South China Sea Affirmative - Augsburg University



South China Sea AffirmativePlan Text - SCSThe United States Federal Government should substantially increase its air and sea deployment and increase its freedom of navigation operations in the East China Sea and South China SeaInherency - SCSUS presence in East Asia is insufficient nowMichael Auslin, September 22, 2015, Time for realism in US-China relations, American Enterprise Institute, Michael Auslin is a resident scholar and the director of Japan Studies at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), where he specializes in Asian regional security and political issues., addition, it is past time for the U.S. to act as the guarantor of regional stability that it claims to be. That means sending U.S. ships and planes right up to the edges of China’s manmade islands in the South China Sea, something that Obama Administration admitted in Senate testimony last week that it was not doing. By not challenging China’s territorial claims we are in essence confirming them, and sending a message of political weakness to our allies in Asia. A China that knows we will employ our military strength where it is most in question will be far more circumspect in its attempts to undermine the rules of international behavior.Current Freedom of Navigation Operations are insufficientMATTHEW Pennington, Apr. 27, 2016, Lawmaker urge more US naval operations in South China Sea, Associated Press, Matthew Pennington is Reporter, Asia-US Affairs at Associated Press based out of Washington DC, hosted2.APDEFAULT/cae69a7523db45408eeb2b3a98c0c9c5/Article_2016-04-27-US--United%20States-China/id-f4c0f64c008c4ff1802a4514eecaf131Republicans said such "freedom of navigation" operations cruising within 12 nautical miles of the manmade islands — what China might consider as their territorial waters — should become routine. "I don't know why we are not doing it weekly, or monthly," said the committee chairman, GOP Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, noting the U.S. has about 60 percent of its naval vessels in the Pacific region. Republican Sen. Cory Gardner of Colorado said sending U.S. ships into the area every three months "is simply insufficient to send a strong message to China." Corker contended that China has positioned itself as a geopolitical rival of the United States. "Merely managing differences with China is not a successful formula particularly when such management cedes U.S. influence and places American interest at risk in the Indo-Pacific and beyond," Corker said. Blinken agreed with Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida that China's objective was control of the entire South China Sea. Blinken said China was alienating its neighbors and risked "conflict, instability and isolation' unless it changed its approach and clarified its claims in accordance with international law. "As long as the United States remains fully present in the region, any tactical advantage that China derives from some of these outposts will be vastly outweighed by the net effect of surrounding itself with increasingly angry, increasingly suspicious neighbors who are increasingly close to the United States," he said. But Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey said that China was "dominating" the region. He advocated a tougher U.S. stance, saying American instruments of national power "are only useful when they are fully deployed." China claims virtually the entire South China Sea, an area that contains some of the world's busiest sea lanes. Although the U.S. is not a claimant, it says it has a national interest in freedom of navigation and maintaining stability there.Hegemony Advantage - SCSUniquenessInaction is killing US hegemony in AsiaJoseph Bosco, June 03, 2015, US Must Hold Firm in South China Sea Dispute, The Diplomat, , Joseph A. Bosco, national security consultant, retired in 2010 from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), where his portfolios over a seven-year period included strategic communications and Muslim outreach, East Asia security affairs, Iraq and Afghanistan coalition affairs, and disaster relief and humanitarian affairs, among other assignments, 2015/06/us-must-hold-firm-in-south-china-sea-dispute/In the unfolding crisis in the SCS, however, the U.S. no longer has the option to look away. As Defense Secretary Ashton Carter declared at the Shangri-La defense ministers’ meeting last week, the United States has a direct and enduring interest in freedom of navigation and overflight in all international waters and airspace. Beyond self-interest, America has kept the maritime and aviation public commons open to all nations for more than seven decades. Allowing China unilaterally to carve out a gigantic exception to Washington’s global role in the vital SCS shipping lanes would constitute an incalculable diminution of U.S. power and prestige.South China Sea is key to US hegemony in Asia – must act now or losePatrick Cronin, May 13, 2015, Retaining America’s Balance in the Asia Pacific: Countering Chinese Coercion in Southeast Asia, Center for a New American Security, Dr. Patrick Cronin Senior Advisor and Senior Director, Asia-Pacific Security Program Center for a New American Security, sites/default/files/Cronin_Written%20Testimony_5.13.2015.pdfWe are in the midst of an intensifying competition in Asia. The main driver of this competition is an ever-more powerful China determined to set the rules of engagement around its vast periphery. The South China Sea is the locus of rivalry. In seeking to expand its influence in Southeast Asia, China may well believe it is simply reclaiming its historic position as the dominant regional power. It may also think that its actions are defensive, designed to protect its security, access to resources, and vital sea lines of communication. But it realizes that the post World War II order largely built by the United States still obstructs this objective. Thus, many Chinese hope to displace the United States while gradually dominating its neighbors in a manner unlikely to trigger any decisive or timely response. This is effectively Chinese regional hegemony in slow motion. In Washington, too often the urgent crowds out the important. If we wait for the important changes presently underway in Southeast Asia to develop on their current trajectory, the United States and its allies and partners will soon not only lose substantial leverage over the rules and norms of behavior in this region but also may well face larger security risks in the future.Hegemony Advantage - SCSInternal LinkLack of US action leads to more island building and results in regional instability. The longer the US waits the more serious our actions to stop China will have to beJERRY Hendrix, May 24, 2016, Is War with China Now Inevitable?, National Review, Jerry Hendrix is a retired Navy Captain, a former director of the Naval History and Heritage Command, and a senior fellow and director of the Defense Strategies and Assessments program at the Center for a New American Security. Read more at: , article/435749/us-china-war-obama-weakness-east-asiaNations work out their differences through consistent and credible interactions. Exercises and real-world operations allow states to define their interests and then defend them. Competitor nations take these opportunities to test the will of states they are challenging. The consistency of these activities allows tensions between states to be released at a constant rate, so that pressures never rise to dangerous levels. But when a nation vacates the arena of competition for too long or fails to conduct credible exercises, as the United States has done in the Western Pacific over the past five years, strains begin to warp the fabric of the international order. China’s construction of artificial islands as a means of extending its claims of sovereignty over the South China Sea have left the United States with few options.? The U.S. can continue its policy of sending mixed messages, dispatching individual warships on “innocent-passage” profiles that come within twelve miles of the islands while avoiding normal military operations, but this will only play into China’s plan to slowly boil the frog as it continues arming the islands, establishing a new security status quo in the region. China’s strategy mirrors Russia’s actions in Georgia, the Crimea, and Ukraine. There, Russian forces operated below the U.S.’s radar, conducting phase I and II operations and standing pat in the face of international sanctions, confident that neither the United States nor its NATO allies really wanted to risk war to re-institute the regional order that had just been upended. China clearly feels that time is on its side so long as it only incrementally expands its influence, avoiding direct confrontation with the United States. Such an approach will, of course, leave the United States no choice but to suddenly and directly confront China at some critical point in the future. America’s adherence to its founding principles of free navigation and free trade, not to mention its belief in a free sea, will not allow it to tolerate a Chinese assertion of sovereignty over such a large swath of heretofore-open water. Perhaps when the time comes the United States could simply land an international force of marines on one of the artificial islands as part of an amphibious exercise. As the islands are not Chinese sovereign territory, there is no reason not to use them as the staging ground for an international exercise. And such an exercise would force China’s hand, making it choose between resisting the assembled international marines with armed force or acknowledging the illegitimacy of its own claims While some might view such American action as too confrontational, it was made necessary by the Obama administration’s failure to nip China’s ambitions in the bud. America will now have to skip a phase, taking strong and abrupt action to reset the status quo. As things stand, should China suddenly move to militarize the Scarborough Shoals just off of the Philippines, it is unclear if the United States would defend its ally, in keeping with its treaty commitments, or simply dispatch Secretary of State John Kerry to insist on one thing while his bosses’ actions demonstrate the opposite. Such continuous, systematic acts of accommodation as have been demonstrated with Iran, Syria, and Russia invite conflict and ultimately lead to large-scale major war. Maintenance of a strong military and the upholding of our founding core principles remain the surest guarantee of peace.Absent increased American naval intervention, island building leads to an escalatory regional war which draws in the USKlein, 2012 “Former US Diplomat: The Next Battlefield Will Be The South China Sea”, Business Insider magazine, Brian Klein is an International Affairs Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, ex-US diplomat to China and India, writer and global strategist focusing on macroeconomic, geopolitical, and security issues, , Accessed: 7/8/14, NC)An increasingly militarized land and sea grab continues despite calls for peaceful resolution. With the U.S. in full Asian tilt, the South China Sea dispute is shaping up to be the first major test of its Pacific re-engagement. What the U.S. Can or should do remains woefully undefined. There is no longer any question that as the power vacuum expands, force, not the power of the pen defines boundaries. Beijing increasingly asserts its claims within a map of its own making while a troubling and influential undercurrent gathers momentum. China now claims the entire South China Sea, brushing the shores of its neighbors and flying in the face of international norms. Call it the conventional "first-strike" option supported by influential Chinese think tanks and the popular state-controlled press—quick and decisive military engagement to convince Vietnam and the Philippines to back down. It worked in China’s favor during a 1974 stand-off over the Paracel Islands. Enter the U.S., seen by many as a natural hedge against excessive Chinese influence. The State Department issued a lukewarm statement on the South China Sea urging all parties to find a peaceful solution to the impasse. Senator McCain called China's moves "provocative.” Beyond routine drills and port calls with the Philippines, Vietnam and India the U.S. has taken a decidedly cautious approach. Peaceful resolution of territorial claims and a unified Southeast Asian response, not a military confrontation with China, remains a core U.S. foreign policy objective. That may be increasingly difficult to achieve as China presses its claims, recently “escorting” an Indian naval flotilla from its port call with Vietnam and hailing it with “welcome to Chinese waters.” In June Philippine President Aquino sought reassurance that U.S. defense obligations would kick-in should they be attacked. The U.S. refused to take sides in the territorial dispute, a long standing policy, but reaffirmed its commitment to the bilateral Mutual Defense Treaty. At a minimum this entails immediate consultations should hostilities break out. It does not, however mean automatic military action. Even interest from the rest of Southeast Asia for greater U.S. engagement remains tentative. Vietnam continues joint exercises with China, keen to maintain balance with its main trading partner to the north. Non-claimant states including Thailand, Singapore, Cambodia, Indonesia and Laos have shown no interest in “taking sides”, though U.S. engagement is certainly welcome. For its part China has been quick to use trade retaliation including a sudden technical hold on Philippine fruit imports. If history is any guide the unintended consequences of even a limited military skirmish may prove hard to control. The situation remains even more volatile with a leadership transition underway in Beijing as nationalistic and even jingoistic tendencies rise throughout the country. Appeasement also has its discontents. This is the fine line the U.S. must tread. There are no signs that the cycle of provocation and push-back will end any time soon. It should be no surprise if boat ramming incidents between fishing vessels and cutters eventually turn more confrontational. Perhaps the greatest U.S. influence will be containing any escalation by its presence alone, helping to thwart the notion that China can launch a limited attack on its neighbors without consequences. Despite China’s preference the U.S. can and will remain a Pacific power, guarantor of the common interest, strengthening cooperation among parties, and routinely testing free access to international waters.Hegemony Advantage - SCSImpactAsian instability leads to nuclear war – many scenariosWalter Russell Mead 11-9 2014, “Obama in Asia”, The American Interest, Walter Russell Mead is Professor of Foreign Affairs and the Humanities at Bard College, decision to go to Asia is one that all thinking Americans can and should support regardless of either party or ideological affiliation. East and South Asia are the places where the 21st century, for better or for worse, will most likely be shaped; economic growth, environmental progress, the destiny of democracy and success against terror are all at stake here. American objectives in this region are clear. While convincing China that its best interests are not served by a rash, Kaiser Wilhelm-like dash for supremacy in the region, the US does not want either to isolate or contain China. We want a strong, rich, open and free China in an Asia that is also strong, rich, open and free. Our destiny is inextricably linked with Asia’s; Asian success will make America stronger, richer and more secure. Asia’s failures will reverberate over here, threatening our prosperity, our security and perhaps even our survival. The world’s two most mutually hostile nuclear states, India and Pakistan, are in Asia. The two states most likely to threaten others with nukes, North Korea and aspiring rogue nuclear power Iran, are there. The two superpowers with a billion plus people are in Asia as well. This is where the world’s fastest growing economies are. It is where the worst environmental problems exist. It is the home of the world’s largest democracy, the world’s most populous Islamic country (Indonesia — which is also among the most democratic and pluralistic of Islamic countries), and the world’s most rapidly rising non-democratic power as well. Asia holds more oil resources than any other continent; the world’s most important and most threatened trade routes lie off its shores. East Asia, South Asia, Central Asia (where American and NATO forces are fighting the Taliban) and West Asia (home among others to Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey and Iraq) are the theaters in the world today that most directly engage America’s vital interests and where our armed forces are most directly involved. The world’s most explosive territorial disputes are in Asia as well, with islands (and the surrounding mineral and fishery resources) bitterly disputed between countries like Russia, the two Koreas, Japan, China (both from Beijing and Taipei), and Vietnam. From the streets of Jerusalem to the beaches of Taiwan the world’s most intractable political problems are found on the Asian landmass and its surrounding seas. Whether you view the world in terms of geopolitical security, environmental sustainability, economic growth or the march of democracy, Asia is at the center of your concerns. That is the overwhelming reality of world politics today, and that reality is what President Obama’s trip is intended to address.Extinction from nuclear war dwarfs all other impact calculus – reducing nuclear risk is morally requiredJonathan Schell, 2000, Fate of the Earth, pp. 93-96, Jonathan Schell was an American author and was a fellow at the Institute of Politics at the John F. Kennedy School of Government and a fellow at the Kennedy School's Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics, and Public Policy. In 2003, he was a visiting lecturer at Yale Law School, and in 2005, a Distinguished Visiting Fellow at Yale's Center for the Study of Globalization, whose work primarily dealt with campaigning against nuclear weapons, say that human extinction is a certainty would, of course, be a misrepresentation – just as it would be a misrepresentation to say that extinction can be ruled out. To begin with, we know that a holocaust may not occur at all. If one does occur, the adversaries may not use all their weapons. If they do use all their weapons, the global effects in the ozone and elsewhere, may be moderate. And if the effects are not moderate but extreme, the ecosphere may prove resilient enough to withstand them without breaking down catastrophically. These are all substantial reasons for supposing that mankind will not be extinguished in a nuclear holocaust, or even that extinction in a holocaust is unlikely, and they tend to calm our fear and to reduce our sense of urgency. Yet at the same time we are compelled to admit that there may be a holocaust, that the adversaries may use all their weapons, that the global effects, including effects of which we as yet unaware, may be severe, that the ecosphere may suffer catastrophic breakdown, and that our species may be extinguished. We are left with uncertainty, and are forced to make our decisions in a state of uncertainty. If we wish to act to save our species, we have to muster our resolve in spite of our awareness that the life of the species may not now in fact be jeopardized. On the other hand, if we wish to ignore the peril, we have to admit that we do so in the knowledge that the species may be in danger of imminent self-destruction. When the existence of nuclear weapons was made known, thoughtful people everywhere in the world realized that if the great powers entered into a nuclear-arms race the human species would sooner or later face the possibility of extinction. They also realized that in the absence of international agreements preventing it an arms race would probably occur. They knew that the path of nuclear armament was a dead end for mankind. The discovery of the energy in mass – of "the basic power of the universe" – and of a means by which man could release that energy altered the relationship between man and the source of his life, the earth. In the shadow of this power, the earth became small and the life of the human species doubtful. In that sense, the question of human extinction has been on the political agenda of the world ever since the first nuclear weapon was detonated, and there was no need for the world to build up its present tremendous arsenals before starting to worry about it. At just what point the species crossed, or will have crossed, the boundary between merely having the technical knowledge to destroy itself and actually having the arsenals at hand, ready to be used at any second, is not precisely knowable. But it is clear that at present, with some twenty thousand megatons of nuclear explosive power in existence, and with more being added every day, we have entered into the zone of uncertainty, which is to say the zone of risk of extinction. But the mere risk of extinction has a significance that is categorically different from, and immeasurably greater than that of any other risk and as we make our decisions we have to take that significance into account. Up to now, every risk has been contained within the framework of life; extinction would shatter the frame. It represents not the defeat of some purpose but an abyss in which all human purpose would be drowned for all time. We have no right to place the possibility of this limitless, eternal defeat on the same footing as risk that we run in the ordinary conduct of our affairs in our particular transient moment of human history. To employ a mathematician's analogy, we can say that although the risk of extinction may be fractional, the stake is, humanly speaking, infinite, and a fraction of infinity is still infinity. In other words, once we learn that a holocaust might lead to extinction we have no right to gamble, because if we lose, the game will be over, and neither we nor anyone else will ever get another chance. Therefore, although, scientifically speaking, there is all the difference in the world between the mere possibility that a holocaust will bring about extinction and the certainty of it, morally they are the same, and we have no choice but to address the issue of nuclear weapons as though we knew for a certainty that their use would put an end to our species. In weighing the fate of the earth and, with it, our own fate, we stand before a mystery, and in tampering with the earth we tamper with a mystery. We are in deep ignorance. Our ignorance should dispose us to wonder, our wonder should make us humble, our humility should inspire us to reverence and caution, and our reverence and caution should lead us to act without delay to withdraw the threat we now post to the world and to ourselves.Hegemony Advantage - SCSSolvencyUS military key to stopping Chinese coercionZack Cooper, MARCH 2, 2015, CHINA’S MENACING SANDCASTLES IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA, War on the Rocks, Zack Cooper is a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a doctoral candidate at Princeton University, 2015/03/chinas-menacing-sandcastles-in-the-south-china-sea/8/If U.S. leaders are serious about countering Chinese coercion, they will have to accept more risk. For too long, Beijing has set the terms of the gray zone competition by leveraging its strengths against its neighbors’ weaknesses. Yet, despite its recent successes, China itself has many gray zone vulnerabilities. Through careful management of vertical and horizontal escalation risks, the United States can exploit these asymmetries to deter further Chinese coercion. Raising escalation risks can be an effective deterrent if carefully designed and calibrated. U.S. policymakers should focus their counter-coercion efforts on domains in which the United States and its allies and partners hold relative advantages, whether political, military, legal, economic, financial, or diplomatic. For example, despite China’s rapid military modernization, the U.S. military retains an asymmetric advantage in maritime power projection capabilities. China has attempted to sideline U.S. naval forces by utilizing China’s robust paramilitary forces to paint involvement of U.S. gray-hulled vessels as unnecessary escalation. But in the face of mounting Chinese coercion, the United States should consider the use of?gray hulls in gray zones. China’s coercion campaign is unlikely to end without external intervention. Allowing Beijing to dictate the terms of the competition in the East and South China Seas enables continued coercion and undermines regional and international order. The time has come for the United States to stop playing along.Greater US presence key to prevent instability in AsiaBen Rimland, May 03, 2016, The US Should Admit Its Vulnerability to Chinese Nuclear Attacks, The Diplomat, Ben Rimland is an MPhil student in the Modern Japanese Studies department at St. Antony’s College, University of Oxford, where he studies maritime security and East Asia defense issues, 2016/05/the-us-should-admit-its-vulnerability-to-chinese-nuclear-attacks/In the late 1980s, a strong American conventional presence in Europe, together with shrewd diplomatic maneuvering, led to the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, removing an entire class of nuclear weapons from the battlespace. The political good will and reduced tensions from these nuclear negotiations led, in turn, to the Conventional Forces in Europe treaty, largely spelling an end to the military tensions that defined the Cold War. A robust conventional presence in East Asia, combined with a more realistic American deterrence strategy, may present the best combination of sticks and carrots to induce greater Chinese cooperation in the rules-based order. Such an outcome would undoubtedly be beneficial to all involved, secure America’s continued place as the undisputed military hegemon in East Asia, and ensure China’s rise does not contribute to greater global instability.International Law Advantage - SCSUniquenessChina is attempting to make Asia a zone outside international law through island buildingPatrick M. Cronin and Alexander Sullivan, MARCH 2015, Preserving the Rules: Countering Coercion in Maritime Asia, Patrick M. Cronin is a Senior Advisor and Senior Director of the Asia-Pacific Security Program at the Center for a New American Security. Alexander Sullivan is a research associate at the Center for a New American Security, sites/default/files/publications-pdf/CNAS%20Maritime%20Strategy%20Series%20Capstone.pdfNo responsible official desires war. Policymakers in Washington, Beijing, Tokyo, Seoul, Taipei, Canberra, and throughout Southeast Asia are unanimous on this point. Yet between war and peace there is an ever-widening no man’s land of assertiveness, coercion, and distrust. Especially within the gray zones of maritime Asia there is increasing competition over the rules, rulemaking, and rule enforcement. The United States has been at the center of regional post-World War II order-building and security maintenance, but it appears to be experiencing a slow erosion of its credibility. A re-emerged China is recasting itself as a maritime power, calling at times for an exclusionary “Asia for Asians” architecture, and using its comprehensive instruments of power to unilaterally change facts on the ground, in the sea, and in the air. Left unchecked, rising maritime tensions will further undermine American influence, jeopardize the sovereignty of neighboring states, and sink the general postwar regional order. This study is meant to contribute to thinking about how to preserve a peaceful system based on the rule of law.South China Sea island building kills International lawRyan Pickrell, October 26, 2015, The Tipping Point: Has the U.S.-China Relationship Passed the Point of No Return?, The National Interest, Ryan Pickrell is a translator, editor, writer and researcher for Changjiang Daily Press Group based in Wuhan, China, feature/the-tipping-point-has-the-us-china-relationship-passed-the-14168In the aftermath of this meeting, China began investing heavily in island construction and land reclamation activities in disputed waters. As these activities have stirred up a lot of dust in the region, the United States has demanded that China abandon its present course of action, insisting that it is provocative and negatively impacting regional peace and stability. Not only has China dismissed America’s demands, it has also increased its military presence in contested areas in order to establish anti-access zones. While China claims that its actions are within the scope of international law, the United States asserts that Chinese actions are in violation of the law of the sea and laws for the regulation of the international commons. China argues that the South China Sea issue is a territorial sovereignty issue, yet the United States regards this issue as a freedom of navigation dispute, as well as a fight for the preservation of the international legal system—a cornerstone for the American-led liberal world order.International Law Advantage - SCSImpactInternational law is vitally important to a peaceful and equitable futureJohn Scales Avery, May 8, 2015, THE FUTURE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, John Scales Avery is a theoretical chemist noted for his research publications in quantum chemistry, thermodynamics, evolution, and history of science, we abolish the institution of war? Can we hope and work for a time when the terrible suffering inflicted by wars will exist only as a dark memory fading into the past? I believe that this is really possible. The problem of achieving internal peace over a large geographical area is not insoluble. It has already been solved. There exist today many nations or regions within each of which there is internal peace, and some of these are so large that they are almost worlds in themselves. One thinks of China, India, Brazil, the Russian Federation, the United States, and the European Union. Many of these enormous societies contain a variety of ethnic groups, a variety of religions and a variety of languages, as well as striking contrasts between wealth and poverty. If these great land areas have been forged into peaceful and cooperative societies, cannot the same methods of government be applied globally? Today, there is a pressing need to enlarge the size of the political unit from the nation-state to the entire world. The need to do so results from the terrible dangers of modern weapons and from global economic interdependence. The progress of science has created this need, but science has also given us the means to enlarge the political unit: Our almost miraculous modern communications media, if properly used, have the power to weld all of humankind into a single supportive and cooperative society. We live at a critical time for human civilization, a time of crisis. Each of us must accept his or her individual responsibility for solving the problems that are facing the world today. We cannot leave this to the politicians. That is what we have been doing until now, and the results have been disastrous. Nor can we trust the mass media to give us adequate public discussion of the challenges that we are facing. We have a responsibility towards future generations to take matters into our own hands, to join hands and make our own alternative media, to work actively and fearlessly for better government and for a better society. We, the people of the world, not only have the facts on our side; we also have numbers on our side. The vast majority of the world’s peoples long for peace. The vast majority long for abolition of nuclear weapons, and for a world of kindness and cooperation, a world of respect for the environment. No one can make these changes alone, but together we can do it. Together, we have the power to choose a future where international anarchy, chronic war and institutionalized injustice will be replaced by democratic and humane global governance, a future where the madness and immorality of war will be replaced by the rule of law. We need a sense of the unity of all mankind to save the future, a new global ethic for a united world. We need politeness and kindness to save the future, politeness and kindness not only within nations but also between nations. To save the future, we need a just and democratic system of international law; for with law shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.International law key to stop cultural misunderstanding and warChristopher Weeramantry and John Burroughs, July 2005, International Law and Peace: A Peace Lesson, Hague Appeal of Peace, Sri Lankabhimanya Christopher Gregory Weeramantry is a Sri Lankan lawyer who was a Judge of the International Court of Justice from 1991 to 2000, serving as its Vice-President from 1997 to 2000 and is currently an Emeritus Professor at Monash University; John Burroughs is Executive Director at the Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy, global/Law_and_Peace.pdfInternational law is an essential tool for the abolition of war. War has been a part of the human condition for thousands of years, but its abolition is now a necessity. With weapons of mass destruction becoming ever more readily available to state and non-state actors, the threat to a peaceful world being dragged into catastrophic conflict is so great that civilization itself is in peril. Misunderstanding and cross cultural ignorance are among the root causes of war. While global forces demolish geographical barriers and move the world toward a unified economy, clashes among cultures can have damaging impact on peace. International law draws upon the principles of peace expressed by great peacemakers and embodied in ancient writings, religions, and disciplines, and places them in the social and political context of today to dissipate the clouds of prejudice, ignorance and vested interests that stand in the way of world peace and harmony. Creating peace and conditions for harmony is a moral obligationGerard F. Powers & Drew Christiansen, 1994, Peacemaking: Moral and Policy Challenges for a New World, United States Catholic Conference, Georgetown University Press, pages 45-46, Gerard Powers is professor of the practice of Catholic peacebuilding at the Kroc Institute. He also coordinates the Catholic Peacebuilding Network; Drew Christiansen, S.J., is Distinguished Professor of Ethics and Global Development in Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service and co-director of the Program on the Church and the World at the Berkley Center, where he is a senior research fellow, in the context of condemning war in the strongest possible terms, these texts do not refer to peace as a residual category. "Peace is not merely the absence of war." 6 This point deserves emphasis because we automatically associate "the end of war" with "peace." Recall, for example, powerful images ln the collective American memory of the explosion of joy in Times Square, August 1945, at the end of World War ll. Certainly, the moral obligation to end war commands the highest urgency. However, ending war does not automatically create peace. It may afford a particularly promising opportunity to construct peace -- one we may choose either to act upon or to squander. The obligation to act upon – not squander - such an opportunity also commands the highest moral urgency. For that matter, the obligation to make peace has urgent priority even when there is no obvious opportunity to do so.International Law Advantage - SCSSolvencyHard power key to uphold international lawDaniel Twining, November 22, 2015, Time for America to Step Up in the South China Sea, Foreign Policy, Daniel Twining is senior fellow for Asia at the German Marshall Fund, 2015/11/22/time-for-america-to-step-up-in-the-south-china-sea/Soft power aside, the primary instrument for defending Asia’s fragile status quo must be American military strength. The United States must be more creative with its superior military toolkit in defending the existing liberal order. First, Washington must back its words with action. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter says U.S. forces will operate wherever international law allows. American forces must systematically challenge China’s self-declared Air Defense Identification Zone over the East China Sea, and its “Nine-Dash Line” in the South China Sea, challenging China’s ability to enforce its questionable claims. Second, the United States should encourage its allies to undertake similar patrols through Southeast Asia’s maritime commons. Japan and Australia are considering doing so; India’s increasingly powerful navy should do the same as part of its ambitious “Act East” policy. The United States and its allies should undertake joint exercises in the South China Sea’s international waters, challenging China’s claims to control access to them. Third, the United States should work with its allies to help them deploy the same kind of anti-access and area-denial capabilities that China is developing to exclude foreign forces from Asia’s regional commons. These include missile defenses, anti-submarine warfare capabilities, and more sophisticated patrol and combat aircraft. The goal is not to present China with an offensive military threat, but rather to cast doubt on the viability of aggressive Chinese military operations. Fourth, the United States must focus more intently on the military dimensions of its pivot to Asia. American forces are concentrated in Japan and South Korea, a legacy of 20th-century conflicts; they should be dispersed across the region. This could include permanent bases in the Philippines and Australia, a more active rotational presence in countries like Vietnam and Malaysia, and an increase in the operations tempo of submarine and surface patrols.US military presence is necessary to stop China and uphold international lawThuc D. Pham January 17, 2016, Deterring Chinese Coercion in the South China Sea, The Diplomat, Thuc D. Pham is a SCS researcher at the Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam, 2016/01/deterring-chinese-coercion-in-the-south-china-sea/Militarily, if Beijing uses?paramilitary?and maritime militia vessels to harass the operations of American oil giants, Washington with the host countries’ consent could?dispatch?its coast guard with the navy on the horizon and aircraft in the sky to protect its economic interests. On the one hand, this would give the U.S. Navy more toeholds in the region, but would avoid sparking international confrontation with the use of warships. On the other hand, this action would uphold the international law in practice, and effectively demonstrate that the 9-dash line is?invalid and inconsistent?with UNCLOS. To be able to make this real, however, the U.S. Coast Guard needs to be expanded?at appropriate levels to afford missions in the SCS, because most USCG vessels are already tasked with surveillance over the vast American EEZ and in the Arctic. In sum, if it is to deter Chinese coercion in the South China Sea, the U.S. needs to be strong and act more P Collapse Disadvantage Answers - SCSUniqueness AnswersNon-Unique: China already on road to collapse – 5 reasonsDavid Shambaugh, March 6, 2015, The Coming Chinese Crackup, The Wall Street Journal, Dr. Shambaugh is a professor of international affairs and the director of the China Policy Program at George Washington University and a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. His books include “China’s Communist Party: Atrophy and Adaptation” and, most recently, “China Goes Global: The Partial Power", articles/the-coming-chinese-crack-up-1425659198The endgame of Chinese communist rule has now begun, I believe, and it has progressed further than many think. We don’t know what the pathway from now until the end will look like, of course. It will probably be highly unstable and unsettled. But until the system begins to unravel in some obvious way, those inside of it will play along—thus contributing to the facade of stability. Communist rule in China is unlikely to end quietly. A single event is unlikely to trigger a peaceful implosion of the regime. Its demise is likely to be protracted, messy and violent. I wouldn’t rule out the possibility that Mr. Xi will be deposed in a power struggle or coup d’état. With his aggressive anticorruption campaign—a focus of this week’s National People’s Congress—he is overplaying a weak hand and deeply aggravating key party, state, military and commercial constituencies. The Chinese have a proverb,?waiying, neiruan—hard on the outside, soft on the inside. Mr. Xi is a genuinely tough ruler. He exudes conviction and personal confidence. But this hard personality belies a party and political system that is extremely fragile on the inside. Consider five telling indications of the regime’s vulnerability and the party’s systemic weaknesses. First, China’s economic elites have one foot out the door, and they are ready to flee en masse if the system really begins to crumble. In 2014, Shanghai’s Hurun Research Institute, which studies China’s wealthy, found that 64% of the “high net worth individuals” whom it polled—393 millionaires and billionaires—were either emigrating or planning to do so. Rich Chinese are sending their children to study abroad in record numbers (in itself, an indictment of the quality of the Chinese higher-education system). Just this week, the Journal reported, federal agents searched several Southern California locations that U.S. authorities allege are linked to “multimillion-dollar birth-tourism businesses that enabled thousands of Chinese women to travel here and return home with infants born as U.S. citizens.” Wealthy Chinese are also buying property abroad at record levels and prices, and they are parking their financial assets overseas, often in well-shielded tax havens and shell companies. Meanwhile, Beijing is trying to extradite back to China a large number of alleged financial fugitives living abroad. When a country’s elites—many of them party members—flee in such large numbers, it is a telling sign of lack of confidence in the regime and the country’s future. Second, since taking office in 2012, Mr. Xi has greatly intensified the political repression that has blanketed China since 2009. The targets include the press, social media, film, arts and literature, religious groups, the Internet, intellectuals, Tibetans and Uighurs, dissidents, lawyers, NGOs, university students and textbooks. The Central Committee sent a draconian order known as Document No. 9 down through the party hierarchy in 2013, ordering all units to ferret out any seeming endorsement of the West’s “universal values”—including constitutional democracy, civil society, a free press and neoliberal economics. A more secure and confident government would not institute such a severe crackdown. It is a symptom of the party leadership’s deep anxiety and insecurity. Third, even many regime loyalists are just going through the motions. It is hard to miss the theater of false pretense that has permeated the Chinese body politic for the past few years. Last summer, I was one of a handful of foreigners (and the only American) who attended a conference about the “China Dream,” Mr. Xi’s signature concept, at a party-affiliated think tank in Beijing. We sat through two days of mind-numbing, nonstop presentations by two dozen party scholars—but their faces were frozen, their body language was wooden, and their boredom was palpable. They feigned compliance with the party and?their leader’s latest mantra. But it was evident that the propaganda had lost its power, and the emperor had no clothes. In December, I was back in Beijing for a conference at the Central Party School, the party’s highest institution of doctrinal instruction, and once again, the country’s top officials and foreign policy experts recited their stock slogans verbatim. During lunch one day, I went to the campus bookstore—always an important stop so that I can update myself on what China’s leading cadres are being taught. Tomes on the store’s shelves ranged from Lenin’s “Selected Works” to Condoleezza Rice’s memoirs, and a table at the entrance was piled high with copies of a pamphlet by Mr. Xi on his campaign to promote the “mass line”—that is, the party’s connection to the masses. “How is this selling?” I asked the clerk. “Oh, it’s not,” she replied. “We give it away.” The size of the stack suggested it was hardly a hot item. Fourth, the corruption that riddles the party-state and the military also pervades Chinese society as a whole. Mr. Xi’s anticorruption campaign is more sustained and severe than any previous one, but no campaign can eliminate the problem. It is stubbornly rooted in the single-party system, patron-client networks, an economy utterly lacking in transparency, a state-controlled media and the absence of the rule of law. Moreover, Mr. Xi’s campaign is turning out to be at least as much?a selective purge?as an antigraft campaign. Many of its targets to date have been political clients and allies of former Chinese leader?Jiang Zemin.?Now 88, Mr. Jiang is still the godfather figure of Chinese politics. Going after Mr. Jiang’s patronage network while he is still alive is highly risky for Mr. Xi, particularly since Mr. Xi doesn’t seem to have brought along his own coterie of loyal clients to promote into positions of power. Another problem: Mr. Xi, a child of China’s first-generation revolutionary elites, is one of the party’s “princelings,” and his political ties largely extend to other princelings. This silver-spoon generation is widely reviled in Chinese society at large. Finally,?China’s economy—for all the Western views of it as an unstoppable juggernaut—is stuck in a series of systemic traps from which there is no easy exit. In November 2013, Mr. Xi presided over the party’s Third Plenum, which unveiled a huge package of proposed economic reforms, but so far, they are sputtering on the launchpad. Yes, consumer spending has been rising, red tape has been reduced, and some fiscal reforms have been introduced, but overall, Mr. Xi’s ambitious goals have been stillborn. The reform package challenges powerful, deeply entrenched interest groups—such as state-owned enterprises and local party cadres—and they are plainly blocking its implementation.Non-Unique: CCP legitimacy is on the brink and getting worse – economic slowdown & lack of reformsMelanie Hart, September 29, 2015, Assessing American Foreign Policy Toward China, Center for American Progress, Melanie Hart is a Senior Fellow and Director of China Policy at American Progress. She focuses on U.S. foreign policy toward China and works to identify new opportunities for bilateral cooperation, particularly on energy, climate change, and cross-border investment. Her research also covers China’s political system, market regulatory reforms, and how China’s domestic and foreign policy developments affect the United States., Chinese economy has reached an inflection point. It is not yet clear whether the Chinese Communist Party can successfully traverse these changing circumstances and maintain its hold on power. The growth model that pulled more than 400 million Chinese citizens out of poverty over the past three decades is running out of steam. Chinese wages are rising and eliminating China’s prior price advantages in global export markets. Fixed infrastructure investments are producing diminishing returns. Chinese citizens no longer accept the pollution costs associated with heavy industry, and even if they did, the global market cannot continue to absorb more Chinese steel and cement at double-digit annual growth rates. In order to keep the economy growing and maintain ruling legitimacy, Chinese leaders must downshift from the old growth model and foster new industries based on technological innovation, domestic consumption, and P Collapse Disadvantage Answers - SCSLink AnswersLink Turn: Confrontation in SCS will increase nationalism and CCP legitimacy by distracting from the economic slowdown Michael Casey, March 1, 2016, Business-As-Usual Won't Suffice In The South China Sea, Forbes, Mr. Casey is a security policy studies student at the George Washington University Elliott School of International Affairs., sites/realspin/2016/03/01/business-as-usual-wont-suffice-in-the-south-china-sea/#5e69d7c551c6Moreover, China’s economy has slowed dramatically over the past year. Official data show the economy grew at 7% in 2015 –the slowest in a quarter of a century – and the true situation may be even worse. Given that the legitimacy of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) relies upon continued economic growth, the figures are very worrisome. Engaging in overseas conflict is a useful way for government leaders to inflame nationalist fervor and channel domestic discontent towards their own purposes. Together, these two developments suggest the SAM deployment may represent a hardening of Chinese thinking on the South and East China Seas. If so, we can expect additional action, maybe the establishment of an Air Defense Identification Zone, over the course of this year. We should also not be surprised if China does decide to deploy anti-ship missiles or other offensive systems on the islands.Link Turn: Competition with external powers leads to more nationalism – nationalism key to CCP legitimacy Ryan Hang, OCTOBER 2014, Freedom for Authoritarianism: Patriotic Hackers and Chinese Nationalism, The Yale Review of International Studies, is a Web Developer & Software Engineer with a Bachelor of Arts (B.A.), Political Science (Specialization in Empirical Theory and Quantitative Methods) - his work on cyber studies and Chinese culture have been featured in several journals, yris.essays/1447As political circumstances in China have evolved, so has the role of nationalism in Chinese politics. The death of Mao Zedong and market oriented economic reforms championed by Deng Xiaoping in the early 1980s fundamentally altered Chinese politics and collapsed Chinese communist ideology. Economic hardship, corruption, and political instability following Deng Xiaoping’s economic reforms in the 1980s “greatly weakened mass support for the CCP and eroded its basis of legitimacy.”[59]?Chinese leaders turned to nationalism in response to the collapse of communist ideology to fill “an ideological vacuum left by the collapse of Marxist ideology and reinforce the stability of the CCP.”[60]?These leaders “wrapped themselves in the mantle of pragmatic nationalism, which they found remained the most reliable claim to the Chinese people’s loyalty and the only important value shared by the regime and its critics.”[61]?The CCP maintained its legitimacy by promising national strength and focusing on high rates of economic growth. Through deploying nationalism, the CCP was able to ideologically tie China with itself and introduce the view that “the Communist state is the embodiment of the nation’s will,” and portraying the CCP as defenders of China against outside threats.[62]?The CCP’s success with deploying nationalism as a means to generate political stability has established nationalism as the basis for the support and legitimacy of the CCP.[63]?Nationalism is a primary strategy utilized by the Chinese government to answer political threats; in the face of political crisis, the CCP has consistently “appealed to nationalism in the name of patriotism as a way to ensure the loyalty of a population stewing in domestic discontent.”[64]?Nationalism operates through a couple of mechanisms to reinforce the stability of the Chinese government. Nationalism serves the Chinese government by bolstering “its legitimacy through invoking a deep sense of “Chineseness” among its citizens.[65]?The government is able to resolve ideological fractures and consolidate the Chinese identity against external threats by fostering Nationalist sentiments. In the face of economic and political problems, nationalism “has become an effective instrument for enhancing the CCP’s legitimacy by allowing for it to be defined on the claim that the regime provides political stability and economic prosperity.”[66]Link Turn: CCP Collapse predictions empirically false and biased Hung et al, March 13, 2015, When Will China's Government Collapse?, Foreign Policy, Ho-Fung Hung is an associate professor at Johns Hopkins Sociology. My scholarly interest includes global political economy, protest, nation-state formation, and social theory, with a focus on East Asia,, Arthur R. Kroeber is a Senior Fellow at the Brookings-Tsinghua Center where he focuses on China’s political economy and its engagement with global economic institutions, Howard Waring French is a journalist, author, and photographer, as well as an associate professor at Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. He was most recently a senior foreign correspondent with The New York Times, Suisheng Zhao is a professor of Chinese politics and foreign policy at the University of Denver's Josef Korbel School of International Studies, 2015/03/13/china_communist_party_collapse_downfall/Predictions of Chinese political collapse have a long and futile history. Their persistent failure stems from a basic conceptual fault. Instead of facing the Chinese system on its own terms and understanding why it works — which could create insights into why it might stop working — critics judge the system against what they would like it to be, and find it wanting. This embeds an assumption of fragility that makes every societal problem look like an existential crisis. As a long-term resident of China, I would love the government to become more open, pluralistic and tolerant of creativity. That it refuses to do so is disappointing to me and many others, but offers no grounds for a judgment of its P Collapse Disadvantage Answers - SCSConsequentialist Impact Scenario AnswersImpact Defense and Turn: Loose nukes aren’t a thing – there is no market and they are incredibly safe even when unattended. Additionally, nuclear alarmism is more likely to cause war John Mueller, September 2, 2015, The Dangers of Alarmism, John Mueller is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. He is also a member of the political science department and senior research scientist with the Mershon Center for International Security Studies at Ohio State University. A leading expert on terrorism and particularly on the reactions (or over-reactions) it often inspires, publications/commentary/dangers-alarmismAn important part of the alarmism has been directed at, and impelled by the prospect of, nuclear terrorism, the most commonly embraced method by which it has been suggested that terrorists would be able to repeat, or even top, the destruction of 9/11. It was in 2004, in his influential book, Nuclear Terrorism — a work Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times found to be “terrifying” — that Harvard’s Graham Allison relayed his “considered judgment” that “on the current path, a nuclear terrorist attack on America in the decade ahead is more likely than not.” Allison has had a great deal of company in his alarming pronouncements. For example, in 2007, the distinguished physicist Richard Garwin put the likelihood of a nuclear explosion on an American or European city by terrorist or other means at 20 percent per year, which would work out to 89 percent over a ten-year period. Allison’s time is up, and so, pretty much, is Garwin’s. And it is important to the point out that not only have terrorists failed to go nuclear, but in the words of William Langewiesche who has assessed the process in detail, “The best information is that no one has gotten anywhere near this. I mean, if you look carefully and practically at this process, you see that it is an enormous undertaking full of risks for the would-be terrorists.” In fact, terrorist groups seem thus far to have exhibited only limited desire and even less progress in going atomic. This may be because, after brief exploration of the possible routes, they, unlike generations of alarmists on the issue, have discovered that the tremendous effort required is scarcely likely to be successful. It is highly improbable that a would-be atomic terrorist would be given or sold a bomb by a generous like-minded nuclear state because the donor could not control its use and because the ultimate source of the weapon might be discovered. Although there has been great worry about terrorists illicitly stealing or purchasing a nuclear weapon, it seems likely that neither “loose nukes” nor a market in illicit nuclear materials exists. Moreover, finished bombs have been outfitted with an array of locks and safety devices. There could be dangers in the chaos that would emerge if a nuclear state were utterly to fail, collapsing in full disarray. However, even under those conditions, nuclear weapons would likely remain under heavy guard by people who know that a purloined bomb would most likely end up going off in their own territory, would still have locks, and could probably be followed and hunted down by an alarmed international community. The most plausible route for terrorists would be to manufacture the device themselves from purloined materials. This task requires that a considerable series of difficult hurdles be conquered in sequence. These include the effective recruitment of people who at once have great technical skills and will remain completely devoted to the cause. In addition, a host of corrupted co-conspirators, many of them foreign, must remain utterly reliable, international and local security services must be kept perpetually in the dark, and no curious outsider must get consequential wind of the project over the months or even years it takes to pull off. In addition, the financial costs of the operation could easily become monumental. Alarmism about the atomic terrorist has had its most damaging results when it has been linked with an alarmist perspective about nuclear proliferation. For decades during and after the Cold War, there has been almost wall-to-wall alarm about the dangers supposedly inherent in nuclear proliferation. This perspective has almost never undergone careful examination. In fact, the proliferation of nuclear weapons has been far slower than has been commonly predicted over the decades primarily because the weapons do not generally convey much advantage to their possessor. And, more importantly, the effect of the proliferation that has taken place has been substantially benign: those who have acquired the weapons have “used” them simply to stoke their egos or to deter real or imagined threats. This holds even for the proliferation of the weapons to large, important countries run by unchallenged monsters who at the time they acquired the bombs were certifiably deranged: Josef Stalin who in 1949 was planning to change the climate of the Soviet Union by planting a lot of trees, and Mao Zedong who in 1964 had just carried out a bizarre social experiment that had resulted in artificial famine in which tens of millions of Chinese perished. Despite this experience, an aversion to nuclear proliferation continues to impel alarmed concern, and it was a chief motivator of the Iraq War which essentially was a militarized anti-proliferation effort in which fears that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, unlike all other nuclear states since 1945, might actually set off such weapons if he got them and/or that Saddam would give them to terrorists. The war that ensued proved to be a necessary cause of the deaths of more people than perished at Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.Framing Turn: Worst case predictions cause failed policy making, trade off with better solutions, and risk escalation – we need to prioritize probability over magnitudeBruce Schneier March 13, 2010, Worst-Case Thinking, Schneier on Security, Bruce Schneier is an internationally renowned security technologist and author, MA CS American University, a security conference recently, the moderator asked the panel of distinguished cybersecurity leaders what their nightmare scenario was. The answers were the predictable array of large-scale attacks: against our communications infrastructure, against the power grid, against the financial system, in combination with a physical attack. I didn't get to give my answer until the afternoon, which was: "My nightmare scenario is that people keep talking about their nightmare scenarios." There's a certain blindness that comes from worst-case thinking. An extension of the precautionary principle, it involves imagining the worst possible outcome and then acting as if it were a certainty. It substitutes imagination for thinking, speculation for risk analysis, and fear for reason. It fosters powerlessness and vulnerability and magnifies social paralysis. And it makes us more vulnerable to the effects of terrorism. Worst-case thinking means generally bad decision making for several reasons. First, it's only half of the cost-benefit equation. Every decision has costs and benefits, risks and rewards. By speculating about what can possibly go wrong, and then acting as if that is likely to happen, worst-case thinking focuses only on the extreme but improbable risks and does a poor job at assessing outcomes. Second, it's based on flawed logic. It begs the question by assuming that a proponent of an action must prove that the nightmare scenario is impossible. Third, it can be used to support any position or its opposite. If we build a nuclear power plant, it could melt down. If we don't build it, we will run short of power and society will collapse into anarchy. If we allow flights near Iceland's volcanic ash, planes will crash and people will die. If we don't, organs won’t arrive in time for transplant operations and people will die. If we don't invade Iraq, Saddam Hussein might use the nuclear weapons he might have. If we do, we might destabilize the Middle East, leading to widespread violence and death. Of course, not all fears are equal. Those that we tend to exaggerate are more easily justified by worst-case thinking. So terrorism fears trump privacy fears, and almost everything else; technology is hard to understand and therefore scary; nuclear weapons are worse than conventional weapons; our children need to be protected at all costs; and annihilating the planet is bad. Basically, any fear that would make a good movie plot is amenable to worst-case thinking. Fourth and finally, worst-case thinking validates ignorance. Instead of focusing on what we know, it focuses on what we don't know -- and what we can imagine. Remember Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's quote? "Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know." And this: "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Ignorance isn't a cause for doubt; when you can fill that ignorance with imagination, it can be a call to action. Even worse, it can lead to hasty and dangerous acts. You can't wait for a smoking gun, so you act as if the gun is about to go off. Rather than making us safer, worst-case thinking has the potential to cause dangerous escalation. The new undercurrent in this is that our society no longer has the ability to calculate probabilities. Risk assessment is devalued. Probabilistic thinking is repudiated in favor of "possibilistic thinking": Since we can't know what's likely to go wrong, let's speculate about what can possibly go wrong. Worst-case thinking leads to bad decisions, bad systems design, and bad security. And we all have direct experience with its effects: airline security and the TSA, which we make fun of when we're not appalled that they're harassing 93-year-old women or keeping first graders off airplanes. You can't be too careful! Actually, you can. You can refuse to fly because of the possibility of plane crashes. You can lock your children in the house because of the possibility of child predators. You can eschew all contact with people because of the possibility of hurt. Steven Hawking wants to avoid trying to communicate with aliens because they might be hostile; does he want to turn off all the planet's television broadcasts because they're radiating into space? It isn't hard to parody worst-case thinking, and at its extreme it's a psychological condition. Frank Furedi, a sociology professor at the University of Kent, writes: "Worst-case thinking encourages society to adopt fear as one of the dominant principles around which the public, the government and institutions should organize their life. It institutionalizes insecurity and fosters a mood of confusion and powerlessness. Through popularizing the belief that worst cases are normal, it incites people to feel defenseless and vulnerable to a wide range of future threats." Even worse, it plays directly into the hands of terrorists, creating a population that is easily terrorized -- even by failed terrorist attacks like the Christmas Day underwear bomber and the Times Square SUV bomber. When someone is proposing a change, the onus should be on them to justify it over the status quo. But worst-case thinking is a way of looking at the world that exaggerates the rare and unusual and gives the rare much more credence than it deserves. It isn't really a principle; it's a cheap trick to justify what you already believe. It lets lazy or biased people make what seem to be cogent arguments without understanding the whole issue. And when people don't need to refute counterarguments, there's no point in listening to them. CCP Collapse Disadvantage Answers - SCSDeontological Impact Scenario AnswersTurn: CCP collapse would be good – it’s the only way to save the environmentRichard Smith, December 31, 2015, Revolution or Collapse: China’s rise has come at horrific social and environmental cost, Infoshop News, excerpt from “China’s Communist-Capitalist Ecological Apocalypse” in Real World Economics Review, Dr. Richard Smith is an analyst at the Institute for Policy Research & Development - wrote his UCLA history Ph.D thesis on the contradictions of market reforms in China - At present he is completing a book on capitalist development and global ecological collapse, chapters of which have apeared as articles in the Journal of Ecological Economics, Capitalism Socialism Nature, and Real-World Economics Review, news.asia/revolution-or-collapseRevolution or collapse: One thing is certain: this locomotive is not going to be stopped so long as the Communist Party has its grip on the controls. The Chinese Communist Party is locked in a death spiral. It can’t rein in corruption because the party is built on corruption, thrives on corruption and can’t police itself. It can’t rein in ravenous resource consumption and suicidal pollution because, given its dependence on the market to generate new jobs, it has to prioritize growth over the environment like capitalist governments everywhere. It can’t even discipline its own subordinate officials to enforce and obey the government’s environmental, food and drug safety, building codes and similar laws because in this system subordinate officials aren’t necessarily subordinate and can often mobilize their family and guanxi-based backers to defend their interests and thwart Beijing. So long as this basic structural class/property arrangement remains in effect, no top-down “war on pollutions” or “war on corruption” is going to change this system or brake China’s trajectory to ecological collapse. Given the foregoing, I just don’t see how China’s spiral to collapse can be reversed short of social revolution.Environmental sustainability our primary moral obligationBill Klemm, 2003, Why Do We Have to Protect the Environment?, Environmental Protection, Dr. W. R. (Bill) Klemm is Senior Professor of Neuroscience & Professor of Veterinary Integrative Biosciences at Texas A&M university, peer.tamu.edu/curriculum_modules/Ecosystems/module_4/whyitmatters.htmThe human species needs food and water. We need energy. But we also need to protect the ecosystem niches that make survival of our species possible. Beyond that, we need to protect the niches for other species too.? Why do niches need protection? It's not nice to try to fool Mother Nature. Ecosystems are complicated. We have seen in these lessons that complexity grows as?we move up the ladder from cells to organ systems to ecosystems. The history of our attempts to manipulate ecosystems shows that we often make mistakes and fail to see the unintended consequences of our actions. Rich ecosystems are those with many occupied niches. A change in any one niche is likely to affect other niches and their occupant species. Extinction is forever. We don't get a second chance. Environmental hazards are dangerous. Especially our lakes and oceans have become dumping grounds for dangerous chemicals (pesticides, herbicides, oil and refinery products, industrial wastes, and heavy metals). Some of these toxins actually concentrate in food webs, such as mercury in fish. Moral obligation. Our species owes its existence to the living world that we share with other species. We owe the living world a chance to perpetuate the life-creating processes of natural selection, population dynamics, and exchange cycles.?We can only pay this debt by protecting the environment.Counter plan Answers (Consult ASEAN) – SCSPermutation Permutation: Non-bindingly consult with ASEAN then do the planPermutation Solves: Non-binding consultation can solve the net benefit and our turnsDaily Oklahoman June 12, 2001, Field Trip Bush Should Stay the Course in Europe, The Oklahoman is a daily newspaper that covers issues related to Oklahoma, article/2744661WITH his arrival in Spain this morning, President Bush begins a five-day trip to European countries, many of whose leaders are eager to lecture him on missile defense, global warming and - following the execution of Timothy McVeigh - the death penalty. We hope the president will listen politely but stay the course. The United States always should consult with its allies. But consultation doesn't mean conformity with a raft of liberal-to-socialist views now popular in a number of European capitals. "You can go through the motions of consulting as long as you don't ask and do tell," Kenneth Adelman, a veteran of the Reagan administration, told the New York Times. "You can ask opinions, but the fact is Europeans don't like change and Americans like change."Counter plan Answers (Consult ASEAN) - SCSSolvency answersDoesn’t solve: ASEAN will say no because they can’t agree on the SCS issue – China exploits the “fault line” in the alliance Sampa Kundu May 16th 2016, “China divides ASEAN in the South China Sea” East Asia Forum, Dr. Sampa Kundu is a researcher at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses in New Delhi, ) FRFChinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s whirlwind tour of Brunei, Cambodia and Laos during 22–24 April 2016 courted support for his country’s territorial claims in the South China Sea. But the issue of China’s policy in the South China Sea has created a fault line across ASEAN, complicating the unity and effectiveness of the regional grouping. The most pressing issue on Wang’s agenda during his visits to Brunei, Cambodia and Laos was dispute resolution in the South China Sea, though political and economic cooperation were also discussed. In Brunei, his first destination, Wang emphasised China’s ‘dual-track approach’ as a way to solve territorial disputes between China and Southeast Asian countries. This approach endorses the handling of disputes bilaterally by the directly affected countries, and the joint maintenance of peace and stability in the South China Sea by both China and ASEAN. An aerial photograph of Woody Island in the disputed Spratly Islands. (Photo: AAP) Following his visit to Brunei, Wang spent one day in Cambodia and met Foreign Minister Prak Sokhon. The following day in Laos, he met Lao Prime Minister Thongloun Sisoulith, General Secretary of the Party Central Committee and President Bounnhang Vorachith, and Foreign Minister Saleumxay Kommasith. Wang’s visit to Laos received wide attention in the region since Laos, as the Chair of ASEAN in 2016, is expected to play a key role in mediating China’s disputes with its Southeast Asian neighbours. Wang emphasised during his visit that China’s One Belt One Road initiative, which proposes a China–Laos railway link, would boost Laos’ agenda of transforming itself from a land-locked to a land-linked nation. For Laos’ part, Saleumxay Kommasith conveyed that, as the current Chair of ASEAN, Laos will try to further mobilise discussion on the execution of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) and negotiations on a formal Code of Conduct. Wang’s tour of the three countries underscores China’s eagerness to develop substantial backing within the region as The Hague prepares to give its verdict on the Philippines’ arbitration case against China’s ‘nine-dash line’ claims. Any public support from the region will add legitimacy to China’s position against allowing third parties to intervene in South China Sea disputes. Following the visits, the Chinese foreign ministry published a four-point consensus that Wang claimed was agreed upon with his counterparts in Brunei, Cambodia and Laos. The consensus stated that, first, disputes over the Spratly islands are not an ASEAN–China issue and should not have any implications on China–ASEAN relations. Second, every sovereign state is free to choose their own way to resolve rows and no unilateral decision can be imposed on them. Third, dialogues and consultations under Article 4 of the DOC are the best way to solve the South China Sea disputes. Fourth, China and ASEAN together can effectively maintain peace and security in the region. This four-point consensus, alongside Wang’s tour of Southeast Asia, reiterates that China has once again successfully capitalised on divisions prevalent among the ASEAN nations when it comes to South China Sea disputes. By supporting China’s four-point consensus, Brunei, Cambodia and Laos have expressed that they will neither join Vietnam and the Philippines (and increasingly Indonesia too) in their fights against China’s assertiveness in South China Sea nor seek multilateral dispute resolution. The last point in the ‘consensus’ stresses that China and these three ASEAN countries do not want the involvement of outside powers (like the United States) in South China Sea disputes, as they believe only regional powers should manage peace and stability in East Asia. But China’s assertive diplomacy in Southeast Asia has raised questions about Laos’ ability to promote unity and open dialogue across ASEAN in 2016. In light of the United States’ insistence that it will continue its freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea, and US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter’s recent announcement of joint patrols with Manila, China is likely be more assertive in pushing its dispute resolution agenda onto its allies in the region. This was not the first time China has been successful in drawing dividing lines within ASEAN. During Myanmar’s tenure as Chair of ASEAN in 2014 the smaller economy had to face the challenge of considering the interests of Vietnam and Philippines on the one hand and China on the other. After Wang Yi’s three-nation tour, Lao President Bounnhang Vorachith attempted a conciliatory gesture towards the other members of ASEAN by immediately paying a friendly visit to Hanoi. But it remains to be seen whether this visit will be enough to assure Vietnam, and other Southeast Asian countries, of Laos’ ability to lead ASEAN with a pragmatic diplomatic attitude. Some argue that China is too big a power for ASEAN’s smaller economies to raise a tough voice against its territorial claims and its rejection of third-party dispute resolution. Yet Vietnam and the Philippines are passionate about maintaining their demands in the South China Sea. The involvement of extra-regional powers suits their interests. The confluence of these opposing interests is making Southeast Asia one of the most unsettled regions in the world. Managing this tension will be a considerable challenge for ASEAN into the future.Solvency Turn: ASEAN is currently the driver of Asian stability WITHOUT the US, but fracture among states or perceived bias would undermine ASEAN credibilityPek Koon Heng, 2014, The “ASEAN Way” and Regional Security Cooperation in the South China Sea, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, Eruopean University Institute, Pek Koon Heng is is Assistant Professor at School of International Service at American University in Washington DC, she got her PhD, London University's School of Oriental and African Studies; MA, BA, Auckland University,cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/33878/RSCAS_2014_121.pdf?sequence=1When examining ASEAN’s role in promoting regional cooperation and integration, scholars have utilized realist, neo-liberal or constructivist perspectives, or an eclectic combination of all three (see, e.g., Acharya 2009a, Ba 2009, Busse 1999, Emmers 2012, Goh 2008, Jones & Smith 2006, Nischalke 2000, Ravenhill 2013, Sheldon 2014). While some scholars remain highly skeptical that the ASEAN Way, as currently constituted, could ever underpin a robust regional security regime (Jones & Smith 2006, Nischalke 2000), others have evaluated the grouping’s contributions more positively (Acharya 2013, Ba 2012, Busse 1999, Goh, 2012, Capie 2012, Kraft 2012). In contrast to Jones and Smith’s critique of ASEAN as a “fading institution” with “a peripheral rather than core role in regional growth and stability” (2006: 159, 277), Evelyn Goh argues that ASEAN “is universally acceptable as the ‘driver’ of regionalism”, which has critically claimed a “voice” for smaller states in discussing and managing regional security affairs in a situation where great powers are suspicious of each other (Goh 2012: 105, 112). Other scholars such as David Capie, while recognizing the weaknesses underlying the process and institutionalization of the ASEAN Way of regional cooperation, nevertheless concludes that ASEAN “has proved far more resilient than many could have predicted just a few years ago” (Capie 2012: 179). Amitav Acharya, while agreeing that ASEAN has successfully functioned as the fulcrum of geopolitical stability in Asia, cautions that ASEAN leaders need to retain unity, strengthen mechanisms for cooperation, and maintain a “neutral broker image among great powers” in order to continue to play that role (2013: 21).Counter plan Answers (Consult ASEAN) - SCSNet Benefit AnswersLink Turn: US consultation with ASEAN over SCS increases instabilityXinhua News Service, February 17, 2016, China: US-ASEAN relationship should benefit regional peace, CCTV America, Xinhua is a leading news service in mainland china, 2016/02/17/china-us-asean-relationship-should-benefit-regional-peaceChina said on Wednesday that the development of relationship between the United States and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) should be conducive to regional stability and development. Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei made the remarks when asked to comment on a gathering between U.S. President Barack Obama and leaders of Southeast Asian countries on Monday and Tuesday. In a joint statement issued after the meeting, the two sides shared a commitment to “maintain peace, security and stability in the region, ensuring maritime security and safety, including the rights of freedom of navigation and overflight.” “We have taken note of the attempt by some country to use the summit to stir up the South China Sea issue, but most of ASEAN members did not agree, because such a move will not only damage trust among countries in the region, but will interfere with their efforts in safeguarding the peace and stability in the South China Sea,” said Hong at a routine press briefing. Obama told a news conference that the two sides “discussed the need for tangible steps in the South China Sea to lower tensions, including a halt to further reclamation, new construction and militarization of disputed areas.” When asked to comment on Obama’s remarks, Hong said the United States is not a party concerned with the South China Sea issue and should be cautious with its words and actions. He said the United States should help create a sound atmosphere for talks and the pursue of a peaceful solution to disputes, rather than playing up tensions and sowing discord in the region.Link Turn: US-ASEAN cooperation only re-entrenches China, leads to more island building Sam LaGrone March 20, 2015, U.S. 7th Fleet Would Support ASEAN South China Sea Patrols, US Naval Institute, Sam LaGrone is the editor of USNI News. He was formerly the U.S. Maritime Correspondent for the Washington D.C. bureau of Jane’s Defence Weekly and Jane’s Navy International. In his role he covered legislation, acquisition and operations for the Sea Services and spent time underway with the U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps and the Canadian Navy, officials gave the plan a tacit endorsement in a Friday statement to USNI News. “The Department welcomes collaborative efforts to bolster maritime security in the Asia-Pacific, including ASEAN-led efforts. We believe that close cooperation between and among ASEAN member-states is critical to sustaining peace and prosperity in the region,” Pentagon spokeswoman Henrietta Levin said in a statement.“However, at this time, we are not aware of any specific plans or proposals by ASEAN countries to develop a combined maritime force.” Any maritime patrol force with U.S. involvement or approval would certainly flare Chinese tempers. The South China Sea contested territorial claims have been a constant issue between ASEAN countries and China. A map of China’s shifting definition of the so-called Nine-Dash Line. Both the Philippines and Vietnam have clashed with China politically over claims to the Spratley and Paracel Island chains and has conducted extensive reclamation work for military facilities. A regional code of conduct between China and ASEAN countries has been in the works since 2013 but has largely been stalled. As to the patrols, there is some precedent for combined ASEAN operations. The scheme could be based on the existing model of combined ASEAN forces anti-piracy patrol in the Strait of Malacca near Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand, according to press reports in the Philippines quoting Philippine Navy Flag Officer in Command (FOIC) Vice Adm. Jesus Millan. “Vice Adm. Millan [said] that for this ‘resource intensive initiative’ to work, all countries concerned should agree in working together in protecting the ‘Freedom of Navigation’ or the safety and security of seaborne trade and international shipping,” read the online report from radio station?DWDD. The plan follows comments from 7th?Fleet’s Thomas in January that suggested Japan should consider surface and air patrols in the South China Sea, which quickly drew the ire of the Chinese. “Countries outside this region should respect efforts made by countries in the region to maintain peace and stability,” said Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying in late icality Answers - SCSWe meet: FONOPS are a tool of US diplomacy Jonathan G. Odom, October 30, 2015, HOW THE U.S. FON PROGRAM IS LAWFUL AND LEGITIMATE, Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative, Commander Jonathan G. Odom is a judge advocate in the U.S. Navy and Military Professor of Law in the College of Security Studies at the Daniel K. Inouye Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies. He has previously served as Oceans Policy Advisor in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and Deputy Staff Judge Advocate to the Commander of U.S. Pacific Command, amti.how-the-u-s-fon-program-is-lawful-and-legitimate/Some may wonder why the United States does not limit its challenges of excessive maritime claims to solely the diplomatic arena. The formation and development of international law, especially in the context of customary law, is about state practice. Such practice is demonstrated by both the official words?and?official actions of individual states, with each reinforcing the other. If a coastal state establishes an excessive claim and others protest it through diplomatic means only, what happens if the coastal state simply ignores those diplomatic protests or declines to reform its excessive claim? Acquiescence by others poses a risk of legitimizing the coastal state’s excessive claim – if not as a matter of law, then at least in effect. The net result could be that the coastal state has de facto changed international law to achieve its strategic ends. Thus the FON Program’s operational activities reinforce U.S. public statements and diplomatic communications, and are fully consistent with the official protest of an excessive claim. In that way, the United States is simply standing up for its freedom, and that of other states, as guaranteed in international law.Counter interpretation: FONOPS are gunboat diplomacyKun-Chin Lin and Andrés Villar Gertner, November 18, 2015, Gunboat Diplomacy in the South China Sea, The Diplomat, Kun-Chin Lin is an Associate Fellow of the Chatham House Asia Programme. Andrés Villar Gertner is with the Centre for Rising Powers, University of Cambridge, 2015/11/gunboat-diplomacy-in-the-south-china-sea/However, we believe the U.S. warship in disputed water makes a strong political statement on the future Sino-American relations and sends a clear operational signal to U.S. allies in the region. The gunboat diplomacy tests Beijing’s resolve in keeping its word following an affront to its national face. Would China adhere to its professed principle of peaceful resolution of conflicts? Would it revoke its reassurance at the last ASEAN Summit that land reclamation projects were completed and in any case do not affect freedom of navigation by air and sea?Counter standards:Fairness: The affirmative is sufficiently topical to create a fair debate. The plan engages in a form of diplomacy that many experts suggest on a topic that is at the heart of US-China disagreement. If they weren’t ready to debate this that is their fault, not an unfair strategy. Education: Our plan engages in diplomacy but not in the way they expect – that’s good because it’s taught them more about how the world works and what practical solutions there are. Learning about the South China Sea is core to learning about US-China relations. Plan is necessary to the topic. No voters: Their topicality is not sufficient to vote on. There is plenty of opportunity for equitable clash and strategy in this debate – we are reasonably topical and they have many specific arguments against our case. Don’t punish us because they didn’t do their work. Capitalism Kritik Answers - SCSLink Answers Marxist theory is neutral on international law Bill Bowring, June 2, 2014, Bill Bowring Lecture: ‘A Marxist approach to state responsibility’, Amsterdam, 19 June 2014, Bill Bowring is Professor of Law in the School of Law, Birkbeck, University of London. Barrister at Field Court Chambers, Gray's Inn, 2014/06/02/bill-bowring-lecture-marxist-approach-state-responsibility/Marx and Engels had practically nothing to say about law, much less international law.?They had strong principled positions on self-determination, for example, for Ireland and Poland as oppressed nations; were in favour of the North in the American Civil War; and against British colonialism in India and French colonialism in Algeria.?Lenin developed Marx’s and Engels’s position on self-determination and formulated a right of peoples to self-determination, put into practice in the Baltics, Finland, Poland, but reversed by Stalin. But this was not explicitly or implicitly a critique of international law. Yevgeny Pashukanis, while he was a legal adviser negotiating in Berlin the Treaty of Rapallo, wrote the?General Theory of Law and Marxism, introducing the “commodity form” theory of law. But Pashukanis’s own writings on international law and those of his rival and successor Korovin and indeed the Soviet approach to international law were thoroughly positivist, although repeatedly and paradoxically undercut by self-determination.Link Turn: The alternative to US hegemony is Chinese hegemony which is the worst parts of capitalism and more repressive Rebecca Liao, December 19, 2014, Beware of Chinese Hegemony, The National Interest, Rebecca Liao is a corporate attorney, writer and China analyst based in Silicon Valley. Her writing has appeared in Financial Times, Foreign Affairs, The Atlantic and Bloomberg View, among various other publications, blog/the-buzz/beware-chinese-hegemony-11896In its new leadership role, China is promising it will avoid the traps of Western multilateralism. Namely, it will not demand that countries meet conditions for financial aid that disregard local input and circumstances. In a key foreign policy speech given late last month, Chinese President Xi Jinping rebuked the Western order and?pledged that?China will “respect the independent choice of development path and social system by people of other countries." This is obviously pretense. First, China’s overseas development projects to date have often disregarded local considerations. True, its bilateral investments have filled a gap where developing countries in Latin America and Asia fail to meet the free-market, liberal requirements of organizations like the IMF and WTO. For example, the China Development Bank and China Export-Import Bank?provided approximately?$110 billion to developing countries in 2009 and 2010. Latin America?received $79 billion from?these two Chinese banks from 2003 through 2011, far outpacing the World Bank’s $57 billion. Africa, the largest beneficiary, has?reportedly received?approximately $170 billion in foreign investment over the last nine years. () While avoiding the political chaos and economic instability of Western-style globalization, many Chinese investment projects have nevertheless led to vast local environmental destruction. Unemployment remains untreated or worsens since China prefers to use its own workers. Local laws and regulations may remain untouched, but Sinification persists. Second, even without explicit economic coercion, China is starting to mold its patron countries into its own image of authoritarian capitalism. This is especially pronounced in Central Asian governments, particularly the regimes of Nazarbayev’s Kazahstan and Karimov’s Uzbekistan. And despite their democratic ambitions, Ghana, Zimbabwe, Venezuela Argentina and many other recipients of Chinese dollars are all leaning towards statist models of development.We can use the state against capitalismChristian Parenti, April 2014, “Climate Change: What Role for Reform?” MONTHLY REVIEW v. 65 n. 11, Christian Parenti is a Professor of Sustainable Development at the School for International Training, Graduate Institute , accessed 4-24-14.There was also a larger point to my essay that the MR editors did not address. By describing policies that the U.S. capitalist state could undertake right now to start euthanizing the fossil-fuel industry, I was also attempting to start a conversation about the state. Once upon a time the state was the heart of the socialist project. But neoliberalism’s anti-statist rhetoric has almost “disappeared” the state as an intellectual object—even on much of the left. The capitalist state is not just a tool of capital’s rule. It is also an arena of class struggle. As such it is an institution that can solidify and enforce popular political victories over capital. If the struggle for climate justice is to get anywhere it will have to think more deeply about the contradictions of the capitalist state, and how such contradictions can be exploited in the short term. On that point, I hope you would agree.Capitalism Kritik Answers - SCSCapitalism Kritik Consequentialist Impact Scenario AnswersImpact Turn: Capitalism is self-correcting and sustainable – war and environmental destruction are not profitable and innovation solves their impacts Anatole Kaletsky, 2011, Capitalism 4.0: The Birth of a New Economy in the Aftermath of Crisis, p. 19-21, Anatole Kaletsky is editor-at-large of The Times of London, where he writes weekly columns on economics, politics, and international relations and on the governing board of the New York-based Institute for New Economic Theory (INET), a nonprofit created after the 2007-2009 crisis to promote and finance academic research in economicsDemocratic capitalism is a system built for survival. It has adapted successfully to shocks of every kind, to upheavals in technology and economics, to political revolutions and world wars. Capitalism has been able to do this because, unlike communism or socialism or feudalism, it has an inner dynamic akin to a living thing. It can adapt and refine itself in response to the changing environment. And it will evolve into a new species of the same capitalist genus if that is what it takes to survive. In the panic of 2008—09, many politicians, businesses, and pundits forgot about the astonishing adaptability of the capitalist system. Predictions of global collapse were based on static views of the world that extrapolated a few months of admittedly terrifying financial chaos into the indefinite future. The self-correcting mechanisms that market economies and democratic societies have evolved over several centuries were either forgotten or assumed defunct. The language of biology has been applied to politics and economics, but rarely to the way they interact. Democratic capitalism’s equivalent of the biological survival instinct is a built-in capacity for solving social problems and meeting material needs. This capacity stems from the principle of competition, which drives both democratic politics and capitalist markets. Because market forces generally reward the creation of wealth rather than its destruction, they direct the independent efforts and ambitions of millions of individuals toward satisfying material demands, even if these demands sometimes create unwelcome by-products. Because voters generally reward politicians for making their lives better and safer, rather than worse and more dangerous, democratic competition directs political institutions toward solving rather than aggravating society’s problems, even if these solutions sometimes create new problems of their own. Political competition is slower and less decisive than market competition, so its self-stabilizing qualities play out over decades or even generations, not months or years. But regardless of the difference in timescale, capitalism and democracy have one crucial feature in common: Both are mechanisms that encourage individuals to channel their creativity, efforts, and competitive spirit into finding solutions for material and social problems. And in the long run, these mechanisms work very well. If we consider democratic capitalism as a successful problem-solving machine, the implications of this view are very relevant to the 2007-09 economic crisis, but diametrically opposed to the conventional wisdom that prevailed in its aftermath. Governments all over the world were ridiculed for trying to resolve a crisis caused by too much borrowing by borrowing even more. Alan Greenspan was accused of trying to delay an inevitable "day of reckoning” by creating ever-bigger financial bubbles. Regulators were attacked for letting half-dead, “zombie” banks stagger on instead of putting them to death. But these charges missed the point of what the democratic capitalist system is designed to achieve. In a capitalist democracy whose raison d’etre is to devise new solutions to long-standing social and material demands, a problem postponed is effectively a problem solved. To be more exact, a problem whose solution can be deferred long enough is a problem that is likely to be solved in ways that are hardly imaginable today. Once the self-healing nature of the capitalist system is recognized, the charge of “passing on our problems to our grand-children”—whether made about budget deficits by conservatives or about global warming by liberals—becomes morally unconvincing. Our grand-children will almost certainly be much richer than we are and will have more powerful technologies at their disposal. It is far from obvious, therefore, why we should make economic sacrifices on their behalf. Sounder morality, as well as economics, than the Victorians ever imagined is in the wistful refrain of the proverbially optimistic Mr. Micawber: "Something will turn up." Framing Turn: Consequentialism is bad – leads to horrendous decision makingDanny Scoccia, 2007, Moral theories: Utilitarianism, Kantianism, and Religious Ethics. Reading: pp. 6-17 & 20-26, Danny Scoccia is Professor Emeritus (Ph.D. University of California at San Diego) at New Mexico State University, Dr. Scoccia’s interests include ethical theory, philosophy of law and social and political philosophy, web.nmsu.edu/~dscoccia/321web/321ethicstheory.pdfThe other three views—Kantian ethics, natural rights theories, and “religious ethics”—all agree that there are many circumstances when maximizing utility would be wrong. Perhaps the strongest objection to Act Utilitarianism comes from the natural rights theory: Act Utilitarianism is false, because it tells us to violate people’s rights when that’s necessary to maximize utility. The example of Joseph illustrates it, but here’s another example. A surgeon has 1 healthy and 5 sick and dying patients. Each of the sick and dying patients needs a new organ— one a new kidney, another a new liver, the third a new heart, etc.—and would fully recover if he received it. It so happens that the 1 healthy patient would be a suitable organ donor for all of them. If the surgeon kills the 1 and redistributes his organs, he saves 5. If he does nothing, then 1 is alive and 5 are dead. On the assumption that all six are equally happy, loved by others, and productive of utility for others in society, then the way to maximize utility is to kill the 1. But if he won’t consent to being killed and having his organs transplanted (he doesn’t believe in utilitarianism), then killing him would violate his right to life. The objection is simply that it would be wrong to violate his right even if it’s the way to maximize utility.Capitalism Kritik Answers - SCSCapitalism Kritik Deontological Impact Scenario AnswersImpact Turn: Capitalism is a morally sound system – it preserves freedom to act which is the core of the human condition Peter Saunders, 2007, Why Capitalism is Good for the Soul, Peter Saunders is a Fellow at the Center for Independent Studies, What Clive Hamilton airily dismisses as a ‘growth?fetish’ has?resulted in one hour of work today delivering twenty-five times more value?than it did in 1850.?This has freed huge chunks of our time for?leisure, art, sport, learning, and other ‘soul-enriching’ pursuits. Despite all the exaggerated talk of an ‘imbalance’ between work and family life, the average Australian today spends a much greater proportion of his or her lifetime free of work than they would had they belonged to any previous generation in history.??There is another sense, too, in which?capitalism has freed individuals so they can pursue worthwhile lives, and that lies in its record of undermining tyrannies and dictatorships. As examples like Pinochet’s Chile and Putin’s Russia vividly demonstrate, a free economy does not guarantee a democratic polity or a society governed by the rule of law. But as Milton Friedman once pointed out, these latter conditions are never found in the absence of a free economy.(12) Historically, it was capitalism that delivered humanity from the ‘soul-destroying’ weight of feudalism. Later, it freed millions from the dead hand of totalitarian socialism. While capitalism may not be a sufficient condition of human freedom, it is almost certainly a necessary one.??[continues]?Wherever populations have a chance to move, the flow is always towards capitalism, not away from it. The?authorities never had a problem keeping West Germans out of East Germany, South Koreans out of North Korea, or Taiwanese out of Communist China. The attraction of living in a capitalist society is not just that the economy works. It is also that?if your version of the good life leads you to turn your back on capitalism, you don’t have to pick up sticks and move away. If you don’t like capitalism, there is no need to bribe people-smugglers to get you out of the country.?You simply?buy a plot of land,?build your mud-brick?house, and drop out?(or, like Clive, you set up your own think tank and sell books urging others to drop out).Framing Turn: Deontology is a failed moral system – ticking time bomb provesMark J. Buha, 2010, Rule Utilitarian and Deontologist Perspectives on Comparisons of Torture and Killing, Washington University Jurisprudence Review Volume 2, Issue 2, Mark Buha is an Associate at Maune Raichle Hartley French & Mudd law firm, Mark earned his Juris Doctor from Washington University in St. Louis in 2011. He served as a Senior Editor of the Jurisprudence Review,openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1014&context=law_jurisprudenceDeontologists, like rule utilitarians, devise rules that must be followed universally. Deontologists and rule utilitarians differ only in what criteria they use to formulate these rules. Rule utilitarians use only pleasure and pain. They hold that any act that maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain when applied universally is good. Deontologists evaluate actions under an entirely different rubric than rule utilitarians,72 often focusing on the mental state of the actor or whether the act violates another's rights.73 If it violates another's rights, it is strictly forbidden, regardless of the consequences. 74 Deontologists tend to treat each individual separately as an end in itself.75Applying this analysis, many deontologists forbid torture under all circumstances.? see torture as a particularly repugnant violation of individual rights. It requires specific intent, deprives the victim of dignity, and invades the victim's physical and psychological integrity. Provided grave enough consequences, this uncompromising position represents a fanaticism77and "moral fundamentalism"' that is difficult to defend. Hardly anyone finds it acceptable to rigidly adhere to an abstract moral principle—no matter how sound the principle appears in isolation—when doing so results in the death of hundreds or thousands of people.79 Deontologists allow catastrophe and mass death to occur to protect a single individual simply because torture violates his or her rights. The infamous "ticking time bomb" hypothetical illuminates these objections. In this scenario, a bomb is located in a crowded city. If detonated, it will destroy the entire city and millions will die. The bomb's location is unknown, and there is not enough time for a general search. Law enforcement apprehends one of the bomb's planters who knows the bomb's location and how to deactivate it. If the terrorist divulges the information, law enforcement has enough time to disable the bomb. Given these facts, few would adhere to principle; most would torture the individual in order to extract information that would save millions. This hypothetical presses deontology to its ideological limits. Once the prohibitionist admits he would allow torture in this situation, he concedes that his opposition to torture is not based on principle alone, but on something else.8° Deontologists respond with both logical and empirical objections to the ticking time bomb hypothetical's seductive simplicity. First, as Richard Matthews points out, the argument may be valid, but it is unsound, and therefore it cannot seriously undermine any position on torture.81The ticking bomb argument sets forth an "if-then" conditional: if these facts exist, then a reasonable person would torture.82If the antecedent holds, the consequence follows. But the hypothetical assumes the antecedent's truth without providing any proof. Valid but not sound, the hypothetical proves nothing. If we accepted mere validity, anything could be proven.83 Second, deontologists point out how unlikely it is that the antecedent facts would ever simultaneously exist in the real world. Although each premise has an empirical likelihood of being false, the hypothetical assumes that (1) an actual terrorist threat exists, (2) the threat is imminent, (3) the threat is sufficiently dangerous to justify torture, (4) the apprehended suspect possesses any information relevant to the threat, (5) only a single individual possesses all of the information necessary to extinguish the threat, (6) the individual participated in the attack or is a wrongdoer, (7) torture will be effective in forcing the subject to disclose information, (8) the information disclosed is truthful, and (9) the torturer can distinguish truthful and false information simply by observing the subject. The distinct unlikelihood that all nine elements will simultaneously exist in the real world renders the example almost irrelevant, useful only as a thought exercise.84 While these criticisms expose the assumptions in the ticking time bomb hypothetical, they ultimately avoid the issue. While it might be extremely unlikely that such factual circumstances will ever exist, it is not conceptually impossible. The fact remains that rigid deontology allows the bombs to go off in that scenario, however unlikely. Deontologists allow the world to explode to avoid violating the rights of a single individual.Capitalism Kritik Answers - SCSCapitalism Kritik Discourse Impact AnswersImpact Turn: Talking broadly about theories don’t help build education spaces, it creates withdrawal and pessimism – only learning about and working through actual systems and scenarios is educationally liberating Richard Rorty 1998, “ACHIEVING OUR COUNTRY: Leftist Thought in Twentieth-Century America”, 1998, Pg. 7-9, Richard Rorty is a professor emeritus of comparative literature and philosophy at Stanford University and a leading academic in the field of philosophySuch people find pride in American citizenship impossible, and vigorous participation in electoral politics pointless. They associate American patriotism with an endorsement of atrocities: the importation of African slaves, the slaughter of Native Americans, the rape of ancient forests, and the Vietnam War. Many of them think of national pride as appropriate only for chauvinists: for the sort of American who rejoices that America can still orchestrate something like the Gulf War, can still bring deadly force to bear whenever and wherever it chooses. When young intellectuals watch John Wayne war movies after reading Heidegger, Foucault, Stephenson, or Silko, they often become convinced that they live in a violent, inhuman, corrupt country. They begin to think of themselves as a saving remnant-as the happy few who have the insight to see through nationalist rhetoric to the ghastly reality of contemporary America. But this insight does not move them to formulate a legislative program, to join a political movement, or to share in a national hope. The contrast between national hope and national self-mockery and self-disgust becomes vivid when one compares novels like Snow Crash and Almanac of the Dead with socialist novels of the first half of the century-books like The Jungle, An American Tragedy, and The Grapes of Wrath. The latter were written in the belief that the tone of the Gettysburg Address was absolutely right, but that our country would have to transform itself in order to fulfill Lincoln's hopes. Transformation would be needed because the rise of industrial capitalism had made the individualist rhetoric of America's first century obsolete. The authors of these novels thought that this rhetoric should be replaced by one in which America is destined to become the first cooperative commonwealth, the first classless society. This America would be one in which income and wealth are equitably distributed, and in which the government ensures equality of opportunity as well as individual liberty. This new, quasi-communitarian rhetoric was at the heart of the Progressive Movement and the New Deal. It set the tone for the American Left during the first six decades of the twentieth century. Walt Whitman and John Dewey, as we shall see, did a great deal to shape this rhetoric. The difference between early twentieth-century leftist intellectuals and the majority of their contemporary counterparts is the difference between agents and spectators. In the early decades of this century, when an intellectual stepped back from his or her country's history and looked at it through skeptical eyes, the chances were that he or she was about to propose a new political initiative. Henry Adams was, of course, the great exception-the great abstainer from ·politics. But William James thought that Adams' diagnosis of the First Gilded Age as a symptom of irreversible moral and political decline was merely perverse. James's pragmatist theory of truth was in part a reaction against the sort of detached spectatorship which Adams affected. For James, disgust with American hypocrisy and self-deception was pointless unless accompanied by an effort to give America reason to be proud of itself in the future. The kind of proto- Heideggerian cultural pessimism which Adams cultivated seemed, to James, decadent and cowardly. "Democracy," James wrote, "is a kind of religion, and we are bound not to admit its failure. Faiths and utopias are the noblest exercise of human reason, and no one with a spark of reason in him will sit down fatalistically before the croaker's picture. "2 Framing Turn: Focus on discourse trades off with actually implementing policy, risks cooption by special interests, and doesn’t solve as effectively – need to focus on real solutions not rhetoricRenee Irvin & John Stansbury, 2004, Citizen Participation in Decision-Making: Is it Worth the Effort?, Public Administration Review, Renee Irvin is Associate Professor in the Department of Planning, Public Policy and Management at the University of Oregon & John Stansbury is Associate Professor of Civil Engineering at the University of Nebraska, c.sites/resource/resmgr/imported/Journal_Issue1_Irving.pdfThis article, while describing the very important benefits of citizen participation, also provides a litmus test for agencies to consider when they allocate resources toward citizen participation processes. Do citizens care enough to participate actively in policy-making, or would resources devoted toward participatory processes be better directed toward implementation? Does local citizen participation imply more opportunity for economically motivated special interests to dominate the decision process? Criticism lobbed at participatory efforts in environmental management may soon be heard in other sectors, as decreasing government budgets require intense scrutiny of government performance outcomes. Delegating environmental decision-making authority to citizens is a policy strategy lauded for its holistic consideration of local economic interests, yet criticised by the environmental left for its potential to roll back decades of environmental regulatory success. Evidence for the effectiveness of community participation in environmental management is in short supply, due in part to the inherent problems in measuring the success of environmental policies that may take decades to positively affect the environment. Even more difficult, perhaps, is the prospect of measuring incremental changes in the well-being of the general public as they become more engaged in the policy process. Concern exists among environmentalists that locally-based citizen participation processes will lead to a relaxation of previously successful environmental regulation. Another concern, rarely voiced, is the potential wastefulness of the process if employed in a non-ideal community. Even if the citizen participation process does not lead to relaxed environmental regulation, it may entail a significant expenditure of resources that could be used elsewhere to achieve better on the-ground results. With widespread public benefit as the goal of any public policy process, it behooves the administrator to consider the advantages and disadvantages of the decision-making process when determining the most effective implementation strategy, bearing in mind that talk is not cheap – and may not even be effective.Capitalism Kritik Answers - SCSCapitalism Kritik Alternative AnswersNo Solvency: The working class will not succeed in overthrowing the capitalist systemMike Cole 2009, “Critical Race Theory and Education A Marxist Response”, chapter 7, pg 121, Mike Cole is a Research Professor in Education and Equality, Head of Research and Director of the Centre for Education for Social Justice at Bishop Grosseteste University College Lincoln, UKThe Working Class Won’t Create the Revolution Because They Are Reactionary. It is a fundamental tenet of Marxism that the working class are the agents of social revolution, and that the working class, as noted above, needs to become a ‘class for itself’ in addition to being a ‘class in itself’ (Marx, 1847 [1995]). It is unfortunately the case that major parts of the world are a long way off such a scenario at the present conjuncture. It is also the case that successful interpellation and related false consciousness hampers the development of class consciousness and the move towards the overthrow of capitalism. Britain is one example where the Ruling Class has been particularly successful in interpellating the working class (see Cole, 2008g, 2008h for discussion). Elsewhere, however, there are examples of burgeoning class consciousness, witnessed for example by the growth of Left parties (see below) in Europe and by developments across South America, notably the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (see below) and in Bolivia. It is to be hoped that, as neoliberal global imperial capitalism continues to reveal and expose its essential ruthlessness and contempt for those who make its profits, class consciousness will increase and that the working class will one day be in a position to overthrow (world) capitalism and to replace it with (world) democratic socialism. Perhaps it should be pointed out here that Marxists do not idolize or deify the working class; it is rather that the structural location in capitalist societies of the working class, so that, once it has become 'a class in itself' makes it the agent for change. Moreover the very act of social revolution and the creation of socialism mean the end of the very existence of the working class as a social class. As Marx and Engels (1845) [1975] put it: When socialist writers ascribe this world-historic role to the proletariat, it is not at all ... because they regard the proletarians as gods. Rather the contrary ... [The proletariat] cannot emancipate itself without abolishing the conditions of its own life. It cannot abolish the conditions of its own life without abolishing all the inhuman conditions of society today which are summed up in its own situation.No Solvency: Alternatives to capitalism fail – lack of individual choice results in tyranny or failure Allan Meltzer March 12, 2009, “Why Capitalism?” 2008-2009 Bradley Lecture Series, Allan Meltzer is Professor of Political Economy at Carnegie Mellon University’s School of Business, Visiting Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, First Recipient of the AEI Irving Kristol Award, and Chairman of the International Financial Institution Advisory Commission, to Capitalism Critics of capitalism emphasize their dislike of greed and self-interest. They talk a great deal about social justice and fairness, but they do not propose an acceptable alternative to achieve their ends. The alternatives that have been tried are types of Socialism or Communism or other types of authoritarian rule. Anti-capitalist proposals suffer from two crippling drawbacks. First, they ignore the Kantian principle about human imperfection. Second, they ignore individual differences. In place of individual choice under capitalism, they substitute rigid direction done to achieve some proclaimed end such as equality, fairness, or justice. These ends are not precise and, most important, individuals differ about what is fair and just. In practice, the rulers' choices are enforced, often using fear, terror, prison, or other punishment. The history of the twentieth century illustrates how enforcement of promised ends became the justification for deplorable means. And the ends were not realized. Transferring resource allocation decisions to government bureaus does not eliminate crime, greed, self-dealing, conflict of interest, and corruption. Experience tells us these problems remain. The form may change, but as Kant recognized, the problems continue. Ludwig von Mises recognized in the 1920s that fixing prices and planning resource use omitted an essential part of the allocation problem. Capitalism allocates by letting relative prices adjust to equal the tradeoffs expressed by buyers' demands. Fixing prices eliminates the possibility of efficient allocation and replaces consumer choice with official decisions. Some gain, but others lose; the losers want to make choices other than those that are dictated to them. Not all Socialist societies have been brutal. In the nineteenth century, followers of Robert Owen, the Amana people, and many others chose a Socialist system. Israeli pioneers chose a collectivist system, the kibbutz. None of these arrangements produced sustainable growth. None survived. All faced the problem of imposing allocative decisions that satisfied the decision-making group, sometimes a majority, often not. Capitalism recognizes that where individual wants differ, the market responds to the mass; minorities are free to develop their favored outcome. Walk down the aisles of a modern supermarket. There are products that satisfy many different tastes or beliefs. Theodor Adorno was a leading critic of postwar capitalism as it developed in his native Germany, in Europe, and in the United States. He found the popular culture vulgar, and he distrusted the workers' choices. He wanted a Socialism that he hoped would uphold the values he shared with other intellectuals. Capitalism, he said, valued work too highly and true leisure too little. He disliked jazz, so he was not opposed to Hitler's ban in the 1930s. But Adorno offered no way of achieving the culture he desired other than to impose his tastes on others and ban all choices he disliked. This appealed to people who shared his view. Many preferred American pop culture whenever they had the right to choose. Capitalism permits choices and the freedom to make them. Some radio stations play jazz, some offer opera and symphonies, and many play pop music. Under capitalism, advertisers choose what they sponsor, and they sponsor programs that people choose to hear or watch. Under Socialism, the public watches and hears what someone chooses for them. The public had little choice. In Western Europe change did not come until boats outside territorial limits offered choice. The Templeton Foundation recently ran an advertisement reporting the answers several prominent intellectuals gave to the question: "Does the free market corrode moral character?" Several respondents recognized that free markets operate within a political system, a legal framework, and the rule of law. The slave trade and slavery became illegal in the nineteenth century. Before this a majority enslaved a minority. This is a major blot on the morality of democratic choice that public opinion and the law eventually removed. In the United States those who benefitted did not abandon slave owning until forced by a war. Most respondents to the Templeton question took a mixed stand. The philosopher John Gray recognized that greed and envy are driving forces under capitalism, but they often produce growth and raise living standards so that many benefit. But greed leads to outcomes like Enron and WorldCom that critics take as a characteristic of the system rather than as a characteristic of some individuals that remains under Socialism. Michael Walzer recognized that political activity also corrodes moral character, but he claimed it was regulated more effectively. One of the respondents discussed whether capitalism was more or less likely to foster or sustain moral abuses than other social arrangements. Bernard-Henri Levy maintained that alternatives to the market such as fascism and Communism were far worse. None of the respondents mentioned Kant's view that mankind includes a range of individuals who differ in their moral character. Institutional and social arrangements like democracy and capitalism influence the moral choices individuals make or reject. No democratic capitalist country produced any crimes comparable to the murders committed by Hitler's Germany, Mao's China, or Lenin and Stalin's Soviet Union. As Lord Acton warned, concentrated power corrupts officials. Some use concentrated power to impose their will. Some allow their comrades to act as tyrants. Others proclaim that ends such as equality justify force to control opposition. Communism proclaimed a vision of equality that it never approached. It was unattainable because individuals differ about what is good. And what is good to them and for them is not the same as what is socially desirable to critics of capitalism. Kant's principle warns that utopian visions are unattainable. Capitalism does not offer a vision of perfection and harmony. Democratic capitalism combines freedom, opportunity, growth, and progress with restrictions on less desirable behavior. It creates societies that treat men and women as they are, not as in some utopian vision. In The Open Society and Its Enemies, Karl Popper showed why utopian visions become totalitarian. All deviations from the utopian ideal must be prevented. The Enrons, WorldComs, and others of that kind show that dishonest individuals rise along with honest individuals. Those who use these examples to criticize capitalism do not use the same standard to criticize all governments as failed arrangements when a Watergate or bribery is uncovered. Nor do they criticize government when politicians promise but do not produce or achieve. We live after twenty-five to forty years of talk about energy, education, healthcare, and drugs. Governments promise and propose, but little if any progress is visible on these issues. No Solvency: Capitalism is inevitable—reforms, not revolution, are the only option. John K Wilson, 2000, “How the Left can Win Arguments and Influence People” p. 15- 16, John K. Wilson is Editor and Publisher of Illinois Academe,Capitalism is far too ingrained in American life to eliminate. If you go into the most impoverished areas of America, you will find that the people who live there are not seeking government control over factories or even more social welfare programs; they're hoping, usually in vain, for a fair chance to share in the capitalist wealth. The poor do not pray for socialism-they strive to be a part of the capitalist system. They want jobs, they want to start businesses, and they want to make money and be successful. What's wrong with America is not capitalism as a system but capitalism as a religion. We worship the accumulation of wealth and treat the horrible inequality between rich and poor as if it were an act of God. Worst of all, we allow the government to exacerbate the financial divide by favoring the wealthy: go anywhere in America, and compare a rich suburb with a poor town-the city services, schools, parks, and practically everything else will be better financed in the place populated by rich people. The aim is not to overthrow capitalism but to overhaul it. Give it a social-justice tune-up, make it more efficient, get the economic engine to hit on all cylinders for everybody, and stop putting out so many environmentally hazardous substances. To some people, this goal means selling out leftist ideals for the sake of capitalism. But the right thrives on having an ineffective opposition. The Revolutionary Communist Party helps stabilize the "free market" capitalist system by making it seem as if the only alternative to free-market capitalism is a return to Stalinism. Prospective activists for change are instead channeled into pointless discussions about the revolutionary potential of the proletariat. Instead of working to persuade people to accept progressive ideas, the far left talks to itself (which may be a blessing, given the way it communicates) and tries to sell copies of the Socialist Worker to an uninterested public.Capitalism Kritik Answers - SCSCapitalism Kritik PermutationPermutation: Do both – Reforms from with-in the system solve bestChris Dixon 2001, “Reflections on Privilege, Reformism, and Activism”, Activist and founding member of Direct Action Network Summer, bolster his critique of 'reformism,' for instance, he critically cites one of the examples in my essay: demanding authentic we need revolutionary strategy that links diverse, everyday struggles and demands to long-term radical objectives, without sacrificing either. Of course, this isn't to say that every so-called 'progressive' ballot initiative or organizing campaign is necessarily radical or strategic. Reforms are not all created equal. But some can fundamentally shake systems of power, leading to enlarged gains and greater space for further advances. Andre Gorz, in his seminal book Strategy for Labor, refers to these as "non-reformist" or "structural" reforms. He contends, "a struggle for non-reformist reforms--for anti-capitalist reforms--is one which does not base its validity and its right to exist on capitalist needs, criteria, and rationales. A non-reformist reform is determined not in terms of what can be, but what should be." Look to history for examples: the end of slavery, the eight-hour workday, desegregation. All were born from long, hard struggles, and none were endpoints. Yet they all struck at the foundations of power (in these cases, the state, white supremacy, and capitalism), and in the process, they created new prospects for revolutionary change. Now consider contemporary struggles: amnesty for undocumented immigrants, socialized health care, expansive environmental protections, indigenous sovereignty. These and many more are arguably non-reformist reforms as well. None will single-handedly dismantle capitalism or other systems of power, but each has the potential to escalate struggles and sharpen social contradictions. And we shouldn't misinterpret these efforts as simply meliorative incrementalism, making 'adjustments' to a fundamentally flawed system. Capitalism Kritik Answers - SCSTransition Wars Link: Capitalist elites will resist the alternative, causing global transition warsLee Harris, December 1, 2002, The Intellectual Origins of America-Bashing, Hoover Institution Policy Review December 2002 & 2003, Lee Harris is an American author and essayist who writes for Policy Review and Tech Central Station who lives in Stone Mountain, Georgia, research/intellectual-origins-america-bashingThis is the immiserization thesis of Marx. And it is central to revolutionary Marxism, since if capitalism produces no widespread misery, then it also produces no fatal internal contradiction: If everyone is getting better off through capitalism, who will dream of struggling to overthrow it? Only genuine misery on the part of the workers would be sufficient to overturn the whole apparatus of the capitalist state, simply because, as Marx insisted, the capitalist class could not be realistically expected to relinquish control of the state apparatus and, with it, the monopoly of force. In this, Marx was absolutely correct. No capitalist society has ever willingly liquidated itself, and it is utopian to think that any ever will. Therefore, in order to achieve the goal of socialism, nothing short of a complete revolution would do; and this means, in point of fact, a full-fledged civil war not just within one society, but across the globe.Impact: Revolution is necessarily violent – alternative would lead to levels of unprecedented violenceMichael Cummings & Eric Cummings, 2011 (On Violence, "Revolutions are Violent", Michael Cummings is veteran and a writer, who deployed to Afghanistan in 2008 with the 173rd Airborne Brigade as a platoon leader, and Iraq in 2010 with 5th Special Forces Group as an intelligence officer. Eric Cummings is a writer who lives in Los Angeles. Their outside writing has appeared in the?Washington Post, Stars and Stripes,?The New York Times’?“At War” blog,?Thomas Ricks’ “The Best Defense” blog and?Infantry?magazine, )Michael was arguing a point that we haven’t argued enough on this website: revolutions are violent. ? Which may seem obvious. Except that extremists from both sides of the political spectrum casually endorse revolutions, like my liberal activist friend endorsing a revolution--a revolution, it is safe to say, the vast majority of the population didn’t endorse--to solve the environmental crisis. Like Occupy Protesters who just love revolutions, idealized, romanticized and fantasized through Che Guevara T-shirts, Youtube videos of street protests, and Guy Fawkes masks. Like Tea partiers make a point of bringing guns to political rallies, in case they need to overthrow the government. Both sides casually endorse violence, from Tea Party candidates to Occupy speakers. ? (We should make it clear that by “revolutions”, we mean revolutions that overthrow the existing power structure, not social or technological revolutions like the industrial revolution, the digital boom or the green revolution.)? The Arab Spring, as our most thought provoking event of 2011, should remind would-be-American-revolutionaries what a revolution really is: the break down of society and order, a revolution in power, which (mostly) results in violence. In this pan-Arab/north African revolution we have seen a few civil wars (Yemen, Syria and Libya), a military invasion (Saudi Arabia into Qatar), authoritarian crackdowns with unlawful arrests (Qatar, Eqypt, Syria and Yemen) and protesters generally arrested or attacked throughout. It is safe to say, to those who advocated revolution, violence followed.? This completely fits into the larger narratives of the history of revolutions. The American Revolution (Historians debate over whether this qualifies, I believe it does; it threw out the entire power structure.) cost one in every hundred males his life. The American Revolution is the second deadliest conflict in American history, percentage wise, with only the Civil War beating it, itself its own kind of revolution. ? Meanwhile, France’s revolution is symbolized by the guillotine, an industrial means of execution. The Russian Revolution lead to the deaths of literally millions of people. The revolutions that wracked Europe throughout the nineteenth century always included violence and death. When I studied Latin America history in high school, my notes read, “Colonialism. Revolution. Dictator. Revolution.” It applied to every country.? Violence always coincides with the outbreak of revolutions, for a few reasons:? First, instability. Inherently, revolutions are unstable, by definition an overthrow of the existing power structures. When this happens, chaos ensues. Food shortages, lack of security, a breakdown of the social order. The best explanation for this is our blog’s namesake, On Violence, by Hannah Arendt, that argued that violence and power are opposites. Thus, when the power structure disappears--as in France or Russia or Libya--violence fills the gaps.? Second, vengeance. Most revolutions have a very legitimate basis: people feel discriminated against, or suffer from severe economic inequality, or chafe under colonial rule. When the masses revolt, they take their vengeance against their previous oppressors. Look at what happened in the French revolution. Or what happened to Moammar Ghaddafi. Or Saddam Hussein.? Third, civil wars. They happen when revolutionaries disagree, or the over-thrown don’t want to leave so easily. Take the above groups advocating revolution, the Occupiers and the Tea Partiers. They don’t agree on anything. So if one side starts a revolution, they’ll basically have to go to war with the other side. Boom, you’ve got a civil war. This is what is happening in Syria.Space AffirmativePlan Text – Space Plan Text: The United States Federal Government should repeal the Wolf Amendment Inherency – Space Wolf will not be repealed – US mistrusts ChinaHANNAH Kohler, April 2015, The Eagle and the Hare: U.S.–Chinese Relations, the Wolf Amendment, and the Future of International Cooperation in Space, Georgetown Law, J.D. expected 2015; B.A. Penn State 2012, files/2015/04/Kohler-TheEagleandtheHare.pdfAs one of the world’s oldest and most active space powers, the United States has been involved in bilateral and multilateral projects with most other major spacefaring nations with one notable exception: the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The PRC and its national space program, the China National Space Administration (CNSA), have remained strangely isolated from the rest of the world’s forays into space. Deep-seated U.S. suspicion against their policies and the recent enactment of the restrictive “Wolf Amendment” suggest that this is unlikely to change in the near future. To examine the impact of this problematic legislation, this Note will begin by considering the origins and development of the uniquely isolated Chinese space program in Part I, from the period of Sino–Soviet cooperation after World War II through China’s first successful taikonaut3 and on to the Chang’e lunar module and ongoing construction of the Tiangong space station. In Part II, this Note will examine the modern relationship between the United States and China, with particular focus on incidents that demonstrate the difficulties they face in moving toward a shared future in space.No cooperation coming – Wolf amendment extended through 2016Leonard David, June 27th, 2015, U.S.-China: Space Agenda Action Items, Leonard David's Inside Outer Space blog, Leonard David is a space journalist, reporting on space activities for over 50 years, u-s-china-space-agenda-action-items/Regarding the China and U.S. space agenda items, Marcia Smith, space policy analyst at commented: “NASA and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) have been prohibited by law from dealing with China on space cooperation on a bilateral basis for several years,” Smith noted. The prohibition was originally inserted in the appropriations bills that fund NASA by Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), who chaired the House Appropriations Commerce-Justice-Science (CJS) subcommittee before retiring last year, Smith explained. The final law that he put in place (P.L. 113-235, the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015), which is in effect today, Smith added, states that no funds may be spent by NASA or OSTP to “develop, design, plan, promulgate, implement, or execute a bilateral policy, program, order, or contract of any kind to participate, collaborate, or coordinate bilaterally in any way with China or any Chinese-owned company unless such activities are specifically authorized by law after the date of enactment of this Act.” The new House CJS chairman, Rep. John Culberson (R-TX), agrees with Wolf’s position and the prohibition is continued in the House-passed version of the FY2016 Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill (H.R. 2578), Smith said.Economy Advantage – SpaceUniquenessUS is quickly losing its space sector dominationAdam Keith, JUNE 12, 2014 Emerging Space Programs Spark Earth Observation Growth, Earth Imaging Journal, Adam Keith is director of Space and Earth Observation and Euroconsult, print/articles/emerging-space-programs-spark-earth-observation-growthThe number of countries investing in space around the world keeps increasing year after year. In 2013, 58 countries invested $10 million or more in space applications and technologies, compared with 37 in 2003. In addition, 22 more countries have plans to invest in space projects. Such dynamism demonstrates how governments see space technologies and applications as valuable investments to support their national social, economic, strategic and technological development. The United States invested $39.7 billion in its space program (civil and defense) in 2013. This is an $8.8 billion reduction compared with the peak spending of $47.5 billion in 2009, mainly brought about by a reduction in defense spending, and a key factor for the overall global space budget investment decrease. On the other hand, Russia recorded a massive increase of its public investment in space and is the only country besides the United States to pass the $10 billion cap. In the last five years, Russia’s investments have accelerated at an impressive average growth of 32 percent in local currency. Another six countries and the European Union invested more than $1 billion: Japan, China, France, Germany, Italy and India. China’s eighth-place ranking for space spending as a ratio of its gross domestic product indicates there’s room for future investment growth. Another 19 countries recorded more than $100 million in spending. However, the major difference is in the 30 other countries that invested between $10 million and $100 million in their national space programs; only 10 of them were part of that list in 2003.?Emerging countries are establishing themselves as a key market driver for the space industry.US Space market losing long term competitivelyBhavya Lal et al, June 2015, Science & Technology Policy Institute, IDA Paper P-5242, Vol. 1, Bhavya Lal is a researcher at IDA, Dr. Lal holds BS and MS degrees in nuclear engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Emily J. Sylak-Glassman is is a researcher at IDA, she has expertise in physical chemistry and biophysics & holds a PhD in chemistry from the University of California, Berkeley, and BS degrees in chemistry and biological chemistry from the University of Chicago, Michael C. Mineiro Michael Mineiro works on space law and policy issues with the Institute for Defense Analysis, Science and Technology Policy Institute, Dr. Michael Mineiro holds a Doctor of Law (McGill University, 2011), a Legal Masters in Air and Space Law (McGill University, 2008), Nayanee Gupta has expertise in modeling and simulation for chemical and material properties, including nanotechnologies, Gupta holds an MS in chemistry from the Indian Institute of Technology and holds MS degrees in chemistry and materials engineering from North Carolina State University and the University of Maryland at College Park, Lucas M. Pratt is professor of Division of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, California Institute of Technology, Abigail R. Azari is a first year graduate student working in Space plasmas, plasma physics, and planetary sciences Science and technology policy at Michigan State University,, the civil and commercial space sector, there are two concurrent trend narratives underway. The first is the “numbers” narrative, which is based on the absolute amount of spending and activity by different space actors. This narrative shows that the United States will likely be a principal player for a long time to come, though in a less dominant role than in the past. The other is a “vector” narrative, which describes how the space landscape is changing. This narrative speaks to the potential disruptive changes that are driven by the growing presence and influence of a larger number of countries. The vector narrative is also driven by the private sector, which though currently U.S.-led, sees the world as its market. A major implication of this vector is that 10 to 20 years from now, the landscape of space is going to look different.Economy Advantage – SpaceInternal LinkSpace market is key to the US economyUS-China Economic and Security Review Commission, Nov 12, 2015, SECTION 2: CHINA’S SPACE AND COUNTERSPACE PROGRAMS, The U.S.- China Economic and Security Review Commission is a small, fast-paced, nonpartisan, legislative branch Commission responsible for monitoring, investigating and submitting an annual report to the Congress on the national security implications of the bilateral trade and economic relationship between the United States and the People's Republic of China. The Commission conducts its work and studies in the following areas: China's military buildup, proliferation practices, regional economic and security impacts, U.S.- China bilateral programs, economic transfers, energy, U.S. capital markets, WTO compliance, and the implication of restrictions on speech and access to information in China, origin.sites/default/files/Annual_Report/Chapters/Chapter%202%2C%20Section%202%20-%20China%27s%20Space%20and%20Counterspace%20Programs.pdfSpace activities are critical to the United States’ technological advancement, scientific discovery, security, and economic growth. As outlined in the Obama Administration’s 2010 National Space Policy, the utilization of space has transformed every aspect of U.S. society, and the benefits of space permeate daily life in the United States: Satellites contribute to increased transparency and stability among nations and provide a vital communications path for avoiding potential conflicts. Space systems increase our knowledge in many scientific fields, and life on Earth is far better as a result. The utilization of space has created new markets; helped save lives by warning us of natural disasters, expediting search and rescue operations, and making recovery efforts faster and more effective; made agriculture and natural resource management more efficient and sustainable; expanded our frontiers; and provided global access to advanced medicine, weather forecasting, geospatial information, financial operations, broadband and other communications, and scores of other activities worldwide. Space systems allow people and governments around the world to see with clarity, communicate with certainty, navigate with accuracy, and operate with assurance.214 Space capabilities also have enhanced U.S. security and have been a key element of warfighting for more than 30 years—to the extent that U.S. national security is now dependent on the space domain. According to the joint DOD–Intelligence Community National Security Space Strategy, published in 2011: Space capabilities provide the United States and our allies unprecedented advantages in national decision-making, military operations, and homeland security. Space systems provide national security decision-makers with unfettered global access and create a decision advantage by enabling a rapid and tailored response to global challenges. Moreover, space systems are vital to monitoring strategic and military developments as well as supporting treaty monitoring and arms control verification. Space systems are also critical in our ability to respond to natural and man-made disasters and monitor long-term environmental trends.215Space investments return 7 dollars for each 1 invested and affect all parts of the modern and future economyKjell Stakkestad, Jan 7, 2016, What space exploration means for the growth of our economy, TechFlash, Kjell Stakkestad is President and Chief Executive Officer at Kinetx Aerospace, phoenix/blog/techflash/2016/01/what-space-exploration-means-for-the-growth-of-our.htmlYes, space exploration is expensive, difficult and dangerous. It has also generated several distinct, diverse, and far-ranging economic impacts, including: economic expansion in cities and surrounding regions, acceleration of technological advances, and growth of new industries and scientific fields. Space exploration also makes us smarter, improves our lives and increases our capability to overcome technological challenges. And for the United States, it is strategic. Other countries will look beyond the foreseeable future with a focus on discovery of our cosmos if America does not. The U.S. has been an incredibly good steward of space: not taking serious military advantage of our lead, sharing opportunities, and partnering on efforts with other groups could not have been done alone. It is important that we are the leader! The technology spinoffs from the research and development dedicated to space missions alone are worth the investment. During the past 50 years,?NASA technologies have made their way into medical, architectural, military, automotive, and artistic applications, just to name a few. Everything from personal computers to solar energy have roots in the human spaceflight program. The investment we have made has paid off in a big way: estimates for return on investment range from $2 back for every $1 spent to $7 for every $1 spent.Economy Advantage – SpaceImpactGrowth is great & compounds over time - solves all problemsPeter Ferrara, JAN 14, 2014, Why Economic Growth Is Exponentially More Important Than Income Inequality, Forbes, Peter Ferrara covers public policy, particularly concerning economics & is Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy for the Heartland Institute, Senior Advisor for Entitlement Reform and Budget Policy at the National Tax Limitation Foundation, General Counsel for the American Civil Rights Union, and Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis. He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under President George H.W. Bush. He am a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, sites/peterferrara/2014/01/14/why-economic-growth-is-exponentially-more-important-than-income-inequality/#227bb2b94f1bNot any of these truly dramatic advances for the poor, working people and the middle class could have been achieved by redistribution from “the rich.” Only economic growth could achieve these results. Nor would it have been worth sacrificing any of these world shattering gains for greater economic “equality.” And Barack Obama’s leftist protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, economists have long recognized the conflict between economic equality and maximizing economic growth. Put most simply, penalizing investors, successful entrepreneurs, and job creators with higher taxes, to reward the less productive with government handouts, to make everyone more equal, is a sure fire way to get less productivity, fewer jobs, lower wages, and reduced economic growth. The above history, and the future prospects below, are why to most benefit the poor, working people, and the middle class, our nation’s overriding goal must be to maximize economic growth. Consider, if total real compensation, wages and benefits, grow at just 1% a year, after 20 years the real incomes of working people would be only 22% greater. After 40 years, a generation, real incomes would be 50% more. But with sustained real compensation growth of 2%, after just 20 years the real incomes and living standards of working people would be nearly 50% greater, and after 40 years they would be 120% greater, more than doubled. At sustained 3% growth in wages and benefits, after 20 years the living standards of working people will have almost doubled, and after 40 years they will have more than tripled. The U.S. economy sustained a real rate of economic growth of 3.3% from 1945 to 1973, and achieved the same 3.3% sustained real growth from 1982 to 2007. (Note that this 3.3% growth rate for the entire economy includes population growth. Real wages and benefits discussed above is a per worker concept). It was only during the stagflation decade of 1973 to 1982, reflecting the same Keynesian economics that President Obama is pursuing today, that real growth fell to only half long term trends. If we could revive and sustain that same 3.3% real growth for 20 years, our total economic production (GDP) would double in that time. After 30 years, our economic output would grow by 2 and two-thirds. After 40 years, our prosperity bounty would grow by 3 and two-thirds. If we are truly following growth maximizing policies, we could conceivably do even better than we have in the past. At sustained real growth of 4% per year, our economic production would more than double after 20 years. After 30 years, GDP would more than triple. After 40 years, a generation, total U.S. economic output would nearly quadruple. America would by then have leapfrogged another generation ahead of the rest of the world. Achieving and sustaining such economic growth should be the central focus of national economic policy, for it would solve every problem that plagues and threatens us today. Such booming economic growth would produce surging revenues that would make balancing the budget so much more feasible. Surging GDP would reduce the national debt as a percent of GDP relatively quickly, particularly with balanced budgets not adding any further to the debt. Sustained, rapid economic growth is also the ultimate solution to poverty, as after a couple of decades or so of such growth, the poor would climb to the same living standards as the middle class of today. With sustained, robust, economic growth, maintaining the most powerful military in the world, and thereby ensuring our nation’s security and national defense, will require a smaller and smaller percentage of GDP over time. That security itself will promote capital investment and economic growth in America. The booming economy will produce new technological marvels that will make our defenses all the more advanced. With the economy rapidly advancing, there will be more than enough funds for education. There will also be more than enough to clean up and maintain a healthy environment.Growth is great – 6 reasonsTejvan Pettinger, 2016, Benefits of economic growth, Economics Help, Tejvan Pettinger is an Economics teacher (A Level students) at Greenes College and formerly with Cherwell College, Oxford. He studied PPE at Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford University, gaining a 2:1. He contributes articles to the Economic Review and writes regularly on economics. Between 2001 and 2006 he worked as examiner and Team Leader for Edexcel examinations, macroeconomics/economic-growth/benefits-growth/Economic growth means an increase in real GDP. This increase in real GDP means there is an increase in the value of national output / national expenditure. The benefits of economic growth include: 1. Higher average incomes. This enables consumers to enjoy more goods and services and enjoy better standards of living. 2. Lower unemployment?With higher output and positive economic growth firms tend to employ more workers creating more employment. 3. Lower government borrowing.?Economic growth creates higher tax revenues and there is less need to spend money on benefits such as unemployment benefit. Therefore economic growth helps to reduce government borrowing. Economic growth also plays a role in reducing debt to GDP ratios. 4. Improved public services. With increased tax revenues the government can spend more on public services, such as the NHS and education e.t.c. 5. Money can be spent on protecting the environment.?With higher real GDP a society can devote more resources to promoting recycling and the use of renewable resources 6. Investment.?Economic growth encourages investment and therefore encourages a virtuous cycle of economic growth.Economic growth creates a virtuous cycle between morality and wellbeingBenjamin M. Friedman, January/February 2006, THE MORAL CONSEQUENCES OF ECONOMIC GROWTH, Society, 43 JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2006, Benjamin M. Friedman is the William Joseph Maier Professor of Political Economy, and formerly Chairman of the Department of Economics, at Harvard University. He has written extensively on economic policy, and in particular on the role of the financial markets in shaping how monetary and fiscal policies affect overall economic activity, scholar.harvard.edu/files/bfriedman/files/the_moral_consequences_of_economic_growth_0.pdfIt would be a mistake, however, to believe that only market incentives and government economic policies are important for achieving economic growth and with it the positive influence on social and political development that follows from rising living standards. While economic growth makes a society more open, tolerant, and democratic, such societies are, in turn, better able to encourage enterprise and creativity and hence to achieve ever greater economic prosperity. Alexis de Tocqueville, visiting the United States in the 1830s, remarked at length on how the openness of this new democratic society seemed to spur effort: economic advance was open to all (he was thinking only of white males), and in a classless society rising economically meant rising socially. The resulting opportunity to achieve and advance, Tocqueville observed, created, in turn, a sense of obligation to strive toward that end. As we look back nearly two centuries later, it is also self-evident that removing forms of discrimination that once blocked significant segments of the population from contributing their efforts has further enabled the American economy to harness its labor resources and its brain power. On both counts, the openness of our society has helped foster our economic advance. The United States is perhaps the preeminent historical example of such reciprocity between social and political openness and economic growth. Taken as a whole, our nation’s history has predominantly been a mutually reinforcing process of economic advance and expanding freedom. The less fortunate experience of some other countries, most notably those in Sub-Saharan Africa since the end of the colonial period, suggests the same reciprocity at work but in the opposite direction. Many governments of Sub-Saharan Africa were at least formally democracies when the colonial powers departed, but in time they became corrupt and oppressive dictatorships. In parallel, what had been reasonably functioning economies stagnated and then declined.Economy Advantage – SpaceSolvencyThe Wolf amendment strangles NASA spendingHANNAH Kohler, April 2015, The Eagle and the Hare: U.S.–Chinese Relations, the Wolf Amendment, and the Future of International Cooperation in Space, Georgetown Law, J.D. expected 2015; B.A. Penn State 2012, files/2015/04/Kohler-TheEagleandtheHare.pdfEvidently, Wolf and the other members of the House Appropriations Committee were concerned with the possibility that NASA might use such a “workaround” to engage indirectly with the CNSA, and wanted to prohibit such actions. This seems the most salient explanation for the wording change, and would align Wolf’s continuing insistence that the Amendment is meant to prohibit bilateral conduct only with the apparent tightening of the congressional noose with regard to funding allocations.The Wolf amendment is slowing the United States ability to lead in space commercialization. Vidvuds (Vid) Beldavs, Dec. 2015, Prospects for US‐China space cooperation, The Space Review, Vid Beldavs Taught space industrial development since 1977. Now works for the FOTONIKA-LV photonics research center of the University of Latvia. more relevant to US national interests would be for Rep. Culbertson to support developing more effective strategies to advance US commercial interests in space. Otherwise, the Chinese, not bounded by ineffective legislation, will eat our lunch. No one has yet developed the technologies for ISRU whether on the Moon, the asteroids, Mars, or beyond. Yet ISRU technologies are central to the whole idea of asteroid and lunar mining. If the Chinese can work with everyone else on the planet, but the US can only work with a short list as approved by the Appropriations Committee, it should be expected that the Chinese, drawing on the knowledge base of the entire world, will advance more quickly. We have no lead in ISRU, and our lead in other domains of space technology may not be particularly relevant to this challenge. It is time for Congress to wake up to the emerging commercial space future and work to fully unleash our commercial space potential rather than complaining about a very high level meeting in Beijing where common challenges in the peaceful uses of outer space were discussed with NASA experts present.Colonization Advantage – SpaceUniquenessUS laws are blocking bilateral cooperation with ChinaHANNAH Kohler, April 2015, The Eagle and the Hare: U.S.–Chinese Relations, the Wolf Amendment, and the Future of International Cooperation in Space, Georgetown Law, J.D. expected 2015; B.A. Penn State 2012, files/2015/04/Kohler-TheEagleandtheHare.pdfIn his own words, Wolf developed the Amendment to “limit new collaboration with China until we see improvements in its human rights record, as well as a reduction in its well documented cyberattacks and espionage efforts against the U.S.”88 Significantly, Representative Wolf has publicly opposed any involvement of NASA with CNSA on both moral and security grounds. “What concerns me most about the Chinese space program is that unlike the U.S., it is being led by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). There is no reason to believe that the PLA’s space program will be any more benign than the PLA’s recent military posture.”89 Direct bilateral cooperation with an agency controlled to at least some degree by China’s military—given its repressive history—could tarnish NASA’s image and diminish both its ethical high ground as a paragon of science and exploration, and its credibility as a trustworthy and peaceful agency.90 To address these concerns, Section 1340(a) of the 2011 Appropriations Act stipulated: None of the funds made available by this division may be used for [NASA] or the Office of Science and Technology Policy to develop, design, plan, promulgate, implement, or execute a bilateral policy, program, order, or contract of any kind to participate, collaborate, or coordinate bilaterally in any way with China or any Chinese-owned company unless such activities are specifically authorized by a law enacted after the date of enactment of this division.91Only the Wolf Amendment prohibits US-China space engagementLeonard David, August 21, 2015,, US-China Cooperation in Space: Is It Possible, and What's in Store?, Leonard Davis is 's Space Insider Columnist, 30337-chinese-experiment-international-space-station.htmlOver the past few years, the law has prohibited NASA and the White House Office of Science and Technology?Policy?(OSTP) from?cooperating with China?on space activities. That prohibition was originally signed into NASA-funding appropriations?bills?by Republican Congressman Frank Wolf (Virginia), who chaired the House Appropriations Commerce-Justice-Science subcommittee before retiring last year. The final law that Wolf put in place — P.L. 113-235, the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, which is in effect today — states that no funds may be spent by NASA or OSTP to "develop, design, plan, promulgate, implement or execute a bilateral policy, program, order or contract of any kind to participate, collaborate or coordinate bilaterally in any way with China or any Chinese-owned company unless such activities are specifically authorized by law after the date of enactment of this act."Colonization Advantage – SpaceInternal LinkThe Wolf amendment crushes our chances of colonizing spaceShannon Tiezzi, June 05, 2014, Report: To Reach Mars, NASA Must Work With China, The Diplomat, Shannon Tiezzi is Editor at The Diplomat. Her main focus is on China, and she writes on China’s foreign relations, domestic politics, and economy. Shannon previously served as a research associate at the U.S.-China Policy Foundation, where she hosted the weekly television show China Forum. She received her A.M. from Harvard University and her B.A. from The College of William and Mary. Shannon has also studied at Tsinghua University in Beijing, 2014/06/report-to-reach-mars-nasa-must-work-with-china/In January, officials from China’s National Space Administration were included in an international meeting hosted by the U.S. State Department. Because funding was provided by State, not NASA, it did not violate the 2011 law. The meeting was a rare opportunity for U.S. and Chinese officials to talk about potential space cooperation. Still, NASA Administrator Charles Bolden cautioned against too much optimism: ?“Human spaceflight is not something that’s going to happen with [the] U.S. [and] China in the foreseeable future, because we are forbidden from doing that by law,” he?reminded reporters.Now, the NRC’s report officially calls for a reexamination of the 2011 ban. “This policy, while driven by congressional sentiment, denies the U.S. partnership with a nation that will probably be capable of making truly significant contributions to international collaborative missions,” the?report said.?“Given the rapid development of China’s capabilities in space, it is in the best interests of the United States to be open to its inclusion in future international partnerships,” it continued. The report also recommended that NASA turn its focus to sending a manned mission to Mars, calling the red planet “the horizon goal for human space exploration.” Yet the NRC cautioned that this goal could not be reached without more extensive international cooperation. “We’re really talking about international collaboration of a different scale than what has been conducted in the past,” Jonathan Lunine, co-chair of the NRC panel,?told reporters. Even while the NRC highlighted the need for international efforts, Russia is drastically?scaling back its space cooperation?with the U.S. in response to Western sanctions stemming from the Ukraine crisis. Russia has announced that it will withdraw from the International Space Station in 2020, and will cease selling the RD-180 engine that currently powers the U.S. Atlas 5 rocket. With Russia withdrawing (at least temporarily) from space cooperation with the U.S., cooperation with China becomes all the more vital. ?“Current federal law preventing NASA from participating in bilateral activities with the Chinese … reduces substantially the potential international capability that might be pooled to reach Mars,” the report found.US-China cooperation makes colonization more likely and fasterSpace Studies Board, Released 2015, Space Studies Board Annual Report 2014, The National Academies Press, The Space Studies Board is made up of academics and professionals advising the USFG on space issues, nap.edu/read/21671/chapter/6International collaboration has become an integral part of the space policy of essentially all nations that participate in space activities around the world. Most countries now rarely initiate and carry out substantial space projects without some foreign participation. The reasons for collaboration are multiple, but countries, including the United States, cooperate principally when they benefit from it. It is evident that near-term U.S. goals for human exploration are not aligned with those of our traditional international partners. Although most major spacefaring nations and agencies are looking toward the Moon, specifically the lunar surface, U.S. plans are focused on redirection of an asteroid into a retrograde lunar orbit where astronauts would conduct operations with it. It is also evident that given the rapid development of China’s capabilities in space, it is in the best interests of the United States to be open to its inclusion in future international partnerships. In particular, current federal law that prevents NASA from participating in bilateral activities with the Chinese serves only to hinder U.S. ability to bring China into its sphere of international partnerships and substantially reduces the potential international capability that might be pooled to reach Mars. Also, given the scale of the endeavor of a mission to Mars, contributions by international partners would have to be of unprecedented magnitude to defray a significant portion of the cost. This assessment follows from the detailed discussion in Chapter 4 of what is required for human missions to Mars.Colonization Advantage – SpaceImpactSpace colonization needed – there are many Earth based existential threatsJASON Dorrieron, October 05, 2014, Elon Musk Is Right: Colonizing the Solar System Is Humankind’s Insurance Policy Against Extinction, Jason Dorrier is Managing Editor at Singularity Hub and a longtime tech reporter, 2014/10/05/elon-musk-is-right-colonizing-the-solar-system-is-humankinds-insurance-policy-against-extinction/Why blow billions of dollars on space exploration when billions of people are living in poverty here on Earth? You’ve likely heard the justifications. The space program brings us useful innovations and inventions. Space exploration delivers perspective, inspiration, and understanding. Because it's the final frontier. Because it's there. What you haven’t heard is anything to inspire a sense of urgency. Indeed, NASA’s struggle to defend its existence and funding testifies to how weak these justifications sound to a public that?cares less about space than seemingly more pressing needs. Presumably, this is why SpaceX founder Elon Musk, in afascinating interview?with Ross Andersen, skipped all the usual arguments in favor of something else entirely. Space exploration, he says, is as urgent as easing poverty or disease—it’s our insurance policy against?extinction. As we extend our gaze back through geologic time and out into the universe, it’s clear we aren’t exempt from nature’s carelessly terrifying violence. We simply haven’t experienced its full wrath yet because we’ve only been awake for the cosmological blink of an eye. Musk says an extinction-level event would, in an existential flash, make our down-to-earth struggles irrelevant. “Good news, the problems of poverty and disease have been solved,” he says, “but the bad news is there aren’t any humans left.’” We’ve got all our eggs in one basket, and that’s a terrible risk-management strategy. We should diversify our planetary portfolio to insure against the worst—and soon. Musk’s line of reasoning isn’t completely novel. It's what led?science fiction writer Larry Niven to say, “The dinosaurs became?extinct because they didn’t have a space program.” And it drives Ed Lu’s?quest to save humanity?from a major asteroid hit. But while we may spot and potentially derail asteroids, not every cosmic threat can be so easily predicted or prevented—a blast from a nearby supernova; a gamma ray burst aimed at Earth; a period of extreme volcanism. Any of these could wipe us out. Musk says he thinks a lot about the silence we’ve been greeted with as our telescopes scan the sky for interstellar broadcasts from other civilizations. Given the sheer number of galaxies, stars, and planets in the universe—it should be teeming with life. If even a tiny percent of the whole is intelligent, there should be thousands of civilizations in our galaxy alone. So where are they? This is known as the?Fermi Paradox, and Musk rattles off a few explanatory theories (there are many). But he settles on this, “If you look at our current technology level, something strange has to happen to civilizations, and I mean strange in a bad way. It could be that there are a whole lot of dead, one-planet civilizations.” That something strange might be an evolutionary self-destruct button, as Carl Sagan theorized. We developed modern rockets at the same time as nuclear weapons. But the Fermi Paradox and its explanations, while philosophically captivating, haven’t settled the question of intelligent life. SETI’s?Seth Shostak cautions, “The Fermi Paradox is a big extrapolation from a very local observation.” That is, just because we don't see compelling?evidence of galactic colonization around here doesn't mean there is none. But even without the Fermi Paradox, our planet's geologic record is enough to show that, as Sagan phrased it, “Extinction is the rule. Survival is the exception.”12 potential existential risks – all of them should be given full weight & prioritize solving firstDylan Matthews, February 19, 2015, These are the 12 things most likely to destroy the world, Vox Magazine, Matthews is a policy journalist who focuses on taxes, budgets, and other elements of US economic and fiscal policy. He is a staff writer for Vox and previously wrote for Wonkblog at The Washington Post, The New Republic, Salon, The American Prospect and Slate. He was an undergraduate at Harvard College, where he studied moral and political philosophy, 2015/2/19/8069533/end-of-the-worldA?new report?claims to offer "the first science-based list of global risks with a potentially infinite impact where in extreme cases all human life could end." Those risks, the authors argue, include everything from climate change to supervolcanoes to artificial intelligence. By "infinite impact," the authors — led by Dennis Pamlin of the?Global Challenge Foundation?and Stuart Armstrong of the?Future of Humanity Institute?— mean risks capable of either causing human extinction or leading to a situation where "civilization collapses to a state of great suffering and does not recover." The good news is that the authors aren't convinced we're doomed. Pamlin and Armstrong are of the view that humans have a long time left — possibly millions of years: "The dinosaurs were around for 135 million years and if we are intelligent, there are good chances that we could live for much longer," they write. Roughly?108 billion people?have ever been alive, and Pamlin and Armstrong estimate that, if humanity lasts for 50 million years, the total number of humans who?will?ever live is more like 3 quadrillion. That's an optimistic assessment of humanity's prospects, but it also means that if something happens to make humans go extinct, the moral harm done will be immense. Guarding against events with even a small probability of causing that is worthwhile. So the report's authors conducted a scientific literature review and identified 12 plausible ways it could happen: 1) Catastrophic climate change The scenario that the authors envision here isn't 2?C (3.6?F) warming, of the kind that climate negotiators have been fighting to avoid for decades. It's warming of 4 or 6?C (7.2 or 10.8?F), a truly horrific scenario which it's not clear humans could survive. According to a 2013 World Bank report, "there is also?no certainty that adaptation to a 4°C world is possible." Warming at that level would displace huge numbers of people as sea levels rise and coastal areas become submerged. Agriculture would take a giant hit. Pamlin and Armstrong also express concern about?geoengineering. In such an extreme warming scenario, things like spraying sulfate particles into the stratosphere to cool the Earth may start to look attractive to policymakers or even private individuals. But the risks are unknown, and Pamlin and Armstrong conclude that "the biggest challenge is that geoengineering may backfire and simply make matters worse." 2) Nuclear war The "good" news here is that nuclear war could only end humanity under very special circumstances. Limited exchanges, like the US's bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II, would be humanitarian catastrophes but couldn't render humans extinct. Even significantly larger exchanges fall short of the level of impact Pamlin and Armstrong require. "Even if the entire populations of Europe, Russia and the USA were directly wiped out in a nuclear war — an outcome that some studies have shown to be physically impossible, given population dispersal and the number of missiles in existence — that would not raise the war to the first level of impact, which requires > 2 billion affected," Pamlin and Armstrong write. So why does nuclear war make the list? Because of the possibility of nuclear winter. That is, if enough nukes are detonated, world temperatures would fall dramatically and quickly, disrupting food production and possibly rendering human life impossible. It's unclear if that's even possible, or how big a war you'd need to trigger it, but if it is a possibility, that means a massive nuclear exchange is a possible cause of human extinction. 3) Global pandemic As with nuclear war, not just any pandemic qualifies. Past pandemics — like the Black Death or the Spanish flu of 1918 — have killed tens of millions of people, but failed to halt civilization. The authors are interested in an even more catastrophic scenario. Is that plausible? Medicine has improved dramatically since the Spanish flu. But on the flip side, transportation across great distances has increased, and more people are living in dense urban areas. That makes worldwide transmission much more of a possibility. Even a pandemic that killed off most of humanity would surely leave a few survivors who have immunity to the disease. The risk isn't that a single contagion kills everyone; it's that a pandemic kills enough people that the rudiments of civilization — agriculture, principally — can't be maintained and the survivors die off. 4) Ecological catastrophe "Ecological collapse refers to a situation where an ecosystem suffers a drastic, possibly permanent, reduction in carrying capacity for all organisms, often resulting in mass extinction," the report explains. Mass extinctions can happen for a number of reasons, many of which have their own categories on this list: global warming, an asteroid impact, etc. The journalist Elizabeth Kolbert has argued that?humans may be in the process of causing a mass extinction event,?not least due to carbon emissions. Given that humans are heavily dependent on ecosystems, both natural and artificial, for food and other resources, mass extinctions that disrupt those ecosystems threaten us as well. 5) Global system collapse This is a vague one, but it basically means the world's economic and political systems collapse, by way of something like "a severe, prolonged depression with high bankruptcy rates and high unemployment, a breakdown in normal commerce caused by hyperinflation, or even an economically-caused sharp increase in the death rate and perhaps even a decline in population." The paper also mentions other possibilities, like a?coronal mass ejection from the Sun that?disrupts electrical systems on Earth. That said, it's unclear whether these things would pose an existential threat. Humanity has survived past economic downturns — even massive ones like the Great Depression. An economic collapse would have to be considerably more massive than that to risk human extinction or to kill enough people that the survivors couldn't recover. 6) Major asteroid impact Major asteroid impacts have caused large-scale extinction on Earth in the past. Most famously, the Chicxulub impact 66 million years ago is widely believed to have caused the mass extinction that wiped out the dinosaurs (an alternative theory?blames volcanic eruptions, about which more in a second). Theoretically, a future impact could have a similar effect. The good news is that NASA is fairly?confident in its ability to track asteroids?large enough to seriously disrupt human life upon impact, and detection efforts are improving. Scientists are also working on?developing ways to deflect asteroids that would have a truly devastating effect, such as by crashing spacecraft into them with enough force to change their path, avoiding Earth. 7) Supervolcano As with asteroids, there's historical precedent for volcanic eruptions causing mass extinction. The Permian–Triassic extinction event, which rendered?something like 90 percent of the Earth's species extinct, is believed to have been caused by an eruption. Eruptions can cause significant global cooling and can disrupt agricultural production. They're also basically impossible to prevent, at least today, though?they're also extremely rare. The authors conclude another Permian-Triassic level eruption is "extremely unlikely on human timescales, but the damage from even a smaller eruption could affect the climate, damage the biosphere, affect food supplies, and create political instability." As with pandemics, the risk isn't so much that the event itself will kill everyone so much as that it'd make continued survival untenable for those who lived through it. 8) Synthetic biology This isn't a risk today, but it could be in the future.?Synthetic biology?is an emerging scientific field that focuses on the creation of biological systems, including artificial life. The hypothetical danger is that the tools of synthetic biology could be used to engineer a supervirus or superbacteria that is more infectious and capable of mass destruction than one that evolved naturally. Most likely, such an organism would be created as a biological weapon, either for a military or a non-state actor. The risk is that such a weapon would either be used in warfare or a terrorist attack, or else leak from a lab accidentally. Either scenario could wind up threatening humanity as a whole if the bioweapon spreads beyond the initial target and becomes a global problem. As with regular pandemics, actual extinction would only happen if survivors were unable to adapt to a giant population decline. 9) Nanotechnology This is another potential risk in the future. The concern here is that nanotech democratizes industrial production, thus giving many more actors the ability to develop highly destructive weapons. "Of particular relevance is whether nanotechnology allows rapid uranium extraction and isotope separation and the construction of nuclear bombs, which would increase the severity of the consequent conflicts," Pamlin and Armstrong write. Traditional balance-of-power dynamics wouldn't apply if individuals and small groups were capable of amassing large, powerful arsenals. There's also a concern that self-replicating nanotech would create a?"gray goo" scenario, in which it grows out of control and encroaches upon resources humans depend on, causing mass disruption and potentially civilizational collapse. 10) Artificial Intelligence The report is also concerned with the possibility of exponential advances in artificial intelligence. Once computer programs grow advanced enough to teach themselves computer science, they could?use that knowledge to improve themselves, causing a spiral of ever-increasing superintelligence. If AI remains friendly to humans, this would be a very good thing indeed, and has the prospect to speed up research in a variety of domains. The risk is that AI has little use for humans and either out of malevolence or perceived necessity destroys us all. 11) Future bad governance This is perhaps the vaguest item on the list — a kind of meta-risk. Most of the problems enumerated above would require some kind of global coordinated action to address. Climate change is the most prominent example, but in the future things like nanotech and AI regulation would need to be coordinated internationally. The danger is that governance structures often fail and sometimes wind up exacerbating the problems they were trying to fix. A policy failure in dealing with a threat that could cause human extinction would thus have hugely negative consequences. 12) Unknown unknowns The first 11 items on the list are risks we can identify as potential threats worth tackling. There are almost certainly other dangers out there with grave potential impacts that we can't predict. It's hard to even think about how to tackle this problem, but more research into global catastrophic risks could be helpful.Existential threats with any probability should be given 100% weight – only impact that matters! Global Challenges Foundation, 2016, Global risks require global solutions, The Global Challenges Foundation, based in Stockholm, was founded in 2012 by financial analyst Laszlo Szombatfalvy. The Foundation originates from the book The Greatest Challenges of Our Time. The book develops a concept of risk and risk management - which is successfully utilized in equity management – and broadens it in order to include Global Catastrophic Risks, The basis for all risk analysis,?whether?in the stock market,?engineering, insurance or medical?decisions, is the equation?risk=potential future?damage?x probability of occurrence. However,?this only applies?as?long as the damage is compensable, i.e. of an economic nature. When?irreplaceable values are at stake - large-scale human suffering or loss of a?great many human lives - the magnitude of impact largely outweighs probability?in determining the final risk?equation. In such cases, even if the?probability?of?possible damage is very low, as long as the?potential damage?is?great, then the?risk?is great.?From a purely mathematical?perspective, if the potential damage is infinite (e.g. the extinction of?all?mankind), then?according?to the risk equation, even the?slightest?probability makes the risk infinite. This insight may be evident in risk analysis, but is all too?often missing in the global political debate, specifically regarding the?biggest threats to humanity. A gondola where every one out of a hundred cars?would crash, would never be acceptable. But in conjunction with climate change,?there is far from enough effort made to prevent a concentration of greenhouse?gases that with 1 % probability would lead to a 6 degree warming, which in turn?would severely affect billions of people.Colonization Advantage – SpaceSolvencyRepeal of Wolf key to cooperation and colonization – sets momentumBuzz Aldrin, June 11, 2015, Buzz Aldrin: Why the U.S. Should Partner with China in Space, Time Magazine, Dr. Buzz Aldrin served as lunar module pilot for Apollo 11, the first manned lunar landing mission. He is the author of eight books, including his New York Times best selling autobiography Magnificent Desolation. His newest book, Mission to Mars: My Vision for Space Exploration, was published in 2013. As one of the leading space exploration advocates, Buzz continues to chart a course for future space travel., 3916379/buzz-aldrin-china-space-partnership/I’d like to call attention to and expand upon several points recently raised by Jeffrey Kluger, editor at large for TIME magazine, in his first-rate article: “The Silly Reason the Chinese Aren’t Allowed on the Space Station.” Let me add my voice of support for the U.S. to initiate dialogue with China on the country’s inclusion in the International Space Station program. Doing so, however, requires not only White House leadership, but also bi-partisan support in Congress to roll back public law that bans NASA from engaging in bilateral agreements and coordination with China. It’s all about “inclination.” In this case, I’m not just talking about the inclined orbit of an object circling Earth, but also a will to lean forward and encourage collaboration in space. Working with China—as we’ve learned with other space powers—presents scientific gains and boosts safety factors for all those engaged in human spaceflight. But there is much more. All 21st?century spacefaring nations need to take stepping stones that lead to humanity’s bold leap to the Red Planet. For my part, I have spent considerable time orchestrating?Cycling Pathways to Occupy Mars—by initiating government-private sustained human presence around Earth and the Moon, including design assistance of several lunar bases for all international and commercial uses as a prelude to human activity on Mars.Repealing Wolf is key to Chinese cooperation HANNAH Kohler, April 2015, The Eagle and the Hare: U.S.–Chinese Relations, the Wolf Amendment, and the Future of International Cooperation in Space, Georgetown Law, J.D. expected 2015; B.A. Penn State 2012, files/2015/04/Kohler-TheEagleandtheHare.pdfOne of the most visible examples of China’s continuing isolation in the international space forum is the International Space Station, a triumph of collaboration and scientific vision—and one in which China has never had the opportunity to participate. Initially, perhaps, this was a result of China’s self-imposed isolationism with regard to its space program and the widespread perception of the early ISS as a “U.S.” station; more recently, however, China has expressed clear interest in becoming a partner on the space station, and at least several other countries are amenable to the idea.69 However, NASA may not have a choice in the matter. When in 2012 the five ISS partners70 expressed interest in reaching out to other countries (such as China) for ISS participation,71 then-U.S. Congressman Frank Wolf (R-VA) wrote a scathing letter forbidding it. “NASA,” Wolf wrote, “should make clear that the U.S. will not accept Chinese participation in any station-related activities” because the “Chinese ‘civilian’ space program is directly run by the Peoples [sic] Liberation Army (PLA),” and that “I believe that any effort to involve the Chinese in the space program would be misguided, and not in our national interest.”72 Despite China’s successes with Tiangong, it is telling—and problematic— that one of the most powerful spacefaring countries in the world cannot be included in a project as triumphant and inherently nonmilitary as the ISS. While China is growing into its role as a significant entity in space exploration, it remains a kind of “outsider” in the international space community, unable to participate fully in the cooperation that has marked the decades since the end of the Cold War. China’s continued isolation in space appears even stranger in light of the historic political tensions that were put aside to allow the United States and Russia to cooperate in the ISS project in the early 1990s.73 Only a few years after the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the dissipation of the threat of nuclear holocaust, the United States was able to cooperate with Russia in order to successfully launch the first ISS module, the Russian Zarya, in 1998 (largely thanks to mutual budgetary crises).74 Considering the historical significance of the ISS as a beacon of international cooperation that would have been unimaginable a decade earlier, China’s exclusion seems even bleaker. What has made the possibility of peaceful cooperation with China so apparently untenable to Congress?Colonization Advantage – SpaceAnswers to AliensIt’ll be minimum 1,500 years until we meet aliens – colonization does not uniquely increase those oddsEvan Solomonides & Yervant Terzian, 1 May 2016, A Probabilistic Analysis of the Fermi Paradox, Cornell Universiy Library, Evan Solomonides is an Astrophysics student at Cornell, ervant Terzian is “The Tisch Distinguished University Professor” in the Department of Astronomy at Cornell University. He was Department Chairman from 1979-1999. His fields of expertise are the physics of the Interstellar Medium, Galaxies, and Radio Astronomy, fermi paradox uses an appeal to the mediocrity principle to make it seem counter-intuitive that humanity has not been contacted by extraterrestrial intelligence. A numerical, statistical analysis was conducted to determine whether this apparent loneliness is, in fact, unexpected. An inequality was derived to relate the frequency of life arising and developing technology on a suitable planet in the galaxy, the average length of time since the first broadcast of such a civilization, and a constant term. An analysis of the sphere reached thus far by human communication was also conducted, considering our local neighborhood and planets of particular interest. We clearly show that human communication has not reached a number of stars and planets adequate to expect an answer. These analyses both conclude that the Fermi paradox is not, in fact, unexpected. By the mediocrity principle and numerical modeling, it is actually unlikely that the Earth would have been reached by extraterrestrial communication at this point. We predict that under 1 percent of the galaxy has been reached at all thus far, and we do not anticipate to be reached until approximately half of the stars/planets have been reached. We offer a prediction that we should not expect this until at least 1,500 years in the future. Thus the Fermi paradox is not a shocking observation, and humanity may very well be contacted within our species' lifespan.Elections Disadvantage Answers - SpaceUniqueness AnswersTrump will win – politicians and pollsters have a cognitive bias against counting Trump’s massive amount of supportersLeon Neyfakh, January 25 2016, How Nate Silver Missed Donald Trump, Slate Magazine, Leon Neyfakh is a reporter Slate, formerly at the Boston Globe and has written for the New York Observer, articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/01/nate_silver_said_donald_trump_had_no_shot_where_did_he_go_wrong.htmlInstead, the rise of Trump might have demonstrated the limits of Silver’s powers. As Dave Weigel wrote in the?Washington Post?recently, Trump’s enormous popularity—a tidal wave of support that Silver has said will soon abate—has been the story of the campaign. In his piece, Weigel argued that it wasn’t the first time a primary bid turned out to signal a major shift in the political winds, from the campaign of George Wallace in 1964, which Weigel said represented “a historic moment in the politics of backlash,” to that of Pat Robertson in 1988, which “cemented the influence of the religious right in Republican electoral politics.” While none of those candidates won their party’s nomination, it would have been irresponsible for the media to ignore the significance of their campaigns, as Silver has encouraged his audience, and the press, to do with Trump. While it’s true that “the rise of Trump” may not end with Trump becoming the nominee, it has revealed, or perhaps even caused, a profound shift in the nation’s political climate. As Kornacki put it to me, “It took Donald Trump saying all this stuff”—floating the idea of denying Muslims entry into the United States, for instance—“to reveal there was a massive constituency for it.” Missing the significance of Trumpism is a different kind of failure than, say, calling the 2012 election for Mitt Romney. It also might be a more damning one. Botching your general election forecast by a couple of percentage points suggests a flawed mathematical formula. Actively denying the reality of Trump’s success suggests Silver may never have been capable of explaining the world in a way so many believed he could in 2008 and 2012, when he was telling them how likely it was that Obama would become, and remain, the president. “This is an extraordinary, unusual, utterly bizarre election year, in which events that have never happened before are happening,” says Blake Zeff, the editor of the political news site?Cafe?and a former campaign aide to Obama and Hillary Clinton. “That’s a nightmare scenario for a projection model that is predicated on historical trends.” While Zeff cautioned it was premature to pillory Silver for missing out on Trumpism, the point stands: What was true yesterday is not necessarily true today, and that’s a problem for Silver and his team of prognosticators.Your pollster predictions are wrong – bias in their thinking leads to bias in the polls and models – Trump will stump them allJames Taranto, June 29, 2016, Unthinkability Bias, The Wall Street Journal, James Taranto is editor of and author of its popular Best of the Web Today column. In August 2007 he was named a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board, articles/unthinkability-bias-1467221228Donald Trump has only about a 20% chance of being elected president, according to?Nate Silver?of FiveThirtyEight,?Sean Trende?of Real Clear Politics, , a site that tracks odds from the British bookmaker . What does that mean, a 20% chance? ABC News titles the Silver story “FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver Predicts Hillary Clinton Wins Election Against Donald Trump,” but Trende tries to explain that’s an oversimplification: When I say Trump probably has a 20 percent chance of winning .?.?., I really mean that if you ran this election 100 times, Trump would win 20 of them. That isn’t an “outside shot.” As my colleague David Byler noted over the weekend, if you toss a coin twice and get a head, then a tail, an outcome with just a 25 percent chance of happening just occurred. Or as Emory University political scientist Drew Linzer observed, the probability of Brexit occurring, according to betting markets, was as low as 10 percent, while the chances of the Cavs winning the NBA championship fell to five percent at one point. But the coin-flip analogy is deceptive: Assuming an unloaded coin, the probabilities for any series of flips are a matter of pure math. In a complex and unpredictable system like a political outcome or a sports championship, they’re mostly guesswork. And Trende defines an abstraction (a 20% probability) in terms of a scenario (running the election 100 times) that sounds more concrete but actually is less so. There is no such thing as rerunning an election. (Even if there were multiple votes, they’d be conducted under different circumstances.) The FiveThirtyEight and ElectionBettingOdds methods seem to generate probabilities without guesswork, but that’s deceptive too. FiveThirtyEight runs multiple election simulations according to a model that builds in certain constants, variables and allowances for randomness, so that the guesswork is at the front end. If those assumptions are biased, the results will be, too. ElectionBettingOdds simply looks at prices in the betting market, which means the gamblers are the ones doing the guesswork. The advantage here is that different gamblers may be biased in different directions, so that aggregating their bets will tend to produce a reliable sense of the probabilities. A corollary, however, is that the more prevalent the bias, the less the market corrects for it. That’s why financial markets sometimes give us bubbles and panics and why, as with Brexit, political markets don’t always reliably predict outcomes. Which is the main point of Trende’s essay (a follow-up to one published?earlier this month). Although his reckoning of Trump’s chances is consistent with the conventional view, he also suspects there may be groupthink at work: Commentary on the 2016 election has broken down somewhat because both the online right and online left opposed the Trump candidacy. Because of this, we analysts find ourselves in something of an echo chamber, which makes us more susceptible to bad arguments, and more likely to overlook good ones that point in an intellectually uncomfortable direction. He cites the Brexit example—in which the betting markets consistently favored Remain, the losing side—as “a massive outbreak of ‘unthinkability bias’?”—a useful term Trende appears to have coined: To the class of people who engage on Twitter, advise banks, or bet on outcomes, Brexit wasn’t just a bad idea. It was catastrophic. It operated as a rejection of an ideal that transnational elites hold dear, regardless of whether they are on the right or the left, one we might just call the idea of “Europe.” A rejection of this idea was not something upper-middle-class analysts could accept, absent absolutely compelling evidence that “Remain” was going to lose. The Trump analogy is clear enough: Consider the polling that came out over the past weekend. My timeline was filled with tweets from both conservative and liberal commentators about the ABC/Washington Post poll showing Clinton up 12 points on Trump. This was obviously an important poll, and it deserved some attention. But there was comparatively little attention paid—at least by the most well-known writers—to the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showing [Mrs.] Clinton up five, and up just a point in a four-way race.Elections Disadvantage Answers - SpaceLink Answers Turn: Trump’s base wants economic growth policies – not spending cutsLisa Mascaro, March 1, 2016, Republicans want to cut government spending? Not these Trump supporters, Los Angeles Times, Lisa Mascaro covers Congress in Washington, D.C. She writes about U.S. policy, economics and political culture. A Los Angeles-area native, she has reported across Southern California, edited, traveled the States and worked in Texas. While the Washington correspondent for the Las Vegas Sun, she contributed as the paper won the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service. An economics and political science graduate of UC Santa Barbara, she also studied in Budapest, Hungary, nation/politics/la-na-trump-big-government-20160301-story.htmlThey agree with Trump's push to crack down on illegal immigration and worry about Islamic State terrorists infiltrating the country. But they are also drawn to Trump's vow to get the government to stop wasting money on overseas aid and Middle East military campaigns, and to use that money to help people closer to home. "There are Americans out there who need this money," said Everitt, 64. What about slashing spending and deficits to balance the budget? "It's not my top priority," he said. What a Donald Trump presidency might actually look like Trump's campaign has gathered support from many such white, blue-collar Republicans, who don't want to slash the government as GOP?tea party?hard-liners do, but seek to get it working more for people who, as they see it, have earned it. They heap much of the blame for their sense of a country headed in the wrong direction on President Obama, but are also angry with the Republican Party, which they believe no longer has their backs. And they dismiss the menu of think-tank policies and trickle-down economics offered by other GOP candidates as just the latest broken promises from Washington. Instead, they put their faith in Trump's promises to create jobs and shore up the safety net for healthcare and retirement Their sentiments are common among Trump backers.Turn: NASA investment is popularSeth Motel, February 3, 2015, NASA popularity still sky-high, Pew Research Center, Motel received a B.A. in Political Science from Brown University. While in college, he was senior editor of The Brown Daily Herald and coordinator of the newspaper's undergraduate student polls. Prior experience includes work at Media Matters for America, Congressman Mike Quigley's office and the Hotel Rwanda Rusesabagina Foundation, fact-tank/2015/02/03/nasa-popularity-still-sky-high/NASA continues to be very popular among the public, with four times as many Americans holding a favorable view of the space agency as unfavorable (68% vs. 17%). In contrast with many other departments and agencies of the federal government, Republicans and Democrats generally have the same positive view. NASA rated at the top of a list of eight government agencies along with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in a?Pew Research Center survey last month. Highly educated Americans have an especially positive view of NASA. Nearly eight-in-ten (78%) of those with a graduate degree view the agency favorably, while just 11% view it unfavorably. Among those with no more than a high school education, 61% have a favorable impression of NASA and 21% view the agency unfavorably. Majorities of independents (70%), Democrats (68%) and Republicans (63%) have favorable opinions of NASA. Although NASA no longer sends its own manned shuttles into space – and instead is collaborating with private companies to?continue supporting international space initiatives– most Americans still deem U.S. exploration of outer space to be important. In a?2011 survey, 58% of the public said it was “essential” that the U.S. continue to be a world leader in space exploration. Even as NASA’s mission in the world of space exploration has changed, its spending has been relatively flat over the past few decades (accounting for inflation). NASA spent $17.1 billion in fiscal 2014, which accounted for 0.5% of all federal government spending – or about one-ninth of the Department of Agriculture’s checks. As a share of the federal government’s outlays, NASA dropped from more than 4% in the mid-1960s to about 1% of what the U.S. spent in the early 1990s. President Barack Obama’s 2016 budget requested?$18.5 billion for NASA in fiscal 2016, up from an estimated $18.0 billion in 2015.?Among other plans, the agency is developing the new James Webb Space Telescope and contracting with private companies to send astronauts to the International Space Station. When asked about the space station specifically, both the public and a group of American scientists say the U.S. has gotten a (big) bang for its buck. By a large margin, both the general public and members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) say the space station has been a good investment for the U.S., according to a?Pew Research report released last week. More than six-in-ten Americans (64%) say it has been good for the country, while 29% say it has not been; among AAAS members, roughly twice as many think it was a good investment as a bad one (68% vs. 31%).Turn: Looking soft on foreign policy is good — Trump is already winning with hardliners, but ceded the middle. Michael Cohen June 8, 2016 (“Trump’s Posturing Opens Space for Clinton to Soften Her Foreign Policy Image,” World Politics Review, June 8th, Michael Cohen is a Columnist for the World Politics Review, , Accessed On 07-21-2016)A reasonable discussion of foreign policy free of martial rhetoric is not something to be sneezed at. To the contrary, it’s something to be appreciated in this election cycle. And it’s indicative of what Trump has given to Clinton: the opportunity to talk about America’s place in the world, and the means for furthering U.S. interests, in more nuanced terms. She doesn’t need to do the usual dance performed by most Democratic candidates, who try to sound as tough as possible on foreign policy. She can talk about diplomacy and development, the rights of women and the LGBT community, and the need to engage with America’s enemies, because she doesn’t have to worry about being branded as a woolly-headed liberal who doesn’t recognize the threats facing America. After all, the greatest threat to America’s place in the world is the man she will be facing off against in November. As Republican presidential candidates moved further and further to the right on foreign policy this year, it allowed Democrats to stake out more moderate positions, secure in the knowledge that those in the political center are not going to be inclined to embrace the harsh Republican message. This year, Democrats don’t need to inoculate themselves from seeming too soft, because Republicans have become too radical, thereby ceding the political middle. Now, with the presumptive GOP presidential nominee so extreme in his rhetoric, so radical in his views, and so clueless in his understanding of the world, the Democratic nominee can play it straight and not worry about the political impact. As crazy as it may sound, thanks to Trump, we just might have a reasonable discussion of foreign policy on the presidential campaign trail this year—well, at least from one candidate.No Link: Foreign policy doesn’t get anyone to the ballot boxRosa Brooks, October 14, 2015, America’s Problem With World Leaderishness, Foreign Policy, Rosa Brooks is a law professor at Georgetown University and a Schwartz senior fellow at the New America Foundation. She served as a counselor to the U.S. defense undersecretary for policy from 2009 to 2011 and previously served as a senior advisor at the U.S. State Department, 2015/10/14/americas-problem-with-world-leaderishness-russia-china-syria-us-2016-election/The election analysts and pollsters just snicker and roll their eyes. Foreign-policy issues?don’t?decide elections, they explain. In poll after poll, voters say they care most about classic domestic issues: jobs, economic growth, health care, and the like. They apparently worry a bit about?terrorism, too, but they worry a lot more about the economy. During the 2014 midterm elections, for instance — in the midst of the crisis in Iraq and Syria and the Russian invasion of Ukraine —?exit polls?found that only 13 percent of voters considered foreign policy to have been a top issue in influencing their vote, compared to 45 percent who said the same about the economy, and 25 percent who considered health care a top issue. In other words, the experts tell us, people vote with their pocketbooks. It’s the?economy, stupid.Elections Disadvantage Answers – SpaceConsequentialist Impact Scenario Answers No internal link: Trump doesn’t want proliferationIan Hanchett, 29 March, 2016, Trump: ‘I Hate Proliferation’ But It Would Be Better if Japan, Saudi Arabia, and South Korea Had Nuclear Weapons, Breitbart, Ian Hanchett is a video and political reporter for Breitbart, video/2016/03/29/trump-i-hate-proliferation-but-it-would-be-better-if-japan-saudi-arabia-and-south-korea-had-nuclear-weapons/Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said that “”I don’t want more nuclear weapons” but that the world would be better off if South Korea, Japan, and Saudi Arabia had nuclear weapons on CNN’s Republican Town Hall on Tuesday. Trump was asked if there was a contradiction between his concerns over nuclear proliferation and his openness to supporting Japan and South Korea developing nuclear weapons. He responded, that there is no contradiction and the US doesn’t want to “pull the trigger” against a nuclear North Korea. He added, “We owe $19 trillion, we have another $2 trillion because of the very, very bad omnibus budget that was just signed. … We are supporting nations now, militarily, we are supporting nations like Saudi Arabia, which was making, during the good oil days, which was a year ago, now they’re making less, but still a lot. $1 billion a day. We are supporting them, military, and they pay us a fraction, a fraction of what they should be paying us, and of the cost. We are supporting Japan. … Excuse me, we’re supporting Germany. We’re supporting South Korea.” He further stated that it might be time to change U.S. policy keeping Japan and South Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons. Trump was then asked, “So, some proliferation is okay?” He answered, “No, not some. I hate proliferation. I hate nuclear more than any.”No internal link: Trump doesn’t like proliferation – one of his main issuesJP Carroll, July 6, 2016, Exclusive: This is Trump's Foreign Policy, A Conversation with Top Trump Adviser Dr. Walid Phares, The Daily Caller News Foundation, JP Carrol is National Security & Foreign Affairs Reporter for The Daily Caller, 2016/07/04/exclusive-this-is-trump-foreign-policy-a-conversation-with-top-trump-adviser-dr-walid-phares/Phares: Look, this is an America First foreign policy as laid out in his speech in April. We live in an unpredictable world, so yes, priorities do change. The campaign has a well-organized foreign policy in that it adapts to a disorganized world. At the moment, the top two priorities are how to deal with issues of nuclear proliferation and how to completely destroy Islamic jihadist organizations, including and especially ISIS. On nuclear proliferation, Mr. Trump has made a clear statement about not having any further nuclear proliferation, especially in the hands of people who are problematic. He thinks about it as the greatest threat that we and the rest of the world will face. I would say that North Korea and Iran, and the nuclear threat would be number one.Impact turn: Proliferation decreases war in nearly all scenarios — raises the cost of aggressionAkisato Suzuki, April-June 2015, “Is More Better or Worse? New Empirics on Nuclear Proliferation and Interstate Conflict by Random Forests,” RESEARCH AND POLITICS, , pp. 1-7, p. 2., School of Law and Government at Dublin City University, optimists argue that nuclear weapons reduce conflict because of the intolerable cost of nuclear war (Mearsheimer, 1984/1985: 21; Waltz, 2003: 6–9). Therefore, “more may be better” (Waltz, 2003: 3). Nuclear symmetry (a dyad of nuclear states) should deter states from resorting to war, because war could result in the use of nuclear weapons (Powell, 1985). Rauchhaus (2009: 263) notes that the nuclear deterrence literature is “virtually silent” on the effect of nuclear asymmetry (a nuclear state versus a non-nuclear state), but Waltz (2003: 17) argues, “Far from lowering the expected cost of aggression, a nuclear offense, even against a non-nuclear state, raises the possible costs of aggression to incalculable heights because the aggressor cannot be sure of the reaction of other states”. Non-nuclear states should also be deterred from engaging in war with nuclear states, because non-nuclear states fear nuclear retaliation. If nuclear weapons prevent war, they should also decrease conflict short of war, because states would hesitate to initiate conflict which could escalate to war. Optimists admit that nuclear weapons do not necessarily prevent all types of interstate conflict (see Hagerty, 2009: 109–110; Waltz, 2003: 17), but they do not argue that nuclear weapons increase conflict either Waltz (2003: 9–26) also suggests that new nuclear states are not more prone to conflict than old nuclear states, because the logic and assumptions of nuclear deterrence can be applied not only to old nuclear major powers but to any kind of states (minor powers, domestically unstable states, autocratic states, or states engaged in rivalry). In short, optimist logic expects that nuclear proliferation reduces a systemic propensity for interstate conflict through deterrent effects.Impact Turn: Allied proliferation in Asia is good—protects them from China and is not destabilizingHarvey M. Sapolsky & Christine M. Leah, April 14, 2014, “Let Asia Go Nuclear,” NATIONAL INTEREST, Harvey M Sapolsky is Professor Emeritus at MIT; Christine M. Leah is a Stanton Fellow at the Security Studies Program of MIT, , accessed 4-21-16.But there is a better, cheaper way to provide security in Asia. We should encourage our allies to acquire their own nuclear weapons. With nuclear weapons Australia, Japan and the others would have the capability to protect themselves from bullying. Nearly all of the allies are rich enough and technologically advanced enough to acquire and maintain nuclear forces. And those who are not—the Philippines, for example—lose much of their vulnerability once the focus shifts away from conventional defenses of the island chains. Nuclear weapons helped prevent the Cold War from turning hot. In Asia they can stop a conventional arms race that is forcing the United States to invest in weapons that can block the Chinese military on its doorstep, thousands of miles from our own. Let our Asian allies defend themselves with the weapon that is the great equalizer. Tailored proliferation would not likely be destabilizing. Asia is not the Middle East. Japan, South Korea, Australia, and even Taiwan are strong democracies. They have stable political regimes. Government leaders are accountable to democratic institutions. Civilian control of the military is strong. And they don’t have a history of lobbing missiles at each other—they are much more risk-averse than Egypt, Syria or Iran. America’s allies would be responsible nuclear weapon states. A number of Asian nations have at one time or another considered going nuclear, Australia for example, with tacit U.S. Defense Department encouragement in the 1960s. They chose what for them was the cheaper alternative of living under the US nuclear umbrella. Free nuclear guarantees provided by the United States, coupled with the US Navy patrolling offshore, have allowed our allies to grow prosperous without having to invest much in their own defense. Confident that the United States protects them, our allies have even begun to squabble with China over strings of uninhabited islands in the hope that there is oil out there. It is time to give them a dose of fiscal and military reality. And the way to do that is to stop standing between them and their nuclear-armed neighbors. It will not be long before they realize the value of having their own nuclear weapons. The waters of the Pacific under those arrangements will stay calm, and we will save a fortune.Framing Turn: Worst case predictions cause failed policy making, trade off with better solutions, and risk escalation – we need to prioritize probability Bruce Schneier March 13, 2010, Worst-Case Thinking, Schneier on Security, Bruce Schneier is an internationally renowned security technologist and author, MA CS American University, a security conference recently, the moderator asked the panel of distinguished cybersecurity leaders what their nightmare scenario was. The answers were the predictable array of large-scale attacks: against our communications infrastructure, against the power grid, against the financial system, in combination with a physical attack. I didn't get to give my answer until the afternoon, which was: "My nightmare scenario is that people keep talking about their nightmare scenarios." There's a certain blindness that comes from worst-case thinking. An extension of the precautionary principle, it involves imagining the worst possible outcome and then acting as if it were a certainty. It substitutes imagination for thinking, speculation for risk analysis, and fear for reason. It fosters powerlessness and vulnerability and magnifies social paralysis. And it makes us more vulnerable to the effects of terrorism. Worst-case thinking means generally bad decision making for several reasons. First, it's only half of the cost-benefit equation. Every decision has costs and benefits, risks and rewards. By speculating about what can possibly go wrong, and then acting as if that is likely to happen, worst-case thinking focuses only on the extreme but improbable risks and does a poor job at assessing outcomes. Second, it's based on flawed logic. It begs the question by assuming that a proponent of an action must prove that the nightmare scenario is impossible. Third, it can be used to support any position or its opposite. If we build a nuclear power plant, it could melt down. If we don't build it, we will run short of power and society will collapse into anarchy. If we allow flights near Iceland's volcanic ash, planes will crash and people will die. If we don't, organs won’t arrive in time for transplant operations and people will die. If we don't invade Iraq, Saddam Hussein might use the nuclear weapons he might have. If we do, we might destabilize the Middle East, leading to widespread violence and death. Of course, not all fears are equal. Those that we tend to exaggerate are more easily justified by worst-case thinking. So terrorism fears trump privacy fears, and almost everything else; technology is hard to understand and therefore scary; nuclear weapons are worse than conventional weapons; our children need to be protected at all costs; and annihilating the planet is bad. Basically, any fear that would make a good movie plot is amenable to worst-case thinking. Fourth and finally, worst-case thinking validates ignorance. Instead of focusing on what we know, it focuses on what we don't know -- and what we can imagine. Remember Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's quote? "Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know." And this: "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Ignorance isn't a cause for doubt; when you can fill that ignorance with imagination, it can be a call to action. Even worse, it can lead to hasty and dangerous acts. You can't wait for a smoking gun, so you act as if the gun is about to go off. Rather than making us safer, worst-case thinking has the potential to cause dangerous escalation. The new undercurrent in this is that our society no longer has the ability to calculate probabilities. Risk assessment is devalued. Probabilistic thinking is repudiated in favor of "possibilistic thinking": Since we can't know what's likely to go wrong, let's speculate about what can possibly go wrong. Worst-case thinking leads to bad decisions, bad systems design, and bad security. And we all have direct experience with its effects: airline security and the TSA, which we make fun of when we're not appalled that they're harassing 93-year-old women or keeping first graders off airplanes. You can't be too careful! Actually, you can. You can refuse to fly because of the possibility of plane crashes. You can lock your children in the house because of the possibility of child predators. You can eschew all contact with people because of the possibility of hurt. Steven Hawking wants to avoid trying to communicate with aliens because they might be hostile; does he want to turn off all the planet's television broadcasts because they're radiating into space? It isn't hard to parody worst-case thinking, and at its extreme it's a psychological condition. Frank Furedi, a sociology professor at the University of Kent, writes: "Worst-case thinking encourages society to adopt fear as one of the dominant principles around which the public, the government and institutions should organize their life. It institutionalizes insecurity and fosters a mood of confusion and powerlessness. Through popularizing the belief that worst cases are normal, it incites people to feel defenseless and vulnerable to a wide range of future threats." Even worse, it plays directly into the hands of terrorists, creating a population that is easily terrorized -- even by failed terrorist attacks like the Christmas Day underwear bomber and the Times Square SUV bomber. When someone is proposing a change, the onus should be on them to justify it over the status quo. But worst-case thinking is a way of looking at the world that exaggerates the rare and unusual and gives the rare much more credence than it deserves. It isn't really a principle; it's a cheap trick to justify what you already believe. It lets lazy or biased people make what seem to be cogent arguments without understanding the whole issue. And when people don't need to refute counterarguments, there's no point in listening to them. Elections Disadvantage Answers – SpaceDeontological Impact Scenario Answers Impact Turn: Trump’s economic policies will materially benefit minorities – that’s keyJose A. DelReal, April 18, 2016, Trump meets with ‘diversity coalition’ in New York, Washtington Post, Jose A. DelReal is a national political reporter covering the 2016 presidential election. He graduated from Harvard College, presidential candidate Donald Trump made a move Monday to discredit?critics who accuse him of stoking racial tensions by meeting?with a "diversity coalition" here in Manhattan. The real estate mogul sat with?members of the nascent National Diversity Coalition for Trump on Monday afternoon, a group?founded to push back against critics who say his?anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim rhetoric is discriminatory. The group says?it believes Trump “will address economic disparities” for minorities and “strengthen communities with conservative action,” according to a news?release sent out by the group ahead of the event. “I swear, I don’t know where that’s coming from. This man is no more racist than Mickey Mouse is on the moon!” Georgia businessman Bruce LeVell, who co-founded the group, previously told the Post when asked about his decision to create the organization. Trump?posed with the group for pictures in Trump Tower before the meeting. Omarosa Manigault, a television personality and prominent Trump supporter, was also in attendance. Though the campaign did not directly coordinate the event, Manigault collected Trump “pledges” on which supporters wrote their personal information. The GOP front-runner?has faced harsh scrutiny for what critics say is discriminatory rhetoric against women and minorities. He has been particularly blasted for calling for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the country, which he says is the only way to protect the homeland against acts of terrorism. Demonstrators have flocked to his campaign rallies across the country in recent months to protest Trump’s candidacy. Men and women in attendance disagreed with that characterization and praised Trump for his economic message, which they said is crucial to elevating the economic and social status of minorities. “We already have civil rights. What we’re lacking is money. We need economic power and I feel as though wealth, which is financial freedom, is what the minority community needs,” said Steven Parson, a pastor from Richmond, Va. “That’s why I’m behind Mr. Trump, because that’s what he represents.”No Impact: Trump is all talk – he won’t actually be able to pass any extreme policiesMatthew Cooper, March 16, 2016, WHAT IF DONALD TRUMP BECOMES PRESIDENT?, Newsweek, Matthew Cooper is Political Editor at Newsweek - he has worked for some of America's most prestigious magazines including Time, The New Republic, National Journal, U.S. News & World Report. He wrote for Newsweek in the 1990s and rejoined the magazine in 2014. A veteran White House correspondent, he's known for his in-depth reporting and analysis from Washington, 2016/03/25/world-under-president-donald-trump-437158.htmlThe unspectacular truth is that a Trump presidency would probably be marked by the quotidian work of so many other presidents—trying to sell Congress and the public on proposals while fighting off not only a culture of protest but also the usual swarm of lobbyists who kill any interesting idea with ads and donations. Trump has a rarefied confidence in his abilities and, as we recently learned, in his, um, manhood. But what he doesn’t have is a magic wand (insert wand-penis joke here). Remember?Schoolhouse Rock?? Trump is no match for the American political system, with its three branches of government. The president, as famed political scientist Richard Neustadt once said, has to take an inherently weak position and use the powers of persuasion to get others to do what he wants. Could Trump blow up those legendary checks and balances and make America a fascist state? Oh, please. The fear of fascism in the U.S. goes back to the ’30s and echoes debates that have gone on since Thomas Jefferson charged?Alexander Hamilton with being a monarchist. Sinclair Lewis’s?1935 novel,?It Can’t Happen Here,?was a heavy-handed warning about a folksy fascist seizing the presidency. In Philip Roth’s much better work from?2004,?The Plot Against America,?a Nazi-appeasing?Charles Lindbergh wrestles the presidency from Franklin Roosevelt in 1940?and keeps the U.S. from aiding Britain, which foments a Nazi victory in Europe and less-than-pleasant times for American Jewry. But that’s fiction. Trump’s more likely to end up like Jimmy Carter—a poor craftsman of legislation and a crushing disappointment to his supporters. Since World War II, only Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton have left office with high approval numbers. Presidents generally end their tenure not with a bullet in a bunker but with a whimper.Framing Defense: Rejecting actions on face is bad moral thinking – looking at the consequences is the only way to make policy James Wood Bailey, 1997, “Utilitarianism, institutions, and Justice”, Oxford University Press, pg 9, James Wood Bailey is an author and well known utilitarian thinker) A consequentialist moral theory can take account of this variance and direct us in our decision about whether a plausible right to equality ought to outweigh a plausible right to freedom of expression. 16 In some circumstances the effects of pornography would surely be malign enough to justify our banning it, but in others they may be not malign enough to justify any interference in freedom. I? A deontological theory, in contrast, would be required either to rank the side constraints, which forbid agents from interfering in the free expression of others and from impairing the moral equality of others, or to admit defeat and claim that no adjudication between the two rights is possible. The latter admission is a grave failure since it would leave us no principled resolution of a serious policy question. But the former conclusion is hardly attractive either. Would we really wish to establish as true for all times and circumstances a lexical ordering between two side constraints on our actions without careful attention to consequences? Would we, for instance, really wish to establish that the slightest malign inegalitarian effect traceable to a form of expression is adequate grounds for an intrusive and costly censorship? Or would we, alternatively, really wish to establish that we should be prepared to tolerate a society horrible for women and children to live in, for the sake of not allowing any infringement on the sacred right of free expression?18 Consequentialist accounts can avoid such a deontological dilemma. In so doing, they show a certain healthy sense of realism about what life in society is like. In the world outside the theorist's study, we meet trade-offs at every tum. Every policy we make with some worthy end in Sight imposes costs in terms of diminished achievement of some other plausibly worthy end. Consequentialism demands that we grapple with these costs as directly as we can and justify their incurrence. It forbids us to dismiss them with moral sophistries or to ignore them as if we lived in an ideal world. Counter Plan Answers (Infrastructure CP) - SpacePermutation: Do plan and allocate an equal amount for infrastructure fundingPermutation solves, if both space exploration and infrastructure investment are a good idea then they should both be done. There is no inherent tradeoff between space and infrastructureCounter Plan Answers (Infrastructure CP) - SpaceCounterplan Solvency AnswersNo solvency: Infrastructure spending is untargeted, and even when it is targeted it doesn’t stimulate the economy –?it moves workers, it doesn’t create jobsVeronique de Rugy, 2011. (Veronique de Rugy, senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center of George Mason University. November 16th 2011. “Federal Infrastructure Spending: Neither a Good Stimulus Nor A Good Investment,” Mercatus Center: Testimony, . Page 2-3) ESGInfrastructure spending is not targeted Second, the only thing harder than getting the money out the door promptly is properly targeting spending for stimulative effect. Data from shows that stimulus money in general—and infrastructure funds in particular—were not targeted to those areas with the highest rate in unemployment, something correct application of the Keynesian theory demands as the idea is that stimulus spending gives the economy a jolt by employing idle people, firms, and equipment. 12 However, even properly aimed infrastructure spending might have failed to stimulate the economy. Many of the areas hardest hit by the recession are in decline because they have been producing goods and services that are not, and may never be, in great demand. Therefore, the overall value added by improving the roads and other infrastructure in these areas is likely to be lower than if the new infrastructure were located in growing areas that might have relatively low unemployment but greater demand for more roads, schools, and other types of long-term infrastructure. 13 Perhaps more importantly, unemployment rates among specialists, such as those with the skills to build roads or schools, are often relatively low. And it is unlikely that an employee specialized in residential-area construction can easily update his or her skills to include building highways. As a result, we can expect that firms receiving stimulus funds will hire their workers away from other construction sites where they were employed, rather than plucking the jobless from the unemployment rolls. This is what economists call “crowding out.” Except that in this case, labor, not capital, is being crowded out. New data from Mercatus Center professor Garret Jones and AEI staffer Dan Rothschild confirm that companies and governments used stimulus money to poach a plurality of workers from other organizations rather than hiring them from the unemployment lines. 14 Based on extensive field research—over 1,300 anonymous, voluntary responses from managers and employees—Jones and Rothschild bring to light the fact that less than half of the workers hired with stimulus funds were unemployed at the time they were hired. A majority were hired directly from other organizations, with just a handful coming from school or outside the labor force. In email correspondence, Garrett Jones further explains that during recessions most employers who lose workers to poaching decline to fill the vacant positions—leaving unemployment essentially unchanged.No Solvency: Counterplan costs too much - Would need nearly 500 billion per year to solve basic infrastructureSanjeev Sanyal, 15 October 2014, The Wide Angle: The Age of Chinese Capital, Deutsche Bank, Sanjeev Sanyal is an Indian economist, bestselling writer, environmentalist, and urban theorist. He is widely regarded as one of Asia's leading economists and was Deutsche Bank's Global Strategist and a Managing Director till 2015. A Rhodes Scholar and Eisenhower Fellow, he was named "Young Global Leader 2010" by the World Economic Forum at Davos, above table is an assessment by the ASCE of how US infrastructure has deteriorated between 1988 and 2013. As someone who lives in Singapore but travels frequently by the US, I am not at all surprised by the assessment. So how much would it cost to fix all this? The ASCE estimates that at 2010 prices, it would need USD3.64 trillion (USD3.95 in today’s prices). Notice that this is just backbone infrastructure spending and ignores other forms of investment such as industrial capacity, housing and so on. Assuming that the infrastructure spend is spread till 2020, ASCE estimates a spending of USD 454bn per year in 2010 prices (USD494bn in today’s prices) and a funding gap of USD 201bn (i.e. USD219 in today’s prices).Counter Plan Answers (Infrastructure CP) - SpaceCounterplan Net Benefit AnswersCounterplan links to the Disadvantage: Republicans dislike infrastructure spending and use it to hold other issues hostageDaily Kos Editorial, May 15, 2015, Why do Republicans really oppose infrastructure spending?, Daily Kos Classics, Daily Kos, story/2015/5/15/1383149/-Why-do-Republicans-really-oppose-infrastructure-spendingSo, why are modern Republicans ideologically opposed to infrastructure spending today? For example: In 2012, House Republicans introduced a transportation bill (including cuts in Amtrak subsidies and increases in truck-weight limits) that Ray LaHood, secretary of transportation during Obama’s first term, called “the worst transportation bill I’ve ever seen during 35 years of public service.” LaHood himself had been a seven-term Republican congressman from Illinois before he agreed to serve in Obama’s cabinet. The most accepted (or easily reported) explanation?is that today's Republican party is dominated by Southern states, the center of heavy infrastructure (and costs) is located in the Northeast, and Republicans refuse to spend on states that don't vote Republican. ?There is truth to this explanation and, frankly, it is not properly reported as part of the wider partisan scandal that it is. ?For example, although federal disaster relief is uniformly passed in the wake of hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, etc., the Hurricane Sandy relief bill was passed only when (as one of a few instances)?the "Boehner Rule" was lifted to allow a bill to pass with largely Democratic votes.?Why? ?Because only 70 House Republicans could be found who were willing to vote for federal emergency hurricane relief if the affected area was the the East Coast. ?Nice. While as egregious as that geographic partisanship is, there are also at least four other fundamental reasons that explain the new Republican refusal to invest in infrastructure - all of which are largely undiscussed in general reporting. 1. ?Starve the Beast:?While Republicans continue to refuse to raise revenue necessary to fund infrastructure spending (traditional Starve the Beast), the latest application -Starve the Beast 2.0?- looks to hold hostage any and all necessary spending for cuts to other, unfavored, government spending. ?In that sense, you have to understand the crucial (even threatening) need for infrastructure spending as identical to the "debt ceiling." ?For Republicans, the hundreds of billions to trillions of unmet infrastructure spending represents a massive,?annual?golden opportunity to extort draconian cuts to social, regulatory, non-defense spending. ?That is why Republicans also reject deficit-financing for infrastructure spending (at historically low interest rates) or alternative proposals like a private-public infrastructure bank. ?The goal here is not to invest in the country, but to seize upon any vulnerability to "drown the government in a bathtub." This is plainly evident, btw. ?When President Obama proposed increased infrastructure spending in 2011?Republicans opposed it?with a plan that would have "paid for the spending with a $40 billion cut in unspent funding for other domestic programs . . . and would block recent clean air rules and make it harder for the administration to issue new rules." ?In 2014,?Eric Cantor explained that ?"Congress should not be adding new money,?but instead streamlining the process for getting current resources to state and local governments." ?In 2015, Republicans opposed Democrats' proposed additional infrastructure spending?by proposing instead?to create a "deficit neutral reserve fund," that didn't identify the amount of such fund, or how - or whether - it would be funded. Just yesterday I saw Paul Ryan flatly reject any increased spending for infrastructure, regardless of the fatal Amtrack icality Answers - Space(Counter interpretation) Space cooperation is science diplomacy – a subset of diplomacyRush Holt, June 29, 2015, Scientific Drivers for Diplomacy, Science & Diplomacy Magazine, Rush Holt is the chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (publisher of Science & Diplomacy) and executive publisher of the Science family of journals, perspective/2015/scientific-drivers-for-diplomacyThe early emphasis of science diplomacy as a concept, at least here in the United States, was on the role that science and international cooperation could play in support of diplomacy. Given the American tradition of diplomats being scientists and vice versa since its founding by Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, there has been science diplomacy throughout U.S. history. More recently, the Cold War provided examples to remind policy makers of the important contributions of scientists and scientific cooperation to U.S. foreign policy priorities. The scientific community supported détente with the Soviet Union through space cooperation (such as the Apollo-Soyuz handshake), kept the Cold War from turning into a hot one with nuclear disarmament agreements, and even helped end the Cold War by way of American and Soviet physicists (the role of Evgeny Velikhov and other physicists as Mikhail Gorbachev’s advisors is described in an article by U.S. physicist and arms-control expert Frank von Hippel in?Physics Today2).Standards:Fairness: There are plenty of arguments available to them which link to science diplomacy, specifically space cooperation. There’s no abuse here because plan does work with the PRC – if they can’t make it work that’s their fault not ours. Space cooperation is core to current and future US-China relations and they should be prepared to argue about it.Education: The framers intended for students to learn about US-China relations, space cooperation and competition is core to that goal. The main law regarding space cooperation is the Wolf Amendment. That means our case is the most educational plan on the topic. Learning about and advocating for or against specific policies is the point of policy debate and is the best training for becoming a lawyer, politician, or advocate. Effects topicality: Contextually, repeals like the plan are engagement and necessary to overall engagementBrian Weeden, September 2013, Technical Advisor, Secure World Foundation and Vice-Chair, Global Agenda Council on Space Security, World Economic Forum, “U.S.-China Cooperation in Space: Constraints, Possibilities, and Options,” ANTI-SATELLITE WEAPONS, DETERRENCE AND SINO-AMERICAN SPACE RELATIONS, Stimson Center, ed. M.Krepon & J.Thompson, , p. 114.The direction and mix of future US-China space competition and cooperation is far from settled. This essay outlines different types of bilateral space cooperation, if congressional restrictions against doing so were lifted, and if Washington and Beijing were willing to press forward with a space cooperation agenda. I discuss a bottom-up and a top-down approach for space cooperation. I advocate a comprehensive strategy for engagement in space with clearly defined goals and steps that mix in both bottom up and top-down approaches, rather than the pursuit of a single cooperative space activity.Also effects topicality is infinitely regressive. There is no briteline to what constitutes effectually topical plans. Do we need to specify exactly how we engage with china? What politicians sign the bill? What diplomat flies to China to announce it? There are hundreds of steps between changing the status quo and engaging China – we shouldn’t have to explain them all. Our plan is sufficiently topical to have a meaningful debate – don’t vote on effects topicality. Voters: Topicality is not a voting issue in this debate. We clearly increase the amount of fairness and education by engaging a specific, important law about the topic. We area also on face topical as we improve the relations between the US and China. Even if you don’t think that’s 100% true we’re still reasonably topical and this is a fair and educational debate – which means you should not vote here and should evaluate other positions. Capitalism Kritik Answers - SpaceLink AnswersLink Turn: Space colonization creates the opportunity for radically communist communities Jacob Haqq-Misra, Apr 8, 2014, The Transformative Value of Liberating Mars, New Space, Jacob Haqq-Misra holds a Ph.D. in meteorology and astrobiology from Penn State University, and he completed a postdoctoral fellowship with the Rock Ethics Institute. He has written dozens of scientific journal articles on topics that include planetary habitability, extraterrestrial life, and environmental ethics. He works as a research scientist with the Blue Marble Space Institute of Science and also serves as a contributing editor at EARTH magazine, can the settlement of Mars transform our preferences and allow us to solve our global problems? If Mars is approached as an extension of Earth civilization, to be divided by the nations and plundered by industry, then no such transformation will occur. I therefore suggest that the goal of colonization should be not to extend our present civilization into new terrain but instead to create an independently functioning human civilization on Mars. If we wish to solve the political and economic problems that still plague us, and if we wish to discover new options for our development, then Mars provides an opportunity to create a second experiment in civilization. My suggestion is to allow humans to permanently settle on Mars for the purpose of developing a self-sufficient Martian civilization. Although the Outer Space Treaty already prohibits any claims to national sovereignty, I suggest the following provisions also apply to the settlement of Mars: 1. Humans who leave Earth to permanently settle on Mars relinquish their planetary citizenship as Earthlings and claim a planetary citizenship as Martians. This includes giving up any national or local citizenships and affiliations. Humans living as Martians cannot represent the interests of any group on Earth and cannot acquire wealth on Earth. 2. Governments, corporations, and individuals of Earth cannot engage in commerce with Mars and cannot interfere with the political, cultural, economic, or social development of Martian civilization. 3. Scientific exploration may continue as long as it does not interfere with the development of civilization on Mars. Sharing of research and information between Mars and Earth is permitted only to pursue mutual scientific or educational goals. 4. The use of land on Mars will be determined exclusively by the citizens of Mars. No Earthlings may own or otherwise lay claim to land on Mars. 5. Any technology, resources, or other objects brought from Earth to Mars become permanent fixtures of the Martian civilization. Earthlings may not make any demands for resources on Mars. These provisions would make the settlement of Mars contrast starkly with historical patterns of colonization on Earth. By liberating Mars according to this set of provisions, the red planet becomes accessible to humanity for the development of a new civilization but barred from ever being controlled by existing groups on Earth. This independent parallel development of civilization on Mars will provide a test bed for new ideas that could lead to unforeseen epistemic transformations of our values and preferences8-10Link Turn: Technology is the solution to, not the cause of, our problems David Brin, Aug 15, 2013, Reasons for Optimism and Concern: Can Technology Save the World? David Brin, Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, David Brin, a scientist and best-selling author whose future-oriented novels include Earth, The Postman, and Hugo Award winners Startide Rising and The Uplift War, is a 2010 Fellow of the IEET. Brin is known as a leading commentator on modern technological, social, and political trends, index.php/IEET/more/brin20130815"The prophets of ecological modernism believe technology is the solution and not the problem. They say that harnessing innovation and entrepreneurship -- coupled with a strong overall goal of efficiency, sustainability and moving toward a smaller human footprint -- can save the planet and that if environmentalists won't buy into that, then their Arcadian sentiments are a problem, not a solution,"?writes Fred Pearce. ?This, by the way, is exactly the choice offered by my two "Gaian mother" types in my novel,?Earth?- one of them driven by nostalgia and primitivist mysticism and the other by a science-driven wish to save the world by a different route… by humanity growing up. Pearce continues,?"The modernists (e.g. Stewart Brand) wear their environmentalism with pride, but are pro-nuclear, pro-genetically modified crops, pro-megadams, pro-urbanisation and pro-geoengineering of the planet to stave off?climate change. They say they embrace these technologies not to conquer nature, like old-style 20th century modernists, but to give nature room. If we can do our business in a smaller part of the planet — through smarter, greener and more efficient technologies — then nature can have the rest." The article is thorough, thoughtful, and well worth your time. Another important piece?- by Amory Lovins - suggests that progress is possible.?His three major energy trends to watch?include?accelerating improvements in efficiency,?and in?renewables,? and in?distributed power.? The last of these three is of particular importance, if we want a robust civilization that can roll with many coming shocks. (So I tell folks in Washington, once a year, every year, for 25 years.) Excerpt from Armory Lovins:?"The business of installing solar modules is booming.?Germany took it to scale?-- 8 GW a year -- and installed more photovoltaics in a single month in 2011 and 2012 than the U.S. added all year. That volume also cut the German installed system cost to half our costs, even though we all buy the same equipment. If the U.S. did that too, it'd have really cheap solar power, because Germany gets about as much sun as Alaska and far less than the mainland U.S. But even so, U.S. solar prices are now low enough that photovoltaics on your roof, financed with no down payment, can beat your utility bill in over a dozen states. In fact, solar accounted for 49 percent of new electric capacity installed during the first quarter of 2013 and all new utility electricity generation capacity added to the U.S. grid during March, according to SEIA and FERC." All of these signs of tech-propelled improvement have been fought tooth and nail by the mad right… and quite often by a smaller, but genuinely unhelpful political cult, the mad-far-left.? Somehow, amid political lunacy, science has pushed ahead, spurred by both government and market forces along with simple common sense on the part of real people. In other words, humans and their civilization may save the world, almost despite ourselves. == And more cause for science optimism == Then there is…?N-Fix is a naturally occurring nitrogen fixing bacteria which takes up and uses nitrogen from the air. Applied to the cells of plants (intra-cellular) via the seed, it provides every cell in the plant with the ability to fix nitrogen. Plant seeds are coated with these bacteria in order to create a symbiotic, mutually beneficial relationship and naturally produce nitrogen. Wow, do you have any idea how much would be saved -- in energy, fossil fuel pollution and digging and waste -- if most of our crops could be self-fertilizing in nitrogen?? Now add efficient algae-culture and tasty vat-grown meat, please? ==Technological solutions == Sweden’s?waste management?and recycling programs are so good?only four percent of the nation’s waste ends up in landfills.??(In contrast, over half the waste generated by U.S. households ends up in landfills). Yet, Sweden?needs?trash to fuel the waste-to-energy factories that generate electricity for a quarter of a million homes and provide 20 % of the entire country’s heating. As a result, Sweden must now import trash from the landfills of other European countries -- and those countries are now paying Sweden to do so.?Alan Pierce writes, "You read that correctly, countries are paying to get rid of a source of fuel they themselves produced so that Sweden can continue to have the energy output they need.?You don’t have to be an economist to know that’s one highly enviable energy model." And an example of efficiency that is an inspiration for a more sustainable future. In parts of the developing world, anemia is a serious problem -- affecting 44% of Cambodians, and two-thirds of the children. Chris Charles, a Ph.D. student developed?an Iron Fish?(the Cambodian symbol of good luck), which can be added to cooking pots, to offer relief from anemia. Technology has made a difference to quality of life in the developing world: Examples include introduction of widespread?bicycles, inexpensive?off-grid lighting, low-cost?water purification systems,?wireless internet access,?solar ovens?for cooking,?refrigeration for vaccines,?community radio, and so on...but?access to reliable electricity?remains a major problem. Over at?, the question, Can Technology save the world, is under consideration, and?the responses are running 50-50. In?Abundance, The Future is Better Than You Think, X Prize Foundation CEO Peter Diamandis and journalist Steven Kotler, write,?"Humanity is now entering a period of radical transformation in which technology has the potential to significantly raise the basic standards of living for every man, women and child on the planet. Within a generation, we will be able to provide goods and services, once reserved for the wealthy few, to any and all who need them....Abundance for all is within our grasp."We can use the state against capitalismChristian Parenti, April 2014, “Climate Change: What Role for Reform?” MONTHLY REVIEW v. 65 n. 11, Christian Parenti is a Professor of Sustainable Development at the School for International Training, Graduate Institute , accessed 4-24-14.There was also a larger point to my essay that the MR editors did not address. By describing policies that the U.S. capitalist state could undertake right now to start euthanizing the fossil-fuel industry, I was also attempting to start a conversation about the state. Once upon a time the state was the heart of the socialist project. But neoliberalism’s anti-statist rhetoric has almost “disappeared” the state as an intellectual object—even on much of the left. The capitalist state is not just a tool of capital’s rule. It is also an arena of class struggle. As such it is an institution that can solidify and enforce popular political victories over capital. If the struggle for climate justice is to get anywhere it will have to think more deeply about the contradictions of the capitalist state, and how such contradictions can be exploited in the short term. On that point, I hope you would agree.Capitalism Kritik Answers - SpaceConsequentialist Impact Scenario AnswersTurn: Capitalism is self-correcting and sustainable – war and environmental destruction are not profitable and innovation solves their impacts Anatole Kaletsky, 2011, Capitalism 4.0: The Birth of a New Economy in the Aftermath of Crisis, p. 19-21, Anatole Kaletsky is editor-at-large of The Times of London, where he writes weekly columns on economics, politics, and international relations and on the governing board of the New York-based Institute for New Economic Theory (INET), a nonprofit created after the 2007-2009 crisis to promote and finance academic research in economicsDemocratic capitalism is a system built for survival. It has adapted successfully to shocks of every kind, to upheavals in technology and economics, to political revolutions and world wars. Capitalism has been able to do this because, unlike communism or socialism or feudalism, it has an inner dynamic akin to a living thing. It can adapt and refine itself in response to the changing environment. And it will evolve into a new species of the same capitalist genus if that is what it takes to survive. In the panic of 2008—09, many politicians, businesses, and pundits forgot about the astonishing adaptability of the capitalist system. Predictions of global collapse were based on static views of the world that extrapolated a few months of admittedly terrifying financial chaos into the indefinite future. The self-correcting mechanisms that market economies and democratic societies have evolved over several centuries were either forgotten or assumed defunct. The language of biology has been applied to politics and economics, but rarely to the way they interact. Democratic capitalism’s equivalent of the biological survival instinct is a built-in capacity for solving social problems and meeting material needs. This capacity stems from the principle of competition, which drives both democratic politics and capitalist markets. Because market forces generally reward the creation of wealth rather than its destruction, they direct the independent efforts and ambitions of millions of individuals toward satisfying material demands, even if these demands sometimes create unwelcome by-products. Because voters generally reward politicians for making their lives better and safer, rather than worse and more dangerous, democratic competition directs political institutions toward solving rather than aggravating society’s problems, even if these solutions sometimes create new problems of their own. Political competition is slower and less decisive than market competition, so its self-stabilizing qualities play out over decades or even generations, not months or years. But regardless of the difference in timescale, capitalism and democracy have one crucial feature in common: Both are mechanisms that encourage individuals to channel their creativity, efforts, and competitive spirit into finding solutions for material and social problems. And in the long run, these mechanisms work very well. If we consider democratic capitalism as a successful problem-solving machine, the implications of this view are very relevant to the 2007-09 economic crisis, but diametrically opposed to the conventional wisdom that prevailed in its aftermath. Governments all over the world were ridiculed for trying to resolve a crisis caused by too much borrowing by borrowing even more. Alan Greenspan was accused of trying to delay an inevitable "day of reckoning” by creating ever-bigger financial bubbles. Regulators were attacked for letting half-dead, “zombie” banks stagger on instead of putting them to death. But these charges missed the point of what the democratic capitalist system is designed to achieve. In a capitalist democracy whose raison d’etre is to devise new solutions to long-standing social and material demands, a problem postponed is effectively a problem solved. To be more exact, a problem whose solution can be deferred long enough is a problem that is likely to be solved in ways that are hardly imaginable today. Once the self-healing nature of the capitalist system is recognized, the charge of “passing on our problems to our grand-children”—whether made about budget deficits by conservatives or about global warming by liberals—becomes morally unconvincing. Our grand-children will almost certainly be much richer than we are and will have more powerful technologies at their disposal. It is far from obvious, therefore, why we should make economic sacrifices on their behalf. Sounder morality, as well as economics, than the Victorians ever imagined is in the wistful refrain of the proverbially optimistic Mr. Micawber: "Something will turn up." Framing turn: Consequentialism is bad – leads to horrendous decision makingDanny Scoccia, 2007, Moral theories: Utilitarianism, Kantianism, and Religious Ethics. Reading: pp. 6-17 & 20-26, Danny Scoccia is Professor Emeritus (Ph.D. University of California at San Diego) at New Mexico State University, Dr. Scoccia’s interests include ethical theory, philosophy of law and social and political philosophy, web.nmsu.edu/~dscoccia/321web/321ethicstheory.pdfThe other three views—Kantian ethics, natural rights theories, and “religious ethics”—all agree that there are many circumstances when maximizing utility would be wrong. Perhaps the strongest objection to Act Utilitarianism comes from the natural rights theory: Act Utilitarianism is false, because it tells us to violate people’s rights when that’s necessary to maximize utility. The example of Joseph illustrates it, but here’s another example. A surgeon has 1 healthy and 5 sick and dying patients. Each of the sick and dying patients needs a new organ— one a new kidney, another a new liver, the third a new heart, etc.—and would fully recover if he received it. It so happens that the 1 healthy patient would be a suitable organ donor for all of them. If the surgeon kills the 1 and redistributes his organs, he saves 5. If he does nothing, then 1 is alive and 5 are dead. On the assumption that all six are equally happy, loved by others, and productive of utility for others in society, then the way to maximize utility is to kill the 1. But if he won’t consent to being killed and having his organs transplanted (he doesn’t believe in utilitarianism), then killing him would violate his right to life. The objection is simply that it would be wrong to violate his right even if it’s the way to maximize utility.Capitalism Kritik Answers - SpaceDeontological Impact Scenario AnswersTurn: Capitalism is a prerequisite ethical system – it preserves freedom to act which is the core of the human condition Peter Saunders, 2007, Why Capitalism is Good for the Soul, Peter Saunders is a Fellow at the Center for Independent Studies, What Clive Hamilton airily dismisses as a ‘growth?fetish’ has?resulted in one hour of work today delivering twenty-five times more value?than it did in 1850.?This has freed huge chunks of our time for?leisure, art, sport, learning, and other ‘soul-enriching’ pursuits. Despite all the exaggerated talk of an ‘imbalance’ between work and family life, the average Australian today spends a much greater proportion of his or her lifetime free of work than they would had they belonged to any previous generation in history.??There is another sense, too, in which?capitalism has freed individuals so they can pursue worthwhile lives, and that lies in its record of undermining tyrannies and dictatorships. As examples like Pinochet’s Chile and Putin’s Russia vividly demonstrate, a free economy does not guarantee a democratic polity or a society governed by the rule of law. But as Milton Friedman once pointed out, these latter conditions are never found in the absence of a free economy.(12) Historically, it was capitalism that delivered humanity from the ‘soul-destroying’ weight of feudalism. Later, it freed millions from the dead hand of totalitarian socialism. While capitalism may not be a sufficient condition of human freedom, it is almost certainly a necessary one.??[continues]?Wherever populations have a chance to move, the flow is always towards capitalism, not away from it. The?authorities never had a problem keeping West Germans out of East Germany, South Koreans out of North Korea, or Taiwanese out of Communist China. The attraction of living in a capitalist society is not just that the economy works. It is also that?if your version of the good life leads you to turn your back on capitalism, you don’t have to pick up sticks and move away. If you don’t like capitalism, there is no need to bribe people-smugglers to get you out of the country.?You simply?buy a plot of land,?build your mud-brick?house, and drop out?(or, like Clive, you set up your own think tank and sell books urging others to drop out).Framing turn: Deontology is a failed moral system – ticking time bomb provesMark J. Buha, 2010, Rule Utilitarian and Deontologist Perspectives on Comparisons of Torture and Killing, Washington University Jurisprudence Review Volume 2, Issue 2, Mark Buha is an Associate at Maune Raichle Hartley French & Mudd law firm, Mark earned his Juris Doctor from Washington University in St. Louis in 2011. He served as a Senior Editor of the Jurisprudence Review,openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1014&context=law_jurisprudenceDeontologists, like rule utilitarians, devise rules that must be followed universally. Deontologists and rule utilitarians differ only in what criteria they use to formulate these rules. Rule utilitarians use only pleasure and pain. They hold that any act that maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain when applied universally is good. Deontologists evaluate actions under an entirely different rubric than rule utilitarians,72 often focusing on the mental state of the actor or whether the act violates another's rights.73 If it violates another's rights, it is strictly forbidden, regardless of the consequences. 74 Deontologists tend to treat each individual separately as an end in itself.75Applying this analysis, many deontologists forbid torture under all circumstances.? see torture as a particularly repugnant violation of individual rights. It requires specific intent, deprives the victim of dignity, and invades the victim's physical and psychological integrity. Provided grave enough consequences, this uncompromising position represents a fanaticism77and "moral fundamentalism"' that is difficult to defend. Hardly anyone finds it acceptable to rigidly adhere to an abstract moral principle—no matter how sound the principle appears in isolation—when doing so results in the death of hundreds or thousands of people.79 Deontologists allow catastrophe and mass death to occur to protect a single individual simply because torture violates his or her rights. The infamous "ticking time bomb" hypothetical illuminates these objections. In this scenario, a bomb is located in a crowded city. If detonated, it will destroy the entire city and millions will die. The bomb's location is unknown, and there is not enough time for a general search. Law enforcement apprehends one of the bomb's planters who knows the bomb's location and how to deactivate it. If the terrorist divulges the information, law enforcement has enough time to disable the bomb. Given these facts, few would adhere to principle; most would torture the individual in order to extract information that would save millions. This hypothetical presses deontology to its ideological limits. Once the prohibitionist admits he would allow torture in this situation, he concedes that his opposition to torture is not based on principle alone, but on something else.8° Deontologists respond with both logical and empirical objections to the ticking time bomb hypothetical's seductive simplicity. First, as Richard Matthews points out, the argument may be valid, but it is unsound, and therefore it cannot seriously undermine any position on torture.81The ticking bomb argument sets forth an "if-then" conditional: if these facts exist, then a reasonable person would torture.82If the antecedent holds, the consequence follows. But the hypothetical assumes the antecedent's truth without providing any proof. Valid but not sound, the hypothetical proves nothing. If we accepted mere validity, anything could be proven.83 Second, deontologists point out how unlikely it is that the antecedent facts would ever simultaneously exist in the real world. Although each premise has an empirical likelihood of being false, the hypothetical assumes that (1) an actual terrorist threat exists, (2) the threat is imminent, (3) the threat is sufficiently dangerous to justify torture, (4) the apprehended suspect possesses any information relevant to the threat, (5) only a single individual possesses all of the information necessary to extinguish the threat, (6) the individual participated in the attack or is a wrongdoer, (7) torture will be effective in forcing the subject to disclose information, (8) the information disclosed is truthful, and (9) the torturer can distinguish truthful and false information simply by observing the subject. The distinct unlikelihood that all nine elements will simultaneously exist in the real world renders the example almost irrelevant, useful only as a thought exercise.84 While these criticisms expose the assumptions in the ticking time bomb hypothetical, they ultimately avoid the issue. While it might be extremely unlikely that such factual circumstances will ever exist, it is not conceptually impossible. The fact remains that rigid deontology allows the bombs to go off in that scenario, however unlikely. Deontologists allow the world to explode to avoid violating the rights of a single individual.Capitalism Kritik Answers - SpaceDiscourse Impact AnswersTurn: Talking broadly about theories don’t help build education spaces, it creates withdrawal and pessimism – only learning about and working through actual systems and scenarios is educationally liberating Richard Rorty 1998, “ACHIEVING OUR COUNTRY: Leftist Thought in Twentieth-Century America”, 1998, Pg. 7-9, Richard Rorty is a professor emeritus of comparative literature and philosophy at Stanford University and a leading academic in the field of philosophySuch people find pride in American citizenship impossible, and vigorous participation in electoral politics pointless. They associate American patriotism with an endorsement of atrocities: the importation of African slaves, the slaughter of Native Americans, the rape of ancient forests, and the Vietnam War. Many of them think of national pride as appropriate only for chauvinists: for the sort of American who rejoices that America can still orchestrate something like the Gulf War, can still bring deadly force to bear whenever and wherever it chooses. When young intellectuals watch John Wayne war movies after reading Heidegger, Foucault, Stephenson, or Silko, they often become convinced that they live in a violent, inhuman, corrupt country. They begin to think of themselves as a saving remnant-as the happy few who have the insight to see through nationalist rhetoric to the ghastly reality of contemporary America. But this insight does not move them to formulate a legislative program, to join a political movement, or to share in a national hope. The contrast between national hope and national self-mockery and self-disgust becomes vivid when one compares novels like Snow Crash and Almanac of the Dead with socialist novels of the first half of the century-books like The Jungle, An American Tragedy, and The Grapes of Wrath. The latter were written in the belief that the tone of the Gettysburg Address was absolutely right, but that our country would have to transform itself in order to fulfill Lincoln's hopes. Transformation would be needed because the rise of industrial capitalism had made the individualist rhetoric of America's first century obsolete. The authors of these novels thought that this rhetoric should be replaced by one in which America is destined to become the first cooperative commonwealth, the first classless society. This America would be one in which income and wealth are equitably distributed, and in which the government ensures equality of opportunity as well as individual liberty. This new, quasi-communitarian rhetoric was at the heart of the Progressive Movement and the New Deal. It set the tone for the American Left during the first six decades of the twentieth century. Walt Whitman and John Dewey, as we shall see, did a great deal to shape this rhetoric. The difference between early twentieth-century leftist intellectuals and the majority of their contemporary counterparts is the difference between agents and spectators. In the early decades of this century, when an intellectual stepped back from his or her country's history and looked at it through skeptical eyes, the chances were that he or she was about to propose a new political initiative. Henry Adams was, of course, the great exception-the great abstainer from ·politics. But William James thought that Adams' diagnosis of the First Gilded Age as a symptom of irreversible moral and political decline was merely perverse. James's pragmatist theory of truth was in part a reaction against the sort of detached spectatorship which Adams affected. For James, disgust with American hypocrisy and self-deception was pointless unless accompanied by an effort to give America reason to be proud of itself in the future. The kind of proto- Heideggerian cultural pessimism which Adams cultivated seemed, to James, decadent and cowardly. "Democracy," James wrote, "is a kind of religion, and we are bound not to admit its failure. Faiths and utopias are the noblest exercise of human reason, and no one with a spark of reason in him will sit down fatalistically before the croaker's picture. "2 Framing turn: Focus on discourse trades off with actually implementing policy, risks cooption by special interests, and doesn’t solve as effectively – need to focus on real solutions not rhetoricRenee Irvin & John Stansbury, 2004, Citizen Participation in Decision-Making: Is it Worth the Effort?, Public Administration Review, Renee Irvin is Associate Professor in the Department of Planning, Public Policy and Management at the University of Oregon & John Stansbury is Associate Professor of Civil Engineering at the University of Nebraska, c.sites/resource/resmgr/imported/Journal_Issue1_Irving.pdfThis article, while describing the very important benefits of citizen participation, also provides a litmus test for agencies to consider when they allocate resources toward citizen participation processes. Do citizens care enough to participate actively in policy-making, or would resources devoted toward participatory processes be better directed toward implementation? Does local citizen participation imply more opportunity for economically motivated special interests to dominate the decision process? Criticism lobbed at participatory efforts in environmental management may soon be heard in other sectors, as decreasing government budgets require intense scrutiny of government performance outcomes. Delegating environmental decision-making authority to citizens is a policy strategy lauded for its holistic consideration of local economic interests, yet criticised by the environmental left for its potential to roll back decades of environmental regulatory success. Evidence for the effectiveness of community participation in environmental management is in short supply, due in part to the inherent problems in measuring the success of environmental policies that may take decades to positively affect the environment. Even more difficult, perhaps, is the prospect of measuring incremental changes in the well-being of the general public as they become more engaged in the policy process. Concern exists among environmentalists that locally-based citizen participation processes will lead to a relaxation of previously successful environmental regulation. Another concern, rarely voiced, is the potential wastefulness of the process if employed in a non-ideal community. Even if the citizen participation process does not lead to relaxed environmental regulation, it may entail a significant expenditure of resources that could be used elsewhere to achieve better on the-ground results. With widespread public benefit as the goal of any public policy process, it behooves the administrator to consider the advantages and disadvantages of the decision-making process when determining the most effective implementation strategy, bearing in mind that talk is not cheap – and may not even be effective.Capitalism Kritik Answers - SpaceAlternative AnswersNo solvency: The working class will not succeed in overthrowing the capitalist systemMike Cole 2009, “Critical Race Theory and Education A Marxist Response”, chapter 7, pg 121, Mike Cole is a Research Professor in Education and Equality, Head of Research and Director of the Centre for Education for Social Justice at Bishop Grosseteste University College Lincoln, UKThe Working Class Won’t Create the Revolution Because They Are Reactionary. It is a fundamental tenet of Marxism that the working class are the agents of social revolution, and that the working class, as noted above, needs to become a ‘class for itself’ in addition to being a ‘class in itself’ (Marx, 1847 [1995]). It is unfortunately the case that major parts of the world are a long way off such a scenario at the present conjuncture. It is also the case that successful interpellation and related false consciousness hampers the development of class consciousness and the move towards the overthrow of capitalism. Britain is one example where the Ruling Class has been particularly successful in interpellating the working class (see Cole, 2008g, 2008h for discussion). Elsewhere, however, there are examples of burgeoning class consciousness, witnessed for example by the growth of Left parties (see below) in Europe and by developments across South America, notably the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (see below) and in Bolivia. It is to be hoped that, as neoliberal global imperial capitalism continues to reveal and expose its essential ruthlessness and contempt for those who make its profits, class consciousness will increase and that the working class will one day be in a position to overthrow (world) capitalism and to replace it with (world) democratic socialism. Perhaps it should be pointed out here that Marxists do not idolize or deify the working class; it is rather that the structural location in capitalist societies of the working class, so that, once it has become 'a class in itself' makes it the agent for change. Moreover the very act of social revolution and the creation of socialism mean the end of the very existence of the working class as a social class. As Marx and Engels (1845) [1975] put it: When socialist writers ascribe this world-historic role to the proletariat, it is not at all ... because they regard the proletarians as gods. Rather the contrary ... [The proletariat] cannot emancipate itself without abolishing the conditions of its own life. It cannot abolish the conditions of its own life without abolishing all the inhuman conditions of society today which are summed up in its own situation.No Solvency: Alternatives to capitalism fail – lack of individual choice results in tyranny or failure Allan Meltzer March 12, 2009, “Why Capitalism?” 2008-2009 Bradley Lecture Series, Allan Meltzer is Professor of Political Economy at Carnegie Mellon University’s School of Business, Visiting Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, First Recipient of the AEI Irving Kristol Award, and Chairman of the International Financial Institution Advisory Commission, to Capitalism Critics of capitalism emphasize their dislike of greed and self-interest. They talk a great deal about social justice and fairness, but they do not propose an acceptable alternative to achieve their ends. The alternatives that have been tried are types of Socialism or Communism or other types of authoritarian rule. Anti-capitalist proposals suffer from two crippling drawbacks. First, they ignore the Kantian principle about human imperfection. Second, they ignore individual differences. In place of individual choice under capitalism, they substitute rigid direction done to achieve some proclaimed end such as equality, fairness, or justice. These ends are not precise and, most important, individuals differ about what is fair and just. In practice, the rulers' choices are enforced, often using fear, terror, prison, or other punishment. The history of the twentieth century illustrates how enforcement of promised ends became the justification for deplorable means. And the ends were not realized. Transferring resource allocation decisions to government bureaus does not eliminate crime, greed, self-dealing, conflict of interest, and corruption. Experience tells us these problems remain. The form may change, but as Kant recognized, the problems continue. Ludwig von Mises recognized in the 1920s that fixing prices and planning resource use omitted an essential part of the allocation problem. Capitalism allocates by letting relative prices adjust to equal the tradeoffs expressed by buyers' demands. Fixing prices eliminates the possibility of efficient allocation and replaces consumer choice with official decisions. Some gain, but others lose; the losers want to make choices other than those that are dictated to them. Not all Socialist societies have been brutal. In the nineteenth century, followers of Robert Owen, the Amana people, and many others chose a Socialist system. Israeli pioneers chose a collectivist system, the kibbutz. None of these arrangements produced sustainable growth. None survived. All faced the problem of imposing allocative decisions that satisfied the decision-making group, sometimes a majority, often not. Capitalism recognizes that where individual wants differ, the market responds to the mass; minorities are free to develop their favored outcome. Walk down the aisles of a modern supermarket. There are products that satisfy many different tastes or beliefs. Theodor Adorno was a leading critic of postwar capitalism as it developed in his native Germany, in Europe, and in the United States. He found the popular culture vulgar, and he distrusted the workers' choices. He wanted a Socialism that he hoped would uphold the values he shared with other intellectuals. Capitalism, he said, valued work too highly and true leisure too little. He disliked jazz, so he was not opposed to Hitler's ban in the 1930s. But Adorno offered no way of achieving the culture he desired other than to impose his tastes on others and ban all choices he disliked. This appealed to people who shared his view. Many preferred American pop culture whenever they had the right to choose. Capitalism permits choices and the freedom to make them. Some radio stations play jazz, some offer opera and symphonies, and many play pop music. Under capitalism, advertisers choose what they sponsor, and they sponsor programs that people choose to hear or watch. Under Socialism, the public watches and hears what someone chooses for them. The public had little choice. In Western Europe change did not come until boats outside territorial limits offered choice. The Templeton Foundation recently ran an advertisement reporting the answers several prominent intellectuals gave to the question: "Does the free market corrode moral character?" Several respondents recognized that free markets operate within a political system, a legal framework, and the rule of law. The slave trade and slavery became illegal in the nineteenth century. Before this a majority enslaved a minority. This is a major blot on the morality of democratic choice that public opinion and the law eventually removed. In the United States those who benefitted did not abandon slave owning until forced by a war. Most respondents to the Templeton question took a mixed stand. The philosopher John Gray recognized that greed and envy are driving forces under capitalism, but they often produce growth and raise living standards so that many benefit. But greed leads to outcomes like Enron and WorldCom that critics take as a characteristic of the system rather than as a characteristic of some individuals that remains under Socialism. Michael Walzer recognized that political activity also corrodes moral character, but he claimed it was regulated more effectively. One of the respondents discussed whether capitalism was more or less likely to foster or sustain moral abuses than other social arrangements. Bernard-Henri Levy maintained that alternatives to the market such as fascism and Communism were far worse. None of the respondents mentioned Kant's view that mankind includes a range of individuals who differ in their moral character. Institutional and social arrangements like democracy and capitalism influence the moral choices individuals make or reject. No democratic capitalist country produced any crimes comparable to the murders committed by Hitler's Germany, Mao's China, or Lenin and Stalin's Soviet Union. As Lord Acton warned, concentrated power corrupts officials. Some use concentrated power to impose their will. Some allow their comrades to act as tyrants. Others proclaim that ends such as equality justify force to control opposition. Communism proclaimed a vision of equality that it never approached. It was unattainable because individuals differ about what is good. And what is good to them and for them is not the same as what is socially desirable to critics of capitalism. Kant's principle warns that utopian visions are unattainable. Capitalism does not offer a vision of perfection and harmony. Democratic capitalism combines freedom, opportunity, growth, and progress with restrictions on less desirable behavior. It creates societies that treat men and women as they are, not as in some utopian vision. In The Open Society and Its Enemies, Karl Popper showed why utopian visions become totalitarian. All deviations from the utopian ideal must be prevented. The Enrons, WorldComs, and others of that kind show that dishonest individuals rise along with honest individuals. Those who use these examples to criticize capitalism do not use the same standard to criticize all governments as failed arrangements when a Watergate or bribery is uncovered. Nor do they criticize government when politicians promise but do not produce or achieve. We live after twenty-five to forty years of talk about energy, education, healthcare, and drugs. Governments promise and propose, but little if any progress is visible on these issues. No solvency: Capitalism is inevitable—reforms, not revolution, are the only option. John K Wilson, 2000, “How the Left can Win Arguments and Influence People” p. 15- 16, John K. Wilson is Editor and Publisher of Illinois Academe,Capitalism is far too ingrained in American life to eliminate. If you go into the most impoverished areas of America, you will find that the people who live there are not seeking government control over factories or even more social welfare programs; they're hoping, usually in vain, for a fair chance to share in the capitalist wealth. The poor do not pray for socialism-they strive to be a part of the capitalist system. They want jobs, they want to start businesses, and they want to make money and be successful. What's wrong with America is not capitalism as a system but capitalism as a religion. We worship the accumulation of wealth and treat the horrible inequality between rich and poor as if it were an act of God. Worst of all, we allow the government to exacerbate the financial divide by favoring the wealthy: go anywhere in America, and compare a rich suburb with a poor town-the city services, schools, parks, and practically everything else will be better financed in the place populated by rich people. The aim is not to overthrow capitalism but to overhaul it. Give it a social-justice tune-up, make it more efficient, get the economic engine to hit on all cylinders for everybody, and stop putting out so many environmentally hazardous substances. To some people, this goal means selling out leftist ideals for the sake of capitalism. But the right thrives on having an ineffective opposition. The Revolutionary Communist Party helps stabilize the "free market" capitalist system by making it seem as if the only alternative to free-market capitalism is a return to Stalinism. Prospective activists for change are instead channeled into pointless discussions about the revolutionary potential of the proletariat. Instead of working to persuade people to accept progressive ideas, the far left talks to itself (which may be a blessing, given the way it communicates) and tries to sell copies of the Socialist Worker to an uninterested public.Capitalism Kritik Answers - SpacePermutationPermutation: Do both - Reforms from with-in the system solve bestChris Dixon 2001, “Reflections on Privilege, Reformism, and Activism”, Activist and founding member of Direct Action Network Summer, bolster his critique of 'reformism,' for instance, he critically cites one of the examples in my essay: demanding authentic we need revolutionary strategy that links diverse, everyday struggles and demands to long-term radical objectives, without sacrificing either. Of course, this isn't to say that every so-called 'progressive' ballot initiative or organizing campaign is necessarily radical or strategic. Reforms are not all created equal. But some can fundamentally shake systems of power, leading to enlarged gains and greater space for further advances. Andre Gorz, in his seminal book Strategy for Labor, refers to these as "non-reformist" or "structural" reforms. He contends, "a struggle for non-reformist reforms--for anti-capitalist reforms--is one which does not base its validity and its right to exist on capitalist needs, criteria, and rationales. A non-reformist reform is determined not in terms of what can be, but what should be." Look to history for examples: the end of slavery, the eight-hour workday, desegregation. All were born from long, hard struggles, and none were endpoints. Yet they all struck at the foundations of power (in these cases, the state, white supremacy, and capitalism), and in the process, they created new prospects for revolutionary change. Now consider contemporary struggles: amnesty for undocumented immigrants, socialized health care, expansive environmental protections, indigenous sovereignty. These and many more are arguably non-reformist reforms as well. None will single-handedly dismantle capitalism or other systems of power, but each has the potential to escalate struggles and sharpen social contradictions. And we shouldn't misinterpret these efforts as simply meliorative incrementalism, making 'adjustments' to a fundamentally flawed system. Capitalism Kritik Answers - SpaceTransition Wars Disadvantage Capitalist elites will resist the alternative, causing global transition warsLee Harris, December 1, 2002, The Intellectual Origins of America-Bashing, Hoover Institution Policy Review December 2002 & 2003, Lee Harris is an American author and essayist who writes for Policy Review and Tech Central Station who lives in Stone Mountain, Georgia, research/intellectual-origins-america-bashingThis is the immiserization thesis of Marx. And it is central to revolutionary Marxism, since if capitalism produces no widespread misery, then it also produces no fatal internal contradiction: If everyone is getting better off through capitalism, who will dream of struggling to overthrow it? Only genuine misery on the part of the workers would be sufficient to overturn the whole apparatus of the capitalist state, simply because, as Marx insisted, the capitalist class could not be realistically expected to relinquish control of the state apparatus and, with it, the monopoly of force. In this, Marx was absolutely correct. No capitalist society has ever willingly liquidated itself, and it is utopian to think that any ever will. Therefore, in order to achieve the goal of socialism, nothing short of a complete revolution would do; and this means, in point of fact, a full-fledged civil war not just within one society, but across the globe.Revolution is necessarily violent – alternative would lead to levels of unprecedented violenceMichael Cummings & Eric Cummings, 2011 (On Violence, "Revolutions are Violent", Michael Cummings is veteran and a writer, who deployed to Afghanistan in 2008 with the 173rd Airborne Brigade as a platoon leader, and Iraq in 2010 with 5th Special Forces Group as an intelligence officer. Eric Cummings is a writer who lives in Los Angeles. Their outside writing has appeared in the?Washington Post, Stars and Stripes,?The New York Times’?“At War” blog,?Thomas Ricks’ “The Best Defense” blog and?Infantry?magazine, )Michael was arguing a point that we haven’t argued enough on this website: revolutions are violent. ? Which may seem obvious. Except that extremists from both sides of the political spectrum casually endorse revolutions, like my liberal activist friend endorsing a revolution--a revolution, it is safe to say, the vast majority of the population didn’t endorse--to solve the environmental crisis. Like Occupy Protesters who just love revolutions, idealized, romanticized and fantasized through Che Guevara T-shirts, Youtube videos of street protests, and Guy Fawkes masks. Like Tea partiers make a point of bringing guns to political rallies, in case they need to overthrow the government. Both sides casually endorse violence, from Tea Party candidates to Occupy speakers. ? (We should make it clear that by “revolutions”, we mean revolutions that overthrow the existing power structure, not social or technological revolutions like the industrial revolution, the digital boom or the green revolution.)? The Arab Spring, as our most thought provoking event of 2011, should remind would-be-American-revolutionaries what a revolution really is: the break down of society and order, a revolution in power, which (mostly) results in violence. In this pan-Arab/north African revolution we have seen a few civil wars (Yemen, Syria and Libya), a military invasion (Saudi Arabia into Qatar), authoritarian crackdowns with unlawful arrests (Qatar, Eqypt, Syria and Yemen) and protesters generally arrested or attacked throughout. It is safe to say, to those who advocated revolution, violence followed.? This completely fits into the larger narratives of the history of revolutions. The American Revolution (Historians debate over whether this qualifies, I believe it does; it threw out the entire power structure.) cost one in every hundred males his life. The American Revolution is the second deadliest conflict in American history, percentage wise, with only the Civil War beating it, itself its own kind of revolution. ? Meanwhile, France’s revolution is symbolized by the guillotine, an industrial means of execution. The Russian Revolution lead to the deaths of literally millions of people. The revolutions that wracked Europe throughout the nineteenth century always included violence and death. When I studied Latin America history in high school, my notes read, “Colonialism. Revolution. Dictator. Revolution.” It applied to every country.? Violence always coincides with the outbreak of revolutions, for a few reasons:? First, instability. Inherently, revolutions are unstable, by definition an overthrow of the existing power structures. When this happens, chaos ensues. Food shortages, lack of security, a breakdown of the social order. The best explanation for this is our blog’s namesake, On Violence, by Hannah Arendt, that argued that violence and power are opposites. Thus, when the power structure disappears--as in France or Russia or Libya--violence fills the gaps.? Second, vengeance. Most revolutions have a very legitimate basis: people feel discriminated against, or suffer from severe economic inequality, or chafe under colonial rule. When the masses revolt, they take their vengeance against their previous oppressors. Look at what happened in the French revolution. Or what happened to Moammar Ghaddafi. Or Saddam Hussein.? Third, civil wars. They happen when revolutionaries disagree, or the over-thrown don’t want to leave so easily. Take the above groups advocating revolution, the Occupiers and the Tea Partiers. They don’t agree on anything. So if one side starts a revolution, they’ll basically have to go to war with the other side. Boom, you’ve got a civil war. This is what is happening in Syria.Cyber Engagement AffirmativePlan Text - CyberThe United States Congress should implement the medium-term recommendations of the 2013 Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property against the People’s Republic of China[Don’t read in a debate] These are the recommendations of the US International Trade Commission The Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property, 2013, The IP Commission Report, Dennis C Blair (former Director of National Intelligence and Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Command) and Jon Huntsman Jr (former Ambassador to China, Governor of the state of Utah, and Deputy U.S. Trade Representative) co-chair the Commission, report/IP_Commission_Report_052213.pdfRecommendation: Amend the Economic Espionage Act to provide a private right of action for those who hold trade secrets and further to make the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) the appellate court for all actions under this statute. The EEA was passed in 1996 to criminalize trade-secret theft at the federal level in order to provide a mechanism to stem losses to U.S. entities as a result of such theft. Two amendments recently signed into law by President Obama serve to broaden the scope of protection (Theft of Trade Secrets Clarification Act of 2012) and to increase monetary penalties for criminal activities under the EEA (Foreign Economic Espionage Penalty Enhancement Act of 2012). As discussed in depth in chapter 5, while the EEA has been somewhat helpful in protecting IP internationally, there are still some deficiencies that need to be addressed. Missing from the EEA is a private civil cause of action that would enable companies to individually pursue the perpetrators of economic espionage in federal court, though the statute does create a limited civil cause of action allowing the U.S. attorney general to seek injunctive relief against offenders. Under current law, companies and individuals are left to pursue their cases for trade-secret misappropriation in state courts, which gives rise to many of its own complications, including limited access to evidence and difficulty in enforcing judgments.1 An amendment allowing a private civil cause of action under the EEA would allow the rights holders themselves, rather than just government prosecutors, to file lawsuits in order to protect their proprietary methods and information. This could also help alleviate the burden on federal prosecutors, who are already suffering from severe resource constraints when it comes to pursuing EEA actions. The second proposed change to the Economic Espionage Act mandates that the appellate court for all actions under the EEA would be the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The CAFC serves as the appellate court for nearly all IP-related cases, and thus has a high degree of competency on IP issues. Making the CAFC the appellate court for all EEA issues ensures a degree of continuity in judicial opinion. Moreover, it helps support the federal circuit in expanding extraterritorial enforcement. Recommendation: The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) should investigate instances of foreign companies stealing IP and use its broad enforcement powers under Section 5 of the FTC Act to obtain meaningful sanctions against any foreign companies that use stolen IP. The Commission also recommends that attorneys general of other states follow the example of the recent aggressive enforcement actions against IP theft taken by the California and Massachusetts attorneys general. Most businesses today rely on software and other information technologies to improve their efficiency and productivity. In a 2008 study, the U.S. Department of Commerce found a significant correlation between IT investment and productivity growth.2 In 2010, U.S. manufacturers spent nearly $30 billion on software in order to run their businesses more efficiently and to gain a competitive edge.3 Many of these companies operate on tight margins where small differences in costs can significantly affect their profits and market success. When a foreign company uses stolen software to run its business and then competes in a U.S. market against companies that use legal software, this distorts competition in the United States by providing the foreign company with an unfair and artificial cost advantage. If left unaddressed, this creates perverse incentives by providing a competitive advantage to companies that engage in illegal conduct and placing at a competitive disadvantage those law-abiding companies that may be more innovative or efficient but that pay for their software. These market distortions may reduce lawful competition and lead to suboptimal investments in innovation, since enterprises that pay for their software and lose sales to firms that engage in software theft will have fewer resources to invest in R&D. Over time, software theft by foreign companies whose products or services are offered in U.S. markets will distort competition in these markets and will leave U.S. consumers worse off. Reiterating the earlier notions of chapter 1, these losses are becoming more and more potent due to shorter product life cycles. In industries that gain the vast majority of their revenues during the first few months of a product release, the enforcement mechanisms need to be equally responsive. Legislatures in Washington State and Louisiana have passed laws specifically targeting this form of unfair competition,4 while state attorneys general in California and Massachusetts recently announced actions against foreign manufacturers’ use of stolen software under these states’ respective existing unfair-competition laws.5 Also, 39 state and territorial attorneys general recently sent a letter to the FTC highlighting the problem, pledging to seek ways to use the powers of their respective offices to address the issue, and urging the FTC to consider how Section 5 of the FTC Act could be brought to bear on the problem at the federal level.6 This recommendation is a complement to enacting a federal private right of action under a revised EEA. At the state level, the accumulation of case law will serve as a longer-term deterrent to illegal gain as a result of the misappropriation of intellectual property. State case law also extends to the unlawful use of pirated software in the production of a good. The Massachusetts attorney general recently brought a successful case against a Thai company, which settled out of court after paying a fine.7 Recommendation: Expand and strengthen diplomatic priorities in the protection of American intellectual property by increasing the diplomatic rank of IP attachés assigned to priority embassies and by making the protection of intellectual property one of the criteria on which ambassadors are graded. In countries with which the United States has a particularly challenging relationship in the field of IP protection, one way the United States can demonstrate the priority with which it holds the protection of intellectual property is by giving appropriately senior rank to its IP attaché. By doing so, the United States also facilitates more effective interactions with host countries and will contribute to more mature rule of law perspectives in many developing nations, as discussed in chapter 1. Similarly, if the criteria on which U.S. ambassadors are evaluated on an annual basis include their efforts to protect American intellectual property, as they now include efforts to promote American exports, they would likely find new and innovative ways to protect IP. Moreover, adopting this recommendation will send a strong message to the host country.Inherency - CyberNone of the recommendations have been doneMichele Nash-Hoff, Feb 9, 2016, What Could be Done about China's Theft of Intellectual Property?, IndustryWeek Magazine, Michele Nash-Hoff has been president of the San Diego Electronics Network, the San Diego Chapter of the Electronics Representatives Association, and The High Technology Foundation, as well as several professional and non-profit organizations. She is an active member of the Soroptimist International of San Diego club. Michele is currently a director on the national board of the American Jobs Alliance and Chair of the California chapter of the Coalition for a Prosperous America, intellectual-property/what-could-be-done-about-chinas-theft-intellectual-propertyWhat is outrageous to me is that it is obvious that none of the short-term, medium-term or long-term recommendations have been implemented or we would not still have the serious problem of cyber espionage and intellectual property theft three years later.? Supporters of developments in China "essentially argue that when China begins producing its own intellectual property in significant quantities, the country’s own entrepreneurs and inventors will put pressure on political and Communist Party leaders to change the laws and improve IP protections." Since China has the stated goal of becoming the superpower of the 21st?Century and intellectual property theft is one of their tools to achieve this goal, I do not feel that this will ever happen. To me, the most important conclusion of the report is: "If the United States continues on its current path, with the incentives eroding, innovation will decline and our economy will stagnate. In this fundamental sense, IP theft is now a national security issue." It will be interesting to see if the next president and the next Congress we elect will have the courage to play hardball with China by implementing some of the recommendations of the commission.Current agreements between the US and China won’t stop hacksDarren Pauli, October 14, 2015, US-China cyber espionage treaty 'will do nothing': FireEye boss, The Register, Darren Pauli is journalist at The Register focusing on security, theregister.co.uk/2015/10/14/uschina_treaty_will_do_nothing_fireeye_boss/The China-US treaty will do next to nothing to slow or stymie espionage attacks, says FireEye boss Kevin Mandia. Presidents Obama and Xi Jinping recently pledged to stop economic espionage efforts, in a bid to repair the bilateral relationship between the countries. The agreement, positioned as a means to curb wholesale pillaging of US corporate assets and the activities of the NSA, has attracted wide criticism from the information security community since so much network-centric espionage is confirmed to originate from China. Beijing's backing of well-resourced Chinese hacking groups has not been confirmed but is the subject of much speculation. Some groups employ dozens of hackers working regular nine to five shifts and are using expensive zero day exploits to compromise high-value corporate and defence targets. Mandia, a former Pentagon man and founder of forensics giant Mandiant, says the treaty will do little to curb the hacking. "This agreement with China … healthcare is fair game, universities are fair game, and you keep going down the list, and bottom line is it doesn't end," Mandia told the Cyber Defence Summit (formerly Mircon) in Washington DC today. "Nothing really changes. The intrusions will still stay the same.Economy/Intellectual Property Advantage - CyberUniquenessHacks increasing and caused by ChinaChet Nagle, September 24, 2015, China Is Stealing American Property, The Daily Caller, Chet Nagel is a Former CIA Agent Chet Nagle successfully competed for one of fifty Presidential appointments to the U.S. Naval Academy. He also graduated from the Georgetown University Law Center with the degree of Juris Doctor, 2015/09/24/china-is-stealing-american-property/The 2013?report?of the prestigious bipartisan Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property certainly indicates that Chinese cyber-theft should top the list. It states, “The scale of international theft of American intellectual property (IP) is unprecedented — hundreds of billions of dollars per year, on the order of the size of U.S. exports to Asia,” and concludes, “China is the world’s largest source of IP theft.” The FBI agrees. At FBI headquarters in July, the head of FBI counterintelligence, Randall Coleman, said there has been a 53 percent increase in the theft of American trade secrets, thefts that have cost hundreds of billions of dollars in the past year. In an FBI?survey?of 165 private companies, half of them said they were victims of economic espionage or theft of trade secrets — 95 percent of those cases involved individuals associated with the Chinese government. Current IP protection methods failingChristian Science Monitor, SEPTEMBER 16, 2015, Influencers: US should sanction China for economic espionage, Christian Science Monitor, Passcode Influencers are more than 140 experts from across government, the private sector, research, and the privacy advocacy community who are interviewed by the Christian Science Monitor, World/Passcode/Passcode-Influencers/2015/0916/Influencers-US-should-sanction-China-for-economic-espionage“Thus far, our diplomatic and other efforts have not made a dent in stemming the flow of intellectual property from US businesses,” said Dmitri Alperovitch, cofounder and chief technology officer of security company CrowdStrike. “We need to start considering new approaches to put pressure on Chinese companies to stop stealing and begin competing fairly in the global marketplace.” Passcode’s Influencers Poll?is a regular survey of more than 120 experts?in digital security and privacy. They have the option to comment on the record or anonymously to preserve the candor of their responses. The US?says it does not participate?of corporate espionage — using its intelligence and national security apparatus to spy for the benefit of American businesses — for moral reasons. And yet, Representative Jim Langevin (D) of Rhode Island said the costs of corporate espionage to the US is “real and massive, and present a serious threat to our long-term economic and national security.” There has been “no sign the hacks targeting the American economy are abating,” Rep. Langevin continued, despite the Obama administration’s diplomatic outreach and?a federal indictment last year?of Chinese military hackers targeting US companies in the nuclear power, metals, and solar products industries.Economy/Intellectual Property Advantage - CyberInternal LinkChinese hacks gut our economyMichele Nash-Hoff, Feb 9, 2016, What Could be Done about China's Theft of Intellectual Property?, IndustryWeek Magazine, Michele Nash-Hoff has been president of the San Diego Electronics Network, the San Diego Chapter of the Electronics Representatives Association, and The High Technology Foundation, as well as several professional and non-profit organizations. She is an active member of the Soroptimist International of San Diego club. Michele is currently a director on the national board of the American Jobs Alliance and Chair of the California chapter of the Coalition for a Prosperous America, intellectual-property/what-could-be-done-about-chinas-theft-intellectual-propertyThe article did provide the link to the 100-page report, which I have since read. In view of the continuing problem, it is time to reconsider the key findings of the report, titled, "The Impact of International IP Theft on the American Economy": ”Hundreds of billions of dollars per year.?The annual losses are likely to be comparable to the current annual level of U.S. exports to Asia—over $300 billion...” Millions of jobs.?If IP were to receive the same protection overseas that it does here, the American economy would add millions of jobs. A drag on U.S. GDP growth.?Better protection of IP would encourage significantly more R&D investment and economic growth. Innovation.?The incentive to innovate drives productivity growth and the advancements that improve the quality of life. The threat of IP theft diminishes that incentive.Hacking kills the US economy and it is China’s faultThe Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property, 2013, The IP Commission Report, Dennis C Blair (former Director of National Intelligence and Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Command) and Jon Huntsman Jr (former Ambassador to China, Governor of the state of Utah, and Deputy U.S. Trade Representative) co-chair the Commission, report/IP_Commission_Report_052213.pdfThe scale of international theft of American intellectual property (IP) is unprecedented—hundreds of billions of dollars per year, on the order of the size of U.S. exports to Asia. The effects of this theft are twofold. The first is the tremendous loss of revenue and reward for those who made the inventions or who have purchased licenses to provide goods and services based on them, as well as of the jobs associated with those losses. American companies of all sizes are victimized. The second and even more pernicious effect is that illegal theft of intellectual property is undermining both the means and the incentive for entrepreneurs to innovate, which will slow the development of new inventions and industries that can further expand the world economy and continue to raise the prosperity and quality of life for everyone. Unless current trends are reversed, there is a risk of stifling innovation, with adverse consequences for both developed and still developing countries. The American response to date of hectoring governments and prosecuting individuals has been utterly inadequate to deal with the problem. China has been the principal focus of U.S. intellectual property rights (IPR) policy for many years. As its economy developed, China built a sophisticated body of law that includes IPR protection. It has a vibrant, although flawed, patent system. For a variety of historical reasons, however, as well as because of economic and commercial practices and official policies aimed to favor Chinese and spur economic growth and technological advancement, China is the world’s largest source of IP theft. The evidence presented here is a compilation of the best governmental and private studies undertaken to date, interviews, individual cases, assessments of the impact of IP theft on the American economy, and examinations of PRC policies. There is now enough information, in our view, to warrant urgent consideration of the findings and recommendations that follow.Economy/Intellectual Property Advantage - CyberImpactGrowth is great & compounds over time - solves all major problemsPeter Ferrara, JAN 14, 2014, Why Economic Growth Is Exponentially More Important Than Income Inequality, Forbes, Peter Ferrara covers public policy, particularly concerning economics & is Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy for the Heartland Institute, Senior Advisor for Entitlement Reform and Budget Policy at the National Tax Limitation Foundation, General Counsel for the American Civil Rights Union, and Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis. He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under President George H.W. Bush. He am a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, sites/peterferrara/2014/01/14/why-economic-growth-is-exponentially-more-important-than-income-inequality/#227bb2b94f1bNot any of these truly dramatic advances for the poor, working people and the middle class could have been achieved by redistribution from “the rich.” Only economic growth could achieve these results. Nor would it have been worth sacrificing any of these world shattering gains for greater economic “equality.” And Barack Obama’s leftist protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, economists have long recognized the conflict between economic equality and maximizing economic growth. Put most simply, penalizing investors, successful entrepreneurs, and job creators with higher taxes, to reward the less productive with government handouts, to make everyone more equal, is a sure fire way to get less productivity, fewer jobs, lower wages, and reduced economic growth. The above history, and the future prospects below, are why to most benefit the poor, working people, and the middle class, our nation’s overriding goal must be to maximize economic growth. Consider, if total real compensation, wages and benefits, grow at just 1% a year, after 20 years the real incomes of working people would be only 22% greater. After 40 years, a generation, real incomes would be 50% more. But with sustained real compensation growth of 2%, after just 20 years the real incomes and living standards of working people would be nearly 50% greater, and after 40 years they would be 120% greater, more than doubled. At sustained 3% growth in wages and benefits, after 20 years the living standards of working people will have almost doubled, and after 40 years they will have more than tripled. The U.S. economy sustained a real rate of economic growth of 3.3% from 1945 to 1973, and achieved the same 3.3% sustained real growth from 1982 to 2007. (Note that this 3.3% growth rate for the entire economy includes population growth. Real wages and benefits discussed above is a per worker concept). It was only during the stagflation decade of 1973 to 1982, reflecting the same Keynesian economics that President Obama is pursuing today, that real growth fell to only half long term trends. If we could revive and sustain that same 3.3% real growth for 20 years, our total economic production (GDP) would double in that time. After 30 years, our economic output would grow by 2 and two-thirds. After 40 years, our prosperity bounty would grow by 3 and two-thirds. If we are truly following growth maximizing policies, we could conceivably do even better than we have in the past. At sustained real growth of 4% per year, our economic production would more than double after 20 years. After 30 years, GDP would more than triple. After 40 years, a generation, total U.S. economic output would nearly quadruple. America would by then have leapfrogged another generation ahead of the rest of the world. Achieving and sustaining such economic growth should be the central focus of national economic policy, for it would solve every problem that plagues and threatens us today. Such booming economic growth would produce surging revenues that would make balancing the budget so much more feasible. Surging GDP would reduce the national debt as a percent of GDP relatively quickly, particularly with balanced budgets not adding any further to the debt. Sustained, rapid economic growth is also the ultimate solution to poverty, as after a couple of decades or so of such growth, the poor would climb to the same living standards as the middle class of today. With sustained, robust, economic growth, maintaining the most powerful military in the world, and thereby ensuring our nation’s security and national defense, will require a smaller and smaller percentage of GDP over time. That security itself will promote capital investment and economic growth in America. The booming economy will produce new technological marvels that will make our defenses all the more advanced. With the economy rapidly advancing, there will be more than enough funds for education. There will also be more than enough to clean up and maintain a healthy environment.Growth is good – 6 reasonsTejvan Pettinger, 2016, Benefits of economic growth, Economics Help, Tejvan Pettinger is an Economics teacher (A Level students) at Greenes College and formerly with Cherwell College, Oxford. He studied PPE at Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford University, gaining a 2:1. He contributes articles to the Economic Review and writes regularly on economics. Between 2001 and 2006 he worked as examiner and Team Leader for Edexcel examinations, macroeconomics/economic-growth/benefits-growth/Economic growth means an increase in real GDP. This increase in real GDP means there is an increase in the value of national output / national expenditure. The benefits of economic growth include: 1. Higher average incomes. This enables consumers to enjoy more goods and services and enjoy better standards of living. 2. Lower unemployment?With higher output and positive economic growth firms tend to employ more workers creating more employment. 3. Lower government borrowing.?Economic growth creates higher tax revenues and there is less need to spend money on benefits such as unemployment benefit. Therefore economic growth helps to reduce government borrowing. Economic growth also plays a role in reducing debt to GDP ratios. 4. Improved public services. With increased tax revenues the government can spend more on public services, such as the NHS and education e.t.c. 5. Money can be spent on protecting the environment.?With higher real GDP a society can devote more resources to promoting recycling and the use of renewable resources 6. Investment.?Economic growth encourages investment and therefore encourages a virtuous cycle of economic growth. (Impact Framing) Economic growth creates a virtuous cycle between morality and wellbeingBenjamin M. Friedman, January/February 2006, THE MORAL CONSEQUENCES OF ECONOMIC GROWTH, Society, 43 JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2006, Benjamin M. Friedman is the William Joseph Maier Professor of Political Economy, and formerly Chairman of the Department of Economics, at Harvard University. He has written extensively on economic policy, and in particular on the role of the financial markets in shaping how monetary and fiscal policies affect overall economic activity, scholar.harvard.edu/files/bfriedman/files/the_moral_consequences_of_economic_growth_0.pdfIt would be a mistake, however, to believe that only market incentives and government economic policies are important for achieving economic growth and with it the positive influence on social and political development that follows from rising living standards. While economic growth makes a society more open, tolerant, and democratic, such societies are, in turn, better able to encourage enterprise and creativity and hence to achieve ever greater economic prosperity. Alexis de Tocqueville, visiting the United States in the 1830s, remarked at length on how the openness of this new democratic society seemed to spur effort: economic advance was open to all (he was thinking only of white males), and in a classless society rising economically meant rising socially. The resulting opportunity to achieve and advance, Tocqueville observed, created, in turn, a sense of obligation to strive toward that end. As we look back nearly two centuries later, it is also self-evident that removing forms of discrimination that once blocked significant segments of the population from contributing their efforts has further enabled the American economy to harness its labor resources and its brain power. On both counts, the openness of our society has helped foster our economic advance. The United States is perhaps the preeminent historical example of such reciprocity between social and political openness and economic growth. Taken as a whole, our nation’s history has predominantly been a mutually reinforcing process of economic advance and expanding freedom. The less fortunate experience of some other countries, most notably those in Sub-Saharan Africa since the end of the colonial period, suggests the same reciprocity at work but in the opposite direction. Many governments of Sub-Saharan Africa were at least formally democracies when the colonial powers departed, but in time they became corrupt and oppressive dictatorships. In parallel, what had been reasonably functioning economies stagnated and then declined.Economy/Intellectual Property Advantage - CyberSolvencyReport recommendations would solve really wellThe Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property, 2013, The IP Commission Report, Dennis C Blair (former Director of National Intelligence and Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Command) and Jon Huntsman Jr (former Ambassador to China, Governor of the state of Utah, and Deputy U.S. Trade Representative) co-chair the Commission, report/IP_Commission_Report_052213.pdfRecommendation: Amend the Economic Espionage Act to provide a private right of action for those who hold trade secrets and further to make the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) the appellate court for all actions under this statute. The EEA was passed in 1996 to criminalize trade-secret theft at the federal level in order to provide a mechanism to stem losses to U.S. entities as a result of such theft. Two amendments recently signed into law by President Obama serve to broaden the scope of protection (Theft of Trade Secrets Clarification Act of 2012) and to increase monetary penalties for criminal activities under the EEA (Foreign Economic Espionage Penalty Enhancement Act of 2012). As discussed in depth in chapter 5, while the EEA has been somewhat helpful in protecting IP internationally, there are still some deficiencies that need to be addressed. Missing from the EEA is a private civil cause of action that would enable companies to individually pursue the perpetrators of economic espionage in federal court, though the statute does create a limited civil cause of action allowing the U.S. attorney general to seek injunctive relief against offenders. Under current law, companies and individuals are left to pursue their cases for trade-secret misappropriation in state courts, which gives rise to many of its own complications, including limited access to evidence and difficulty in enforcing judgments.1 An amendment allowing a private civil cause of action under the EEA would allow the rights holders themselves, rather than just government prosecutors, to file lawsuits in order to protect their proprietary methods and information. This could also help alleviate the burden on federal prosecutors, who are already suffering from severe resource constraints when it comes to pursuing EEA actions. The second proposed change to the Economic Espionage Act mandates that the appellate court for all actions under the EEA would be the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The CAFC serves as the appellate court for nearly all IP-related cases, and thus has a high degree of competency on IP issues. Making the CAFC the appellate court for all EEA issues ensures a degree of continuity in judicial opinion. Moreover, it helps support the federal circuit in expanding extraterritorial enforcement. Recommendation: The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) should investigate instances of foreign companies stealing IP and use its broad enforcement powers under Section 5 of the FTC Act to obtain meaningful sanctions against any foreign companies that use stolen IP. The Commission also recommends that attorneys general of other states follow the example of the recent aggressive enforcement actions against IP theft taken by the California and Massachusetts attorneys general. Most businesses today rely on software and other information technologies to improve their efficiency and productivity. In a 2008 study, the U.S. Department of Commerce found a significant correlation between IT investment and productivity growth.2 In 2010, U.S. manufacturers spent nearly $30 billion on software in order to run their businesses more efficiently and to gain a competitive edge.3 Many of these companies operate on tight margins where small differences in costs can significantly affect their profits and market success. When a foreign company uses stolen software to run its business and then competes in a U.S. market against companies that use legal software, this distorts competition in the United States by providing the foreign company with an unfair and artificial cost advantage. If left unaddressed, this creates perverse incentives by providing a competitive advantage to companies that engage in illegal conduct and placing at a competitive disadvantage those law-abiding companies that may be more innovative or efficient but that pay for their software. These market distortions may reduce lawful competition and lead to suboptimal investments in innovation, since enterprises that pay for their software and lose sales to firms that engage in software theft will have fewer resources to invest in R&D. Over time, software theft by foreign companies whose products or services are offered in U.S. markets will distort competition in these markets and will leave U.S. consumers worse off. Reiterating the earlier notions of chapter 1, these losses are becoming more and more potent due to shorter product life cycles. In industries that gain the vast majority of their revenues during the first few months of a product release, the enforcement mechanisms need to be equally responsive. Legislatures in Washington State and Louisiana have passed laws specifically targeting this form of unfair competition,4 while state attorneys general in California and Massachusetts recently announced actions against foreign manufacturers’ use of stolen software under these states’ respective existing unfair-competition laws.5 Also, 39 state and territorial attorneys general recently sent a letter to the FTC highlighting the problem, pledging to seek ways to use the powers of their respective offices to address the issue, and urging the FTC to consider how Section 5 of the FTC Act could be brought to bear on the problem at the federal level.6 This recommendation is a complement to enacting a federal private right of action under a revised EEA. At the state level, the accumulation of case law will serve as a longer-term deterrent to illegal gain as a result of the misappropriation of intellectual property. State case law also extends to the unlawful use of pirated software in the production of a good. The Massachusetts attorney general recently brought a successful case against a Thai company, which settled out of court after paying a fine.7 Recommendation: Expand and strengthen diplomatic priorities in the protection of American intellectual property by increasing the diplomatic rank of IP attachés assigned to priority embassies and by making the protection of intellectual property one of the criteria on which ambassadors are graded. In countries with which the United States has a particularly challenging relationship in the field of IP protection, one way the United States can demonstrate the priority with which it holds the protection of intellectual property is by giving appropriately senior rank to its IP attaché. By doing so, the United States also facilitates more effective interactions with host countries and will contribute to more mature rule of law perspectives in many developing nations, as discussed in chapter 1. Similarly, if the criteria on which U.S. ambassadors are evaluated on an annual basis include their efforts to protect American intellectual property, as they now include efforts to promote American exports, they would likely find new and innovative ways to protect IP. Moreover, adopting this recommendation will send a strong message to the host country.Plan’s sanctions have international impactKendall Burman, SEPTEMBER 10, 2015, WHY IT COULD BE CHALLENGING TO SANCTION CHINESE COMPANIES FOR CYBERCRIMES, Kendall Burman is a New America Cybersecurity Fellow who previously served as the Deputy General Counsel for Strategic Initiatives in the Department of Commerce. Before that she was a Senior National Security Fellow at the Center for Democracy and Technology where she examined issues at the intersection of civil liberties, national security, and technology, are significant questions around this first set of cyber sanctions designations, including how broadly the U.S. government will go in designating entities under the Executive Order. The Executive Order not only freezes the U.S. assets of the designated entity, but also effectively prevents U.S. companies from engaging in any business relationship or transaction with that entity. Sanctions policy is most effective when used to target entities that have the most to lose from restrictions on their access to trading partners and major financial institutions. While U.S. individuals and companies are clearly forbidden from entering into a commercial transaction with sanctioned entities, U.S. sanctions policy also reverberates internationally, since non-U.S. multinational companies often feel pressure to comply with U.S. government policy.Hacking Advantage - CyberUniquenessCurrent protections are inadequate to stop hacksMichele Nash-Hoff, Feb 9, 2016, What Could be Done about China's Theft of Intellectual Property?, IndustryWeek Magazine, Michele Nash-Hoff has been president of the San Diego Electronics Network, the San Diego Chapter of the Electronics Representatives Association, and The High Technology Foundation, as well as several professional and non-profit organizations. She is an active member of the Soroptimist International of San Diego club. Michele is currently a director on the national board of the American Jobs Alliance and Chair of the California chapter of the Coalition for a Prosperous America, intellectual-property/what-could-be-done-about-chinas-theft-intellectual-propertyThe report stated that existing remedies are not keeping up with the problem because of: Short product life cycles – "the slow pace of legal remedies for IP infringement does not meet the needs of companies whose products have rapid product life and profit cycles." Inadequate institutional capacity ??a shortage of trained judges in developing countries China’s approach to IPR is evolving too slowly –?"improvements over the years have not produced meaningful protection for American IP." Limitations in trade agreements??there are also significant problems in the WTO process that have made it impossible to obtain effective resolutions. "Bilateral and regional free trade agreements are not a panacea either." Steps undertaken by Congress and the administration are inadequate.Current cyber defense is inadequate U.S.-CHINA ECONOMIC AND SECURITY REVIEW COMMISSION, November 18, 2015, 2015 Report to Congress of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission is a panel of highly qualified experts who develop a report to present to congress once a year, origin.sites/default/files/annual_reports/2015%20Executive%20Summary%20and%20Recommendations.pdfThe United States is ill prepared to defend itself from cyber espionage when its adversary is determined, centrally coordinated, and technically sophisticated, as is the CCP and China’s government. The design of the Internet—developed in the United States to facilitate open communication between academia and government, and eventually expanded to include commercial opportunities—leaves it particularly vulnerable to spies and thieves. As the largest and most web-dependent economy in the world, the United States is also the largest target for cyber espionage of commercial IP. The Chinese government also imposes heavy-handed censorship on Internet content and social media. These restrictions on free expression and access to information and news have driven from the Chinese market those U.S. companies unwilling to follow the authoritarian dictates of Beijing. The Chinese government has also begun to censor material originating outside its borders by directly attacking U.S.-based information providers. The Chinese government has infiltrated a wide swath of U.S. government computer networks; the U.S. government response to the challenge has been inadequate. Federal agencies are not governed by a uniform system for defense against cyber intrusions. Other than to acknowledge an unrelenting series of assaults on its networks, the Federal Government has yet to devise adequate defenses, while top U.S. intelligence officials have grudgingly praised Chinese hackers for their bold ingenuity.Hacking Advantage - CyberImpactWithout retaliation norms there will be escalation to warBing West, Tuesday, November 25, 2014, The Future Economic War, Hoover Institution, Bing West is a member at the Military History/Contemporary Conflict Working Group - he is the best-selling author of ten books on strategy and battle. He served as assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs in the Reagan administration. A graduate of Georgetown and Princeton Universities, he served in Vietnam with Marine Force Recon and Combined Action Platoons. His articles appear in The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and The Washington Post, research/future-economic-warIn the event of an actual shooting war, our military is prepared to conduct offensive and defensive cyber warfare. More problematic—and more probable—is a cyber economic conflict that spirals out of control. Suppose in 2017 an executive at an IT company like Google, fed up by China’s theft, launched retaliatory cyber strikes to teach the Chinese a lesson. The Chinese then respond by a broad, disruptive strike. The new American president, less passive than Mr. Obama, orders a calibrated response more severe than the Chinese attack. What follows? Does China shut down a portion of the U.S. power grid? Do American hackers and various companies launch their own spontaneous attacks? Do firewalls crumble, with unintended consequences? Who yields first, asking for a truce? We don’t know. In the late ‘50s, a phalanx of brilliant analysts—economists, physicists, engineers, etc.—at the Rand Corporation in California developed deterrent strategies pertaining to nuclear war. Rules of restraint and escalatory ladders affected the calculations of a generation of American and Soviet leaders. Mutual Assured Destruction was surely mad. It was insane for either side to launch nuclear-armed missiles without calculating the devastating consequences of the assured counter strike. No similar body of work exists about cyber warfare in the military, the civilian, or the corporate world. “We need to define what would be offensive, what would be an act of war,” Admiral Rogers said. “Being totally on the defensive is a very losing strategy to me.” We are in a period of experiment by trial and error. So far, China has succeeded in corporate theft. Russia has employed cyber blackmail by disrupting Internet services to small nations adjacent to its border. Unlike Freedom of the Seas that is codified in treaties and United Nations resolutions—and enforced by America’s naval might—freedom of cyber commerce is not codified, much less enforced. Given that neither China nor Russia has received any punishment or retaliation for their past cyber aggressions, the odds are high that Admiral Rogers will be proven right. There will be a cyber attack that begins to spiral out of the control of any government. This will be managed by an ExComm—an ad hoc Executive Committee—as President Kennedy convened in October of 1962. But a hasty confab of advisers is no substitute for systematic planning and war-gaming. Common sense demands that the U.S. national security community test, establish, and promulgate cyber rules of the road, backed by credible retaliatory measures.Chinese cyber hacking must be deterred – status quo could lead to nuclear warDANNY Vinik, December 9, 2015, America’s secret arsenal, Politico, Danny Vinik is the assistant editor of The Agenda at Politico. He previously was a staff writer at The New Republic and his work has appeared in the Washington Monthly and Business Insider. He graduated from Duke University in 2013 with majors in economics and public policy, agenda/story/2015/12/defense-department-cyber-offense-strategy-000331This top-level guidance needs to come not from cyber experts but from elected leaders—and, observers say, so far that direction has not been forthcoming. “Part of the problem is that there are so many senior people in the government, especially coming out of the political world, that just don’t understand enough about the technology,” Borg said. “They really are remarkably uninformed.” You can see this in New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s comments about cyber in the last Republican debate. “If the Chinese commit cyberwarfare against us, they are going to see cyberwarfare like they have never seen before,” he?said. Saber-rattling against the Chinese is nothing new for a U.S. presidential election, but it’s hard to imagine Christie making a similar claim about conventional war. In one sense, that’s because it’s hard to imagine Christie ever being confronted with that scenario. No one is foreseeing an imminent kinetic attack from China. But that’s precisely what makes cyber so difficult: What exactly would qualify as cyberwarfare? And what type of Chinese cyber attack would result in “cyberwarfare like [China has] never seen before”? It seems superfluous to mention, perhaps, but cyberwar with China?is war with China. And a war that starts out in the cyber realm can quickly migrate to other realms. “I consider the current state of affairs to be extremely volatile and unstable because one could escalate a cyberwar pretty quickly,” said Sami Saydjari, the founder of the Cyber Defense Agency consulting firm, who has been working on cyber issues for more than three decades. “You can imagine a scenario where a country instigates a cyberwarfare-like event but does it in such a way to blame another country, which causes an escalation between those countries, which accidentally causes a kinetic escalation, which accidentally reaches the nuclear level. This is not an implausible scenario.”Extinction from nuclear war dwarfs all other impact calculus – reducing nuclear risk is morally requiredJonathan Schell, 2000, Fate of the Earth, pp. 93-96, Jonathan Schell was an American author and was a fellow at the Institute of Politics at the John F. Kennedy School of Government and a fellow at the Kennedy School's Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics, and Public Policy. In 2003, he was a visiting lecturer at Yale Law School, and in 2005, a Distinguished Visiting Fellow at Yale's Center for the Study of Globalization, whose work primarily dealt with campaigning against nuclear weapons, say that human extinction is a certainty would, of course, be a misrepresentation – just as it would be a misrepresentation to say that extinction can be ruled out. To begin with, we know that a holocaust may not occur at all. If one does occur, the adversaries may not use all their weapons. If they do use all their weapons, the global effects in the ozone and elsewhere, may be moderate. And if the effects are not moderate but extreme, the ecosphere may prove resilient enough to withstand them without breaking down catastrophically. These are all substantial reasons for supposing that mankind will not be extinguished in a nuclear holocaust, or even that extinction in a holocaust is unlikely, and they tend to calm our fear and to reduce our sense of urgency. Yet at the same time we are compelled to admit that there may be a holocaust, that the adversaries may use all their weapons, that the global effects, including effects of which we as yet unaware, may be severe, that the ecosphere may suffer catastrophic breakdown, and that our species may be extinguished. We are left with uncertainty, and are forced to make our decisions in a state of uncertainty. If we wish to act to save our species, we have to muster our resolve in spite of our awareness that the life of the species may not now in fact be jeopardized. On the other hand, if we wish to ignore the peril, we have to admit that we do so in the knowledge that the species may be in danger of imminent self-destruction. When the existence of nuclear weapons was made known, thoughtful people everywhere in the world realized that if the great powers entered into a nuclear-arms race the human species would sooner or later face the possibility of extinction. They also realized that in the absence of international agreements preventing it an arms race would probably occur. They knew that the path of nuclear armament was a dead end for mankind. The discovery of the energy in mass – of "the basic power of the universe" – and of a means by which man could release that energy altered the relationship between man and the source of his life, the earth. In the shadow of this power, the earth became small and the life of the human species doubtful. In that sense, the question of human extinction has been on the political agenda of the world ever since the first nuclear weapon was detonated, and there was no need for the world to build up its present tremendous arsenals before starting to worry about it. At just what point the species crossed, or will have crossed, the boundary between merely having the technical knowledge to destroy itself and actually having the arsenals at hand, ready to be used at any second, is not precisely knowable. But it is clear that at present, with some twenty thousand megatons of nuclear explosive power in existence, and with more being added every day, we have entered into the zone of uncertainty, which is to say the zone of risk of extinction. But the mere risk of extinction has a significance that is categorically different from, and immeasurably greater than that of any other risk and as we make our decisions we have to take that significance into account. Up to now, every risk has been contained within the framework of life; extinction would shatter the frame. It represents not the defeat of some purpose but an abyss in which all human purpose would be drowned for all time. We have no right to place the possibility of this limitless, eternal defeat on the same footing as risk that we run in the ordinary conduct of our affairs in our particular transient moment of human history. To employ a mathematician's analogy, we can say that although the risk of extinction may be fractional, the stake is, humanly speaking, infinite, and a fraction of infinity is still infinity. In other words, once we learn that a holocaust might lead to extinction we have no right to gamble, because if we lose, the game will be over, and neither we nor anyone else will ever get another chance. Therefore, although, scientifically speaking, there is all the difference in the world between the mere possibility that a holocaust will bring about extinction and the certainty of it, morally they are the same, and we have no choice but to address the issue of nuclear weapons as though we knew for a certainty that their use would put an end to our species. In weighing the fate of the earth and, with it, our own fate, we stand before a mystery, and in tampering with the earth we tamper with a mystery. We are in deep ignorance. Our ignorance should dispose us to wonder, our wonder should make us humble, our humility should inspire us to reverence and caution, and our reverence and caution should lead us to act without delay to withdraw the threat we now post to the world and to ourselves.Hacking Advantage - CyberSolvencyCyber escalation is China’s fault – only punitive measures solveMichael Auslin, September 22, 2015, Time for realism in US-China relations, American Enterprise Institute, Michael Auslin is a resident scholar and the director of Japan Studies at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), where he specializes in Asian regional security and political issues., for cyber, it is Beijing that has caused this crisis, and no U.S. administration should be negotiating a pact with the wolf in the sheep pen. First, we should be thinking of financial sanctions and diplomatic freezes as punishment for aggression already committed and that to come. It also is past time to throw some cyber elbows to show we won’t simply sit and take whatever fouls China decides to commit. There is no question that the U.S. is probably more vulnerable than China on the cyber front, but we are steadily being led down the path towards a real cyber Pearl Harbor (such as the shutting down of our energy grid) by our unwillingness to show that we can play the same game. It’s a discomfiting thought, but that is the world we have let ourselves be trapped into.A toolbox for cyber deterrence – like plan – solvesP.W. Singer, DECEMBER 18, 2015, How the United States Can Win the Cyberwar of the Future, Foreign Policy, P.W. Singer is director of the Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence at Brookings. Allan Friedman is a visiting scholar at the Cyber Security Policy Research Institute at George Washington University, 2015/12/18/how-the-united-states-can-win-the-cyberwar-of-the-future-deterrence-theory-security/That a cyberweapon is not like a WMD doesn’t mean the United States has no options for exacting costs on would-be attackers to change their calculations. Indeed, it may even have more. Just as the timeline is stretched out and the players are proliferated as compared to the Cold War, true deterrence-building responses can come after the fact and in other realms. For instance, responding to IP theft by stealing back is not the only option: The defender can also go after other assets valued by the attacker or even those valued by third party actors, such as by?sanctioning?companies benefiting from stolen fruit. This dynamism complicates things to a degree that even the?most brilliant Cold War strategist?would find frustrating. The United States will have to game out not merely the first two moves of the response — the simple “shoot and shoot back” dynamic that was the whole of a nuclear exchange — but also multiple stages after that by multiple actors. For instance, anyone advocating for trade sanctions should walk their argument through the process of not just how the sanctions for past attacks would stop future attacks, but also what the United States would do in response to a loss of overall market access were China, say, to respond in kind against some U.S. firms. Creativity and flexibility will beat simplicity in this dynamic. Indeed, the United States may even steal ideas from one attacker’s playbook as a useful tool against another.?From Sony to Snowden, leaked emails and documents have been among the most vexing incidents for cybersecurity, but the irony is that the United States’ system of government and open society is least vulnerable to them. For all the Sturm and Drang over revelations of questionable metadata collection and Angelina Jolie gossip, U.S. political and social stability has never been at risk from these practices. But, as Catherine Lotrionte at Georgetown University has noted, threatening to reveal the private financial data of a regime’s leader, his family, or his allied oligarchs, may be far more potent. The goal of these measures is not to prevent all attacks, like MAD did with nuclear weapons, but to change the calculus on whether an individual cyberattack is P Collapse DA Affirmative Answers - CyberUniqueness AnswersNon-Unique: China is already on road to collapse – 5 reasonsDavid Shambaugh, March 6, 2015, The Coming Chinese Crackup, The Wall Street Journal, Dr. Shambaugh is a professor of international affairs and the director of the China Policy Program at George Washington University and a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. His books include “China’s Communist Party: Atrophy and Adaptation” and, most recently, “China Goes Global: The Partial Power", articles/the-coming-chinese-crack-up-1425659198The endgame of Chinese communist rule has now begun, I believe, and it has progressed further than many think. We don’t know what the pathway from now until the end will look like, of course. It will probably be highly unstable and unsettled. But until the system begins to unravel in some obvious way, those inside of it will play along—thus contributing to the facade of stability. Communist rule in China is unlikely to end quietly. A single event is unlikely to trigger a peaceful implosion of the regime. Its demise is likely to be protracted, messy and violent. I wouldn’t rule out the possibility that Mr. Xi will be deposed in a power struggle or coup d’état. With his aggressive anticorruption campaign—a focus of this week’s National People’s Congress—he is overplaying a weak hand and deeply aggravating key party, state, military and commercial constituencies. The Chinese have a proverb,?waiying, neiruan—hard on the outside, soft on the inside. Mr. Xi is a genuinely tough ruler. He exudes conviction and personal confidence. But this hard personality belies a party and political system that is extremely fragile on the inside. Consider five telling indications of the regime’s vulnerability and the party’s systemic weaknesses. First, China’s economic elites have one foot out the door, and they are ready to flee en masse if the system really begins to crumble. In 2014, Shanghai’s Hurun Research Institute, which studies China’s wealthy, found that 64% of the “high net worth individuals” whom it polled—393 millionaires and billionaires—were either emigrating or planning to do so. Rich Chinese are sending their children to study abroad in record numbers (in itself, an indictment of the quality of the Chinese higher-education system). Just this week, the Journal reported, federal agents searched several Southern California locations that U.S. authorities allege are linked to “multimillion-dollar birth-tourism businesses that enabled thousands of Chinese women to travel here and return home with infants born as U.S. citizens.” Wealthy Chinese are also buying property abroad at record levels and prices, and they are parking their financial assets overseas, often in well-shielded tax havens and shell companies. Meanwhile, Beijing is trying to extradite back to China a large number of alleged financial fugitives living abroad. When a country’s elites—many of them party members—flee in such large numbers, it is a telling sign of lack of confidence in the regime and the country’s future. Second, since taking office in 2012, Mr. Xi has greatly intensified the political repression that has blanketed China since 2009. The targets include the press, social media, film, arts and literature, religious groups, the Internet, intellectuals, Tibetans and Uighurs, dissidents, lawyers, NGOs, university students and textbooks. The Central Committee sent a draconian order known as Document No. 9 down through the party hierarchy in 2013, ordering all units to ferret out any seeming endorsement of the West’s “universal values”—including constitutional democracy, civil society, a free press and neoliberal economics. A more secure and confident government would not institute such a severe crackdown. It is a symptom of the party leadership’s deep anxiety and insecurity. Third, even many regime loyalists are just going through the motions. It is hard to miss the theater of false pretense that has permeated the Chinese body politic for the past few years. Last summer, I was one of a handful of foreigners (and the only American) who attended a conference about the “China Dream,” Mr. Xi’s signature concept, at a party-affiliated think tank in Beijing. We sat through two days of mind-numbing, nonstop presentations by two dozen party scholars—but their faces were frozen, their body language was wooden, and their boredom was palpable. They feigned compliance with the party and?their leader’s latest mantra. But it was evident that the propaganda had lost its power, and the emperor had no clothes. In December, I was back in Beijing for a conference at the Central Party School, the party’s highest institution of doctrinal instruction, and once again, the country’s top officials and foreign policy experts recited their stock slogans verbatim. During lunch one day, I went to the campus bookstore—always an important stop so that I can update myself on what China’s leading cadres are being taught. Tomes on the store’s shelves ranged from Lenin’s “Selected Works” to Condoleezza Rice’s memoirs, and a table at the entrance was piled high with copies of a pamphlet by Mr. Xi on his campaign to promote the “mass line”—that is, the party’s connection to the masses. “How is this selling?” I asked the clerk. “Oh, it’s not,” she replied. “We give it away.” The size of the stack suggested it was hardly a hot item. Fourth, the corruption that riddles the party-state and the military also pervades Chinese society as a whole. Mr. Xi’s anticorruption campaign is more sustained and severe than any previous one, but no campaign can eliminate the problem. It is stubbornly rooted in the single-party system, patron-client networks, an economy utterly lacking in transparency, a state-controlled media and the absence of the rule of law. Moreover, Mr. Xi’s campaign is turning out to be at least as much?a selective purge?as an antigraft campaign. Many of its targets to date have been political clients and allies of former Chinese leader?Jiang Zemin.?Now 88, Mr. Jiang is still the godfather figure of Chinese politics. Going after Mr. Jiang’s patronage network while he is still alive is highly risky for Mr. Xi, particularly since Mr. Xi doesn’t seem to have brought along his own coterie of loyal clients to promote into positions of power. Another problem: Mr. Xi, a child of China’s first-generation revolutionary elites, is one of the party’s “princelings,” and his political ties largely extend to other princelings. This silver-spoon generation is widely reviled in Chinese society at large. Finally,?China’s economy—for all the Western views of it as an unstoppable juggernaut—is stuck in a series of systemic traps from which there is no easy exit. In November 2013, Mr. Xi presided over the party’s Third Plenum, which unveiled a huge package of proposed economic reforms, but so far, they are sputtering on the launchpad. Yes, consumer spending has been rising, red tape has been reduced, and some fiscal reforms have been introduced, but overall, Mr. Xi’s ambitious goals have been stillborn. The reform package challenges powerful, deeply entrenched interest groups—such as state-owned enterprises and local party cadres—and they are plainly blocking its implementation.Non-Unique: CCP legitimacy is on the brink and getting worse – economic slowdown & lack of reformsMelanie Hart, September 29, 2015, Assessing American Foreign Policy Toward China, Center for American Progress, Melanie Hart is a Senior Fellow and Director of China Policy at American Progress. She focuses on U.S. foreign policy toward China and works to identify new opportunities for bilateral cooperation, particularly on energy, climate change, and cross-border investment. Her research also covers China’s political system, market regulatory reforms, and how China’s domestic and foreign policy developments affect the United States., Chinese economy has reached an inflection point. It is not yet clear whether the Chinese Communist Party can successfully traverse these changing circumstances and maintain its hold on power. The growth model that pulled more than 400 million Chinese citizens out of poverty over the past three decades is running out of steam. Chinese wages are rising and eliminating China’s prior price advantages in global export markets. Fixed infrastructure investments are producing diminishing returns. Chinese citizens no longer accept the pollution costs associated with heavy industry, and even if they did, the global market cannot continue to absorb more Chinese steel and cement at double-digit annual growth rates. In order to keep the economy growing and maintain ruling legitimacy, Chinese leaders must downshift from the old growth model and foster new industries based on technological innovation, domestic consumption, and P Collapse DA Affirmative Answers - CyberLink AnswerTurn: Non-PRC affiliated Chinese hackers are a critical threat to CCP stability – deterring them improves stability Ryan Hang, OCTOBER 2014, Freedom for Authoritarianism: Patriotic Hackers and Chinese Nationalism, The Yale Review of International Studies, is a Web Developer & Software Engineer with a Bachelor of Arts (B.A.), Political Science (Specialization in Empirical Theory and Quantitative Methods) - his work on cyber studies and Chinese culture have been featured in several journals, yris.essays/1447The Chinese government’s current response to Patriotic Hackers is consistent with the CCP’s historical uses of nationalism to control political threats. The Chinese government is wary of political activity because it can expose Chinese netizens to government criticisms and serves as a venue to organize against the CCP. In response to this threat, the Chinese government deploys Internet censorship and restrictions, a major flashpoint between the Chinese government and its citizens. “It is clear that there are at least as many netizens concerned with breaching the Great Firewall as there are with attacking foreign networks.”[69]?Although Patriotic Hackers are driven by nationalist sentiments and generally support the Chinese government, they have the capacity to destabilize the CCP. Because Patriotic Hackers are not formally integrated into the Chinese government, the CCP has no official control over these hackers. In some instances Patriotic Hackers, beyond circumventing Internet restrictions and breaking Chinese law, have even directly attacked the Chinese government by defacing government websites.[70]These hackers also have the capacity to undermine the Chinese government by working for Western computer security agencies.[71] Turn: Competition with external powers leads to more nationalism – nationalism key to CCP legitimacy Ryan Hang, OCTOBER 2014, Freedom for Authoritarianism: Patriotic Hackers and Chinese Nationalism, The Yale Review of International Studies, is a Web Developer & Software Engineer with a Bachelor of Arts (B.A.), Political Science (Specialization in Empirical Theory and Quantitative Methods) - his work on cyber studies and Chinese culture have been featured in several journals, yris.essays/1447As political circumstances in China have evolved, so has the role of nationalism in Chinese politics. The death of Mao Zedong and market oriented economic reforms championed by Deng Xiaoping in the early 1980s fundamentally altered Chinese politics and collapsed Chinese communist ideology. Economic hardship, corruption, and political instability following Deng Xiaoping’s economic reforms in the 1980s “greatly weakened mass support for the CCP and eroded its basis of legitimacy.”[59]?Chinese leaders turned to nationalism in response to the collapse of communist ideology to fill “an ideological vacuum left by the collapse of Marxist ideology and reinforce the stability of the CCP.”[60]?These leaders “wrapped themselves in the mantle of pragmatic nationalism, which they found remained the most reliable claim to the Chinese people’s loyalty and the only important value shared by the regime and its critics.”[61]?The CCP maintained its legitimacy by promising national strength and focusing on high rates of economic growth. Through deploying nationalism, the CCP was able to ideologically tie China with itself and introduce the view that “the Communist state is the embodiment of the nation’s will,” and portraying the CCP as defenders of China against outside threats.[62]?The CCP’s success with deploying nationalism as a means to generate political stability has established nationalism as the basis for the support and legitimacy of the CCP.[63]?Nationalism is a primary strategy utilized by the Chinese government to answer political threats; in the face of political crisis, the CCP has consistently “appealed to nationalism in the name of patriotism as a way to ensure the loyalty of a population stewing in domestic discontent.”[64]?Nationalism operates through a couple of mechanisms to reinforce the stability of the Chinese government. Nationalism serves the Chinese government by bolstering “its legitimacy through invoking a deep sense of “Chineseness” among its citizens.[65]?The government is able to resolve ideological fractures and consolidate the Chinese identity against external threats by fostering Nationalist sentiments. In the face of economic and political problems, nationalism “has become an effective instrument for enhancing the CCP’s legitimacy by allowing for it to be defined on the claim that the regime provides political stability and economic prosperity.”[66]No Link: CCP Collapse predictions empirically false and biased Hung et al, March 13, 2015, When Will China's Government Collapse?, Foreign Policy, Ho-Fung Hung is an associate professor at Johns Hopkins Sociology. My scholarly interest includes global political economy, protest, nation-state formation, and social theory, with a focus on East Asia,, Arthur R. Kroeber is a Senior Fellow at the Brookings-Tsinghua Center where he focuses on China’s political economy and its engagement with global economic institutions, Howard Waring French is a journalist, author, and photographer, as well as an associate professor at Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. He was most recently a senior foreign correspondent with The New York Times, Suisheng Zhao is a professor of Chinese politics and foreign policy at the University of Denver's Josef Korbel School of International Studies, 2015/03/13/china_communist_party_collapse_downfall/Predictions of Chinese political collapse have a long and futile history. Their persistent failure stems from a basic conceptual fault. Instead of facing the Chinese system on its own terms and understanding why it works — which could create insights into why it might stop working — critics judge the system against what they would like it to be, and find it wanting. This embeds an assumption of fragility that makes every societal problem look like an existential crisis. As a long-term resident of China, I would love the government to become more open, pluralistic and tolerant of creativity. That it refuses to do so is disappointing to me and many others, but offers no grounds for a judgment of its P Collapse DA Affirmative Answers - CyberConsequentialist Impact Scenario AnswersDefense and Turn: Loose nukes aren’t a thing – there is no market and they are incredibly safe even when unattended. Additionally, nuclear alarmism is more likely to cause war John Mueller, September 2, 2015, The Dangers of Alarmism, John Mueller is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. He is also a member of the political science department and senior research scientist with the Mershon Center for International Security Studies at Ohio State University. A leading expert on terrorism and particularly on the reactions (or over-reactions) it often inspires, publications/commentary/dangers-alarmismAn important part of the alarmism has been directed at, and impelled by the prospect of, nuclear terrorism, the most commonly embraced method by which it has been suggested that terrorists would be able to repeat, or even top, the destruction of 9/11. It was in 2004, in his influential book, Nuclear Terrorism — a work Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times found to be “terrifying” — that Harvard’s Graham Allison relayed his “considered judgment” that “on the current path, a nuclear terrorist attack on America in the decade ahead is more likely than not.” Allison has had a great deal of company in his alarming pronouncements. For example, in 2007, the distinguished physicist Richard Garwin put the likelihood of a nuclear explosion on an American or European city by terrorist or other means at 20 percent per year, which would work out to 89 percent over a ten-year period. Allison’s time is up, and so, pretty much, is Garwin’s. And it is important to the point out that not only have terrorists failed to go nuclear, but in the words of William Langewiesche who has assessed the process in detail, “The best information is that no one has gotten anywhere near this. I mean, if you look carefully and practically at this process, you see that it is an enormous undertaking full of risks for the would-be terrorists.” In fact, terrorist groups seem thus far to have exhibited only limited desire and even less progress in going atomic. This may be because, after brief exploration of the possible routes, they, unlike generations of alarmists on the issue, have discovered that the tremendous effort required is scarcely likely to be successful. It is highly improbable that a would-be atomic terrorist would be given or sold a bomb by a generous like-minded nuclear state because the donor could not control its use and because the ultimate source of the weapon might be discovered. Although there has been great worry about terrorists illicitly stealing or purchasing a nuclear weapon, it seems likely that neither “loose nukes” nor a market in illicit nuclear materials exists. Moreover, finished bombs have been outfitted with an array of locks and safety devices. There could be dangers in the chaos that would emerge if a nuclear state were utterly to fail, collapsing in full disarray. However, even under those conditions, nuclear weapons would likely remain under heavy guard by people who know that a purloined bomb would most likely end up going off in their own territory, would still have locks, and could probably be followed and hunted down by an alarmed international community. The most plausible route for terrorists would be to manufacture the device themselves from purloined materials. This task requires that a considerable series of difficult hurdles be conquered in sequence. These include the effective recruitment of people who at once have great technical skills and will remain completely devoted to the cause. In addition, a host of corrupted co-conspirators, many of them foreign, must remain utterly reliable, international and local security services must be kept perpetually in the dark, and no curious outsider must get consequential wind of the project over the months or even years it takes to pull off. In addition, the financial costs of the operation could easily become monumental. Alarmism about the atomic terrorist has had its most damaging results when it has been linked with an alarmist perspective about nuclear proliferation. For decades during and after the Cold War, there has been almost wall-to-wall alarm about the dangers supposedly inherent in nuclear proliferation. This perspective has almost never undergone careful examination. In fact, the proliferation of nuclear weapons has been far slower than has been commonly predicted over the decades primarily because the weapons do not generally convey much advantage to their possessor. And, more importantly, the effect of the proliferation that has taken place has been substantially benign: those who have acquired the weapons have “used” them simply to stoke their egos or to deter real or imagined threats. This holds even for the proliferation of the weapons to large, important countries run by unchallenged monsters who at the time they acquired the bombs were certifiably deranged: Josef Stalin who in 1949 was planning to change the climate of the Soviet Union by planting a lot of trees, and Mao Zedong who in 1964 had just carried out a bizarre social experiment that had resulted in artificial famine in which tens of millions of Chinese perished. Despite this experience, an aversion to nuclear proliferation continues to impel alarmed concern, and it was a chief motivator of the Iraq War which essentially was a militarized anti-proliferation effort in which fears that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, unlike all other nuclear states since 1945, might actually set off such weapons if he got them and/or that Saddam would give them to terrorists. The war that ensued proved to be a necessary cause of the deaths of more people than perished at Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.Framing Turn: Worst case predictions cause failed policy making, trade off with better solutions, and risk escalation – we need to prioritize probability Bruce Schneier March 13, 2010, Worst-Case Thinking, Schneier on Security, Bruce Schneier is an internationally renowned security technologist and author, MA CS American University, a security conference recently, the moderator asked the panel of distinguished cybersecurity leaders what their nightmare scenario was. The answers were the predictable array of large-scale attacks: against our communications infrastructure, against the power grid, against the financial system, in combination with a physical attack. I didn't get to give my answer until the afternoon, which was: "My nightmare scenario is that people keep talking about their nightmare scenarios." There's a certain blindness that comes from worst-case thinking. An extension of the precautionary principle, it involves imagining the worst possible outcome and then acting as if it were a certainty. It substitutes imagination for thinking, speculation for risk analysis, and fear for reason. It fosters powerlessness and vulnerability and magnifies social paralysis. And it makes us more vulnerable to the effects of terrorism. Worst-case thinking means generally bad decision making for several reasons. First, it's only half of the cost-benefit equation. Every decision has costs and benefits, risks and rewards. By speculating about what can possibly go wrong, and then acting as if that is likely to happen, worst-case thinking focuses only on the extreme but improbable risks and does a poor job at assessing outcomes. Second, it's based on flawed logic. It begs the question by assuming that a proponent of an action must prove that the nightmare scenario is impossible. Third, it can be used to support any position or its opposite. If we build a nuclear power plant, it could melt down. If we don't build it, we will run short of power and society will collapse into anarchy. If we allow flights near Iceland's volcanic ash, planes will crash and people will die. If we don't, organs won’t arrive in time for transplant operations and people will die. If we don't invade Iraq, Saddam Hussein might use the nuclear weapons he might have. If we do, we might destabilize the Middle East, leading to widespread violence and death. Of course, not all fears are equal. Those that we tend to exaggerate are more easily justified by worst-case thinking. So terrorism fears trump privacy fears, and almost everything else; technology is hard to understand and therefore scary; nuclear weapons are worse than conventional weapons; our children need to be protected at all costs; and annihilating the planet is bad. Basically, any fear that would make a good movie plot is amenable to worst-case thinking. Fourth and finally, worst-case thinking validates ignorance. Instead of focusing on what we know, it focuses on what we don't know -- and what we can imagine. Remember Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's quote? "Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know." And this: "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Ignorance isn't a cause for doubt; when you can fill that ignorance with imagination, it can be a call to action. Even worse, it can lead to hasty and dangerous acts. You can't wait for a smoking gun, so you act as if the gun is about to go off. Rather than making us safer, worst-case thinking has the potential to cause dangerous escalation. The new undercurrent in this is that our society no longer has the ability to calculate probabilities. Risk assessment is devalued. Probabilistic thinking is repudiated in favor of "possibilistic thinking": Since we can't know what's likely to go wrong, let's speculate about what can possibly go wrong. Worst-case thinking leads to bad decisions, bad systems design, and bad security. And we all have direct experience with its effects: airline security and the TSA, which we make fun of when we're not appalled that they're harassing 93-year-old women or keeping first graders off airplanes. You can't be too careful! Actually, you can. You can refuse to fly because of the possibility of plane crashes. You can lock your children in the house because of the possibility of child predators. You can eschew all contact with people because of the possibility of hurt. Steven Hawking wants to avoid trying to communicate with aliens because they might be hostile; does he want to turn off all the planet's television broadcasts because they're radiating into space? It isn't hard to parody worst-case thinking, and at its extreme it's a psychological condition. Frank Furedi, a sociology professor at the University of Kent, writes: "Worst-case thinking encourages society to adopt fear as one of the dominant principles around which the public, the government and institutions should organize their life. It institutionalizes insecurity and fosters a mood of confusion and powerlessness. Through popularizing the belief that worst cases are normal, it incites people to feel defenseless and vulnerable to a wide range of future threats." Even worse, it plays directly into the hands of terrorists, creating a population that is easily terrorized -- even by failed terrorist attacks like the Christmas Day underwear bomber and the Times Square SUV bomber. When someone is proposing a change, the onus should be on them to justify it over the status quo. But worst-case thinking is a way of looking at the world that exaggerates the rare and unusual and gives the rare much more credence than it deserves. It isn't really a principle; it's a cheap trick to justify what you already believe. It lets lazy or biased people make what seem to be cogent arguments without understanding the whole issue. And when people don't need to refute counterarguments, there's no point in listening to them. CCP Collapse DA Affirmative Answers - CyberDeontological Impact Scenario AnswersTurn: CCP collapse would be good – it’s the only way to save the environmentRichard Smith, December 31, 2015, Revolution or Collapse: China’s rise has come at horrific social and environmental cost, Infoshop News, excerpt from “China’s Communist-Capitalist Ecological Apocalypse” in Real World Economics Review, Dr. Richard Smith is an analyst at the Institute for Policy Research & Development - wrote his UCLA history Ph.D thesis on the contradictions of market reforms in China - At present he is completing a book on capitalist development and global ecological collapse, chapters of which have apeared as articles in the Journal of Ecological Economics, Capitalism Socialism Nature, and Real-World Economics Review, news.asia/revolution-or-collapseRevolution or collapse: One thing is certain: this locomotive is not going to be stopped so long as the Communist Party has its grip on the controls. The Chinese Communist Party is locked in a death spiral. It can’t rein in corruption because the party is built on corruption, thrives on corruption and can’t police itself. It can’t rein in ravenous resource consumption and suicidal pollution because, given its dependence on the market to generate new jobs, it has to prioritize growth over the environment like capitalist governments everywhere. It can’t even discipline its own subordinate officials to enforce and obey the government’s environmental, food and drug safety, building codes and similar laws because in this system subordinate officials aren’t necessarily subordinate and can often mobilize their family and guanxi-based backers to defend their interests and thwart Beijing. So long as this basic structural class/property arrangement remains in effect, no top-down “war on pollutions” or “war on corruption” is going to change this system or brake China’s trajectory to ecological collapse. Given the foregoing, I just don’t see how China’s spiral to collapse can be reversed short of social revolution.Environmental sustainability is a moral obligationBill Klemm, 2003, Why Do We Have to Protect the Environment?, Environmental Protection, Dr. W. R. (Bill) Klemm is Senior Professor of Neuroscience & Professor of Veterinary Integrative Biosciences at Texas A&M university, peer.tamu.edu/curriculum_modules/Ecosystems/module_4/whyitmatters.htmThe human species needs food and water. We need energy. But we also need to protect the ecosystem niches that make survival of our species possible. Beyond that, we need to protect the niches for other species too.? Why do niches need protection? It's not nice to try to fool Mother Nature. Ecosystems are complicated. We have seen in these lessons that complexity grows as?we move up the ladder from cells to organ systems to ecosystems. The history of our attempts to manipulate ecosystems shows that we often make mistakes and fail to see the unintended consequences of our actions. Rich ecosystems are those with many occupied niches. A change in any one niche is likely to affect other niches and their occupant species. Extinction is forever. We don't get a second chance. Environmental hazards are dangerous. Especially our lakes and oceans have become dumping grounds for dangerous chemicals (pesticides, herbicides, oil and refinery products, industrial wastes, and heavy metals). Some of these toxins actually concentrate in food webs, such as mercury in fish. Moral obligation. Our species owes its existence to the living world that we share with other species. We owe the living world a chance to perpetuate the life-creating processes of natural selection, population dynamics, and exchange cycles.?We can only pay this debt by protecting the environment.Counter Plan Answers (Sanctions PIC) – CyberSolvency AnswersTurn: Sanctions solve – they’re our best toolDmitri Alperovitch, September 25, 2015, U.S. – China Agreement on Cyber Intrusions: An Inflection Point, CrowdStrike Blog, Dmitri Alperovitch Co-founder and CTO of Crowdstrike, Dmitri Alperovitch leads the Intelligence, Technology and CrowdStrike Labs teams. Alperovitch has invented 18 patented technologies and has conducted extensive research on reputation systems, spam detection, web security, public-key and identity-based cryptography, malware and intrusion detection/prevention. He is a renowned computer security researcher and thought leader on cybersecurity policies and state tradecraft. Alperovitch’s many honors include being selected as MIT Technology Review’s “Young Innovators under 35” (TR35) in 2013. He also was named Foreign Policy Magazine’s Leading Global Thinker for 2013 and received a Federal 100 Award for his information security contributions, blog/cyber-agreement/For years, I have?argued?for an aggressive trade sanctions approach to deter Chinese economic espionage against U.S. companies. Earlier this year, the Obama administration issued an unprecedented?Executive Order 13694?which established a declaratory policy of the use of our global financial power to punish the perpetrators and beneficiaries of cyber intrusions of national consequence. When word leaked in recent weeks that the White House was seriously considering applying this new approach by instituting sanctions against some of the Chinese multinational companies which had benefited from these espionage operations, the Chinese responded instantly. Meng Jianzhu, a senior Politburo member and one of President Xi’s trusted lieutenants, was instantly dispatched with a large supporting delegation to Washington for urgent talks with very senior administration officials in an attempt to forestall the sanctions. This showed the vulnerability and deep concern of the Chinese leadership over such action and highlighted the opportunity for finally gaining leverage and upper hand in the negotiations to get them to dramatically scale back their state-sponsored intellectual property theft activities. And with today’s announcement, this real and very serious threat against Chinese economic concerns, when added to prior diplomatic, law enforcement, and private sector responses to China, appears to have altered President Xi’s calculus about the benefits of addressing the cybersecurity threat head-on, instead of with its head in the sand. Agreements are meaningless, however, without follow-through action and verification. Myself and the rest of the great team at CrowdStrike have?been pioneers in highlighting and attributing the intrusions into Western companies from Chinese government-affiliated hackers, such as our?report?on the cyber activities of the 12th Bureau of the 3rd Department of General Staff (otherwise known as Putter Panda). ?My co-founder George Kurtz?has written more?on the issues of validating this agreement and how private sector can be of help. CrowdStrike will, of course, continue to monitor Chinese activities with our Falcon cloud-based endpoint technology that’s deployed globally across numerous companies in the financial, manufacturing, technology, defense, agriculture and other industries. This will provide us with unique visibility into whether China abides by the commitment they’ve expressed today, so we can let our clients know whether today truly can go down in history as the day cybersecurity turned the corner for the better. Only time will tell.Counter Plan Answers (Sanctions PIC) – CyberNet Benefit AnswersNon-Unique: We’re already in a trade war with chinaJON Connars, JUNE 7, 2016, The trade war with China is already here, Asia Times, Jon Connars is an investment risk analyst and researcher with an expertise in the ASEAN region who currently shuttles between Singapore and Bangkok, 2016/06/the-trade-war-with-china-is-already-here/Donald Trump’s threats to hit China with protectionist tariffs of up to 45% on the goods it ships to the US go down well with his supporters on the campaign trail, despite ruffling feathers among free marketeers within his own party. Experts and commentators are less impressed, suggesting The Donald’s proposed trade war could cost US jobs and potentially trigger a global downturn. What Trump and his opponents fail to acknowledge, however, is that the US is already engaged in a vicious trade battle with China centered on steel exports. China’s overproduction has decimated steel producers all over the world after the country upped its output from 128 million tons in 2000 to 822 million tons in 2014. American steel makers have already lost billions of dollars as a result of China dumping its steel exports on the US economy, while their counterparts in countries from Brazil to Britain have been left facing bankruptcy. Unsurprisingly, American and European steel mills are pushing their governments to take action. In the face of growing international pressure, Beijing has repeatedly promised to slow its steel output, but the numbers tell their own story. March saw the highest level of Chinese steel production in history. The China Iron & Steel Association revealed the country churned out 70.65 million tons in just that one month alone. Despite falling back in April overall, average daily production rose from 2.279 million tons to 2.314 million tons, another record high, according to Reuters.No Internal Link: Sanctions won’t lead to a trade warOREN Cass, June 23, 2014, Fight the Dragon, National Review, Oren Cass is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, where he focuses on energy, the environment, and antipoverty policy. He was domestic policy director of Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign in 2011–12. In that role, Cass shaped campaign policy and communication on issues from health care to energy to trade, article/380960/fight-dragon-oren-cassFortunately, today’s challenge differs from a prisoner’s dilemma in one important respect: Rather than choosing a strategy once and living with the consequences, the players are in a “repeated game.” The United States need not allow itself to be taken advantage of forever, or assume that China and its followers are irrevocably committed to their course. To the contrary, America and her allies have the opportunity to make clear that they will no longer play on these terms, that they would rather take their ball and go home than continue to compete on a tilted playing field, and that it is the cheaters who must decide whether they will finally comply with the rules or be ejected from the game. Forcing such a decision is not “starting a trade war” any more than committing to the defense of one’s borders constitutes an invasion. Indeed, far from being protectionist, threatening nations like China with severe trade sanctions is critical to ensuring a prosperous future for the global economy.Any trade war would be temporary – other tariffs proveJosh Tolley, March 7, 2016, ROMNEY'S WRONGHEADED 'TRADE WAR' SCARE Exclusive: Josh Tolley rebuts Mitt's claims about Trump's economic policies, WND, Josh Tolley is a nationally syndicated talk-show host, Top 100 business trainer and author of the book “Evangelpreneur: How Biblical Free Enterprise Empowers Faith Family and Freedom.”, 2016/03/romneys-wrongheaded-trade-war-scare/, card edited for triggering languageMitt believes that if America implements a tariff (which was used in America prior to 1913 and allowed all American’s to keep all of their income due to tariffs paying for the government’s operation), then our trading partners would stop trading with us or charge us tariffs in return. Mr. Romney hopes that by bringing up tariffs you, the American voter, will think that other countries will treat us poorly, because tariffs must be mean-spirited fines. What Mr. Romney fails to realize is that you, the American voter, are smart enough to know that over 70 countries we already trade with have tariffs themselves, yet we are not in a “trade war” with them, nor are they in a trade war with each other. Would it be possible that if we raised the tariff to 35 percent, as Mr. Trump proposed, it may anger a couple of our trading partners that currently take advantage of us? Possibly, but only temporarily. The reality is that the United States of America is still the largest economy in the world, and everyone wants access to this country’s customer base because of that. International-based companies know this fact and will charge a premium for their products to off-set the tariff. Any “trade war” would be more of a “trade tantrum” because they will have lost the ability to raid and pillage the largest economy in the icality Answers – Cyber2AC shellWe meet: The PRC does the hacking on behalf of State Owned Enterprises – retaliation is against the PRCRichard Bejtlich, May 19, 2014, DOJ INDICTS CHINESE MILITARY HACKERS: FIRST IMPRESSIONS, Fire Eye, Richard Bejtlich is Nonresident Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence. Bejtlich’s research focuses on integrating strategic thought into private sector cyber defense, , the?US Department of Justice (DoJ) took actions previously unseen in the world of computer security. The press release announcing the activity noted the following: “A grand jury in the Western District of Pennsylvania (WDPA) indicted five Chinese military hackers for computer hacking, economic espionage and other offenses directed at six American victims in the U.S. nuclear power, metals and solar products industries.” The accompanying indictment begins with the following excerpt: “From at least in or about 2006 up to and including at least in our about April 2014, members of the People’s Liberation Army (“PLA”), the military of the People’s Republic of China (“China”), conspired together and with each other to hack into the computers of commercial entities in the Western District of Pennsylvania and elsewhere in the United States.” These two sentences are packed with meaning for anyone who has been working to counter the Chinese digital threat, either within, or on behalf of, victim organizations. First, the indictment zeroes in on the military aspect of the threat. DoJ isn’t talking about nebulous “Chinese hackers,” perhaps working as contractors for hire. These are PLA troops, some of whom are pictured in the indictment wearing their uniforms. Second, these sentences confirm the temporal span of the activity, roughly an eight year period. This is a sustained, persistent, resourced campaign. Third, they emphasize economic?espionage against commercial American targets, not targets in the US military or intelligence communities. The US government has always been clear that it will not tolerate Chinese hacking to financially and scientifically accelerate Chinese economic growth. For those of us who worked on exposing this threat over the years, the indictment contains many other relevant details. We read that the five defendants “worked together and with others known and unknown to the Grand Jury for the PLA’s General Staff, Third Department (“3PLA”), a signals intelligence component of the PLA, in a Unit known by the Military Unit Code Designator 61398 (“Unit 61398”), and in the vicinity of 208 Datong Road, Pudong District, Shanghai, China.” This is exactly the same unit, designation, and location identified in the 2013 Mandiant report,APT1: Exposing One of China's Cyber Espionage Units. This statement is the first open, unclassified, official confirmation of the core attribution element in the Mandiant report. It shows that APT1 aka United 61398 aka the Second Bureau of the Third Department of the General Staff Directorate of the PLA is a threat to US economic and security interests. There are many other aspects of the indictment that I find fascinating, but in the interest of time I will mention one other. Paragraph four states the following: “During the period relevant to this Indictment, Chinese firms hired the same PLA Unit where the defendants worked to provide information technology services. For example, one SOE involved in trade litigation against some of the American victims mentioned herein hired the Unit, and one of the co-conspirators charged herein, to build a ‘secret’ database to hold corporate ‘intelligence.’” This is a remarkable statement, because it may answer one of the burning questions those of us analyzing the problem have often asked: how does stolen Western data pass from the Chinese military to the Chinese private sector? According to the indictment, a State Owned Enterprise (SOE) simply hires Unit 61398 to provide IT services, and the military hackers leave the “intelligence” behind in a “database” for the benefit of the SOE.Counter standards:Fairness: They still get their PRC links because we interact with the PRC and with the agents it uses to hack the US. That means we preserve the core ground they want and actually give them more ground for links and arguments. Make them specifically prove what they have lost in order to vote for them. Education: Our plan engages the core of the topic which is the economic and political disagreements with China. IP theft is core to both of those disputes and affects our everyday lives – that means we preserve key resolution education with our plan. Learning about different areas of problems as well as specific mechanisms to solve is key to being an informed and effective decision-maker. Extra Topicality: Plan does not do more than the resolution calls for – the plan engages individuals in the PRC, companies who are owned by the PRC, and the government of the PRC itself. That is how the government is structured in China, which means we’re not extra topical. Voters: We meet their interpretation of topicality and preserve a meaningful, balanced debate. They still have plenty of arguments against us and there is symmetry in the debate – no abuse here. Topicality Answers – Cyber1AR ‘We Meet’ ExtensionState Owned Enterprises are part of the PRC Daniel T. Murphy, 2012, Demystifying China: Understanding China’s State-Owned Enterprises, Republk blog, Dan Murphy is Business Development Director at ATI he was also previously Vice President on the Project Development Middle East and India at Alcoa & Senior Vice President of the Business Development Alcoa Defense at Alcoa, pillar industries, the state will seek to maintain a controlling stake.? The PRC may take a minority share or no share at all, in individual companies in the pillar industries.? The automotive industry is an example of a pillar industry.? In addition, the government has also developed a “national champion” strategy for certain emerging industries that require large investments of capital, and will have longer-term returns-on-investment – For example, high speed rail and aviation industries. There are four ownership types of state-owned enterprises: (a) Some enterprises are fully owned by the state through the State-owned Assets and Supervision and Administration Commission (SASAC) of the State Council and by SASACs of provincial, municipal, and county governments.? (b) Some enterprises are majority owners of enterprises not officially considered SOEs but effectively controlled by their SOE owners.? (c) Some entities are owned and controlled indirectly through SOE subsidiaries based inside and outside of China (The actual size of this group is unknown).? (d) And finally, there are urban collective enterprises and government-owned township and village enterprises (TVEs) that also belong to the state sector but are not considered SOEs.Capitalism Kritik Answers - CyberLink AnswersLink Turn: Intellectual property actually hurts free market capitalism Mike Masnick, Dec 4th 2012, Fixing Copyright: Is Copyright A Part Of Free Market Capitalism?, Techdirt, Mike is the founder and CEO of Floor64 and editor of the Techdirt blog., course, there are other important ways in which copyrights are actually?against?the free market -- and, again, it's here where recognizing the?key differences?between copyright and scarce property come into play. As Rick Falkvinge recently reminded us, copyright is something that actually limits property rights?rather than creates new ones: Which brings us to the third notable item: “the exclusive right”. This is what we would refer to colloquially as a “monopoly”. The copyright industry has been tenacious in trying to portray the copyright monopoly as “property”, when in reality, the exclusive rights created are limitations of property rights?(it prohibits me from storing the bit patterns of my choosing on my own hardware). This is a key point that often gets lost in all of this. The only thing that copyright does is?limit others' actual property rights. Now, again, this doesn't mean you can't make an argument that this limitation is valuable and important. But it's a simple fact that all the "exclusive right" copyright provides to someone is a way to try to stop people from actually exercising their own property rights over products they own.? In the end, it's fine to argue that copyright has important benefits and value -- but that's not the same thing as arguing that it's a part of free market capitalism. Because it's not.Link Turn: Hacking culture is coopted into capitalism Johan Soderberg & Alessandro Delfanti, 2015, Hacking Hacked! The Life Cycles of Digital Innovation, Science, Technology, & Human Values, Johan Soderberg is associate professor of Theory of Science at the Department of Philosophy, Linguistics and Theory of Science, Goteborgs Universitet, Alessandro Delfanti is assistant professor of Culture and New Media at the University of Toronto, and is the author of Biohackers. The Politics of Open Science, , hackers can be situated in between a social movement, with a common history, a collective identity and shared goals, and a multiplicity of users, who lack such defining traits. The more closely hackers are made to resemble the latter, the more reliable source of innovation for firms they become. This observation provides us with the other side of the story of how innovations are harnessed from hackers (and users) by firms. By definition, this method for procuring innovation is systematic in the open-innovation regime. In order to grasp the systematic character of this, we need to rethink recuperation in terms broader than the life cycle of the individual hacker project/community. Boltanski and Chiapello (2005) reflect on the emergence of a new spirit of capitalism and reiterate that capitalism’s sources of legitimacy are to be found outside capitalism itself. The new spirit they describe is based on an inquiry into the incorporation of the 1968 critiques that helped to restructure and renew the ideological and organizational logics upon which capitalism works. In their view, capitalism feeds on critical cultures: only the incorporation and adaptation of critiques give capitalism means to overcome its own impasses. For instance, the inverse side of the critique against proprietary software and other forms of ‘‘closed innovation’’ systems expressed in free software communities is an investment in ‘‘open’’ forms of capital accumulation. Thus, the oppositional stance can be turned into an ‘‘ethical foundation for contemporary capitalism’’ as they are integrated in the new spirit (Barron 2013, 19; Tkacz 2012). Likewise, other writers have noted how the rebel-outsider position claimed by hackers has become an asset in an authenticity-stricken and consumer-driven market society (Liu 2004; Fleming 2009).Whereas Boltanski and Chiapello’s argument dwells on the evolution of organizational forms, they have little to say about the role of technology in the processes they describe. Yet technical innovations spawned by hackers (modular software code, mesh computer networks, distributed retrieval systems, private cryptography, etc.) constitute the material infrastructure of today’s capitalism. In this collection of articles, we argue for including hacking as one of the sources of the processes that constitute such infrastructure.We can use the state against capitalismChristian Parenti, April 2014, “Climate Change: What Role for Reform?” MONTHLY REVIEW v. 65 n. 11, Christian Parenti is a Professor of Sustainable Development at the School for International Training, Graduate Institute , accessed 4-24-14.There was also a larger point to my essay that the MR editors did not address. By describing policies that the U.S. capitalist state could undertake right now to start euthanizing the fossil-fuel industry, I was also attempting to start a conversation about the state. Once upon a time the state was the heart of the socialist project. But neoliberalism’s anti-statist rhetoric has almost “disappeared” the state as an intellectual object—even on much of the left. The capitalist state is not just a tool of capital’s rule. It is also an arena of class struggle. As such it is an institution that can solidify and enforce popular political victories over capital. If the struggle for climate justice is to get anywhere it will have to think more deeply about the contradictions of the capitalist state, and how such contradictions can be exploited in the short term. On that point, I hope you would agree.Capitalism Kritik Answers - CyberConsequentialist Impact Scenario AnswersImpact Turn: Capitalism is self-correcting and sustainable – war and environmental destruction are not profitable and innovation solves their impacts Anatole Kaletsky, 2011, Capitalism 4.0: The Birth of a New Economy in the Aftermath of Crisis, p. 19-21, Anatole Kaletsky is editor-at-large of The Times of London, where he writes weekly columns on economics, politics, and international relations and on the governing board of the New York-based Institute for New Economic Theory (INET), a nonprofit created after the 2007-2009 crisis to promote and finance academic research in economicsDemocratic capitalism is a system built for survival. It has adapted successfully to shocks of every kind, to upheavals in technology and economics, to political revolutions and world wars. Capitalism has been able to do this because, unlike communism or socialism or feudalism, it has an inner dynamic akin to a living thing. It can adapt and refine itself in response to the changing environment. And it will evolve into a new species of the same capitalist genus if that is what it takes to survive. In the panic of 2008—09, many politicians, businesses, and pundits forgot about the astonishing adaptability of the capitalist system. Predictions of global collapse were based on static views of the world that extrapolated a few months of admittedly terrifying financial chaos into the indefinite future. The self-correcting mechanisms that market economies and democratic societies have evolved over several centuries were either forgotten or assumed defunct. The language of biology has been applied to politics and economics, but rarely to the way they interact. Democratic capitalism’s equivalent of the biological survival instinct is a built-in capacity for solving social problems and meeting material needs. This capacity stems from the principle of competition, which drives both democratic politics and capitalist markets. Because market forces generally reward the creation of wealth rather than its destruction, they direct the independent efforts and ambitions of millions of individuals toward satisfying material demands, even if these demands sometimes create unwelcome by-products. Because voters generally reward politicians for making their lives better and safer, rather than worse and more dangerous, democratic competition directs political institutions toward solving rather than aggravating society’s problems, even if these solutions sometimes create new problems of their own. Political competition is slower and less decisive than market competition, so its self-stabilizing qualities play out over decades or even generations, not months or years. But regardless of the difference in timescale, capitalism and democracy have one crucial feature in common: Both are mechanisms that encourage individuals to channel their creativity, efforts, and competitive spirit into finding solutions for material and social problems. And in the long run, these mechanisms work very well. If we consider democratic capitalism as a successful problem-solving machine, the implications of this view are very relevant to the 2007-09 economic crisis, but diametrically opposed to the conventional wisdom that prevailed in its aftermath. Governments all over the world were ridiculed for trying to resolve a crisis caused by too much borrowing by borrowing even more. Alan Greenspan was accused of trying to delay an inevitable "day of reckoning” by creating ever-bigger financial bubbles. Regulators were attacked for letting half-dead, “zombie” banks stagger on instead of putting them to death. But these charges missed the point of what the democratic capitalist system is designed to achieve. In a capitalist democracy whose raison d’etre is to devise new solutions to long-standing social and material demands, a problem postponed is effectively a problem solved. To be more exact, a problem whose solution can be deferred long enough is a problem that is likely to be solved in ways that are hardly imaginable today. Once the self-healing nature of the capitalist system is recognized, the charge of “passing on our problems to our grand-children”—whether made about budget deficits by conservatives or about global warming by liberals—becomes morally unconvincing. Our grand-children will almost certainly be much richer than we are and will have more powerful technologies at their disposal. It is far from obvious, therefore, why we should make economic sacrifices on their behalf. Sounder morality, as well as economics, than the Victorians ever imagined is in the wistful refrain of the proverbially optimistic Mr. Micawber: "Something will turn up." Framing Turn: Consequentialism is bad – leads to horrendous decision makingDanny Scoccia, 2007, Moral theories: Utilitarianism, Kantianism, and Religious Ethics. Reading: pp. 6-17 & 20-26, Danny Scoccia is Professor Emeritus (Ph.D. University of California at San Diego) at New Mexico State University, Dr. Scoccia’s interests include ethical theory, philosophy of law and social and political philosophy, web.nmsu.edu/~dscoccia/321web/321ethicstheory.pdfThe other three views—Kantian ethics, natural rights theories, and “religious ethics”—all agree that there are many circumstances when maximizing utility would be wrong. Perhaps the strongest objection to Act Utilitarianism comes from the natural rights theory: Act Utilitarianism is false, because it tells us to violate people’s rights when that’s necessary to maximize utility. The example of Joseph illustrates it, but here’s another example. A surgeon has 1 healthy and 5 sick and dying patients. Each of the sick and dying patients needs a new organ— one a new kidney, another a new liver, the third a new heart, etc.—and would fully recover if he received it. It so happens that the 1 healthy patient would be a suitable organ donor for all of them. If the surgeon kills the 1 and redistributes his organs, he saves 5. If he does nothing, then 1 is alive and 5 are dead. On the assumption that all six are equally happy, loved by others, and productive of utility for others in society, then the way to maximize utility is to kill the 1. But if he won’t consent to being killed and having his organs transplanted (he doesn’t believe in utilitarianism), then killing him would violate his right to life. The objection is simply that it would be wrong to violate his right even if it’s the way to maximize utility.Capitalism Kritik Answers - CyberDeontology Impact AnswersImpact Turn: Capitalism is a prerequisite ethical system – it preserves freedom to act which is the core of the human condition Peter Saunders, 2007, Why Capitalism is Good for the Soul, Peter Saunders is a Fellow at the Center for Independent Studies, What Clive Hamilton airily dismisses as a ‘growth?fetish’ has?resulted in one hour of work today delivering twenty-five times more value?than it did in 1850.?This has freed huge chunks of our time for?leisure, art, sport, learning, and other ‘soul-enriching’ pursuits. Despite all the exaggerated talk of an ‘imbalance’ between work and family life, the average Australian today spends a much greater proportion of his or her lifetime free of work than they would had they belonged to any previous generation in history.??There is another sense, too, in which?capitalism has freed individuals so they can pursue worthwhile lives, and that lies in its record of undermining tyrannies and dictatorships. As examples like Pinochet’s Chile and Putin’s Russia vividly demonstrate, a free economy does not guarantee a democratic polity or a society governed by the rule of law. But as Milton Friedman once pointed out, these latter conditions are never found in the absence of a free economy.(12) Historically, it was capitalism that delivered humanity from the ‘soul-destroying’ weight of feudalism. Later, it freed millions from the dead hand of totalitarian socialism. While capitalism may not be a sufficient condition of human freedom, it is almost certainly a necessary one.??[continues]?Wherever populations have a chance to move, the flow is always towards capitalism, not away from it. The?authorities never had a problem keeping West Germans out of East Germany, South Koreans out of North Korea, or Taiwanese out of Communist China. The attraction of living in a capitalist society is not just that the economy works. It is also that?if your version of the good life leads you to turn your back on capitalism, you don’t have to pick up sticks and move away. If you don’t like capitalism, there is no need to bribe people-smugglers to get you out of the country.?You simply?buy a plot of land,?build your mud-brick?house, and drop out?(or, like Clive, you set up your own think tank and sell books urging others to drop out).Framing Turn: Deontology is a failed moral system – ticking time bomb provesMark J. Buha, 2010, Rule Utilitarian and Deontologist Perspectives on Comparisons of Torture and Killing, Washington University Jurisprudence Review Volume 2, Issue 2, Mark Buha is an Associate at Maune Raichle Hartley French & Mudd law firm, Mark earned his Juris Doctor from Washington University in St. Louis in 2011. He served as a Senior Editor of the Jurisprudence Review,openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1014&context=law_jurisprudenceDeontologists, like rule utilitarians, devise rules that must be followed universally. Deontologists and rule utilitarians differ only in what criteria they use to formulate these rules. Rule utilitarians use only pleasure and pain. They hold that any act that maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain when applied universally is good. Deontologists evaluate actions under an entirely different rubric than rule utilitarians,72 often focusing on the mental state of the actor or whether the act violates another's rights.73 If it violates another's rights, it is strictly forbidden, regardless of the consequences. 74 Deontologists tend to treat each individual separately as an end in itself.75Applying this analysis, many deontologists forbid torture under all circumstances.? see torture as a particularly repugnant violation of individual rights. It requires specific intent, deprives the victim of dignity, and invades the victim's physical and psychological integrity. Provided grave enough consequences, this uncompromising position represents a fanaticism77and "moral fundamentalism"' that is difficult to defend. Hardly anyone finds it acceptable to rigidly adhere to an abstract moral principle—no matter how sound the principle appears in isolation—when doing so results in the death of hundreds or thousands of people.79 Deontologists allow catastrophe and mass death to occur to protect a single individual simply because torture violates his or her rights. The infamous "ticking time bomb" hypothetical illuminates these objections. In this scenario, a bomb is located in a crowded city. If detonated, it will destroy the entire city and millions will die. The bomb's location is unknown, and there is not enough time for a general search. Law enforcement apprehends one of the bomb's planters who knows the bomb's location and how to deactivate it. If the terrorist divulges the information, law enforcement has enough time to disable the bomb. Given these facts, few would adhere to principle; most would torture the individual in order to extract information that would save millions. This hypothetical presses deontology to its ideological limits. Once the prohibitionist admits he would allow torture in this situation, he concedes that his opposition to torture is not based on principle alone, but on something else.8° Deontologists respond with both logical and empirical objections to the ticking time bomb hypothetical's seductive simplicity. First, as Richard Matthews points out, the argument may be valid, but it is unsound, and therefore it cannot seriously undermine any position on torture.81The ticking bomb argument sets forth an "if-then" conditional: if these facts exist, then a reasonable person would torture.82If the antecedent holds, the consequence follows. But the hypothetical assumes the antecedent's truth without providing any proof. Valid but not sound, the hypothetical proves nothing. If we accepted mere validity, anything could be proven.83 Second, deontologists point out how unlikely it is that the antecedent facts would ever simultaneously exist in the real world. Although each premise has an empirical likelihood of being false, the hypothetical assumes that (1) an actual terrorist threat exists, (2) the threat is imminent, (3) the threat is sufficiently dangerous to justify torture, (4) the apprehended suspect possesses any information relevant to the threat, (5) only a single individual possesses all of the information necessary to extinguish the threat, (6) the individual participated in the attack or is a wrongdoer, (7) torture will be effective in forcing the subject to disclose information, (8) the information disclosed is truthful, and (9) the torturer can distinguish truthful and false information simply by observing the subject. The distinct unlikelihood that all nine elements will simultaneously exist in the real world renders the example almost irrelevant, useful only as a thought exercise.84 While these criticisms expose the assumptions in the ticking time bomb hypothetical, they ultimately avoid the issue. While it might be extremely unlikely that such factual circumstances will ever exist, it is not conceptually impossible. The fact remains that rigid deontology allows the bombs to go off in that scenario, however unlikely. Deontologists allow the world to explode to avoid violating the rights of a single individual.Capitalism Kritik Answers - CyberDiscourse Impact AnswersImpact Turn: Talking broadly about theories don’t help build education spaces, it creates withdrawal and pessimism – only learning about and working through actual systems and scenarios is educationally liberating Richard Rorty 1998, “ACHIEVING OUR COUNTRY: Leftist Thought in Twentieth-Century America”, 1998, Pg. 7-9, Richard Rorty is a professor emeritus of comparative literature and philosophy at Stanford University and a leading academic in the field of philosophySuch people find pride in American citizenship impossible, and vigorous participation in electoral politics pointless. They associate American patriotism with an endorsement of atrocities: the importation of African slaves, the slaughter of Native Americans, the rape of ancient forests, and the Vietnam War. Many of them think of national pride as appropriate only for chauvinists: for the sort of American who rejoices that America can still orchestrate something like the Gulf War, can still bring deadly force to bear whenever and wherever it chooses. When young intellectuals watch John Wayne war movies after reading Heidegger, Foucault, Stephenson, or Silko, they often become convinced that they live in a violent, inhuman, corrupt country. They begin to think of themselves as a saving remnant-as the happy few who have the insight to see through nationalist rhetoric to the ghastly reality of contemporary America. But this insight does not move them to formulate a legislative program, to join a political movement, or to share in a national hope. The contrast between national hope and national self-mockery and self-disgust becomes vivid when one compares novels like Snow Crash and Almanac of the Dead with socialist novels of the first half of the century-books like The Jungle, An American Tragedy, and The Grapes of Wrath. The latter were written in the belief that the tone of the Gettysburg Address was absolutely right, but that our country would have to transform itself in order to fulfill Lincoln's hopes. Transformation would be needed because the rise of industrial capitalism had made the individualist rhetoric of America's first century obsolete. The authors of these novels thought that this rhetoric should be replaced by one in which America is destined to become the first cooperative commonwealth, the first classless society. This America would be one in which income and wealth are equitably distributed, and in which the government ensures equality of opportunity as well as individual liberty. This new, quasi-communitarian rhetoric was at the heart of the Progressive Movement and the New Deal. It set the tone for the American Left during the first six decades of the twentieth century. Walt Whitman and John Dewey, as we shall see, did a great deal to shape this rhetoric. The difference between early twentieth-century leftist intellectuals and the majority of their contemporary counterparts is the difference between agents and spectators. In the early decades of this century, when an intellectual stepped back from his or her country's history and looked at it through skeptical eyes, the chances were that he or she was about to propose a new political initiative. Henry Adams was, of course, the great exception-the great abstainer from ·politics. But William James thought that Adams' diagnosis of the First Gilded Age as a symptom of irreversible moral and political decline was merely perverse. James's pragmatist theory of truth was in part a reaction against the sort of detached spectatorship which Adams affected. For James, disgust with American hypocrisy and self-deception was pointless unless accompanied by an effort to give America reason to be proud of itself in the future. The kind of proto- Heideggerian cultural pessimism which Adams cultivated seemed, to James, decadent and cowardly. "Democracy," James wrote, "is a kind of religion, and we are bound not to admit its failure. Faiths and utopias are the noblest exercise of human reason, and no one with a spark of reason in him will sit down fatalistically before the croaker's picture. "2 Framing Turn: Focus on discourse trades off with actually implementing policy, risks cooption by special interests, and doesn’t solve as effectively – need to focus on real solutions not rhetoricRenee Irvin & John Stansbury, 2004, Citizen Participation in Decision-Making: Is it Worth the Effort?, Public Administration Review, Renee Irvin is Associate Professor in the Department of Planning, Public Policy and Management at the University of Oregon & John Stansbury is Associate Professor of Civil Engineering at the University of Nebraska, c.sites/resource/resmgr/imported/Journal_Issue1_Irving.pdfThis article, while describing the very important benefits of citizen participation, also provides a litmus test for agencies to consider when they allocate resources toward citizen participation processes. Do citizens care enough to participate actively in policy-making, or would resources devoted toward participatory processes be better directed toward implementation? Does local citizen participation imply more opportunity for economically motivated special interests to dominate the decision process? Criticism lobbed at participatory efforts in environmental management may soon be heard in other sectors, as decreasing government budgets require intense scrutiny of government performance outcomes. Delegating environmental decision-making authority to citizens is a policy strategy lauded for its holistic consideration of local economic interests, yet criticised by the environmental left for its potential to roll back decades of environmental regulatory success. Evidence for the effectiveness of community participation in environmental management is in short supply, due in part to the inherent problems in measuring the success of environmental policies that may take decades to positively affect the environment. Even more difficult, perhaps, is the prospect of measuring incremental changes in the well-being of the general public as they become more engaged in the policy process. Concern exists among environmentalists that locally-based citizen participation processes will lead to a relaxation of previously successful environmental regulation. Another concern, rarely voiced, is the potential wastefulness of the process if employed in a non-ideal community. Even if the citizen participation process does not lead to relaxed environmental regulation, it may entail a significant expenditure of resources that could be used elsewhere to achieve better on the-ground results. With widespread public benefit as the goal of any public policy process, it behooves the administrator to consider the advantages and disadvantages of the decision-making process when determining the most effective implementation strategy, bearing in mind that talk is not cheap – and may not even be effective.Capitalism Kritik Answers - CyberAlternative AnswersNo solvency: The working class will not succeed in overthrowing the capitalist systemMike Cole 2009, “Critical Race Theory and Education A Marxist Response”, chapter 7, pg 121, Mike Cole is a Research Professor in Education and Equality, Head of Research and Director of the Centre for Education for Social Justice at Bishop Grosseteste University College Lincoln, UKThe Working Class Won’t Create the Revolution Because They Are Reactionary. It is a fundamental tenet of Marxism that the working class are the agents of social revolution, and that the working class, as noted above, needs to become a ‘class for itself’ in addition to being a ‘class in itself’ (Marx, 1847 [1995]). It is unfortunately the case that major parts of the world are a long way off such a scenario at the present conjuncture. It is also the case that successful interpellation and related false consciousness hampers the development of class consciousness and the move towards the overthrow of capitalism. Britain is one example where the Ruling Class has been particularly successful in interpellating the working class (see Cole, 2008g, 2008h for discussion). Elsewhere, however, there are examples of burgeoning class consciousness, witnessed for example by the growth of Left parties (see below) in Europe and by developments across South America, notably the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (see below) and in Bolivia. It is to be hoped that, as neoliberal global imperial capitalism continues to reveal and expose its essential ruthlessness and contempt for those who make its profits, class consciousness will increase and that the working class will one day be in a position to overthrow (world) capitalism and to replace it with (world) democratic socialism. Perhaps it should be pointed out here that Marxists do not idolize or deify the working class; it is rather that the structural location in capitalist societies of the working class, so that, once it has become 'a class in itself' makes it the agent for change. Moreover the very act of social revolution and the creation of socialism mean the end of the very existence of the working class as a social class. As Marx and Engels (1845) [1975] put it: When socialist writers ascribe this world-historic role to the proletariat, it is not at all ... because they regard the proletarians as gods. Rather the contrary ... [The proletariat] cannot emancipate itself without abolishing the conditions of its own life. It cannot abolish the conditions of its own life without abolishing all the inhuman conditions of society today which are summed up in its own situation.No solvency: Alternatives to capitalism fail – lack of individual choice results in tyranny or failure Allan Meltzer March 12, 2009, “Why Capitalism?” 2008-2009 Bradley Lecture Series, Allan Meltzer is Professor of Political Economy at Carnegie Mellon University’s School of Business, Visiting Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, First Recipient of the AEI Irving Kristol Award, and Chairman of the International Financial Institution Advisory Commission, to Capitalism Critics of capitalism emphasize their dislike of greed and self-interest. They talk a great deal about social justice and fairness, but they do not propose an acceptable alternative to achieve their ends. The alternatives that have been tried are types of Socialism or Communism or other types of authoritarian rule. Anti-capitalist proposals suffer from two crippling drawbacks. First, they ignore the Kantian principle about human imperfection. Second, they ignore individual differences. In place of individual choice under capitalism, they substitute rigid direction done to achieve some proclaimed end such as equality, fairness, or justice. These ends are not precise and, most important, individuals differ about what is fair and just. In practice, the rulers' choices are enforced, often using fear, terror, prison, or other punishment. The history of the twentieth century illustrates how enforcement of promised ends became the justification for deplorable means. And the ends were not realized. Transferring resource allocation decisions to government bureaus does not eliminate crime, greed, self-dealing, conflict of interest, and corruption. Experience tells us these problems remain. The form may change, but as Kant recognized, the problems continue. Ludwig von Mises recognized in the 1920s that fixing prices and planning resource use omitted an essential part of the allocation problem. Capitalism allocates by letting relative prices adjust to equal the tradeoffs expressed by buyers' demands. Fixing prices eliminates the possibility of efficient allocation and replaces consumer choice with official decisions. Some gain, but others lose; the losers want to make choices other than those that are dictated to them. Not all Socialist societies have been brutal. In the nineteenth century, followers of Robert Owen, the Amana people, and many others chose a Socialist system. Israeli pioneers chose a collectivist system, the kibbutz. None of these arrangements produced sustainable growth. None survived. All faced the problem of imposing allocative decisions that satisfied the decision-making group, sometimes a majority, often not. Capitalism recognizes that where individual wants differ, the market responds to the mass; minorities are free to develop their favored outcome. Walk down the aisles of a modern supermarket. There are products that satisfy many different tastes or beliefs. Theodor Adorno was a leading critic of postwar capitalism as it developed in his native Germany, in Europe, and in the United States. He found the popular culture vulgar, and he distrusted the workers' choices. He wanted a Socialism that he hoped would uphold the values he shared with other intellectuals. Capitalism, he said, valued work too highly and true leisure too little. He disliked jazz, so he was not opposed to Hitler's ban in the 1930s. But Adorno offered no way of achieving the culture he desired other than to impose his tastes on others and ban all choices he disliked. This appealed to people who shared his view. Many preferred American pop culture whenever they had the right to choose. Capitalism permits choices and the freedom to make them. Some radio stations play jazz, some offer opera and symphonies, and many play pop music. Under capitalism, advertisers choose what they sponsor, and they sponsor programs that people choose to hear or watch. Under Socialism, the public watches and hears what someone chooses for them. The public had little choice. In Western Europe change did not come until boats outside territorial limits offered choice. The Templeton Foundation recently ran an advertisement reporting the answers several prominent intellectuals gave to the question: "Does the free market corrode moral character?" Several respondents recognized that free markets operate within a political system, a legal framework, and the rule of law. The slave trade and slavery became illegal in the nineteenth century. Before this a majority enslaved a minority. This is a major blot on the morality of democratic choice that public opinion and the law eventually removed. In the United States those who benefitted did not abandon slave owning until forced by a war. Most respondents to the Templeton question took a mixed stand. The philosopher John Gray recognized that greed and envy are driving forces under capitalism, but they often produce growth and raise living standards so that many benefit. But greed leads to outcomes like Enron and WorldCom that critics take as a characteristic of the system rather than as a characteristic of some individuals that remains under Socialism. Michael Walzer recognized that political activity also corrodes moral character, but he claimed it was regulated more effectively. One of the respondents discussed whether capitalism was more or less likely to foster or sustain moral abuses than other social arrangements. Bernard-Henri Levy maintained that alternatives to the market such as fascism and Communism were far worse. None of the respondents mentioned Kant's view that mankind includes a range of individuals who differ in their moral character. Institutional and social arrangements like democracy and capitalism influence the moral choices individuals make or reject. No democratic capitalist country produced any crimes comparable to the murders committed by Hitler's Germany, Mao's China, or Lenin and Stalin's Soviet Union. As Lord Acton warned, concentrated power corrupts officials. Some use concentrated power to impose their will. Some allow their comrades to act as tyrants. Others proclaim that ends such as equality justify force to control opposition. Communism proclaimed a vision of equality that it never approached. It was unattainable because individuals differ about what is good. And what is good to them and for them is not the same as what is socially desirable to critics of capitalism. Kant's principle warns that utopian visions are unattainable. Capitalism does not offer a vision of perfection and harmony. Democratic capitalism combines freedom, opportunity, growth, and progress with restrictions on less desirable behavior. It creates societies that treat men and women as they are, not as in some utopian vision. In The Open Society and Its Enemies, Karl Popper showed why utopian visions become totalitarian. All deviations from the utopian ideal must be prevented. The Enrons, WorldComs, and others of that kind show that dishonest individuals rise along with honest individuals. Those who use these examples to criticize capitalism do not use the same standard to criticize all governments as failed arrangements when a Watergate or bribery is uncovered. Nor do they criticize government when politicians promise but do not produce or achieve. We live after twenty-five to forty years of talk about energy, education, healthcare, and drugs. Governments promise and propose, but little if any progress is visible on these issues. No solvency: Capitalism is inevitable—reforms, not revolution, are the only option. John K Wilson, 2000, “How the Left can Win Arguments and Influence People” p. 15- 16, John K. Wilson is Editor and Publisher of Illinois Academe,Capitalism is far too ingrained in American life to eliminate. If you go into the most impoverished areas of America, you will find that the people who live there are not seeking government control over factories or even more social welfare programs; they're hoping, usually in vain, for a fair chance to share in the capitalist wealth. The poor do not pray for socialism-they strive to be a part of the capitalist system. They want jobs, they want to start businesses, and they want to make money and be successful. What's wrong with America is not capitalism as a system but capitalism as a religion. We worship the accumulation of wealth and treat the horrible inequality between rich and poor as if it were an act of God. Worst of all, we allow the government to exacerbate the financial divide by favoring the wealthy: go anywhere in America, and compare a rich suburb with a poor town-the city services, schools, parks, and practically everything else will be better financed in the place populated by rich people. The aim is not to overthrow capitalism but to overhaul it. Give it a social-justice tune-up, make it more efficient, get the economic engine to hit on all cylinders for everybody, and stop putting out so many environmentally hazardous substances. To some people, this goal means selling out leftist ideals for the sake of capitalism. But the right thrives on having an ineffective opposition. The Revolutionary Communist Party helps stabilize the "free market" capitalist system by making it seem as if the only alternative to free-market capitalism is a return to Stalinism. Prospective activists for change are instead channeled into pointless discussions about the revolutionary potential of the proletariat. Instead of working to persuade people to accept progressive ideas, the far left talks to itself (which may be a blessing, given the way it communicates) and tries to sell copies of the Socialist Worker to an uninterested public.Capitalism Kritik Answers - CyberPermutationPermutation: Do both – Reforms from with-in the system solve bestChris Dixon 2001, “Reflections on Privilege, Reformism, and Activism”, Activist and founding member of Direct Action Network Summer, bolster his critique of 'reformism,' for instance, he critically cites one of the examples in my essay: demanding authentic we need revolutionary strategy that links diverse, everyday struggles and demands to long-term radical objectives, without sacrificing either. Of course, this isn't to say that every so-called 'progressive' ballot initiative or organizing campaign is necessarily radical or strategic. Reforms are not all created equal. But some can fundamentally shake systems of power, leading to enlarged gains and greater space for further advances. Andre Gorz, in his seminal book Strategy for Labor, refers to these as "non-reformist" or "structural" reforms. He contends, "a struggle for non-reformist reforms--for anti-capitalist reforms--is one which does not base its validity and its right to exist on capitalist needs, criteria, and rationales. A non-reformist reform is determined not in terms of what can be, but what should be." Look to history for examples: the end of slavery, the eight-hour workday, desegregation. All were born from long, hard struggles, and none were endpoints. Yet they all struck at the foundations of power (in these cases, the state, white supremacy, and capitalism), and in the process, they created new prospects for revolutionary change. Now consider contemporary struggles: amnesty for undocumented immigrants, socialized health care, expansive environmental protections, indigenous sovereignty. These and many more are arguably non-reformist reforms as well. None will single-handedly dismantle capitalism or other systems of power, but each has the potential to escalate struggles and sharpen social contradictions. And we shouldn't misinterpret these efforts as simply meliorative incrementalism, making 'adjustments' to a fundamentally flawed system. Capitalism Kritik Answers - CyberTransition Wars Disadvantage Capitalist elites will resist the alternative, causing global transition warsLee Harris, December 1, 2002, The Intellectual Origins of America-Bashing, Hoover Institution Policy Review December 2002 & 2003, Lee Harris is an American author and essayist who writes for Policy Review and Tech Central Station who lives in Stone Mountain, Georgia, research/intellectual-origins-america-bashingThis is the immiserization thesis of Marx. And it is central to revolutionary Marxism, since if capitalism produces no widespread misery, then it also produces no fatal internal contradiction: If everyone is getting better off through capitalism, who will dream of struggling to overthrow it? Only genuine misery on the part of the workers would be sufficient to overturn the whole apparatus of the capitalist state, simply because, as Marx insisted, the capitalist class could not be realistically expected to relinquish control of the state apparatus and, with it, the monopoly of force. In this, Marx was absolutely correct. No capitalist society has ever willingly liquidated itself, and it is utopian to think that any ever will. Therefore, in order to achieve the goal of socialism, nothing short of a complete revolution would do; and this means, in point of fact, a full-fledged civil war not just within one society, but across the globe.Revolution is necessarily violent – alternative would lead to levels of unprecedented violenceMichael Cummings & Eric Cummings, 2011 (On Violence, "Revolutions are Violent", Michael Cummings is veteran and a writer, who deployed to Afghanistan in 2008 with the 173rd Airborne Brigade as a platoon leader, and Iraq in 2010 with 5th Special Forces Group as an intelligence officer. Eric Cummings is a writer who lives in Los Angeles. Their outside writing has appeared in the?Washington Post, Stars and Stripes,?The New York Times’?“At War” blog,?Thomas Ricks’ “The Best Defense” blog and?Infantry?magazine, )Michael was arguing a point that we haven’t argued enough on this website: revolutions are violent. ? Which may seem obvious. Except that extremists from both sides of the political spectrum casually endorse revolutions, like my liberal activist friend endorsing a revolution--a revolution, it is safe to say, the vast majority of the population didn’t endorse--to solve the environmental crisis. Like Occupy Protesters who just love revolutions, idealized, romanticized and fantasized through Che Guevara T-shirts, Youtube videos of street protests, and Guy Fawkes masks. Like Tea partiers make a point of bringing guns to political rallies, in case they need to overthrow the government. Both sides casually endorse violence, from Tea Party candidates to Occupy speakers. ? (We should make it clear that by “revolutions”, we mean revolutions that overthrow the existing power structure, not social or technological revolutions like the industrial revolution, the digital boom or the green revolution.)? The Arab Spring, as our most thought provoking event of 2011, should remind would-be-American-revolutionaries what a revolution really is: the break down of society and order, a revolution in power, which (mostly) results in violence. In this pan-Arab/north African revolution we have seen a few civil wars (Yemen, Syria and Libya), a military invasion (Saudi Arabia into Qatar), authoritarian crackdowns with unlawful arrests (Qatar, Eqypt, Syria and Yemen) and protesters generally arrested or attacked throughout. It is safe to say, to those who advocated revolution, violence followed.? This completely fits into the larger narratives of the history of revolutions. The American Revolution (Historians debate over whether this qualifies, I believe it does; it threw out the entire power structure.) cost one in every hundred males his life. The American Revolution is the second deadliest conflict in American history, percentage wise, with only the Civil War beating it, itself its own kind of revolution. ? Meanwhile, France’s revolution is symbolized by the guillotine, an industrial means of execution. The Russian Revolution lead to the deaths of literally millions of people. The revolutions that wracked Europe throughout the nineteenth century always included violence and death. When I studied Latin America history in high school, my notes read, “Colonialism. Revolution. Dictator. Revolution.” It applied to every country.? Violence always coincides with the outbreak of revolutions, for a few reasons:? First, instability. Inherently, revolutions are unstable, by definition an overthrow of the existing power structures. When this happens, chaos ensues. Food shortages, lack of security, a breakdown of the social order. The best explanation for this is our blog’s namesake, On Violence, by Hannah Arendt, that argued that violence and power are opposites. Thus, when the power structure disappears--as in France or Russia or Libya--violence fills the gaps.? Second, vengeance. Most revolutions have a very legitimate basis: people feel discriminated against, or suffer from severe economic inequality, or chafe under colonial rule. When the masses revolt, they take their vengeance against their previous oppressors. Look at what happened in the French revolution. Or what happened to Moammar Ghaddafi. Or Saddam Hussein.? Third, civil wars. They happen when revolutionaries disagree, or the over-thrown don’t want to leave so easily. Take the above groups advocating revolution, the Occupiers and the Tea Partiers. They don’t agree on anything. So if one side starts a revolution, they’ll basically have to go to war with the other side. Boom, you’ve got a civil war. This is what is happening in Syria.Convention on the Rights of the Child AffirmativePlan text - CRCAs a reaction to diplomatic pressure from the Peoples Republic of China the USFG should ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child treatyInherency - CRCUS is the only country to not ratify the CRC– no legislation to start that process eitherRebecca McCloskey, January 8, 2016, The U.S. Will Soon Stand Alone: U.S. Failure to Ratify the CRC Fails Our Children, Social Justice Solutions, Rebecca McCloskey is a licensed clinical social worker with a Master's in Social Work, 2016/01/08/u-s-will-soon-stand-alone-u-s-failure-ratify-crc-fails-children/To date, there are just two UN member nations who have not yet ratified the CRC – South Sudan and the United States of America. It should be noted, however, that South Sudan only became an independent country and joined the UN less than five years ago and it has since passed a bill to move toward ratification (). While the United States was one of the primary contributors toward drafting this document, it has never made efforts toward ratifying it. Soon, the United States will be the only UN member country who has not ratified this child and family focused human rights treaty. The only one! Years ago while campaigning, President Obama said this was embarrassing and that he would review this, but there’s been no momentum toward doing so. The US is the only nation to not ratify the CRCMARTHA Middleton, MAR 01, 2016, ABA adds its voice to calls for the US to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child, ABA Journal, MARTHA MIDDLETON is a reporter for the American Bar Association journal, magazine/article/aba_adds_its_voice_to_calls_for_the_us_to_ratify_the_convention_on_the_righThe Convention on the Rights of the Child reached an important milestone in 2015, when Somalia and South Sudan completed the ratification process. Their actions leave only one of the 197 member states and parties of the United Nations as a holdout against ratifying the treaty: the United States. The CRC was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in 1989 and went into force in 1990 after being ratified initially by 20 countries. According to the Campaign for U.S. Ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child based in New York City, the CRC has become the most widely ratified international treaty in history, and only the U.S. government’s inaction is keeping the convention from becoming the first-ever universally ratified human rights treaty.Human Rights Promotion Advantage - CRCUniquenessCRC non-ratification kills US human rights promotion credibilityBeatriz Pérez de las Heras, June 2015, EU and US External Policies on Human Rights and Democracy Promotion: Assessing Political Conditionality in Transatlantic Partnership, ROMANIAN JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN AFFAIRS Vol. 15, No. 2, Beatriz Pérez de las Heras is Professor of European Law and Jean Monnet Chair in European Integration at the University of Deusto (UD) (Bilbao, Spain). She is Main Researcher of the ‘European Integration’ research team and Academic Director of the Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence on European Union Law and International Relations at the UD, rjea.ier.ro/sites/rjea.ier.ro/files/articole/RJEA_2015_vol15_no2_art5.pdfPromotion of democracy and human rights has traditionally been one of the core elements of US foreign policy, though human rights have usually occupied a more modest position than in EU policy. Indeed, the American approach to human rights promotion abroad has been controversial, given that the US has yet to ratify several of the most important international instruments. So, for example, since 1974 the US General System of Preferences has linked the granting of trade preferences to the development of internationally-recognized labour rights in developing countries, despite the fact that the US has not ratified all the fundamental International Labour Organization (ILO) conventions. Its reluctance to sign up to these and other binding international treaties, such as the American Convention on Human Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights or the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture among others, has undermined US legitimacy in advancing human rights abroad (Bradley, 2010)US ‘walking the walk’ is key to human rights promotionJohn Kerry as reported by CNN ireport, August 15, 2015, The US Will Investigate Its Own Human Rights Abuses After Admitting to Hypocrisy After Pressing Cuba on their Abuses, CNN, John Kerry is a decorated war hero, former presidential candidate, and former secretary of state, ireport.docs/DOC-1264165US Secretary of State John Kerry says, “Yes, the U.S. will press Cuba on human rights- but quickly added that he will be meeting with top level cabinet members in the Obama Administrators and with Human Rights Watch to discuss ways to address the United States’ own human rights abuses and hypocrisy. “Addressing our own hypocrisy is important. We call out China, North Korea, Iran, and many other countries for their human rights abuses. When the US points out other countries’ human rights abuses and then fails to address our own abuses, well, we lose credibility.??When we bring those issues up during talks with other World leaders, their eyes glaze over and we can see they just aren’t buying it. We need to start ‘walking the walk’ rather than just ‘talking the talk’. Simply paying the whole idea of human rights abuses ‘lip service’ isn’t getting us anywhere.” Kerry said it was ‘high time’ that the US faced the World’s criticism over our own abuses of human rights, here, in the United States and in every country where the US has abused the rights of their citizens.Human Rights Promotion Advantage - CRCImpactHuman rights promotion is key to economic and social prosperityShruti Banerjee, June 10, 2015, Human rights and U.S. foreign policy: history, funding, data and action, Rights Wire (The Human RIghts Blog of the Leitner Center for International Law and Justice), Shruti Banerjee is a Staff Writer for Rights Wire, order to effectively promote human rights abroad, the U.S. needs to start by complying with human rights laws while actively promoting their implementation abroad. This requires making human rights a fundamental part of our foreign policy through rhetoric, political pressure and funding. More specifically, we must view human rights not solely as a moral or religious obligation, but as a fundamental tool to increase peace, security and economic prosperity around the world. In their book?The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better, Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson found that more equal societies with less violence have a greater overall quality of life, not just for poor people, but for all income classes. Wilkinson and Pickett’s analysis can be extended to the international community: We can achieve greater economic and social prosperity in our own country by abiding by human rights laws and promoting equality abroad.Human rights promotion is necessary for the good of all human beingsMohammed Yeasin Khan, October 2007, Protection and Promotion of Human Rights for Peace and Development, Calamus International University, Mohammed Yeasin Khan LLB Honours, LLM, PhD, PGDL, Barrister-at-Law (Lincoln's Inn, England) is a Journalist, Poet and Rhyme Writer, Founder Editor of Weekly Deshdarpan, an Appellate Division Lawyer of Bangladesh Supreme Court (Advocate-on-Record)/ Jurist, Educationist and an Adjunct Professor of Law of a London based University Faculty. He performs his continuous philosophical studies and research works being based in England and Bangladesh simultaneously. In his PhD thesis ‘Protection and Promotion of Human Rights for Peace and Development’ he recommended a new doctrine of world peace: ‘The Man for Man Theory of World Peace.’ He is Founder & President of Bangladesh Legal Rights Association and Man for Man International Foundation, humanrights.wiki/Protection_and_Promotion_of_Human_Rights_for_Peace_and_DevelopmentThe very needs for protection and promotion of human rights are mirrored in the definition and concept of the same. Connoting the word ‘human’ as ‘things relating to man or mankind’ and the word ‘right’ as ‘legal claim’ the words ‘human rights’ universally stand as ‘legal claim of man or mankind’[1]?irrespective of gender, colour, race and religion. These rights being fundamental requirements for existence of human beings are associated with the very birth of mankind[2]?and according to the United Nations publication, could be generally defined as inherent rights in human nature without which none can live as a human being.[3] All human beings are entitled to the basic human rights such as the right to life, liberty, freedom of expression and thought, equal protection of law and so many others which entitles every individual or groups vis-à-vis the government and also requires responsibilities of the individual and the government authorities.[4] Irrespective of race, religion, colour or gender such rights being natural are neither earned nor could be denied and are protected by rules of law?[5]?and being treated as legal rights as distinct from and prior to law to be used as standards for formulation of both national and international law so that the conduct of government and military forces also strictly comply with such standards.[6] Generally, it is believed, “the concept of international protection of human rights is firmly established in international human rights law.”[7] Enjoying the status of International Law, human rights, as contained in the Charter of the United Nations and Universal Declaration of Human Rights, are the international and national standard of all aspects of the human behaviour as the Charter of Rights for mankind and any of their violation anywhere is the concern of everybody everywhere which view has also been confirmed by the world conference on Human Rights in the Vienna Declaration 1993 that the human rights are universal, invisible, interdependent and interrelated and when enacted into the national law of any country those become fundamental rights of the citizen of the country.[8](Impact framing) Human rights promotion is a moral obligationTies Dams & Frans Paul van der Putten, December 2015, China and Liberal Values in International Relations, Clingendael Netherlands Institue of International Relations, Ties Dams has a Master’s degree in political theory from University College London, and contributed to this article during an internship at Clingendael Institute. Frans Paul van der Putten is a senior researcher at the Clingendael Institute, clingendael.nl/sites/default/files/China_and_Liberal_Values_in_International_Relations.pdfAs a result of the US-led drive to promote democracy and human rights as global values, the concepts of ‘universal human rights’ and (more recently) the ‘responsibility to protect’ became prevalent in international political discourse. These norms have become institutionalized in bodies such as the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) and they give the international community in certain situations not only the formal right, but even the moral obligation, to interfere in the affairs of another sovereign nation-state.13 This seems to contradict with Westphalian norms of sovereignty.Human Rights Promotion Advantage - CRCSolvencyChina really wants the US to ratify the CRC – would boost credibilityXinhua News Service, April 14, 2016, Full text: Human Rights Record of the United States in 2015, Xinhua is the official media outlet of mainland China and the PRC, news.english/china/2016-04/14/c_135278868_7.htmThough the United States repeatedly vowed to defend "human rights," it still has not ratified core human rights conventions of the UN, including the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women; the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The United States is the only country that is yet to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The United States also takes an uncooperative attitude towards international human rights issues. It often kept stalling or turned a deaf ear to criticisms leveled by the UN Human Rights Council special sessions and High Commissioners for Human Rights. On September 28, 2015 when the UN Human Rights Council adopted a resolution related to development right, the United States, as always, voted against it ().Ratifying the CRC restores human rights credibilityRachel Roderick, September 2, 2015, The U.S.’ Puzzling Refusal to Ratify the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, Youth Today, Rachel Roderick, who has a master's degree in human resources and labor relations, is an education advocate and literacy coach for students of all ages. She is currently conducting research on how the Convention on the Rights of the Child has impacted international juvenile justice practices, is not as if the U.S. maintains a general policy of opting out of international treaties. The U.S. has signed and ratified five of the U.N.’s 18?International Human Rights Treaties, though this is fewer than Iran, Iraq and China — and on par with North Korea. Meanwhile, the U.S. does not hesitate to point a judgmental finger at others for the treatment of their citizens. In March, for example,?CIA Director John Brennan?said, “Human rights abuses, whether they take place on the part of ISIL or of militias or individuals who are working as part of formal security services, need to be exposed, need to be stopped.” This, despite the fact that the CIA itself had recently been the subject of a lengthy human-rights investigation. "The U.S. government is not given to honest self-reflection about its own or its allies’ human rights abuses," responded Katherine Hawkins, one of the investigators. When we can stand up in the court of world opinion as a shining example of respect for and protection of human rights, particularly the rights of children, our national voice will hold greater weight when we decry the shortcomings of others. Please contact your congressional leaders to request their support in ratifying the Convention to protect the rights of children across the country and around the world.US ratification of the CRC is key to human rights promotionKatie Hatziavramidis, 2005, PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT LAWS FOR ABORTION IN THE UNITED STATES AND THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTIONS ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD: CAN INTERNATIONAL LAW SECURE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE FOR MINORS?, Texas Journal of Women and the Law volume 16, Katie Hatziavramidis is a lawyer in Illinois working for Chicago Volunteer Legal Services, she graduated from University of North Texas Law School in 2005 and was a former national debater, the most promising result of U.S, ratification of the CRC is the possibility for international modeling. If the United States were to support the treaty and interpret its language in a manner that protects adolescent autonomy in reproductive decisions, other States would be likely to follow,""' Although all the U.N. member States have signed the Convention and either ratified or promised to ratify it, the way they interpret its language is not uniform. As a world leader and the most influential member of the United Nations, the United States is in an excellent position to encourage other nations to follow its initiatives, particularly with respect to international law, A broad interpretation of the CRC by the United States, coupled with ratification, might encourage other nations to liberalize their anti-choice policies, affording minors increased protection on a global scale, '"^ In turn, this commitment to align our nation's policies with those of the other CRC signatories could forge ties that could spill over into other areas, thereby increasing U,S, credibility in the international arena. Many scholars have noted that cooperative multilateral participation often boosts a nation's influence and leadership and increases relations between States,'''^ Treaties have long been regarded as a critical component of multilateralism, and our acquiescence to the CRC would undoubtedly improve a multilateral agenda. 'Identity politics Advantage - CRCUniquenessThere is a strong, prevalent bias of adultism in the USAdam Fletcher, January 7, 2016, Discrimination Against Youth Voice, The Freechild Project, Adam Fletcher is an advocate, author, motivational speaker, and educator focused on youth voice and student engagement, recognized for founding The Freechild Project. His work centers on youth studies, critical thinking and the development of democratic society, and has been acknowledged as "perhaps the best spokesman for the philosophical basis of community youth development". Fletcher was a youth worker in several nonprofit organizations and in government agencies for more than a decade. He completed his undergraduate degree in critical pedagogy and youth studies at The Evergreen State College, and conducted graduate studies at the University of Washington in educational leadership and policy studies, honest conversation about Youth Voice must address the challenges that young people and adult allies face when they work to engage children and youth throughout our communities. By their very existence, Youth Voice programs are made to respond to these challenges; ignoring them is not being honest about the purpose of Youth Voice. Racism, sexism, classism, homophobia… the list of challenges facing young people is enormous. However, one of the core challenges is a common experience that all people face early in their lives. That challenge is discrimination against children and youth. Discrimination occurs anytime one thing is chosen before something else. That is often a good thing – otherwise, why wouldn’t we all steal our food instead of growing it or buying it? We all discriminate everyday. However, discrimination often excludes people because of false bias or prejudice. Discrimination against children and youth is caused by the bias adults have for other adults that causes them to discriminate against young people. Bias for adults is called adultism. When something is based on adultism, it is called adultcentrism. While adultism is sometimes appropriate, adultcentrism is often inappropriate. Compulsory education can force students to disengage from the love of learning. Youth development programs can force youth to disconnect from adults. Almost every activity that is for young people is decided upon, developed, assessed and redeveloped without young people. That is adultcentrism. Language, programs, teaching styles, and all relationships between young people and adults are adultcentric. The most “youth-friendly” adults are often adultist, assuming that youth need them – which, while it may be true, is still centered on adult perspectives. Adultism is not always harmful – but adultism is always real. Adultism leads to a phenomenon of “little adults” – young people who are “adults-in-the-making”, rather than children and youth today. Adultcentrism leads to manipulating and tokenizing young people through Youth Voice activities. Despite the intention, that process often further disengages young people! Adultism exists for a lot of reasons, including beliefs about the abilities of young people, roles of different people throughout society, and the nature of society. Those beliefs have sometimes lead to the fear of children, called pedophobia, and the fear of youth, called ephebiphobia. These fears drive much of society to segregate young people from adults, demonize youth in the media, and ostracize children from elders. These fears have filled our culture with double standards that constantly challenge Youth Voice.Adultism is rampant in society – in both institutions and individualsKel Kray, February 7, 2015, Adults Just Don’t Understand: Checking Out Our Everyday Adultism, Everyday Feminism Magazine, Kel Kray is a fiercely friendly social justice warrior who spends their days advocating with and on behalf of queer youth at an LGBTQIA+ youth center in Philly. A firm believer in the transformative power of dialogue, Kel coordinates a youth-driven education and training program that facilitates community workshops on gender and sexuality with an intersectional lens. A righteous product of the Midbest, Kel earned a Bachelor of Women’s Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Master of Social Work at the University of Pennsylvania, 2015/02/everyday-adultism/Realizing Our Everyday Adultism: You’ve heard it before: “Youth are the future.” If that’s true, why don’t we stand in deference to their expertise? We’re socialized to understand adultism as natural because of the supports we need as youth. It’s undeniable that adult guidance is emotionally, socially, and physiologically necessary.?But it’s when adult power and privilege?over?enters the game that we get into adultism territory. Still unsure what this means? Let’s check out some of the most common ways adultism rears its head. First, the Institutional: It’s in Our Walls. As with other systems of oppression, adultism relies on institutional support to pump it into and throughout our lives. You can find it embedded in schools, social service systems, government, and culture. Schools adopt?zero tolerance policies?that push youth out of the classroom through suspension for minor infractions. Child welfare organizations place youth in?inappropriate foster homes?without their consent. Stop and frisk policies?encourage law enforcement to profile youth as criminals.?Legislation bars youth from the right to learn empowering information. Youth are?denied the right?to make medical decisions for themselves.?Burned out staff in youth nonprofits?devalue youth participants.?Media?depicts youth as violent, hypersexed, disrespectful, and disengaged. The list goes on. No, the individuals working within these institutions aren’t all bad. Nor are the intentions of the institutions themselves. The trouble is that they are built on the adultist assumption that a 14-year-old can’t inherently know their own developmental needs. Because of this, the 14-year-old’s right to self-determine within these institutions is often limited, if not entirely wiped out. (Sidebar: At the same time as these institutions remove youth rights, many of them “adultify” youth (specifically youth of color) when it comes to youths’ responsibilities, like by trying youth as adults and sending youth to adult prisons. For more on this, check out?this article?by the Campaign for Youth Justice.) In Addition to the Institutional, It’s the Individual: It’s in Our Words. Weaving through our subconscious, adultism seeps into our everyday interactions with youth. Pay close attention for an hour –?anywhere?– and you’ll hear it. It pops up not just between?parent and child, but?teacher and student, youth worker and program participant, store clerk and patron, youth and youth, adult and adult. Adultism is often neatly packaged in a?microaggression: a?subtle, everyday exchange?that communicates to members of a marginalized group that they are undervalued and undesirable. Adultist microaggressions?are so broadly accepted as normal that I can easily recall 1) being enraged as a youth hearing them; but 2)?repeating them as an adult without thinking twice. How many of the following have you heard…in the last week? Silencing “You’re not old enough.” “You can make decisions for yourself when you’re an adult.” “It’s good for you!” Diminishing Experiences “It’s just a stage – you’ll grow out of it.” “Oh, teenage love.” “It’s the hormones.” “It gets better.” Providing Empty Leadership Experiences “Come to this youth event – there will be pizza!” Holding to a Different Standard “You’re so smart for your age!” “But you’re so young!” Stereotyping “Stop being so childish.” “Ugh. I can’t stand kids.” Sounds familiar, right? Adultism Ends Up Hurting Us All The consequences of adultism parallel its use: They’re?institutional and individual. When our institutions are designed under adultism, they’re designed to fail youth. We create rigid programming that doesn’t honor the lived realities of youth, we use?didactic education styles?that don’t engage youth participation, and we create punitive structures that limit the capacity of youth to take genuine leadership. Individually, adultism leads to many of the consequences we associate with “being a teenager”: anxiety and depression, a sense of worthlessness, feeling alone, acting in or acting out to be heard, and the displacement of powerlessness onto peers (also known as bullying). And it hurts adults, too because — well — we never really get to know youth.Identity politics Advantage - CRCImpactInternalizing the oppression of adultism makes other types of oppression more harmful and likelyHeike Fahrun, Eliza Skowron, & Nils-Eyk Zimmermann, Apr 14, 2015, Diversity Dynamics: Activating the Potential of Diversity in Trainings, German Federal Foreign Office, Heike Fahrun is a freelance trainer in youth and adult education, working primarily in the international field. Her focus is on project management in the non profit-sector, train-the-trainer, and intercultural/diversity learning. Eliza Skowron is a co-founder of Working Between Cultures and a trainer. She works with diverse groups around the globe, primarily on the issues of Intercultural Competence with an Anti-Bias Approach and Constructive Communication. Nils-Eyk Zimmermann is a program manager at the MitOst Association. He coordinates programs in the field of active citizenship and is an expert in civil society and non-formal learning, theodor-heuss-kolleg.de/data/user/flipbooks/Diversity/dynamics_screen_2015/Diversity_dynamics_screen_2015.pdfAdultism and ageism are two forms of discrimination connected to how we think about age. It is important to mention that age is a social construction: what we define as ‘young’ and ‘old’ differ, for example, among different European societies (Eurobarometer 378 on “active aging”?1 ). The status that age has as well as the descriptors ‘old’ and ‘young’ reveal the power of definition?– these societal categories determine whether a person is too old or too young. Adultism can be defined as the systematic mistreatment of young people on the basis of their youth, including negative attitudes or behaviors towards them, or denying them power, privilege, and participation on the basis of age. Adultistic behavior includes the assumption “that adults are better than young people, and entitled to act upon young people without their agreement” (John Bell). Adultism is the first kind of discrimination, which almost everyone experiences from early childhood on. The internalized oppression we learn from adultistic attitudes makes us accept (in most cases unconsciously) various kinds of?discrimination in later life, such as racism, ethnocentrism, or sexism.Adultism is dehumanizingJames St. James, March 27, 2016, 7 Harmful Ways Parents Often Wield Adultism Against Their Kids, Everyday Feminism Magazine, James St James is a contributor at Everyday Feminism and has been published on several other social justice publications, 2016/03/adultism-real-serious-problem/Children have as many human rights as you do.?Just because they’re miniature doesn’t somehow make them less than worthy. If this doesn’t make sense to you, I suggest you start back up at the top of the article. Most adultists distract from the issue of adultism by arguing about who has inherent ownership of a child: the (genetic) parent or the government. Governmental ownership,?some adultists argue, is damaging to both children and families. Yup. It most certainly can be. But it’s not because public schools have a children’s book about two gay dads available in the library; it’s because children aren’t supposed to be owned at all. Children are supposed to be?cared for.?Children are not meant to be vehicles for one’s personal or political agenda, no matter how noble you feel your views are. Once you swap your argument of?your child’s rights?to?your ownership of your child, we have a serious problem. Ownership of a fellow human creates dehumanization of that fellow human. By “owning” your child, your child does not somehow now have more rights. It just means you have more right to tell them what to do. The argument against adultism isn’t who has the right to own a child. The argument is children have the right to not be owned at all. The focus needs to be on care, not ownership. This is not parenting advice. This is how-to-not-destroy-another-living-creature advice. This is how-to-treat-humans-with-kindness-and-respect-by-starting-in-the-home advice. Understanding this difference is a massive first step in viewing your child as—well—human.Dehumanization destroys the value to life and outweighs all calculable impacts David M. Berube 1997, “NANOTECHNOLOGICAL PROLONGEVITY: The Down Side,” NanoTechnology Magazine, 3:5, June-July, 1997, 1-6, David Berube is Professor of Communication Studies and Associate Director of NanoScience and Technology Studies at University of South Carolina, means-ends dispute is at the core of Montagu and Matson's treatise on the dehumanization of humanity. They warn[s]: "its destructive toll is already greater than that of any war, plague, famine, or natural calamity on record -- and its potential danger to the quality of life and the fabric of civilized society is beyond calculation. For that reason this sickness of the soul might well be called the Fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse.... Behind the genocide of the holocaust lay a dehumanized thought; beneath the menticide of deviants and dissidents... in the cuckoo's nest of America, lies a dehumanized image of man... (Montagu & Matson, 1983, p. xi-xii). While it may never be possible to quantify the impact dehumanizing ethics may have had on humanity, it is safe to conclude the foundations of humanness offer great opportunities which would be foregone. When we calculate the actual losses and the virtual benefits, we approach a nearly inestimable value greater than any tools which we can currently use to measure it. Dehumanization is nuclear war, environmental apocalypse, and international genocide. When people become things, they become dispensable. When people are dispensable, any and every atrocity can be justified. Once justified, they seem to be inevitable for every epoch has evil and dehumanization is evil's most powerful weapon.Identity politics Advantage - CRCSolvencyCRC establishes moral standing and rights for children in themselvesMaría del Carmen-Barranco Avilés, December 2015, HUMAN RIGHTS AND VULNERABILITY. EXAMPLES OF SEXISM AND AGEISM, The Age of Human Rights Journal number 5, she is Doctor of Law from the Carlos III University of Madrid since 1999. Since 2003, she currently is Professor of Philosophy of Law at the University, where she also holds the position of Associate Dean law and Political Science and Administration.In these two universities she has taught at undergraduate and graduate Theory of Law, Philosophy of Law, Fundamental Rights and Legal Reasoning, the liberal conception of law and rights, minors are incapable (Fanlo, 2004, p.8) and the consequences are, mainly of patrimonial type. The minor acts in the economic traffic by representation. In this approach, there is only one subject of law and the capacity, related with age, is acquired also in a specific moment. Children’s rights do not exist because rights are assigned to men and citizens. Children may have attributed formally the same rights as adults, however, from this liberal reflection, they are incomplete human beings, as women and persons with disabilities were, because they are not autonomous. Again there is a natural circumstance that affects the possibility of giving the children the same treatment as adults. In the relevant circumstance for the attribution of rights, the legal age, is not equal to adults, for this reason, it is not an exception to the equality principle that children cannot exercise many of their rights by themselves or in relation to others (as political rights) as they do not even have conferred ownership. The Convention on the Rights of the Child was adopted by the General Assembly of United Nations on 29 November 1989, constituting the first legal-international instrument in this matter of binding nature and, also, adopting a starting point that is very different from that of other documents about children, because in this context we find an express reference to the child as a holder of rights. Effectively, within the Convention, a child’s rights are not rights of the adult he will become in the future, but rights that take into account, on the one hand, the specific circumstances affecting children and, on the other hand, that children are worthy as children (and not as potential adults), therefore, it is important to implement rights that take into account these differences to avoid children being treated as mere means11. It has been already pointed out that this is an important aspect from the point of view of the history of rights, because it implies the incorporation of a diversified image of the rights’ holder to positive law of human rights.Ratifying the CRC would solveANTHONY Lake, November 2014, CHILDREN’S RIGHTS, EQUITY AND OUR COMMON FUTURE, 25 Years of the Convenction on the Rights of the Child, UNICEF, Anthony Lake is the Executive Director of UNICEF, publications/files/CRC_at_25_Anniversary_Publication_compilation_5Nov2014.pdfThroughout history, the advance of civilization has been closely tied to the idea that all people have rights: universal, inalienable entitlements to freedom, dignity and security, to be treated fairly and to live free from oppression. The health and soul of all societies depend on how these human rights are recognized – and acted?upon. But until the Convention on the Rights of the Child was conceived and adopted 25 years ago, the rights of the world’s youngest citizens were not explicitly recognized by any international treaty, nor was there acknowledgement of the fundamental connection between the well-being of children and the strength of their societies. This is why the Convention was such an important milestone – and why the occasion of its twenty-fifth anniversary challenges us all to find new ways of pursuing its universal mandate for every child, as the global community charts its course for the post-Millennium Development Goals period. The Convention articulated, for the first time, that children also possess innate rights, equal to those of adults: rights to health, to education, to protection and to equal opportunity – without regard to gender, economic status, ethnicity, religious belief, disability or geographical location. And, in conformance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention unequivocally recognizes that these rights are “the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.” But a recognized right is not necessarily an executed right. Children’s rights are brought to life not through pronouncements, but through sustained political commitment. A society’s strength is secured not through good intentions, but through strategic investments. And social change is achieved not only through powerful words, but also through the action such words can inspire. For without action – and the results only action can achieve – the best aspirations codified in the Convention on the Rights of the Child remain only words on paper.Elections Disadvantage Answers - CRCUniqueness Answers Non-Unique Trump will win – politicians and pollsters have a cognitive bias against counting Trump’s massive amount of supportersLeon Neyfakh, January 25 2016, How Nate Silver Missed Donald Trump, Slate Magazine, Leon Neyfakh is a reporter Slate, formerly at the Boston Globe and has written for the New York Observer, articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/01/nate_silver_said_donald_trump_had_no_shot_where_did_he_go_wrong.htmlInstead, the rise of Trump might have demonstrated the limits of Silver’s powers. As Dave Weigel wrote in the?Washington Post?recently, Trump’s enormous popularity—a tidal wave of support that Silver has said will soon abate—has been the story of the campaign. In his piece, Weigel argued that it wasn’t the first time a primary bid turned out to signal a major shift in the political winds, from the campaign of George Wallace in 1964, which Weigel said represented “a historic moment in the politics of backlash,” to that of Pat Robertson in 1988, which “cemented the influence of the religious right in Republican electoral politics.” While none of those candidates won their party’s nomination, it would have been irresponsible for the media to ignore the significance of their campaigns, as Silver has encouraged his audience, and the press, to do with Trump. While it’s true that “the rise of Trump” may not end with Trump becoming the nominee, it has revealed, or perhaps even caused, a profound shift in the nation’s political climate. As Kornacki put it to me, “It took Donald Trump saying all this stuff”—floating the idea of denying Muslims entry into the United States, for instance—“to reveal there was a massive constituency for it.” Missing the significance of Trumpism is a different kind of failure than, say, calling the 2012 election for Mitt Romney. It also might be a more damning one. Botching your general election forecast by a couple of percentage points suggests a flawed mathematical formula. Actively denying the reality of Trump’s success suggests Silver may never have been capable of explaining the world in a way so many believed he could in 2008 and 2012, when he was telling them how likely it was that Obama would become, and remain, the president. “This is an extraordinary, unusual, utterly bizarre election year, in which events that have never happened before are happening,” says Blake Zeff, the editor of the political news site?Cafe?and a former campaign aide to Obama and Hillary Clinton. “That’s a nightmare scenario for a projection model that is predicated on historical trends.” While Zeff cautioned it was premature to pillory Silver for missing out on Trumpism, the point stands: What was true yesterday is not necessarily true today, and that’s a problem for Silver and his team of prognosticators.Non-Unique: Your pollster predictions are wrong – bias in their thinking leads to bias in the polls and models – Trump will stump them allJames Taranto, June 29, 2016, Unthinkability Bias, The Wall Street Journal, James Taranto is editor of and author of its popular Best of the Web Today column. In August 2007 he was named a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board, articles/unthinkability-bias-1467221228Donald Trump has only about a 20% chance of being elected president, according to?Nate Silver?of FiveThirtyEight,?Sean Trende?of Real Clear Politics, , a site that tracks odds from the British bookmaker . What does that mean, a 20% chance? ABC News titles the Silver story “FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver Predicts Hillary Clinton Wins Election Against Donald Trump,” but Trende tries to explain that’s an oversimplification: When I say Trump probably has a 20 percent chance of winning .?.?., I really mean that if you ran this election 100 times, Trump would win 20 of them. That isn’t an “outside shot.” As my colleague David Byler noted over the weekend, if you toss a coin twice and get a head, then a tail, an outcome with just a 25 percent chance of happening just occurred. Or as Emory University political scientist Drew Linzer observed, the probability of Brexit occurring, according to betting markets, was as low as 10 percent, while the chances of the Cavs winning the NBA championship fell to five percent at one point. But the coin-flip analogy is deceptive: Assuming an unloaded coin, the probabilities for any series of flips are a matter of pure math. In a complex and unpredictable system like a political outcome or a sports championship, they’re mostly guesswork. And Trende defines an abstraction (a 20% probability) in terms of a scenario (running the election 100 times) that sounds more concrete but actually is less so. There is no such thing as rerunning an election. (Even if there were multiple votes, they’d be conducted under different circumstances.) The FiveThirtyEight and ElectionBettingOdds methods seem to generate probabilities without guesswork, but that’s deceptive too. FiveThirtyEight runs multiple election simulations according to a model that builds in certain constants, variables and allowances for randomness, so that the guesswork is at the front end. If those assumptions are biased, the results will be, too. ElectionBettingOdds simply looks at prices in the betting market, which means the gamblers are the ones doing the guesswork. The advantage here is that different gamblers may be biased in different directions, so that aggregating their bets will tend to produce a reliable sense of the probabilities. A corollary, however, is that the more prevalent the bias, the less the market corrects for it. That’s why financial markets sometimes give us bubbles and panics and why, as with Brexit, political markets don’t always reliably predict outcomes. Which is the main point of Trende’s essay (a follow-up to one published?earlier this month). Although his reckoning of Trump’s chances is consistent with the conventional view, he also suspects there may be groupthink at work: Commentary on the 2016 election has broken down somewhat because both the online right and online left opposed the Trump candidacy. Because of this, we analysts find ourselves in something of an echo chamber, which makes us more susceptible to bad arguments, and more likely to overlook good ones that point in an intellectually uncomfortable direction. He cites the Brexit example—in which the betting markets consistently favored Remain, the losing side—as “a massive outbreak of ‘unthinkability bias’?”—a useful term Trende appears to have coined: To the class of people who engage on Twitter, advise banks, or bet on outcomes, Brexit wasn’t just a bad idea. It was catastrophic. It operated as a rejection of an ideal that transnational elites hold dear, regardless of whether they are on the right or the left, one we might just call the idea of “Europe.” A rejection of this idea was not something upper-middle-class analysts could accept, absent absolutely compelling evidence that “Remain” was going to lose. The Trump analogy is clear enough: Consider the polling that came out over the past weekend. My timeline was filled with tweets from both conservative and liberal commentators about the ABC/Washington Post poll showing Clinton up 12 points on Trump. This was obviously an important poll, and it deserved some attention. But there was comparatively little attention paid—at least by the most well-known writers—to the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showing [Mrs.] Clinton up five, and up just a point in a four-way race.Elections Disadvantage Answers - CRCLink Answers Turn: Focus on social issues galvanizes democrats – fractures RepublicansDoug Mataconis, WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 6, 2014, Social Issues Now Benefiting Democrats, Outside the Beltway, Doug Mataconis is a lawyer and founder of Outside the Beltway, social-issues-now-benefiting-democrats/For at least the last several decades Republicans have generally seemed to benefit from “social issues” such as abortion, same-sex marriage, the War On Drugs, and crime. While it was rarely the case that these issues were the primary issue motivating most voters in a given election, the GOP has often been able to use them as wedge issue that would break apart traditional Democratic coalitions and lead people to vote for Republican candidates even if they might be more sympathetic to Democrats on economic and other issues. Additionally, these issues have long been used by both sides, but against seemingly most effectively by Republicans, as a way to motivate strongly opinionated base voters to get out to the polls in what otherwise might be a low turnout election, thereby possibly providing enough support to, hopefully, put a particular candidate over the top. To a large degree, this was the methodology behind the “Southern Strategy” that Republicans began adopting in the Nixon era, and which bore fruit decades later in the form of the GOP’s dominance in states that used to be solidly Democratic. As recently as 2004, Republicans were able to use opposition to same-sex marriage as a wedge to help drive voter turnout in the Presidential election, most especially in Ohio, which just happened to be the state that decided the election that year. Now, however, it’s beginning to look as though?social issues may be turning into a wedge issue that favors Democrats: WASHINGTON — Facing re-election, Gov. Scott Walker, Republican of Wisconsin, no longer talks about stopping same-sex marriage. “It’s those on the left that are pushing” the issue, he says. Ed Gillespie, the Republican Senate candidate in Virginia, argued that Senator Mark Warner, the Democratic incumbent, was “making up my views” when Mr. Warner accused him of seeking to overturn abortion rights and ban some forms of contraception. In fact, Mr. Gillespie, a former Republican National Committee chairman, said in a recent debate, he wants contraceptives available (behind the counter) at pharmacies without a prescription. Representative Cory Gardner, a Republican in a tight Senate race in Colorado, proposed the same thing after the Supreme Court’s decision on the Hobby Lobby case exempted some private businesses from covering certain contraceptives in health insurance plans. He was shielding himself from attacks by Senator Mark Udall, a Democrat, who has spent months slamming Mr. Gardner’s “radical agenda” on abortion and family planning. Udall is running his entire campaign on social issues,” said Brad Dayspring of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. “All they talk about is birth control, ‘personhood,’ abortion.” So will many other Democrats this fall. They aim to match President Obama’s feat in 2012, when the incumbent used topics such as same-sex marriage and contraception as weapons to offset his vulnerability on the economy. That they would even try while facing the older, whiter, more conservative midterm electorate shows how thoroughly the politics of social issues have turned upside down. The tumultuous social changes that began in the 1960s supplied decades of political ammunition for Republicans. Beginning with Richard M. Nixon, they rallied Americans disturbed by noisy protests over civil rights, the sexual revolution and the Vietnam War. “Acid, amnesty and abortion” was the epithet hurled at the 1972 Democratic presidential candidate, George McGovern. Republicans seized on concerns about welfare, school busing and crime — memorably with a black convict named Willie Horton in 1988 — to cement their grip on white voters. As recently as 2004, Republicans used a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage to rally tradition-minded “values voters” behind President George W. Bush’s re-election. Now the values wedge cuts for Democrats. Demographic change keeps shrinking Nixon’s “Silent Majority.” President Bill Clinton and a Republican Congress overhauled welfare. Fear of crime has receded enough that members of both parties propose more lenient sentencing. American households have changed significantly. Nearly half of adults are unmarried. Fully 10 percent of opposite-sex married couples are interracial or interethnic. Acceptance of same-sex marriage has expanded with astonishing speed. Legalization of medical marijuana has moved, in two states, Colorado and Washington, to legalization of recreational marijuana. College students from the Summer of Love are pushing 70, the elders who disapproved of their behavior are largely gone and young adults are wondering what the turmoil was ever about. (…) A recent?Pew Research Center study?highlighted how the Republican base diverges from majority opinion and experience. Members of a category Pew calls “steadfast conservatives,” mirroring Tea Party Republicans, attend church more often than any other group. More than half of them have guns in their homes, compared with one-third of the population over all. Only 18 percent of staunch conservatives say society should accept homosexuality, compared with 62 percent overall; 16 percent believe society is “just as well off” if people have priorities other than marriage and children, compared with 50 percent over all; and 28 percent favor legalization of marijuana, compared with 54 percent over all. Six in 10 want their representatives to stick to their positions rather than compromise. Seven in 10 call immigrants “a burden” on society, and say America’s best years have passed. While 61 percent of the population says the globe is warming, three in four staunch conservatives see “no solid evidence.” Those attitudes complicate the party’s ability to forge a new majority coalition as education levels rise and attitudes change. None of this is surprising, of course. We’ve seen polling on same-sex marriage, contraception, marijuana legalization, and a host of other social issues shift decidedly against the traditional Republican positions for quite some time now. As younger voters becomes a larger part of the electorate, this is only likely to become more true as time goes on. For example, most recent polling has shown that younger voters are so completely turned off by the Republican Party’s stance on issues such as marriage equality, marijuana legalization, and immigration that they wouldn’t even consider voting for a Republican candidate. The problem that this poses for Republicans, of course, is that even if they do start changing the party’s position on these issues, it’s not at all clear that there would be any clear electoral benefit to them, while it’s likely that such a move would elicit scorn, to say the least, from the socially conservative base of the party. For proof of that, one need look no further than the?exceedingly negative?reaction?that former Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels received in 2011 when he?called for a truce on social issues within the Republican Party?so that candidates could concentrate on issues such as the economy and federal spending where, to some degree, the GOP has an advantage over Democrats in most polling. ?As it turns out, there is plenty of evidence that?Daniels was right in calling on the GOP to stop emphasizing divisive social issues, but Republicans have generally not taken well to that advice even as it becomes more apparent that the party’s position on these issues is harmful. None of this is to say that Democrats can ride social issues to victory in every race, of course. Turnout in specific races, the quality of the candidates and their campaigns, and the state of the economy will always be more important issues than these wedge issues. However, just as the GOP was once able to use social issues such as these as wedge issues in close elections, we seem to be entering a time when it will be Democrats that are following this strategy. This is one reason why we’re seeing many Republicans in close elections — such as Scott Walker in Wisconsin and Cory Gardner in Colorado — do the best that they can to evade these issues even if it means seeming to contradict their previously stated positions. ?No doubt we’ll see more Republicans equivocate or change their position on issues like marriage equality as the polling becomes clearer. In any case, expect to see social issues like marriage and contraception to be a big part of the election narrative this year, and in 2016. The difference is that this time it will be the Democrats who are emphasizing the issues, and Republicans who are running from them.Turn: Trump’s rhetoric triggers stronger backlash– energizes and solidifies minority groups into action for HillaryAmerica Ferrera, July 2, 2015, Thank You, Donald Trump!, Huffington Post, Of Honduran descent, America was born and raised in Los Angeles and received a degree in International Relations from USC. An award winning actress, she is best known for her starring role in the ABC hit Ugly Betty. America is saluted by Congress for raising the profile of Latinos in popular culture, serving as a role model for young Latinas, and working to empower the Latino community, america-ferrera/thank-you-donald-trump_b_7709126.htmlDear Donald, You’ve said some pretty offensive things about Latino immigrants recently, and I think they’re worth addressing. Because, you know, this is the United States of America, where I have a right to speak up even if I’m not a billionaire. Isn’t that awesome? Anyway, I heard what you said about the kind of people you think Latino immigrants are — people with problems, who bring drugs, crime and rape to America. While your comments are incredibly ignorant and racist, I don’t want to spend my time chastising you. I’ll leave that to your business partners like Univision and NBC, who have the power to scold you where it hurts. Instead, I’m writing to say thank you! You see, what you just did with your straight talk was send more Latino voters to the polls than several registration rallies combined! Thank you for that. Here we are pounding the pavement to get American Latinos to the polls, while your tactic proves most effective. Remarks like yours will serve brilliantly to energize Latino voters and increase turnout on election day against you and any other candidate who runs on a platform of hateful rhetoric. Do you know why that’s such a big deal, Donald? Because Latinos are the largest, youngest and fastest-growing constituency in the United States of America. That’s right! You are running for President in a country where the Latino population?grew by over 49 percent?from 2000-2012, while the rest of the country grew by 5.8 percent. What’s more, we are the future. The?median age of the average Latino is 27 years old, compared to 42 years old for white Americans. In case you need a translation, that means there are a whole lot of Americans who are Latino and have the right to vote. And, we’re not going anywhere. This is the America we are?actually?living in. I hope by now you understand that without the Latino vote, there is no chance of you ever winning this election. If you don’t believe me, you could ask President Bush or you could even ask President Obama. You, Mr. Trump, are living in an outdated fantasy of a bigoted America. Last week, America celebrated some amazing milestones — marriage equality, universal healthcare, removing of the confederate flag — making it clear in which direction the country is moving. That is why racist remarks that play to extremists won’t change the tide, no matter how hard you try. They will only serve to rally more Latino voters to the polls. Your negativity and your poorly thought out speech ignited a fire in our community. Thank you, Mr. Trump! Thank you for reminding us that there remains an antiquated and endangered species of bigots in this country that we must continue to combat. Thank you for reminding us to not sit complacently at home on election day, but to run to the polls and proclaim that there is no place for your brand of racial politicking in our government. Thank you for sending out the rallying cry. You have made your thoughts on the Latino community clear and you continue to stand by them. And in return, we will do more than tweet about our indignation and beat pi?atas of your likeness. We will silence you at the polls. We will vote and use our growing position in U.S. politics. Our fellow Americans who understand and value our contributions will join us. We know there is nothing that scares you more.No Link: Foreign policy doesn’t get anyone to the ballot boxRosa Brooks, October 14, 2015, America’s Problem With World Leaderishness, Foreign Policy, Rosa Brooks is a law professor at Georgetown University and a Schwartz senior fellow at the New America Foundation. She served as a counselor to the U.S. defense undersecretary for policy from 2009 to 2011 and previously served as a senior advisor at the U.S. State Department, 2015/10/14/americas-problem-with-world-leaderishness-russia-china-syria-us-2016-election/The election analysts and pollsters just snicker and roll their eyes. Foreign-policy issues?don’t?decide elections, they explain. In poll after poll, voters say they care most about classic domestic issues: jobs, economic growth, health care, and the like. They apparently worry a bit about?terrorism, too, but they worry a lot more about the economy. During the 2014 midterm elections, for instance — in the midst of the crisis in Iraq and Syria and the Russian invasion of Ukraine —?exit polls?found that only 13 percent of voters considered foreign policy to have been a top issue in influencing their vote, compared to 45 percent who said the same about the economy, and 25 percent who considered health care a top issue. In other words, the experts tell us, people vote with their pocketbooks. It’s the?economy, stupid.Elections Disadvantage Answers - CRCConsequentialist Impact Scenario Answers No Internal Link: Trump doesn’t want proliferationIan Hanchett, 29 March, 2016, Trump: ‘I Hate Proliferation’ But It Would Be Better if Japan, Saudi Arabia, and South Korea Had Nuclear Weapons, Breitbart, Ian Hanchett is a video and political reporter for Breitbart, video/2016/03/29/trump-i-hate-proliferation-but-it-would-be-better-if-japan-saudi-arabia-and-south-korea-had-nuclear-weapons/Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said that “”I don’t want more nuclear weapons” but that the world would be better off if South Korea, Japan, and Saudi Arabia had nuclear weapons on CNN’s Republican Town Hall on Tuesday. Trump was asked if there was a contradiction between his concerns over nuclear proliferation and his openness to supporting Japan and South Korea developing nuclear weapons. He responded, that there is no contradiction and the US doesn’t want to “pull the trigger” against a nuclear North Korea. He added, “We owe $19 trillion, we have another $2 trillion because of the very, very bad omnibus budget that was just signed. … We are supporting nations now, militarily, we are supporting nations like Saudi Arabia, which was making, during the good oil days, which was a year ago, now they’re making less, but still a lot. $1 billion a day. We are supporting them, military, and they pay us a fraction, a fraction of what they should be paying us, and of the cost. We are supporting Japan. … Excuse me, we’re supporting Germany. We’re supporting South Korea.” He further stated that it might be time to change U.S. policy keeping Japan and South Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons. Trump was then asked, “So, some proliferation is okay?” He answered, “No, not some. I hate proliferation. I hate nuclear more than any.”No Internal Link: Trump doesn’t like proliferation – one of his main issuesJP Carroll, July 6, 2016, Exclusive: This is Trump's Foreign Policy, A Conversation with Top Trump Adviser Dr. Walid Phares, The Daily Caller News Foundation, JP Carrol is National Security & Foreign Affairs Reporter for The Daily Caller, 2016/07/04/exclusive-this-is-trump-foreign-policy-a-conversation-with-top-trump-adviser-dr-walid-phares/Phares: Look, this is an America First foreign policy as laid out in his speech in April. We live in an unpredictable world, so yes, priorities do change. The campaign has a well-organized foreign policy in that it adapts to a disorganized world. At the moment, the top two priorities are how to deal with issues of nuclear proliferation and how to completely destroy Islamic jihadist organizations, including and especially ISIS. On nuclear proliferation, Mr. Trump has made a clear statement about not having any further nuclear proliferation, especially in the hands of people who are problematic. He thinks about it as the greatest threat that we and the rest of the world will face. I would say that North Korea and Iran, and the nuclear threat would be number one.Turn: Proliferation decreases war in nearly all scenarios — raises the cost of aggressionAkisato Suzuki, April-June 2015, “Is More Better or Worse? New Empirics on Nuclear Proliferation and Interstate Conflict by Random Forests,” RESEARCH AND POLITICS, , pp. 1-7, p. 2., School of Law and Government at Dublin City University, optimists argue that nuclear weapons reduce conflict because of the intolerable cost of nuclear war (Mearsheimer, 1984/1985: 21; Waltz, 2003: 6–9). Therefore, “more may be better” (Waltz, 2003: 3). Nuclear symmetry (a dyad of nuclear states) should deter states from resorting to war, because war could result in the use of nuclear weapons (Powell, 1985). Rauchhaus (2009: 263) notes that the nuclear deterrence literature is “virtually silent” on the effect of nuclear asymmetry (a nuclear state versus a non-nuclear state), but Waltz (2003: 17) argues, “Far from lowering the expected cost of aggression, a nuclear offense, even against a non-nuclear state, raises the possible costs of aggression to incalculable heights because the aggressor cannot be sure of the reaction of other states”. Non-nuclear states should also be deterred from engaging in war with nuclear states, because non-nuclear states fear nuclear retaliation. If nuclear weapons prevent war, they should also decrease conflict short of war, because states would hesitate to initiate conflict which could escalate to war. Optimists admit that nuclear weapons do not necessarily prevent all types of interstate conflict (see Hagerty, 2009: 109–110; Waltz, 2003: 17), but they do not argue that nuclear weapons increase conflict either Waltz (2003: 9–26) also suggests that new nuclear states are not more prone to conflict than old nuclear states, because the logic and assumptions of nuclear deterrence can be applied not only to old nuclear major powers but to any kind of states (minor powers, domestically unstable states, autocratic states, or states engaged in rivalry). In short, optimist logic expects that nuclear proliferation reduces a systemic propensity for interstate conflict through deterrent effects.Turn: Allied proliferation in Asia is good—protects them from China and is not destabilizingHarvey M. Sapolsky & Christine M. Leah, April 14, 2014, “Let Asia Go Nuclear,” NATIONAL INTEREST, Harvey M Sapolsky is Professor Emeritus at MIT; Christine M. Leah is a Stanton Fellow at the Security Studies Program of MIT, , accessed 4-21-16.But there is a better, cheaper way to provide security in Asia. We should encourage our allies to acquire their own nuclear weapons. With nuclear weapons Australia, Japan and the others would have the capability to protect themselves from bullying. Nearly all of the allies are rich enough and technologically advanced enough to acquire and maintain nuclear forces. And those who are not—the Philippines, for example—lose much of their vulnerability once the focus shifts away from conventional defenses of the island chains. Nuclear weapons helped prevent the Cold War from turning hot. In Asia they can stop a conventional arms race that is forcing the United States to invest in weapons that can block the Chinese military on its doorstep, thousands of miles from our own. Let our Asian allies defend themselves with the weapon that is the great equalizer. Tailored proliferation would not likely be destabilizing. Asia is not the Middle East. Japan, South Korea, Australia, and even Taiwan are strong democracies. They have stable political regimes. Government leaders are accountable to democratic institutions. Civilian control of the military is strong. And they don’t have a history of lobbing missiles at each other—they are much more risk-averse than Egypt, Syria or Iran. America’s allies would be responsible nuclear weapon states. A number of Asian nations have at one time or another considered going nuclear, Australia for example, with tacit U.S. Defense Department encouragement in the 1960s. They chose what for them was the cheaper alternative of living under the US nuclear umbrella. Free nuclear guarantees provided by the United States, coupled with the US Navy patrolling offshore, have allowed our allies to grow prosperous without having to invest much in their own defense. Confident that the United States protects them, our allies have even begun to squabble with China over strings of uninhabited islands in the hope that there is oil out there. It is time to give them a dose of fiscal and military reality. And the way to do that is to stop standing between them and their nuclear-armed neighbors. It will not be long before they realize the value of having their own nuclear weapons. The waters of the Pacific under those arrangements will stay calm, and we will save a fortune.Framing Turn: Worst case predictions cause failed policy making, trade off with better solutions, and risk escalation – we need to prioritize probability Bruce Schneier March 13, 2010, Worst-Case Thinking, Schneier on Security, Bruce Schneier is an internationally renowned security technologist and author, MA CS American University, a security conference recently, the moderator asked the panel of distinguished cybersecurity leaders what their nightmare scenario was. The answers were the predictable array of large-scale attacks: against our communications infrastructure, against the power grid, against the financial system, in combination with a physical attack. I didn't get to give my answer until the afternoon, which was: "My nightmare scenario is that people keep talking about their nightmare scenarios." There's a certain blindness that comes from worst-case thinking. An extension of the precautionary principle, it involves imagining the worst possible outcome and then acting as if it were a certainty. It substitutes imagination for thinking, speculation for risk analysis, and fear for reason. It fosters powerlessness and vulnerability and magnifies social paralysis. And it makes us more vulnerable to the effects of terrorism. Worst-case thinking means generally bad decision making for several reasons. First, it's only half of the cost-benefit equation. Every decision has costs and benefits, risks and rewards. By speculating about what can possibly go wrong, and then acting as if that is likely to happen, worst-case thinking focuses only on the extreme but improbable risks and does a poor job at assessing outcomes. Second, it's based on flawed logic. It begs the question by assuming that a proponent of an action must prove that the nightmare scenario is impossible. Third, it can be used to support any position or its opposite. If we build a nuclear power plant, it could melt down. If we don't build it, we will run short of power and society will collapse into anarchy. If we allow flights near Iceland's volcanic ash, planes will crash and people will die. If we don't, organs won’t arrive in time for transplant operations and people will die. If we don't invade Iraq, Saddam Hussein might use the nuclear weapons he might have. If we do, we might destabilize the Middle East, leading to widespread violence and death. Of course, not all fears are equal. Those that we tend to exaggerate are more easily justified by worst-case thinking. So terrorism fears trump privacy fears, and almost everything else; technology is hard to understand and therefore scary; nuclear weapons are worse than conventional weapons; our children need to be protected at all costs; and annihilating the planet is bad. Basically, any fear that would make a good movie plot is amenable to worst-case thinking. Fourth and finally, worst-case thinking validates ignorance. Instead of focusing on what we know, it focuses on what we don't know -- and what we can imagine. Remember Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's quote? "Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know." And this: "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Ignorance isn't a cause for doubt; when you can fill that ignorance with imagination, it can be a call to action. Even worse, it can lead to hasty and dangerous acts. You can't wait for a smoking gun, so you act as if the gun is about to go off. Rather than making us safer, worst-case thinking has the potential to cause dangerous escalation. The new undercurrent in this is that our society no longer has the ability to calculate probabilities. Risk assessment is devalued. Probabilistic thinking is repudiated in favor of "possibilistic thinking": Since we can't know what's likely to go wrong, let's speculate about what can possibly go wrong. Worst-case thinking leads to bad decisions, bad systems design, and bad security. And we all have direct experience with its effects: airline security and the TSA, which we make fun of when we're not appalled that they're harassing 93-year-old women or keeping first graders off airplanes. You can't be too careful! Actually, you can. You can refuse to fly because of the possibility of plane crashes. You can lock your children in the house because of the possibility of child predators. You can eschew all contact with people because of the possibility of hurt. Steven Hawking wants to avoid trying to communicate with aliens because they might be hostile; does he want to turn off all the planet's television broadcasts because they're radiating into space? It isn't hard to parody worst-case thinking, and at its extreme it's a psychological condition. Frank Furedi, a sociology professor at the University of Kent, writes: "Worst-case thinking encourages society to adopt fear as one of the dominant principles around which the public, the government and institutions should organize their life. It institutionalizes insecurity and fosters a mood of confusion and powerlessness. Through popularizing the belief that worst cases are normal, it incites people to feel defenseless and vulnerable to a wide range of future threats." Even worse, it plays directly into the hands of terrorists, creating a population that is easily terrorized -- even by failed terrorist attacks like the Christmas Day underwear bomber and the Times Square SUV bomber. When someone is proposing a change, the onus should be on them to justify it over the status quo. But worst-case thinking is a way of looking at the world that exaggerates the rare and unusual and gives the rare much more credence than it deserves. It isn't really a principle; it's a cheap trick to justify what you already believe. It lets lazy or biased people make what seem to be cogent arguments without understanding the whole issue. And when people don't need to refute counterarguments, there's no point in listening to them.Elections Disadvantage Answers - CRC Deontological Impact Scenario Answers Turn: Trump’s economic policies will materially benefit minorities – that’s keyJose A. DelReal, April 18, 2016, Trump meets with ‘diversity coalition’ in New York, Washtington Post, Jose A. DelReal is a national political reporter covering the 2016 presidential election. He graduated from Harvard College, presidential candidate Donald Trump made a move Monday to discredit?critics who accuse him of stoking racial tensions by meeting?with a "diversity coalition" here in Manhattan. The real estate mogul sat with?members of the nascent National Diversity Coalition for Trump on Monday afternoon, a group?founded to push back against critics who say his?anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim rhetoric is discriminatory. The group says?it believes Trump “will address economic disparities” for minorities and “strengthen communities with conservative action,” according to a news?release sent out by the group ahead of the event. “I swear, I don’t know where that’s coming from. This man is no more racist than Mickey Mouse is on the moon!” Georgia businessman Bruce LeVell, who co-founded the group, previously told the Post when asked about his decision to create the organization. Trump?posed with the group for pictures in Trump Tower before the meeting. Omarosa Manigault, a television personality and prominent Trump supporter, was also in attendance. Though the campaign did not directly coordinate the event, Manigault collected Trump “pledges” on which supporters wrote their personal information. The GOP front-runner?has faced harsh scrutiny for what critics say is discriminatory rhetoric against women and minorities. He has been particularly blasted for calling for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the country, which he says is the only way to protect the homeland against acts of terrorism. Demonstrators have flocked to his campaign rallies across the country in recent months to protest Trump’s candidacy. Men and women in attendance disagreed with that characterization and praised Trump for his economic message, which they said is crucial to elevating the economic and social status of minorities. “We already have civil rights. What we’re lacking is money. We need economic power and I feel as though wealth, which is financial freedom, is what the minority community needs,” said Steven Parson, a pastor from Richmond, Va. “That’s why I’m behind Mr. Trump, because that’s what he represents.”No Impact: Trump is all talk – he won’t actually be able to pass any policiesMatthew Cooper, March 16, 2016, WHAT IF DONALD TRUMP BECOMES PRESIDENT?, Newsweek, Matthew Cooper is Political Editor at Newsweek - he has worked for some of America's most prestigious magazines including Time, The New Republic, National Journal, U.S. News & World Report. He wrote for Newsweek in the 1990s and rejoined the magazine in 2014. A veteran White House correspondent, he's known for his in-depth reporting and analysis from Washington, 2016/03/25/world-under-president-donald-trump-437158.htmlThe unspectacular truth is that a Trump presidency would probably be marked by the quotidian work of so many other presidents—trying to sell Congress and the public on proposals while fighting off not only a culture of protest but also the usual swarm of lobbyists who kill any interesting idea with ads and donations. Trump has a rarefied confidence in his abilities and, as we recently learned, in his, um, manhood. But what he doesn’t have is a magic wand (insert wand-penis joke here). Remember?Schoolhouse Rock?? Trump is no match for the American political system, with its three branches of government. The president, as famed political scientist Richard Neustadt once said, has to take an inherently weak position and use the powers of persuasion to get others to do what he wants. Could Trump blow up those legendary checks and balances and make America a fascist state? Oh, please. The fear of fascism in the U.S. goes back to the ’30s and echoes debates that have gone on since Thomas Jefferson charged?Alexander Hamilton with being a monarchist. Sinclair Lewis’s?1935 novel,?It Can’t Happen Here,?was a heavy-handed warning about a folksy fascist seizing the presidency. In Philip Roth’s much better work from?2004,?The Plot Against America,?a Nazi-appeasing?Charles Lindbergh wrestles the presidency from Franklin Roosevelt in 1940?and keeps the U.S. from aiding Britain, which foments a Nazi victory in Europe and less-than-pleasant times for American Jewry. But that’s fiction. Trump’s more likely to end up like Jimmy Carter—a poor craftsman of legislation and a crushing disappointment to his supporters. Since World War II, only Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton have left office with high approval numbers. Presidents generally end their tenure not with a bullet in a bunker but with a whimper.Rejecting actions on face is bad moral thinking – looking at the consequences is the only way to make policy James Wood Bailey, 1997, “Utilitarianism, institutions, and Justice”, Oxford University Press, pg 9, James Wood Bailey is an author and well known utilitarian thinker) A consequentialist moral theory can take account of this variance and direct us in our decision about whether a plausible right to equality ought to outweigh a plausible right to freedom of expression. 16 In some circumstances the effects of pornography would surely be malign enough to justify our banning it, but in others they may be not malign enough to justify any interference in freedom. I? A deontological theory, in contrast, would be required either to rank the side constraints, which forbid agents from interfering in the free expression of others and from impairing the moral equality of others, or to admit defeat and claim that no adjudication between the two rights is possible. The latter admission is a grave failure since it would leave us no principled resolution of a serious policy question. But the former conclusion is hardly attractive either. Would we really wish to establish as true for all times and circumstances a lexical ordering between two side constraints on our actions without careful attention to consequences? Would we, for instance, really wish to establish that the slightest malign inegalitarian effect traceable to a form of expression is adequate grounds for an intrusive and costly censorship? Or would we, alternatively, really wish to establish that we should be prepared to tolerate a society horrible for women and children to live in, for the sake of not allowing any infringement on the sacred right of free expression?18 Consequentialist accounts can avoid such a deontological dilemma. In so doing, they show a certain healthy sense of realism about what life in society is like. In the world outside the theorist's study, we meet trade-offs at every tum. Every policy we make with some worthy end in Sight imposes costs in terms of diminished achievement of some other plausibly worthy end. Consequentialism demands that we grapple with these costs as directly as we can and justify their incurrence. It forbids us to dismiss them with moral sophistries or to ignore them as if we lived in an ideal world. States Counter Plan Answers – CRCPermutationPermutation: Do plan and devolve the implementation of the treaty to the statesPermutation solves: Can do both – delegating treaty implementation to the states is normal meansKendall Marlowe, October 29th, 2015, The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child: After 25 Years, Should Americans Still Care?, Boston University School of Law International Law Journal, Kendall Marlowe is the Executive Director of the National Association of Counsel for Children, He holds a Master’s in Social Work from the University of Chicago School of Social Service Administration and a J.D. and Certificate in Child and Family Law from the Loyola University Chicago School of Law, Convention also contains no explicit instruction on how it is to be implemented, leaving the U.S. free to pursue the treaty’s goals within the existing structure of federalism and individual U.S. states’ power over child and family law. Countries are also free – with many exercising this freedom – to ratify the Convention with substantial caveats, termed in this context as “reservations, understandings and declarations.” HYPERLINK "" \l "_ftn42" [42]?If a provision in the Convention conflicts with the U.S. Constitution, for example, the U.S. can attach a reservation to the provision, effectively nullifying it. Understandings and declarations similarly assert the interpretation of a Convention provision by the U.S., shaping the effects of the Convention to comport with U.S. law. HYPERLINK "" \l "_ftn43" [43]?In practice, the U.S. typically attaches a federalism clause as part of its “reservations, understandings and declarations” to human rights treaties, neutering the effect of the?Missouri?principle and leaving child and family law decision-making (including Convention implementation) to the states. HYPERLINK "" \l "_ftn44" [44]States Counter Plan Answers – CRCSolvency AnswersNo solvency: States are historically bad at protecting children’s’ rightsRobert Fellmeth, January 30, 2015, Shame on US for failing to protect abused, neglected children, The Hill, Robert Fellmeth is the executive director of the Children's Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego School of Law, blogs/congress-blog/civil-rights/231175-shame-on-us-for-failing-to-protect-abused-neglected-childrenA newly released report – aptly entitled?“Shame on U.S.”?– uses the federal government’s own documents to detail the colossal failure of America’s child welfare system. The three-year study found that not one of America’s 50 states is in “substantial conformity” with minimum standards set in federal law and designed to protect and lift up abused and neglected children. The result is that abused and neglected children have been left vulnerable to further harm, and in many cases, death. In 2013, at least 679,000 children were the victims of abuse or neglect, and an estimated 1,500 died. Sadly, these numbers are probably low, due in part to unreported abuse. Despite their failure to protect our most vulnerable citizens, state governments continue to receive billions of dollars each year in federal child welfare funds. Congress, the executive branch and the federal judiciary have all been derelict in their responsibility to protect abused and neglected children in the United States. One of the most egregious debacles cited in the report – and one that demands immediate action – is the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ inadequate Child and Family Services Review process that is supposed to, in HHS’ own words, “ensure [state] conformity with federal child welfare requirements.” In the most recent review, not a single state was in substantial conformity with minimum standards on all seven measurable outcomes related to safety, permanency and family/child wellbeing. ?In fact, 40 states and the District of Columbia failed to achieve substantial conformity on all seven outcomes, and the other ten states were found to be in substantial conformity with just one outcome each. ?How is this a process that ensures conformity with child welfare requirements? HHS has the power to withhold federal funding to compel compliance, but instead often takes a passive approach, allowing states to self-certify compliance and actually set lower standards and performance expectations for themselves than are allowed by law — all of which allow glaring inadequacies to go unabated.States Counter Plan Answers – CRCCounter Plan links to the Politics AdvantageLinks to Politics: President gets blamed for states’ actionsEugene Kiely, February 17, 2012. EUGENE KIELY is a Washington assignment editor USA today. [“Did Obama ‘Approve’ Bridge Work for Chinese Firms?” ]Who’s to blame, if that’s the right word, if the project ends up using manufactured steel from China? The National Steel Bridge Alliance blames the state railroad agency. The Alliance for American Manufacturing says the federal Buy American laws have been “weakened with loopholes and various exemptions that make it easier for bureaucrats to purchase foreign-made goods instead of those made in American factories with American workers.” So, how did Obama get blamed for the decisions by state agencies and for state projects that, in at least one case, didn’t even use federal funds? The answer is a textbook lesson in how information gets distorted when emails go viral. We looked at the nearly 100 emails we received on this subject and found that Obama wasn’t mentioned at all in the first few emails. Typical of the emails we received shortly after the ABC News report aired was this one from Oct. 11, 2011: “I just got an email regarding Diane Sawyer on ABC TV stating that U. S. Bridges and roads are being built by Chinese firms when the jobs should have gone to Americans. Could this possible be true?” The answer: Yes, it’s true. End of story, right? Wrong. Days later, emails started to appear in our inbox that claimed ABC News reported that Chinese firm were receiving stimulus funds to build U.S. bridges — even though the broadcast news story didn’t mention stimulus funds at all. (The report did include a clip of Obama delivering a speech on the need to rebuild America’s bridges and put Americans to work, but said nothing about the president’s $830 billion stimulus bill.) Still, we received emails such as this one on Nov. 4, 2011, that included this erroneous claim language: “Stimulus money meant to create U.S. jobs went to Chinese firms. Unbelievable….” It didn’t take long for Obama to be blamed. That same day — Nov. 4, 2011 — we received an email that made this leap to Obama: “SOME CHINESE COMPANIES WHO ARE BUILDING ‘OUR’ BRIDGES. (3000 JOBS LOST TO THE CHINESE FIRM)…..AND NOW OBAMA WANTS ‘MORE STIMULUS MONEY’…..THIS IS NUTS ! ! ! If this doesn’t make you furious nothing will….” This year, Obama’s name started to surface in the subject line of such critical emails — raising the attack on the president to yet another level and perhaps ensuring the email will be even more widely circulated. Since Jan. 17, we have gotten more than a dozen emails with the subject line, “ABC News on Obama/USA Infrastructure,” often preceded with the word “SHOCKING” in all caps. The emails increasingly contain harsh language about the president. Since Jan. 11, 23 emails carried this added bit of Obama-bashing: “I pray all the unemployed see this and cast their votes accordingly in 2012!” One of those emails — a more recent one from Feb. 8 — contained this additional line: “Tell me again how Obama’s looking out for blue collar guys. He cancels pipelines, and lets Chinese contractors build our bridges…” And so it goes, on and on. All from a news report that blamed state officials — not Obama — for spending taxpayer money on Chinese firms to build U.S. icality Answers - CRC(We meet) Ratification requires ongoing engagement with the UN and other signees United Nations, September 2, 1990, Convention on the Rights of the Child, United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspxArticle 44 - 1. States Parties undertake to submit to the Committee, through the Secretary-General of the United Nations, reports on the measures they have adopted which give effect to the rights recognized herein and on the progress made on the enjoyment of those rights (a) Within two years of the entry into force of the Convention for the State Party concerned; (b) Thereafter every five years. 2. Reports made under the present article shall indicate factors and difficulties, if any, affecting the degree of fulfilment of the obligations under the present Convention. Reports shall also contain sufficient information to provide the Committee with a comprehensive understanding of the implementation of the Convention in the country concerned. 3. A State Party which has submitted a comprehensive initial report to the Committee need not, in its subsequent reports submitted in accordance with paragraph 1 (b) of the present article, repeat basic information previously provided. 4. The Committee may request from States Parties further information relevant to the implementation of the Convention. 5. The Committee shall submit to the General Assembly, through the Economic and Social Council, every two years, reports on its activities. 6. States Parties shall make their reports widely available to the public in their own countries.(Counter interpretation) Ratifying treaties itself is diplomatic engagement United States Diplomacy Center, last updated 2016, WHAT ARE THE TOOLS OF DIPLOMACY?, Diplomacy 101, The US Diplomacy Center is the administration of federal government that coordinates US diplomatic efforts, diplomacy.discoverdiplomacy/diplomacy101/issues/170614.htmTo be successful, diplomats must listen carefully to what their counterparts say and find points of agreement which may overcome those of disagreement. And they need to enter discussions with a clear goal and strategy of what can be exchanged to reach agreement. In negotiating, diplomats often use rewards—such as the promise of new trade, an arms sale, or shipments of food—to encourage an agreement. When diplomatic interests collide and a deadlock ensues, negotiators might threaten sanctions—such as restricting trade or travel, halting financial assistance, or an embargo—to persuade the other parties to accept an agreement. The final result of negotiations is usually a formal written communique or agreement that spells out the actions and responsibilities of each side. The most well-known is, of course, the?treaty, a formal, written agreement between sovereign states or between or among countries and?international organizations.?In the United States, treaties are negotiated through the executive branch, which includes the Department of State.?Once the negotiators have accepted the terms of the?treaty,?the president sends the?treaty?to the U.S. Senate for its “advice and consent” on ratification,?or endorsement. If the Senate approves, the?treaty?is returned to the White House for the president's signature. Many other countries have similar procedures for ratifying agreements and it may be many years before a?treaty?might be signed and implemented. While the United States signed a?Treaty?of Peace with Japan in 1951 after World War II, it has never settled terms of peace with Germany, partly because Germany was divided at the end of the war.Counter standards:Fairness: our interpretation is fairer – our author is clear that treaties are a diplomatic tool. We have the clearest interpretation from the most qualified source so you should default to our interpretation. Also whether engagement is ongoing or not is arbitrary, you should have a high threshold for voting on their interpretation. Our plan is absolutely fair because it diplomatically resolves one of the major criticisms China has against the United States – that’s the core of the topic. That also means we don’t explode the limits – we meet the word ‘substantial’ in the resolution because the treaty is core to the topic. Education: Our interpretation leads to more educational debates. Learning about the tools of diplomacy is key to learning what diplomacy actually is – learning about the treaties China wants us to sign is a major part of the US engaging China diplomatically in real life. Learning about how treaties affect peoples’ lives is a core value of debate that we will use for the rest of our lives.Voters: You should not vote on this topicality argument. We are reasonably topical and allow for a meaningful, educational debate. Capitalism Kritik Answers - CRCLink AnswersTurn: International human rights law will reform capitalism to negate its harms – MORE international law compliance is the solutionKate Nash, May 2013, GLOBAL CAPITALISM AND HUMAN RIGHTS, Journal of Globalization Studies. Volume 4, Number 1, Kate Nash is Professor of Sociology at Goldsmiths, University of London, and Faculty Fellow at the Center for Cultural Sociology, Yale University. She has written and published widely on political sociology, including the second edition of Contemporary Political Sociology (Wiley-Blackwell 2010); and human rights, including The Cultural Politics of Human Rights: Comparing the US and UK (Cambridge University Press 2009), journal/articles/156009/To put it another way, markets, if only to function as such, have to be embedded in social relations that always have moral meanings. The cultural politics of human rights is oriented towards framing and institutionalising markets in terms of justice. Activists engage in the cultural politics of human rights using international human rights law to address economic issues in moral and legal terms. In attempting to reform the IFIs, the aim is to make existing institutions – international and national – that are already designated as having responsibility for economic development more accountable and more responsive to people's needs. These strategies involve re-framing ‘interests’ in human rights terms. To some this will seem far too weak: how can fine ideals affect the interests of global elites? Human rights strategies are premised on the understanding that markets are part of social life; they do not exist outside the meaningful codes through which we understand them, and they can be constructed in more humane ways. While neo-liberalism posits a human being who is, or who should be, motivated only by self-interest, we actually live in social structures in which we are also expected to be motivated by other concerns. Precisely where lines are drawn between ‘economic necessity’ and other social values is a matter of cultural politics. Changes in priorities are not, then impossible. Beliefs, standards and values, as well as embarrassment, pride and shame, do affect decisions about ‘how to go on’ in everyday life. This is no less the case where knowledge and procedures that regulate ‘how to go on’ are embedded in professional, bureaucratic contexts, as they are in the institutions of the IFIs, in national and international economic policy, and in the production of mainstream theories of development. Incremental change in ‘how to go on’ is always possible in principle, then, even when it is transformation of something as complex and multi-facted as ‘the global economy’ that we aspire to. In practice, however, as we have seen here in the case study of campaigns to influence IFIs, it is extremely difficult to humanise global capitalism, to make organisations and institutions that regulate economic development and make it more accountable and responsive to the needs of all. In relation to human rights, these difficulties are due at least as much to economic competition between states as they are to strategies of transnational corporations to evade unfavourable regulation. In other words, they are due to the inadequacy of global institutions to manage capitalist competition for the benefit of all; they are not simply a product of capitalism as such. It goes without saying that international co-operation is necessary to make equitable economic policy where all countries are affected by globalization. But it is also widely agreed that a world state that could impose regulation on competing states and border-hopping transnational corporations is?not?desirable (see Weiss 2009). Human rights are, however, state-centric: it is states that make international human rights law (albeit through IGOs, and increasingly in dialogue with NGOs), and it is states that are the addressees (as well as the violators) of human rights in international law. We have noted here the multiple paradoxes of states of human rights: they are both the violators and the guarantors of human rights; they are accountable to international public opinion and at the same time sovereign; they are supposed to represent and be democratically accountable to their citizens and to ensure the human rights of non-resident, non-citizens too. In general, these paradoxes are creatively and fruitfully engaged by activists. Turn: Asserting age identity creates space to challenge capitalism Michael A Peters & Viktor Johansson, Friday, 25 May 2012, The Rights of the Child, "Adultism" and the Philosophy of Childhood, Michael A. Peters is professor of education at the University of Waikato in New Zealand and professor emeritus at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Viktor Johansson is a PhD student completing his degree in philosophy of education at the University of Stockholm, Sweden, news/item/9154-the-rights-of-the-child-adultism-and-the-philosophy-of-childhoodIn the world today, the vast proportion of children are in poverty, or are hungry or abused. As "The State of the World's Children 2012" shows with clarity, "hundreds of millions of children today live in urban slums, many without access to basic services." Under neoliberalism, the status, health and education of children, even in the first world, has been downgraded as inequalities have rapidly grown and outstripped the gains made during the 1960s and 1970s (Hill, 2009; Ross & Gibson, 2007). As children are taken seriously as subjects of political and moral theory - a very recent historical change - and as the discourse of rights for children matures, it is important to understand that it is no longer possible to accept a simple equation between the interests of children and those who traditionally are seen as bearing responsibility for them. They must be encouraged to speak for themselves, and we must become more adept at both providing the vehicles to access their voices and to actively listen to them.We can use the state against capitalismChristian Parenti, April 2014, “Climate Change: What Role for Reform?” MONTHLY REVIEW v. 65 n. 11, Christian Parenti is a Professor of Sustainable Development at the School for International Training, Graduate Institute , accessed 4-24-14.There was also a larger point to my essay that the MR editors did not address. By describing policies that the U.S. capitalist state could undertake right now to start euthanizing the fossil-fuel industry, I was also attempting to start a conversation about the state. Once upon a time the state was the heart of the socialist project. But neoliberalism’s anti-statist rhetoric has almost “disappeared” the state as an intellectual object—even on much of the left. The capitalist state is not just a tool of capital’s rule. It is also an arena of class struggle. As such it is an institution that can solidify and enforce popular political victories over capital. If the struggle for climate justice is to get anywhere it will have to think more deeply about the contradictions of the capitalist state, and how such contradictions can be exploited in the short term. On that point, I hope you would agree.Capitalism Kritik Answers - CRCConsequentialist Impact Scenario AnswersTurn: Capitalism is self-correcting and sustainable – war and environmental destruction are not profitable and innovation solves their impacts Anatole Kaletsky, 2011, Capitalism 4.0: The Birth of a New Economy in the Aftermath of Crisis, p. 19-21, Anatole Kaletsky is editor-at-large of The Times of London, where he writes weekly columns on economics, politics, and international relations and on the governing board of the New York-based Institute for New Economic Theory (INET), a nonprofit created after the 2007-2009 crisis to promote and finance academic research in economicsDemocratic capitalism is a system built for survival. It has adapted successfully to shocks of every kind, to upheavals in technology and economics, to political revolutions and world wars. Capitalism has been able to do this because, unlike communism or socialism or feudalism, it has an inner dynamic akin to a living thing. It can adapt and refine itself in response to the changing environment. And it will evolve into a new species of the same capitalist genus if that is what it takes to survive. In the panic of 2008—09, many politicians, businesses, and pundits forgot about the astonishing adaptability of the capitalist system. Predictions of global collapse were based on static views of the world that extrapolated a few months of admittedly terrifying financial chaos into the indefinite future. The self-correcting mechanisms that market economies and democratic societies have evolved over several centuries were either forgotten or assumed defunct. The language of biology has been applied to politics and economics, but rarely to the way they interact. Democratic capitalism’s equivalent of the biological survival instinct is a built-in capacity for solving social problems and meeting material needs. This capacity stems from the principle of competition, which drives both democratic politics and capitalist markets. Because market forces generally reward the creation of wealth rather than its destruction, they direct the independent efforts and ambitions of millions of individuals toward satisfying material demands, even if these demands sometimes create unwelcome by-products. Because voters generally reward politicians for making their lives better and safer, rather than worse and more dangerous, democratic competition directs political institutions toward solving rather than aggravating society’s problems, even if these solutions sometimes create new problems of their own. Political competition is slower and less decisive than market competition, so its self-stabilizing qualities play out over decades or even generations, not months or years. But regardless of the difference in timescale, capitalism and democracy have one crucial feature in common: Both are mechanisms that encourage individuals to channel their creativity, efforts, and competitive spirit into finding solutions for material and social problems. And in the long run, these mechanisms work very well. If we consider democratic capitalism as a successful problem-solving machine, the implications of this view are very relevant to the 2007-09 economic crisis, but diametrically opposed to the conventional wisdom that prevailed in its aftermath. Governments all over the world were ridiculed for trying to resolve a crisis caused by too much borrowing by borrowing even more. Alan Greenspan was accused of trying to delay an inevitable "day of reckoning” by creating ever-bigger financial bubbles. Regulators were attacked for letting half-dead, “zombie” banks stagger on instead of putting them to death. But these charges missed the point of what the democratic capitalist system is designed to achieve. In a capitalist democracy whose raison d’etre is to devise new solutions to long-standing social and material demands, a problem postponed is effectively a problem solved. To be more exact, a problem whose solution can be deferred long enough is a problem that is likely to be solved in ways that are hardly imaginable today. Once the self-healing nature of the capitalist system is recognized, the charge of “passing on our problems to our grand-children”—whether made about budget deficits by conservatives or about global warming by liberals—becomes morally unconvincing. Our grand-children will almost certainly be much richer than we are and will have more powerful technologies at their disposal. It is far from obvious, therefore, why we should make economic sacrifices on their behalf. Sounder morality, as well as economics, than the Victorians ever imagined is in the wistful refrain of the proverbially optimistic Mr. Micawber: "Something will turn up." Framing Turn: Consequentialism is bad – leads to horrendous decision makingDanny Scoccia, 2007, Moral theories: Utilitarianism, Kantianism, and Religious Ethics. Reading: pp. 6-17 & 20-26, Danny Scoccia is Professor Emeritus (Ph.D. University of California at San Diego) at New Mexico State University, Dr. Scoccia’s interests include ethical theory, philosophy of law and social and political philosophy, web.nmsu.edu/~dscoccia/321web/321ethicstheory.pdfThe other three views—Kantian ethics, natural rights theories, and “religious ethics”—all agree that there are many circumstances when maximizing utility would be wrong. Perhaps the strongest objection to Act Utilitarianism comes from the natural rights theory: Act Utilitarianism is false, because it tells us to violate people’s rights when that’s necessary to maximize utility. The example of Joseph illustrates it, but here’s another example. A surgeon has 1 healthy and 5 sick and dying patients. Each of the sick and dying patients needs a new organ— one a new kidney, another a new liver, the third a new heart, etc.—and would fully recover if he received it. It so happens that the 1 healthy patient would be a suitable organ donor for all of them. If the surgeon kills the 1 and redistributes his organs, he saves 5. If he does nothing, then 1 is alive and 5 are dead. On the assumption that all six are equally happy, loved by others, and productive of utility for others in society, then the way to maximize utility is to kill the 1. But if he won’t consent to being killed and having his organs transplanted (he doesn’t believe in utilitarianism), then killing him would violate his right to life. The objection is simply that it would be wrong to violate his right even if it’s the way to maximize utility.Capitalism Kritik Answers - CRCDeontology Impact Scenario AnswersTurn: Capitalism is a prerequisite ethical system – it preserves freedom to act which is the core of the human condition Peter Saunders, 2007, Why Capitalism is Good for the Soul, Peter Saunders is a Fellow at the Center for Independent Studies, What Clive Hamilton airily dismisses as a ‘growth?fetish’ has?resulted in one hour of work today delivering twenty-five times more value?than it did in 1850.?This has freed huge chunks of our time for?leisure, art, sport, learning, and other ‘soul-enriching’ pursuits. Despite all the exaggerated talk of an ‘imbalance’ between work and family life, the average Australian today spends a much greater proportion of his or her lifetime free of work than they would had they belonged to any previous generation in history.??There is another sense, too, in which?capitalism has freed individuals so they can pursue worthwhile lives, and that lies in its record of undermining tyrannies and dictatorships. As examples like Pinochet’s Chile and Putin’s Russia vividly demonstrate, a free economy does not guarantee a democratic polity or a society governed by the rule of law. But as Milton Friedman once pointed out, these latter conditions are never found in the absence of a free economy.(12) Historically, it was capitalism that delivered humanity from the ‘soul-destroying’ weight of feudalism. Later, it freed millions from the dead hand of totalitarian socialism. While capitalism may not be a sufficient condition of human freedom, it is almost certainly a necessary one.??[continues]?Wherever populations have a chance to move, the flow is always towards capitalism, not away from it. The?authorities never had a problem keeping West Germans out of East Germany, South Koreans out of North Korea, or Taiwanese out of Communist China. The attraction of living in a capitalist society is not just that the economy works. It is also that?if your version of the good life leads you to turn your back on capitalism, you don’t have to pick up sticks and move away. If you don’t like capitalism, there is no need to bribe people-smugglers to get you out of the country.?You simply?buy a plot of land,?build your mud-brick?house, and drop out?(or, like Clive, you set up your own think tank and sell books urging others to drop out).Framing Turn: Deontology is a failed moral system – ticking time bomb provesMark J. Buha, 2010, Rule Utilitarian and Deontologist Perspectives on Comparisons of Torture and Killing, Washington University Jurisprudence Review Volume 2, Issue 2, Mark Buha is an Associate at Maune Raichle Hartley French & Mudd law firm, Mark earned his Juris Doctor from Washington University in St. Louis in 2011. He served as a Senior Editor of the Jurisprudence Review,openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1014&context=law_jurisprudenceDeontologists, like rule utilitarians, devise rules that must be followed universally. Deontologists and rule utilitarians differ only in what criteria they use to formulate these rules. Rule utilitarians use only pleasure and pain. They hold that any act that maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain when applied universally is good. Deontologists evaluate actions under an entirely different rubric than rule utilitarians,72 often focusing on the mental state of the actor or whether the act violates another's rights.73 If it violates another's rights, it is strictly forbidden, regardless of the consequences. 74 Deontologists tend to treat each individual separately as an end in itself.75Applying this analysis, many deontologists forbid torture under all circumstances.? see torture as a particularly repugnant violation of individual rights. It requires specific intent, deprives the victim of dignity, and invades the victim's physical and psychological integrity. Provided grave enough consequences, this uncompromising position represents a fanaticism77and "moral fundamentalism"' that is difficult to defend. Hardly anyone finds it acceptable to rigidly adhere to an abstract moral principle—no matter how sound the principle appears in isolation—when doing so results in the death of hundreds or thousands of people.79 Deontologists allow catastrophe and mass death to occur to protect a single individual simply because torture violates his or her rights. The infamous "ticking time bomb" hypothetical illuminates these objections. In this scenario, a bomb is located in a crowded city. If detonated, it will destroy the entire city and millions will die. The bomb's location is unknown, and there is not enough time for a general search. Law enforcement apprehends one of the bomb's planters who knows the bomb's location and how to deactivate it. If the terrorist divulges the information, law enforcement has enough time to disable the bomb. Given these facts, few would adhere to principle; most would torture the individual in order to extract information that would save millions. This hypothetical presses deontology to its ideological limits. Once the prohibitionist admits he would allow torture in this situation, he concedes that his opposition to torture is not based on principle alone, but on something else.8° Deontologists respond with both logical and empirical objections to the ticking time bomb hypothetical's seductive simplicity. First, as Richard Matthews points out, the argument may be valid, but it is unsound, and therefore it cannot seriously undermine any position on torture.81The ticking bomb argument sets forth an "if-then" conditional: if these facts exist, then a reasonable person would torture.82If the antecedent holds, the consequence follows. But the hypothetical assumes the antecedent's truth without providing any proof. Valid but not sound, the hypothetical proves nothing. If we accepted mere validity, anything could be proven.83 Second, deontologists point out how unlikely it is that the antecedent facts would ever simultaneously exist in the real world. Although each premise has an empirical likelihood of being false, the hypothetical assumes that (1) an actual terrorist threat exists, (2) the threat is imminent, (3) the threat is sufficiently dangerous to justify torture, (4) the apprehended suspect possesses any information relevant to the threat, (5) only a single individual possesses all of the information necessary to extinguish the threat, (6) the individual participated in the attack or is a wrongdoer, (7) torture will be effective in forcing the subject to disclose information, (8) the information disclosed is truthful, and (9) the torturer can distinguish truthful and false information simply by observing the subject. The distinct unlikelihood that all nine elements will simultaneously exist in the real world renders the example almost irrelevant, useful only as a thought exercise.84 While these criticisms expose the assumptions in the ticking time bomb hypothetical, they ultimately avoid the issue. While it might be extremely unlikely that such factual circumstances will ever exist, it is not conceptually impossible. The fact remains that rigid deontology allows the bombs to go off in that scenario, however unlikely. Deontologists allow the world to explode to avoid violating the rights of a single individual.Capitalism Kritik Answers - CRCDiscourse Impact Scenario AnswersTurn: Talking broadly about theories don’t help build education spaces, it creates withdrawal and pessimism – only learning about and working through actual systems and scenarios is educationally liberating Richard Rorty 1998, “ACHIEVING OUR COUNTRY: Leftist Thought in Twentieth-Century America”, 1998, Pg. 7-9, Richard Rorty is a professor emeritus of comparative literature and philosophy at Stanford University and a leading academic in the field of philosophySuch people find pride in American citizenship impossible, and vigorous participation in electoral politics pointless. They associate American patriotism with an endorsement of atrocities: the importation of African slaves, the slaughter of Native Americans, the rape of ancient forests, and the Vietnam War. Many of them think of national pride as appropriate only for chauvinists: for the sort of American who rejoices that America can still orchestrate something like the Gulf War, can still bring deadly force to bear whenever and wherever it chooses. When young intellectuals watch John Wayne war movies after reading Heidegger, Foucault, Stephenson, or Silko, they often become convinced that they live in a violent, inhuman, corrupt country. They begin to think of themselves as a saving remnant-as the happy few who have the insight to see through nationalist rhetoric to the ghastly reality of contemporary America. But this insight does not move them to formulate a legislative program, to join a political movement, or to share in a national hope. The contrast between national hope and national self-mockery and self-disgust becomes vivid when one compares novels like Snow Crash and Almanac of the Dead with socialist novels of the first half of the century-books like The Jungle, An American Tragedy, and The Grapes of Wrath. The latter were written in the belief that the tone of the Gettysburg Address was absolutely right, but that our country would have to transform itself in order to fulfill Lincoln's hopes. Transformation would be needed because the rise of industrial capitalism had made the individualist rhetoric of America's first century obsolete. The authors of these novels thought that this rhetoric should be replaced by one in which America is destined to become the first cooperative commonwealth, the first classless society. This America would be one in which income and wealth are equitably distributed, and in which the government ensures equality of opportunity as well as individual liberty. This new, quasi-communitarian rhetoric was at the heart of the Progressive Movement and the New Deal. It set the tone for the American Left during the first six decades of the twentieth century. Walt Whitman and John Dewey, as we shall see, did a great deal to shape this rhetoric. The difference between early twentieth-century leftist intellectuals and the majority of their contemporary counterparts is the difference between agents and spectators. In the early decades of this century, when an intellectual stepped back from his or her country's history and looked at it through skeptical eyes, the chances were that he or she was about to propose a new political initiative. Henry Adams was, of course, the great exception-the great abstainer from ·politics. But William James thought that Adams' diagnosis of the First Gilded Age as a symptom of irreversible moral and political decline was merely perverse. James's pragmatist theory of truth was in part a reaction against the sort of detached spectatorship which Adams affected. For James, disgust with American hypocrisy and self-deception was pointless unless accompanied by an effort to give America reason to be proud of itself in the future. The kind of proto- Heideggerian cultural pessimism which Adams cultivated seemed, to James, decadent and cowardly. "Democracy," James wrote, "is a kind of religion, and we are bound not to admit its failure. Faiths and utopias are the noblest exercise of human reason, and no one with a spark of reason in him will sit down fatalistically before the croaker's picture. "2 Framing turn: Focus on discourse trades off with actually implementing policy, risks cooption by special interests, and doesn’t solve as effectively – need to focus on real solutions not rhetoricRenee Irvin & John Stansbury, 2004, Citizen Participation in Decision-Making: Is it Worth the Effort?, Public Administration Review, Renee Irvin is Associate Professor in the Department of Planning, Public Policy and Management at the University of Oregon & John Stansbury is Associate Professor of Civil Engineering at the University of Nebraska, c.sites/resource/resmgr/imported/Journal_Issue1_Irving.pdfThis article, while describing the very important benefits of citizen participation, also provides a litmus test for agencies to consider when they allocate resources toward citizen participation processes. Do citizens care enough to participate actively in policy-making, or would resources devoted toward participatory processes be better directed toward implementation? Does local citizen participation imply more opportunity for economically motivated special interests to dominate the decision process? Criticism lobbed at participatory efforts in environmental management may soon be heard in other sectors, as decreasing government budgets require intense scrutiny of government performance outcomes. Delegating environmental decision-making authority to citizens is a policy strategy lauded for its holistic consideration of local economic interests, yet criticised by the environmental left for its potential to roll back decades of environmental regulatory success. Evidence for the effectiveness of community participation in environmental management is in short supply, due in part to the inherent problems in measuring the success of environmental policies that may take decades to positively affect the environment. Even more difficult, perhaps, is the prospect of measuring incremental changes in the well-being of the general public as they become more engaged in the policy process. Concern exists among environmentalists that locally-based citizen participation processes will lead to a relaxation of previously successful environmental regulation. Another concern, rarely voiced, is the potential wastefulness of the process if employed in a non-ideal community. Even if the citizen participation process does not lead to relaxed environmental regulation, it may entail a significant expenditure of resources that could be used elsewhere to achieve better on the-ground results. With widespread public benefit as the goal of any public policy process, it behooves the administrator to consider the advantages and disadvantages of the decision-making process when determining the most effective implementation strategy, bearing in mind that talk is not cheap – and may not even be effective.Capitalism Kritik Answers - CRCAnswers to AlternativeNo Solvency: The working class will not succeed in overthrowing the capitalist systemMike Cole 2009, “Critical Race Theory and Education A Marxist Response”, chapter 7, pg 121, Mike Cole is a Research Professor in Education and Equality, Head of Research and Director of the Centre for Education for Social Justice at Bishop Grosseteste University College Lincoln, UKThe Working Class Won’t Create the Revolution Because They Are Reactionary. It is a fundamental tenet of Marxism that the working class are the agents of social revolution, and that the working class, as noted above, needs to become a ‘class for itself’ in addition to being a ‘class in itself’ (Marx, 1847 [1995]). It is unfortunately the case that major parts of the world are a long way off such a scenario at the present conjuncture. It is also the case that successful interpellation and related false consciousness hampers the development of class consciousness and the move towards the overthrow of capitalism. Britain is one example where the Ruling Class has been particularly successful in interpellating the working class (see Cole, 2008g, 2008h for discussion). Elsewhere, however, there are examples of burgeoning class consciousness, witnessed for example by the growth of Left parties (see below) in Europe and by developments across South America, notably the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (see below) and in Bolivia. It is to be hoped that, as neoliberal global imperial capitalism continues to reveal and expose its essential ruthlessness and contempt for those who make its profits, class consciousness will increase and that the working class will one day be in a position to overthrow (world) capitalism and to replace it with (world) democratic socialism. Perhaps it should be pointed out here that Marxists do not idolize or deify the working class; it is rather that the structural location in capitalist societies of the working class, so that, once it has become 'a class in itself' makes it the agent for change. Moreover the very act of social revolution and the creation of socialism mean the end of the very existence of the working class as a social class. As Marx and Engels (1845) [1975] put it: When socialist writers ascribe this world-historic role to the proletariat, it is not at all ... because they regard the proletarians as gods. Rather the contrary ... [The proletariat] cannot emancipate itself without abolishing the conditions of its own life. It cannot abolish the conditions of its own life without abolishing all the inhuman conditions of society today which are summed up in its own situation.No Turn: Alternatives to capitalism fail – lack of individual choice results in tyranny or failure Allan Meltzer March 12, 2009, “Why Capitalism?” 2008-2009 Bradley Lecture Series, Allan Meltzer is Professor of Political Economy at Carnegie Mellon University’s School of Business, Visiting Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, First Recipient of the AEI Irving Kristol Award, and Chairman of the International Financial Institution Advisory Commission, to Capitalism Critics of capitalism emphasize their dislike of greed and self-interest. They talk a great deal about social justice and fairness, but they do not propose an acceptable alternative to achieve their ends. The alternatives that have been tried are types of Socialism or Communism or other types of authoritarian rule. Anti-capitalist proposals suffer from two crippling drawbacks. First, they ignore the Kantian principle about human imperfection. Second, they ignore individual differences. In place of individual choice under capitalism, they substitute rigid direction done to achieve some proclaimed end such as equality, fairness, or justice. These ends are not precise and, most important, individuals differ about what is fair and just. In practice, the rulers' choices are enforced, often using fear, terror, prison, or other punishment. The history of the twentieth century illustrates how enforcement of promised ends became the justification for deplorable means. And the ends were not realized. Transferring resource allocation decisions to government bureaus does not eliminate crime, greed, self-dealing, conflict of interest, and corruption. Experience tells us these problems remain. The form may change, but as Kant recognized, the problems continue. Ludwig von Mises recognized in the 1920s that fixing prices and planning resource use omitted an essential part of the allocation problem. Capitalism allocates by letting relative prices adjust to equal the tradeoffs expressed by buyers' demands. Fixing prices eliminates the possibility of efficient allocation and replaces consumer choice with official decisions. Some gain, but others lose; the losers want to make choices other than those that are dictated to them. Not all Socialist societies have been brutal. In the nineteenth century, followers of Robert Owen, the Amana people, and many others chose a Socialist system. Israeli pioneers chose a collectivist system, the kibbutz. None of these arrangements produced sustainable growth. None survived. All faced the problem of imposing allocative decisions that satisfied the decision-making group, sometimes a majority, often not. Capitalism recognizes that where individual wants differ, the market responds to the mass; minorities are free to develop their favored outcome. Walk down the aisles of a modern supermarket. There are products that satisfy many different tastes or beliefs. Theodor Adorno was a leading critic of postwar capitalism as it developed in his native Germany, in Europe, and in the United States. He found the popular culture vulgar, and he distrusted the workers' choices. He wanted a Socialism that he hoped would uphold the values he shared with other intellectuals. Capitalism, he said, valued work too highly and true leisure too little. He disliked jazz, so he was not opposed to Hitler's ban in the 1930s. But Adorno offered no way of achieving the culture he desired other than to impose his tastes on others and ban all choices he disliked. This appealed to people who shared his view. Many preferred American pop culture whenever they had the right to choose. Capitalism permits choices and the freedom to make them. Some radio stations play jazz, some offer opera and symphonies, and many play pop music. Under capitalism, advertisers choose what they sponsor, and they sponsor programs that people choose to hear or watch. Under Socialism, the public watches and hears what someone chooses for them. The public had little choice. In Western Europe change did not come until boats outside territorial limits offered choice. The Templeton Foundation recently ran an advertisement reporting the answers several prominent intellectuals gave to the question: "Does the free market corrode moral character?" Several respondents recognized that free markets operate within a political system, a legal framework, and the rule of law. The slave trade and slavery became illegal in the nineteenth century. Before this a majority enslaved a minority. This is a major blot on the morality of democratic choice that public opinion and the law eventually removed. In the United States those who benefitted did not abandon slave owning until forced by a war. Most respondents to the Templeton question took a mixed stand. The philosopher John Gray recognized that greed and envy are driving forces under capitalism, but they often produce growth and raise living standards so that many benefit. But greed leads to outcomes like Enron and WorldCom that critics take as a characteristic of the system rather than as a characteristic of some individuals that remains under Socialism. Michael Walzer recognized that political activity also corrodes moral character, but he claimed it was regulated more effectively. One of the respondents discussed whether capitalism was more or less likely to foster or sustain moral abuses than other social arrangements. Bernard-Henri Levy maintained that alternatives to the market such as fascism and Communism were far worse. None of the respondents mentioned Kant's view that mankind includes a range of individuals who differ in their moral character. Institutional and social arrangements like democracy and capitalism influence the moral choices individuals make or reject. No democratic capitalist country produced any crimes comparable to the murders committed by Hitler's Germany, Mao's China, or Lenin and Stalin's Soviet Union. As Lord Acton warned, concentrated power corrupts officials. Some use concentrated power to impose their will. Some allow their comrades to act as tyrants. Others proclaim that ends such as equality justify force to control opposition. Communism proclaimed a vision of equality that it never approached. It was unattainable because individuals differ about what is good. And what is good to them and for them is not the same as what is socially desirable to critics of capitalism. Kant's principle warns that utopian visions are unattainable. Capitalism does not offer a vision of perfection and harmony. Democratic capitalism combines freedom, opportunity, growth, and progress with restrictions on less desirable behavior. It creates societies that treat men and women as they are, not as in some utopian vision. In The Open Society and Its Enemies, Karl Popper showed why utopian visions become totalitarian. All deviations from the utopian ideal must be prevented. The Enrons, WorldComs, and others of that kind show that dishonest individuals rise along with honest individuals. Those who use these examples to criticize capitalism do not use the same standard to criticize all governments as failed arrangements when a Watergate or bribery is uncovered. Nor do they criticize government when politicians promise but do not produce or achieve. We live after twenty-five to forty years of talk about energy, education, healthcare, and drugs. Governments promise and propose, but little if any progress is visible on these issues.No Solvency: Capitalism is inevitable—reforms, not revolution, are the only option. John K Wilson, 2000, “How the Left can Win Arguments and Influence People” p. 15- 16, John K. Wilson is Editor and Publisher of Illinois Academe,Capitalism is far too ingrained in American life to eliminate. If you go into the most impoverished areas of America, you will find that the people who live there are not seeking government control over factories or even more social welfare programs; they're hoping, usually in vain, for a fair chance to share in the capitalist wealth. The poor do not pray for socialism-they strive to be a part of the capitalist system. They want jobs, they want to start businesses, and they want to make money and be successful. What's wrong with America is not capitalism as a system but capitalism as a religion. We worship the accumulation of wealth and treat the horrible inequality between rich and poor as if it were an act of God. Worst of all, we allow the government to exacerbate the financial divide by favoring the wealthy: go anywhere in America, and compare a rich suburb with a poor town-the city services, schools, parks, and practically everything else will be better financed in the place populated by rich people. The aim is not to overthrow capitalism but to overhaul it. Give it a social-justice tune-up, make it more efficient, get the economic engine to hit on all cylinders for everybody, and stop putting out so many environmentally hazardous substances. To some people, this goal means selling out leftist ideals for the sake of capitalism. But the right thrives on having an ineffective opposition. The Revolutionary Communist Party helps stabilize the "free market" capitalist system by making it seem as if the only alternative to free-market capitalism is a return to Stalinism. Prospective activists for change are instead channeled into pointless discussions about the revolutionary potential of the proletariat. Instead of working to persuade people to accept progressive ideas, the far left talks to itself (which may be a blessing, given the way it communicates) and tries to sell copies of the Socialist Worker to an uninterested public.Capitalism Kritik Answers - CRCPermutationPermutation – do both – Reforms from with-in the system solve bestChris Dixon 2001, “Reflections on Privilege, Reformism, and Activism”, Activist and founding member of Direct Action Network Summer, bolster his critique of 'reformism,' for instance, he critically cites one of the examples in my essay: demanding authentic we need revolutionary strategy that links diverse, everyday struggles and demands to long-term radical objectives, without sacrificing either. Of course, this isn't to say that every so-called 'progressive' ballot initiative or organizing campaign is necessarily radical or strategic. Reforms are not all created equal. But some can fundamentally shake systems of power, leading to enlarged gains and greater space for further advances. Andre Gorz, in his seminal book Strategy for Labor, refers to these as "non-reformist" or "structural" reforms. He contends, "a struggle for non-reformist reforms--for anti-capitalist reforms--is one which does not base its validity and its right to exist on capitalist needs, criteria, and rationales. A non-reformist reform is determined not in terms of what can be, but what should be." Look to history for examples: the end of slavery, the eight-hour workday, desegregation. All were born from long, hard struggles, and none were endpoints. Yet they all struck at the foundations of power (in these cases, the state, white supremacy, and capitalism), and in the process, they created new prospects for revolutionary change. Now consider contemporary struggles: amnesty for undocumented immigrants, socialized health care, expansive environmental protections, indigenous sovereignty. These and many more are arguably non-reformist reforms as well. None will single-handedly dismantle capitalism or other systems of power, but each has the potential to escalate struggles and sharpen social contradictions. And we shouldn't misinterpret these efforts as simply meliorative incrementalism, making 'adjustments' to a fundamentally flawed system. Capitalism Kritik Answers - CRCTransition Wars Disadvantage Capitalist elites will resist the alternative, causing global transition warsLee Harris, December 1, 2002, The Intellectual Origins of America-Bashing, Hoover Institution Policy Review December 2002 & 2003, Lee Harris is an American author and essayist who writes for Policy Review and Tech Central Station who lives in Stone Mountain, Georgia, research/intellectual-origins-america-bashingThis is the immiserization thesis of Marx. And it is central to revolutionary Marxism, since if capitalism produces no widespread misery, then it also produces no fatal internal contradiction: If everyone is getting better off through capitalism, who will dream of struggling to overthrow it? Only genuine misery on the part of the workers would be sufficient to overturn the whole apparatus of the capitalist state, simply because, as Marx insisted, the capitalist class could not be realistically expected to relinquish control of the state apparatus and, with it, the monopoly of force. In this, Marx was absolutely correct. No capitalist society has ever willingly liquidated itself, and it is utopian to think that any ever will. Therefore, in order to achieve the goal of socialism, nothing short of a complete revolution would do; and this means, in point of fact, a full-fledged civil war not just within one society, but across the globe.Revolution is necessarily violent – alternative would lead to levels of unprecedented violenceMichael Cummings & Eric Cummings, 2011 (On Violence, "Revolutions are Violent", Michael Cummings is veteran and a writer, who deployed to Afghanistan in 2008 with the 173rd Airborne Brigade as a platoon leader, and Iraq in 2010 with 5th Special Forces Group as an intelligence officer. Eric Cummings is a writer who lives in Los Angeles. Their outside writing has appeared in the?Washington Post, Stars and Stripes,?The New York Times’?“At War” blog,?Thomas Ricks’ “The Best Defense” blog and?Infantry?magazine, )Michael was arguing a point that we haven’t argued enough on this website: revolutions are violent. ? Which may seem obvious. Except that extremists from both sides of the political spectrum casually endorse revolutions, like my liberal activist friend endorsing a revolution--a revolution, it is safe to say, the vast majority of the population didn’t endorse--to solve the environmental crisis. Like Occupy Protesters who just love revolutions, idealized, romanticized and fantasized through Che Guevara T-shirts, Youtube videos of street protests, and Guy Fawkes masks. Like Tea partiers make a point of bringing guns to political rallies, in case they need to overthrow the government. Both sides casually endorse violence, from Tea Party candidates to Occupy speakers. ? (We should make it clear that by “revolutions”, we mean revolutions that overthrow the existing power structure, not social or technological revolutions like the industrial revolution, the digital boom or the green revolution.)? The Arab Spring, as our most thought provoking event of 2011, should remind would-be-American-revolutionaries what a revolution really is: the break down of society and order, a revolution in power, which (mostly) results in violence. In this pan-Arab/north African revolution we have seen a few civil wars (Yemen, Syria and Libya), a military invasion (Saudi Arabia into Qatar), authoritarian crackdowns with unlawful arrests (Qatar, Eqypt, Syria and Yemen) and protesters generally arrested or attacked throughout. It is safe to say, to those who advocated revolution, violence followed.? This completely fits into the larger narratives of the history of revolutions. The American Revolution (Historians debate over whether this qualifies, I believe it does; it threw out the entire power structure.) cost one in every hundred males his life. The American Revolution is the second deadliest conflict in American history, percentage wise, with only the Civil War beating it, itself its own kind of revolution. ? Meanwhile, France’s revolution is symbolized by the guillotine, an industrial means of execution. The Russian Revolution lead to the deaths of literally millions of people. The revolutions that wracked Europe throughout the nineteenth century always included violence and death. When I studied Latin America history in high school, my notes read, “Colonialism. Revolution. Dictator. Revolution.” It applied to every country.? Violence always coincides with the outbreak of revolutions, for a few reasons:? First, instability. Inherently, revolutions are unstable, by definition an overthrow of the existing power structures. When this happens, chaos ensues. Food shortages, lack of security, a breakdown of the social order. The best explanation for this is our blog’s namesake, On Violence, by Hannah Arendt, that argued that violence and power are opposites. Thus, when the power structure disappears--as in France or Russia or Libya--violence fills the gaps.? Second, vengeance. Most revolutions have a very legitimate basis: people feel discriminated against, or suffer from severe economic inequality, or chafe under colonial rule. When the masses revolt, they take their vengeance against their previous oppressors. Look at what happened in the French revolution. Or what happened to Moammar Ghaddafi. Or Saddam Hussein.? Third, civil wars. They happen when revolutionaries disagree, or the over-thrown don’t want to leave so easily. Take the above groups advocating revolution, the Occupiers and the Tea Partiers. They don’t agree on anything. So if one side starts a revolution, they’ll basically have to go to war with the other side. Boom, you’ve got a civil war. This is what is happening in Syria. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download