%. [i] The period of high expenditure is the historical anomaly, not the norm.  The libertarian movement seeks to return the level of governance to the more traditional ‘night watchman state’ where the government has responsibility for protecting the borders, maintaining domestic security and the provision of a level of support that prevents destitution.  Beyond that the state should not really have a role. It certainly does not have the moralising, semi-parental role it has taken on.  [i] Hyman, David N., Public Finance A Contemporary Application of Theory to Policy, Tenth Edition, South Western Cengage Learning, 2010,  pp.15-16


Libertarianism is really a coalition of the unwilling; the fringes of the left and right, happy to criticize but without a single policy on which they can agree  The alliance supporting libertarianism is an interesting one, consisting mostly of right-wing pragmatists who don’t want to pay taxes and left wing idealist who think that everyone would be kind and helpful in a free society.  What both groups simply ignore is that there are many issues, such as the redistribution of income or prohibition of drugs, where there is a settled will of society that supports the status quo. Even the very presence of, for example, wide-spread drug use would be an offence to very large numbers of people and unfairly impinge upon their lives which is why so few people actually vote for libertarian parties once they find out the realities.


Libertarianism only works – even in theory – if you start off with a level pl  It is entirely possible, if one were constructing a hypothetical society from scratch, that you wouldn’t end up with one looking like an actual society that has evolved over centuries or millennia. However in the real world there are interest groups and those who to a greater or lesser degree are advantaged or disadvantaged, everyone may have equal rights but we do not always naturally have an equal capability to defend our rights. The role of the state is to provide some degree of balance. Simply removing the mechanisms in place would accentuate those differences that existed within society at the time of their removal.


Libertarians would return society to a state of nature where ‘life is cruel, bloody and short’.  There is no denying that government is ultimately responsible for maintaining the series of compromises that we all adopt as part of the social contract. Destroying that capacity would, in effect, destroy the contract it underpins. The process of governance may at times be cumbersome and apparently interventionist but the results of those interventions are collective security. Without it society as we know it would return to a state of nature where all except those with the means to pay for their own protection – physical and financial – would be at risk.


It is absolutely the case that an individual has the right not to be harmed by the actions of another but it would be impossible to argue that they have the right not to be offended.  The presumption should always be in favour of the fact that people are free to do in their own lives whatever they wish so long as it doesn’t cause harm. That is an attractive position to many but, inevitably, those interested in lifestyles or policies that do not fall within the ‘standard model’ as a result libertarian policies have tended to receive their most vociferous support at the margins of the policy agenda, that does not mean however, that the approach is not equally beneficial to those with a more mainstream view.


States may not be perfect but they are better than a stateless society.  Whilst states do not have a perfect track record a stateless society would have all sorts of negative consequences. The laws in modern countries are designed to protect the weak from theft and harm. Property laws protect people's property that, in the case of houses they may have worked for 20 years or more to acquire. A stateless society is one that cannot enforce these laws and must always be more unjust than a society with a state.


The state is a meaningless metaphysical entity that is unnecessary and indeed detrimental for our lives.  There is nothing that states provide for us that we cannot provide for ourselves by working together as communities. All the state seeks to do is oppress the people, forcing us to obey laws and pay taxes we did not consent to. In many cases the state goes out of its way to deprive people of their basic needs, for instance when the state evicts squatters from houses that were being left unused, the UK for example is moving to criminalize squatting [1] ; or when the state has property laws that keep wealth in the hands of the few whilst the many struggle to survive as has been the case in the United States, particularly in the 19thCentury when President Hayes argued “There can be no republican institutions with vast masses of property permanently in a few hands, and large masses of voters without property”. [2]  [1]   [2]


Democracies are not perfect but they are better than the other options.  Whilst democracies are not perfect they are the best way we have of aggregating the interests of society. People might not always get what they want but this is inevitable where there are differences in opinion and one course of action must be taken.  Heads of state may not be demographically representative at the moment but we are seeing an increase in the numbers of minority groups in positions of power in many countries. Removing the state to solve this problem is using a sledgehammer to crack a n


Community action is a more powerful tool than the state for providing goods.  Forcing people into community action, as the state tries to do, detracts from real community action. People naturally try to help one another out and do what they can for their communities but when the state tries to undertake this action itself it always wastes a huge amount or resources and sends the message that the job is done. In a stateless society people would know that they have a responsibility to care for their fellow man and take all the steps they possibly can to do so. This action will be more direct, enthusiastic and relevant than any taken by the government because those organising it will inevitably be in closer contact and have more of a stake with the problems they are trying to solve.


Even in societies with a state, anarchist groups provide a voice for the oppressed.  Even if the state is never overthrown anarchism will always have something important to say. Anarchist groups were at the forefront of resistance groups in world war two, and today they are at the forefront of protests against the state whenever it tries to take even more from the worst off in society, for example in anti cuts protests in the UK. [1]  Anarchist communities like Freetown Christiana in Copenhagen exist as centres of peace and culture, by standing outside of society it provides a useful commentary on society as well as being an example for how people can live more freely without a state.  [1]


Anarchists in fact often have a negative effect on protests, they regularly use far more extreme measures than any other protester at the demonstration and this can often distract from and distort the message behind the protests. Anarchist groups are infamous for trying to hijack protests that were not about anarchism; trying to use extreme and often violent measures to get an anarchist message across when the original protesters have no interest in anarchism whatsoever. Even Christiana cited by the proposition has seen violence in 2009 when 1500 people were arrested after setting fire to barricades and throwing fire bombs at police. [1] Anarchist groups have their own ideology, not the interests of oppressed groups at heart.  [1]


Community action is good, but the state is always necessary. Community can make a big difference but it can make a bigger difference with state help, states fund many organisations which would not be able to operate.  Organisations like state health services would not be able to function as community projects; they require a huge amount of funding, specialist training and facilities and organisation that would simply not be available without the state.


States have done much good as well; World War Two was fought because states wanted to prevent Nazi conquest; states intervened in the Kosovo war to prevent ethnic cleansing; and the American Civil War was fought to stop slavery, it is clear that states use their military power for good as well as bad, in a stateless world there would be no actors who would be there to prevent people from taking advantage of their fellow man.  While states can do bad things the solution is not to dismantle states, we need a better international court system to help prevent atrocities and hold those responsible accountable for their actions.


States are never truly representative of the people.  Even if we ignore all of the totalitarian regimes in the world, democracies do not truly represent the people. Politicians all too often promise progressive changes and then fail to deliver, for example Obama’s failure to close Guantanamo Bay [1] and Nick Clegg breaking his promises over tuition fees [2]  The interests of politicians in democracies are far too often tied to the interests of the rich and powerful; people like Rupert Murdoch have unprecedented access to politicians which is quite simply not available to the average person [3]  Demographically heads of state are very rarely representative, The USA has never had a female or Hispanic president, the UK has never had a non white Prime Minister and 66% of UK ministers have been privately educated [4] . These people can never truly have the people’s interests at heart.  [1]   [2]   [3]


The state has far too often been an instrument for facilitating wars and other acts of violence.  The state has, throughout history, been responsible for an immeasurable amount of violence and destruction. From ancient times where states were the primary instrument of enforcing laws so that people could keep slaves, to the actions of imperial nations like Britain, to the holocaust to all of the pointless wars fought throughout history, states have a long record of slaughtering and ruining the lives of countless numbers of their own and other states people. William Eckhardt estimates battle deaths since 3000 BC at 151million while Beer came out with a much higher figure of 1.1 billion battle deaths (NB both use dodgy calculations and of course in either case the total military deaths let alone civilian would be much higher).1  These actions are always taken because they are in the interest of the ruling class, but the ruling classes are never the ones directly involved in these conflicts, they instead use the state as an instrument to coerce other people to fight their battles for them. In a stateless society the people might need to fight against oppression but they would never be forced to fight for causes that have nothing to do with them.  [1]


This is an unfair portrayal of Freetown Christiana. Soft drug use is something that the people of Christiana have decided is not immoral or illegal and is something that they tolerate in their society. They should not be criticised for people who do things which are totally within the rules of Freetown Christiana society.


COUNTERPOINT  These could still be provided in a different way. These issues can be dealt with quite sufficiently within small communities, in the case of a fire people the whole community would likely assist in fire-fighting duties whilst equipment could be owned communally.  Anarchist communities do not necessarily have no rules, these rules can be adequately enforced by the community and the community can collectively decide what to do about rule breakers.


Anarchy has nothing to contribute but violence.  Anarchist groups may claim to contribute to political discussion and propose a viable alternative to states, but too regularly they contribute very little more than violence, they regularly hijack legitimate peaceful protests and by acting in a violent way detract from those protests. [1] In order to be able to contribute to society they need to be able to show that they have something to contribute. People will not listen if the movement is associated with violence so anarchism will never have an opportunity to contribute while it practices violence.  [1]


Anarchist Communities have a very poor track record.  Without the state there is very little in the way of protection against immorality, if one looks at Freetown Christiana, supposedly an anarchist utopia, it has actually been a blight on Copenhagen society; it has only thrived because of the cannabis trade, and is a haven for biker gangs [1] where the police have been attacked with petrol bombs [2] . If a small community like Christiana cannot survive without becoming a hotbed of immorality then what hope is there for a totally stateless world?  [1]   [2]


The state provides functions which are utterly essential.  Anarchist groups are very naive in believing that we could survive without states, states provide a countless functions that would not exist otherwise. Things like the fire service would be very hard to organise as a community, it is likely that that very few people would volunteer to perform such a dangerous job. There are many vital services that require economies of scale to exist in order to provide the specialized services. This means that something larger than a local community is needed to provide it. For example communities could provide basic healthcare but could they provide the cutting edge research necessary to improve it, and then the expensive treatments to be able to take advantage of that research?  Legal systems are dependent on the state for their existence, without a centralised system of law and a state to appoint judges and organise and fund courts and the police. Under anarchy law and order is likely to look a lot more like mob justice. Without any sort of police force or judiciary it would be highly likely that a community would be able to prevent crime.


Violence is not intrinsic to Anarchy Whilst there are many violent anarchists there is nothing about anarchy that means that violence need be a part of it. Many anarchists identify themselves as Anarchist-Pacifists and are against any and all violence.


Ignoring the law some of the time undermines the state. The opposition believe that this legislation goes much further than showing solidarity between the government and religion, and is actually the government showing submission to religion. This legislation sets religion as a higher authority than the government and, as such, undermines the government’s power as the ultimate authority.  The likely effect is that religious groups will begin to see themselves as above the law and will begin to disregard to government to an ever greater extent.


Relationship between state and religious population  People who are caused distress and have their religious freedom limited by their government are likely to feel disillusioned with and sidelined by their government. They will wonder why other religious groups can follow all the teachings of their faith while the government limits theirs. This kind of limitation of how to worship or what traditions and beliefs to follow can be part of the cause that leads to members of that religion feeling not welcome and discriminated against, ultimately leading to extremism. Allowing religious beliefs to override government laws would relieve these feelings and dramatically improve religious people’s relationship with the state.  This improvement in relationship would severely reduce the likelihood of anti-government feelings and general civil unrest.


Undermines the state. Similarly to the point above, the opposition believe that this legislation will actually be seen by organised religion as a sign of submission from the government. It shows organised religious groups that they hold power over the government whenever they choose to use it.  In terms of international diplomacy, it shows theocratic states and the like that we are moving to become more like them. This legitimises their position, which the opposition thinks is an inherently harmful one as the voice of the people is not heard in non-democratic countries.


People have a right to freedom of religion.  Freedom to religion is widely considered to be a fundamental human right. Freedom of religion is very similar to freedom of expression and is an inalienable right that cannot be taken away by the state. Article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights states “Everyone has the right to freedom of… religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.” [1] In addition to this, many people consider religion to be the single most important thing in their life.  Under the status quo, many people are inhibited in their ability to practise their religion to its fullest degree. This not only causes them great distress due to how important this is to them but is a breach of their human rights.  The government has an obligation to provide people with a basic standard of life and thus must pass this legislation.  [1] “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” The United Nations Article 18


Rights only exist so long as they do not harm others. Like all rights, the right to practise your religion to its fullest extent, regardless of the consequences for other people and the laws of your state is only a right in as far as it does not affect other people. The opposition believes that laws are in place to stop people from causing harm to one another and allowing religious people to break these laws is putting the rights of the religious people ahead of the rights of everyone else in society.  The government has a responsibility to respect the rights and standard of life of all people, not just religious people.


Religious extremism is not currently considered ‘legitimate’. The community at large have a great disdain for terrorism and similar activity and mainstream religions desperately try to disassociate themselves from extremism, all the while condemning it. [1]  The opposition believes that this good will be so barely perceptible that it does next to nothing to outweigh all the harms that this legislation will bring.  [1] Iannaccone, Laurence R. “Religious extremism: Origins and consequences” Contemporary Jewry. Volume 20. 1996.


Relationship between state and organised religion.  Currently, the state and organised religion are often seen as diametrically opposed. [1] For example the state often worries about the threat of religious extremists. This causes a lot of tension between the government and religious communities within the country, as well as between the state and states which hold religion more highly. As the Bishop of Liverpool puts it “Church and politics are not two parallel lines; rather they are two live wires, side by side, which when they touch should ignite and explode.” [2] Thus when Rowan Williams suggested Sharia might be accommodated his comments created a political storm.  This legislation would show that we do value and respect religious freedom and rights and would improve our relationships on both of these fronts.  [1] Gay, Kathlyn. “Church and State.” Millbrook Press 1992  [2] The Bishop of Liverpool, ‘Church and Politics: “My Kingdom is not of this world” Really?’, St Wilfrid Lecture, 18th February 2010.


Delegitimises religious  Currently, bombings and attacks in the name of religion are a big problem. These are mostly caused by people feeling that their religion is being discriminated against. [1] For example Dr Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury believes that "There's a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law, as we already do with some other aspects of religious law." He believes this would help maintain social cohesion because Muslims would not need to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty". [2]  If the government is seen to be supporting all religions then these attacks will lose their credibility and will inevitably be reduced in both severity and frequency.  [1] Iannaccone, Laurence R. “Religious extremism: Origins and consequences” Contemporary Jewry. Volume 20. 1996.  [2] BBC News, ‘Sharia law in UK is ‘unavoidable’’, 7 February 2008.


This treats everyone the same rather than treating people differently. The proposition does not accept that people will perceive this as one set of rules for one group of people and another set of rules for another. This legislation does not create divisions in society but relieves them by ensuring that everyone is allowed to practise their religion to the fullest extent that they wish to.  The status quo is that some religious groups are allowed to practise their religion to its fullest extent and others are not. The proposition believes that this is far more divisive than this legislation.


This is a weak slippery slope argument. The proposition does not accept that this legislation puts religion above the law. Religious people and movements do not see the potential to practise their religion to its fullest degree as a way to get one over on the state but a right that they deserve as a human being.  This legislation will not be seen as weakness but as tolerance.  As for honour killings, they are not religious but cultural and are denounced by leaders of all the world’s major faiths [1] as such they have nothing to do with this legislation and would not be perceived as having anything to do with this legislation.  [1] “Honour Crimes.” BBC Ethics Guide. 2011.


Makes the affected laws effectively inoperable in their totality.  If people wish to carry knives in public or smoke marijuana, the rational thing for them to do under this legislation is to falsely claim to be Sikh or Rastafarian respectively so that they are not subject to these laws. This logic applies to all laws affected by this legislation.  The government would first have to work out what religions count for this legislation, the government would likely want to exclude at least some extremist cults and would not want to allow individuals or small to make up their own religions. Equally problematic would be that the government would need to regulate what all these beliefs are so as to prevent new beliefs from springing up to get around laws. The government would then have to work out ways of working out if someone is legitimately part of a religion or not, this would be practically impossible. The ultimate effect would be that all laws affected by this legislation would be so easy to get around that they may as well not exist.  Instead the government should look to accommodate religious values within British law by making the necessary changes in specific instances rather that introducing a carte blanche to override the laws of the land. [1]  [1] Petre, Jonathan et al, ‘Bishop: Impossible to have sharia law in UK’, The Telegraph, 8 February 2008,


Causes divisions in society.  One of the most fundamental things in any democracy is equality between those in that society. Many minorities have been struggling for this equality for decades. This includes religious minorities for example between the reformation in the 16th Century and 1829 Catholics were second class citizens. [1] This demand that religious beliefs should override government laws switches things around and once again means that not everyone is equal before the law.  Moreover making it law that certain groups of people are allowed to behave in a way that other groups of people are not inevitably leads to social divisions. This means people who are unaffected by this legislation will see religious people as getting special treatment, feel side-lined by the government and see religious people as their enemy in this.  This will promote tension between religious and non-religious communities and will thus create divisions in society as well as deepening pre-existing ones.  [1] Living Heritage, ‘Religion and Belief’, parliament.uk.


Sets a standard for religion as it being above the law.  This legislation essentially indicates that anything to do with religion is not subject to the same laws as everyone else and removes the state from his position as ultimate authority over its subjects. The limits will be very difficult to draw – there are some things that everyone would agree is based upon religious belief such as the Sikhs carry knives but there may be other cases where a minority of the religion believes that something is required by their religion, should this still be allowed? Similarly would this apply to every single religion and sect or would the state have to define what it counts as a religion and limit it only to major religions?  By extension, this legitimises actions like honour killings, which are killings done in the name of religion. Although they would not be directly allowed by this legislation, they would be implicitly encouraged and those carrying it out would try to claim that it was carrying out a religious belief in order to get protection from the law. Already 1 in 10 young British Asians back honour killings, they do not need any encouragement from changes to the law like this. [1]  [1] BBC News, ‘One in 10 ‘backs honour killings’’, 4 September 2006.


This harm can be avoided very easily. Avoiding these laws becoming completely inoperable would actually be quite simple. People who observe nothing but the potentially illegal parts of the religion would not be considered part of that religion, particularly if they only began identifying as part of that religion once this legislation was passed.


Term-limiting legislators insults the intelligence of the electorate. Individuals can make prudent decisions about who to vote for, and it so happens that that decision is often to keep incumbents in power. If the reason for such high reelection rates is due to an uneducated or disaffected electorate, then the problem is not be solved by simply instituting term limits. Rather, such results mean an effort must be made to educate voters and to fight voter apathy. Neither of those things is accomplished by limiting the choice of the voters.


Term limits create more competitive elections for public office that empower new leaders and ideas:  Incumbency provides a huge election advantage. Politicians almost always win reelection. The frequency with which they win varies over time and between states, but incumbency is always a powerful advantage. This is seen most visibly in the United States Congress of the past 30 years, in which it has become virtually impossible to unseat an incumbent legislator. Legislators are reelected because they have better name recognition both with the electorate and with lobby groups. People have a tendency to vote for whom they recognize, and firms tend to support past winners who will likely continue to benefit their interests. Term limits actually increase voter choice by making elections more competitive and encouraging more candidates to run. In areas where term limits have been instituted there is far higher turnover amongst legislators, giving voters far more choice in who should represent them. In California, the institution of term limits on state legislators caused a rush of retirements, which led to 50 percent more candidates than would otherwise have been expected, as well as a marked increase in the diversity of the backgrounds of those elected [1] . Ultimately, old legislators using election machines to retain power do their country and constituents a disservice. Power is best used when it changes hands over time in order to allow for dynamic new solutions to be mooted in a changing world.  [1] Bandow, Doug. 1995. "Real Term Limits: Now More Than Ever". Cato Institute Policy Analysis.


People are intelligent enough to recognize whether a representative is benefiting them or not. They will not vote for someone who is using his privileged position in the legislature to enrich himself or build a fiefdom of influence. Rather, legislators will only be able to stay in office so long as they do what their constituents want. If legislators are maintaining their power by other means, such as institutionalized corruption and force, it is not because there are no term limits on them, but rather because of other fundamental problems of government in those states.


Term limits restore a concept of rotation in public office, and reestablish the concept of the citizen legislature:  It is gravely unfortunate that politics has become an accepted career path for citizens of democratic states. It is far better that participation in government be brief. To end politics as a lifetime sinecure, thereby making legislative service a leave of absence, rather than a means of permanently absconding from a productive career in the private sector, requires that there be term limits 1. Without term limits, the temptation to remain in office for life will keep people seeking reelection long after they have accomplished all the legislative good of which they are capable. It does not take long for legislators to become more occupied with their relationships with each other and with lobbyists, than with their constituents. Representative assemblies work best when they function as citizen legislatures, in which people who pursue careers other than politics enter the legislative forum for a brief time to do their country service, and then leave again to reenter society as private citizens2. Such citizen legislators who enter politics to make their mark and then leave are far more desirable than the career politicians of today who focus only on building their own power influence, rather than considering the people they were elected to represent. US states with 'citizen legislatures', where the state legislature is part time with short sessions so allowing its members to hold other jobs, were at the top of freedom indexes. New Hampshire was both the most minimal parliament and the state with most fiscal freedom according to the Ruger-Sorens Index.3 1 Will, George. 1993. Restoration: Congress, Term Limits, and the Restoration of Deliberative Democracy. New York: Free Press. 2 Bandow, Doug. 1995. "Real Term Limits: Now More Than Ever". Cato Institute Policy Analysis. 3 Rugar, William and Sorens, Jason. 2011. "The Citizen Legislature: How Reasonable Limits on State Legislative Salaries, Staff and Session Lengths Keep Liberty Alive" Policy Brief, Goldwater Institute,


If people wish to pursue a career in politics, then it is their right to do so. There is nothing wrong with career politicians so long as they obey the will of their people and accurately represent the desires of their constituents. While there should be no bar to people seeking to enter politics on a temporary basis, placing that form of political participation over a more lasting one makes no sense. Furthermore, career politicians have valuable experience that can be extremely useful in the forming of legislation and the conducting of public business. Term limits destroy this valuable resource by casting people out of the halls of government at a fixed point, regardless of the worth they might still impart to the legislative process.


A term-limited legislator suffers from the effects of being a lame duck. A final term legislator will not be able to command the same degree of leverage as one who can potentially serve another term. Building the necessary support for worthy legislation might thus prove far more difficult than it would have had the legislator not been a lame duck. Furthermore, with regard to lobby-group support, a politician on the way out who cannot seek another term has an incentive to favor groups and firms that will place him on their boards, a potentially highly lucrative retirement package for outgoing legislators, paid for often at the expense of the public.


The longer a politician remains in office, the more entrenched his grip becomes, and the more likely he is to use his office to his personal advantage:  Power is highly intoxicating; it can corrupt even the most scrupled individual given enough exposure over time. For this reason, power should not be left in the hands of specific individuals for too long. When a politician is firmly entrenched, he may seek to enrich himself at the expense of the public. He may seek to shower benefices on family and allies in order to maintain and strengthen his powerful position. Without term limits legislators often become self-serving individuals, more interested in craving out personal power bases than with serving the people who elected them. Because legislators are so likely to be reelected, lobbyists and special interest groups find the lines of power in states' capitals largely predictable, and are thus able to buy the influence of the permanent power nexuses in the legislature with relative ease1. Term limits serve to limit the ability of individuals to put forward self-serving legislation and to retain power indefinitely 2. Instead, by maintaining term limits, legislators have only a limited time in power, which tends to shift their focus toward genuinely benefiting the public.  1 Bandow, Doug. 1995. "Real Term Limits: Now More Than Ever". Cato Institute Policy Analysis. 2 Green, Eric. 2007. "Term Limits Help Prevent Dictatorships". America.gov.


The need to constantly fight elections compromises a politician's ability to make the difficult and unpopular decisions that may be needed at a given time:  A major focus of a legislator hoping to serve another term is on the next election and on vote getting. It is often the case that hard decisions need to be made by legislators, but it is difficult for them to do so when they are fixated on being reelected. Legislators have an incentive to put tough decisions off if they can retain power by doing so. An example of such seemingly perpetual procrastination is observable in the United States Congress's attitude toward social security. The fund is set to become insolvent, by some estimates, in less than two decades, yet congressmen and senators have chosen time and again to put off enacting painful, but necessary reform to the system. They find it easier to delay a decision until the next Congress, preferring their own reelection to the good of the nation. When constrained by term limits, legislators must make the most of their limited time in office, resulting in greater prioritization of difficult decisions and reform1. Furthermore, the need to constantly fight elections places politicians in the pocket of lobby-groups and election supporters to a greater degree, as they will always need to go back to them for support, and thus cannot make decisions that are in the national interest alone. While there will always be some of this behavior, it is curtailed by term limits, as legislators will, in their final term at the very least, not be beholden to as many special interests as they cannot run again. Bolder legislative action is observed from retiring legislators in the United States Congress, for example. When a congressman or senator does not intend to seek reelection, his tendency to vote along strict party lines diminishes substantially. Term limits, just like voluntary retirement, leads legislators to vote more on the basis of principle than on party stance2. The result of this is a more independent legislature, with a greater interest in actually serving the people.  1 Chan, Sewell. 2008. "Debating the Pros and Cons of Term Limits". New York Times. 2 Scherer, Michael. 2010. "Washington's Time for Bipartisanship: Retirement". Time.


Legislators may gain skill in maneuvering in the legislative arena with time, but they also gain a propensity for power grabbing and self-advancement. Politicians of long standing use their knowledge of the working of the legislature as much for the lobbyists and interest groups, who they prefer to work with rather than young, inexperienced legislators. The power of lobbyists is magnified by the solidity of the channels of political influence created by high rates of incumbency. Term limits actually serve to restrict the power of interest groups, and instead places emphasis on the production of progressive legislation.


Term limits promote greater choice in candidates and protect democracy1. While people may not be able to vote for a legislator again who has reached his limit of service, they can still vote for a continuation of his policies by voting for his chosen successor or for his political party's candidate. Limiting individual politicians to specified terms, however, prevents them from becoming too powerful and damaging the democratic system through efforts at self-enrichment and influence-peddling.  1 Bandow, Doug. 1995. "Real Term Limits: Now More Than Ever". Cato Institute Policy Analysis.


The incentive for corruption and self-enrichment in office is increased by term limits:  With term limits, a legislator will, after he enters his final permitted term of office, not have to face the electorate again, meaning he can do whatever wants, to an extent. This encourages corruption and self-enrichment on the part of legislators in their final term of office when they do not need to face the people to answer for poor management. There is likewise less incentive to follow through on election promises to supporters, since their withdrawing support can have little tangible impact on a lame duck. A study into term limits in Brazil found that "mayors with re-election incentives are signi?cantly less corrupt than mayors without re-election incentives. In municipalities where mayors are in their ?rst term, the share of stolen resources is, on average, 27 percent lower than in municipalities with second-term mayors."(Ferraz, 2010) Furthermore, lame duck politicians can devote time to buddying up to businesses and organizations in order to get appointments to lucrative board seats after they leave office. This has often been the case in Western democracies, where former parliamentarians, cabinet ministers, senators, etc. find themselves being offered highly profitable positions upon their retirement (Wynne, 2004). Imposing term limits necessarily increases this sort of behavior, as politicians look more toward their retirement during their final years of office, rather than to the interests of the people. 1 Ferraz, Claudio and Finan, Frederico, (2010). "Electoral Accountability and Corruption: Evidence from the Audits of Local Governments" Berkeley, 2 Wynne, Michael. 2004. "Politics, Markets, Health and Democracy". University of Wolongong.


Term limits tend to increase partisanship between political parties and factions:  Term limits on legislators serve to exacerbate partisan tensions between political parties1. This is due to several causes. First, the increased iteration of primary elections, caused by politicians being forced out of office by term limits, in which there tends to be low voter turnout, and higher voter apathy when they happen to regularly. This leads to the selection of more conservative candidates from the right, and more radical candidates from the left. These more opposed groups forming large portions of political parties' representation will lead to more tension in the legislature. Second, newly elected politicians are often more likely to readily take the party whip when they enter the legislature. These results in more disciplined voting, which restricts the ability of moderates on either side to build consensuses on legislation. Third, the ability to build consensus and support from other parties relies on experience and deft political acumen, which are usually garnered through lengthy participation in the legislative process.2 Term limits exclude many skilled politicians from being able to use their expertise in the building of such consensus efforts. Fourth, concerns for their post-legislative career can lead to greater partisanship from retiring legislators. This is due to their need to court appointments to positions at party-affiliated, or party-leaning, think tanks, and on corporate boards favorable to their party. All of these factors lead to a less cooperative legislature when term limits are instituted. 1 Marcus, Andrew. 2010. "Dodd and Other 'Retiring' Democrats Show Why Term Limitsare a Bad Idea". Big Government. 2 Kouser, Thad. 2004. Term Limits and the Dismantling of State Legislative Professionalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


Experienced legislators who understand the workings of the legislative system are needed for their expertise and wisdom:  The process of drafting legislation and shepherding it through the legislature often requires a delicate and practiced hand, especially when the issue under discussion is of a controversial nature. By forcing politicians out of the legislature on the basis of term limits, the depth of knowledge and experience available to the assembly is reduced, often to its serious detriment [1] . Seasoned politicians are also needed to help newcomers acclimate to the environment of the legislature; something first-time elected individuals are completely unused to. Naiveté on the part of new policymakers who are unused to the system will leave them vulnerable and exploitable. Lobbyists and special interest groups will seek to influence politicians while they develop their first impressions of life in the legislature, and will immediately capitalize upon any perceived vulnerability. Luann Ridgeway a Republican senator in the Missouri senate argues that term limits mean “we rely more on the trustworthiness of those established -- government relations individuals and staff persons -- because we have to”, [2] this would include more taking advice from the long standing lobbyists. Furthermore, legislation often requires lengthy periods of negotiation, that require not only the experienced hand of long-standing legislators, but also the continuity they offer. If legislators are constrained by term limits their time horizons are narrowed causing them to put too much emphasis on near-term, rather than long-term legislation. Clearly, term limits undermine the effective operation of government and deny the legislature an invaluable source of experience and ability.  [1] Kouser, Thad. 2004. Term Limits and the Dismantling of State LegislativeProfessionalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  [2] Coleman, Emily and Bushnel, Michael, (2009). “Legislators attribute heightened partisanship to term limits”, Missourian, 16th May 2009


Term limits are undemocratic and suggest, falsely, that voters cannot make intelligent decisions about their representatives without guidance:  Term limits are flagrantly undemocratic. If a legislator is popular and desired by the people to continue to represent them, then it should be their choice to reelect him. The instituting of term limits assumes voters cannot act intelligently without proper guidance. This is a serious insult to voters' intelligence. The electorate can discern for itself whether a legislator is doing a good job and will vote accordingly. Preventing a potentially popular candidate from standing for reelection simply removes the right from people to make important political decisions. It is not the duty of the state to encourage more candidates to run in elections to replace politicians who are already popular and doing a suitable job1. Should the US people have not been allowed to elect Franklyn D. Roosevelt for his third term? FDR was a very popular and successful president who brought the United States out of depression and won the Second World War and it was those very successes that lead the American people to reelect him. The people, if they have the freedom to choose who should represent them, should have the freedom to choose incumbents, and to do so indefinitely if that is what the popular will demands. 1 Marcus, Andrew. 2010. "Dodd and Other 'Retiring' Democrats Show Why Term Limitsare a Bad Idea". Big Government.


The dynamics of party primaries are not the same in all jurisdictions, and efforts at promoting moderate and capable candidates can still be made after the institution of term limits. Furthermore, new politicians may in fact be more willing to work on bipartisan projects, as they are not inculcated in the culture of confrontation that predominates between political parties in many legislatures. For this reason politicians of longer standing might actually be a hindrance to bipartisan compromise. It is far better to allow for a preponderance of political views by making the legislature more open. The best way to accomplish this is clearly to impose term limits.


A politician who has to constantly concern himself with reelection has a much greater likelihood of being beholden to special interest groups and lobbyists than one who is term-limited so will actually engage in more corruption. While a term-limited legislator may suffer to a degree from lame duck status, the need to continuously seek electoral support is far more damaging to his ability to do what is right for the nation. Politicians who are not term-limited will spend more time doing what is popular than what is necessary. It is far better to have a representative who has only a limited time to enact the policies he envisions, so that he actively seeks to implement his vision, rather focusing on the short-term goal of reelection.


It is wrong to simply make drones “a default strategy to be used anywhere”. Yes some of the time drones will be the right choice for catching terrorists and other militants but much of the time they won’t be. Instead of spurning institutions like the ISI and Pakistan’s Military we should be relying on them to fight extremism. This targeting of terrorists is happening in other countries sovereign territory. Their sovereignty should be respected wherever possible meaning that the Pakistanis, the Somalis and the Yemenis should be the ones who carry out these engagements.  Again here there is the difficulty of not knowing how many were killed in drone strikes (see counter to prop 1). We cannot compare other types of strikes unless we have more reliable figures. This is something that sending special forces in would help with; they would have much more accurate figures of who they kill and could check whether they really killed the person they were supposed to be targeting. This would prevent any attempt to inflate the kill count through including those they are not sure of as terrorists. [1]  [1] Becker, Jo, and Shane, Scott, ‘Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will’, The New York Times, 29 May 2012.


UAVs are the best possible weapon for the job.  We need to eliminate terrorists somehow and UAVs are the best possible equipment with which to carry out this mission. All the other options either would result in significantly more casualties or would have other problems that would likely allow terrorists to escape.  First there is the collateral damage that would be caused by using other alternatives to striking terrorists. Professor Plaw of the University of Massachusetts says that when terrorists were being confronted by the Pakistani Army, who were attacking at the behest of the United States, 46% of casualties were collateral damage. A similar number of 41% was the figure when Israel was targeting Hamas. [1] When compared to the 16 or 28% collateral damage figures for UAVs the choice should be easy.  Moreover other options have other disadvantages. Sending a hit squad in to eliminate terrorists may mean little collateral damage but would cause a diplomatic crisis as it would be tantamount to invading another country. Using a missile or local support on the other hand significantly increases the chances of the target escaping. Pakistan’s ISI, military intelligence, has for example been accused of helping the Taliban – they could hardly be trusted to kill them. [2]  [1] Shane, Scott, ‘The Moral Case for Drones’, The New York Times, 14 July 2012.  [2] Perlez, Jane, ‘Pakistan Scorns U.S. Scolding on Terrorism’, The New York Times, 23 September 2011.


This is incorrect; It makes the assumption that UAVs could not be used at all if they were not being used to attack targets. They could still be used in a surveillance role so providing the same amount of time to deliberate before striking in a different fashion, one that is appropriate to the situation.


UAVs cause less collateral damage.  There are only two things that really matter when targeting terrorists; is the terrorist eliminated, and is collateral damage kept to a minimum? In Pakistan there have been a total of 334 strikes by UAVs between 2004 and June 2012 with the total reported killed at 2496-3202 of which only 482-832 were civilians according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. [1] Moreover the number of civilians killed in strikes is falling; 28 percent of casualties in 2008 were civilians but by 2011 this had fallen to 16 percent [2] and this is a figure that is likely to continue falling as drones improve technologically making identification easier and making strikes more precise. These figures show that the United States in its use of drones is not only hitting a lot of terrorist targets and eliminating them but is causing very little collateral damage in comparison to the number of strikes made.  [1] Woods, Chris, and Serle, Jack, ‘June Update – US covert actions in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalis’, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, 2 July 2012.  [2] Shane, Scott, ‘The Moral Case for Drones’, The New York Times, 14 July 2012.


Because drones are not on the ground and can’t check the identities of those who are killed there is no way of knowing if they really do cause less civilian casualties; what the proposition calls ‘collateral damage’. We also do not know what damage would be caused by other forms of attack on the same targets. It is however definitely open to question whether these attacks really do cause less civilian casualties. Local activists believe that around 3,000 people have been killed in Waziristan of whom only 185 were named al Qaeda operatives – a very poor ratio of 16 civilians for every al Qaeda man killed. [1] The Brookings institution meanwhile estimates that for every al Qaeda and Taliban militant killed there are ten civilian casualties. [2] If either of these estimates are anywhere near the mark then there are very large number of civilian casualties, much higher than proposition believes, and probably higher than other forms of strikes would cause.  [1] Shackle, Samira, ‘Drones and the “bugsplats” they cause’, New Statesman, 13 June 2012.  [2] Byman, Daniel L., ‘Do Targeted Killings Work?’, ForeignPolicy.com, 14 July 2009.


Today most forms of conflict do not have much risk to western militaries. While the attacks were carried out from high in the sky NATO did not suffer a single loss in combat operations over Kosovo in 1999. [1] Moreover this lack of danger with UAVs is potentially immoral; we no longer have a war in which both sides are at risk rather a shooting range for drones to kill ‘terrorists’. Having at least some danger is needed as a restraint on the use of force. A good litmus test to use for the authorisation of lethal force would be whether the public would find the goals of the action worthwhile even if it did result in the loss of several soldiers.  [1] Gallis, Paul E., ‘Kosovo: Lessons Learned from Operation Allied Force’, CRS Report for Congress, 19 November 1999, p.8


UAVs allow more care and safeguards before shooting.  When engaging in covert operations it is essential that the right target is identified so that the correct target is eliminated. This is something that using UAVs allows as they are able to track their target, sometimes for days, before attacking. This means there is much more time for scrutiny of targets and possible collateral damage.  This also means that there is plenty of room for the decisions to be made right at the top. Every person on the kill list gets discussed at a weekly meeting of more than 100 members of the US government’s security apparatus. President Obama himself signs off on strikes and can change the decision if the situation on the ground changes. Former National Security Advisor Jones says “Many times… at the 11th hour we waved off a mission simply because the target had people around them and we were able to loiter on station until they didn’t.” [1]  While UAVs may be ‘unmanned’ they are certainly heavily monitored as each drone has 43 military personnel rotating in three shifts. They include seven joystick pilots, seven system operators, and five mission coordinators, there is also from the CIA 66 people, including 34 video crew members, and 18 intelligence analysts. [2] This means that there are a large number of eyeballs to make sure that the right person is being targeted, to check he is with as few others as possible before the strike. None of this would be possible with other forms of attack where the emphasis has to be on the speed of the operation.  [1] Becker, Jo, and Shane, Scott, ‘Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will’, The New York Times, 29 May 2012 .  [2] Kaplan, Fred, ‘Who’s Afraid of the Kill List’, Slate, 15 June 2012.


Using UAVs prevents soldiers from being killed.  To put it bluntly any military or intelligence service wants to keep its own men safe while carrying out its missions; Unmanned Aerial Vehicles are the ultimate capability with which to manage this. No military or civilian personnel are going to be killed if the delivery vehicle is controlled from the United States. This means that unlike in other methods of attack the UAV can take its time even if it is at risk. In the war in Kosovo NATO air forces had to launch their attacks from 15,000 feet due to worries they would be shot down. [1] Attacking from such a height from a fast moving aeroplane makes missing the target much more likely.  [1] Thomas, Timothy, ‘Kosovo and the Current Myth of Information Superiority’, Parameters, Spring 2000, pp.13-29.


This is a conflict situation, a war, pure and simple. While this is a new kind of conflict; when the opponent is a non-state actor states have to be able to strike at these groups that intend to attack them even when they are sheltering in other states. Such attacks should also not include the state where those groups are sheltering unless that state is supporting that group as was the case in Afghanistan.  Yes the distinction between civilian and combatant is blurred by this conflict but this is something that happens regardless of whether the United States uses UAVs. It is the terrorists themselves who through their horrific attacks by ‘civilians’ on civilian targets that strip away the distinction. The United States has to be able to respond with whatever method is most likely to prevent more of these terrorist attacks.


Getting special forces or allies on the ground is not always an option. In countries like Somalia and Yemen where there have been conflicts between factions the authorities will not always cooperate and even if they do they may not control the territory where the strike team would need to operate. There will also be many times where it is simply too dangerous to try and snatch someone. If that person is a danger they need to be stopped in the quickest way possible; and that will be by the use of the UAV that is already far above monitoring the target.


The use of drones makes the use of force easier to sanction.  Using drones encourages the use of lethal force rather than alternatives. The reason for this is obvious – it is much easier to resort to violence if you know there is no risk to yourself. With the operators thousands of miles away in the United States the only risk of using drones is the loss of equipment. As Christof Heyns, the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, has said “The term 'targeted killing' is wrong because it suggests little violence has occurred. The collateral damage may be less than aerial bombardment, but because they eliminate the risk to soldiers they can be used more often.” [1]  The use of drones is also politically expedient in a way that otherwise the use of force would not be. Dennis Blair, the former director of national intelligence, points out that the strike campaign is dangerously seductive as it is “low cost, no U.S. casualties, gives the appearance of toughness… It plays well domestically, and it is unpopular only in other countries. Any damage it does to the national interest only shows up over the long term.” [2] The use of force therefore becomes the first choice not the option of last resort. Even those within the U.S. administration such as Secretary of state Clinton have worried about a drones-only approach that ignored other options and does not look at solving the larger problems. [3]  [1] Bowcott, Owen, ‘Drone strikes threaten 50 years of international law, says UN rapporteur’, guardian.co.uk, 21 June 2012.  [2] Becker, Jo, and Shane, Scott, ‘Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will’, The New York Times, 29 May 2012, p.8  [3] ibid, p.8


The use of drones creates a precedent that other states may use.  The United States is the first state with a large number of drones and other unmanned military vehicles. It is also the first country to use them. This inevitably means that the US is creating the precedent for how they will be used in future. The United States is aware of this potential and President Obama’s counterterrorism adviser John Brennan has stated “Other nations also possess this technology, and many more nations are seeking it, and more will succeed in acquiring it. President Obama and those of us on his national security team are very mindful that as our nation uses this technology, we are establishing precedents that other nations may follow, and not all of those nations may — and not all of them will be nations that share our interests or the premium we put on protecting human life, including innocent civilians.” [1] This is exactly the problem; do we really want to live in a world where any country can carry out targeted killings of people who are in another nation? Such a world would have the ever present risk of a covert conflict becoming a much more open shooting war.  [1] McNeal, Greg, ‘Is the U.S. Setting Precedents in its Drone Wars’, Forbes, 6 June 2012.


Using drones blurs the distinction between war and peace.  The use of drones further blurs the already worryingly indistinct line between a state of war and a state of peace. The drone attacks are taking place in countries where the United States does not have any legal authority. The United States is not officially at war with Pakistan, Yemen, or Somalia, yet has launched hundreds of attacks on these countries and their citizens. The assumption is that a state can be at war with a non-state actor such as a terrorist group and therefore is free to target them wherever this group may be found. This means that the US is prosecuting a war in which only it thinks it is at war while sovereign countries like Pakistan are targeted despite believing they are at peace. It is the use of drones that makes it easy to circumvent sovereignty and attack targets on another country’s soil so creating the ambiguity.  Equally worryingly is the blurring of the distinction between civilian and combatant. Firstly the U.S. has decided to define any adult male in the target area as a terrorist when many are most likely nothing of the sort. [1] Secondly the Geneva conventions and their 1977 additions at their heart have the assumption that civilians cannot engage in a war – they are innocent bystanders. This however has been changed by the use of drones; it is a civilian agency, the CIA, which controls the drones and pulls the trigger. This makes the CIA combatants so breaking the obligation not to engage as soldiers. This means that U.S. civilians lose their protected status and the U.S. can’t complain if U.S. citizens are targeted in retaliation as the terrorists can no longer distinguish between those who are targeting them and those who are not. [2]  [1] Hammond, Jeremy R., ‘The Immoral Case for Drones’, Foreign Policy Journal, 16 July 2012.  [2] Hallinan, Conn, ‘CIA’s Drone Wars Blurs Distinction Between Military and Civilian Combatants’, Foreign Policy In Focus, 6 October 2011.


The use of drones means shoot to kill is the only option.  Using drones cuts down the options on the ground. A drone can only keep circling or go in for the attack; their only option is to kill a target or let them escape. Using ground forces; either your own, or in this case the Pakistani or Yemeni military, provides the third option of capturing the target. This is ethically a much better position for the United States to be in as it means that the terrorists can be given the option to surrender rather than simply being killed. This in turn would provide the benefit of allowing a trial helping to show the justice of the operation. Moreover these captured militants would likely be valuable intelligence assets who could be questioned which may well lead the intelligence services to other terrorists.  Finally using drones is a very aggressive and provocative stance as it prevents any possibility of a peaceful resolution. The usage of drones immediately eliminates the possibility of negotiation because drones are remote from their operators. This means that drones are unlikely to be useful in the many situations that could be helped by any form of contact.


Any other nation seeking to take a precedent from the use of drones would have to be involved in a conflict against a terrorist organisation that poses a credible, clear, and present danger and not be able to fight those terrorists by other means. The situation in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia is in many ways unique in that these are states that have either failed or are near failure. As a result the sovereign government cannot be relied to combat terrorists on their own soil.


It is absolutely not the case that UAVs will mean unnecessary attacks that would not otherwise be made; all the targets are checked by a large number of national security experts and the attacks are signed off by the President himself. The attacks are therefore taken very seriously by the administration. Moreover that the attacks are low cost is exactly what we want – the capability to strike our enemies without losses to ourselves or any collateral damage should be prized not shunned.


This again assumes that there is no additional harm attached to the perpetrating of such a crime by an individual who holds these ideas, which there demonstrably is (though the inflicting of terror on one specific community). Moreover hate crimes themselves are a violation of the right to freedom of speech; a person does have the right to express themselves, but not in a way that would prevent others from exercising their own rights.  A hate crime is the ultimate attempt to limit another's freedom of expression. A hate crime is an attempt to silence the very idea that a particular person has the right to exist or to live a particular lifestyle. Therefore, in order to uphold the first amendment, hate crime enhancements are not only just, but are in fact necessary.


Hate crime enhancements are an attack on free speech  Hate crimes are crimes that are based on an idea that the perpetrator had prior to the crime. The crime itself is no different from any other crime except that it is punished more harshly. Why is this so? Because we are punishing an idea. All forms of violent crime, whether they are murders, rapes, or beatings are an expression of hatred toward another human being.  To add more punishment to a crime because it represents a particular kind of hate (an idea) is to unfairly distinguish between different violent acts and trivialize those violent acts that do not appear to be motivated by prejudice hate. This is unjust because the idea itself does not cause harm, and is in fact legal in most cases (with the exception of direct incitement to violence), as racist or prejudiced statements and ideas are not illegal in most western liberal democracies.  We allow extreme and prejudiced ideas to be legal because we recognise the value of free speech and open discourse in debating and discussing ideas, so as to best allow for progress in human thought. Hate crime enhancements constitute an attack on this as they make an individual liable for harsher punishments for his actions if he holds certain views, and thus the law unfairly discriminates against these particular viewpoints and not against others, and so hate crime enhancements are unjust.


In almost every case where hate crimes are committed, the communities involved already perceive themselves as distinct and opposed, mostly because they already believe that their communities have been sundered by structural inequalities and hate-motivated crimes. Simply ignoring hate crimes will not make these communities stop perceiving them. Rather, it could lead to some communities feeling that their concerns and grievances are not being properly addressed, and lead to more inter-community violence as they seek to ensure 'justice' is done by their own hands.


Hate crime enhancements unfairly punish equal offences differently  Hate crime enhancements are unjust because they respond to two equal results (i.e. assault vs. racial mugging) with different punishments. We need to judge solely on the concrete actions of the aggressor in order to prevent punishments from being based on arbitrary judgements as to an offender’s “intent”, which can be very difficult to prove. Otherwise “intent” may be supposed or argued in cases where it did not exist, leading to perverse sentencing whereby a crime is punished more harshly despite the true absence of intent. There is a danger of unjustly branding someone as bigoted and punishing them excessively, e.g. for their involvement in a bar fight where the victim coincidentally belonged to a minority group.  Juries might also be willing to make the logical leap that, because the aggressor was proved to hold bigoted views in general towards his victim's ethnic group, these views must have motivated his actions in this individual incident, despite the absence of any evidence linking the specific brawl in a bar to the aggressor's views. Therefore it is unjust to punish two crimes with equal effects differently on the highly subjective basis of “intent”, and thus hate crime enhancements are unjust.


This presupposes that hate crimes are equal in their effects to non-hate crimes, which they are not as hate crimes cause harms in terms of terror directed at, and felt only by, specific groups.  Moreover, intent is considered in trials in many other circumstances, such as in differentiating between manslaughter (killing without intent to kill) and murder (killing with intent to kill), or when deciding whether a murder was premeditated or not. There is no reason to suppose intent cannot also be judged in possible hate crime cases.


Hate crime enhancements cause inter-community tensions  By defining crimes as being committed by one group against another, rather than as being committed by individuals against their society, the labelling of crimes as “hate crimes” causes groups to feel persecuted by one another, and that this impression of persecution can incite a backlash and thus lead to an actual increase in crime.(1) These effects spread beyond the hate crimes themselves.  By prosecuting high-profile cases of white hate crimes against blacks, for example, it encourages blacks to see themselves as part of a distinct community different from the white community and whose relations are marked by crimes committed by one against the other. This is especially true when one community seems to perpetrate more hate crime (or at least more convictions thereof are secured) against another community than visa-versa.  An analysis of hate crime date from the USA examining how hate crimes against whites are viewed with respect to hate crimes against blacks has hypothesised that the prevailing view in the minds of the public is that the crime that whites are most likely to commit against blacks is a hate crime, and that it is hard for most Americans to envision a white person committing a crime against a black person for a different reason. The only white people who commit crimes against black people, goes the public belief, are racially prejudiced white extremists, and in contrast the very idea of hate crimes committed against whites is met with scepticism and disbelief.(2)  There have been several high-profile cases in the USA where some individuals have argued actual hate crimes against whites were not treated as such as a consequence of such public disbelief.(3) This can lead to an unjust situation where hate crime enhancements are (or are perceived as being) only applied “against” one community by another, despite hate crimes actually being committed by individuals within both communities against other individuals. Therefore hate crime enhancements are unjust.


Victims of violence may be prone to accusing their assailant of hate-motivated crimes. Victims frequently seek revenge, and hate crime laws create a very easy avenue for doing so. Thus hate crime enhancements may serve to fuel the fires of inter-community tensions as people perceive them as being used to exact communal vengeance.


Much of this symbolism and “meaning” attributed to hate crimes is deeply subjective and open to (mis)interpretation, especially in a politicized environment where hatred against one group is perceived as being the “usual” motivation behind any crime by any individual from another community against that group, and where the idea of hatred motivating a crime against another community by a different individual (based on his own background) is treated with scepticism.


Hate crime enhancements help prevent hate crimes  The additional punishment given to hate crimes under enhancements can help deter people who hold hateful views from acting on them, as they fear going to prison for any amount of time, and so any additional punishment affects their risk calculation before they commit a hate crime.  Moreover, increased punishments help prevent those who have perpetrated hate crimes from re-offending through rehabilitation in prison. In cases of crimes motivated by deep hatred, rehabilitation may require increased time and increased effort in order to provide criminals with the correct focus and concentration, and a longer sentence is necessary for this to happen.  Hate is not an essential human trait, we are not born hating people, it is a learned factor that can be unlearned when correctly rehabilitated. Therefore hate crime enhancements are just because they help prevent hate crimes and help prevent hate crime recidivism.


Hate crime enhancements can help emphasize tolerance and inter-community relations  Hate crime laws can teach society that hatred is highly condemnable and mould society into a streak away from racism, sexism, etc. Most governments have already taken this turn with the advent of segregation laws, discrimination laws, etc. To simply leave these issues unaddressed would be to make many communities, especially minority communities, feel that their grievances were ignored and that the state allowed discrimination and violence against them. Such feelings would further polarize communities against each other and make racial tensions and further hate crimes more likely.  Therefore hate crime enhancements should be maintained as a way for the state to send a message that it desires tolerance and will not allow crimes based on prejudice to stand un-addressed.


Hate crimes uniquely harm through terror  Hate crimes should be given a more severe penalty because the harm done to the victim and society is greater. Given that the intent of hate crimes is more malicious than simple premeditative murder; it is just to enhance hate crime laws to reflect stronger punishment. Hate crimes don't merely victimize the individual upon whom violence is inflicted, they also victimize a community or minority group that the hate crime was intended to terrorize. This is why hate crimes frequently include highly public acts such as lynchings in town squares, dragging hate crime victims behind cars along streets inhabited by certain communities, and graffiti on significant buildings -they are intended to send a message.  Hate crime-delivered messages limit the freedom of expression and group association of the victim community, thus violating their liberties. For this reason, hate crimes have more victims than other crimes, and subsequently deserver greater punishment. Moreover, as hate crimes are generally perpetrated against minority groups, and because these minority groups are always in a state of social disenfranchisement; it could be argued that hate crime enhancements are the state's way of attempting to arbitrate equality to minorities by compensating them with laws that will better favour their interests, thus forcibly "balancing the scale" of social equity.


It isn't necessarily true that hate crime enhancements really do deter hate crimes or help fight recidivism. Those committing hate crimes would face significant deterrents (in the form of legal sanctions, including prison time) for the crimes they commit even without the enhancements, so it seems unlikely that the addition of a few more years on their sentence, for example, would make a large difference to them when considering committing a crime. Moreover most hate crimes are based on irrational hatred and prejudice, and thus are unlikely to be rationally considered in a risk analysis as this argument supposes. In terms of rehabilitation, it should be noted that prisons are frequently places of racial and sectarian tension, with violent prison gangs built on ethnic and other identities, and thus hardly seem the place to counteract such prejudices.(4)


Just as some people have difficulty remembering so many passwords, so some people have difficulty remembering where they misplaced their belongings. This motion offers no solution if somebody should lose their identity card; given that it may be used to have access to a bank account, act as a travel card or simply be used to grant general access to the bearer, how could they possibly survive if they lost it? It is reasonable to assume that a biometric identity card might take as long or longer than a passport (which contains some biometric data) to be replaced. Given that in the UK it takes three weeks to receive a new passport if you lose it [1] and can cost between £77.50 and £112.50, this is simply too expensive and too slow for the average citizen to be able to continue with their daily life. A week without access to daily necessities such as your own bank account is too long to wait.  [1] Accessed from  on 10/09/11