Cost Saving Aspect of Smoke-Free Transition

The cost of smoking is not a simple number; many factors and variables need to be considered. Yet, reducing the prevalence of smoking behavior oncampus can save money, not only for the university but also for individuals and society as a whole. Here's a pure economic standpoint in support of a smoke-free OWU from the practical perspective.

Cleaning and maintenance costs - according to OWU housekeeping, they spend approximately an hour a day cleaning cigarette butts all over campus (library area, residential and academic side). That is, approximately $15 per hour of labor a day. That is, 6 days a week. That is, 36 weeks a year. You do the rest of math. Plus, the cost of the foregone labor where that hour a day could be spent working on other areas of campus (for instance, working on enforcing the policy at its beginning stage after which it should become self-enforcing)

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention puts a $3,391 price tag on each smoker: $1,760 in lost productivity and $1,623 in excess medical expenditures. In addition, estimated costs associated with secondhand smoke's effects on nonsmokers can add up to $490 per smoker per year.

The American Cancer Society reports that employees who smoke have an average insured payment for health care of $1,145, while nonsmoking employees average $762.

OWU serves as a microcosm of the world, therefore these numbers are applicable not only to the employees of the University, but students as well.

OWU is primarily self-insured for the employee healthcare, i.e. most of healthcare costs of employees and dependents are covered by Ohio Wesleyan. Taking all these factors into an account would give us a pretty accurate approximation of cost reductions associated with going smoke-free.

As for changing admission rates, the research done by University of Wisconsin-Madison has concluded that teenagers that are able to predict correctly that higher college costs make future college enrollment less likely, thus facing different expected costs may choose different levels of risky behavior, i.e. quit smoking before enrolling into a university.

And the final thoughts on future admission rates: it is really up to an individual to decide whether a habit dictates the choice of institution or the choice of institution dictates a habit. The desire to want to come to OWU once it becomes smoke-free may be that final push to help the teenage smoker quit.

Enforceability of the smoking ban.

Leaving the moral arguments to the side for a second, we must evaluate the practical consequences the ban might have on university life:

1) Financial Cost.

Many claims have been made concerning the effect the smoking ban will have on our tuition costs. Regardless of whether those are true or false, we must consider some of the additional costs that implementing the ban will definitely have on the students. It would be extremely hard for Public Safety to put the ban into practice without any additional human resources. A reason why the current restriction, stipulating that people shouldn’t smoke at less than 20 feet from the entrance of a building, is not effective is that Public Safety can not afford to charge any of its professional staff members with this specific task. If they hire additional staff members in order to meet the higher demand for policy enforcement on our campus, this will result in additional costs that will most likely be transferred to the students. Thus, even if the claims that the ban will make the health insurances the university purchases cheaper is true, it is still uncertain how the ban will affect the students, because of the high price associated with implementing it. The alternative will be not to hire any additional staff members and simply implement the ban just as well as the current ’20-feet’ rule is implemented, which makes arguing whether the ban is justified a complete waste of time…

2) Policy Implementation.

Regardless of whether Public Safety hires more personal or not, we must consider the other problems on our campus they are facing on a daily basis. If the public safety officers are instructed to prioritize implementing and sanctioning the smoking ban, this will compromise their ability to deal with unquestionably more serious issues on our campus – student violence, alcohol poisoning, illegal drugs, safety issues, etc. As a Residential Assistant I know that you often have to wait for 5-10 minutes when you need the assistance of a Public Safety officer on Friday and Saturday nights. Here it is time for everybody to decide whether it would be prudent to implement a policy that might elongate this waiting time to 10-15 minutes, only because the Public Safety officers were too busy documenting students that were smoking on the street.

3) Safety Issues.

What alternative are we leaving the smoking community? It is the stated opinion of many people that they will not stop smoking regardless of whether the ban is passed or not. Considering the resoluteness of the smoking community to change their habits, it is important to consider what people might end up doing in order to avoid the restrictions imposed on them. Left with no alternative, a person might decide to smoke in his room. For the purpose he would simply disattach the fire alarm and put towels and duct tape around the door. As far as fire safety is concerned, the above actions create a danger much greater than the danger that second-hand smoking currently poses on this campus. What other alternatives do the people have? Maybe instead of hiding in the room, a person would prefer to go off campus and enjoy a smoke there. It has been the stated policy of WCSA that we should do our best to keep the students on campus in order to ensure their safety. This was precisely the reason why ‘Dan’s Deli’ was allowed to operate within the limits of the campus. However, if by passing the ban we will force a student that was planning on enjoying a few beers on campus to go to the bars simply because once there he can always go out on the street and smoke as much as he wants to, then the student government is clearly contradicting one of its stated purposes. It is the stated goal of WCSA to keep the students safe. This is the very reasoning behind the smoking ban in the first place. However, both of the scenarios described above (hiding in your room; ‘partying’ off campus) actually put students at much greater danger than the danger they are currently facing because of second-hand smoke on the campus. Thus we have to exercise of dose of skepticism when considering the effects the ban.

Litter Reduction and the Environment

Everybody knows the dangers that smoking poses to both the smoker and those who breathe the air they pollute, but equally important are the dangers it poses to the environment.

The same 4,000 chemicals that harm both smokers and nonsmokers are released into the air, contributing to not only local, but global air pollution.

But it doesn't stop there.

Unfortunately, many smokers have the bad habit of not disposing of their butts (cigarette butts, that is) properly. Thus, the butts are left to decompose into the soil, which will take an average of 25 years. The aformentioned chemicals and additives leach into the ground and poison plants and the animals that consume them by mistake. Besides, it makes the campus less attractive and constitutes a severe fire hazard in dry weather.

Choice Framework

There are two rights being weighed here: the freedom to choose to smoke, and the freedom from smoke and its harmful effects.

The first is an active right: it involves the choice to actively engage in smoking. The second is a passive right: it involves the freedom to a certain state of being, that is, to a smoke-free surrounding.

All individuals have the active right to smoke, but this right is limited by the condition that it does not infringe on the rights of others; in this case, that it does not infringe on others' right to a smoke-free environment.

The passive right supersedes the active one because the execution of the latter, by necessity, invalidates the former; that is, by exercising the right to smoke, the realization of the right to a smoke-free surrounding is made impossible. (To picture this, imagine the Jaywalk at 8:53 AM on a Wednesday morning. With half the school on its way to class, smokers in the crowd make it impossible for non-smokers also heading to class to remain in a smoke-free environment.) The quantity of smoke is irrelevant; the right to a smoke-free environment is unconditional, since it represents a negative effect on an individual who does not wish to smoke.

On the other hand, although the execution of the active right infringes on the passive one, the preservation of the right to a smoke-free environment is not dependent on the absolute negation of the right to smoke. The act of smoking itself does not affect the right to a smoke-free environment; the act of smoking around non-smokers does. Therefore, the preservation of the passive right does not necessarily require the invalidation of the active right, but does require effective implementation of certain restrictions.

If we accept that the OWU administration is obligated to preserve the passive right, then a smoking ban would accomplish that goal and would be justified in that regard. However, a ban would also negate an individual's freedom to smoke, so it would be infringing on some rights while upholding others. While the right being preserved no doubt has precedence as the passive right, its preservation itself is not dependent on an absolute ban but on effective restrictions.

Health: Nonsmokers and Smokers

Fundamentally, there is one big reason why people protest smoking both on campus and everywhere else in the world: its dangerous. Cigarettes have long been known to be a health hazard. As early as the 1970s the United States has been putting surgeon general warnings on all packages of cigarettes, informing people of the dangers they bring. Ingredients in cigarettes include rat poison, known carcinogens and an ingredient found in napalm. This leaves little question as to whether cigarettes are harmful to a person’s health, the answer is clear: yes they are harmful, both to the smoker and those around them.

But to some this doesn’t matter. They say that smoking is a personal choice, and one that must be respected. There is however, a point at which the government is obligated to step in. When someone’s actions endanger themselves or someone else it is the duty of the government to step in. As the idea goes someone’s freedoms can exist unrestricted up till the point when that freedom infringes upon someone else’s rights. To use the classic example this is why someone can’t shout fire in a crowded theater, for while an individual does have a right to freedom of speech using it in that way endangers the lives of others, making it a dangerous and immoral act. This is why government sets law in place to protect the rights of other citizens.

What does this have to do with OWU? Well look at it this way: OWU is in effect a ruling body, much like a government, which has a responsibility to protect students. Currently, this isn’t happening. Presently students who smoke are asked to do so at least twenty feet from the building, but lets face it they don’t. Just the other day I was walking out of the main doors at Smith and practically ran into a student smoking, right there on the step. This person couldn’t have been more then a foot away from the door, and I got a lovely face full of smoke because of it. Ahh the joys of second hand smoke. I had just been exposed to a garden variety of toxins because this individual chose to smoke. Second hand smoke can be just as dangerous as actual smoking if there is continued exposure. While I doubt I will ever inhale so much second hand smoke to suffer consequences from it I still do not appreciate having someone else infringe upon my right to a healthy smoke free life style. Because second hand smoke is dangerous, and exposing student to it unwillingly violates their right to a healthy smoke free life style, OWU should enforce a ban on smoking.

Furthermore the need to protect the health and rights of non-smokers is already being recognized in society. I’m originally from Ohio, and a few years ago now Ohio passed its own smoking ban prohibiting smoking in public places. Now obviously since OWU is a private institution that doesn’t apply here, but logic behind it does. OWU is a community, or society unto itself. Right now public places on campus, where everyone comes and goes, can be smoked in. This inherently infringes on the rights of students to live healthily smoke free lives, by putting toxic smoke in areas where they have to be (for example the Jaywalk).

I’d like to conclude with a cost benefit analysis. If OWU enforces this ban on smoking, students will be able to live and learn in a healthily and safe environment, but be unable to smoke. On the other hand, allowing the status quo to continue endangers the health of many, smokers and non-smokers alike, but allows students to freely smoke. When weighing the health of our student body against the right to a dangerous choice made by a few, but which affects everyone, the answer is clear. The health of all students, smokers and nonsmokers alike, is more important then letting students smoke on campus.

Impacts on Admission

Banning the act of Smoking will harm the admissions process.

General Points: A) The Culture of the school will change for the worse, B) This act is not in the best financial interest of OWU (which, like it or not, is also tied to the best interest of the students).

1) OWU accepts more smokers than it does people with asthma and other lung problems.

While people with such problems should not be overlooked, admissions should be more concerned with the number of students affected. 70% of OWU funding is from Tuition, which is how reliant the life of the school is on admissions. For this reason we ultimately care more about large groups of students than smaller ones, because favoring larger groups over smaller groups is simply smarter regarding OWU finances. I think the stats I saw online - although I can't verify them - is that 15% of students accepted smoke, while a much smaller number (as in less than 5%) have a serious lung problem. Also note that maintaining the status quo would not change current policy and allow us to keep current funding as the persons with poor longs continue to apply knowing smoking is allowed on campus.

2) Admissions Image

Banning smoking gives us a more conservative image. As colleges outside the realm of Evangelical schools are usually assumed to be liberal, giving us this conservative image puts us in a place between Religious and not-Religious, especially considering our current affiliation with a Church body. It is definitely illogical to assume that taking this step back will lead to other steps back; however, people are stupid and often illogical, and might possibly make the assumption that this might lead to other reforms (like mandatory chapel service or banning alcohol?), thereby decreasing the number of applicants and altering the overall culture of the school.

3) Muslim and Baha'i students

Students of certain religious affiliations can only partake in smoking and do not have the possibility, according to their worldview, of consuming other drugs. Think about the many International Muslim students we accept. Many of them smoke before coming to campus; banning smoking would harm our image among the countries they come from, as well as decrease the overall religious diversity of the school.

4) "Seemingly" Decreased Admission standards

Assuming less applications are received, as my above points suggest, we'd have to accept more applicants to make up. There's this thing in admissions where Colleges accept a large number of applicants (for OWU its 55% of first-time, an addition 9 to 10% of transfers) knowing that only a much lower number (for OWU its about 20%) will enroll. Because we'd have less applicants our numbers would increase for the initial acceptance; large acceptance numbers are typically characteristic of larger state schools and institutions of a poorer quality, which might lead to smarter students overlooking OWU (especially since we're still trying to rebuild our image from the terrible presidency of Wenzlau).

The obvious counterargument is that applications would increase from non-smokers and those who hate smoking; however, I think most would agree that these would come from more conservative or typically American students. Ultimately this leads to less diversity in the school, and it's rather unrealistic to assume that non-smokers would make up for all the smokers that quit applying.

Choice: Smoker's Rights

Smoking is a lifestyle choice. It's a lifestyle choice that certain people find distasteful, but it's also completely legal choice for adults. However you look at it, banning cigarette smoking on OWU's campus takes away a right from its students that is allowed for the rest of the U.S. population.

So why would something that's legal in the rest of the country be banned on OWU's campus?

College is supposed to be a place where students learn how to be adults. And really, isn't the essence of being an adult the ability to make decisions for yourself? For a lot of people, college is where they decide on the habits and beliefs that will make them who they are. Drinker or non-drinker? Conservative or liberal? Studious or social? Smoker or non-smoker? Maybe some of these choices are healthier or more popular than others, but the point is that they're choices the student learns to make for themselves--without OWU hovering over their shoulder telling them what they should or shouldn't do.

Whether or not the school (or even the majority of the students) believe that smoking is a good choice is besides the point--it's an individual choice. Teach students how to make good decisions about their health, by all means, but don't take away their right to a legal habit just because you disapprove of it.

Stigmatization/ transition costs to smokers

The underlying message that this resolution sets out to deliver is that smoking is something abhorrent and if these smokers absolutely have to smoke, they should take their butts out, literally. However this will only serve to alienate and marginalize the people who smoke. Rejection of smokers on campus basically lands us in an “us vs them” mentality where these stigmatized individuals would feel that they are not part of the community. This might lead to deterioration of their academic performance, a huge negative impact on their social life, increased expenses and ultimately the negative effects on the psyche of the person.

For some, cigarettes are a means of relaxation which allows them to regain their thoughts and concentrate better while studying. This is why there are always some people smoking outside the library. For these individuals, cigarettes provide them with the necessary caffeine or nicotine kick which other individuals acquire through ingesting coffee or energy drinks. Taking away this “fix” will have a quantifiable harm for these individuals. Their ability to concentrate, which is directly related to academic performance is going to go down and therefore their academic performance is going to suffer as a result.

For Smokers, the time to smoke is a social event. They stand around with their friends, enjoying each other’s company and revel in the joy of smoking. It gives them time out of their busy lives to talk to each other for 5 minutes. To just be themselves and not feel rushed. These “chilling” sessions are an important daily ritual in a smokers life and without them they will definitely feel socially reprobated.

As already pointed out, smoking gives these individuals a caffeine kick which helps them stay alert and concentrate better. For non smokers, this caffeine kick can be acquired through energy drinks or coffee. However, it is much cheaper for smokers to consume a pack of cigarette than to buy coffee or energy drinks since a pack of cigarettes can last them for a much longer time and hence help them concentrate for even longer periods.

Smokers get irritated, anxious and depressed when they are not allowed to smoke. By enacting this law, we are simply ignoring the emotional stability of the smoker. We are essentially saying that if you have a problem, deal with it yourself because I am not considerate enough to help you out here. This will definitely result in these individuals feeling marginalized and have a very real negative effect on their behavior.

Choice: Nonsmokers' Rights

As will be described in the choice framework post, a government's ultimate responsibility is to provide the maximum number of choices to society as a whole. This means that you have the ability to make any decision you chose with regards to yourself. However, in order to allow for this, there is one key limitation - it must not limit the choices of others. Within the context of this debate we have the choice to smoke without geographic limitations and the choice to remain unaffected from the harmful effects of smoking.

Smoking on campus inherently infringes on the second choice. Particularly in places like the Jaywalk where 
everyone is concentrated into one area, there is no feasible way to escape the effects of smoking. This means that the first choice, the choice to smoke, inherently constrains the second choice, the choice to avoid the effects of smoking. In such cases, the right that is being infringed always takes precedence. We have to, as a society, act to protect those who cannot preserve their freedoms on their own.

Secondly, in terms of maximizing choice, we must remember that absolute freedom undermines itself. Though this does limit the choice of smokers to smoke without geographical limitations, in the end it expands their long term choices by protecting their well being and encouraging them to live a life without the detrimental effects of smoking.

Welcome to OWDA Smoking Forum

Ladies and Gentlemen, 

We are delighted that you have chosen to join us and hopefully contribute to our discussion on the proposed smoke-free Ohio Wesleyan campus. Nine members of the Ohio Wesleyan Debate Association have volunteered to each present one line of argument (please note that these were randomly assigned and are not the personal views of the team members). These arguments will be as follows:

A description of the philosophic Choice Framework, and

Arguments For: 

1)      Choice: Nonsmokers' Rights

2)      Health: Nonsmokers and Smokers 

3)      Litter Reduction and Environment 

4)      Health Care Costs in Tuition 

Arguments Against:

1)      Choice: Smokers’ Rights 

2)      Ostracization: Stigmatization and Transition Costs to Smokers 

3)      Impacts on Admission 

4)      Practicality: Enforcability and Possibility of Alternatives 

We ask you to comment on these with your opinions, viewpoints, and arguments, which will be taken and included in a policy briefing memo for the members of WCSA. We do retain the right to edit and delete any offensive, inappropriate, or generally un-classy posts. We hope you stay tuned in and keep the dialogue going! 

Even Better Website :)

http://debate.owu.edu

Fantastic Website

You guys should check this out - debates on everything imaginable. Some of them aren't that great because people just bring personal opinions, but most of them are actually really well structured and bring good LOAs.

http://www.debate.org

Equality doesn't exist yet.

The two definitions given below both suggest societal intervention in the humans struggle for "equality." One suggests that society will "level the playing field," so to speak, while the other essentially states that society renders the "outcome" of one's work equal to another's. The problem with both types of equality is that society's intervention always results in inequality. (I'm going to focus on the first one, as I don't really care for Europe and can't even pretend to know how Equality of Outcome actually works in society. )

As much as society ties to level the playing field, people will always fall through the cracks. There are simply too many people and it's too impractical to keep tabs on everyone to make sure they're granted the same opportunities. Take, for example, illegal aliens and the homeless. Is it practical, and even possible, to level the playing field for them? And would society even want to do that?And what about the homeless? They're virtually in a spiraling descent, not able to succeed because they don't have basic necessities and not able to obtain basic necessities because they aren't able to succeed.

Moreover, not all aspects of society desire that all individuals are given the same opportunities. This is the case with gays and Muslims today, women decades ago, and racial minorities before that. As human we thrive on the "other" and push them down on our way to success. Society most definitely does not want to lose its scapegoat. Take, for example, Blacks in the US. African-Americans pushed for civil rights and equality, ultimately gaining a repeal of segregation laws and obtaining a "level playing field" - or so they thought. Today, de facto segregation is stronger than de jure segregation under Jim Crow laws. While it's definitely beneficial for racist laws to be wiped clean from the law books, Blacks still don't have equality. The Civil Rights movement was less of a step forward and more of a step into a more difficult problem; and all because there are elements of American society that genuinely don't want African-Americans, for whatever reasons, to have the same playing field as the majority.

Logical Fallacies

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

This has the most complete review of the most common fallacies on the internet that I've come across, in addition to its criticism of emotion-based techniques (appealing to fear, appealing to tradition, etc.)

When Debating Animal Topics....

Here's a link I found while I was looking for equality stuff. It deals with the concept of "speciesism" - the idea that humans have more rights than other species and can do whatever they want to other species. Difficult to argue, but this is a good tool to have for,say, when you're opening government on "THW ban the keeping of animals as pets" :(

http://www.morris.umn.edu/academic/philosophy/Collier/International%20Ethics/steinbock.pdf

Links on Equality

Here are some links that provide some insight into our topic of equality - I'll compile some information later, but for now this might be helpful. Don't forget your assignment for Sunday!

http://www.modernphilosophy.com/philosophy/equality.html
http://www.jesp.org/articles/download/EgalitarianismandtheValueofEquality.pdf
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equality/ - Fantastic Source
http://www.rolandpierik.nl/theory/Downloads/Ideal.pdf

Logical Fallacies in Argumentation

Logical Fallacies in Argumentation

What are logical fallacies? Logical fallacies are flaws in argumentation or reasoning, which either distort or misrepresent the truth. (In debate it often considered rude or insulting to use them in rounds, and very frequently lead to muddy debates). Here are a few types and their explanations:

1) Straw Man-This is the name for twisting or misrepresenting an argument purposefully by making it seem weaker or harder to defend then it actually is (hence the name “straw”).

For example: if Person A were to say “a good society needs equality” and Person B were to reply that “ communism is bad for society” Person B has made a straw man argument by misrepresenting “equality” with a complete sharing of resources, or communism. Person B has not really addressed the argument brought by Person A, but has tried to made it appear so.

2) Ad Hominem-This logical fallacy is also called a personal attack. In short, when trying to refute an argument by Person A, Person B instead attacks Person A’s character in an attempt to discredit them and dismiss the argument, or insults the nature of the argument itself.

For example: Person A says “a good society needs equality” to which Person B responds either “you’re stupid for saying that” or “that argument is stupid” both of these statements by person B would be Ad Hominem attacks.

3) Red Herring-this form of fallacy is a distraction designed to drive attention away from an argument.

For example: Person A says “a good society needs equality” (in case you can’t tell by now person A is very stuck on this idea) to which Person B could reply any number of things such as “look up in the sky!” or perhaps something like “ you’re face is equal!” (If Person B happens to be John).

4) The Slippery Slope- this is where the impact of an argument id extrapolated to the point of being ridiculous

For example: Person A says ““a good society needs equality” (they really need to come up something new to say) and Person B could say “ but equality would lead to a complete lack of individuality creating a society of drones and leading to the devaluation of human life and nuclear war”. This is an example of a slippery slope as the conclusion that Person B draws is ridiculous.

5) Circular Logic-this is where someone justifies their argument or opinion with the same idea or opinion

For example: If someone says, “Only smart students can be debaters because all of the students on the debate are smart”. This is an example of circular logic because the rather then offering actual backing or analysis for the argument the speaker justifies it by reflecting the original statement. (Although in this case it is true that all debaters are smart)

There are other forms of logical fallacies besides these but these are the most basic and well known.

On Arguing Abuse (within a system or model)

On Arguing Abuse (within a system or model)

As we all know abuse is the idea of someone(s) or something(s) exploiting the model or system in question. This form of argumentation is typically used to say that the system of model being debated is flawed or bad.

The issue/idea of abuse can be argued both ways in a debate. In the case of this issue and so many others the case can really be made for either side, and must be evaluated by weighing the status quo and the alternative in a series of cost benefit analyses.

Regardless here are some ideas:

Reasons why Abuse of a system is not a reason to prove the model is bad/flawed

-The potential for abuse exists in everyman made system, as human are not perfect

-We don’t/shouldn’t apply this form of logic to ideas and constructs in society now.

-For example, just because the existence for say a corrupt police officer is possible doesn’t mean we should abolish all police forces. (The potential for police forces to do good far out weights the potential harm of a few officers who abuse the system)

Reasons why potential abuse is a reason to prove the is bad/flawed

-If the model for some reason or other increases the abuse or makes the impact of it on the society worse

-If the model fails to make any change on the level of abuse in the system

-If the model increases the power of the abuser (i.e. allowing the black market to make a higher profit)

For example, when the U.S. outlawed alcohol consumption, but failed to actually affect alcohol consumption because of the presence of speakeasies. Thus the black market gained power because more people’s demand remained the same while the supply of alcohol decreased.

Notes from Practice 11/1/10

Notes from Debate Practice

November 1, 2010

Equality

-Two types, equality of opportunity and equality of outcome

Equality of Opportunity-everyone in a society is provided with the same means to achieve goals etc. (starting line is the same).

Equality of Outcome-everyone in a society is provided with the same result for their efforts, i.e. for one hour of work everyone would receive sum a, for two hours of work everyone would receive sum b etc.

Which form of equality people want depends on their society or cultural values. For example in the US people desire equality of opportunity, where as in Sweden, and most of Europe equality of outcome is more desirable.

Equality of Opportunity-

- Creates a meritocracy

- Allows everyone to fully achieve or discover their talents

- Distributes resources on individual basis

-Resources distributed based on an individuals talent and drive

-Would this disadvantage those individuals with less talent?

-Can talent be developed over time?

-Would the subjective values of society still create a two-tiered system of “can and cannot”?

-Two kinds of dividing factors:

“Real” Factors- i.e. talent, merit, work ethic these factors would affect distribution of resources.

“Unreal” Factors- i.e. gender, race, education etc these factors would not affect the distribution of resources

-The goal of equality of opportunity is social mobility

Equality of Outcome-

-Prevent arbitrary evaluation of human worth

-Would varying efforts still receive the same resources?

- Not necessarily, society can ascribe a set result for a standardized outcome, i.e. one hour of work (see above)

- How would inheritance be addressed? (If parents passed on resources to their children they would no longer be equal)

-Possible solution of 100% death tax

Operational

Alright - It should be working now. You just have to accept the invitation I sent to your OWU email account and  create a profile and it will allow you to publish to the blog. In practice tonight we will talk about how we are going to be using this blog

Purpose Of This Blog

Hey team! I'm still working out a few things - like how to allow you to post, for example - but this blog will be a new practice forum. I may or may not end up posting practice motions and teams, but the main purpose is for you to post findings from homework assignments. You will be given a topic and asked to do some research and post it along with whatever we discuss in practice. Batiste's research assistant will also be posting notes from Friday discussions here.