1AC
Heres a hint! They don’t defend the plan txt or
take a stane on anything. They present the plan txt
to show how currently whitness is formed and
they are expected to present a plan text but the aff
is about how “organs” constraint people and
enforce racist ideologies or stereotypes and
discussion of 1ac of being is a why to distance
ourselves from our organs. Ballot acts as a receipt
because the aff team “is giving away/selling its
organs”
Thee 1AC
PLAN
Text: The United States should legalize organ sales.
ADVANTAGE
Our advantage is cleansing:
Organ research and eugenics go hand in hand. The economic systems have already
been laid out for us, it is just a question of how we orient ourselves to science. We
should take advantage of market factors and legalize organ sales so we can pursue
research to better the human race.
Critical Art Ensemble, no date, Critical Art Ensemble, Performance and installation art collective
exploring the intersections of art, technology, radical politics and critical theory, “Eugenics: The Second
Wave,” no date, http://critical-art.net/Original/biocom/two.txt
In addition to utopian promises, medical science makes numerous ethical promises to the public
designed to reassure populations that the eugenic beast will not be reborn. As far as involuntary
eugenics is concerned, these promises have merit, although the promise not to engage in statesanctioned involuntary eugenic practices is an easy one to keep, since the strategies to develop
privatized voluntary eugenic practices are proceeding so smoothly. On the other hand, the ethical
promises to forbid practices which either lay the foundation for the implementation of voluntary
eugenic policy, or which are eugenic in and of themselves, can be looked upon with a great deal of
skepticism. For example, one key promise from medical science is that human organic matter will not
and cannot be sold. In some cases, medical science has lived up to this promise. In the case of organ
sales, there are other options to pursue, such as artificial, cloned, and transgenic organs (all of which
are still in various stages of experimentation). These organ replacement products can be sold. The
promise of zero sales of human organs is also fortified by the fact that it is difficult to find donors willing
to sell their organs, since doing so will either kill them or decrease their life expectancy. However, with
human reproductive matter, the situation is much different. Sperm and eggs can be harvested without
threatening the life of the provider. In this situation, medical science has legally kept its promise. Sperm,
eggs, embryos, etc., are not being bought and sold; they are being donated. However, while the organic
matter cannot be bought and sold, the harvesting and the implanting processes are salable services. The
medical establishment has jammed this ethical failsafe simply by building the fiscal structure of the
industry around the process, rather than around the product. To make matters worse, eugenic
screening practices are used to acquire suitable reproductive materials. Potential donors are
thoroughly tested physically and psychologically to make sure they meet industry standards of health
and normalcy. Family histories are acquired and scrutinized so that those receiving the materials can be
sure that there are no latent genetic defects that could lead to a problematic outcome. If a potential
donor is found to be suitably pure, then s/he can become an actual donor. Of course, no clinic would
admit that it is constructing a pure gene pool-a purity which is dictated by the political and economic
demands of pancapitalism. Rather, such institutions claim that they are only attempting to provide
consumers with top value for their purchasing dollar, and preserving their own reputations as
institutions of high integrity that provide high-quality products and services. Screening is done for
economic purposes, and not for political purposes. To an extent this is true. It seems very unlikely that
conspiratorial teams of doctors are plotting a new master race; however, just as Osborn predicted,
eugenic mechanisms are emerging out of the rationalized reproductive process which reflect the
ideological values of the social context in which the process occurs (the primary value, as Osborn
believed would come to pass in consumer economy, is that people's value is determined by their
economic potential). This same process is replicated in the implementation of selective reduction. To
increase the probability of a successful implantation procedure, a small set of embryos (three to eight) is
placed into the uterus; the number depends on the quality of the embryos and the age of the woman.
The results vary; however, the probability of successful implantation (when a embryo attaches itself to
the uterine wall) is increased. At times, the procedure is too successful, and produces more than one
fetus. This leaves the client with the choice of bringing all the fetuses to term, or of reducing their
number. Many times, the reduction is necessary as the number of fetuses conceived could pose a threat
to the life of the client, but just as often, fetus reduction is implemented because the client desires a
specific number of fetuses. The client can select (often in accordance with viability) which fetuses she
wants to keep. In the cases where the fetuses are equally viable, the client can select for aesthetic
characteristics (such as the number of children, the gender, or the gender combination). Like donor
screening, there is nothing genetically conspiratorial about the process; clients are simply purchasing the
specific goods that they want. Yet once again, the desire for a specific product is manufactured by
spectacle that is directed by ideological as well as marketing concerns. The process of selective womb
cleansing is political and eugenic, and is an emergent byproduct of rationalized reproduction.
Conclusion Osborn's predictions are coming to pass. The time is right for the second wave of eugenics
because the economic foundation has been laid. Eugenics complements the grand pancapitalist
principle of the total rationalization of culture. The foundation for consumer consciousness is
replicated in the foundation for eugenic consciousness. Reproduction is spectacularly represented and
publicly perceived as an object of surplus that can be produced to meet consumer desire. Desire itself
does not emerge from within, but is imposed from without by the spectacular engines of pancapitalist
ideological inscription. However, the situation has yet to reach catastrophic proportions. Eugenic
practices are still crude and experimental; they still have to work their way across class levels and down
the class ladder. Thus far, power vectors have not been able to turn perception into activity (the product
is recognized, but few are buying). In order to truly accomplish the goal of making eugenic activity a part
of everyday life, the public must be convinced that rationalized processes of reproduction are superior
and more desirable than the nonrational means of reproduction. In other words, large segments of the
population (with an emphasis on the middle class) must still be channeled into this frontier market. This
will take time, during which counternarratives and resistant strategies and tactics can be developed.
Unfortunately, in order to seduce all who look upon it, eugenics has masked itself in the utopian
surface of free choice and progress. In this sense, power vectors have stolen and are cautiously using
the strategy of subversion in everyday life to create a silent flesh revolution.
Uniquely, those programs can be used to create a new slave undercaste. Cloning
would allow us to alter the characteristics of an organism, either to create super
soldiers or slaves to serve as a means to our ultimate, imperialist ends.
Morgan-Mar and Pulver 07, David Morgan-Mar and David Pulver, with Steve Jackson Games, “BIOTECH,” February 15, 2007, pg. 39-40.
Gengineering may be used to create a more tractable proletariat, underclass, or slave caste. Slave
species are usually designed for jobs that humans find dangerous, boring, or demeaning, such as work
in hostile environments, soldiering, manual labor, domestic servitude, or concubinage. Gengineered
slave species often possess highly specialized physical and mental modifications to make them more
effective workers, or condition them to accept their role. For example, pleasure models may be grown
with stunning looks and glandular modifications that keep them constantly “in heat,” while a janissary
warrior could be gengineered with enhanced speed, a high pain thresh old, and boosted
aggressiveness. These changes can leave members of a slave species more effective than humans
within a limited sphere, while circumscribing their free will. This might result in simultaneous feelings
of inferiority and superiority with respect to normal humans. Gengineers sometimes try to create a
slave species so perfectly adapted to its role that it can’t conceive of freedom. They don’t always
succeed. Slave species are sometimes deliberately gengineered to look physically distinctive. For
example, all slaves may have blue skin, or be gengineered human/animal hybrids. This might be done
for cosmetic reasons, but it also makes it more difficult for people to see them as “human,” and
harder for them to escape. It’s even possible that differences will accrue because the law states that
having a certain percentage of nonhuman gene sequences makes someone legally an animal or living
artifact (which can be owned) rather than a human being (who is a free citizen). Gengineers may have
to make a slave species less human in order for it to be considered a slave species. A slave species may
not always remain in slavery. Changes in circumstances or social attitudes, or an unforeseen mutation,
might lead to emancipation or revolt. Of course, if the species has been specialized for a limited role,
this may limit its ability to enjoy its new-found freedom... Taken farther, this could lead to a castebased communism similar to the one in Aldous Huxley’s novel Brave New World, or the end result of a
fascist “master race” breeding program. In this type of hive-like society, citizens are designed from
birth for specific jobs. There may be a drone-like working class indistinguishable from a slave species,
managed by an upper class of unspecialized people (normal humans or a Homo superior race) to give
orders and handle unforeseen emergencies. Such a society may dispense with sexual reproduction
and reproduce through growth tanks or cloning. Ordinary citizens may be gengineered to be nonaggressive workers; faced with an external enemy, such a state might alter its birth programs to grow
(or clone) a crop of super-soldiers.
2AC
1AR
1NC
Off 1
Text: The United States Should Ban The Cloning of Human Organs in the United States.
This solves the affs impacts because we actually do something to put an end to cloning
without leading to any of the Offence against sales.
Organ Cloning Unpopular –CP doesn’t link to Politics
Jared Yee | 11 Jun 2011 |
http://www.bioedge.org.au/index.php/bioethics/bioethics_article/9575/
Gallup’s annual Values and Beliefs poll shows that 84% of Americans still oppose human cloning. It was
ranked the third most unpopular issue, before polygamy (86% opposed) and adultery (91% opposed).
Animal cloning was also unpopular (62% opposed). The acceptability of physician-assisted suicide was
the most divisive cultural issue. Americans were split 45% vs 48%. Having children outside of marriage
and abortion also divide Americans. Pornography and gay relations produce the widest generational
gaps. Gallup has conducted practically the same poll every May since 2002.
Off 2
Text – The United States federal government should adopt an organ transplant policy
of presumed consent.
Solves shortages and avoids commodification turns and politics
Caplan 10
Arthur Caplan is a professor of bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. MAY 2,
2010, “Should Laws Push for Organ Donation,”
http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/should-laws-encourage-organ-donation/, Web.
numerous polls and surveys show that most Americans are
willing to be organ donors upon their deaths. Yet the system we have in place now —
using donor cards and driver’s license check-offs — to permit people to let their wishes be known does not capture the altruism and
goodwill that is out there. Cards and licenses get lost or misplaced or those who sign
them fail to talk about their wishes with their families meaning that organs are buried
or cremated when they could be saving lives. There is a better and more ethical
solution, and Assemblyman Brodsky’s proposed legislation has pinpointed it — presumed consent or more felicitously,
default to donation. Since most of us want to be organ donors upon our deaths, why demand that we carry cards or directives to prove it? Why
This grim situation is especially frustrating since
not put the burden on those who do not want to participate and require that they make their objection known by directive, through a family objection or in a state
The ethical case is clearly on the side of defaulting to donation. There is nothing coerced
or disrespectful in asking those who do not want to be donors upon their death to say so. Consent and altruism remain core
values of organ donation — only the emphasis changes from the presumption of a
“no” to one of “yes.
computer registry?
Off 2
Republicans Win Now – That’s Key to TPA
BJ Siekierski Sep 8, 2014 BJ is a native of Ottawa and has been with iPolitics since February 2011. He
primarily covers developments in Canadian trade policy, such as progress in the Canada-European Union
and Trans-Pacific Partnership trade negotiations. He has master’s degree in international affairs and
bachelor’s degree in History and English, both from Carleton University. TPP going nowhere before US
midterms: New Zealand PM http://www.ipolitics.ca/2014/09/08/tpp-going-nowhere-before-usmidterms-new-zealand-pm/
“I’m of the view
Obama won’t go anywhere near this thing prior to the mid-terms before November,” several New
Zealander publications reported. “Obama keeps saying to me, ‘we’re going to do a good deal, we’re going to get it done.’” This comes as chief negotiators from the 12 TPP members are
meeting in Hanoi, Vietnam for tend days starting September 1, with little being reported aside from Vietnamese attempts to exclude their State-Owned Enteprises from the trade agreement’s
obligations. Those on the optimistic side have looked ahead to the November 10-11 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit as a possible conclusion date. With the summit coming
, Congress
still hasn’t moved on what’s known as fast track or trade promotion authority, legislation without which
most TPP members will be unwilling to make difficult concessions. Trade promotion authority would put trade deals to Congress for an
up-or-down vote, not allowing for amendments that would undo what’s been negotiated. And it’s not very popular with a number of Democrats,
including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader. As of Sunday,
U.S. statistician Nate Silver was forecasting the Republicans had a 65.5 per cent chance of taking the
Senate, potentially creating a peculiar trade policy dynamic for President Obama in his final two years:
siding with the Republicans, who favour granting trade promotion authority, to get both the TPP and —
though a long-shot — the EU-U.S. trade agreement brought into force before he leaves the White
House.
only a week after the U.S. electorate chooses all 435 members of the House of Representatives and 33 members of the Senate, however, that appears unlikely. Furthermore
Sale of Human Organs is a Rallying Point for Liberals
ANTHONY GREGORYNOV 9 2011, 9:58 AM Anthony Gregory is research editor at the Independent
Institute and is currently writing a book on individual liberty and the writ of habeas corpus. Why
Legalizing Organ Sales Would Help to Save Lives, End Violence
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2011/11/why-legalizing-organ-sales-would-help-to-savelives-end-violence/248114/
The most fundamental case for legalizing organ sales -- an appeal to civil liberty -- has proven highly controversial.
Liberals like to say, "my body, my choice," and conservatives claim to favor free markets, but true self-ownership would include the right to
sell one's body parts, and genuine free enterprise would imply a market in human organs. In any event, studies show that this has become a
matter of life and death. Perhaps the key to progress is more widespread exposure to the facts. In 2008, six experts took on this issue is an Oxfordstyle debate hosted by National Public Radio. By the end, those in the audience who favored allowing the market climbed
from 44 to 60 percent.
That Mobilizes the Base and Captures Swing Votes – They Would Retain Majority
Caitlin Huey-Burns - August 28, 2014 Caitlin Huey-Burns is a Political Reporter for RealClearPolitics.
Before joining RealClearPolitics, she wrote for the politics and policy channel of U.S. News & World
Report. Caitlin earned a master’s degree in journalism from Georgetown University Why Republicans
Will Take the Senate
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/08/28/why_republicans_will_take_the_senate_123788.
html
Democrats, meanwhile, will likely reprise legislation on the minimum wage and pay equity, designed to
turn out supporters on Nov. 4. Republicans don’t seem to be worried about those issues, and argue that
there is little major legislation or an overarching issue to which Democratic incumbents can cling.
"Historically there has been a big or single issue, but that’s less the case this cycle because voters see
problems everywhere,” said Dayspring. “It’s all going badly: economy, Obamacare, spending, foreign
policy, immigration, management of government. It’s shaping up to be the ‘chaos election.’ It’s near
impossible for a Democrat senator to turn to voters and say, ‘Here’s what I’ve done for you, here’s how
I’m different’ because of the way Harry Reid has run the Senate and the public perception that
everything is in chaos. There’s not that issue-based life preserver that incumbents need.”
TPA Key to Trade Partner Confidence – We’re on the Brink – No Trade Deals Without it
Cowan and Jeff Okun-Kozlowicki Nov. 26, 2013 Jonathan Cowan is president and Jeff Okun-Kozlowicki
is a visiting fellow with Third Way, a moderate think tank Don't Waste This Free Trade Opportunity
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2013/11/26/why-congress-must-reauthorizetrade-promotion-authority
. In
the last decade, America's share of exports to key Asia-Pacific markets fell by 43 percent. Our
performance was last among our major trade competitors in the region. We do not have to idle on the runway, however, as other foreign
With half of the world's air traffic growth revolving around the Asia-Pacific region, there are massive opportunities for American manufacturing and middle-class jobs in this one sector alone. But opportunity is not destiny
countries fly by. If we can regain our historical share of these export markets – which are set to approach $10 trillion by the end of this decade – it would add $600 billion to our economy and 3 million jobs by 2020 alone. The first
step to seizing this growth opportunity rests with Congress and passage of a tool called Trade Promotion Authority. Trade Promotion Authority is the mechanism that allows the president to negotiate international trade deals with
congressional input. It gives stakeholders a voice and shows our trading partners that we are serious about expanded trade. And since American exports supported 9.8 million jobs in the United States last year, getting serious
Congress needs to reauthorize the authority this year
so we can expand this economic engine and make sure our economy is poised for flight in the 21st
Century. Trade Promotion Authority can help ensure trade deals happen in three ways. First, it allows for both the White House and Congress to play a role in accessing foreign markets. While the executive branch
about expanded trade is critical. The authority, however, expired in 2007, putting our economic growth at risk.
negotiates agreements with foreign countries, Trade Promotion Authority allows for Congress to set clear negotiating goals and objectives. For example, in the Trade Act of 2002, Congress laid out nine overall trade negotiating
objectives, from market access to environmental standards, as well as more than 50 principal negotiating objectives across 17 categories, ranging from electronic commerce to family farms. Guidance from Congress has yielded
, important trading partners won't sign a trade
deal with the U.S. without Trade Promotion Authority. Of the last 17 U.S. trade agreements, only a deal with Jordan in 2000 was concluded without it. This is
because our trading partners need to know the U.S. is negotiating in good faith and will not turn around
and alter the agreement at the last minute. Finally, Trade Promotion Authority mandates that the president check in with the public before a deal is struck. Past legislation
new or improved trade provisions on anti-corruption, labor and the environment, and other key emerging issues. Second
required the president to consult with Congress throughout negotiations. Although Trade Promotion Authority has not been in place during the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations, the U.S. Trade Representative has acted as
though the 2002 provisions were still in effect and engaged in more than 1,000 briefings with Congress over the TPP. It also ensures that industry and the public have a critical voice. Within past Trade Promotion Authority
legislation, Congress built a system of advisory committees to ensure that trade negotiators were consulting with private sector representatives from the agricultural, labor and environmental communities, among others.
Organizations represented on the committees ran the gamut from advocacy groups – including the AFL-CIO, the Environmental Defense Fund, Oceana, Consumers Union and the National Farmers Union – to large U.S. companies
like Cargill, General Electric and Kraft Foods. So far, the U.S. Trade Representative has been operating in good faith despite the lack of Trade Promotion Authority. Last September, more than 250 organizations sent representatives
. Trade Promotion Authority is needed to ensure all voices are heard. The
stakes could not be higher. As our country pulls out from the Great Recession and works to achieve lift
off in the 21st Century economy, we need to seize opportunities within the new global marketplace. If
the U.S. has any hope of tapping into massive export markets of the Asia Pacific – as well as other
markets we are exploring such as within the EU – our policymakers need Trade Promotion Authority to
get the job done.
to negotiations in Leesburg, Va. But good faith is not enough
The Impact is multiple scenarios for nuclear war, disease spread, terrorist attack,
economic collapse, and extinction.
Niall Ferguson, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Foreign Policy, “A world without power”
July 1, 2004 lexis
For more than two decades, globalization--the integration of worldmarkets for commodities, labor, and capital--has raised living standards throughout the world,
except where countries have shut themselves off from the process through tyranny or civil war .
would produce--would
The reversal of globalization--which a new Dark Age
certainly lead to economic stagnation and even depression. As the United States sought to protect itself after a second
September 11 devastates, say, Houston or Chicago, it would inevitably become a less open society, less hospitable for foreigners seeking to work, visit, or do
business. Meanwhile, as Europe's Muslim enclaves grew, Islamist extremists' infiltration of the EU would become irreversible, increasing trans-Atlantic tensions
over the Middle East to the breaking point. An economic meltdown in China would plunge the Communist system into crisis, unleashing the centrifugal forces
that undermined previous Chinese empires. Western investors would lose out and conclude that lower returns at home are preferable to the risks of default
abroad. The worst effects of the new Dark Age would be felt on the edges of the waning great powers .
The wealthiest ports of the global
economy--from New York to Rotterdam to Shanghai--would become the targets of plunderers and pirates. With ease,
terrorists could disrupt the freedom of the seas, targeting oil tankers, aircraft carriers, and cruiseliners, while Western nations frantically
concentrated on making their airports secure. Meanwhile, limited nuclear wars could devastate numerous regions, beginning in the
Korean peninsula and Kashmir, perhaps ending catastrophically in the Middle East. In Latin America, wretchedly poor citizens
would seek solace in Evangelical Christianity imported by U.S. religious orders. In Africa, the great plagues of AIDS and malaria would
continue their deadly work. The few remaining solvent airlines would simply suspend services to many cities in these continents; who would wish to
leave their privately guarded safe havensto go there?
Off 3
The aff’s notion of legal reform props up regulatory capitalism – this normalizes and
sustains neoliberal control of social relations
LEVI-FAUR 05 David Levi-Faur, senior research fellow at RegNet, the Research School of the Social
Science, Australian National University, and a senior lecturer (on leave) at the University of Haifa. His
professional interests include comparative politics, comparative political economy, and comparative
public policy. He is currently studying the rise of regulatory capitalism and has published an edited
volume (with Jacint Jordana), The Politics of Regulation (Edward Elgar, 2004). He is also the guest editor
of a special issue of Governance (forthcoming 2006) on varieties of regulatory capitalism, “THE RISE OF
REGULATORY CAPITALISM: THE GLOBAL DIFFUSION OF A NEW ORDER: SPECIAL EDITORS: DAVID LEVIFAUR, JACINT JORDANA: SECTION ONE: GLOBALIZATION AS A DIFFUSION PROCESS: THEORETICAL
FRAMEWORK: The Global Diffusion of Regulatory Capitalism”, The American Academy of Political and
Social Science, March, 2005, Lexis.
change is commonly
captured in the notions of privatization and deregulation
as the outcome of the
rise of neoliberalism
Yet it has significant regulatory components that
go largely unnoticed
¶
Governance through regulation
is
both constraining
and encouraging the spread of neoliberal reforms
Deregulation proved to be limited
regulations are shaping a new global order that reflects the set of
problems and solutions that were socially and politically constructed
[*12] Ours is an era of change, and indeed change is prevalent everywhere, from Latin America to eastern Europe, from southern Europe to northern Europe and from Africa to Asia. n1 Such
and understood
and the sweeping forces of economic globalization. n2
and that are incompatible with either neoliberalism or economic globalization.
deregulation and privatization in unexpected ways.
[*13] This volume highlights the globalization of regulation and the regulatory components that are transforming the neoliberal agenda of
(that is, via rule making and rule enforcement)
at the same time
. Regulatory expansion has acquired a life and dynamics of its own. Regulatory solutions that were shaped in North
America and Europe are increasingly internationalized and projected globally.
a
element of the reforms in governance and, where it occurred, it was followed either
immediately or somewhat later with new regulations. These
in some dominant countries and regions. While the ideals
of democratic participation and discursive democracy have gained some prominence in recent decades, the reality is that many supposedly sovereign polities are increasingly rule takers rather than rule makers (Braithwaite and Drahos 2000, 3-4). We could now be experiencing a
Democratic governance is no longer about the delegation of
authority to elected representative but a form of second-level indirect representative
democracy -- citizens elect representatives who control and supervise "experts" who
formulate and administer policies in an autonomous fashion from their regulatory
bastions
¶
this new order have been expressed
through
the rise of
the regulatory state
the postregulatory state
the "deregulation revolution that
wasn't
the legalization of international relations
adversarial legalism
regulation inside government
the regulatory society
the
growth of internal control systems in corporations
and the proliferation of
instruments of smart regulation
Each of these notions
are
interrelated elements of regulatory capitalism.
transformation from representative democracy to indirect representative democracy.
(van Waarden 2003).
Bits and pieces of
and explored
(Majone 1997),
(Scott 2004),
" (Vogel 1996),
2004),
the notions of
(Goldstein et al. 2001),
(Hood et al. 1999), the "audit society" (Power 1999),
(Kagan 2001; Keleman
(Braithwaite 2003),
(Parker 2002),
(Gunningham and Grabosky 1998).
not usually explored as the
captures some important aspects of the new order, but they
There may well be some advantages in exploring these elements of the new order in an interrelated
way. Thus, it is argued that a new division of labor between state and society (e.g., privatization) is accompanied by an increase in delegation, proliferation of new technologies of regulation, formalization of interinstitutional and intrainstitutional relations, and the proliferation of
mechanisms of self-regulation in the shadow of the state. Regulation, though not necessarily in the old-fashioned mode of command and control n3 and not directly exercised by the state, seems to be the wave of the future, and the current wave of regulatory reforms constitutes a new
chapter in the history of regulation. ¶ Much debate has taken place over the causes and impact of neoliberalism, but few doubt that neoliberalism has become an important part of our world (Campbell and Pedersen 2001, 1; Crouch and Streeck 1997; Hirst and Thompson 1996; Kitschelt
et al. 1999). Yet a revisionist literature on the impact of neoliberal reforms is increasingly challenging the notion of neoliberal change and the consolidation of [*14] a neoliberal hegemonic order. Thus, Frank Castles's (2004) work on welfare state expenditure seems to provide conclusive
evidence that welfare state expenditure across the rich countries did not decline. Linda Weiss's critique of the Myth of the Powerless State (1998) and her emphasis on the persistence of neomercantilist strategies in foreign economic relations seem now not to attract dissent but to
A
recent review of the globalization literature across the social sciences concluded that
reflect the consensus. Swank and Steinmo (2002) found "remarkable stability in the levels and distribution of tax burdens" across the fourteen developed economies and that statutory cuts in tax rates were not associated with reductions in effective average tax burdens.
"the most persuasive empirical work to date indicates that globalization per se neither
undermines the nation-state nor erodes the viability of the welfare state"
While
neoliberalism may well be the dominant discourse, it is not the only discourse
(Guillen 2001, 254).
available. This volume
suggests that the discourse of regulatory reform and "good governance" both complements the neoliberal reforms and poses a challenge to some of its simplistic assumptions about the nature of the relations between politics and the economy in general and the state and the market in
While at the ideological level
neoliberalism promotes deregulation, at the practical level it promotes
regulation The results are often contradictory and unintended, and the new global
order may well be most aptly characterized as "regulatory capitalism."¶
State, markets, and society are not distinct entities. Indeed, regulatory capitalism
rests on an understanding of the relations between state and market along a
condominium
particular (cf. Campbell and Pedersen 2001, 3). Consequently, it adds another dimension to this revisionist view of the effects of neoliberalism and the rise of a new global order.
, or at least is accompanied by,
.
The new regulatory order is social, political, and
economic.
(Underhill 2003). n4 The state is embedded in the economic and social order; any change in the state is expected to be reflected in the economy and the society, and vice versa. That much is reflected thr ough the various dimensions of
regulation. Thus, efficient markets do not exist outside the state and the society in which they operate, and efficient markets may require not only strong regulatory frameworks but also efficient ones (Polanyi 1944; Underhill 2003). Elsewhere I have argued that regulation-for-competition
the
legitimacy of capitalism rests on the ability of government to mitigate negative
externalities through "social regulation
may be a necessary condition for competition both in network industries and well beyond them (Levi-Faur 1998). Efficiency is often achieved through smart regulations that are a sine qua non for the efficient function of markets. At the same time,
" (or the regulation of risk). Regulation is both a constitutive element of capitalism (as the framework that enables markets) and the tool that moderates and
socializes it (the regulation of risk). From this point of view, the history of economic development is the history of regulation.
Neoliberalism’s emphasis on individuality over collective action lead to an unending
war and massive human suffering-there is no value to life in their framework
Giroux, 06 [Henry, chair of cultural studies at McMaster University, Dirty Democracy and State
Terrorism: The Politics of the New Authoritarianism in the United States, Comparative Studies of South
Asia, Africa and the Middle East 26.2 (2006) 163-177,
http://muse.jhu.edu.proxy.library.emory.edu/journals/comparative_studies_of_south_asia_africa_and_
the_middle_east/v026/26.2giroux.html]
the state of emergency
becomes the rule rather than the exception, a
number of powerful antidemocratic tendencies threaten the prospects for both
American and global democracy The first is a market fundamentalism that not only
trivializes democratic values and public concerns but also enshrines a rabid
individualism, an all-embracing quest for profits, and a social Darwinism in which
misfortune is seen as a weakness
The
values of the market
capital become the template for organizing the rest of
society. Everybody is now a customer or client, and every relationship is ultimately
judged in bottom-line, cost-effective terms as the neoliberal mantra "privatize or
perish" is repeated over and over again
As the logic of capital
trumps democratic sovereignty, low-intensity warfare at home chips away at
democratic freedoms, and high-intensity warfare abroad delivers democracy with
bombs, tanks, and chemical warfare The global cost
is massive human
suffering and death, delivered
structural adjustment
policies
Global lawlessness and
As
, in Giorgio Agamben's aptly chosen words,
.10
—the current sum total being the Hobbesian rule of a "war of all against all" that replaces any vestige of shared responsibilities or compassion for others.
and the ruthless workings of finance
. Responsible citizens are replaced by an assemblage of entrepreneurial subjects, each tempered in the virtue of self-reliance and forced to face the
increasingly difficult challenges of the social order alone. Freedom is no longer about securing equality, social justice, or the public welfare but about unhampered trade in goods, financial capital, and commodities.
.
of these neoliberal commitments
not only in the form of bombs and the barbaric practices of occupying armies but also in
in which the drive for land, resources, profits, and goods are implemented by global financial institutions such as the World Bank and the International M onetary Fund.
armed violence accompany the imperative of free trade, the virtues of a market
without boundaries, and the promise of a Western-style democracy imposed through
military solutions, ushering in the age of rogue sovereignty on a global scale
human suffering and hardship reach unprecedented levels of intensity.
. Under such conditions,
In a rare moment of truth, Thomas Friedman, the
columnist for the New York Times, precisely argued for the use of U.S. power—including military force—to support this antidemocratic world order. He claimed that "the hidden hand of the market will never work without the hidden fist. . . . And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe
for Silicon Valley's technologies to flourish is called the US Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps."11 As Mark Rupert points out, "In Friedman's twisted world, if people are to realize their deepest aspirations—the longing for a better life which comes from their very souls—they must
stare down the barrel of [End Page 165] Uncle Sam's gun."12 As neoliberals in the Bush administration implement policies at home to reduce taxation and regulation while spending billions on wars abroad, they slash funds that benefit the sick, the elderly, the poor, and young people. But
public resources are diverted not only from crucial domestic problems ranging from poverty and unemployment to hunger; they are also diverted from addressing the fate of some 45 million children in "the world's poor countries [who] will die needlessly over the next decade," as
The U.S. commitment to market fundamentalism elevates profits over
human needs and consequently offers few displays of compassion
reported by the British-based group Oxfam.13
, aid, or relief for millions of poor and abandoned children in the
world who do not have adequate shelter, who are severely hungry, who have no access to health care or safe water, and who succumb needlessly to the ravages of AIDS and other diseases.14 For instance, as Jim Lobe points out, "U.S. foreign aid in 2003 ranked dead last among all
wealthy nations. In fact, its entire development aid spending in 2003 came to only ten percent of what it spent on the Iraq war that year. U.S. development assistance comes to less than one-fortieth of its annual defense budget."15 Carol Bellamy, the executive director of UNICEF,
outlines the consequences of the broken promises to children by advanced capitalist countries such as the United States.
Legalized organ sales is just the next step of capitalist exploitation of the poor’s
resources---the result is state-sanctioned necropolitical violence
Ayan Kassim 13, University of Toronto, Terrains of Terror and Modern Apparatuses of Destruction:
Transplantation, Markets, and the Commoditized Kidney,
digitalcommons.providence.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1024&context=auchs&seiredir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar%3Fq%3D%2522organ%2Bsale%2522%
2Bcapitalism%26btnG%3D%26hl%3Den%26as_sdt%3D0%252C14#search=%22organ%20sale%20capitali
sm%22
In this particular formulation, coercion operates covertly . Although vendors seemingly go
to the market by ‘choice’, dire economic constrains is the most important factor in
why massive populations were now willing to alienate a portion of them self to
survive; this is what makes this particular market destructive. Resource extraction
from the Global South is not novel but an integral characteristic in industrial capitalism. If we
are to put resource depletion in historical context, one cannot forget the resounding legacies of
environmental and human depletion and exploitation through colonization and imperialism. 36 What marks
the shift that materialized with the emergence of the black market was the changing nature of resources extracted,
system that facilitates this trade.
the ‘surplus’ kidney, through an increasingly global
Extracted is another resource from the poor, mostly racialized, and destitute
populations of the world . Though in order to execute the consumption of the kidney, there needed to be fixed structures in place to make trade possible.¶ New
Trajectories: The Strange Career of the Illegal Kidney With legal strictures enacted in more and more countries to stifle the trade of kidneys for profit, its movement was limited. Yet voracious
demand and new incentives for sellers that were unleashed could not be suppressed. Driven by the complexities of transplantation and the clandestine fashion in which black markets operate,
a concomitant medical phenomena emerged to facilitate the movement of the kidney as a commodity transnationally. Transplant tourism, defined as “the purchase of a transplant organ
abroad that includes access to an organ while bypassing laws, rules, or processes of any or all countries involved”, 37 became the typical means of organ traffic. With transplantation now
operating in a transnational space, this appended market in the commercial traffic of living donors and their kidneys saw a tertiary element emerge that mediated exchange between sellers
and recipients: the body broker. 38 It suffices to say that a ‘broker’ need not be limited to just individuals: organized crime, doctors, medical technicians, border control, and even complicit
state bodies can all be considered brokers. Though here I focus on the individual, non-state or medical, broker. Characteristic of the vigor within the black market is how brokers, recipients,
and sellers can all find places to trade goods. Intermediaries need to coerce both sellers and buyers, in addition to cultivating vast networks with actors at both the national and international
level to traverse and usurp geopolitical and territorial boundaries of nation states,39 a phenomena very similar to the brokers that precipitate the traffic of whole persons (sex workers,
migrant labourers) in modern forms of slavery.40 If successful, the impunity in which these intermediaries operate with is unprecedented. This is part in parcel due to their detailed
understanding of how the market works, exploiting the high the stakes of survival for both sellers and buyers, and capitalizing on the lucrative nature of the trade; in some places body brokers
can sell a kidney for up to 15-20 times what they pay, without the buyer and seller really knowing how much profit was up for grabs.41 In the context of the illegal kidney trade there is an
important relationship between power and sight; actors conferred with optimal visibility wield unprecedented power.42 The body broker is granted this power of ‘sight’ in their mediation of
spatial distance and division between a would-be seller and a would-be recipient is just as
salient in precipitating the trade. In the space of a five-star transplant hospital/hotel where all three ‘actors’ converge, the donor and recipient never
meet.43 Kidney traffic hinges on division of both the body and of the space in which the body is fragmented. No longer a ‘gift’, the commercialized
kidney renders social relationships through exchange irrelevant. With the division of
space which renders donors anonymous, there can be mindful distance of the
these high stake transactions.¶ Furthermore,
recipient taking one’s kidney for their own use; this mindful distance is bolstered by
the act of monetary compensation to the seller as well as keeps the broker relevant . ¶
New Policy: The Iranian Model and the Dangers of Precedent As the growing realities of the black market surfaced, medical experts and scholars began arguing that a legal, regulated market in
Transparency, by eliminating shadowy brokers, and the hope of alleviating the ‘shortage’
of kidneys by allowing the choice of would-be sellers to sell legally, seemed a better option than the current realities of the black market. But was that the
case? Iran, the only country in the world that has implemented a state regulated legal
trade in kidneys is then an important site of investigation.¶ The Islamic Republic of Iran sanctioned its legal trade in
kidneys would provide the strictures needed to properly facilitate an equitable trade.
kidneys as a response to the high rates of renal disease, scarce and expensive materials for dialysis, and growing income disparity amongst classes; its first organs bank appeared in 1998.44 In
this system, kidneys are procured from three sources: living related donors (LRD), living unrelated donors (LUD), and cadaveric donors (CD), yet the consistent kind of donor is the LUD.45
Compensation for living related and unrelated donors is critical in precipitating this procurement system yet kidneys from cadaveric donors (i.e, families of the loved one) are not compensated
by the government.46 This poses a problem. With compensation only being offered to living donor populations, cadaveric donation systems are undermined. In addition, although financial
incentives are offered for those family members who decide to give their kidney to a loved one, why put a loved one at risk of invasive surgery if you can simply receive a kidney from a donor
in which you have no social ties to? This state implemented organ procurement strategy legitimates the hierarchization and fetishization of the LUD kidney. ¶ Further, Iran merits special
international attention as it was recently said that their waiting list for kidneys has been eliminated. Widely read media outlets like The Economist published stories in 2006 on the country’s
innovation and logical system to procure kidneys,47 citing Dr. Ahad J. Ghods 2002 study in which he claimed Iran elimination of their waiting lists through a government facilitated trade should
be applied in the US.48 Although praised by many as being in the vanguard of eliminating the suffering of those in the throes of renal disease, while ‘adequately’ compensating donors,
new scholarship detailed that this idyllic situation may not the reality on the ground.
Anne Griffin recently detailed the dubious parameters in the criteria used to define the
waiting list as ‘eliminated’ in Ghods’s study. Griffin described that poor patients, who largely
have to wait for cadaveric donation, since they cannot afford to compensate LRD or
LUD’s, were still waiting on kidney transplants; the wait was only over for those with
fiscal means.49 In addition, the market solution to the growing problem of income disparity between classes in Iran is troubling. If the waiting list is indeed eliminated, it is
indicative of the desperation in which people are willing to sell their kidneys for compensation. In Iran, supply far outpaces demand in which
has spurred fierce competition amongst would-be donors, with sellers willing to drive
down the price of their kidney to seem more marketable to would-be recipients, has
become remarkably common.50¶ Employing Mbembe’s concept of necropower , the means in which the
sovereign employs the destruction of certain populations 51, suffices immensely in this
context; here state sanctioned violence against its largely impoverished subjects is legitimated
through state policy. Although the intentions of facilitating this trade was meant to help
both donor and recipients, studies of kidney vendors in Iran demonstrated that vendors
typically never see their profits make any real impact on their lives. 52 This state authorized
destruction, by integrating and ultimately justifying this systematic violence and
fragmentation of bodies via kidney transplantation, is extremely problematic and irresponsible, particularly
since there remains a lack of longitudinal studies of the psychological and social impacts of nephrectomy on sellers. Further, the precedent that the Iranian model set internationally has
subsequently given traction to those echoing the need of a legal market for kidneys, and organs more generally, to keep up with the ‘shortages’.¶ New Debate The shifting paradigms within
the life sciences that markedly informed new modes of seeing and understandings of the body directly impacted discourse surrounding the legal/illegal, regulated/ unregulated market in
kidneys in both the scholarly and public realm.53 The sale of humans is largely considered morally abhorrent and illegal, but the notion of legalizing the sale of organs quickly gained
momentum in medical communities. As Scheper-Hughes details, publications in prominent medical journals like The Lancet and the Journal of the American Medical Association saw more
experts arguing for a market in kidneys over the years.54 Why? Again, transplantations ability to literally fragment the body, transforming its old meanings and ascribing it new ones, has made
this exchange palatable and less morally repugnant to more and more people in realms such as economics, bioethics, and the transplant community. Further, as Moniruzzaman articulates,
“with vested interests, the neoliberal market economy turns many medical specialists into a “three-in-one man” (a businessman, politician, and doctor).”55¶ Mostly, proponents argue that
incentives for kidney procurement are needed in order to solicit more kidneys. It is argued that this form of sale should no longer be perceived as repugnant. The repugnance has now shifted
to the “sad reality of patients dying and suffering while waiting for a kidney” which is considered unnecessary.56 Most interestingly in this debate was the reluctant surrender of Robert
Veatch, a medical ethicist, former anti-market stance to procure kidneys. In arguing that liberals should now become proponents of the market solution to renal failure, Veatch’s details that
his perspective shifted as the growing failures of social policy in the US drastically increased stratification of economic classes.57 Because of this failure, Veatch believes the opportunity to sell
one’s kidney to become a visible economic actor should no longer be illegal, since social policy will never be equitable. ¶ Disturbing is this advocacy of prominent experts who have clout in
studies of kidney vendors in India 58,
Bangladesh 59, Iran 60, and Moldova, 61 variations of the same story were told: selling a
kidney never made any significant impact on donor’s economic lives, despite what
many economists, bioethicists, and medical professionals claim. What vendors did
(re)formulating policy. Especially in the wake of publications from medical and ethnographic
experience were lost wages, from the post-operative pain and sickness many vendors
felt, feelings of deep regret, and societal expulsion in some grave cases.62 Thus, to promote the
dismemberment of the economic underclass as a means of being economically ‘visible’
is both ethically and morally irresponsible. Moreover, rarely mentioned in literature advocating legalized markets (regulated and
unregulated) are the risks of nephrectomy to donors or strategies focused on prevention of renal disease.63 These gaps perpetuate idyllic
understandings of the grim realities of post-transplantation success. Realities of the
long term impact and costs of anti-rejection medication and bleak survival rates from
when the kidney is purchased and transplanted is remarkably understated .64
The alternative is to vote negative to reject the 1AC’s Capitalist methodology –
maintaining prohibitions on organ sales is key to avert genocidal extinction
Boyer 12 J. Randall Boyer, J.D. candidate, April 2012, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young
University, “Gifts of the Heart ... and Other Tissues: Legalizing the Sale of Human Organs and Tissues”,
Brigham Young University Law Review 2012 B.Y.U.L. Rev. 313
Second, opponents of legalizing organ sales believe that the commoditization of the body is an
affront to human dignity and degrades the meaning of "human." n116 Indeed, this was
one of Congress's main motivations in passing NOTA. n117 Then-Congressman Al Gore - the main
proponent of the bill - stated that the sale of human organs would "blur[] the distinction between
people and things , as human organs become simply another commodity to be bought
and sold in the marketplace." n118 The fear underlying this argument is that if price tags were
attached to body parts, individuals would begin to view others as having a quantifiable
value. n119Consequently, the value of humanity would simply become the sum of all
of its parts.¶ The feared result of such perceptions is that interactions between individuals
would deteriorate and civility would be lost . Throughout history, society has witnessed
many atrocities when humans were treated as a tradable commodity , n120 or even when the
value of an individual was viewed through too utilitarian a lens. n121 As such, [*330]
society's interest in maintaining humane interactions between people justifies any
prohibitions on systems that treat the body or any part of it as a tradable commodity.
Capitalism is the Root Cause of Wealth Inequality
Cerunnadle 12
JOHAN CERUNNADLE DECEMBER 27, 2012, ListVerse Politics, “Top 10 Reasons Why Capitalism Sucks,”
http://listverse.com/2012/12/27/top-10-reasons-why-capitalism-sucks/, web/
There is no economic intervention or regulation
by the state, with the exception of enforcing private contracts and the ownership of
property. The USA, with its minimal business regulation, is one of the countries that is closest to free-market capitalism today. But capitalism applies
A free-market economy is one where all markets are unregulated by the government.
to over 80% of countries in the world, and nearly everybody worldwide is involved in
the market. So the following problems apply to YOU! Recently there has also been a
worrying polarization of wealth around the world. Last year the top-earning 20 percent of Americans received 49.4 percent of all
income generated in the USA, compared with just 3.4 percent made by the bottom 20 percent of earners. This ratio of 15:1 is approximately
double that of 8:1 in 1968. Unfortunately, the free market encourages this wealth
divide – there is every incentive for people to earn more; charities only survive out of
people’s extreme kindness and dedication.Given the current state of affairs, there is
no reason why the rich-poor divide will not increase even more, with those at the top
of corporations exploiting unfortunates in poor countries. Karl Marx said this divide would be the inevitable cause of
communism, but at the moment it is causing only greed, misery and well-intentioned social programs that are heavily abused.
Alt Solves For Oppression and Modern Slavery
Livergood 10
Norman D. Livergood, 2010, Consulting Philosopher, 1968-Present, Publisher, Hermes Press, 1996 –
Present, Hermes Press, “We Can No Longer Afford Capitalism,” http://www.hermespress.com/capitalism_afford.htm, web.
The displacement of capitalism with a new social structure for the well-being of all citizens will certainly not happen overnight, but we must begin now planning and working for this prohuman framework for society. This movement toward a people-centered economic system must work in solidarity with the development of a citizen-based form of government, as outlined in
. For
too long, people worldwide have been suffering under the dead hand of capitalist
oppression: humans reduced to the status of mere pawns and commodities within an
inhuman system of obscene privilege for the predatory capitalist class. The capitalist
ideology has become so ingrained in people's minds that they consider economic
favoritism a "fact of nature," the only possible way to order society. Questioning it
seems to many the rankest form of subversion of incontestable principles, an attack
on the very fundaments of the American way of life. Most people are unaware of the
historical fact that capitalist oppression merely replaced earlier forms of despotism : the
Roman Catholic Church, the Protestant Churches, and the tyrants and dictators at the head of empires and nation states. That capitalism helped to
remove people from earlier forms of tyranny makes no difference whatsoever,
because it immediately enslaved those same persons in an equally despotic form of
economic oppression. The transcendent value of our American experience is its demonstration that a people can take their destiny in their own hands and improve
an earlier essay. Our first need is to see clearly what our present situation truly is--and why we desperately need to rid ourselves of capitalism and institute a new social order
their life situation. The American colonists didn't merely wring their hands over their misfortune of suffering under British monarchy and colonialism. They threw off the chains of British
imperialism --political and economic oppression. Our situation is now different--for example, it would be foolish to oppose the cabal capitalists with violence, because they hold a monopoly on
weapons that kill masses or targeted individuals. Nonetheless, we should take courage from the example of the American colonists who won their independence and begin planning now to
take back our economic and political power as a people.
Case
No impact claims so vote neg on presumption RIGHT NOW they have
yet to prove why imperialism or the affirmative is good
Also cloned organs are still human organs and the aff just legalizes
human organs. The aff would increase cloned organs in order to solve
for anything (which they don’t do anyway because they don’t claim
any impacts), this turns the case.
Legalized Organ Trade Hurts the Poor
(Arora, Ishika. "THE HUMAN MEAT MARKET: AN ANALYSIS ON THE
LEGALIZATION OF THE ORGAN TRADE." Prospect Journal. N.p., 14 Mar. 2012)
[Allyson/MoState]
In addition, while it would seem that legalization of organ trading would create national and
international quality standards, in reality it might create an “unclean” supply. Because
many of the donors would be of lower economic status, their desperation in destitution
could cause them to lie about the health of their organs. In addition, these sellers may have
little access to healthcare, creating a situation in which they may truly endanger their lives
by parting with an organ their body cannot afford. Not only will an organ market be unable to
increase a healthy supply of organs, it will also create other issues . From a purely economic
perspective, legalizing the organ trade may force more poor citizens into selling their
organs. In anthropologist Lawrence Cohen’s study of the organ belt in rural India, he
found that most of the money that sellers received was used to paying back loans they had
previously taken to feed their families. An increased prevalence in the organ trade will cause
organs to be considered an economic asset that everyone can part with . This will cause an increase
in loan collaterals and people who do not want to sell their organs will have access to fewer
loans. Essentially, poor people will have to “mortgage their organs” in order to find a reasonable
loan.
Legalization would mean the hospitals would bear the entirety of the costs ending the
organ industry as a whole – turns case
Boyer 12 J. Randall Boyer, J.D. candidate, April 2012, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young
University, “Gifts of the Heart ... and Other Tissues: Legalizing the Sale of Human Organs and Tissues”,
Brigham Young University Law Review 2012 B.Y.U.L. Rev. 313
modern
advances in medicine have provided many more uses for the human body
The market for human parts is a billion-dollar industry. n127 While most people think of this market as transacting only in kidneys, hearts, and livers for the purpose of transplantation,
. Cadaveric skin is used to treat
burn victims; bone is used in oncology, as well as orthopedic and dental surgery, to treat bone loss resulting from tumors; skin tissue is used to repair vocal chords damaged by radiation treatment; tendons, cartilage, and ligaments
are used to repair joints in treating sports injuries; and cadaveric heart valves are used to replace faulty valves in living hearts. n128 In fact, over one million of these and similar transplants are performed annually in the United
States. n129 Furthermore,
human tissues are used in research to train medical students and to develop
new treatments for injuries and surgical techniques.
n130 In all, these new technologies, treatments, and techniques have increased the value
of a human cadaver to over $ 250,000. n131 This value is only increasing as technology finds more and better uses for human tissues. ¶ [*332] Moreover, this dollar estimation is not hypothetical but is based on how much end
consumers are paying for human parts. n132 In order to facilitate organ donations and transplants, both NOTA and UAGA allow parties involved in the "removal, transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality
control, and storage of a human organ" to collect "reasonable payments" for the services they provide. n133 So, while the donor gives an organ free of charge, the doctor who removes the organ, the hospital where the operating
room is located, the medical transportation company who transports the organ, and the tissue bank that processes and tests the organ for disease each attach charges to the organ. These charges are ultimately paid by the
while federal and state laws prevent
the initial sale of an organ, the end user of an organ must still purchase it. ¶
Society cannot encourage and increase the
number of organ donations if it requires doctors, hospitals, and medical companies to
donate their time and resources alongside the individual donating an organ
the most logical person to bear
the cost of these services is the recipient, who is receiving the benefit. Requiring
either the donor or doctors and hospitals to bear the costs of these services would
halt all operations in the transplantation system.¶ That being said, as rational actors in
a market seek to maximize profits, transplantation service providers increase their
prices to capture the maximum amount purchasers are willing to pay. n134 In other
words, if a surgeon usually charges $ 4,000 for the removal of an organ, and the
hospital charges $ 4,000 for the operating room, staff, and equipment, but an organ
recipient is willing to pay $ 50,000 to receive an organ,
recipient's insurance company (in the case of a transplant) or a research institution (in the case of a tissue purchase). Therefore,
While this may seem ironic, it is
important to remember that this feature of the law is essential to the organ transplantation system.
. Indeed, many companies
whose income is solely generated by providing organ transplantation services could not operate without someone footing the bill. Further,
the charges that the surgeon and hospital attach to that organ are quickly increased
to $ 25,000 [*333] each. n135 Consequently, because of the volume of transplantations performed annually and the extremely high willingness to pay for manyorgans, n136 the industry has become incredibly profitable.
Legalization crowds-out altruistic donors—reduces overall supply—blood sales prove
Rothman, 2006 (S. M. Rothman and D. J. Rothman, American Journal of Transplantation, February 13,
2006, Center for the Study of Society & Medicine: College of Physicians & Surgeons, Columbia
University, “The Hidden Cost of Organ Sale”
http://www.societyandmedicine.columbia.edu/organs_challenge.shtml)
Advocates think it self-evident that market incentives will yield more organs for
transplantation
These expectations
may be disappointed
economists and social
psychologists
analyzing the tensions between ‘extrinsic incentives’
and
the moral commitment to do one’s duty.
that extrinsic
incentives can ‘crowd out’ intrinsic incentives
introduction of cash payments will
weaken moral obligations
. ‘People are more likely to do something if they are going to get paid for it’ (6). And sellers will not drive out donors. Whatever financial incentives exist, siblings and parents will continue to
donate to loved ones.
, however,
. Since the 1970s, a group of
have been
—financial compensation
monetary rewards, and ‘intrinsic incentives’—
They hypothesize
, that the
. As Uri Gneezy, a professor of behavioral science at the University of Chicago School of Business, observes: ‘Extrinsic motivation might change the perception of
the activity and destroy the intrinsic motivation to perform it when no apparent reward apart from the activity itself is expected’ (7–12). Although the case for the ‘hidden costs of rewards’ is certainly not indisputable, it does
suggest that
a market in organs might reduce
altruistic donation and
overall supply . Perhaps the most celebrated analysis of the tension between intrinsic
commercialization of blood represses the
expression of altruism erodes sense of community’. Payment undermined the
altruistic motivations of would-be blood donors.
and extrinsic incentives is Titmuss’ work in blood donation. His book, The Gift Relationship (1971), argued that the ‘
(and)
the
Titmuss supported his hypothesis by comparing blood donation in the United States and the United
Kingdom. Analyzing data from England and Wales over the period 1946–1968, where the sale of blood was prohibited, Titmuss found that the percentage of the population who donated blood and the amount of blood donated
steadily increased. By comparison,
declined
in the United States, where the sale of blood was allowed, donations
. Because U.S. data were more fragmentary, Titmuss drew as best he could on a variety of sources, including surveys, municipal statistics and comments by medical experts and blood bank officials.
The data
worsening situation’
Nevertheless, he confidently concluded:
, ‘when analyzed in microscopic fashion, blood bank by blood bank area by area, city by city, state by state’,
revealed ‘a generally
(12).
Legalization Cuts Hezbollah Funding
Randi Kaye, July 19, 2006 CNN Correspondent Terrorism groups helped by black market goods
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/anderson.cooper.360/blog/2006/07/terrorism-groups-helped-byblack.html
Anytime that you buy a good illegally on the black market, there is a possibility you are helping to fund
groups like Hamas and Hezbollah," said terrorism financing expert Emily Hunt. Hunt says tens of millions of dollars -- a conservative
estimate -- is funneled to Hezbollah from the United States through various illegal operations. In March, the U.S.
"
Department of Justice charged 19 men with "racketeering to support a terrorist organization." For eight years, investigators say, the suspects sold contraband cigarettes, counterfeit rolling
papers, even counterfeit Viagra. Investigators say the suspects bought cigarettes in North Carolina, where taxes are lower, or in some cases at a New York Indian reservations, where there are
no taxes. By doing so, they evaded tens of millions of dollars in cigarette taxes. They then made huge profits by reselling the cigarettes in New York and Michigan at market prices. A portion of
U.S. citizens unknowingly sending money to Hezbollah. But
some other Americans were well aware of what was going on. In some cases, buyers on the black
market were charged a "resistance tax" -- a set amount over the going price -- and told the money
would go to Hezbollah, investigators said.
the profits, the indictment charges, was given to Hezbollah. Can you imagine?
Hezbollah Organ Trade Funds Their War in Syria
National Syrian Coalition Tuesday, 08 July 2014 11:10 Syrian National Council: Hezbollah Sells Syrian
Refugee’s Organs to Fund War against Syria http://en.etilaf.org/all-news/local-news/syrian-nationalcouncil-hezbollah-sells-syrian-refugees-organs-to-fund-war-against-syria.html
said in a report that Hezbollah is having major financial problems due to its
intervention in the Syrian war on the side of the Assad regime, prompting it to seek other sources to
fund its military operations. The (SNC) confirms that to this purpose the Lebanese party has resorted to trafficking of organs of Syrian refugees and to fundraising from its
supporters. The report, citing credible security sources from inside the regime’s circles, points out that Hezbollah developed a contingency
The Syrian National Council (SNC)
plan aimed at reducing the growing deficit in its budget due to the high cost of financing its militias. The report also says that the cost of the party’s operations in Syria represents 35 to 40% of
the party’s total budget, and that the financial problems are further worsened by the crumpling Iranian economy, which reflected negatively on the financial aid offered by Tehran to the party.
According to the report,
the party developed a contingency plan that includes a variety of ways to cover the cost of
its war effort, including the imposition of the defense of the Shiite sect tax, in addition to sending delegates to the Shiite communities living in West Africa and South America to
collect donations for the party. The plan also included launching extensive fundraising in Iran under the slogan " We are all Iran and Hezbollah.”
Furthermore, the report pointed out that the financial crisis experienced by the party prompted it to secretly so
engage in human organs trafficking, especially the liver and kidneys. Hezbollah is exploiting the Syrian
refugees dire need for money to extort them to sell their organs for $5,000 USD, to be sold later for
$60,000 USD in the international markets.
ISIS Has the Material For developing a Nuclear weapon or Dirty Bomb
Ari Yashar 7/11/2014, 9:56 AM Staff – Isreal National News ISIS Seizes Nuclear Materials in Iraq
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/182782#.U-_03vldWuQ
Iraq warned the United Nations (UN) on Thursday that in capturing large portions of the country last
month, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) also seized nuclear materials used in research at a
university in Mosul, Iraq's second largest city. Iraqi Ambassador to the UN Mohammed Ali Alhakim
wrote in a letter to the UN, which was seen by Reuters, that roughly 40 kilograms (88 pounds) of
uranium compounds were captured by the radical Jihadist group. "These nuclear materials, despite the
limited amounts mentioned, can enable terrorist groups, with the availability of the required expertise,
to use it separately or in combination with other materials in its terrorist acts," said Alhakim. Citing fears
of a "dirty bomb" or "pocket nuke," in which nuclear materials are combined with conventional
explosives, Alhakim asked for international aid to "stave off the threat of their use by terrorists in Iraq or
abroad."
They Will Use this to Attack the U.S. and Europe
Michael Isikoff August 15, 2014 Michael Isikoff joined NBC News in July 2010 as national investigative
correspondent. He had been at Newsweek since 1994 as an investigative correspondent. He has written
extensively on the U.S. government's war on terrorism, the Abu Ghraib scandal, campaign-finance and
congressional ethics abuses, presidential politics and other national issues. ISIL could pose threat to US,
Europe, officials say http://news.yahoo.com/isil-could-pose-threat-to-u-s---europe--officials-say135908833.html
U.S. counterterrorism officials have dramatically ramped up their warnings about the threat posed by
the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), concluding that the well-armed group is expanding its ambitions
outside the Middle East and may be planning terror attacks against western Europe — and even the U.S.
homeland. ISIL's conquest of vast swaths of Iraqi territory this spring and summer netted it a
“significant” arsenal of U.S. weapons from two Iraqi military bases, including hundreds of tanks, heavily
armored Humvees, assault rifles, and rocket-propelled grenade launchers, officials say. One U.S official tells Yahoo
News ISIL is now considered “the most potent military force” of any terrorist group in the world. Led by its
charismatic chief Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the radical Islamist group is looking beyond its short-term goal of overthrowing the Iraqi and Syrian governments and
replacing them with a self-proclaimed Islamic Caliphate. “We’re
seeing an expansion of its external terrorist ambitions,” one
U.S. counterterrorism official said in a briefing for reporters Thursday. “As its capabilities grow, it has
attracted thousands of foreign extremists — some of whom are going home to start cells. As it carves
out territory [in Iraq], it wants to go beyond that and do attacks outside. ” U.S. counterterrorism
agencies had put the number of ISIL fighters at about 10,000, but that figure is now being reassessed
and is likely to be raised, officials say. Just four years ago the group, then calling itself the Islamic State of Iraq, was scattered and on the run
from American forces, aided by Sunni tribes horrified by the group’s often grotesque violence. Its reign has been marked by summary executions, ritual stonings,
beheadings and even crucifixions. What fueled its resurgence? Officials say the group fed off Sunni resentment over the Shia-dominated government of Iraq's Prime
Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who announced his resignation Thursday night. It took advantage of the power vacuum in northern Iraq to seize large chunks of essentially
ungoverned territory. It
saw an opportunity in recruiting prisoners; in July 2013, its suicide bombers blew their
way into the notorious Abu Ghraib prison, freeing up to 500 inmates, including al-Qaida leaders. A man
purported to be the reclusive leader of the militant Islamic State Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi from a video recording … These demonstrable successes
gave the group new credibility among jihadis around the world, especially after it joined the civil war in
Syria and changed its name to ISIL. (It has at times also been known as ISIS, or the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.) It has since changed its
name again to the Islamic State after proclaiming itself a caliphate, the latest in a succession of Muslim empires dating back to
the seventh century. Its ranks were soon swelled by foreigners, including hundreds of followers of the red-bearded Chechen
militant Omar al-Shishani, a former Georgian army sergeant known for his deep hatred of America. Concerns about terrorism spilling
over from Syria and Iraq hit home in June when French police arrested an "armed jihadi" who had just returned from Syria in connection
with the May 24 killing of four people — including two Israeli tourists — at a Jewish Center in Brussels. Since then, authorities in
Europe have broken up terror cells linked to ISIL, including one in Kosovo where officials this week arrested 40 suspects who
had returned from Iraq and Syria—including some who had fought with ISIL — and seized weapons and explosives in dozens of
locations. ISIL and its followers have also proven adept at using social media, making a steady barrage of threats against the West,
including the United States. “Probably most striking are the threats on Twitter,” said a U.S. official who monitors the postings. “ We’ve seen tens of
thousands of postings by ten of thousands of people supporting ISIL, making threats to blow up U.S. Embassies." One posting
showed an ISIL banner apparently superimposed on an image of the White House. It is still unclear how real those threats are, at least while
ISIL is focused on its war with the Iraqi government. And the resignation of the deeply unpopular Maliki could allow for more U.S.-Iraqi cooperation in the fight
against the insurgents. But increasingly, officials say, ISIL
has the perception of momentum. For the first time there are signs that some
jihadis linked to al-Qaida are expressing sympathy, if not allegiance, to ISIL — despite al-Qaida chief Ayman al-Zawahri’s
disavowal of the group. One thing ISIL does not lack is funds. The group has seized banks, accumulating vast amounts of cash
and raking in more by selling oil and other commodities to smugglers. ISIL “is flush with cash. It has plenty of money. They
control oil fields, they have refiners. They have hundreds of millions of dollars,” said one U.S. analyst at the Thursday briefing. And it is
exceptionally well armed. When ISIL forces assaulted two Iraqi military bases, Camp Speicher and Rasheed Air Base, in July, they got the keys to the kingdom —
hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of American tanks, armored personal carriers, howitzers and other equipment. ISIL fighters have posed for videos brandishing
MANPADS, shoulder-launched surface to air missiles that can shoot down low-flying aircraft. This undated file image posted on a militant website on Tuesday, Jan.
14, 2014, which has been verified and is … “They’ve
got enough supplies, equipment and ammunition to last them five
years,” said John Maguire, a former top CIA officer in Iraq who retains close ties to the Kurdish regional government. Thanks in part to assistance from former
Iraqi military officers who have defected to ISIL, “they know how to operate American equipment.” What they also have,
at least for the moment, is a de facto safe haven. Al-Baghdadi — who officials say sees himself as the true successor to Osama bin Laden
— is believed to be constantly on the move. But ISIL appears to have established a headquarters in Raqqa in northern Syria, where the group’s black banners
reportedly fly over administrative buildings. Given that President Obama has placed sharp limits on U.S. airstrikes and confined them to Iraq, that effectively makes
Baghdadi and his top deputies — almost all of whom were once in U.S. custody — off-limits to U.S. military action. The Raqqa safe haven “is a problem,”
acknowledged one U.S. official.
Additionally, ISIS will Acquire Weapons from Pakistan – Nuclear War with Israel –
Goes Regional
F. MICHAEL MALOOF F. Michael Maloof, staff writer for WND and G2Bulletin, is a former senior
security policy analyst in the office of the secretary of defense.Iraq invaders threaten nuke attack on
Israel http://www.wnd.com/2014/06/iraq-invaders-threaten-nuke-attack-on-israel/
The well-organized army of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, claims it has access to
nuclear weapons and a will to use them to “liberate” Palestine from Israel as part of its “Islamic Spring,”
WASHINGTON –
according to a WND source in the region. Franklin Lamb, an international lawyer based in Beirut and Damascus, said the move is part of the ISIS aim of creating a caliphate under strict Islamic law, stretching from the Mediterranean Sea to Iraq. Lamb, who has access to ISIS fighters and
sympathizers, said ISIS has been working with a “new specialized” unit organized at the beginning of 2013 to focus “exclusively on destroying the Zionist regime occupying Palestine.” Lamb added that the ISIS “Al-Quds Unit” is working to broaden its influence in more than 60 Palestinian
camps and gatherings from Gaza, across “Occupied Palestine,” or Israel, to Jordan and from Lebanon up to the north of Syria “seeking to enlist support as it prepares to liberate Palestine.” ISIS is also know as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Sham. “Sham,” or “Greater Syria,” refers to
. The Sunni militant group, which has
taken over much of the Sunni region of Iraq, could leave the Shiite-dominated region of the country and
head toward Jordan and Turkey. Lamb said that in Iraq alone, some 6 million Iraqi Sunnis recently have
become supportive of the ISIS lightning strikes in the Sunni portion of the country. Some of the Sunni
supporters are secular, such as the Naqshbandia Army of former top officials of executed Iraqi leader
Saddam Hussein.
the Sunni group may have given ISIS access to its ongoing sarin production
facility in northwestern Iraq.
Cyprus, Palestine, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Israel and southern Turkey. ISIS also is known as DAASH, the Arabic acronym for al-Dawlah al-Islamiyah fi al-Iraq wa-al Sham
As WND reported,
WND also reported ISIS already has captured towns bordering Iraq and Turkey. The militant group also has steamrolled through the Iraqi desert in the west and taken over the major al-Walid crossing with Syria
and the Turaibil crossing into Jordan. Lamb said ISIS has established a capital for its caliphate in the Syrian city of Raqqa . “The Islamist organization believes it currently has massive regional support for its rapidly expanding ‘revolution of the oppressed,’” Lamb said. ISIS estimates it will
take 72 months to “liberate” “Occupied Palestine,” or Israel, according to Lamb. Lamb quoted an ISIS member as saying: “Zionists call us masked, sociopathic murderers, but we are much more complicated and representative of those seeking justice than they portray us. “Are we more
barbaric than the Zionist terrorists who massacred at Dier Yassin, Shatila, twice at Qana, and committed dozens of other massacres? History will judge us after we free Palestine.” Lamb said ISIS can do what no other Arab, Muslim or Western backers of resistance have been able to
All countries in this region are playing the sectarian card just as they have long played
the Palestinian card, but the difference with ISIS is that we are serious about Palestine and they are not.
ISIS appears “eager” to fight Israeli armed forces “in the near future despite
expectation that the regime will use nuclear weapons.” “Do you think that we do not have access to
nuclear devices?”
if we ever believe they are about to use theirs, we will not
hesitate.
ISIS access to nuclear weapons could come
from Sunni Pakistan, which is home to more than 30 terrorist groups. Pakistan possibly has transferred
nuclear weapons to the chief bankroller of its nuclear development program, Sunni Saudi Arabia,
. The Saudis, who also have provided billions of dollars to ISIS, have threatened to acquire nuclear
weapons if Iran were to develop its own.
accomplish. He quoted the ISIS member as saying: “
Tel Aviv will fall as fast as Mosul when the time is right.” The WND source said
Lamb quoted the ISIS member as saying. “The Zionists know that we do, and
After the Zionists are gone, Palestine will have to be decontaminated and rebuilt just like areas where there has been radiation released.”
as WND previously
has reported
That Goes Global – Nuke War
STEINBACH 2002[John, Israeli Nuclear weapons: a threat to piece, 3/3
http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/mat0036.htm]
Meanwhile, the existence of an arsenal of mass destruction in such an unstable region in turn has serious implications for future arms control and disarmament negotiations, and even the threat of nuclear war. Seymour Hersh
Should war break out in the Middle East again,... or should any Arab nation fire missiles against Israel, as the Iraqis did, a nuclear
escalation, once unthinkable except as a last resort, would now be a strong probability."(41) and Ezar Weissman, Israel's current President said "The nuclear issue is
gaining momentum (and the) next war will not be conventional ."(42) Russia and before it the Soviet Union has long been a major (if not the major) target of Israeli nukes. It is
warns, "
widely reported that the principal purpose of Jonathan Pollard's spying for Israel was to furnish satellite images of Soviet targets and other super sensitive data relating to U.S. nuclear targeting strategy. (43) (Since launching its
own satellite in 1988, Israel no longer needs U.S. spy secrets.) Israeli nukes aimed at the Russian heartland seriously complicate disarmament and arms control negotiations and, at the very least, the unilateral
possession of nuclear weapons by Israel is enormously destabilizing, and dramatically lowers the threshold for their
actual use, if not for all out nuclear war. In the words of Mark Gaffney, "... if the familar pattern(Israel refining its weapons of mass destruction with U.S. complicity) is not
reversed soon- for whatever reason- the deepening Middle East conflict could trigger a world conflagration."
2NC
F/w
Interp: You have to actually defend the things that you say. Once you read an
advocacy you must defend it. IF we prove that the things you say are bad, then we
should win.
Vote Neg:
- Undermines any reason for having debate because it completely disables the
possibility of being neg.
- Any argument we read they can just defend as part of the process of knowledge
production.
- Allows affirmatives to read homophobic, racist, ableist, classist advantages, etc. and
when they’re called out they just claim the K to be part of that process as well which
prevents knowledge production because negs can never run Ks which is a stronger IL
to education Claims than the Aff
- Functionally AFF condo which is fundamentally worse than Neg Condo because the
aff is the focus of the debate
destroys participation – that outweighs the aff
Rowland 84 – Robert C., Baylor U., “Topic Selection in Debate”, American Forensics in Perspective. Ed.
Parson, p. 53-4
The first major problem identified by the work group as relating to topic selection is the decline in participation in the National Debate
Tournament (NDT) policy debate. As Boman notes: There is a growing dissatisfaction with academic debate that utilizes a policy proposition.
Programs which are oriented toward debating the national policy debate proposition, so-called “NDT” programs, are diminishing in scope and
size.4 This decline in policy debate is tied, many in the work group believe, to excessively broad topics. The most obvious
characteristic of some recent policy debate topics is extreme breath. A resolution calling for regulation of land use literally and figuratively
covers a lot of ground. Naitonal debate topics have not always been so broad. Before the late 1960s the topic often specified a particular policy
change.5 The
move from narrow to broad topics has had, according to some, the effect of limiting the number of
students who participate in policy debate. First, the breadth of the topics has all but destroyed novice debate. Paul
Gaske argues that because the stock issues of policy debate are clearly defined, it is superior to value debate as a means of introducing students
to the debate process.6 Despite this advantage of policy debate, Gaske belives that NDT debate is not the best vehicle for teaching beginners.
The problem is that broad policy topics
terrify novice debaters, especially those who lack high school debate experience. They
are unable to cope with the breadth of the topic and experience “negophobia,”7 the fear of debating negative. As a
consequence, the educational advantages associated with teaching novices through policy debate are lost: “Yet all of these benefits fly out the
window as rookies in their formative stage quickly experience humiliation at being caugh without evidence or substantive awareness of the
issues that confront them at a tournament.”8 The ultimate result is that fewer novices participate in NDT, thus lessening the educational value
of the activity and limiting the number of debaters or eventually participate in more advanced divisions of policy debate. In addition to noting
the effect on novices, participants argued that broad
topics also discourage experienced debaters from continued
participation in policy debate. Here, the claim is that it takes so much times and effort to be competitive on a broad
topic that students who are concerned with doing more than just debate are forced out of the activity.9 Gaske notes, that “broad
topics discourage participation because of insufficient time to do requisite research.”10 The
final effect may be that entire
programs either cease functioning or shift to value debate as a way to avoid unreasonable research burdens. Boman supports this
point: “It is this expanding necessity of evidence, and thereby research, which has created a competitive imbalance between
institutions that participate in academic debate.”11 In this view, it is the competitive imbalance resulting from the use of broad topics that has
led some small schools to cancel their programs.
Actual surveys/studies support this – people will quit debate because of this
Thomas Preston, Summer 2003. Professor of communications at the University of Missouri-St. Louis.
“No-topic debating in Parliamentary Debate: Students and Critic Reactions,”
http://cas.bethel.edu/dept/comm/npda/journal/vol9no5.pdf.
The study involved forty-three students and nine critics who participated in a parliamentary debate
tournament where no topic was assigned for the fourth round debates. True to the idea of openness, no
rules regarding the topic were announced; no topic, or written instructions other than time limits and
judging instruction, were provided. In this spirit, the participants first provided anecdotal reactions to the no-topic debate, so that
the data from this study could emerge from discussion. Second, respondents provided demographic data so that patterns
could be compared along three dimensions. These dimensions, the independent variables for the student portion of the study,
involved three items: 1) level of debate experience; 2) whether NPDA was the only format of parliamentary
debate the students had experienced; and 3) whether students had participated in NDT or CEDA policy
debate. Third, the questions were to determine how students rated the debates based on criteria for good debate-educational value, clash,
and a fair division of ground. Students were also asked two general questions: whether they would try the no-topic debate again, and whether
they liked the no-topic round. These questions constituted the dependent variables for the student study. Because the sample was small,
descriptive statistical data were gathered from critics. Taking into account the experience of the critics, additional questions concerning items
such as whether no-topic debating deepened discussion. Both students and critics were asked which side they thought the no-topic approach
favored, and the students with NDT/ CEDA policy debating experience were asked if a no-topic debating season would be good for policy
debate.For the objective items, critics and students were asked to circle a number between 1 and 7 to indicate the strength of reaction to each
item (Appendix I and Appendix II). In scoring responses, the most favorable rating received the highest score of seven and the least favorable
rating a score of one. In some instances, values that were circled on the sheet were reversed such that the most favorable reaction to that
category received the higher score. Frequency distributions and statistics were then tabulated for each question, and the anecdotal remarks
were tabulated. For the student empirical data, t-tests were conducted to determine whether overall debate experience, NPDA experience, or
policy experience affected how the students reacted to an item. As a test for significance, p was set to less than or equal to .05. Finally, of
the
43 responses, 35, or 81.4 per cent, felt that the no-topic debate skewed the outcome of the debate
toward one side or the other. Of those responses, 32 (91.4 per cent of those indicating a bias, or 74.4 per
cent of all respondents) indicated that the no-topic debate gave an advantage to the Government. Three (8.6 per
cent of those indicating a bias, or 7.0 per cent of all respondents) indicated that the no-topic debate gave an advantage to the Opposition
Condo
Conditionality is not capitalist or a form of whiteness – they ask us to engage by proving that their
method is wrong – this is our interpretation of how to prove their method is wrong is to test it
through debate education.
Evidentiary debate is key to building research skills that are helpful for
gaining degrees and employment.
Jeffrey Parcher, pub. date: 1998, Former Dir. of Georgetown Debate, “The Value of Debate:
Adapted from the Report of the Philodemic Debate Society,”
http://www.principlestudies.org/docs/The_Value_of_Debate_Secular.pdf
Since students in debate often
engage in 20 hours or more a week of preparation, they gain more experience in research in one year than in
all the rest of their studies combined. Hunt gives this advice to potential debaters: ...you will learn research methods as
you learn to support your advocacy. You will learn to use the library and all its resources. You will learn to
find books, articles, government documents, and special studies. You will learn to utilize every sort of index, both print
indexes and computerized indexes. You will also learn both quantitative and qualitative research methodologies as
you begin to examine and criticize the research you read. Good forensics students have to be familiar with
humane, social scientific, and scientific methodologies and with case studies, surveys, and statistics. Without
such knowledge, you cannot separate good logic, good reasoning, and good evidence from mediocre or poor
logic, reasoning and evidence (p8). All of the debaters interviewed who had obtained advanced degrees
suggested that the research efforts that they engaged in for debate were many times more challenging than
those required for a law degree, masters thesis or dissertation. Debaters will regularly use every conceivable
resource available not only at The Meadows, but also all collegiate resources available in the metropolitan area. Debaters often conduct extensive research at law and medical schools, utilizing the
No class or activity compares to debate as a means of teaching students methods of research.
Library of Congress, specialized libraries at the Agency for International Development, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Institute for Medicine, Middle East Institute and countless others. They collect
Debaters have
become versed in the techniques of research on the Internet and are utilizing a plethora of computerized
research databases. The research skills of debaters are so well known that they have been prized employees
and interns for a variety of private, governmental and international institutions . The most distinguished think tank
material from a large diversity of think tanks and special interest groups. They access materials from the Congressional Research Service as well as committees and members of Congress.
studying international relations in the world, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, has recently established a special
internship to be rewarded exclusively to participants at the National Debate Tournament (Lennon).
Competitive debate empowers students to speak out, increases
openness to the ideas of others and improves critical thinking.
Joe Bellon, pub. date: Winter 2000, Dept. of Communication @ Georgia State, Argumentation &
Advocacy, Vol. 36 Issue 3, p. 161, “A Research-Based Justification for Debate Across the Curriculum,”
EBSCO
Academic debate does more than simply inform students--it teaches them how to evaluate the
information they receive on a daily basis. Dauber (1989) asserts the unique emancipatory potential of
forensics: To me, academic debate is primarily valuable in that it is a mechanism for empowerment ....
Whatever else academic debate teaches (and I would argue that it teaches a great deal), it empowers our
students and ourselves, in that it proves to them they ought not be intimidated by the rhetoric of expertise
surrounding questions of policy. They know that they are capable of making and defending informed choices
about complex issues outside of their own area of interest because they do so on a daily basis (206).
Indeed, Fine came to much the same conclusion when studying students in New York. She argues that
debaters are more likely to speak out because they "feel they have something useful to say, and because they
feel more articulate in saying it" (61). These finding closely resemble Corson's conclusion that
encouraging students to speak forces them to "confront learners with viewpoints different from their
own" and therefore to achieve "an openness to the world and others" (25). Fine also discovered that participating in debate gives student better
social skills and causes them to place more value on their social relationships. Debate is thus not only a way to connect students with academic subjects in meaningful ways; it is also a way to re-connect students to public
life if they have been overcome by feelings of alienation. The best documented educational benefit of debating elaborates the connection between forensics and critical thinking. As far back as 1949, Brembeck
students with argumentation training "significantly outgained the control students in critical
thinking scores" (187). Colbert (1987) reviews the contemporary literature and concludes that both the
consensus of the literature and his own experimental findings justify the conclusion that "debaters'
critical thinking test scores are significantly higher than those of nondebaters" (199). Barfield also found
demonstrated that
significant correlation between debate participation and increased critical thinking skills.
Debate has intrinsic value – it is an environment conducive to creating
effective political activists.
Dr. Ede Warner & Dr. Job Bruschke, pub. date: 2001, “gone on debating”
http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/jbruschke/papers/debate%20as%20a%20tool%20of%20empowermen
t.htm
Debate teaches students to become agents of change and risk takers because of its competitive, time-pressured, and
interscholastic nature. Because debate is competitive, it can be terrifying. Students must engage in a public speaking
event, then face the challenges of their opponent, and then immediately receive evaluation by a judge.
Students who can face and overcome those challenges and those fears are seldom afraid of public dialogue in any
other context, be it a political rally, city board meeting, electoral campaign, legal proceeding, or town hall meeting. The time
pressured nature of the activity adds another element of challenge which , when mastered, makes other public
discourse seem mundane by comparison. Finally, the interscholastic nature of debate makes students comfortable
in dialogues with others of different backgrounds. Although there is no single, easy solution to the problem of confronting
an institution controlled by someone that “we do not know and whose values we often do not share,” debate at least gives students the
experience of competing against someone from a different socioeconomic level.
Presumed Consent
Presumed Consent Preserves Altruism and Is Ethically Accepted in the Medical
Community
Strumwasser 3/23
STU STRUMWASSER, 3/23/14, “The tragedy of American organ donations: So many more people could
be saved,”
http://www.salon.com/2014/03/23/the_tragedy_of_american_organ_donations_so_many_more_peopl
e_could_be_saved/, web.
Renowned bioethicist Arthur Caplan of the Hastings Center states, Spain, Italy, Austria, Belgium,
and some other European countries have enacted laws that create presumed consent,
or what I prefer to call ‘default to donation.’ In such a system, the presumption is that you want to be an
organ donor upon your death— the default to donation. People who don’t want to be organ
donors have to say so by registering this wish on a computer, carrying a card, or telling
their loved ones. With default to donation, no one’s rights are taken away —
voluntary altruism remains the moral foundation for making organs available, and,
therefore, procuring organs is consistent with medical ethics. Anyone with a religious,
ethical, philosophical — or even a random and unexplained — objection to being a
donor need do nothing more than fill out a brief form in order to opt out. “Based on the
European experience,” Caplan explains, “there is a good chance America could get a significant jump in
the supply of organs by shifting to a default-to-donation policy. Donation rates in European countries
with presumed consent are about 25% higher than in other European nations.”
(analysis on why it is better than legal markets)
Presumed Consent effective in lowering Organ Shortage
Strumwasser 3/23
STU STRUMWASSER, 3/23/14, “The tragedy of American organ donations: So many more people could
be saved,”
http://www.salon.com/2014/03/23/the_tragedy_of_american_organ_donations_so_many_more_peopl
e_could_be_saved/, web.
Presumed consent could raise the participation rate from the current 45 percent to as
much as 97 percent — almost exactly equivalent to the 95 percent of respondents in a
2005 Gallup poll who said they approved of organ donation. The policy would
drastically reduce the complexity and expense of ongoing efforts for registration,
creating awareness, and operational support of current registries.An opt-out system
would also improve the rate of family consent — discussed earlier — which is a critical factor in
addressing the organ shortage. According to a 2005 study from scientists at Harvard
and the University of Chicago, “Countries with an environment of presumed consent
foster greater participation, and less objections, from the family members of potential
donors.”“Awareness” campaigns are simply not enough, and signing up more donors to state registries, or to a national registry, will have only modest and
incremental effects. Most states now have driver’s license registries, and about 45 percent of adult Americans have signed up — yet the waiting lists grow daily.
Andrew Cameron, MD, PhD, of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, recently inspired Facebook to launch a new feature that “let users
change their profile status to indicate ‘organ donor.’” (Cameron had been roommates with Sheryl Sandberg, COO of Facebook, at Harvard.) The program led to a
huge short-term spike in online registrations, but the results did not last, and it did not put a dent in the waiting lists. Cameron and Sandberg are to be applauded,
but they need help from Congress.As Cameron told Slate last year, “The shortage of donated organs… is not a medical problem but a
social problem.” However, for new government initiatives or programs like Facebook’s to be successful and drive the overall participation rate in organ donation
registries significantly higher would require massive and sustained educational and logistical operations. Ongoing effectiveness would require long-term
Even a 25 percent or 50 percent
improvement in participation would still pale compared to what we’d get with
presumed consent. In countries where the onus is on citizens to opt out, only about 3
percent ever bother to do so — meaning 97 percent are donors.
commitments, resources and a great deal of money — and it would still make little difference.
Case
They never read anything about how the law is good – we will defend that the best way to distance
yourself from your “organs” is through the legal system – the negative does that through CPS is
better.
Their discussion can still be fit under the CPs which actually can solve their “impacts”
Plan is better- criticism remains at the limited level of tactics, while the broad scale
action of the plan acts at a greater level of magnitude
Francis Raven book review of Post-Modern Prince in Kritikos ’5
http://mailer.fsu.edu/~nr03/garnetnr03/Kritikos%20review%20of%20The%20Postmodern%20Prince%20by%20John%20Sanbonmatsu.htm
For the simple reason that the left is not unified and thus cannot unify the rest of the country around
its “values,” all progressives must ask the question at the heart of John Sanbonmatsu’s The Postmodern Prince: “Can the now-dispersed forces of
emancipation, having been forced by history to abandon the ‘skin’ of socialism and the International, and the Party, discover or invent a new form?” Can the left come together so that we might eventually run the world or are we
forever doomed to small wins in diverse movements that never add up? The first half of the book charts the failures and collusions of the
left. Sanbonmatsu demonstrates how the New Left’s (the leftists who came of age in the 1960’s and were radicalized by social injustices, the civil rights movement, and the war in Vietnam) valuation of expression over strategy
Babel, where we no
longer have the ability to talk to each other. It is in this Babel that progressives now live and must
break free. First, Sanbonmatsu shows how the New Left valued expression over strategy. That is, it was more important to express that you were on the right side of the
argument than to show how you were going to win that argument. Second, he shows how the critical theory popularized in the 1960’s (think Derrida) led away from strategy by
marginalizing the subject and leaving her stranded as a “site of discourse.” Third, the market
exacerbated these two trends. Expressivism “left capitalism unbound by smashing bourgeois cultural norms that had previously placed subjective limits on consumerism.” If
(this is sometime called ‘expressivism’), critical theory, and collusions with capitalism dismantled the Marxist’s dream of historical construction and brought us ever closer to
a person expresses what he is and there is no connection between what he is and his political actions then there is no reason why the market can’t tell him what his political actions should be. When this is coupled with the
rationalization of the university, the effects on leftist strategy are truly devastating: knowledge is aestheticized. Critical theory books proliferate, each with an original style (aesthetic) but without anything original to say. The use
value of knowledge is denigrated in favor of its exchange value.
The market comes to rule all and rules only through fragmentation of
leftist political unity. Sanbonmatsu’s critical project makes the reader salivate for his positive project and in the second half of The Postmodern Prince he delivers it. His basic division is between Michel
Foucault, “the archaeologist” and Antonio Gramsci, “the Prince.” Gramsci is the leftist Prince of strategy and hegemony, whereas Foucault is an archeologist searching in discourses for differences. As a result of Sanbonmatsu’s
progressive agenda, he picks Gramsci as a model of how we should move forward. The author is careful to note the extent to which Gramsci’s theoretical structure could lead to totalitarianism such as was seen in the former Soviet
Union. To hedge these tendencies, Sanbonmatsu uses the positive aspects of postmodernism and shows how Gramsci was aware of some of these more negative possibilities. But at the end of the book it is unclear if coming
together in the name of a cause really would just end up in a morass of totalitarian politics. Gramsci formulated the ‘Modern Prince’ who was supposed to formulate people’s political will and was in obvious response to
Machiavelli’s Prince. Oddly however, instead of being one person, the Modern Prince was actually a collective, such as a political party or a social movement. Sanbonmatsu refreshes the notion of the Prince once more in his
formulation of the ‘Postmodern Prince,’ which he defines as “a unified movement in which many diverse movements come together to form the nucleus of a new civilizational order.” Basically, he has added a diversity criterion to
the diverse movements of the left must be meaningfully brought together because our
opponents thrive on our diversity. “In its coming-to-form as a unified subject, the postmodern prince would illuminate the many-sided nature of power and domination-capitalism, patriarchy,
racism, and other distorting institutions-and also prefigure the society just to come.” We must come together in the name of a “new normality” with
a new perspective and a new unity. This new unity would be dynamic, dialectic, in constant motion, and would not be merely humanist.
the Prince. The author argues that
Sanbonmatsu’s model for the Postmodern Prince is Octavio Ocampo’s portrait of Cesar Chavez, which portrays Chavez as composed of all the individuals in his labor movement. For Sanbonmatsu, this portrait gathers the strands
of his Postmodern Prince. First, the unity of the Postmodern Prince is based upon the experience of the individuals involved like the workers’ experiences in the struggle culture of the United Farm Workers. Second, the portrait
represents “unity in diversity only within a single movement” that we might extend metonymically “to stand in as a figure for the unity of multiple movements in a common utopian project.” That is to say, there can be no
. The differences within the unified
movement cause the Postmodern Prince to move with empathy toward an ethic where no oppression
is privileged. When (and if) this occurred all subjugations would be seen as interlocking power
struggles, which must be battled not with the mere spectacle of a protest, but with a full-on
perceptual change both of participants and the world at large. The difference between the Postmodern Prince and Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri’s
Postmodern Prince absent (1) the experiences of the people gathered by it and (2) a common and perhaps utopian vision of the future
conception of the “multitude” is that for Hardt and Negri our differences come before our ability to act in common. The multitude is thus an inversion of the Postmodern Prince, an inversion that Sanbonmatsu believes has the
effect of undermining the formation of our political will as it focuses its energy not on political goals but on differences of identity and culture. In the end, it's not really clear how the Postmodern Prince is supposed to arise, but
perhaps that is where there is new work to be done.
1NR
A2 Perm – Sequencing DA
Sequencing—risk means err neg
Etzioni 3 [Amitai Etzioni (Professor of International Affairs—GWU; Director—Institute for
Communitarian Policy Studies; Founder and Director—The Communitarian Network); “Organ Donation:
A Communitarian Approach”; 2003; http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/Organ_Donation.pdf]
This approach has been criticized on the grounds that any
such moves will lead toward an organ market and commodify
one more social relation. For many people, an organ market offends their religious and personal beliefs in the sanctity
of the body. Many claim that financial incentives for organ donation would change an act of altruism into an act of
commerce.16 Others have expressed concern that a commodification approach could backfire, and turn people off to
the act of organ donation. Given the various concerns about “market-based” approaches to organ donation,
we should first try an approach that does not involve commodification of organs, and hence does not risk the
public costs commodification entails. We thus concede that if non-commercial approaches continue to fail, in
order to save lives and reap the other benefits of increased donation rates, some form of financial incentives
might be justified. However, before such steps are taken – whose cultural and moral effects will be very
difficult to reverse– we urge that a communitarian approach be accorded a full test.
Locating political struggle within particular struggles masks capitalism’s universal
nature—people can’t draw the lines between different forms of oppression
Zizek, professor of philosophy and psychoanalysis at the European Graduate School, 2001
[Slavoj, Did Somebody Say Totalitarianism?, pg. 1-4]
On the ‘Celestial Seasonings’ green tea packet there is a short explanation of its benefits: ‘Green tea is
a natural source of antioxidants, which neutralize harmful molecules in the body known as free radicals.
By taming free radicals antioxidants help the body maintain its natural good health.’ Mutatis mutandis, is not
the notion of totalitarianism one of the main ideological antioxidants, whose function throughout its carrer was to tame free radicals, and thus
to help the social body to maintain its politico-ideological good health? No less than social life itself,
today’s self-professed
‘radical’academia is permeated by unwritten rules and prohibitions—although such rules are never explicitly stated,
disobedience can have dire consequences. One of these unwritten rules concerns the unquestioned
ubiquity of the need to ‘contextualize’ or ‘situate’one’s position: the easiest way to score points
automatically in a debate is to claim that the opponent’s position is not properly ‘situated’ in a
historical context: ‘You talk about women—which women? There is no woman as such, so does not your generalized talk about women,
in its apparent all-encompassing neutrality, privilege certain specific figures of feminity and preclude others?’Why is such radical historicizing
false, despite the obvious moment of truth it contains? Because
today’s (late capitalist global market) social reality
itself is dominated by what Marx referred to as the power of ‘real abstraction’: the circulation of Capital is the
force of radical ‘deterritorialization’ (to use Deleuze’s term) which, in its very functioning, actively ignores
specific conditions and cannot be ‘rooted’ in them. It is no longer, as in the standard ideology, the universality
that occludes the twist of its partiality, of its privileging a particular content; rather, it is the very
attempt to locate particular roots that ideologically occludes the social reality of the reign of ‘real
abstraction’.
Trade off -- Aff understates importance of capital and focuses attention on struggles
that prop up the status quo
Smith ‘94
(Sharon, columnist for Socialist Worker and author of Women’s Liberation and Socialism,
Mistaken Identity: or Can Identity Politics Liberate the Oppressed,
http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj62/smith.htm)
Within the politics of identity notions
of radicalism and class politics more often than not are mutually exclusive. In practice this has meant
replacing class politics with a politics of cross class alliances, and a strategy based upon 'direct action'
tactics – attention getting actions carried out by the enlightened few, the aim being to shock and disturb the ignorant masses. In the US the
Following this logic, the struggles against exploitation and oppression do not correspond.
very names of some organizations reflect this aim – Queer Nation, the Lesbian Avengers, YELL, and Random Pissed Off Women. Some of these
groups, along with more conventionally named organizations, such as the Women's Action Coalition (WAC), use a variety of direct action
tactics. Often these actions resemble guerilla theatre more than anything else. Queer Nation, for example, has been known for its lesbian and
gay 'kiss-ins', while WAC members sometimes remove their shirts as a way of getting attention. Sometimes these
actions can seem
quite radical – even a bit over the top. For example, as one of its first activities New York WAC protested at the opening of the new
Guggenheim museum because of its 'racism, sexism, classism, ageism, Eurocentrism, nepotism, elitism, phallocentrism, and homophobia'.
2
But beneath a bold veneer the program is often standard liberalism. Thus at a Chicago WAC meeting in
the autumn of 1992 members vowed defiantly to fight for 'patriarchal demolition', yet most adopted tacit
support for the Democratic presidential candidate, Bill Clinton. Within these milieux it is currently in vogue to
dismiss any attempt to draw a causal connection between economics and politics, or between class society
and oppression, as mechanical economic determinism, or 'reductionism'. And although undoubtedly many, if not most, of those active around
is heavily influenced by the particular offshoot of
postmodernism3 calling itself 'post-Marxism', for which the explicit rejection of the centrality of class
is something of an obsession.
identity politics are unaware of its theoretical underpinnings, it
ALT
Totalizing Rejection is necessary – creates fissures within capitalist ideology that makes
emancipation possible – the ballots endorsement is key
Holloway 5 (John, 8-16, Ph.D Political Science-University of Edinburgh , “Can We Change The World Without Taking Power?”,
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/5616)
On the question of fissures. We often feel
helpless because capitalism weighs so heavily on us. But when we say
No we start off with an appreciation of our own strength. When we rebel we are in fact tearing a little
hole in capitalism. It is very contradictory. By rebelling we are already saying no to the command of capital. We are creating
temporary spaces. Within that crack, that fissure, it is important that we fight for other social relations
that don't point towards the state, but that they point towards the sort of society we want to create. At the core of these
fissures is the drive to self-determination. And then it is a question of working out what does this mean, and how to be organised for selfdetermination. It means being against and beyond the society that exists. Of expanding the fissures, how to push these fissures forward
structurally. The people who say we should take control of the state are also talking about cracks. There is no choice but to start with
interstices. The question is how we think of them, because the state is not the whole world. There are 200 states. If you seize control of one, it
is still only a crack in capitalism. It
is a question of how we think about those cracks, those fissures. And if we
start off from ourselves, why on earth should we adopt capitalist, bourgeois forms for developing our
struggle? Why should we accept the template of the concept of the state?
VTL
That sale devalues all life – it depersonalizes the body as property to be sold making
life a consumer good
The Affs ballot is to give up their organs to sell them as a way to distance themselves from the organs
that have done harm to them – this is still a form of commodification The ballot is a receipt is a form of
commodification
MARTIN 11 PhD in Applied Philosophy & Public Ethics @ U of Melbourne [Dominque Elizabeth Martin,
Beyond the Market: A new approach to the ethical procurement of human biological materials, Centre
for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, PhD Dissertation, https://minervaaccess.unimelb.edu.au/bitstream/handle/11343/35994/269178_Dominique%20Martin%20Thesis.pdf?s
equence=1]
Commodification of HBM, by obscuring the personal value of the body, contributes to its
dehumanization. Dickenson argues that the commodification of HBM ignores the inherent “strangeness” of the
body – its unique value or nature:¶ The body both is, and is not, the person. But it should never be only a
consumer good, an obscure object of material desire, a capital investment, a transferable resource: merely a
thing. Our consciousness, dignity, ngeia and human essence are all embodied, caught up in our frail
human bodies. The body is indeed like nothing on earth: not no one’s thing, but no thing at all. (2008, 168)¶ Subtracting the historical
narrative of HBM providers leaves behind only objects of therapeutic or commercial value. Sharp (2001) and others (e.g. Scheper-Hughes 2002;
Barilan 2005, 201) have warned of the dangers of such fetishization or commodification of the body in medical practice. Denaturing, as it
were, the deceased organ provider, helps to facilitate the work of medical professionals who might otherwise
struggle with the emotional impact of their tasks (Sharp 2001, 123), but it may also obscure important facts about donor populations. Gender,
age, socioeconomic or ethnic bias in risk factors for accidents that contribute to the availability of deceased providers, for example, may be
disguised when only the organs and their recipients are noted. For example, in Saudi Arabia approximately 30% of the population are non-Saudi
citizens and this group represents 54.1% of potential deceased providers (SCOT 2009, 54), likely due to a higher proportion of foreign workers
engaged in high risk employment activities such as driving and manual labour. However the number of non-Saudi citizens receiving transplants
is unknown, as well as the exact number of actual organ providers who are non-Saudis. Although 16.5% of haemodialysis patients in the
Kingdom are non-Saudis (ibid., 37), some of these may be fee paying foreign patients rather than resident workers.¶ Despite the
depersonalization of organs in even non-commercial transplantation programs, Sharp notes that,
“Donor kin … in contrast to professionals… persistently view donors’ bodies not as objects, things, or
commodities, but as lost loved ones” (2001, 123). Sharp (Ibid., 125) describes the efforts that kin may make to preserve personal
connections with the deceased, including tracing transplant recipients and creating public memorialization projects. Similarly, living providers of
biological material, particularly gamete providers, may feel a need to preserve connections by maintaining contact with recipients of the
materials or by receiving reports on their progress (Kalfoglou and Gittelsohn 2000, 803; Kenney and McGowan 2010, 464-5).¶ Where primary
commodification or voluntary secondary commodification of HBM occurs, in which materials are sold by the provider, personal values may
remain, but practices
that maintain or reinforce such value may be discouraged or disabled. By engaging in a
contract to sell, vendors typically sever the legal and social rights which personal value in biological
materials normally accord them. To sell something of personal value is usually to surrender it
completely. In the case of involuntary secondary commodification, those for whom the HBM sold has personal value may see
commodification as disrespectful of that value, or as a violation of the personal interest the provider had in determining the treatment of her
own material. Where involuntary procurement is involved, the violation of bodily integrity will be compounded by the commodification of the
stolen material.
Capitalism co-opts their movement and makes any democratic project impossible by
crushing dissent.
Giroux ’05 (Henry, Global TV Network Chair at McMaster University, “The Terror of Neoliberalism:
Rethinking the Significance of Cultural Politics,” College Literature, Volume 32, Issue 1, pg. 1-19)
Within the discourse of neoliberalism, democracy becomes synonymous with free markets, while issues
of equality, racial justice, and freedom are stripped of any substantive meaning and used to disparage those who
suffer systemic deprivation and chronic punishment. Individual misfortune, like democracy itself, is now viewed as either
excessive or in need of radical containment. The media, largely consolidated through corporate power, routinely provide a
platform for high profile right-wing pundits and politicians to remind us either of how degenerate the poor have become or to reinforce the
central neoliberal tenet that all problems are private rather than social in nature. Conservative columnist Ann Coulter captures the latter
sentiment with her comment that “[i]nstead of poor people with hope and possibility, we now have a permanent underclass of aspiring
criminals knifing one another between having illegitimate children and collecting welfare checks” (qtd. in Bean 2003, para.3). Radio talk show
host Michael Savage, too, exemplifies the unabashed racism and fanaticism that emerge under a neoliberal regime in which ethics and justice
appear beside the point. For instance, Savage routinely refers to non-white countries as “turd world nations,” homosexuality as a “perversion”
and young children who are victims of gunfire as “ghetto slime” (qtd. in Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting 2003, para.2, 6, 5). As Fredric
Jameson has argued in The Seeds of Time, it
has now become easier to imagine the end of the world than the end
of capitalism (1994, xii). The breathless rhetoric of the global victory of free-market rationality spewed forth by
the mass media, right-wing intellectuals, and governments alike has found its material expression both in an all-out attack
on democratic values and in the growth of a range of social problems including: virulent and persistent poverty,
joblessness, inadequate health care, apartheid in the inner cities, and increasing inequalities between the rich and the poor. Such
problems appear to have been either removed from the inventory of public discourse and social policy or
factored into talk-show spectacles in which the public becomes merely a staging area for venting private interests
and emotions. Within the discourse of neoliberalism that has taken hold of the public imagination, there is no way of talking about
what is fundamental to civic life, critical citizenship, and a substantive democracy. Neoliberalism offers
no critical vocabulary for speaking about political or social transformation as a democratic project. Nor is
there a language for either the ideal of public commitment or the notion of a social agency capable of challenging the basic assumptions of
corporate ideology as well as its social consequences. In
its dubious appeals to universal laws, neutrality, and selective
scientific research, neoliberalism “eliminates the very possibility of critical thinking, without which democratic
debate becomes impossible” (Buck-Morss 2003, 65-66).This shift in rhetoric makes it possible for advocates of neoliberalism to implement the
most ruthless economic and political policies without having to open up such actions to public debate and dialogue. Hence, neoliberal policies
that promote the cutthroat downsizing of the workforce, the bleeding of social services, the reduction of state governments to police precincts,
the ongoing liquidation of job security, the increasing elimination of a decent social wage, the creation of a society of low-skilled workers, and
the emergence of a culture of permanent insecurity and fear hide behind appeals to common sense and allegedly immutable laws of nature.
AN2 Aff exposes historical materialism of cap in relation to organs
“to be a hard working Asian”
AN2 Resistance can’t happen