MSDI 2013
Week 2
Neolib K
Kelly/Joel
Neolib K
Neolib K 1NC ................................................................................................................................... 2
Links: Immigration ....................................................................................................................... 6
Links: Terrorism ............................................................................................................................ 7
Impacts: Democracy ..................................................................................................................... 8
Impact: Economy ........................................................................................................................... 9
Impacts: War ................................................................................................................................ 10
Alt: Rethinking ............................................................................................................................. 11
A2: Perm ........................................................................................................................................ 13
**Aff Answers** ............................................................................................................................... 14
Framing Answers ....................................................................................................................... 15
Neoliberalism Good: Democracy .......................................................................................... 18
Neoliberalism Good: Environment ...................................................................................... 19
1
MSDI 2013
Week 2
Neolib K
Kelly/Joel
Neolib K 1NC
The affirmative production of crisis is critical to the governmental strategy to
maintain the SQ and neoliberalism
Arai in 5
Andrea G. Arai, rhizomes.10 spring 2005, The Neo-Liberal Subject of Lack and Potential: Developing "the
Frontier Within" and Creating a Reserve Army of Labor in 21st Century Japan,
http://www.rhizomes.net/issue10/arai.htm
Here, I want to emphasize that the production of crisis linked to a recasting of problems and
the shunting off of older ones, should be understood as particular techniques and
practices of government (aptly termed "the art of government" by Foucault). Thomas Lemke, writing of
Foucault's notion of governmentality and its relation to neoliberalism, has called these
practices and techniques, "the indirect means for leading and controlling individuals
by shifting the burden for the social risks of poverty, illness and unemployment into
the individual's domain and rendering them responsible for themselves." [2] This
agenda, continues Lemke, becomes visible as a "positive" technique or practice of
government (versus a negative political response) designed to produce citizens who conform to
the new requirements of global competition or accept the risk for their own failure. [3]
The recasting of problems and shunting off of others that is central to the reform
discourse of strengthening and inner frontier forms a critical analogue with the
restructuring of the work force, and the creation of an underclass of drifting young workers –
a highly politically and economically productive reserve army of labor known as the fureeta. [3] With my notion
here of a reserve army of labor, I wish to point to the new bifurcation of the workforce that
having been rationalized in the discourse of the education reforms and implemented through successive waves
of corporate restructuring, has resulted in a new underclass, the reserve economic status of
which makes it the ideal object for State appropriations of other kinds. In the second section
of the paper, I analyze the overlap between the reforms of education and the restructuring of the labor force by
focusing on the resonances between the new subject of education and the subject of labor. Totaling somewhere
around four million by modest calculations, the new underclass of laborers (the fureeta) has become a reserve
army of labor made to stand in as the re-vitalization of the nation, even as they stand for the failed project of
postwar democracy in need of revision. [4] In tracing the discursive links between the education
reforms and labor restructuring, I reveal the ideological stakes of how the view of the present
is changing. It is precisely the late twentieth century past, the relatively secure path from education to work
undergirded by historical understandings and cultural assumptions about the difference of the Japanese system
from education to capitalism that is now the focus of the recasting of problems. I argue that the
governmental practices of creating crisis, recasting and shunting off problems
represent a trajectory of problematization [4] that has reinterpreted the past in the
name of present economic and political exigencies.
2
MSDI 2013
Week 2
Neolib K
Kelly/Joel
Neoliberalism creates the kill to save mentality—ensuring the genocidal
destruction of humanity
Santos 03
Boaventura de Sousa Santos, Collective Suicide?,Issue #63, April 2003, Bad Subjects.com
http://bad.eserver.org/issues/2003/63/santos.html/view?searchterm=Santos,
According to Franz Hinkelammert, the West has repeatedly been under the illusion that it
should try to save humanity by destroying part of it. This is a salvific and sacrificial destruction,
committed in the name of the need to radically materialize all the possibilities opened up by a given social and
political reality over which it is supposed to have total power. This is how it was in colonialism, with
the genocide of indigenous peoples, and the African slaves. This is how it was in the
period of imperialist struggles, which caused millions of deaths in two world wars and
many other colonial wars. This is how it was under Stalinism, with the Gulag, and under
Nazism, with the Holocaust. And now today, this is how it is in neoliberalism, with the
collective sacrifice of the periphery and even the semiperiphery of the world system.
With the war against Iraq, it is fitting to ask whether what is in progress is a new genocidal and sacrificial
illusion, and what its scope might be. It is above all appropriate to ask if the new illusion will not herald the
radicalization and the ultimate perversion of the Western illusion: destroying all of humanity in the illusion of
saving it. Sacrificial genocide arises from a totalitarian illusion manifested in the belief
that there are no alternatives to the present-day reality, and that the problems and
difficulties confronting it arise from failing to take its logic of development to ultimate
consequences. If there is unemployment, hunger and death in the Third World, this is
not the result of market failures; instead, it is the outcome of market laws not having
been fully applied. If there is terrorism, this is not due to the violence of the conditions
that generate it; it is due, rather, to the fact that total violence has not been employed to
physically eradicate all terrorists and potential terrorists. This political logic is based
on the supposition of total power and knowledge, and on the radical rejection of
alternatives; it is ultra-conservative in that it aims to reproduce infinitely the status quo.
Inherent to it is the notion of the end of history. During the last hundred years, the West has experienced three versions of this
logic, and, therefore, seen three versions of the end of history: Stalinism, with its logic of insuperable efficiency of the plan;
Nazism, with its logic of racial superiority; and neoliberalism, with its logic of insuperable efficiency of the
market. The first two periods involved the destruction of democracy. The last one trivializes
democracy, disarming it in the face of social actors sufficiently powerful to be able to
privatize the state and international institutions in their favor. I have described this
situation as a combination of political democracy and social fascism. One current manifestation of
this combination resides in the fact that intensely strong public opinion, worldwide, against the war
is found to be incapable of halting the war machine set in motion by supposedly democratic rulers.
At all these moments, a death drive, a catastrophic heroism, predominates, the idea of
a looming collective suicide, only preventable by the massive destruction of the other.
Paradoxically, the broader the definition of the other and the efficacy of its destruction,
the more likely collective suicide becomes. In its sacrificial genocide version,
neoliberalism is a mixture of market radicalization, neoconservatism and Christian
fundamentalism. Its death drive takes a number of forms, from the idea of "discardable
populations", referring to citizens of the Third World not capable of being exploited as
workers and consumers, to the concept of "collateral damage", to refer to the deaths,
as a result of war, of thousands of innocent civilians.
3
MSDI 2013
Week 2
Neolib K
Kelly/Joel
Reject the aff’s neoliberal ideology – our ROLE OF THE BALLOT is best
EVEN IF they win some truth claims – we must SHIFT THE FRAME
Zehner 12
Green illusions,
Ozzie Zehner is the author of Green Illusions and a visiting scholar at the University of California, Berkeley. His recent
publications include public science pieces in Christian Science Monitor, The American Scholar, Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists, The Humanist, The Futurist, and Women’s Studies Quarterly. He has appeared on PBS, BBC, CNN, MSNBC,
and regularly guest lectures at universities. Zehner’s research and projects have been covered by The Sunday Times,
USA Today, WIRED, The Washington Post, Business Week and numerous other media outlets. He also serves on the
editorial board of Critical Environmentalism. Zehner primarily researches the social, political and economic
conditions influencing energy policy priorities and project outcomes. His work also incorporates symbolic roles that
energy technologies play within political and environmental movements. His other research interests include
consumerism, urban policy, environmental governance, international human rights, and forgeries. Zehner attended
Kettering University (BS -Engineering) and The University of Amsterdam (MS/Drs – Science and Technology Studies).
His research was awarded with honors at both institutions. He lives in San Francisco.
Since this book represents a critique of alternative energy, it may seem an unlikely manual for alternative-energy
proponents. But it is. Building
alternative-energy infrastructure atop America's
present economic, social, and cultural landscape is akin to building a sandcastle in a
rising tide. A taller sand castle won't help. The first steps in this book sketch a partial blueprint
for making alternative-energy technologies relevant into the future. Technological development
alone will do little to bring about a durable alternative-energy future.
Reimagining the social conditions of energy use will. Ultimately, we have to ask
ourselves if environmentalists should be involved in the business of energy
production (of any sort) while so many more important issues remain vastly underserved. Over the
next several decades, it's quite likely that our power production cocktail will look
very much like the mix of today, save for a few adjustments in market share.
Wind and biofuel generation will become more prevalent and the stage is set for nuclear power as well, despite
recent catastrophes. Nevertheless, these
changes will occur over time—they will seem
slow. Every power production mechanism has side effects and limitations of its
own, and a global shift to new forms of power production simply means that
humanity will have to deal with new side effects and limitations in the future. This
simple observation seems to have gotten lost in the cheerleading for alternativeenergy technologies. The mainstream environmental movement should throw down the green energy
pom-poms and pull out the bifocals. It is entirely reasonable for environmentalists to criticize
fossil-fuel industries for the harms they instigate. It is, however, entirely unreasonable for
environmentalists to become spokespeople for the next round of ecological disaster
machines such as solar cells, ethanol, and battery-powered vehicles. Environmentalists pack the
largest punch when they instead act as power production watchdogs (regardless
of the production method); past environmentalist pressures have cleaned the air and made previously polluted
waterways swimmable. This
watchdog role will be vital in the future as biofuels, nuclear
plants, alternative fossil fuels, solar cells, and other energy technologies import new
harms and risks. Beyond a watchdog role, environmentalists yield the greatest
progress when addressing our social fundamentals, whether by supporting human rights,
cleaning up elections, imagining new economic structures, strengthening communities, revitalizing democracy, or
imagining more prosperous modes of consumption. Unsustainable
energy use is a symptom of
suboptimal social conditions. Energy use will come down when we improve these conditions:
consumption patterns that lead to debt and depression; commercials aimed at children; lonely
seniors stuck in their homes because they can no longer drive; kids left to fend for themselves when it comes to
mobility or sexuality; corporate influence trumping citizen representation; measurements of the nation's health in
4
MSDI 2013
Week 2
Neolib K
Kelly/Joel
dollars rather than well-being; a media concerned with advertising over insight, and so on. These may not seem like
environmental issues, and they certainly don't seem like energy policy issues, but in reality they
are the most
important energy and environmental issues of our day. Addressing them won't require sacrifice
or social engineering. They are congruent with the interests of many Americans, which will make them easier to
initiate and fulfill.
They are entirely realistic (as many are already enjoyed by other societies on the
planet). They are, in a sense, boring. In fact, the only thing shocking about them is the
degree to which they have been underappreciated in contemporary environmental thought,
sidelined in the media, and ignored by politicians. Even though these first steps don't represent
a grand solution, they are necessary preconditions if we intend to
democratically design
and implement more comprehensive solutions in
the future.
Ultimately, clean energy is less energy. Alternative-energy alchemy has so
greatly consumed the public imagination over recent decades that the most vital and durable
environmental essentials remain overlooked and underfunded. Today energy executives hiss
silver-tongued fairy tales about clean-coal technologies, safe nuclear reactors, and
renewable sources such as solar, wind, and biofuels to quench growing energy demands, fostering the
illusion that we can maintain our expanding patterns of energy consumption
without consequence. At the same time, they claim that these technologies can be
made environmentally, socially, and politically sound while ignoring a history that has
repeatedly shown otherwise. If we give in to accepting their conceptual
frames,
terms
such as those
pitting production versus production , or if we parrot their
such as clean coal, bridge fuels, peacetime atom, smart growth, and clean energy ,
then we have
already lost. We forfeit our right to critical democratic engagement and
instead allow the powers that be to regurgitate their own terms of debate into
our open upstretched mouths. Alternative-energy technologies don't clean the air. They don't
clean the water. They don't protect wildlife. They don't support human rights. They don't improve neighborhoods.
They don't strengthen democracy. They don't regulate themselves. They don't lower atmospheric
carbon dioxide. They don't reduce consumption. They produce power. That power can lead to
durable benefits, but only given the appropriate context. Ultimately, it's not a question of
whether American society possesses the technological prowess to construct an alternative-energy nation. The real
question is the reverse. Do we have a society capable of being powered by alternative energy? The answer today is
clearly no. But we can change that. Future
environmentalists will drop solar, wind,
biofuels, nuclear, hydrogen, and hybrids to focus instead on women's rights,
consumer culture, walkable neighborhoods, military spending, zoning, health care,
wealth disparities, citizen governance, economic reform, and democratic institutions. As
environmentalists and global citizens, it's not enough to say that we would benefit by shifting our focus. Our very
relevance depends on it.
5
MSDI 2013
Week 2
Neolib K
Kelly/Joel
Links: Immigration
The merger of risk management and neoliberal policies have turned
immigration into a highly surveilled criminalized sector of governmentality
Koulish, 10
Robert Koulish, Ph.D., is a political scientist. He is visiting Senior Fellow and Associate Professor at the
University of Maryland- College Park, Immigration and American Democracy: Subverting the Rule of Law,
Routledge: New York, 2010
The criminalization of immigration is part of the larger risk strategy that redefines
immigration in terms of crime and punishment (Simon, 1997). This approach also
describes the risk scenarios that Chertoff orchestrated at DHS. In this approach the
government criminalizes subjects for whom it previously provided care. Economic
migrants who seek a better life in the US. for example, find that they are being charged
with felonies and subjected to mandatory detention and removal (Monahan. 200(5). They
are monitored and surveilled through SBI-net, US-VISIT. E-Verify and Real ID although they are not
suspected of wrongdoing. Such preemption intends to catch vis3 holders, for example, before they overstay
their visas and break the law. As Valverde and Mopas suggest, "neoliberal authorities couple
widespread surveillance with 'targeted government to identify and manage risk" (2004, p.
232). The risk of a possible civil infraction at a later date justifies deployment of the dataveillance
strategies. Along the way everyone who crosses the border, enters or leaves the
country or applies for a driver's license is caught in the net. Such endeavors are also where
the apocryphal claims of personal responsibility become most obvious (Nadesan. 2003). As Nadesan notes: In
a sense, neoliberal government presupposes an impossibility—the rational, self-
governing neoliberal agents who always act (or learn to act) responsibly in accord with
neoliberal value orientations—and the ruptures that point to the impossibility of the
neoliberal fantasy result in ever more invasive efforts to properly produce, manage,
and discipline neoliberal subjects. (P- 34)
6
MSDI 2013
Week 2
Neolib K
Kelly/Joel
Links: Terrorism
Claims of terrorism are meant to serve the function of spreading the cultural
notion that border is a place of danger and risk—allowing for the twin pillars of
securitization and neoliberalism to run rampant
Koulish, 10
Robert Koulish, Ph.D., is a political scientist. He is visiting Senior Fellow and Associate Professor at the
University of Maryland- College Park, Immigration and American Democracy: Subverting the Rule of Law,
Routledge: New York, 2010
With right-wing groups tapping into a nativist discourse that has existed since the days of Benjamin Franklin,
and government dipping into its own legacy of counter-subversion that dates to the Alien Acts of 1798 and more
recently CointelPro,39 there is little that seems extraordinary about the post-9/11 discourse that
reconfigures immigration as a security issue. Thus as the narrative instructs, immigrants =
security risk. Still, Walters notes a different meaning to the security meme before and after 9/11. Pre -9/11
the security meme was defined in terms of poverty and economic insecurity. Since most immigrants were poor,
and came to this country for jobs and higher salaries, it was useful to address undocumented immigration in
terms of social (anti-poverty) policy. Once the planes hit, the security meme changed dramatically from
economic insecurity to national insecurity. As Walters says, "Instead there is a new political imagination
preoccupied with the play of mobilities and populated by elusive persons {terrorists, asylum seekers,
smugglers) and mercurial things (contraband, drugs, weapons) that are able to move around almost
undetected, exploiting the smooth, networked spaces of national societies, but also the seemingly ungoverned
borderlands of the "global world". Walters continues, whereas before insecurity was to be
addressed by attempts to restore economic equilibrium, "under the paradigm of
homeland security, it is much more a game of government governing access, targeting
weak points and risk factors, preventing intrusion, tracking movement, verifying
^identity and detecting the undetected(Walters, 2008, p. 170). In other words, the discourse
shifted so that the problem was no longer about being poor, it was about being
undocumented; anyone undocumented, unidentified, was now perceived as a potential
terrorist. This new narrative thus also served as a catalyst for an anything goes
approach to government contracts with surveillance technologies firms. Risk
management technologies were now en vogue as necessary to manage the risk
presented by the undocumented immigrant. In other words, the domestication "the war on
terror = war on undocumented immigrants. This shift in narrative also unleashed the
unchecked powers of the sovereign against immigrants. The immigration discourse
has always contained an obvious foreign policy element, which would now be
unleashed: immigrant = foreign. This is important because the executive wields greater power over
foreign policy than domestic policy. As Justice Sutherland suggested in Curtiss-Wright, executive prerogative is
exaggerated in foreign affairs (Scheucrman, 201M). By domesticating the war on terror and
focusing attention on undocumented immigrants as potential terrorists, these
exaggerated foreign policy powers would now be turned inward. Thus following 9/11, these
monarchial tendencies have been prominent in American immigration policy. Along the way, as the master
narrative of immigration = security is delegated down into the practices of "petty sovereigns,'' immigrants have
been reimagined as potential "enemy aliens" (terrorists) by small-town sheriffs and their posses, who suddenly
morph into the persona of anti- immigrant sovereigns protecting the homeland. The security and foreign policy
memes that help legitimate the use of monarchial powers and the deployment of state of the art technologies
would be understandable were the United States really at war with Mexico or even with the people crossing the
border. Terror at the border, however, is imaginary. There is no enemy at the border, nor are battles being
waged there. Thus, the "war on terror" is fighting a phantom foe. Its metaphors are misleading. 40 Researchers at
Syracuse University recently examined millions of "detailed records obtained from the Immigration Courts
(EOIR) as well as from the Executive Office tor U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA)". They found that despite the Bush
administration's protests that fighting terrorism is the main reason for militarizing the border and creating an
immigration control industry, a claim of terrorism was made against only 12 (0.0015%) of the 814,073
individuals "against whom the DHS filed charges in the immigration courts" (Transactional Records Access
Clearinghouse (TRAC), 2009). .
7
MSDI 2013
Week 2
Neolib K
Kelly/Joel
Impacts: Democracy
Neoliberalism is worse than capitalism—it lacks democratic checks and invades
and destroys the remaining democratic public spaces
Henry A. Giroux, The Terror of Neoliberalism: Rethinking the Significance of Cultural
Politics College Literature 32.1 (2005) 1-19, Project Muse
As a public pedagogy and political ideology, the neoliberalism of Friedrich Hayek (1994) and Milton
Friedman (2002) is far more ruthless than the classic liberal economic theory developed
by Adam Smith and David Ricardo in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Neoliberalism has
[End Page 12] become the current conservative revolution because it harkens back to a
period in American history that supported the sovereignty of the market over the
sovereignty of the democratic state and the common good. Reproducing the future in the
image of the distant past, it represents a struggle designed to roll back, if not dismantle, all
of the policies put into place over seventy years ago by the New Deal to curb corporate power
and give substance to the liberal meaning of the social contract. The late Pierre Bourdieu
captures what is new about neoliberalism in his comment that neoliberalism is a new kind of
conservative revolution [that] appeals to progress, reason and science (economics in
this case) to justify the restoration and so tries to write off progressive thought and
action as archaic. It sets up as the norm of all practices, and therefore as ideal rules,
the real regularities of the economic world abandoned to its own logic, the so-called
laws of the market. It reifies and glorifies the reign of what are called the financial markets, in other
words the return to a kind of radical capitalism, with no other law than that of maximum
profit, an unfettered capitalism without any disguise, but rationalized, pushed to the
limit of its economic efficacy by the introduction of modern forms of domination , such as
'business administration', and techniques of manipulation, such as market research and advertising.
8
MSDI 2013
Week 2
Neolib K
Kelly/Joel
Impact: Economy
Continued Neoliberalism will destroy the economy—it has lead to huge deficits
and a widening rich poor gap
Giroux in 5
Henry A. Giroux, The Terror of Neoliberalism: Rethinking the Significance of Cultural Politics College Literature
32.1 (2005) 1-19, Project Muse
In the United States, neoliberal policies have created a huge deficit projected at
$5 trillion over the next decade due in part to President George Bush's exorbitant tax cuts for the wealthy (to the
tune of an estimated $3 trillion if they are made permanent). While the rich get tax cuts, 8.2 million [End Page 6]
people are out of work and 2.3 million have lost their jobs since 2000; some have simply given up the
unpromising task of looking for jobs. Massive subsidies for the rich, coupled with the
corporate frenzy for short-term profits at the expense of any social
considerations, translate into retrograde economic and social policies
celebrated by the advocates of neoliberalism, just as they refuse to
address an income gap between rich and poor that is not only the widest it
has been since 1929, but also represents the most unequal among all
developed nations (Woodard 2004, para.42).
9
MSDI 2013
Week 2
Neolib K
Kelly/Joel
Impacts: War
Neoliberalism pushes towards a fascist militarized society that eradicates civil
rights and wages international wars
Giroux in 5
Henry A. Giroux, The Terror of Neoliberalism: Rethinking the Significance of Cultural Politics College Literature
32.1 (2005) 1-19, Project Muse
Neoliberal ideology, on the one hand, pushes for the privatization of all noncommodified public spheres and the upward distribution of wealth. On the other hand,
it supports policies that increasingly militarize facets of public space in order to secure
the privileges and benefits of the corporate elite and ultra-rich. Neoliberalism does not
merely produce economic inequality, iniquitous power relations, and a corrupt political
system; it also promotes rigid exclusions from national citizenship and civic
participation. As Lisa Duggan points out, "Neoliberalism cannot be abstracted from
race and gender relations, or other cultural aspects of the body politic. Its legitimating
discourse, social relations, and ideology are saturated with race, with gender, with sex,
with religion, with ethnicity, and nationality"(2003, xvi). Neoliberalism comfortably
aligns itself with various strands of neoconservative and religious fundamentalisms
waging imperial wars abroad as well as at home against those groups and movements
that threaten its authoritarian misreading of the meaning of freedom, security, and
productiveness.
10
MSDI 2013
Week 2
Neolib K
Kelly/Joel
Alt: Rethinking
Must rethink our idea of citizenship--Rights based citizenship like the plan will
always fail to take into account the way in which neoliberalism bestows
different rights on different citizens even in the same category—only an
approach such as rethinking of citizenship into a moral economy can reclaim
equality, justice, and remake the citizen-subject into an ethical citizen
Ong professor of philosophy at U cal Berkley, in 2003
Aihwa Ong, Buddha Is Hiding: Refugees, Citizenship, the New America, Professor Department of Philosophy
University California at Berkley (PhD from Columbia) 2003, pg. afterword .
Nevertheless, I suggest that rights-based citizenship and related notions of welfare are
inadequate in the present environment of dispersed, transnational networks of
production. As my ethnography has shown, civil rights, with its sedimentation in codified
protocols of particular countries, have proved to be easily evaded because of the
deregulation of labor conditions, especially in flexible production sites. The legal
framework of interactions can be removed from labor relations, to be replaced by
nepotistic or specifically ethnic forms of control that enjoy a continuum of power
across political borders. More than ever, there is a need for governments, corporations, and nonprofit
agencies to mobilize resources to attend to the specific substantive needs of populations in various sites and protect
against the ravages of globalization. What we have, then, paradoxically, is a broadened notion of sovereignty— if
this is taken to mean the kind of state power that “is the crucial agency of distributive justice; it guards the
boundaries within which every social good is distributed and deployed.” 11 By supplementing a notion of
citizenship rights with a concept of a moral economy , state authorities can make a
greater commitment to the exchanges of rights and obligations among political leaders,
corporate figures, and laboring subjects in specific locations.12 A moral economy
approach recognizes various clusters of social goods, the variety of actors who can
interconnect in spheres of reciprocity, and the range of agents involved in distributive
activity. Because it is based on substantive reciprocity in face-to-face situations, rather than on abstract notions
of individual rights, moral economy implies that the terms of interaction remain mobile and
flexible, providing the capacity for local authorities to respond to situated working and
social conditions. In this way, moral-economy obligations and constraints can create a
sphere for the equitable distribution of social goods and social justice within what are
fundamentally assemblages of unequal power relations, in which an ethic of reciprocity
requires responses to human needs. Furthermore, the notion of differentiated social
goods—that workers need good wages, decent health coverage, and retirement benefits; that corporations need
good workers and earnings; and that both parties need each other to sustain themselves—means that a rough
parity or, in Michael Walzer’s term, “complex equality” can be achieved.13 In assemblages of
human needs, a variety of agents—the state, the corporation, the local authorities—can distribute
different kinds of social goods in a complementary fashion that secures overlapping
webs of support and sustenance. The United States is a problem space directly
involved in the reconfiguration of markets that cut across national borders and that
depend on different kinds of population flows I call latitudes of citizenship. As
citizenship rights become partially disembedded from the nation, and the regulation of
labor conditions gives way to the deregulation of transborder flows, the spatial and
moral coordinates of American citizenship have changed, and we need to rethink how
basic human needs should be protected against economic injustice. Whether we rely on the
routine rationalization of substantive needs (as in the welfare state), or on labor struggles to secure workers’ rights
and the grounds of democracy, or on a noncodified transnational moral economy of corporate reciprocity, we can
no longer assume an even spread of civil rights within the nation’s boundaries, or the
creation of a homogeneous civil society, or that citizenship is entirely embedded in
political space. By working with even some degree of coordination, governments, corporations, aid
organizations, and the marginalized themselves can secure some human protection in various sites, their
differentiated technologies of care sustaining a transnational moral economy. Attempts can be made to synchronize
the dispersed geographies of production with a dispersed geography of administration, so that different
assemblages of human needs become incorporated more fully into the global operations of transnational networks.
The recovery of ethics under neoliberalism requires a multiplicity of actors—not just
11
MSDI 2013
Week 2
Neolib K
Kelly/Joel
governments—who can create overlapping spheres of justice to achieve a complex
equality for the laboring poor in America and elsewhere. The question remains whether
the political sphere continues to be a vital force in the struggle for democratic rights
beyond the human needs of hidden, exploited refugee and immigrant workers.
12
MSDI 2013
Week 2
Neolib K
Kelly/Joel
A2: Perm
The permutation is impossible – the combination of neo-liberalism and liberal
democracy assures the death of our alternative
Brown, professor of political theory at Berkeley, 2003
(Wendy, Theory and Event 7:1 project muse)
Liberal democracy cannot be submitted to neo-liberal political governmentality and survive.
There is nothing in liberal democracy's basic institutions or values -- from free elections,
representative democracy, and individual liberties equally distributed, to modest power-sharing or even more
-- that inherently meets the test of serving economic
competitiveness or inherently withstands a cost-benefit analysis. And it is liberal democracy that is
substantive political participation
going under in the present moment, even as the flag of American "democracy" is being planted everywhere it
finds or creates soft ground. (The fact that "democracy" is the rubric under which so much anti-
democratic imperial and domestic policy is enacted suggests that we are in an inter-regnum, or
more precisely, that neo-liberalism borrows extensively from the old regime to legitimate itself
even as it also develops and disseminates new codes of legitimacy. More about this below.)
We should not accept the inevitability of neo-liberalism – concessions within
this system assure the concepts of equality are trashed in favor of expansion of
the economy, national security and global power
Brown, professor of political theory at Berkeley, 2003
(Wendy, Theory and Event 7:1 project muse)
Still, if we are slipping from liberalism to fascism, and if radical democracy or socialism is nowhere on the political horizon,
don't we have to defend liberal democratic institutions and values? Isn't this the lesson of Weimar? I have labored to suggest
that this is not the right diagnosis of our predicament: it does not grasp what is at stake in neo-liberal governmentality -which is not fascism -- nor on what grounds it might be challenged. Indeed, the Left defense of the welfare state in
the 1980s, which seemed to stem from precisely such an analysis -- 'if we can't have socialism, at least
we should preserve welfare state capitalism' -- backfired from such a misdiagnosis. On one hand,
rather than articulating an emancipatory vision that included the eradication rather than regulation of poverty, the Left
appeared aligned with big government, big spending, and misplaced compassion for those construed as failing to give their
lives proper entrepreneurial shape. On the other hand, the welfare state was dismantled on grounds that had almost nothing
to do with the terms of liberal democracy and everything to do with neo-liberal economic and political rationality. We are
not simply in the throes of a right-wing or conservative positioning within liberal democracy
but rather at the threshold of a different political formation, one that conducts and legitimates
itself on different grounds from liberal democracy even as it does not immediately divest itself
of the name. It is a formation that is developing a domestic imperium correlative with a global
one, achieved through a secretive and remarkably agentic state; corporatized media, schools
and prisons; and a variety of technologies for intensified local administrative, regulatory and
police powers. It is a formation made possible by the production of citizens as individual
entrepreneurial actors across all dimensions of their lives, reduction of civil society to a
domain for exercising this entrepreneurship, and figuration of the state as a firm whose
products are rational individual subjects, an expanding economy, national security, and global
power.
13
MSDI 2013
Week 2
Neolib K
Kelly/Joel
**Aff Answers**
14
MSDI 2013
Week 2
Neolib K
Kelly/Joel
Framing Answers
Extinction outweighs everything else—there is no recovering from it (includes
climate change)
Anders Sandberg et al., James Martin Research Fellow, Future of Humanity Institute,
Oxford University, "How Can We Reduce the Risk of Human Extinction?" BULLETIN
OF THE ATOMIC SCIENTISTS, 9-9-08, http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/how-can-we-reduce-the-risk-of-humanextinction, accessed 5-2-10.
Such remote risks may seem academic in a world plagued by immediate problems, such as
global poverty, HIV, and climate change. But as intimidating as these problems are, they
do not threaten human existence. In discussing the risk of nuclear winter, Carl Sagan emphasized the astronomical toll of
human extinction: A nuclear war imperils all of our descendants, for as long as there will be humans. Even if the population remains static, with an
average lifetime of the order of 100 years, over a typical time period for the biological evolution of a successful species (roughly ten million years), we
the stakes are one million times greater for
extinction than for the more modest nuclear wars that kill "only" hundreds of millions
of people. There are many other possible measures of the potential loss--including
culture and science, the evolutionary history of the planet, and the significance of the
lives of all of our ancestors who contributed to the future of their descendants.
Extinction is the undoing of the human enterprise. There is a discontinuity between
risks that threaten 10 percent or even 99 percent of humanity and those that threaten
100 percent. For disasters killing less than all humanity, there is a good chance that the
species could recover. If we value future human generations, then reducing extinction
risks should dominate our considerations. Fortunately, most measures to reduce these risks
are talking about some 500 trillion people yet to come. By this criterion,
also improve global security against a range of lesser catastrophes, and thus deserve support regardless of
how much one worries about extinction.
And, Extinction destroys all human aspiration – Claims to outweigh it destroy
value to life
Schell 82 (Jonathan, Visiting professor of liberal studies at Harvard University, “Fate
of the Earth”)
For the generations that now have to decide whether or not to risk the future of the species, the implication of our species’ unique place in the order
of things is that while things in the life of [hu]mankind have worth, we must never raise that worth above the life of [hu]mankind and above our respect
To sum up the
worth of our species by reference to some particular standard, goal, or ideology, no matter
how elevated or noble it might be, would be to prepare the way for extinction by closing
down in thought and feeling the open-ended possibilities for human development
which extinction would close down in fact. There is only one circumstance in which it might be possible to sum up the
for that life’s existence. To do this would be to make of our highest ideals so many swords with which to destroy ourselves.
life and achievement of the species, and that circumstance would be that it had already died; but then, of course, there would be no one left to do the
summing up. Only a generation that believed itself to be in possession of final, absolute truth could ever conclude that it had reason to put an end to
only generations that recognized the limits to their own wisdom and virtue would
be likely to subordinate their interests and dreams to the as yet unformed interests and
undreamed dreams of the future generations, and let human life go on.
human life, and
15
MSDI 2013
Week 2
Neolib K
Kelly/Joel
Starting point claims are reductionist. Kills VTL and human potential. [We
disagree with the gendered language of this card]
Fred Hutchison (Author: The Stages of Sanctification.) “American innovation and the culture war: A golden age of
American innovation” March 22. 2004. http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hutchison/040322
Reductionist ideas reduce man to a simplistic caricature. When man looks in the mirror and sees something less than what is there, it has a
Deterministic ideas are the most powerfully compressing of the
reductionist ideas. When man believes he is but a cog in a great machine, he feels crushed
in a brutal and inhuman wine press. The most pitiless and repressive states are based
depressing effect on his spirit and his mind.
on deterministic ideas — such as the Soviet regime under Stalin. When man is told that he is not created according to a design but
was haphazardly evolved he is reduced to a subhuman status — an animal of no designed species but a beast-monstrosity of accidental origins. In
some ways this is worse than being a cog in a machine. At least a cog has a design and an understandable purpose as an integral part of the great
machine. Determinism is based upon the inflation of the principle of causation. Causation can be decisively established only for extremely simplified
situations. In modern science, an experiment must be reduced to its simplest essentials before proof of causation is possible. But human nature and
society is exceedingly complicated and contradictory. Reductionism in the pursuit of proof of causation is illusive because human nature is irreducibly
The illusion that we can ferret out
the root causes indicates a liberal who has never read the classics — and is profoundly ignorant about human
nature. Our history of trying to manipulate root causes through social programs is a
discouraging one — filled with the surprises of unintended consequences. Three Fatal
complex. This goes through my mind whenever I hear a liberal speak of "root causes."
Determinisms The three fatal determinisms of our age are economic determinism, cultural determinism, and biological determinism. Economic
determinism is the belief that what we are and what we do is shaped by economic forces. This is an extremely radical reductionism if ever there was
one. All the incredibly complicated things that combine in mysterious synergies to make up human nature are all to be explained by one single cause
When liberals
speak of the "root causes" of social problems, they typically are borrowing ideas from
economic determinism. Root cause arguments obscure rather than enlighten. The poor
are not responsible for their poverty because of root causes — we are told. Criminals are not
responsible for crime because of root causes. Terrorists are not responsible for murder
because of root causes. Such thinking rules out the idea of human conscience, and
moral responsibility. When the belief in root causes relieves us of responsibility for
our actions it also weakens the belief in the existence of free will. Nothing will destroy a
golden age of innovation faster than a paralysis of the will. If we doubt we have a will
because of a belief in the myth of root causes, the will becomes either paralyzed or
undisciplined. We become ether zombies or maniacs — and return to adolescence.
— economics. If ever their was a myth grounded in false confidence and the radical ignorance of tunnel vision — this is it.
Cultural determinists believe that everything we are and do is controlled by culture. Postmodern philosophers claim that the works of the great
masters in literature are purely cultural constructs. What Shakespeare wrote was determined by his culture. Obviously, no modern Shakespeare can
arise in a society which believes in cultural determinism. If inspiration, genius, and hard work cannot hope to carry one above one's culture and time
Cultural
determinism is a breeder of mediocrity and a killer of the creativity of a golden age. Unfortunately, our
for the inspiration of future generations — what is the use of pouring out all of one's energies upon a work of high art?
public schools are diligently devoted to the indoctrination of students with ideas of multiculturalism — which is grounded on theories of cultural
determinism. Biological reductionism is based upon the old myth of materialism. In brief, everything we are is caused by our genes and our
hormones. Now it is true that our genes and hormones have an influence on what we are. But when we carry the idea too far we become deeply
confused about the nature of the human mind. We know that there are links between brain activity and human thought and consciousness. But we
have no idea how electrical impulses are synthesized into thoughts. We may never know. And we have no way of knowing to what degree
psychological, emotional, and spiritual faculties influences thought. Many scientists dogmatically insist that the mind is nothing more than brain
operations — without grounds for the assertion. Edward O. Wilson, a biological determinist, insists that consciousness and free will are illusions —
they are "epiphenomena of the brain." This huge assertion is not based upon scientific evidence. There is a cavernous gap between what we know
about the brain and what we know about the mind and the will. Wilson overleaps the canyon not on the basis of evidence but on the basis of
philosophy — the philosophy of materialistic reductionism. Many scientists, like Wilson confuse empirical science with materialistic philosophy — and
don't realize it. There is no necessary tie between science and bad philosophy. Irrational Exuberance Golden ages sometimes breed an
overconfidence which leads to a disillusionment. It is similar to a stock bubble which inflates with "irrational exuberance." Such bubbles invariably
burst in a crisis of confidence. So it was with the Italian Renaissance. As the Renaissance climbed to its peak, an inflated confidence in man visibly
appeared. Michelangelo's view of the human form gradually changed from the harmonious classical conception of his early work to man as a
muscular giant as painted on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Leon Alberti (1404 - 1472) said, "A man can do all things if he will." Pico Della
Mirandola (1463 - 1394) claimed that man is a protean being of unlimited powers to transform himself through a developmental process of mind and
will. Man can mold himself into any nature of his choice from the spectrum of beings ranging from beast to angel or demon. The inflated expectations
of human potential always leads to a bitter disillusionment. After the crack-up of the Renaissance, Michelangelo paintedThe Last Judgment. The
terrified human figures being cast down into hell by an angry Christ no longer look like gods or giants. They look like doomed men who have
abandoned all hope and all confidence. The irrational exuberance of the ideas of Alberti and Mirandola are startling reminiscent of the "human
potential movement" of the sixties which was absorbed by the New Age Movement during the seventies. The magical thinking of this irrational
exuberance can be summed up by the statement, "You can be anything you want to be." But this is false of course. Man cannot create himself or
redesign himself. God created man according to a design. Man is a developmental being but his potential is contained within the design. Each
individual has been individually designed. His unique talents are dictated by design. It is injurious to man to be told that the he can disregard his
innate design and can substitute another design of his own selection. A great genius who lives during a golden age must accurately discover what his
greatest talents really are — if he is to become a great master in his special vocation. The idea that he can be anything gets in the way of the
discovery of who he really is and what he can really do. A golden age of human creativity cannot exist unless man finds a way to steer between the
Scylla of determinism and the Charybdis of irrational exuberance. Our goal for the battle of ideas should be to warn against both fallacies — and
thereby prolong the golden age of American innovation.
16
MSDI 2013
Week 2
Neolib K
Kelly/Joel
Ontology is a smokescreen that has no connection to empirical reality –
evaluate political action first
David McClean (philosopher, writer and business consultant, conducted graduate
work in philosophy at NYU) 01 “The cultural left and the limits of social hope”
http://www.americanphilosophy.org/archives/past_conference_programs/pc2001/Discussion%20paper
s/david_mcclean.htm
There is a lot of philosophical prose on the general subject of social justice. Some of this is quite good, and some of it is quite bad. What
distinguishes the good from the bad is not merely the level of erudition. Displays of high erudition are gratuitously reflected in much of the writing by
ontology and is often just a useful smokescreen which shrouds a
near total disconnect from empirical reality. This kind of political writing likes to make a lot
of references to other obscure, jargon-laden essays and tedious books written by other true believers - the crowd
those, for example, still clinging to Marxian
that takes the fusion of Marxian and Freudian private fantasies seriously. Nor is it the lack of scholarship that makes this prose bad. Much of it is well
"supported" by footnotes referencing a lode of other works, some of which are actually quite good. Rather, what
makes this prose
bad is its utter lack of relevance to extant and critical policy debates, the passage of actual laws,
and the amendment of existing regulations that might actually do some good for someone else.
The writers of this bad prose are too interested in our arrival at some social place wherein we will finally emerge from our "inauthentic" state into
something called "reality." Most of this stuff, of course, comes from those steeped in the Continental tradition (particularly post-Kant). While that
tradition has much to offer and has helped shape my own philosophical sensibilities, it is anything but useful when it comes to truly
relevant philosophical analysis, and no self-respecting Pragmatist can really take seriously the strong poetry of formations like "authenticity
looming on the ever remote horizons of fetishization." What Pragmatists see instead is the hope that we can fix some
of the social ills that face us if we treat policy and reform as more important than Spirit
and Utopia.
17
MSDI 2013
Week 2
Neolib K
Kelly/Joel
Neoliberalism Good: Democracy
Globalization solves democracy – political climate, multinational corporations,
NGOs.
Chen, 2K, Jim, Professor of Law University of Minnesota Law School, November/December, 2000
Fordham International Law Journal, PAX MERCATORIA: GLOBALIZATION AS A SECOND CHANCE AT "PEACE FOR OUR TIME, 24 Fordham Int'l
L.J. 217, Lexis
Globalization advances democracy not only by raising overall wealth, but also by
improving the political climate within nations. The ability of multinational
corporations and skilled workers to adopt "fight or flight" strategies encourages
governments to adopt transparent policies and to broaden political participation.
Businesses and nongovernmental organizations respond by cooperating with the
government to form "transnational epistemic communities." Even where they are despised
as scourges against local businesses, multinational corporations introduce moral values in
countries that have yet to realize globalization's full benefits. At the opposite end of the
ideological spectrum, even as unstable governments plunge into kleptocracy and anti-Western terrorists
flourish, nongovernmental organizations have stepped into the resulting power vacuum in order to help police
the morals of globalized society.
Democracy is key to prevent extinction.
Diamond, 95, Larry, Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institute, 1995, Promoting Democracy in the 1990s, Online
Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons continue to proliferate. The very source
of life on Earth, the global ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered. Most of these
new and unconventional threats to security are associated with or aggravated by the weakness or
absence of democracy, with its provisions for legality, accountability, popular sovereignty,
and openness. LESSONS OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY The experience of this century offers
important lessons. Countries that govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do
not go to war with one another. They do not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize
themselves or glorify their leaders. Democratic governments do not ethnically "cleanse" their own
populations, and they are much less likely to face ethnic insurgency. Democracies do not sponsor terrorism
against one another. They do not build weapons of mass destruction to use on or to threaten one
another.
18
MSDI 2013
Week 2
Neolib K
Kelly/Joel
Neoliberalism Good: Environment
Neoliberalism solves environmental collapse.
Christmann and Taylor 01 American businessman and the head of a privately held multinational company, Professor
Christmann specializes in research of the global economy (Petra and Glen, Globalization and the environment: Determinants of firm selfregulation in China. Journal of International business studies, 32(3), 439-458, ABI/INFORM)
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=277452]
In contrast, globalization proponents contend that lower barriers to trade and foreign
investment encourage firms to transfer environmental technologies and
managemement systems from countries with stricter environmental standards to
developing countries, which lack access to environmental technologies and
capabilities (Drezner, 2000). Governmental failure to protect the environment, it is
suggested in this line of argument, might also be ameliorated through self-regulation of
environmental performance by firms in developing countries. Self-regulation refers to a firm’s
adoption of environmental performance standards or environmental management systems (EMS ) beyond the requirements
of governmental regulations. Globalization can increase self-regulation pressures in
several ways. First, globalization increases MNEs’ investment in developing countries
where their subsidiaries can be expected to self-regulate their environmental
performance more than domestic firms do. MNEs can transfer the more advanced
environmental technologies and management systems developed in response to more
stringent regulations in developed countries to their subsidiaries. MNEs also face pressures
from interest groups to improve their worldwide environmental performance. Second,
globalization might contribute to environmental performance as a supplier-selection criterion, which also pressures
domestic firms in developing countries to self-regulate environmental
performance…Globalization does not necessarily have negative effects on the
environment in developing countries to the extend suggested by the pollution-haven and industrial-flight hypotheses.
Our study suggests that globalization increases institutional and consumer pressures on firms
to surpass local requirements, even when they may be tempted by lax regulations and enforcement in countries offering
themselves as pollution havens (Hoffman, 1999; Rugman and Verbeke, 1998).
Environment collapse leads to extinction.
Diner ‘94—Major David, Judge Advocate General’s Corps, United States Army, Military Law Review, Winter,
143 Mil. L. Rev. 161Biologically diverse ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist species,
filling narrow ecological niches. These ecosystems inherently are more stable than less diverse
systems. "The more complex the ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist a stress. . . . [l]ike a net, in which
each knot is connected to others by several strands, such a fabric can resist collapse better than a simple,
unbranched circle of threads -- which if cut anywhere breaks down as a whole." n79 By causing
widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic
simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa,
and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be
expected if this trend continues. Theoretically, each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly
perceived and intertwined affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human
extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing,
one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, n80 [hu]mankind may be edging closer to
the abyss.
19