Values

Freedom
Individualism hinders social progress.
Rosemont, 15 (Henry Rosemont Jr. "Against Individualism: A Confucian Rethinking of the Foundations
of Morality, Politics, Family, and Religion 2015 // Reviews // Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews //
University of Notre Dame," No Publication, http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/64032-against-individualism-a-
confucian-rethinking-of-the-foundations-of-morality-politics-family-and-religion/.)

The Western notion of a free, autonomous, independent individual, an inner self untouched by sociality is, as Rosemont
argues, not only an ontological fiction, but more importantly ethically problematic, since to champion
one's freedom unencumbered by others as the utmost value for the libertarian and social conservative alike comes at
the expense of the advancement of socio-economic justice. (54) For the first generation human rights (i.e. the Bill of
Rights) are passive, focusing on freedom from constraints, and for the second generation human rights (i.e. socio-economic rights) are positive
rights, requiring assistance from others to provide means to exercise those rights. These two rights stand in opposition if our conception of the
self is grounded in foundational individualism. As Rosemont writes precisely, To
whatever extent we may be seen to be
morally and thus politically responsible for assisting others in the creation and obtaining of those goods which accrue to
them by virtue of having social and economic rights, to just that extent we cannot be altogether autonomous
individuals, enjoying full civil and political rights, free to rationally decide upon and pursue our own
projects rather than having to assist the less fortunate with theirs. (66) And if so, the notion of Western
individualism not only does not help alleviate poverty and social inequality; it in fact aggravates it, since
the well-to-do and the needy alike are conceptualized as responsible only to oneself and hence only for
oneself as well. Each rises and falls on one's own, and to exercise the second generation rights would be impossible within the framework
of individualism. A conceptual alternative obviously is sorely needed if we are to address the many socio-
economic problems threatening the global community today.

And even if you don’t buy that, the negative accesses their freedom value better than
the affirmative: plea bargaining is an expression of freedom – it allows individuals to
reach compromises and decide to avoid the costs of a trail.
Easterbrook 92 – Judge for US State Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Frank H. Easterbrook, 1992, "Plea Bargaining as Compromise," Yale Law Journal

Plea bargains are preferable to mandatory litigation-not because the analogy to contract is overpowering, but because
compromise is better than conflict. Settlements of civil cases make both sides better off; settlements of criminal cases do so too.
Defendants have many procedural and substantive rights. By pleading guilty, they sell these rights to the prosecutor,
receiving concessions they esteem more highly than the rights surrendered. Rights that may be sold are
more valuable than rights that must be consumed, just as money (which may be used to buy housing, clothing, or food) is
more valuable to a poor person than an opportunity to live in public housing. Defendants can use or exchange their rights,
whichever makes them better off. So plea bargaining helps defendants. Forcing them to use their rights
at trial means compelling them to take the risk of conviction or acquittal; risk-averse persons prefer a certain but
small punishment to a chancy but large one.