Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

Neoliberalism Frontlines paperless

VIEWS: 10 PAGES: 10

									SDI 11
File Title



             Neoliberalism Neg
SDI 11
File Title




                                                    No impact
Neoliberalism is not the root cause of war
Roberts and Sparke, geography professors, 2003
(Antipode Vol. 35 Issue 5)
As we said at the start, we do not want to claim too much for neolib- eralism. It cannot explain everything ,
least of all the diverse brutalities of what happened in Iraq. Moreover, in connecting neoliberal norms
to the vagaries of geopolitics, we risk corrupting the analytical purchase of neoliberalism on more
clearly socioeconomic developments. By the same token, we also risk obscuring the emergence of certain nonmilitarist
geoeconomic visions of global and local space that have gone hand in hand with neoliberal globalization (see Sparke 1998, 2002;
Sparke and Lawson 2003). But insofar as the specific vision of neoliberal geopolitics brought many neoliberals to support the war
(including, perhaps, Britain‘s Tony Blair as well as Americans such as Friedman), insofar as it helped thereby also to facilitate the
planning and overarching coordination of the violence, and insofar as the war showed how the extension of neoliberal practices on a
global scale has come to depend on violent interventions by the US, it seems vital to reflect on the interarticulations.



Neoliberalism‘s worst excesses are past- its been roundly rejected- no need
for more critique
McCarthy 2004, geography professor at Penn State, p. Science Direct
(James, Geoforum 35.3)
Neoliberalism is the most powerful ideological and political project in global governance to arise in the wake of Keynesianism, a
status conveyed by triumphalist phrases such as ―the Washington consensus‖ and the ―end of history‖ (Laclau and Mouffe, 1985;
Jessop, 1994; Harvey, 2000; Peck, 2001). Yet the neoliberal project is not hegemonic: it has been roundly
criticized and attacked, and it has faltered in a number of respects. In fact, the most nakedly extreme
forms of neoliberal state rollbacks and market triumphalism may well be past, beaten back in places
by virulent resistance (a surprise to those who believed history was at an end); undermined by the spectacular
failures of neoliberal reforms judged even by the standards of neoliberal champions (as in Argentina, for example); and
replaced by ―kinder, gentler,‖ Third Way variants (Peck and Tickell, 2002).



No Impact they cant prove when we go into this ―epiphenomenal trace of an
ontologically functioning market‖

And, there will never be impact because any of the resource that are in space
can be taken by other countries that will still force private companies to
compete and wont allow the private companies to monopolize space
SDI 11
File Title




                                        No solvency
1. No solvency- space isn‘t the only instance were neoliberalism can arise

2. Can‘t solve for Satellites
Warf 2007 (Barney, Professor of Geography at Florida St., ―GEOPOLITICS OF THE SATELLITE
INDUSTRY‖ ijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 98.3,
http://www2.ku.edu/~geography/Docs/Barney%20papers/satellite%20geopolitics.pdf)
Satellites reflect, and in turn feed back into, ter- restrial politics in many ways. Born of Cold War
rivalry, satellites played a key role in the milita- risation of space. Although the military‘s role in the
satellite industry has declined, it continues to remain an important segment distinct from civilian
applications. In civilian markets, satel- lites play a key role as communication devices in international
transmissions of voice, video and data traffic, all of which reflect the growth of information societies
around the world and their steady integration through the global market. Castells‘ (1996) well-known
‗space of flows‘ would be impossible without the skein of earth stations and orbital platforms that lie
at the heart of this industry. The geography of large international earth stations reflects the schism
between the developed and underdeveloped worlds, and, to a lesser extent, the legacy of the Cold
War. Hence, while satellites float thousands of kilometres overhead, the determinants of access and use are
firmly grounded in terrestrial politics.


3. Empirically denied- We have had this neoliberalized state for a while and
we aren‘t devaluating life
Focusing on material dispossession key- the plan is a key means of
rearticulating Marxist categories like class and making them matter- the plan
may critique, but this does not generate movement towards further action
Colm McNoughton 08 Capital & Class, "A critique of John Holloway's Change
the world without taking Power," Summer, academic search premier
When Holloway contends that 'there is nothing fixed to which we can cling to for reassurance: not class,
not Marx, not revolution, nothing but the moving negation of untruth' (Holloway, 2002: 99), he is
demonstrating his own inability to move beyond an abstract negation of Marxism. While this position
is fairly popular in the current context, it is of limited value since it can only know what it is against,
and has immense difficulty in articulating what it is fighting for. This is not to reject the value of
deconstruction, but rather to recognise it as part of a greater process. I would agree with Holloway
that we should not cling to abstract categories; but this proposition does not entail the rejection of a
commitment to the processes that the notions 'class', 'labour' and 'revolution' represent in the real
world. Such a commitment necessitates a commitment neither to certainty nor to uncertainty, but rather an
appreciation of the dialectical relationship of this opposition. This is why postmodern forms of Marxism
are worth considering, for whether they are conscious of the process or not, they are attempts to bring
Marxism together with its deconstructive negation and move beyond either/or thinking. Herein lies the
move back to Hegel and the possibilities for the theorisation of alliance politics, which takes both class
and difference seriously.
SDI 11
File Title

4. Neoliberalism is uncontrollable and cannot be stopped despite the plan.
The plan also doesn‘t solve for the economic growth that goes along with
neoliberalism.
McGregor, Doull, and Fisk 04(Dr. McGregor is Coordinator of the Peace and Conflict Studies Program for the Department of
Education at Mount Saint Vincent University. Dr. Doull is Associate Professor, Biology Department, Mount Saint Vincent University
Dr. Fisk is Professor Emeritus, Mount Saint Vincent University, ―Neoliberalism, Microbes, and Peace: A Human Ecological
Perspective‖ 5/11/04 http://www.kon.org/archives/forum/14-1/mcgregor.html DA 7/26/11)
Neoliberalism is a phenomenon of the rich, western nations (Treanor, 2003) that has had overwhelmingly
negative consequences for both western nations and the poor regions of the world. The process of
globalization driven by neoliberalism entails: (a) eliminating commercial trade barriers and borders, (b)
establishing an infrastructure for universal telecommunications, (b) fostering the information super
highways, (d) the omnipresence of the financial centres, and (e) the ratification of international
agreements of economic unity (Marcos, 1997). The globalization of the neoliberalism ideology is
pervasive and all encompassing; it is the ruling order of the entire world. The global financial system
and the transnational corporations (TNCs) are the motivating power of neoliberalism (Lauesen,
1996), and their phenomenal, almost inconceivable, power in the marketplace is made more
alarming by the basic assumptions of the ideology they embrace . De Angelis (1996) claims that this
neoliberal power moves around the world with no one controlling it, in the form of capital in excess
of thousands of billions of US dollars each day! Indeed, Lauesen describes neoliberalism as the common
enemy of global citizens. "The theoretical assumption of neoliberalism is that the free functioning of
the market forces leads to a better utilization and allocation of resources, guarantees a better
satisfaction of the requirements of consumption and bigger balance of the foreign trade, and
altogether produces higher economic growth and therefore development" (Strum, 1998, p.1). Anyone
embracing neoliberalism takes sides with the principles of the market economy. The only minimalist role
of the state is to make sure the rules of the market economy are followed and to make sure the market
can function efficiently. There is no concern for the connections and dependencies between social equity,
participative democracy, sustainability, and economic growth.



5. Neoliberalism irreversible – Obama believes so as well
Open Left 10(―Great Comment on Neoliberalism‖ 9/4/10 http://www.openleft.com/diary/20040/great-comment-on-
neoliberalism DA 7/26/11)
When Barack Obama made his famous remarks about Ronald Reagan being transformational, it was
misinterpreted as being political, an attempt to reach out to the other side. It actually was, as some feared,
philosophical. It really did mean, sincerely, that except around the edges, he thought that
Reaganism-Thatcherism was irreversible. Just as Bill Clinton does, just as Tony Blair does.
SDI 11
File Title



                                                     Neolib good
Neoliberalism checks war and boosts democracy
Griswold 06 (Daniel, director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute. ―Peace
on earth? Try free trade among men.‖ http://www.freetrade.org/node/282. July 24, 2011.)

First, trade and globalization have reinforced the trend toward democracy, and democracies don't pick fights
with each other. Freedom to trade nurtures democracy by expanding the middle class in globalizing
countries and equipping people with tools of communication such as cell phones, satellite TV, and the Internet.
With trade comes more travel, more contact with people in other countries, and more exposure to new ideas.
Thanks in part to globalization, almost two thirds of the world's countries today are democracies -- a
record high. Second, as national economies become more integrated with each other, those nations have more to lose should
war break out. War in a globalized world not only means human casualties and bigger government,
but also ruptured trade and investment ties that impose lasting damage on the economy. In short,
globalization has dramatically raised the economic cost of war. Third, globalization allows nations to
acquire wealth through production and trade rather than conquest of territory and resources

Neoliberalism solves environmental collapse.
Christmann and Taylor 01 American businessman and the head of a privately held multinational company,
Professor Christmann specializes in research of the global economy (Petra and Glen, Globalization and the environment: Determinants
of firm self-regulation in China. Journal of International business studies, 32(3), 439-458, ABI/INFORM)
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=277452]

In contrast, globalization       proponents contend that lower barriers to trade and foreign
investment encourage firms to transfer environmental technologies and managemement
systems from countries with stricter environmental standards to developing countries,
which lack access to environmental technologies and capabilities (Drezner, 2000).
Governmental failure to protect the environment, it is suggested in this line of argument, might also be
ameliorated through self-regulation of environmental performance by firms in developing
countries. Self-regulation refers to a firm‘s adoption of environmental performance standards or environmental management
systems (EMS) beyond the requirements of governmental regulations. Globalization can
increase self-regulation pressures in several ways. First, globalization increases MNEs‘
investment in developing countries where their subsidiaries can be expected to self-
regulate their environmental performance more than domestic firms do. MNEs can transfer the more
advanced environmental technologies and management systems developed in response to more
stringent regulations in developed countries to their subsidiaries. MNEs also face pressures from interest groups to
improve their worldwide environmental performance. Second, globalization might contribute to
environmental performance as a supplier-selection criterion, which also pressures domestic firms in developing
countries to self-regulate environmental performance…Globalization does not necessarily
have negative effects on the environment in developing countries to the extend suggested by the
pollution-haven and industrial-flight hypotheses. Our study suggests that globalization increases institutional and
consumer pressures on firms to surpass local requirements, even when they may be tempted by lax
regulations and enforcement in countries offering themselves as pollution havens (Hoffman, 1999; Rugman and Verbeke, 1998).



Neoliberalism ends global poverty.
Bandow 01 (Doug, senior fellow at the CATO Institute, ―Globalization Serves the World's Poor‖,
http://www.cato.org/dailys/04-25-01.html.March 25.July 24, 2011.)
SDI 11
File Title

                                                                            factories pay low wages in Third World
Indeed, the problems of globalization must always be "compared to what?" Yes,
countries. But workers in them have neither the education nor the skills to be paid at First World
levels. Their alternative is not a Western university education or Silicon Valley computer job, but an even lower-paying
job with a local firm or unemployment. The choice is clear : according to Edward Graham of the Institute of
International Economics, in poor countries, American multinationals pay foreign citizens an average of 8.5
times the per capita GDP. Overall, the process of globalization has been good for the poor. During the
1980s, advanced industrialized countries grew faster than developing states. In the 1990s, as globalization accelerated, poor nations
grew at 3.6 percent annually, twice that of their richer neighbors. Despite the illusion of left-wing activists that money falls from the
sky, poverty has been the normal condition of humankind throughout most of history . As even Marx
acknowledged, capitalism is what eliminated the overwhelming poverty of the pre- industrial world.
That remains the case today. Resource endowment, population level and density, foreign aid transfers, past colonial status none of
these correlate with economic wealth. Only economic openness does. The latest volume of the Economic Freedom in the World
Report, published by the Cato Institute and think tanks in 50 other countries, finds that economic liberty strongly correlates with
economic achievement. Policies that open economies strongly correlate with economic growth. By pulling countries into the
international marketplace, globalization encourages market reforms. With them comes increased
wealth.
SDI 11
File Title



                                           Ext. Imperialism Link

Extend 1NC Lele ‘10 – any restart of US attempts at human spaceflight are
just a means to start a new space race and win it.

Space is a zone for the extension of military-neoliberal hegemony – leads to
militarism and global elitism
MacDonald Lecturer in Human Geography at U of Melbourne 2007 Fraser Progress in Human
Geography http://www.landfood.unimelb.edu.au/rmg/geography/papers/anti-outerspace.pdf
Among the technical and logistical advances in space technology too numerous to detail here, there are two tendencies that stand out.
Firstly, space – and in particular the Lower Earth Orbit (LEO) – can no longer be considered remote. The journey through the Earth‘s
atmosphere is now made on an almost weekly basis. Such is the steady passage of space vehicles that there is now a growing
literature on traffic management (Johnson, 2004; Lála, 2004). The costs of entering space are now so low that students at Cambridge
University have tested an ‗amateur‘ rocket that they hope can be readily launched to the edge of space (up to 32 km altitude) for
under £1000 (Sample, 2006). Secondly, space is becoming ordinary. Space-based technology is routinely reconfiguring
our experience of home, work, education and healthcare through applications in the transport, telecommunications, agricultural
and energy sectors (Rumsfeld Commission, 2001). Our everyday lives already extend to the outer-Earth in ways that
we entirely take for granted. America‘s Global Positioning System (GPS), for instance, has become essential to the regular
functioning of a variety of machines from bank tellers to super-tankers. The space-based science of weatherforecasting is
now integrated into the day-to-day management of domestic and national affairs. Satellite-based
telecommunications, particularly international and cellular telephony, are a mundane part of everyday life in the West (see Warf,
2006). More obvious, perhaps, are the technical advances in space-enabled warfare that have inspired recent
American military operations in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq (Gray, 2005; Graham, 2004). Following in the
vapour-trails of the United States, Europe, Russia and China are also trying to extend their sovereignty into outer space. As I will go
on to discuss, terrestrial geopolitics are increasingly being determined by extra-terrestrial strategic
considerations. More abstractly, I want to argue that through space exploration, we are forging new subjectivities
and new forms of sociality here on earth (Stern, 2000; Shaw 2004). Space is a modality for hyper-mobile
information which, in combination with advanced technologies of ‗software-sorting‘ (Graham, 2005), has
enabled a wider ‗automatic production of space‘ (Thrift and French, 2002; see also Dodge and Kitchin, 2005). Above all, I
will make the case that outer space is the next frontier for military–neoliberal hegemony, as an earlier conception of
space as common property, enshrined in the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty (OST), becomes subject to re-negotiation. In place of the
OST is the prospect of a new space regime, as transformative in its own way as the Bretton Woods consensus, that would
oversee the privatisation of space resources in the narrow interests of a global elite. Moreover, it is this conquest of space, I
will argue, that underwrites much of the dynamic technological shaping and re-shaping of Earthly environments recently discussed by
Nigel Thrift (Thrift 2005).
SDI 11
File Title



                            Ext. Imperialism Internal Link

Extend 1NC MacDonald ‘07 – these attempts at a new space race are just
methods for expanding American imperialism into a new domain. It is a
continuation of the geopolitics that characterizes Earth into space.

Space leadership is key to overall heg- key to perception of dominance
AP 7/12/2011 (Published in the Detroit News,
http://detnews.com/article/20110712/NATION/107120345/China-surges-to-final-frontier#ixzz1Rv3tjOOD)
This year, a rocket will carry a boxcar-size module into orbit, the first building block for a Chinese
space station. Around 2013, China plans to launch a lunar probe that will set a rover loose on the
moon. It wants to put a man on the moon sometime after 2020. While the United States is still working
out its next move after the space shuttle program, China is forging ahead. Some experts worry the
U.S. could slip behind China in human spaceflight — the realm of space science with the most
prestige. "Space leadership is highly symbolic of national capabilities and international influence, and
a decline in space leadership will be seen as symbolic of a relative decline in U.S. power and
influence," said Scott Pace, an associate NASA administrator in the George W. Bush administration.
He was a supporter of Bush's plan — shelved by President Barack Obama — to return Americans to the
moon. China is still far behind the U.S. in space technology and experience, but what it doesn't lack is a
plan or financial resources. While U.S. programs can fall victim to budgetary worries or a change of
government, rapidly growing China appears to have no such constraints. "One of the biggest
advantages of their system is that they have five-year plans so they can develop well ahead," said Peter
Bond, consultant editor for Jane's Space Systems and Industry. "They are taking a step-by-step approach,
taking their time and gradually improving their capabilities. They are putting all the pieces together for a
very capable, advanced space industry." In 2003, China became the third country to send an astronaut into
space on its own, four decades after the United States and Russia. In 2006, it sent its first probe to the
moon. In 2008, China carried out its first spacewalk. China's space station is slated to open around 2020,
the same year the International Space Station is scheduled to close. If the U.S. and its partners don't
come up with a replacement, China could have the only permanent human presence in the sky. Its
space laboratory module, due to be launched later this year, will test docking techniques for the space
station. China's version will be smaller than the International Space Station, which is the size of a football
field and jointly operated by the U.S., Russia, Canada, Japan and 11 European countries. "China has lagged
20 to 40 years behind the U.S. in developing space programs and China has no intention of challenging
U.S. dominance in space," said He Qisong, a professor at Shanghai University of Political Science and
Law. "But it is a sign of the national spirit for China to develop a space program and therefore it is of great
significance for China."
SDI 11
File Title



                                Ext. Imperialism Impacts

Extend Mohanty ‘06 – US imperialism results in a slew of crimes being
reproduced to maintain the empire – racism, sexism, and violence – and the
only way to solve these harms is to reject US imperialism.

History proves – United States‘ imperialist policies have caused mass
destruction, genocide and unending conflicts
Levene 2000 (Mark, professor at the University at Warwick. ―Why Is the Twentieth Century the
Century of Genocide?‖ Journal of World History, Volume 11, Number 2, Fall 2000, pp. 305-336.
http://muse.jhu.edu.proxy1.cl. msu.edu/search/results?search_id=1428183994&action=reload. July 25,
2011.)

This notion that the targeted victim group are really the proxies, stooges, or agents of a much more
malevolent but dissembled or hidden power intent on denying the state its own, self-directed mission
towards unfettered independence and genuine integrity seemingly gravitates us back yet again toward an
explanation for genocide in the much murkier waters of psychological mindsets where the perpetrator sees
international conspiracies in everything. In the post-1945 world of Cold War–dominated international
politics, such accusations have flown thick and fast with devastating results. Tagging whole
populations as ―communist‖ in the Indonesia of 1965, East Timor a decade later, or the Guatemala of
the early 1980s provided state justification for genocide. But so too, in the Soviet Union, China, and
Cambodia, did diverse branding as ―cosmopolitan,‖ ―Soviet revisionist,‖ or ―stooge of US imperialism.‖ In
the most extreme of these examples, the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia, not only were specific ethnic
minority populations of Chinese, Vietnamese, and Muslim Chams particularly vulnerable to such charges,
but literally anyone who had the misfortune to have been living or seeking refuge in the US-backed
government zone around Phnom Penh when it fell to the Khmer Rouge in April 1975. The ensuing division
of society, into ―true‖ Khmer who would enjoy the fruits of the country‘s projected ―super great leap
forward‖ and ―new‖ people slated for perpetual hard labor and probable death, was founded on the
assumption that the latter, however fleetingly, were tainted by their association with western Levene:
imperialism. Even then, as the regime‘s closed utopian experiment ground to a halt and began
disintegrating under the weight of the impossible tasks it had set itself, the list of ―enemies‖ shifted and
expanded further still to embrace anyone that the regime deemed foreign or inauthentic. Here, however, we
come face to face with anxieties which go much deeper than any set in motion simply by Cold War
ideologies. The historic enemy perceived to have denied the Khmer their rightful greatness were the
neighboring Vietnamese. Communist Vietnam in 1978, of course, was supposed to be a fraternal ally. Yet
in that year the genocidal trajectory of the Khmer Rouge reached both its apogee and nemesis when
practically the whole population of its Eastern Zone were provided with blue scarves for their deportation
and then extermination on the collective indictment that their Khmer bodies were occupied by ―Vietnamese
minds.‖


US imperialism facilitates environmental destruction
Buell 1 (Frederick, professor of English at Queens College. ―Globalization without Environmental
Crisis:
The Divorce of Two Discourses in U.S. Culture‖, Pg 64. http://muse.jhu.edu.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/journals
/symploke/v009/9.1buell.html. July 25, 2011.)

The global biodiversity crisis is another multi-source crisis, created by a wide variety of local actors
acting as a part of an extended global system; but the damage these actors do is to local systems, not to the
biosphere as a whole. It becomes global in its accumulation not just of individual actions (primarily habitat
SDI 11
File Title

destruction), but localized effects. Many other new global problems resemble the biodiversity crisis in
being globalized through the bootstrapping of local actions and instances of local damage into a global
nightmare. Many of John Bellamy Foster's [End Page 62] long list of "urgent problems" are global today,
thanks to the spread of industrial systems and practices and the worldwide accumulation of small
impacts this creates. These include: loss of genetic diversity, acid rain, nuclear contamination, tropical
deforestation, the elimination of climax forests, wetland destruction, soil erosion, desertification,
floods, famine, the despoliation of lakes, streams and rivers, the drawing down and contamination of
ground water, the pollution of coastal waters and estuaries, the destruction of coral reefs, oil spills,
overfishing, expanding landfills, toxic wastes, the poisonous effects of insecticides and herbicides,
exposure to hazards on the job, urban congestion, and the depletion of nonrenewable resources.
(Foster 11-2) But environmental crisis has taken on an even more contemporary global feel as it has begun
to share in the contemporary topos of the trans(-): the evocation of the transnational, transcultural, and (a
necessary part of this, though less commonly added) the transgenic. One sign is that environmental crisis
has become hyperaware of global interactions occurring painfully and even riskily in real time. These days,
lungs in the U.S. contract as fearfully at information about the deforestation of the Amazon as they do at
disputes over national clean air standards. In 1932, Aldo Leopold complained that "when I go birding in my
Ford, I am devastating an oil field and re-electing an imperialist to get me rubber"; he meant this, Lawrence
Buell notes, as "a reductio ad aburdam of purist thinking" (2001, 302). Contemporary globalization, in the
meantime, has institutionalized such discourse as a part of our normality, not something ridiculous. 7 It
is now a staple of social justice rhetoric and global activism, as when Noam Chomsky points out that
American children use baseball bats hand-dipped in toxic chemicals by Haitian women and
corporations are scrutinized for their overseas labor practices. It is equally a staple of environmental
crisis thought, expressed in several ways. For example, environmental imperialism by a resource-
hogging, pollution-generating North is now a commonplace perception ("a baby born in the United
States creates thirteen times as much environmental damage over the course of its lifetime as a baby born in
Brazil, and thirty-five times as much as an Indian baby") (Hertsgaard 196); the huge environmental
footprints of consumer items purchased by innocent consumers extend well across the world, as
environmentalists chart these effects; and linkages between apparently innocent first world choices are
exposed as having drastic effects-at-a-distance [End Page 63] (as when Theordore Roszak unhappily
discovers that "the material from which my eyeglass frames are made comes from an endangered species,
the hawksbill turtle" and is told that whenever he turns on a light bulb powered by nuclear energy, he is
"adding to the number of anecephalic babies in the world" (Rozak 36).

								
To top