Docstoc

neoliberalism aff paper

Document Sample
neoliberalism aff paper Powered By Docstoc
					SDI 11
File Title




                                                Neoliberalism 1AC
Neoliberalism 1AC ......................................................................................................................................... 1
  1AC ............................................................................................................................................................ 2
  1AC ............................................................................................................................................................ 3
  1AC ............................................................................................................................................................ 4
  1AC ............................................................................................................................................................ 5
  1AC ............................................................................................................................................................ 7
  1AC ...........................................................................................................................................................11
  Solvency ....................................................................................................................................................12
  1AC ...........................................................................................................................................................16
Inherency .......................................................................................................................................................18
  SQ=Space Neolib ......................................................................................................................................19
Space Specific ...............................................................................................................................................20
  Space Capitalism Bad ................................................................................................................................21
  Outsourcing Now.......................................................................................................................................22
Neoliberalism Section ...................................................................................................................................25
  Neoliberalism Adv. ....................................................................................................................................26
  Imperialism Internal ..................................................................................................................................30
  Commodification Internal..........................................................................................................................31
  Dehumanization Impact .............................................................................................................................32
  Neoliberalism Impact--Poverty .................................................................................................................35
  Neolib Bad – Xenophobia/Class Inequalities ............................................................................................37
  Impact: Biopolitics ....................................................................................................................................38
Neolib Impacts--Depoliticization ..................................................................................................................40
  Neoliberalism Impacts: Environment ........................................................................................................42
  A2: Neoliberalism Solves Poverty ............................................................................................................44
  A2: Neolib Theory Right ...........................................................................................................................45
  A2: Neolib Inevitable ................................................................................................................................46
Militarism ......................................................................................................................................................47
  Militarism Adv. .........................................................................................................................................48
  Continued militarism guarantees extinction ..............................................................................................51
Solvency ........................................................................................................................................................52
  Solvency—Privatization ............................................................................................................................53
  Solvency—Framing ...................................................................................................................................54
  Solvency ....................................................................................................................................................55
  Subsidies Key ............................................................................................................................................57
  Solvency--State..........................................................................................................................................59
Framework.....................................................................................................................................................60
  Framework Answers ..................................................................................................................................61
  Framework – Ontology..............................................................................................................................66
  Framework – Education.............................................................................................................................67
  Framework Impact—Democracy ..............................................................................................................72
“Answers To” ................................................................................................................................................73
  A2: No Spillover........................................................................................................................................74
  A2: Cap Good ............................................................................................................................................75
  A2: Neolib Key to Growth ........................................................................................................................76
  A2: K’s ......................................................................................................................................................77
  Pure Critique Fails .....................................................................................................................................78
  State Good .................................................................................................................................................79
  A2: Militarism ...........................................................................................................................................80
  A2: US Imperialism Bad ...........................................................................................................................81
  A2: US Imperialism DA ............................................................................................................................83



                                                                                                                                                                  1
SDI 11
File Title



                                                  1AC
Contention One is the neoliberal moment…..IN
SPAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACE. Obama’s new space policy redistributes
the risks and rewards of space exploration to private enterprises
Sandilands 2010 (Ben, Crikey Blogger, 2/1, http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/02/01/yanks-see-a-bad-
moon-arisin/ “”Yanks See a Bad Moon a’ Risin’” Date Accessed 7/15/11)
In fact, the sub-text of the White House leaks is that the risks and rewards for the next phase in the
American conquest of space, starting with the replacement for the Space Shuttle due to fly its last
mission this year, will be passed over to the private sector. This is also going to stretch the mind of the
tea-bagger movement, torn between a fundamental belief in small government but wanting things only big
government can deliver. What Obama is really signalling is cutting off the major public funding of
private enterprise-built rockets, which is today’s situation, and in favour of pushing them into
private capital, which will own the profits made from commercial and state contracts for future
space lift needs using next generation reusable space craft.




                                                                                                              2
SDI 11
File Title



                                                           1AC
Faith in free markets operates as a complex discursive tableau that
retranslates America’s national interests into neutralized and depoliticized
aims of the market. The discourses of the free market that authorize Obama’s
policy decisions remove the government from the arena of space policy
Garmong 05 (Robert, Robert Garmong, Ph.D. in philosophy, was a writer for the Ayn Rand Institute from 2003 to 2004. The
Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, “Privatize Space Eploration,”
Capitalism Magazine, 7/22, DA: 7/19/11, http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/science/space/4327-privatize-space-exploration.html)
We often hear that the most ambitious projects can only be undertaken by government, but in fact
the opposite is true. The more ambitious a project is, the more it demands to be broken into
achievable, profit-making steps--and freed from the unavoidable politicizing of government-
controlled science. If space development is to be transformed from an expensive national bauble
whose central purpose is to assert national pride to a practical industry, it will only be by unleashing
the creative force of free and rational minds. We have now made the first steps toward the stars. Before us are
enormous technical difficulties, the solution of which will require even more heroic determination than that which tamed the
seas and the continents. To solve them, America must unleash its best engineering minds, as only the free
market can do




                                                                                                                                 3
SDI 11
File Title



                                                              1AC
Private control of space clears the path for the eradication of national
sovereignty in space in any form—the result is to eradicate the existing legal
safeguards in space so that the ONLY form of regulation in space is the
naturalized invisible hand of the market
Gagnon 04 (Bruce, Bruce K. Gagnon is coordinator of Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear
Power in Space, “Space Privatization: Road to Conflict?” People’s World, 7/23, DA: 7/23/11,
http://www.peoplesworld.org/space-privatization-road-to-conflict/)
As the privateers move into space, in addition to building space hotels and the like, they also want to claim
ownership of the planets because they hope to mine the sky. Gold has been discovered on asteroids,
helium-3 on the moon, and magnesium, cobalt and uranium on Mars . It was recently reported that the
Halliburton Company is now working with NASA to develop new drilling capabilities to mine Mars. One organization that seeks to
rewrite space law is called United Societies in Space (USIS). They state, “USIS provides legal and policy support for those who intend
to go to space. USIS encourages private property rights and investment. Space is the Free Market
Frontier.” The taxpayers, especially in the U.S. where NASA has been funded with taxpayer dollars since its inception, have
paid billions of dollars in space technology research and development (R&D). As the aerospace industry moves toward
forcing privatization of space what they are really saying is that the technological base is now at the
point where the government can get out of the way and let private industry begin to make profits and
control space. Thus, after the taxpayers have paid all the R&D, private industry now intends to gorge itself on
profits. Taxpayers won’t see any return on our “collective investment.” So let’s just imagine for a moment that this private sector
vision for space comes true. Profitable mining on the moon and Mars – who would keep competitors from
sneaking in and creating conflict over the new 21st century gold rush? Who will be the space police ?
In the congressional study published in 1989 called “Military Space Forces: The Next 50 Years,” we get some inkling of the answer.
The forward to the book was signed by the former Sen. John Glenn (D-Ohio) and Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), among others. The book
stresses the importance of military bases on the moon and suggests that with bases there the U.S. could control the pathway, or the
“gravity well,” between Earth and the moon. It notes, “Armed forces might lie in wait at that location to hijack rival shipments on
return.” Plans are now underway to make space the next “conflict zone” where corporations intend to control resources
and maximize profit. The so-called private “space pioneers” are the first step in this new direction. Ultimately the taxpayers
will be asked to pay the enormous cost incurred by creating a military space infrastructure that would control the “shipping lanes” on
and off the planet Earth. After Columbus returned to Spain with the news that he had discovered the “new world,” Queen Isabella
began the 100-year process to create the Spanish Armada to protect the new “interests and investments” around the world. This helped
create the global war system. Privatization does not mean that the taxpayer won’t be paying any more. Privatization really
means that profits will be privatized. Privatization also means that existing international space legal
structures will be destroyed in order to bend the law toward private profit. Serious moral and ethical
questions must be raised before another new “frontier” of conflict is created.




                                                                                                                                    4
SDI 11
File Title



                                                  1AC
The result is the destruction of space as a shared human “common,”
replacing it with an enclosed zone of sheer market control. This absolute
marketization of life corresponds with the precise tenets of neoliberal
economics
Biljoy 2009 (C.R., “Beyond Resistance And Cooption” Z-Net Magazine, online, Date Accessed
7/20/11)

It is not the ‘tragedy of the commons' that we are told of, but the ‘tragedy of enclosures' that are at
the roots of scarcity, deprivation and unrest. Neoliberalism empowers transnational corporations,
weakens governments and relegates citizens to being servile consumers. The ‘commons' consists of the
‘biodiversity' or ‘genetic' commons, ‘physical or environmental commons', the ‘knowledge commons' and
the ‘institutional commons'. The commons are the fundamental basis for existence of communities -
their public space, their culture sphere, and their heritage - for society to function harmoniously. These
commons are inherited from the past generations and are to be held in trust for future generations with the
state as a trustee providing sustenance, security and independence. This requires the peoples to operate
on a collective rather than an individual basis. Neo-liberal globalization seeks to enclose these
commons - to commodify them - with fences and borders as private property to be policed and
protected. It invades the commons, appropriating them and transferring them from communally
managed resources to the ‘market'. The commodification into privatized properties of the global
commons is a recurring theme of neo-liberal globalization. It creates, perpetuates and intensifies disputes,
resistance and consequent violence. The states take on the role of an instrument of capital and market,
to contain and repress peoples' resistance. Neoliberal projects have varied in their concrete shapes across
time and space - from the ‘proto- neoliberalism' of ideological formulation in the pre-1980s, to the 'roll-
back neoliberalism' of deregulation and dismantling of Keynesian-welfarism in the 1980s and early 1990s,
and the current 'roll-out neoliberalism' of active institution building such as regulatory bodies for under-
regulated markets besides authoritarian governance. During these three phases of its transformation, the
dominant discourse has moved from state failure to deregulation and decentralized governance and to
paternal authoritarian state, rights- based participatory development and free market economy. The modes
of political rationality shifted from ideological critique to ideological projects to that of technocratic
management. The sources of resistance moved away from Keynesian orthodoxy of welfarist state and
socialism, to organized labour and sectoral mobilization and to cyber-activism. The dominant intellectual
frontier shifted from monetarist economics to supply-side economics and now to bourgeois sociology. The
principal agents who were theorists and philosophers gave way to politicians and now to policy
functionaries and technocrats. The service delivery was subject to spending cuts followed by privatization
and now to marketization. The phase of fiscal crisis was met with systemic indebtedness and now we are in
the phase of debt repayment. The intellectual approach moved away from confrontation to conciliation
and now to cooptation. The economic tale of globalization and the political script of neoliberalism are
both simple - of limitless markets and competitive freedom in clean fanatical terms of unmediated
market hegemony, cultural homogenization and institutional convergence with the single most best
way in corporate governance. They explicitly depict countervailing interests or oppositions as unrealistic
and outmoded. The results of globalization are politically negotiated and mediated. Neoliberalism is also
differentiated. Its discourse, produced in the ideological centres such as the US and UK, are constantly
extended and mediated in other parts of the world. They are also contested and challenged through
resistance. The contours of neoliberalism too are constantly redefined. Under neo-liberal dispensation, the
space of resistance moved away from the ideological arena to issue-based and sectoral mobilization; and
further to creative engagement and participation; campaign, advocacy and lobby mode; and anti-
globalization, anti-privatization and ‘another world is possible' rhetoric. What is striking is that the
apolitical approach to resistance increasingly got co- opted, enclosed and confined to event
management exercises within the progressively marginalized democratic space, rather than taking on
to revolutionary transformatory politics. Those that refuse to be enclosed are repressed. Security and
terrorism has manufactured a consent for more effective state mediated militaristic enclosures.



                                                                                                          5
SDI 11
File Title

Defenders of private space colonization assert that the public logics of space
travel and a space commons are absolutely incommensurable with private
industries focus on profit and efficiency—the SQ is an absolute surrender to
purified market forces
Garmong 04 (Robert, Robert Garmong, Ph.D. in philosophy, was a writer for the Ayn Rand Institute from 2003 to 2004. The
Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, “Privatize Space Exploration: The
Free-Market Solution For America's Space Program,” Capitalism Magazine, 6/27, DA: 7/19/11,
http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/science/space/4327-privatize-space-exploration.html)
Just a week earlier, a Bush Administration panel on space exploration recommended that NASA increase
the role of private contractors in the push to permanently settle the moon and eventually explore
Mars. But it appears that neither the Administration nor anyone else has yet considered the true free-market solution for America's
moribund space program: complete privatization. There is a contradiction at the heart of the space program: space exploration,
as the grandest of man's technological advancements, requires the kind of bold innovation possible only to minds
left free to pursue the best of their thinking and judgment. Yet, by placing the space program under
governmental funding, we necessarily place it at the mercy of governmental whim. The results are
written all over the past twenty years of NASA's history: the space program is a political animal,
marked by shifting, inconsistent, and ill-defined goals. The space shuttle was built and maintained to
please clashing constituencies, not to do a clearly defined job for which there was an economic and
technical need. The shuttle was to launch satellites for the Department of Defense and private contractors--which could be done
more cheaply by lightweight, disposable rockets. It was to carry scientific experiments--which could be done more efficiently by
unmanned vehicles. But one "need" came before all technical issues: NASA's political need for showy
manned vehicles. The result, as great a technical achievement as it is, was an over-sized, over-complicated,
over-budget, overly dangerous vehicle that does everything poorly and nothing well . Indeed, the space
shuttle program was supposed to be phased out years ago, but the search for its replacement has
been halted, largely because space contractors enjoy collecting on the overpriced shuttle without the
expense and bother of researching cheaper alternatives. A private industry could have fired them--
but not so in a government project, with home-district congressmen to lobby on their behalf. There is
reason to believe that the political nature of the space program may have even been directly responsible
for the Columbia disaster. Fox News reported that NASA chose to stick with non-Freon-based foam
insulation on the booster rockets, despite evidence that this type of foam causes up to eleven times as
much damage to thermal tiles as the older, Freon-based foam. Although NASA was exempted from the
restrictions on Freon use, which environmentalists believe causes ozone depletion, and despite the fact that the
amount of Freon released by NASA's rockets would have been trivial, the space agency elected to stick with the
politically correct foam. It is impossible to integrate the contradictory. To whatever extent an
engineer is forced to base his decisions, not on the realities of science but on the arbitrary,
unpredictable, and often impossible demands of a politicized system, he is stymied. Yet this politicizing is
an unavoidable consequence of governmental control over scientific research and development.




                                                                                                                                      6
SDI 11
File Title



                                                      1AC
We’ll isolate three implications—the first is calculation—the reduction of all
existence to nothing more than an epiphenomenal trace of an ontologically
functioning market eradicates the value to life
Dillon 99 (Michael, Professor of Politics and International Relations – University of Lancaster,
“Another Justice”, Political Theory, 27(2), April, p. 164-165)

Quite the reverse. The subject was never a firm foundation for justice, much less a hospitable vehicle for
the reception of the call of another Justice. It was never in possession of that self-possession which was
supposed to secure the certainty of itself, of a self-possession that would enable it ultimately to adjudicate
everything. The very indexicality required of sovereign subjectivity gave rise rather to a commensurability
much more amenable to the expendability required of the political and material economies of mass
societies than it did to the singular, invaluable, and uncanny uniqueness of the self. The value of the subject
became the standard unit of currency for the political arithmetic of States and the political economies of
capitalism. They trade in it still to devastating global effect. The technologisation of the political has
become manifest and global. Economies of evaluation necessarily require calculability. Thus no valuation
without mensuration and no mensuration without indexation. Once rendered calculable, however, units of
account are necessarily submissible not only to valuation but also, of course, to devaluation. Devaluation,
logically, can extend to the point of counting as nothing. Hence, no mensuration without demensuration
either. There is nothing abstract about this: the declension of economies of value leads to the zero point of
holocaust. However liberating and emancipating systems of value-rights-may claim to be, for example,
they run the risk of counting out the invaluable. Counted out, the invaluable may then lose its purchase on
life. Herewith, then, the necessity of championing the invaluable itself. For we must never forget that, “we
are dealing always with whatever exceeds measure.” But how does that necessity present itself? Another
Justice answers: as the surplus of the duty to answer to the claim of Justice over rights. That duty, as with
the advent of another Justice, is integral to the lack constitutive of the human way of being.

And, the translation of collective imperatives of humanity into purely
marketized effects results in an atrocious extinction through quiet discourses
of the free market masked as national and democratic interests
THE AFF REPLACES MILITARY COERCION WITH NEOLIBERAL COLLECTIVE SUICIDE
SANTOS 2003 – DIRECTOR CENTER FOR SOCIAL STUDIES U COIMBRA
COLLECTIVE SUICIDE? BAD SUBJECTS, NO 63, http://eserver.org/bs/63/santos.html
According to Franz Hinkelammert, the West has repeatedly been under the illusion that it should try to save
humanity by destroying part of it. This is a salvific and sacrificial destruction, committed in the name of
the need to radically materialize all the possibilities opened up by a given social and political reality over
which it is supposed to have total power. This is how it was in colonialism, with the genocide of
indigenous peoples, and the African slaves. This is how it was in the period of imperialist struggles,
which caused millions of deaths in two world wars and many other colonial wars. This is how it was under
Stalinism, with the Gulag, and under Nazism, with the Holocaust. And now today, this is how it is in
neoliberalism, with the collective sacrifice of the periphery and even the semiperiphery of the world
system. With the war against Iraq, it is fitting to ask whether what is in progress is a new genocidal and
sacrificial illusion, and what its scope might be. It is above all appropriate to ask if the new illusion will
not herald the radicalization and the ultimate perversion of the Western illusion: destroying all of
humanity in the illusion of saving it.
Sacrificial genocide arises from a totalitarian illusion manifested in the belief that there are no alternatives
to the present-day reality, and that the problems and difficulties confronting it arise from failing to take its
logic of development to ultimate consequences. If there is unemployment, hunger and death in the Third
World, this is not the result of market failures; instead, it is the outcome of market laws not having been
fully applied. If there is terrorism, this is not due to the violence of the conditions that generate it; it is due,




                                                                                                                   7
SDI 11
File Title

rather, to the fact that total violence has not been employed to physically eradicate all terrorists and
potential terrorists.
This political logic is based on the supposition of total power and knowledge, and on the radical rejection
of alternatives; it is ultra-conservative in that it aims to reproduce infinitely the status quo. Inherent to it is
the notion of the end of history. During the last hundred years, the West has experienced three versions of
this logic, and, therefore, seen three versions of the end of history: Stalinism, with its logic of insuperable
efficiency of the plan; Nazism, with its logic of racial superiority; and neoliberalism, with its logic of
insuperable efficiency of the market. The first two periods involved the destruction of democracy. The last
one trivializes democracy, disarming it in the face of social actors sufficiently powerful to be able to
privatize the state and international institutions in their favor. I have described this situation as a
combination of political democracy and social fascism. One current manifestation of this combination
resides in the fact that intensely strong public opinion, worldwide, against the war is found to be incapable
of halting the war machine set in motion by supposedly democratic rulers.
At all these moments, a death drive, a catastrophic heroism, predominates, the idea of a looming
collective suicide, only preventable by the massive destruction of the other. Paradoxically, the broader
the definition of the other and the efficacy of its destruction, the more likely collective suicide becomes. In
its sacrificial genocide version, neoliberalism is a mixture of market radicalization, neoconservatism
and Christian fundamentalism. Its death drive takes a number of forms, from the idea of "discardable
populations", referring to citizens of the Third World not capable of being exploited as workers and
consumers, to the concept of "collateral damage", to refer to the deaths, as a result of war, of thousands of
innocent civilians. The last, catastrophic heroism, is quite clear on two facts: according to reliable
calculations by the Non-Governmental Organization MEDACT, in London, between 48 and 260 thousand
civilians will die during the war and in the three months after (this is without there being civil war or a
nuclear attack); the war will cost 100 billion dollars, enough to pay the health costs of the world's poorest
countries for four years.
Is it possible to fight this death drive? We must bear in mind that, historically, sacrificial destruction has
always been linked to the economic pillage of natural resources and the labor force, to the imperial design
of radically changing the terms of economic, social, political and cultural exchanges in the face of falling
efficiency rates postulated by the maximalist logic of the totalitarian illusion in operation. It is as though
hegemonic powers, both when they are on the rise and when they are in decline, repeatedly go through
times of primitive accumulation, legitimizing the most shameful violence in the name of futures where, by
definition, there is no room for what must be destroyed. In today's version, the period of primitive
accumulation consists of combining neoliberal economic globalization with the globalization of war.
The machine of democracy and liberty turns into a machine of horror and destruction.

And these impacts come first—interrogating the ontological entailments of
neoliberalism by challenging policy presumptions is a prerequisite to solving
extinction level impacts—this evidence is specific to the concept of a commons
Robert P. Marzec ‘2 (Associate Professor postcolonial studies and contemporary criticism at the State
University of New York at Fredonia (boundary 2 2002 29(2):129-156 “Enclosures, Colonization, and the
Robinson Crusoe Syndrome: A Genealogy of Land in a Global Context”. July 23, 2011.)

The pervasive lack of recognition of these enclosure movement affiliations I have laid out indicates that we
have come to accept the essence of land, and the generalized representation of land constructed since the
beginning of the enclosure movement, as self-evident. An ontological understanding of land must therefore
be retrieved. Awakening such an understanding has become increasingly difficult, for the dominance of
global [End Page 150] technology is founded on the necessity for people and information to metaphysically
transcend geographical barriers: the supplementation once again of Defoe's idealized prospect view of an
immense espalier of English enclosures that turn uncultivated land into a utility for the market—only now
on a global level. Legitimated by the logic that an increased technologization of the planet enables cultures
to break down territorial land barriers and reduce differences for the installation of a "common ground,"
arguments in favor of these and other supposedly neutral innovations abound. Only with the establishment
of such a metaphysical ground, this logic continues, can an egalitarian and democratic community be made
manifest. The idea of a singular, uncommodified territory of land stands on the stage of modernity as an
outlaw. Land—its material heterogeneity, its geographical and geopolitical variations, its embedded


                                                                                                                      8
SDI 11
File Title

historical relation to tribes, clans, ethnicities, cultures, religions, and nations—has become, in the
conceptualized "world picture" of a global order, a phenomenon to be erased. 36 An examination of the
character of this prized common ground of modernity, and the constructed idea of territoriality conditioned
by its structural logic, can help to sharpen the polyvalent influence of enclosure's economy. As I have been
arguing, the metaphysical rationale informing these common currencies has its origin in the formation of
imperial orders from the seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries. Said succinctly phrases imperialism's
bearing on land in Culture and Imperialism: "Territory and possessions are at stake, geography and power.
Everything about human history is rooted in the earth, which has meant that we must think about
habitation, but it has also meant that people have planned to have more territory and therefore must do
something about its indigenous populations." 37 Indigenous inhabitancy is coded as the very force that
disables the polity of a transcendental epistemology; it signifies a fall away from the great platform of a
common humanity. The common-ground logic must consequently bypass, or continually push away, the
limit of difference by postponing the arrival of that limit. This results in the deterritorialization of specific
territorial differences in order to establish a community of agreement. A Marxist analysis of the flow of
capital can help to clarify the fantastic economy of agreement being marketed here. Recalling Gilles
Deleuze and Félix Guattari's critique of the alleged benign civility of capitalism unconceals the continuing
[End Page 151] influence of enclosures: Instead of denying difference altogether in order to establish a
homogenized world order, capital allows difference to have a certain degree of access to representation on
the platform of humanity, though positioned at a secondary level to the primary universal of the humanist
sovereign individual and the free market that enables individuality. 38 This is what makes humanism—and
capitalism—liberal. With money as capital's general equivalent, its abstract axiomatic, capital can be
grafted on any territory, and on any difference generated within a particular territory. In this sense, it can
deterritorialize what was once intrinsic or peculiar to a territory, placing it within the universal flow of the
global economy. This is the logic of the enclosure act: The privatization of land ostensibly marks the land
with the different signatures of individual owners, but what supersedes and enables this individual
parceling is the deterritorialization of land so that it can become first and foremost a commodity that
increases the universal (providential) flow of capital—giving also unchecked legal support and priority to
the entrepreneurial "free-willed" citizen of empire. Both the land and the imperial subject (the individual)
are distinguished by the measure of their "high yield." The twentieth century is marked by this widespread
deterritorialization, which arose out of the gradual transfer of a colonizing apparatus overseen by the
British Empire in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries to the numerous hands of transnational
corporations in the late twentieth century. Hence, it should come as no surprise that positioning oneself
above the land before it has been properly enclosed has evolved into something of a master methodology in
the current neocolonial occasion of a global world order, an order, I claim, that has inherited Defoe's model
for land relation. In the global village, land can be inhabited only after being subjected to the rationale of
purifying enclosures, made manifest in the ever rising demand for partitions and policed borders.
Neocolonial history is replete with this polity of land transcendence. In the patrolled Mexican-American
border, the land disputes in Israel and Palestine, and the former partitions of apartheid, one sees a
phenomenalization of land that goes back to the deterritorialization of the Native American commons: a
formation of land as the constantly threatened yield of a people's identity. During the expansion of New
England, for example, signs of a dread of unenclosed land abound. [End Page 152] The lack of clearly
demarcated Indian property rights confounded British settlers, who could not think the itinerant character of
Indian communities, whose settlements broke up and reassembled on a different territory as ecological
needs required. In 1653, around the time when the logic of enclosing had hardened to become an
epistemological imperative, the historian Edward Johnson saw it as a sign of providence in America that
English settlers had transformed a "remote, rocky, barren, bushy, wild-woody wilderness" into "a second
England for fertilness." 39 The Crusoe syndrome—with its will to transcendence—afflicts even the
international peacekeeping organizations that seek to resolve these increasingly violent conflicts over
territoriality. This can be witnessed directly in the recent NATO campaign to end ethnic cleansing in
Kosovo. That the answer to the need for a "humanitarian response" should come in the form of a seventy-
seven day bombing campaign reveals the extent to which global organizations such as NATO and the
United Nations remain entrenched in a logic of responsibility that implements peace by rising to a
disinterested position that transcends the land. More precisely, NATO reenacts the (onto)logical
metaphysics of the Crusoe syndrome by taking on the position of the imperial subject who stands over and
against the object of its inquiry by "remaining in the tree" and refusing to inhabit the land: the peacekeeper
stands absolutely distant, maintaining, as Judith Butler remarks in her analysis of the Gulf War, the "aerial,



                                                                                                               9
SDI 11
File Title

global view." 40 During the event of war, borders come into question, and in the midst of these violent
deterritorializations, land is too volatile to be occupied by sovereign individuals capable of relating only to
the peace of politically enclosed and aesthetically cultivated spaces. 41 In the global world order of the late
twentieth century, enclosing "uncultivated" [End Page 153] land from a position of transcendence continues
at an increased pace. Consider the passage of First World transnational corporations into Third World
"common" lands, where the politico-economic organizations of the International Monetary Fund and the
World Bank set the terms of "development" and "structural adjustment," code words from a discourse that
centralizes the production of high yields, an economy of "surplus extraction" that ultimately has the
opposite effect of leaving the land barren—an outcome that Defoe would not have foreseen. 42 The
connection being suggested here between transnational corporations and the old empires is by no means
tenuous. This logic of the "high yield" has its origins precisely in the enclosure movement: Enclosures were
justified (and continue to be justified by many agricultural historians) on the grounds th at they increased
yields in ratios from 4:1 to 20:1. As the first nation to enclose its fields on a widespread level, England
soon far excelled its European competitors, developing a cash crop nexus that set the standard for national
productivity, which in turn helped produce an unshakable national identity. In the contemporary occasion
of "humane" First World interventions, the same standards of "efficiency" and production apply: Only
when a Third World land has spread and enclosed the table of providential production in its wilderness can
it hope to engage in an exchange with other, more cultivated global players. Twentieth-century
advancements in the science of agriculture, however, add a new component to this cultivation of high
yields, one which ends in the destruction of Third World land—an outcome that early English enclosure
advocates would not have foreseen. The discipline of postcolonial studies registers only a glimmering of
[End Page 154] an ontological engagement with the land—with, in a phrase, the essential nexus of identity
formation, culture, and colonization. In this respect, it is crucial to seriously examine the recent rise of
"global studies" as a distinct discipline, a discipline that many feel to be more germane to the current
historical situation than postcolonial studies. Bruce Robbins, in particular, has made the compelling
argument for a move beyond the culture wars in order to work toward an "internationalist ethic." 43 He is
especially critical of those who argue for a wholesale rejection of the "view from above," contending
instead that in an "imperfect world," urgent collective action must unavoidably engage this view (as in the
moments of aerial intervention during World War II and Bosnia). He finds even more spurious the
counterargument that heralds the differential force of the local as a viable force for warding off global
homogeneity. 44 When guarding against these comfortable essentializations of the local or the global,
Robbins's admonitions need remembering. What his (representative) analysis lacks, however, is any
consideration of the genealogical development of the view from above—which only solidifies all the more
the manner in which the problematic of enclosure predetermines the very conditions of our approach to the
question of collective action and an internationalist ethics. The specific manner in which land is
experienced (as "frightful") and incorporated (enclosed) sets in motion a relation to the land that has
informed the logical economy of colonization from Daniel Defoe to NATO. The task is to unearth and
explore the concealed schizophrenic nexus dwelling at the heart of the great Western imperial polis of
modernity: the paradox of a simultaneous English grasp for and disavowal of land. This deterritorializing
dynamic of accumulation erasure was a founding and formative element of the British Empire. What
demands attention is not merely the extent to which a metaphorics of enclosure informs the novel from the
eighteenth to the twentieth century but the matter of how the discourse of enclosure that informs the British
novel transforms the very Being of land in order to establish widespread relations of domination. What
must be unearthed is this gradual appropriation of an essentially resistant force to the textual,
administrative, economic, and political apparatuses of imperialism: a totalizing change in spatial awareness
and human relations. Without an extended and transdisciplinary discourse of critique of the land—its
colonial [End Page 155] and neocolonial history and ontology—we run the risk of reifying even further the
imperial enclosures of individual, ethnic, national, religious, and global essentialism. Only
through such a critique may we open a more originary and nonfoundational approach to the possible ways a
heterogeneous citizenry can inhabit the earth.




                                                                                                            10
SDI 11
File Title



                                  1AC
Plan: The United States federal government should resume its human
spaceflight program.




                                                                     11
SDI 11
File Title



                                              Solvency
Contention 2: Solvency--Human inhabitation of space is inevitable—rejecting
the neoliberal notion of privatization in space is key to opposing the
reproduction of humanity’s worst aspects in space—only voting affirmative
signifies the production of a new understanding of the cosmos that commits to
a global commons against the neoliberal vision of the SQ
Dickens 2010 (Peter, Professor of Sociology at Cambridge, “The Humanization of the Cosmos”
http://monthlyreview.org/2010/11/01/the-humanization-of-the-cosmos-to-what-end Date Accessed 7/19/11)
But humanizing outer space can be for good as well as for ill. It can either, as is now happening, be in
a form primarily benefiting those who are already in positions of economic, social, and military
power. Or humanization can be something much more positive and socially beneficial. What might
this more progressive form of cosmic humanization look like? Most obviously, the technology allowing
a human presence in the cosmos would be focused mainly on earthly society. There are many serious crises
down here on Earth that have urgent priority when considering the humanization of outer space. First,
there is the obvious fact of social inequalities and resources. Is $2 billion and upwards to help the
private sector find new forms of space vehicles really a priority for public funding, especially at a
time when relative social inequalities and environmental conditions are rapidly worsening? The
military-industrial complex might well benefit, but it hardly represents society as a whole. This is not
to say, however, that public spending on space should be stopped. Rather, it should be addressed
toward ameliorating the many crises that face global society. Satellites, for example, have helped open
up phone and Internet communications for marginalized people, especially those not yet connected by
cable. Satellites, including satellites manufactured by capitalist companies, can also be useful for
monitoring climate change and other forms of environmental crisis such as deforestation and imminent
hurricanes. They have proved useful in coordinating humanitarian efforts after natural disasters. Satellites
have even been commissioned by the United Nations to track the progress of refugees in Africa and
elsewhere So outer space technology can be used for tackling a number of immediate social and
political issues. But these strategies do not add up to a philosophy toward outer space and the form
humanization should take. Here again, the focus should be on the development of humanity as a whole,
rather than sectional interests. First, outer space, its exploration and colonization, should be in the
service of some general public good. Toward this end, the original intentions of the 1967 UN Outer
Space Treaty should be restored. Outer space should not be owned or controlled by any economic,
social, and political vested interest. The cosmos should not, in other words, be treated as an extension
of the global environment, one to be owned and exploited. We have seen enough of this attitude and
its outcomes to know what the result would be. Spreading private ownership to outer space would
only reproduce social and environmental crises on a cosmic scale.

Plan joins a broader neoliberal struggle—reestablishing space as a public
good is akin to other global struggles to remake the neoliberal order
Spring 2011 (Simon, Professor of Geography at University of Otago, “”Public Space as
Emancipation…” Antipode 43.2, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-
8330.2010.00827.x/pdf)

In establishing an anarchic framework for understanding public space as a vision for radical democracy and
development, this article proceeds as a theoretical inquiry into how an agonistic public space might
become the basis of emancipation. Emancipation, understood here, means perpetual contestation of
the alienating effects of contemporary neoliberalization. Central to this is imagining new forms of
voluntary association and mutual aid, where pluralism may blossom, democratic engagement might be
enhanced, and a liberatory zeitgeist may emerge. The emancipatory thrust inherent to democracy
calls for a reclamation of its etymology and a critical re-reading of the diverse contexts and
contents—social, cultural, local, national, and global—through which it finds its expression (Kothari
2005). I advocate radical democracy, which contra aggregative and deliberative models, places politics on a



                                                                                                         12
SDI 11
File Title

path towards the co-constitutive promise of anarchism and non-violence. I argue for a conceptualization
of public space that emphasizes an anti-hegemonic, anti-sovereign current, thus offering an
opportunity to surmount the technocratic elitism that characterizes neoliberal approaches to
development and problematizes civil societies. A move towards development and democracy “from
below” is recognized as an affront to both “local” elites and “global” capital. Accordingly, I examine
the contested, forever-protean process of radical democracy conceived as public space. Public space is
understood as the battlefield on which the conflicting interests of the rich and poor are set, as well as the
object of contestation. Within this realm, violence is acknowledged as both an outcome of attempts to
impose an “ordered” view of public space originating “from above”, and often as an act of resistance “from
below” by those seeking radical democratic spaces of “unscripted” interaction.1 This violence reveals an
apparent paradox of democracy, because although premised on the non-violent mitigation of conflict,
contemporary “democracies” are often anti-political and antagonistic, which provokes violent
conflict’s possibility. Celebrations of “urban modernity” have resulted in a division between those cities
seen as sites for the production of urban theory, and those projected as objects for “development”. This has
provided fertile ground for problematic demarcations that divide cities into systems of hierarchy, where the
West/First World/global North is imagined through a positive frame of dynamism and innovation, while the
non-West/Third World/global South is portrayed negatively as stagnation and stasis. Binary thinking
“remains much more a driving idea than a fact of geography” (Slater 2004:9), which suggests the need for a
single urban discourse is overdue. Robinson (2006:1) encourages scholars not to ascribe prominence to
certain cities or features of particular cities, and instead suggests that “an ordinary-city approach takes the
world of cities as its starting point and attends to the diversity and complexity of all cities”. An ordinary
cities approach is not meant as a universalization that denies distinctive elements by downplaying the
diversity among cities. Rather, “in a world of ordinary cities, ways of being urban and ways of making new
kinds of urban futures are diverse and are the product of the inventiveness of people in cities everywhere”
(Robinson 2006:1). Given that binary categories continue to retain broad usage in urban theory, while
nonetheless being called into question, Slater (2004:10) proposes that they be approached “as if there is a
line running through them, canceling them out in their old form, but still allowing them to be read”. This
partial erasure encourages scholars to continue to problematize their validity, while remaining open
to the possibility of new categories that are more aware of asymmetrical relations, enabling of
collective engagement, and take seriously the imbrications between “inside” and “outside”. Thus, an
ordinary cities approach forms a post- colonial framework for understanding cities, challenging urban
theory’s tendency to privilege the experiences of the “West”. Although the ideals of public space and the
ways citizens conceive democracy are uniquely shaped by contingent sociocultural histories, my purpose is
not to apply a “First World”/“Third World” perspective. Instead, I want to question such dichotomies and
bring a more relational approach, precisely because the processes of neoliberalization that are
deleteriously affecting the very notion of the public are being challenged in a diverse range of
contexts that encompass all areas of the globe. Urban scholars must recall that relational connections
across space are established by and constitutive of ostensibly “local” cultures all over the world (Smith
2001). By employing radical notions of public space through an ordinary cities approach, we may improve
our understandings of the relational geographies of neoliberalism, where each “local” contestation of public
space can be read as a nodal point of interconnection in socially produced space (Massey 2005). Through
this, Hart (2008:684) argues, we may “grasp the complex back- and-forth processes of contestation and
acquiescence through which multiple, interconnected arenas in state and civil society have been remaking
one another—and to the slippages, openings, contradictions, and possibilities for alliances” that exist across
space. My purpose then is to acknowledge these relational geographies, wherein incidents like the
struggles over water privatization in Cochabamba, Bolivia in 2000 (Kohl 2006), and the “battle for Seattle”
during the World Trade Organization meetings of 1999, must be considered not as isolated events in a
“Third World” or “First World” milieu, but as moments tied to the broader assemblage of “global”
contestations over “the right to the city” and alternative urban futures (Purcell 2008). An examination
of the controversy of public space allows for an understanding of the ongoing struggle for a more
radical democracy as fundamentally a clash between the machinations of global capitalism, and the
attempts of the poor and marginalized to insert their voices into the development policies and
practices that adversely affect their lives.




                                                                                                            13
SDI 11
File Title

Private space capitalism produces new mechanisms for knowing space as
merely an extension of the earth-reinscribes geopolitical coordinates and
biases. Marking space as a “common” destroys space as a place for the
accumulation of surplus capital, interrupting neoliberalism
Dickens 2010 (Peter, Professor of Sociology at Cambridge, “The Humanization of the Cosmos”
http://monthlyreview.org/2010/11/01/the-humanization-of-the-cosmos-to-what-end Date Accessed 7/19/11)

Instead of indulging in over-optimistic and fantastic visions, we should take a longer, harder, and more
critical look at what is happening and what is likely to happen. We can then begin taking a more measured
view of space humanization, and start developing more progressive alternatives. At this point, we must
return to the deeper, underlying processes which are at the heart of the capitalist economy and
society, and which are generating this demand for expansion into outer space. Although the
humanization of the cosmos is clearly a new and exotic development, the social relationships and
mechanisms underlying space-humanization are very familiar. In the early twentieth century, Rosa
Luxemburg argued that an “outside” to capitalism is important for two main reasons. First, it is
needed as a means of creating massive numbers of new customers who would buy the goods made in
the capitalist countries.7 As outlined earlier, space technology has extended and deepened this process,
allowing an increasing number of people to become integral to the further expansion of global capitalism.
Luxemburg’s second reason for imperial expansion is the search for cheap supplies of labor and raw
materials. Clearly, space fiction fantasies about aliens aside, expansion into the cosmos offers no
benefits to capital in the form of fresh sources of labor power.8 But expansion into the cosmos does
offer prospects for exploiting new materials such as those in asteroids, the moon, and perhaps other
cosmic entities such as Mars. Neil Smith’s characterization of capital’s relations to nature is useful at this
point. The reproduction of material life is wholly dependent on the production and reproduction of
surplus value. To this end, capital stalks the Earth in search of material resources; nature becomes a
universal means of production in the sense that it not only provides the subjects, objects and
instruments of production, but is also in its totality an appendage to the production process…no part
of the Earth’s surface, the atmosphere, the oceans, the geological substratum or the biological
superstratum are immune from transformation by capital.9 Capital is now also “stalking” outer space in
the search for new resources and raw materials. Nature on a cosmic scale now seems likely to be
incorporated into production processes, these being located mainly on earth. Since Luxemburg wrote, an
increasing number of political economists have argued that the importance of a capitalist “outside” is
not so much that of creating a new pool of customers or of finding new resources.10 Rather, an
outside is needed as a zone into which surplus capital can be invested. Economic and social crisis
stems less from the problem of finding new consumers, and more from that of finding, making, and
exploiting zones of profitability for surplus capital. Developing “outsides” in this way is also a product
of recurring crises, particularly those of declining economic profitability. These crises are followed by
attempted “fixes” in distinct geographic regions. The word “fix” is used here both literally and figuratively.
On the one hand, capital is being physically invested in new regions. On the other hand, the attempt is
to fix capitalism’s crises. Regarding the latter, however, there are, of course, no absolute guarantees
that such fixes will really correct an essentially unstable social and economic system. At best, they are
short-term solutions. The kind of theory mentioned above also has clear implications for the
humanization of the cosmos. Projects for the colonization of outer space should be seen as the
attempt to make new types of “spatial fix,” again in response to economic, social, and environmental
crises on earth. Outer space will be “globalized,” i.e., appended to Earth, with new parts of the
cosmos being invested in by competing nations and companies. Military power will inevitably be
made an integral part of this process, governments protecting the zones for which they are
responsible. Some influential commentators argue that the current problem for capitalism is that there is
now no “outside.”11 Capitalism is everywhere. Similarly, resistance to capitalism is either everywhere
or nowhere. But, as suggested above, the humanization of the cosmos seriously questions these
assertions. New “spatial fixes” are due to be opened up in the cosmos, capitalism’s emergent outside.
At first, these will include artificial fixes such as satellites, space stations, and space hotels. But during the
next twenty years or so, existing outsides, such as the moon and Mars, will begin attracting investments.




                                                                                                               14
SDI 11
File Title

The stage would then be set for wars in outer space between nations and companies attempting to make
their own cosmic “fixes.”




                                                                                                       15
SDI 11
File Title



                                                   1AC
Contention Three—Framework
The framework for the debate is simple: policymakers make decisions with a
vision in mind of the future to which they aim—voting affirmative to enact
the plan as an ideological stand against the neoliberal erosion of the global
commons constitutes the best policy option for a decisionmaker focused on
space policy. Translating idealistic visions into a policy with the plan solves
best
Huntley et al. 2009 (Wade, Prof. at Naval Postgraduate School, “Planning the Unplannable…”
Space Policy http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-
bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA523690&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf)
This absence is ironic, given that human interests in space are intrinsically visionary. Perhaps no other
element of contemporary human life so inspires the imagination. Science fiction wonderment has
motivated careers. In many nations, space-related achievements epitomize national purpose and pride. At
this level, we are rife with visions. But dreams do not constitute a basis for serious public policy
planning. Lacking are what might best be termed ‘‘realistic visions’’ e that is, a set of integrated ideas
about possibilities cast against the background of varying constraints, tradeoffs, and uncertainties. Realistic
visions would map out how interests and forces operating within the expanding human presence in space
will interact to produce outcomes over longer-term time frames. Visions must also account for variance on
ultimate aspira- tions. Hence, no single vision can suffice; such visions are not themselves policy-setting
directions. Rather, creative visions of this nature contribute to contemporary policy debates by
providing a foundation, beyond simple speculation, for tracing the potential longer-term
consequences of immediate policy questions. Even in the absence of global value convergence, such
visions can enable policy makers to anticipate and pre- emptively solve many of the challenges that
the advancing human presence in space will pose. Without such reflection, policy making is driven by
extant knowledge, current political forces and short-term objectives. As in many other areas of
human life, the long-term conse- quences of a perpetually ad hoc and unintegrated decision- making
process may please no-one. The incorporation of serious visions into policy-making processes will not
insure the ‘‘best’’ outcomes e impossible in the absence of global values consensus e but they can help
avoid the worst outcomes, which are easier to identify. The future of the human presence in space is, of
course, unpredictable. Uncertainty pervades two discrete dimen- sions: we do not know how technology
and the material prospects of the human presence in space will evolve, and we do not know how space-
relevant human organizational processes will evolve either on or off the Earth. This unpredictability greatly
complicates the development of policy-useful visions of the long-term human presence in space.

Neoliberalism destroys public space—your role in this debate is to oppose the
colonization of the debate world by neoliberal logics—attempts to box in the
contours of the affirmative proposal are politicized attempts to reassert
neoliberalisms hegemony
Giroux 04 (Professor of Media at McMaster University, “Public Pedagogy and the Politics of
Neoliberalism” Policy Futures in Education, Volume 2, Numbers 3 & 4)
The ascendancy of neo-liberal corporate culture into every aspect of American life both consolidates
economic power in the hands of the few and aggressively attempts to break the power of unions,
decouple income from productivity, subordinate the needs of society to the market, and deem public
services and goods an unconscionable luxury. But it does more. It thrives on a culture of cynicism,
fear, insecurity, and despair. Defined as the paragon of modern social relations by Friedrich A. von
Hayek, Milton Friedman, Robert Nozick, Francis Fukuyama, and other market fundamentalists, neo-
liberalism attempts to eliminate an engaged critique about its most basic principles and social consequences
by embracing the ‘market as the arbiter of social destiny’.[1] Not only does neo-liberalism bankrupt



                                                                                                            16
SDI 11
File Title

public funds, hollow out public services, limit the vocabulary and imagery available to recognize
anti-democratic forms of power, and produce narrow models of individual agency, it also
undermines the critical functions of any viable democracy by undercutting the ability of individuals
to engage in the continuous translation between public considerations and private interests by
collapsing the public into the realm of the private. As Bauman observes, ‘It is no longer true that the
“public” is set on colonizing the “private”. The opposite is the case: it is the private that colonizes the
public space, squeezing out and chasing away everything which cannot be fully, without residue, translated
into the vocabulary of private interests and pursuits.’[2] Divested of its political possibilities and social
underpinnings, freedom offers few opportunities for people to translate private worries into public concerns
and collective struggles. Central to the hegemony of neo-liberal ideology is a particular view of
education in which market-driven identities and values are both produced and legitimated. Under
such circumstances, pedagogy both within and outside of schools increasingly becomes a powerful
force for creating the ideological and affective regimes central to reproducing neo-liberalism.




                                                                                                          17
SDI 11
File Title




             Inherency




                         18
SDI 11
File Title



                                        SQ=Space Neolib
Current plan is a means to transfer the market into a weapon for US
hegemony
Sandilands 2010 (Ben, Plane Talking, “Never Mind the Moon…”
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2010/02/01/never-mind-the-moon-a-more-important-space-race-is-
off-and-running-hard/ Date Accessed 7/14/11)
But this is about much more than the symbolism and science of the original moon race of half a century
ago. It goes way beyond the GWB plan to set up a permanent manned base on the moon as a way
station to Mars, a proposal that was in its own right running into some severe criticism at various levels
from its impact on science spending in general to the probability of the astronauts being killed by solar flare
radiation long before making it to the red planet. It is about American engagement with the race that
China, Russia, Europe and India are already running hard in the space industry stakes. This is the
industry of designing, making and selling both disposable and re-usable multi mission space
freighters, the business of giant research and military assemblies in orbit or on the surface of
accessible asteroids, the future convergence of prime orbital real estate with the distribution of
communications bandwidths orders of magnitude larger than what the world uses today, the
cleansing of near space from space junk, and, alas, locations from which directed energy weapons
can cover almost half a world. When the White House media management machine was leaking the
abandon-the-moon message to reporters over the weekend it also had a sub text. It was going to better
engage private capital in the design of a replacement vehicle for the Space Shuttles, which are well past
their prudent life time, and due to finish flying before year’s end. The reward of course is to own the
future profits of the next generation of heavy reusable space lifters that perform government and
private industry contracts in a century where space exploitation will be tens of times more valuable
than it is at this stage. In this sense, the Obama administration is doing something at least a decade
overdue, and ensuring that the US has its own new generation reusable spacecraft instead of having
to rely unduly on Russian Soyuz launches for manned ISS missions and other applications requiring
humans in orbit. It can also be argued as accelerating a less bureaucratic, more entrepreneurial
involvement in space technology by US companies, although the other reality is that these will often
be enterprises that are taking the same trans national approach to risk and cost sharing as Airbus and
Boeing in commercial air transport.




                                                                                                            19
SDI 11
File Title




             Space Specific




                              20
SDI 11
File Title



                                 Space Capitalism Bad
Space travel structured around the discourse of the liberated neoliberal
individual guarantees the persistence and reproduction of human ills in space
and earth
Dickens 2010 (Peter, Professor of Sociology at Cambridge, “The Humanization of the Cosmos”
http://monthlyreview.org/2010/11/01/the-humanization-of-the-cosmos-to-what-end Date Accessed 7/19/11)
The general point is that the vision of the Space Renaissance Initiative, with its prime focus on the
power of the supposedly autonomous and inventive individual, systematically omits questions of
social, economic, and military power. Similarly, the Initiative’s focus on the apparently universal
benefits of space humanization ignores some obvious questions. What will ploughing large amounts
of capital into outer space colonization really do for stopping the exploitation of people and resources
back here on earth? The “solution” seems to be simultaneously exacerbating social problems while
jetting away from them. Consumer-led industrial capitalism necessarily creates huge social divisions
and increasing degradation of the environment. Why should a galactic capitalism do otherwise? The
Space Renaissance Initiative argues that space-humanization is necessarily a good thing for the
environment by introducing new space-based technologies such as massive arrays of solar panels. But such
“solutions” are again imaginary. Cheap electricity is most likely to increase levels of production and
consumption back on earth. Environmental degradation will be exacerbated rather than diminished
by this technological fix.




                                                                                                     21
SDI 11
File Title



                                        Outsourcing Now
Current plans imagine developing the moon as a source of infinite
commercial opportunity—space is cleared for private colonization
Pesta 11 (Billy, Media major at DePaul, “Private Companies Pioneer Space Race”
http://www.socialtechpop.com/2011/07/private-companies-pioneer-space-race/ Date Accessed 7/17/11)

Now that its conquered earth its heading for the moon. The Internet juggernaut Google leads a new
generation of space entrepreneurs who want to whip up excitement about the prospect of returning to the
moon. Driven by the 30 million dollars put up by Google ,29 teams have signed up for a competition to
become the first private venture to set foot on the moon. Most are unlikely to prevail over the finical and
technical challenges to meet the contest deadline of December 2015, although several companies believe
they have a good shot to win and take an early lead in the race to take commercial advntage of the moon.
One such company nestled in the hills of Silicon Valley has seemingly high expectations. Moon Express,
lead by internet billionaire Naveen Jain is positioning itself as a future Federal Express for Moon deliveries,
so if you hove something you want to send to our celestial neighbor, they would like to bring it. Deliveries
are not the only thing the company plans to capitalize on in the commercial space race. “In the near
future, the Moon Express lunar lander will be mining the Moon for precious resources that we need
here on Earth,” said a written statement by the company. Sounds like a bad sci-fi movie but the fiction
could become reality very quickly as the company does not appear to face any legal hurdles. The
Outer Space Treaty of 1967, approved by 100 nations including the United States, bans any country
from claiming sovereignty over any part of the Moon, but does not prevent private companies from
setting up shop. As for mining the Moon, it could fall under similar legal parameters as fishing in
international waters. “It’s probably the biggest wealth creation opportunity in modern history,” said
Barney Pell, a former NASA computer scientist turned entrepreneur and now a co-founder of Moon
Express. While Moon Express might initially make money by sending small payloads, the big fortune
would come from bringing back platinum and other rare metals, Dr. Pell said.

Obama plan radically cuts public space programs to deliver a windfall to
private corporations—this ratifies and enhances the capitalist colonization of
outer space
Dickens 2010 (Peter, Professor of Sociology at Cambridge, “The Humanization of the Cosmos”
http://monthlyreview.org/2010/11/01/the-humanization-of-the-cosmos-to-what-end Date Accessed 7/19/11)

Society is increasingly humanizing the cosmos. Satellites have for some time been central to the flow of
information, to surveillance, and to the conduct of warfare. As these examples suggest, however, the
humanization of the cosmos is primarily benefiting the powerful. These include major economic and
military institutions. Furthermore, the forthcoming commodification and colonization of the cosmos is
again likely to enhance the interests of the powerful, the major aerospace companies in particular.
The time has come to consider alternative forms of cosmic humanization. These would enhance the
prospects of the socially marginalized. They would also allow humanity to develop a better
understanding of the cosmos and our relationship to it.1 Humanizing Outer Space The 1969 Apollo 11
moon landing is often seen as the high point of society’s relationship with outer space. Nothing quite so
dramatic or exotic seems to have happened in outer space since. But nearby, parts of the solar system
(including the moon, some asteroids, and Mars) are now being routinely circled and explored and analyzed
by robots. Furthermore, President Obama has recently made important announcements regarding a
new U.S. space program that involves manned missions to Mars by the mid-2030s. But the NASA-
based Constellation program to the moon and Mars has been cancelled. Instead, NASA will
undertake a long-term research and development program aimed at supporting future forms of
propulsion and exploration programs. Even more significant in the short-term is a proposed $25
billion being allocated to NASA to kick-start commercial manned spaceflight over the next five years.
New forms of transport to the International Space Station will be funded, this time using innovative
forms of “space taxis” designed by private sector space companies.2 These plans entail new relations


                                                                                                            22
SDI 11
File Title

between the private and public sectors in the United States. Meanwhile, a presence in outer space is
being developed by other societies. This is partly because such a presence is seen as an important
symbol of modernization, progress, and social unity. The Indian government has announced a manned
mission to the moon in 2013, the European Space Agency envisages projects to the moon and beyond, and
the Chinese government is planning a similar project for 2020. This last development has caused some
consternation over Obama’s plans. One suggestion is that the United States may after all be the next to send
manned missions to the moon, because China’s space project is seen by some as a military threat that needs
forestalling.3 Yet among these plans and proposals, it is easy to forget that outer space is already being
increasingly humanized. It has now been made an integral part of the way global capitalist society is
organized and extended. Satellites, for example, are extremely important elements of contemporary
communications systems. These have enabled an increasing number of people to become part of the labor
market. Teleworking is the best known example. Satellite-based communications have also facilitated new
forms of consumption such as teleshopping. Without satellite-based communications, the global economy
in its present form would grind to a halt. Satellites have also been made central to modern warfare.
Combined with pilotless Predator drones, they are now being used to observe and attack Taliban and Al-
Qaida operatives in Afghanistan and elsewhere. This action is done by remote control from Creech Air
Force Base at Indian Springs, Nevada. The 1980s Strategic Defense Initiative, or “Star Wars” program,
aimed to intercept incoming missiles while facilitating devastating attacks on supposed enemies. A version
of the program is still being developed, with the citizens of the Czech Republic and Poland now under
pressure to accept parts of a U.S.-designed “missile defense shield.” This is part of a wider strategy of “Full
Spectrum Dominance,” which has for some time been official U.S. Defense Policy.4 Using surveillance
and military equipment located in outer space is now seen as the prime means of protecting U.S.
economic and military assets both on Earth and in outer space. Less dangerously, but still very
expensively, a full-scale space-tourism industry has for some time been under active development. Dennis
Tito, a multi-millionaire, made the first tourist trip into outer space in 2001. Richard Branson’s Virgin
Galactic has now sold over three hundred seats at $200,000 apiece to its first tourists in outer space. The
program is due to start in 2011, with spaceports for this novel form of travel now being built in Alaska,
California, Florida, New Mexico, Virginia, Wisconsin, the United Arab Emirates, and Esrange in Sweden.
Excursions circling the moon, likely to cost the galactic visitors around $100,000,000, are now under
development. Since the Renaissance period of the sixteenth century, the word “humanization” has been
used to connote something beneficial, especially to human beings. As we will now see, humanizing the
cosmos is regarded in just these terms by some influential proponents of space travel and space
colonization.

Private space initiatives circumvent the regime of the Outer Space Treaty,
replacing the doctrine of “communal things” with a doctrine of private
ownership—this enhances existing nefarious trends in space politics
MacDonald 2007 (Fraser, Professor of Geography, University of Melbourne, “Anti-Astropolitik –
outer space and the orbit of geography” Progress in Human Geography 31(5))
The primary problem for those advanc- ing Astropolitik is that space is not a lawless frontier. In fact the
legal character of space has long been enshrined in the principles of the OST and this has, to some extent,
pre- vented it from being subject to unbridled interstate competition. ‘While it is morally desirable to
explore space in common with all peoples’, writes Dolman without conviction, ‘even the thought of doing
so makes weary those who have the means’ (Dolman, 2002: 135). Thus, the veneer of transcendent human-
ism with regard to space gives way to brazen self-interest. Accordingly, Dolman describes the res
communis consensus7 of the OST as ‘a tragedy’ that has removed any legal in- centive for the exploitation
of space (p. 137). Only a res nullius8 legal order could construct space as ‘proper objects for which states
may compete’ (p. 138). Under the paradigm of res nullius and Astropolitik, the moon and other celestial
bodies would become potential new territory for states. Here Dolman again parallels Karl Hausofer’s
Geopolitik. Just as Hausofer desired a break from the Versailles Treaty ( Tuathail, 1996: 45), Dolman
wants to see the USA withdraw from the OST, making full speed ahead for the moon (see also Hickman
and Dolman, 2002). Non-space- faring developing countries need not worry about losing out, says Dolman,
as they ‘would own no less of the Moon than they do now’ (2002: 140). To his credit, Dolman does give
some attention to the divisive social consequences of this concentrated power. Drawing on earlier currents
of environmental determinism and on the terrestrial model of Antarctic exploration, he ponders the


                                                                                                            23
SDI 11
File Title

characteristics of those who will be first to colonize space. They will be ‘highly educated, rigorously
trained and psy- chologically screened for mental toughness and decision-making skills, and very phy-
sically fit’; ‘the best and brightest of our pilots, technicians and scientists’; ‘rational, given to scientific
analysis and explanation, and obsessed with their professions’ (p. 26). In other words, ‘they are a superior
subset of the larger group from which they spring’ (p. 27). As if this picture is not vivid enough, Dolman
goes on to say that colonizers of space ‘will be the most capably endowed (or at least the most ruthlessly
suitable, as the populating of America and Australia ... so aptly illustrate[s])’ (p. 27; my emphasis). ‘Duty
and sacrifice will be the highest moral ideals’ (p. 27). Society, he continues, must be prepared ‘to make
heroes’ of those who undertake the risk of exploration (p. 146). At the same time, ‘the astropolitical society
must be prepared to forego expenditures on social programs ... to channel funds into the national space
program. It must be embued with the national spirit’ (p. 146).




                                                                                                              24
SDI 11
File Title




             Neoliberalism Section




                                     25
SDI 11
File Title



                                      Neoliberalism Adv.
States clear the path for markets—the status quo discourse of space
privatization constitutes a neoliberal exercise par excellence—the waning of
the power of the state and its shrinking in the face of the invisible hand of the
market pave the path for neoliberal hegemony to become common sense
Harvey 2007 (David, Eminent Professor and Leading theorist of neoliberal globalization,
“Neoliberalism as Creative Destruction” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,
Vol. 610, Accesed via JSTOR)

Neoliberalism is a theory of political economic practices proposing that human well-being can best be
advanced by the maximization of entrepreneurial freedoms within an institutional framework
characterized by prvate property rights, individual liberty, unencumbered markets, and free trade.
The role of the state is to create and preserve an institutional framework appropriate to such
practices. The state has to be concerned, for example, with the quality and integrity of money. It must also
set up military, defense, police, and juridical functions required to secure private property rights and to
support freely functioning markets. Furthermore, if markets do not exist (in areas such as education,
health care, social security, or environmental pollution), then they must be created, by state action if
necessary. But beyond these tasks the state should not venture. State interventions in markets (once
created) must be kept to a bare minimum because the state cannot possibly possess enough
information to second-guess market signals (prices) and because powerful interests will inevitably
distort and bias state interventions (particularly in democracies) for their own benefit. For a variety of
reasons, the actual practices of neoliberalism frequently diverge from this template. Nevertheless, there has
everywhere been an emphatic turn, ostensibly led by the Thatcher/Reagan revolutions in Britain and the
United States, in political-economic practices and thinking since the 1970s. State after state, from the new
ones that emerged from the collapse of the Soviet Union to old-style social democracies and welfare states
such as New Zealand and Sweden, have embraced, sometimes voluntarily and sometimes in response to
coercive pressures, some version of neoliberal theory and adjusted at least some of their policies and
practices accordingly. Postapartheid South Africa quickly adopted the neoliberal frame and even
contemporary China appears to be headed in that direction. Furthermore, advocates of the neoliberal
mindset now occupy positions of considerable influence in education (universities and many “think
tanks”), in the media, in corporate board rooms and financial institutions, in key state institutions
(treasury departments, central banks), and also in those inter- national institutions such as the International
Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) that regulate global finance and
commerce. Neoliberalism has, in short, become hegemonic as a mode of discourse and has pervasive
effects on ways of thought and political-economic practices to the point where it has become
incorporated into the commonsense way we interpret, live in, and understand the world.
Neoliberalization has in effect swept across the world like a vast tidal wave of institutional reform and
discursive adjustment. While plenty of evidence shows its uneven geographical development, no place can
claim total immunity (with the exception of a few states such as North Korea). Furthermore, the rules of
engagement now established through the WTO (governing international trade) and by the IMF (governing
international finance) instantiate neoliberalism as a global set of rules. All states that sign on to the WTO
and the IMF (and who can afford not to?) agree to abide (albeit with a “grace period” to permit smooth
adjustment) by these rules or face severe penalties. The creation of this neoliberal system has entailed
much destruction, not only of prior institutional frameworks and powers (such as the supposed prior
state sovereignty over political-economic affairs) but also of divisions of labor, social relations, welfare
provisions, technological mixes, ways of life, attachments to the land, habits of the heart, ways of thought,
and the like. Some assessment of the positives and negatives of this neoliberal revolution is called for. In
what follows, therefore, I will sketch in some preliminary arguments as to how to both under- stand and
evaluate this transformation in the way global capitalism is working. This requires that we come to terms
with the underlying forces, interests, and agents that have propelled the neoliberal revolution forward with
such relentless intensity. To turn the neoliberal rhetoric against itself, we may reasonably ask, In




                                                                                                            26
SDI 11
File Title

whose particular interests is it that the state take a neoliberal stance and in what ways have those
interests used neoliberalism to benefit themselves rather than, as is claimed, everyone, everywhere?

Commons key—state under neoliberalism eradicates shared space/resources
Harvey 2007 (David, Eminent Professor and Leading theorist of neoliberal globalization,
“Neoliberalism as Creative Destruction” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,
Vol. 610, Accesed via JSTOR)
Intellectual property rights established through the so-called TRIPS (Trade- Related Aspects of Intellectual
Property Rights) agreement within the WTO defines genetic materials, seed plasmas, and all manner of
other products as pri- vate property. Rents for use can then be extracted from populations whose prac- tices
had played a crucial role in the development of such genetic materials. Bio-piracy is rampant, and the
pillaging of the world’s stockpile of genetic resources is well under way to the benefit of a few large
pharmaceutical compa- nies. The escalating depletion of the global environmental commons (land, air,
water) and proliferating habitat degradations that preclude anything but capital- intensive modes of
agricultural production have likewise resulted from the wholesale commodification of nature in all its
forms. The commodification (through tourism) of cultural forms, histories, and intellectual creativity
entails wholesale dispossessions (the music industry is notorious for the appropriation and
exploitation of grassroots culture and creativity). As in the past, the power of the state is frequently
used to force such processes through even against popular will. The rolling back of regulatory
frameworks designed to protect labor and the environment from degradation has entailed the loss of
rights. The reversion of common property rights won through years of hard class struggle (the right
to a state pension, to welfare, to national health care) into the private domain has been one of the most
egregious of all policies of dispossession pursued in the name of neoliberal orthodoxy.

Space is the key sector—it's the new locus of neoliberal development that will
come to overdetermine our relations on earth
MacDonald 2007 (Fraser, Professor of Geography, University of Melbourne, “Anti-Astropolitik –
outer space and the orbit of geography” Progress in Human Geography 31(5))

Among the technical and logistical ad- vances in space technology too numerous to detail here, there are
two tendencies that stand out. First, 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; L la, 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). Second, 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,
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 supertankers. The space- based science of weather forecasting
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 ad- vances in space-enabled warfare
that have inspired recent American military operations in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq (Graham,
2004; Gray, 2005). Following in the vapour trails of the United States, Europe, Russia and China are
also trying to extend their sover- eignty into outer space. As I will go on to dis- cuss, terrestrial
geopolitics are increasingly being determined by extraterrestrial 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 hypermobile infor-
mation which, in combination with advanced technologies of ‘software-sorting’ (Graham, 2005a), has
enabled a wider ‘automatic pro- duction 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
hegem- ony, as an earlier conception of space as com- mon property, enshrined in the 1967 UN Outer
Space Treaty (OST), becomes subject to renegotiation. In place of the OST is the prospect of a new


                                                                                                         27
SDI 11
File Title

space regime, as transformative in its own way as the Bretton Woods consensus, that would oversee
the privatization 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
reshaping of Earthly environments recently discussed by Nigel Thrift (2005a).

Space is the key sector—it reproduces and then reinforces old attitudes,
producing a new neoliberalism of space and earth
MacDonald 2007 (Fraser, Professor of Geography, University of Melbourne, “Anti-Astropolitik –
outer space and the orbit of geography” Progress in Human Geography 31(5))

Many of these space-enabled develop- ments have, unaccountably, been neglected by the mainstream of
geography. For instance, Barney Warf makes the comment that ‘to date, satellites remain a black hole in
the geographical literature on communications’ (Warf, 2006: 2). Yet these technologies underwrite an
array of potentially new subjectivities, modes of thinking and ways of being whose amorphous shape
has recently been given outline by Thrift in a series of original and perceptive essays (Thrift, 2004a;
2004b; 2005a). He draws our attention to assemblages of software, hardware, new forms of address and
locatability, new kinds of background calculation and processing, that constitute more active and recursive
every- day environments. The background ‘hum’ of computation that makes western life possible, he
argues, has been for the most part inaudible to social researchers. Of particular interest to Thrift is the
tendency towards ‘making different parts of the world locatable and transposable within a global
architecture of address’ (Thrift, 2004a: 588), which is, of course, the ultimate achievement of Global
Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS), of which GPS is the current market leader. On the back of the
absolute space of GPS – and its ancillary cartographic achievements (Pickles, 2004) – have emerged other
(relational) spatial imaginaries and new perceptual capacities, whereby the ability to determine one’s
location and that of other people and things is increasingly a matter of human precognition (Thrift, 2005a:
472). Dis- solving any neat distinction between ‘nature’ and ‘technology’, this new faculty of techno-
intelligence can support quite different modes of sensory experience. Thrift offers the term ‘a-whereness’
to describe these new spatial modalities that are formed when what used to be called ‘technology’ has
moved ‘so decisively into the interstices of the active percipience of everyday life’ (Thrift, 2005a: 472;
see also Massey and Thrift, 2003: 291). For all its clunky punnage, ‘a-whereness’ nevertheless gives a
name to a set of highly contingent forms of subjectivity that are worth anticipating, even if, by Thrift’s own
admission, they remain necessarily speculative. Reading this body of work can induce a certain vertigo,
confronting potentially precipitous shifts in human sociality. The same sensation is also in- duced by
engagement with Paul Virilio (2005). But, unlike Virilio, Thrift casts off any sense of foreboding (Thrift,
2005b) and instead embraces the construction of ‘new qualities’ (‘conventions, techniques, forms, genres,
con- cepts and even ... senses’), which in turn open up new ethicopolitical possibilities (Thrift, 2004a:
583). It is important not to jettison this openness lightly. Even so, I remain circumspect about the
social relations that underwrite these emergent qualities, and I am puzzled by Thrift’s disregard of
the (geo)political con- texts within which these new technologies have come to prominence. A critical
geography should, I think, be alert to the ways in which state and corporate power are immanent
within these technologies, actively strategizing new possibilities for capital accumulation and mili-
tary neoliberalism. To the extent that we can sensibly talk about ‘a-whereness’ it is surely a function
of a new turn in capitalism, which has arguably expanded beyond the frame (but not the reach) of
Marx and Engels when they wrote that: the need for a constantly expanding market for its products chases
the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish
connections everywhere. (Marx and Engels, 1998: 39) The current struggle for orbital supremacy, as the
next section will make clear, is an exten- sion of these relations into space in order to consolidate them
back on Earth. Indeed, outer space may become, to use David Harvey’s term, a ‘spatio-temporal fix’
that can respond to crises of over-accumulation (Harvey, 2003: 43). While this might seem like
shorthand for the sort of Marxist critique that Thrift rejects (Amin and Thrift, 2005), it is an analysis that
is also shared by the advocates of American Astropolitik, who describe space as the means by which
‘capitalism will never reach wealth saturation’ (Dolman, 2002: 175). The production of (outer) space
should, I think, be understood in this wider context. To illustrate this discussion, it is worth returning to the
example of GNSS (GPS and its new European competitor, Galileo), given the centrality of positioning
technologies to the tendencies that Thrift describes. Let us not neglect the significance of these changes



                                                                                                              28
SDI 11
File Title

(which, to his great credit, Thrift is among the earliest in the social sciences to recognize). We are
potentially talking about an end to the ordinary meaning of the question ‘Where am I?’. In a
development comparable to the nineteenth-century standardization of clock time for the measurement of
labour, GNSS technology has conquered space; it is becom- ing part of the computational background
to everyday life – ‘an epistemic wallpaper’ – a form which, like clock time, structures social life but is
relatively invisible because of its utter familiarity (Thrift, 2004a). GNSS repre- sents a standardization of
space in terms of a Euclidean topology or system of coordinates – ‘the most absolute of absolute spaces’
(Thrift, 2004a: 600) – which, while not new in its con- ception, has only been fully realized with the advent
of satellites and atomic clocks. From now on, every corner of the globe can be given an address to an
accuracy of 4 m, allowing, as we have already seen, for an unprecedented ability to track people and things.

Major enclosure thesis evidence—1AC quality




                                                                                                          29
SDI 11
File Title



                                     Imperialism Internal
Status quo plans for space exploration framed around a project of imperial
control—plan reverses that warrant
MacDonald 2007 (Fraser, Professor of Geography, University of Melbourne, “Anti-Astropolitik –
outer space and the orbit of geography” Progress in Human Geography 31(5))
My basic claim, then, is that a geographical concern with outer space is an old project, not a new one. A
closely related argument is that a geography of outer space is a logical extension of earlier geographies of
imperial exploration (for instance, Smith and Godlewska, 1994; Driver, 2001). Space exploration has used
ex- actly the same discourses, the same rationales, and even the same institutional frameworks (such as the
International Geophysical Year, 1957–58) as terrestrial exploration. Like its terrestrial counterpart, the
move into space has its origins in older imperial enterprises. Marina Benjamin, for instance, argues that for
the United States outer space was ‘always a metaphorical extension of the American West’ (Benjamin,
2003: 46). Looking at the imbricated narratives of colonialism and the Arianne space programme in French
Guiana, the anthropologist Peter Redfield makes the case that ‘outer space reflects a practical shadow of
empire’ (Redfield, 2002: 795; see also Redfield, 2000). The historian of science Richard Sorrenson, writing
about the ship as geography’s scientific instrument in the age of high empire, draws on the work of David
DeVorkin to argue that the V-2 missile was its natural successor (Sorrenson, 1996: 228; see also DeVorkin,
1992). A version of the V-2 – the two-stage ‘Bumper WAC Corporal’ – became the first earthly object to
penetrate outer space, reaching an altitude of 244 miles on 24 February 1949 (Army Ballistic Missile
Agency, 1961). Moreover, out of this postwar allied V-2 programme came the means by which Britain
attempted to reassert its geo- political might in the context of its own ailing empire. In 1954, when America
sold Britain its first nuclear missile – a refined version of the WAC Corporal – its possession was seen as a
shortcut back to the international stage at a time when Britain’s colonial power was waning fast (Clark,
1994; MacDonald, 2006a). Even if the political geography literature has scarcely engaged with outer space,
the advent of rocketry was basically Cold War (imperial) geopolitics under another name. Space ex-
ploration then, from its earliest origins to the present day, has been about familiar terrestrial and ideological
struggles here on Earth.




                                                                                                              30
SDI 11
File Title



                               Commodification Internal
Neoliberalism dehumanizes and destroys life, relegating humans as
commodities to be bought and sold – justifying genocide
Shiva 2003 (Vandana, physicist, ecologist, activist, editor, and author of many books, ZNet
Daily Commentaries, Globalisation and Its Fallout, April 2, http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2003-
04/02shiva.cfm. July 19, 2011.)

The first is the market fundamentalism of globalization itself. This fundamentalism redefines life as
commodity, society as economy, and the market as the means and end of the human enterprise. The
market is being made the organizing principle for the provisioning of food, water, health, education and
other basic needs, it is being made the organizing principle for governance, it is being made the
measure of our humanity. Our being human is no longer predicated on the fundamental human
rights enshrined in all constitutions and in the U.N. declaration of human rights. It is now conditional
on our ability to "buy" our needs on the global marketplace in which the conditions of life -food,
water, health, knowledge have become the ultimate commodities controlled by a handful of corporations.
In the market fundamentalism of globalization, everything is a commodity, everything is for sale.
Nothing is sacred, there are no fundamental rights of citizens and no fundamental duties of governments.
The market fundamentalism of globalization and the economic exclusion inherent to it is giving rise to, and
being reinforced and supported by politics of exclusion emerging in the form of political parties based on
"religious fundamentalism"/xenophobia/ethnic cleansing and reinforcement of patriarchies and
castism. The culture of commodification has increased violence against women, whether it is in the
form of rising domestic violence, increasing cases of rape, an epidemic of female foeticide, and
increased trafficking in women.




                                                                                                        31
SDI 11
File Title



                                         Dehumanization Impact
Neoliberalism structurally dehumanizes life – people are reduced to isolated
creatures of the market
Brohman 95 [John, Professor of Geography at Simon Fraser University, Canada, Third World
Quarterly: Volume 16, Issue 2, 1995, “Economism and critical silences in development studies: A
theoretical critique of neoliberalism”, Taylor Francis Online, d/a: 7-19-2011 WL]
The multifaceted and dynamic nature of development processes makes it necessary to take an interdisciplinary approach to the study
of development, one that includes sociocultural, political, and environmental factors as well as those economic. However,
neoliberalism and other mainstream development frameworks that draw their conceptual roots from
neoclassical theory have virtually omitted non-economic factors of development from serious
consideration. 1 As Hirschman notes, `The discipline became professionally more narrow at precisely the
moment when the problem [of development] demanded broader, more political, and social insights’ .
2 Characteristically, neoclassical theory treats people as atomistic individuals who are bound together only
through market forces. People are reduced to isolated creatures of the marketplace, devoid of
history, cultural traditions, political opinions and social relationships beyond simple market
exchanges. 3 The conventional assumption is that non-market relations and institutions—the broader environments within which
economies operate are universal, unchanging, and have no significant impact on economic activities. 4 Economies take on an
ahistorical, static nature and economic change becomes solely the result of exogenous changes in tastes           and
technology. 5 Stripped of their social relations and historical dynamism, economies are reduced to
simple technical devices for allocating scarce resources. The consequences are often unrealistic and
trivial results derived from narrow, simplistic analyses that ignore the complexities surrounding
Third World economic realities. The gap between theory and reality within neoclassical economics is largely rooted in a
series of unrealistic assumptions, especially those linked to the homo economicus postulate. The concept of homo economicusrst
emerged with the birth of marginalist or neoclassical economics, as it became known, around 1870. From its origins, neoclassical
theory has basically conceived of a world composed of scarce means and unlimited desires, within which individuals must make
choices. The role of homo economicus within this world becomes one of defining the `best’ choices, ie those that maximise an
individual’ s ends given the limited means available. Homo economicus performs this function as a `rational, self-interested,
instrumental maximizer with ® xed preferences’ . 6 Social processes are reduced to a universal psychological
end—utility— which supposedly motivates all economically rational behaviour.


It’s systemic – neolib depends on positivist methods that restrict the value of
human life
Brohman 95 [John, Professor of Geography at Simon Fraser University, Canada, Third World
Quarterly: Volume 16, Issue 2, 1995, “Economism and critical silences in development studies: A
theoretical critique of neoliberalism”, Taylor Francis Online, d/a: 7-19-2011 WL]

Closely related to neoliberalism’ s problems with economism is its dependence on an essentially positivist
mode of scientific enquiry. More broadly, positivist methods restrict research to the narrow empirical
world of observable events and phenomena. Other components of reality, such as social relations, values, meanings
and interpretations, are excluded from serious consideration. Individuals and social groups are treated like
atomistic objects or things that follow universal laws and are devoid of any social content or
meaning. However, if development concerns processes of human action and interaction rather than just
goods and resources, it is important to deepen our understanding of what it is to be human. This
necessitates incorporating a hermeneutic component into development studies that addresses how human actions and social
relations are linked with intersubjective values and meanings. The hermeneutic environment of social practices is profoundly
historical in nature, rather than being universal as is assumed in neoclassical theory. Social practices, which in the
closed empirical world of neoliberalism may appear to be similar, may in the real world be
interpreted quite differently and may take on distinct meanings across time and space.




                                                                                                                                   32
SDI 11
File Title

Humanity cannot exist in a neoliberal framework
Brohman 95 [John, Professor of Geography at Simon Fraser University, Canada, Third World
Quarterly: Volume 16, Issue 2, 1995, “Economism and critical silences in development studies: A
theoretical critique of neoliberalism”, Taylor Francis Online, d/a: 7-19-2011 WL]

In general, subjectivistcritiques of the neoclassical framework in development studies emphasise the
need to pay more attention to human complexities and to the dynamic , open-ended, and non-determined
nature of social processes. Emphasis is placed on processes of social change, non-equilibrating
tendencies, local diversity and human creativity. It is believed that efforts should be made to explore various
subjective elements of development among different classes and social groups, alongside the usual studies of overt materialist
behaviour and the more objective features of development. This involves attempts to `bring the actors back’ into development
studies in the particular economic, political, and sociocultural contexts within which they operate. Research tries to interpret
others’ understanding of their world from their own special vantage points and without preconceived notions and conceptions.
Contrary to neoclassical theory, it is neither assumed that the economic sphere is dominant nor that
social processes conform to some sort of predetermined universal logic. Moreover, advocates of
alternative conceptions of development contend that a primary concern for `humaneness’ , including
social, ethical and moral considerations, should replace the abstract, technical focus that the science
of economics has given to development theory. 34 Inevitably, this raises questions of purpose within
development studies and brings issues such as social justice and environmental sustainability to the
forefront. Accordingly, new questions and criteria are needed to assess development performance in
diverse areas such as employment and equity, family life, individual freedom, cultural values, community
welfare and ecological soundness. Questions that presently revolve around narrow concerns of `How much economic
growth?’ in neoclassical theory are transformed into broader issues of `Economic growth for what and for whom?’



Dehumanization is the root cause of genocide and war. When human dignity
is disposable, all other impacts are possible
David Berube, professor of communications at South Carolina, June/July 1997,
NanoTechnology Magazine, Vol. 3, Iss. 5, “Nanotechnological Prolongevity: The Down Side,”
http://www.cas.sc.edu/engl/faculty/berube/prolong.htm
    This means-ends dispute is at the core of Montagu and Matson’s treatise on the dehumanization of
    humanity. They warn: “its destructive toll is already greater than that of any war, plague, famine, or
    natural calamity on record -- and its potential danger to the quality of life and the fabric of civilized
    society is beyond calculation. For that reason this sickness of the soul might well be called the Fifth
    Horseman of the Apocalypse.... Behind the genocide of the holocaust lay a dehumanized thought;
    beneath the menticide of deviants and dissidents... in the cuckoo’s next of America, lies a dehumanized
    image of man... (Montagu & Matson, 1983, p. xi-xii). While it may never be possible to quantify the
    impact dehumanizing ethics may have had on humanity, it is safe to conclude the foundations of
    humanness offer great opportunities which would be foregone. When we calculate the actual losses and
    the virtual benefits, we approach a nearly inestimable value greater than any tools which we can
    currently use to measure it. Dehumanization is nuclear war, environmental apocalypse, and
    international genocide. When people become things, they become dispensable. When people are
    dispensable, any and every atrocity can be justified. Once justified, they seem to be inevitable for every
    epoch has evil and dehumanization is evil’s most powerful weapon.


Dehumanization facilitates genocide
Michelle Maiese, philosophy graduate student at the University of Colorado, research staff at the
Conflict Research Consortium, 2003, “Dehumanization,” Intractable Conflict Knowledge Base Project of
the Conflict Research Consortium, http://www.intractableconflict.org/m/dehumanization.jsp
    Dehumanization is a psychological process whereby opponents view each other as less than human and
    thus not deserving of moral consideration. Jews in the eyes of Nazis and Tutsis in the eyes of Hutus (in
    the Rwandan genocide) are but two examples. Protracted conflict strains relationships and makes it
    difficult for parties to recognize that they are part of a shared human community. Such conditions often
    lead to feelings of intense hatred and alienation among conflicting parties. The more severe the conflict,


                                                                                                                             33
SDI 11
File Title

   the more the psychological distance between groups will widen. Eventually, this can result in moral
   exclusion. Those excluded are typically viewed as inferior, evil, or criminal. We typically think that all
   people have some basic human rights that should not be violated. Innocent people should not be
   murdered, raped, or tortured. Rather, international law suggests that they should be treated justly and
   fairly, with dignity and respect. They deserve to have their basic needs met, and to have some freedom
   to make autonomous decisions. In times of war, parties must take care to protect the lives of innocent
   civilians on the opposing side. Even those guilty of breaking the law should receive a fair trial, and
   should not be subject to any sort of cruel or unusual punishment. However, for individuals viewed as
   outside the scope of morality and justice, "the concepts of deserving basic needs and fair treatment do
   not apply and can seem irrelevant." Any harm that befalls such individuals seems warranted, and
   perhaps even morally justified. Those excluded from the scope of morality are typically perceived as
   psychologically distant, expendable, and deserving of treatment that would not be acceptable for those
   included in one’s moral community. Common criteria for exclusion include ideology, skin color, and
   cognitive capacity. We typically dehumanize those whom we perceive as a threat to our well-being or
   values. Psychologically, it is necessary to categorize one’s enemy as sub-human in order to legitimize
   increased violence or justify the violation of basic human rights. Moral exclusion reduces restraints
   against harming or exploiting certain groups of people. In severe cases, dehumanization makes the
   violation of generally accepted norms of behavior regarding one’s fellow man seem reasonable, or even
   necessary.




                                                                                                           34
SDI 11
File Title



                           Neoliberalism Impact--Poverty
Neoliberal ideology and the replacement of a shared space with a private
rationality guarantees mass impacts like poverty
Giroux 04 (Professor of Media at McMaster University, “Public Pedagogy and the Politics of
Neoliberalism” Policy Futures in Education, Volume 2, Numbers 3 & 4)
Under neo-liberalism, the state now makes a grim alignment with corporate capital and
transnational corporations. Gone are the days when the state ‘assumed responsibility for a range of social
needs’.[5] Instead, agencies of government now pursue a wide range of ‘“deregulations”, privatizations,
and abdications of responsibility to the market and private philanthropy’.[6] Deregulation, in turn,
promotes ‘widespread, systematic disinvestment in the nation’s basic productive capacity’.[7] As neo-
liberal policies dominate politics and social life, the breathless rhetoric of the global victory of free-
market rationality is invoked to cut public expenditures and undermine those non- commodified
public spheres that serve as the repository for critical education, language, and public intervention.
Spewed forth by the mass media, right-wing intellectuals, religious fanatics, and politicians, neo-liberal
ideology, with its merciless emphasis on deregulation and privatization, has found its material expression
in an all-out attack on democratic values and social relations – particularly those public spheres
where such values are learned and take root. Public services such as health care, childcare, public
assistance, education, and transportation are now subject to the rules of the market. Social relations
between parents and children, doctors and patients, and teachers and students are reduced to those of
supplier and customer, just as the laws of market replace those non-commodified values capable of
defending vital public goods and spheres. Forsaking the public good for the private good and hawking
the needs of the corporate and private sector as the only source of sound investment, neo-liberal
ideology produces, legitimates, and exacerbates the existence of persistent poverty, inadequate health
care, racial apartheid in the inner cities, and the growing inequalities between the rich and the
poor.[8] In its capacity to dehistoricize and naturalize such sweeping social change, as well as in its
aggressive attempts to destroy all of the public spheres necessary for the defense of a genuine
democracy, neo-liberalism reproduces the conditions for unleashing the most brutalizing forces of
capitalism. Social Darwinism, with its brutalizing indifference to human suffering, has risen like a phoenix
from the ashes of the nineteenth century and can now be seen in full display on most reality television
programs and in the unfettered self-interest that now drives popular culture and fits so well with the spirit
of neo-fascism. As social bonds are replaced by unadulterated materialism and narcissism, public
concerns are now understood and experienced as utterly private miseries, except when offered up on
The Jerry Springer Show as fodder for entertainment. Where public space – or its mass-mediated
simulacrum – does exist, it is mainly used as a highly orchestrated and sensational confessional for private
woes, a cut-throat game of winner takes all replacing more traditional forms of courtship as in Who Wants
to Marry a Millionaire? or as an advertisement for crass consumerism, like MTV’s Cribs.

Poverty is the equivalent to a thermonuclear war between Russia and the US
– this systemic impact is bigger and more probable than any war
James  Gilligan     , Department of Psychiatry at Harvard                 Medical School, 2000    edition,
Violence: Reflections on Our Deadliest Epidemic, p. 195-196
   The 14 to 18 million deaths a year caused by structural violence compare with about 100,000 deaths per
   year from armed conflict. Comparing this frequency of deaths from structural violence to the frequency
   of those caused by major military and political violence, such as World War II (an estimated 49 million
   military and civilian deaths, including those caused by genocide--or about eight million per year, 1935-
   1945), the Indonesian massacre of 1965-1966 (perhaps 575,000 deaths), the Vietnam war (possibly two
   million, 1954-1973), and even a hypothetical nuclear exchange between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R (232
   million), it was clear that even war cannot begin to compare with structural violence, which continues
   year after year. In other word, every fifteen years, on the average, as many people die because of
   relative poverty as would be killed in a nuclear war that caused 232 million deaths; and every single
   year, two to three times as many people die from poverty throughout the world as were killed by the



                                                                                                          35
SDI 11
File Title

   Nazi genocide of the Jews over a six-year period. This is, in effect, the equivalent of an ongoing,
   unending, in fact accelerating, thermonuclear war, or genocide, perpetrated on the weak and poor every
   year of every decade, throughout the world.




                                                                                                       36
SDI 11
File Title



                      Neolib Bad – Xenophobia/Class Inequalities
The manifestation of neoliberalism and its spirit of deregulation infuses
xenophobia, class differences
Comaroff and Comaroff 2000 [Jean is the Bernard E. and Ellen C. Sunny Distinguished Service
Professor in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Chicago, John is the Harold H. Swift
Distinguished Service Professor in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Chicago and
senior research fellow at the American Bar Foundation in Chicago Duke University Press, Public Culture
12.2 (2000) pgs 291-343 “Millennial Capitalism: First Thoughts on a Second Coming”, ProjectMuse, d/a:
7-23-2011 WL]

            after crisis in the global economy, and growing income disparities on a planetary scale,
And yet crisis
makes it painfully plain that there is no such thing as capitalism sans production, that the neoliberal
stress on consumption as the prime source of value is palpably problematic. If scholars have been slow to
reflect on this fact, people all over the world--not least those in places where there have been sudden infusions of commodities,
of new forms of wealth--have not. Many have been quick to give voice, albeit in different registers, to their perplexity at the
enigma of this wealth: of its sources and the capriciousness of its distribution, of the mysterious forms it takes, of its
slipperiness, of the opaque relations between means and ends embodied in it. Our concern here grows directly out of these
perplexities, these imaginings: out of worldwide speculation, in both senses of the term, provoked by the shifting conditions of
material existence at the end of the twentieth century. We seek, here, to interrogate the experiential contradictions
at the core of neoliberal capitalism, of capitalism in its millennial manifestation: the fact that it
appears both to include and to marginalize in unanticipated ways; to produce desire and expectation
on a global scale (Trouillot 1999) yet to decrease the certainty of work or the security of persons; to
magnify class differences but to undercut class consciousness; above all, to offer up vast, almost
instantaneous riches to those who master its spectral technologies--and, simultaneously, to threaten
the very existence of those who do not. Elsewhere (1999c) we have argued that these contradictions, while worldwide
in effect, are most visible in so-called postrevolutionary societies--especially those societies that, having been set free by the
events of 1989 and their aftermath, entered the global arena with distinct structural disadvantages. 14 A good deal is to be
learned about the [End Page 298] historical implications of the current moment by eavesdropping on the popular anxieties to
be heard in such places. How do we interpret the mounting disenchantment, in these "liberated zones," with the effects of
hard-won democracy? Why the perceptible nostalgia for the security of past regimes, some of them immeasurably repressive?
Why the accompanying upsurge of assertions of identity and autochthony? How might they be linked to widespread fears, in
many parts of Eastern Europe and Africa alike, about the preternatural production of wealth? The end of the Cold War, like
the death of apartheid, fired utopian imaginations. But liberation under neoliberal conditions has been marred
by a disconcerting upsurge of violence, crime, and disorder. The quest for democracy, the rule of law,
prosperity, and civility threatens to dissolve into strife and recrimination, even political chaos, amidst the oft-mouthed plaint
that "the poor cannot eat votes or live on a good Constitution." 15 Everywhere there is evidence of an uneasy
fusion of enfranchisement and exclusion; of xenophobia at the prospect of world citizenship without
the old protectionisms of nationhood; of the effort to realize modern utopias by decidedly
postmodern means. Gone is any officialspeak of egalitarian futures, work for all, or the paternal
government envisioned by the various freedom movements. These ideals have given way to a spirita
of deregulation, with its taunting mix of emancipation and limitation. Individual citizens, a lot of them
marooned by a rudderless ship of state, try to clamber aboard the good ship Enterprise. But in so doing, they find themselves
battling the eccentric currents of the "new" world order, which short-circuit received ways and means. Caught up in these
currents, many of them come face to face with the most fundamental metamorphoses wrought by the neoliberal turn: the
labile role of labor in the elusive algorithm connecting production to consumption, the pro to the con of capitalism. 16 Which
brings us back to the problematic status of production at the turn of the new century.
, towards the adoption of a more relativist stance. A central tenet of relativism is that human activities cannot be
explained by recourse to theoretical absolutes, but need to be examined within their particular
contexts. This position is especially relevant to the study of development processes in Third World countries that normally
unfold in contexts that bear only a superficial and often misleading resemblance to their First World counterparts.




                                                                                                                               37
SDI 11
File Title



                                                       Impact: Biopolitics
Neoliberal privatization market forces has created a new form of biopolitical
extermination
Giroux 2006 [Henry A, Global Television Network Chair in English and Cultural Studies at McMaster
University in Hamilton, Ontario, College Literature 33.3 (2006) pgs 171-196 “Reading Hurricane Katrina:
Race, Class, and the Biopolitics of Disposability”, ProjectMuse, d/a: 7-24-2011 WL]
I want to further this position by arguing that neoliberalism, privatization, and militarism have become
the dominant biopolitics of the mid-twentieth-century social state and that the coupling of a market
fundamentalism and contemporary forms of subjugation of life to the power of capital accumulation,
violence, and disposability, especially under the Bush administration, has produced a new and
dangerous version of biopolitics.4 While the murder of Emmett Till suggests that a biopolitics structured
around the intersection of race and class inequalities, on the one hand, and state violence, on the other, has
long existed, the new version of biopolitics adds a distinctively different and more dangerous register. The
new biopolitics not only includes state-sanctioned violence but also relegates entire populations to
spaces of invisibility and disposability. As William DiFazio points out, "the state has been so weakened
over decades of privatization that it . . . increasingly [End Page 181] fails to provide health care,
housing, retirement benefits and education to a massive percentage of its population" (2006, 87).
While the social contract has been suspended in varying degrees since the 1970s, under the Bush
Administration it has been virtually abandoned. Under such circumstances, the state no longer feels
obligated to take measures that prevent hardship, suffering, and death. The state no longer protects its own
disadvantaged citizens—they are already seen as dead within a transnational economic and political
framework. Specific populations now occupy a globalized space of ruthless politics in which the
categories of "citizen" and "democratic representation," once integral to national politics, are no
longer recognized. In the past, people who were marginalized by class and race could at least expect a
modicum of support from the government, either because of the persistence of a drastically reduced social
contract or because they still had some value as part of a reserve army of unemployed labour. That is no
longer true. This new form of biopolitics is conditioned by a permanent state of class and racial exception
in which "vast populations are subject to conditions of life conferring upon them the status of living dead"
(Mbembe 2003, 40), largely invisible in the global media, or, when disruptively present, defined as
redundant, pathological, and dangerous. Within this wasteland of death and disposability, whole
populations are relegated to what Zygmunt Bauman calls "social homelessness" (2004, 13). While the
rich and middle classes in the United States maintain lifestyles produced through vast inequalities of
symbolic and material capital, the "free market" provides neither social protection and security nor
hope to those who are poor, sick, elderly, and marginalized by race and class. Given the increasing
perilous state of the those who are poor and dispossessed in America, it is crucial to reexamine how
biopower functions within global neoliberalism and the simultaneous rise of security states organized
around cultural (and racial) homogeneity. This task is made all the more urgent by the destruction,
politics, and death that followed Hurricane Katrina.

Exercises of biopower justify administration over the body politic – the
ultimate impact is global nuclear conflict, genocide, and extinction
Michel Foucault, Professor of History of Systems of Thought at the Collège de France, 1978, The
History of Sexuality Volume 1: An Introduction, translated by Robert Hurley, p. 135-137
   For a long time, one of the characteristic privileges of sovereign power was the right to decide life and death.
   In a formal sense, it derived no doubt from the ancient patria potestas that granted the father of the Roman
   family the right to “dispose” of the life of his children and his slaves; just as he had given them life, so
   he could take it away. By the time the right of life and death was framed by the classical theoreticians, it was in a considerably diminished
    form. It was no longer considered that this power of the sovereign over his subjects could be exercised in an absolute and unconditional way, but
                                                                                   If he were threatened by external
    only in cases where the sovereign’s very existence was in jeopardy: a sort of right of rejoinder.
    enemies who sought to overthrow him or contest his rights, he could then legitimately wage war, and require his
    subjects to take part in the defense of the state; without “directly proposing their death,” he was empowered to “expose their
    life”: in this sense, he wielded an “indirect” power over them of life and death. But if someone dared to rise up against him and transgress his laws,
    then he could exercise a direct power over the offender’s life: as punishment, the latter would be put to death. Viewed in this way, the power of life




                                                                                                                                                        38
SDI 11
File Title

   and death was not an absolute privilege: it was conditioned by the defense of the sovereign, and his own survival. Must we follow Hobbes in seeing
   it as the transfer to the prince of the natural right possessed by every individual to defend his life even if this meant the death of others? Or should it
                                                                                                          in its modern
   be regarded as a specific right that was manifested with the formation of that new juridical being, the sovereign? In any case,
   form—relative and limited—as in its ancient and absolute form, the right of life and death is a dissymmetrical one.
   The sovereign exercised his right of life only by exercising his right to kill, or by refraining from killing;
   he evidenced his power over life only through the death he was capable of requiring. The right which was formulated as
   the “power of life and death” was in reality the right to take life or let live. Its symbol, after all, was the sword.
   Perhaps this juridical form must be referred to a historical type of society in which power was exercised mainly as a means of deduction
   (prelevement), a subtraction mechanism, a right to appropriate a portion of the wealth, a tax of products, goods and services, labor and blood, levied
   on the subjects. Power in this instance was essentially a right of seizure: of things, time, bodies, and ultimately life itself; it culminated in the
                                                       the West has undergone a very profound
   privilege to seize hold of life in order to suppress it. Since the classical age
   transformation of these mechanisms of power. “Deduction” has tended to be no longer the major form of power but merely one
   element among others, working to incite, reinforce, control, monitor, optimize, and organize the forces under it: a power bent on generating forces,
   making them grow, and ordering them, rather than one dedicated to impeding them, making them submit, or destroying them. There has been a
   parallel shift in the right of death, or at least a tendency to align itself with the exigencies of a life-administering power and to define itself
   accordingly.This death that was based on the right of the sovereign is now manifested as simply the reverse
   of the right of the social body to ensure, maintain, or develop its life. Yet wars were never as bloody as
   they have been since the nineteenth century, and all things being equal, never before did regimes visit
   such holocausts on their own populations. But this formidable power of death —and this is perhaps what
   accounts for part of its force and the cynicism with which it has so greatly expanded its limits—now presents itself as the
   counterpart of a power that exerts a positive influence on life, that endeavors to administer, optimize,
   and multiply it, subjecting it to precise controls and comprehensive regulations. Wars are no longer
   waged in the name of a sovereign who must be defended; they are waged on behalf of the existence of
   everyone; entire populations are mobilized for the purpose of wholesale slaughter in the name of life
   necessity: massacres have become vital. It is as managers of life and survival, of bodies and the race,
   that so many regimes have been able to wage so many wars, causing so many men to be killed. And
   through a turn that closes the circle, as the technology of wars has caused them to tend increasingly toward all-
   out destruction, the decision that initiates them and the one that terminates them are in fact increasingly
   informed by the naked question of survival. The atomic situation is now at the end point of this process:
   the power to expose a whole population to death is the underside of the power to guarantee an
   individual’s continued existence. The principle underlying the tactics of battle-that one has to be capable of killing in order to go on
   living-has become the principle that defines the strategy of states. But the existence in question is no longer the juridical existence of sovereignty;
   at stake is the biological existence of a population. If genocide is indeed the dream of modern powers,
   this is not because of a recent return of the ancient right to kill; it is because power is situated and
   exercised at the level of life, the species, the race, and the large-scale phenomena of population.




                                                                                                                                                           39
SDI 11
File Title




                                           Neolib Impacts--Depoliticization
Neoliberalism produces a market rationality naturalized as pure reason—
makes critique and resistance impossible
Comaroff and Comaroff 2000 [Jean is the Bernard E. and Ellen C. Sunny Distinguished Service
Professor in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Chicago, John is the Harold H. Swift
Distinguished Service Professor in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Chicago and
senior research fellow at the American Bar Foundation in Chicago Duke University Press, Public Culture
12.2 (2000) pgs 291-343 “Millennial Capitalism: First Thoughts on a Second Coming”, ProjectMuse, d/a:
7-23-2011 WL]
Decontextualization, the distantiation from place and its sociomoral pressures, is an autonomic impulse of capitalism at the
millennium; 18 crucial, in fact, to its ways and means of discounting labor by abstracting itself from direct confrontation or
civic obligation. The poor are no longer at the gates; bosses live in [End Page 303] enclaved communities a world away, beyond
political or legal reach. Capital and its workforce become more and more remote from each other: frequent
fliers and frequent friers seldom meet on the global highways they travel--in contrapuntal rhythm. Here is the harsh
underside of the culture of neoliberalism. It is a culture that, to return to our opening comment, re-
visions persons not as producers from a particular community, but as consumers in a planetary
marketplace: persons as ensembles of identity that owe less to history or society than to organically
conceived human qualities. This logos does not go uncontested, of course--neither by popular nationalisms nor by social movements of various stripes,
left and right, North and South, especially among the marginal (Sklair 1998: 137; Turner n.d.). But the gospel of laissez-faire is a potent presence in contemporary
capitalist societies, its axioms reinforced by quotidian experience and its truths instilled in its subjects by the remorseless commodification of ever more finely targeted
areas of everyday life. Witness the following interpolation: You are at one with the world. . . . The real world where time treads with a leisure measure. You express your
commitment to the new age . . . in the way you think, the way you talk, the way you dress. Leisure time dressing is YOU." The off-the-peg poetics of this call to
postproletarian identity comes from a label attached to a pair of women's shorts marketed in a climate of "patriotic capitalism" by a South African chain store. 19 The
thickening hegemony to which it speaks is borne also by the global communicative media, themselves seeking to construct a planetary "ecumene" (see n. 4 above), whose
satellite signals and fiber-optic nerves reach the widest possible audience. Those signals are designed to evade control exercised by states over flows of images and
information--flows once integral to the creation of political communities and national "publics" (cf. Anderson 1983: 63). [End Page 304] For all their transformative
power, as anthropologists have repeatedly insisted, these material and cultural forces do not have simple, homogenizing effects. They are, in some measure, refracted,
redeployed, domesticated, or resisted wherever they come to rest. What we call globalism is a vast ensemble of dialectical processes (J. L. Comaroff 1996; Jean Comaroff
1997b), processes that cannot occur without the grounded, socially embedded human beings from whom they draw value. Nor can these processes occur without the
concrete, culturally occupied locales--villages, towns, regions, countries, subcontinents--in which they come to rest, however fleetingly. Still, they are re-forming the
salience of locality, place, and community in ways that often bypass the state. Hence the proliferation of attachments at once more particular and more universal than
citizenship (Turner n.d.: 8)--from those based on gender, sex, race, and age through those organized around issues such as environmentalism and human rights to those,
like the Nation of Islam or the hip-hop nation, that mimic nationhood itself. The paradox of class at the millennium, in sum, must be understood in these terms.
Neoliberalism aspires, in its ideology and practice, to intensify the abstractions inherent in capitalism
itself: to separate labor power from its human context, to replace society with the market, to build a
universe out of aggregated transactions. While it can never fully succeed, its advance over the "long" twentieth
century has profoundly altered, if unevenly in space and time, the phenomenology of being in the world. Formative
experiences--like the nature of work and the reproduction of self, culture, and community--have
shifted. Once-legible processes--the workings of power, the distribution of wealth, the meaning of
politics and national belonging--have become opaque, even spectral. The contours of "society" blur,
its organic solidarity disperses. Out of its shadows emerges a more radically individuated sense of
personhood, of a subject built up of traits set against a universal backdrop of likeness and difference.
In its place, to invert the old Durkheimean telos, arise collectivities erected on a form of mechanical solidarity in which me is
generalized into we.

A Neoliberal state results in the complete domination of the public sphere by the
private sector
Brown 06 (Wendy, professor of political theory at the University of California at
Berkley.American Nightmare: Neoliberalism, Neoconservatism, and De-Democratization.
http://www.jstor.org.proxy2.cl.msu.edu /stable/pdfplus/20452506.pdf?acceptTC=true. July 23, 2011.)

What are the salient features of neoliberal political rationality?8 First, in contrast with classical
economic liberalism (and, it is important to remind American readers, the "liberalism" of
neoliberalism refers to economic rather than political liberalism), neoliberalism is not confined to an
expressly economic sphere, nor does it cast the market as natural and self regulating even in the
economic sphere. Part of what makes neoliberalism "neo" is that it depicts free markets, free trade,
and entrepreneurial ratio nality as achieved and normative, as promulgated through law and
through social and economic policy-not simply as occurring by dint of nature. Second, neoliberalism


                                                                                                                                                                        40
SDI 11
File Title

casts the political and social spheres both as appropriately dominated by market concerns and as
themselves organized by market rationality. That is, more than simply facilitating the economy, the
state itself must construct and construe itself in market terms, as well as develop policies and
promulgate a political culture that figures citizens exhaustively as rational economic actors in every
sphere of life. Familiar here are the many privatization and outsourcing schemes for welfare,
education, prisons, the police, and the military, but this aspect of neoliberalism also entails a host of
policies that figure and produce citizens as individual entrepreneurs and consumers whose moral
autonomy is measured by their capacity for "self-care"-their ability to provide for their own needs
and service their own ambitions, whether as welfare recipients, medical patients, consumers of
pharmaceuticals, university students, or workers in ephemeral occupations. Third, neoliberal
political rationality produces governance criteria along the same lines, that is, criteria of productivity
and profitability, with the consequence that governance talk increasingly becomes market speak,
businesspersons replace lawyers as the governing class in liberal democracies, and business norms
replace juridical principles. There are myriad examples of this transformation but perhaps none so
poignant as G. W. Bush's remark on the heels of his 2004 reelection: "I earned political capital in
[this] campaign and now I intend to spend it."9 Spend it he has, of course, to the point of exhausting
the coffers, but significant for our purposes is the enormous difference between enacting a public
mandate and accumulating individual political capital. The shift to a market rationality in
governance is also apparent in the current American administration's blithe reference to "legalisms"
as something like bothersome mosquitoes flying around the execution of foreign and domestic policy,
a reference that runs from responsiveness to the Geneva Conventions for war to the question of how
best to secure marriage from invasion by homosexuals ("[T]he lawyers Brown / Neoliberalism,
Neoconservatism, and De-Democratization 695 are working on the best approach," Bush said at one
point). It is apparent as well in Bush's routine reference to his job as one of "making difficult
decisions" rather than executing the will of the people-a strikingly Schmittian resignification of
executive power in democracy. And it appeared in Bush's likening of massive worldwide protests
against the launching of the Iraq war in 2003 to product-testing "focus groups."'0 All of these
represent a business approach to governing, one in which democratic principles and the rule of law
are neither guides nor serious constraints but rather tools or obstacles, a phenomenon Foucault
formulated concisely as the "tactical ization" of law."1




                                                                                                       41
SDI 11
File Title



                             Neoliberalism Impacts: Environment
Neoliberalism leads to economic destruction – destroys the idea of the
“commons” – only the state can solve these structural issues
Brohman 95 [John, Professor of Geography at Simon Fraser University, Canada, Third World
Quarterly: Volume 16, Issue 2, 1995, “Economism and critical silences in development studies: A
theoretical critique of neoliberalism”, Taylor Francis Online, d/a: 7-19-2011 WL]

Another serious theoretical shortcoming of the neoliberal development framework that stems from
its neoclassical roots is its inappropriate treatment of issues related to the environment and
sustainability. Natural resources and ecosystems have either been ignored completely or treated
peripherally as mere externalities by neoclassical models and development projects. Thanks largely to the
efforts of environmentalists and others interested in creating more sustainable forms of development, a multifaceted critique has
emerged of the neoclassical treatment of the environment. This critique may be divided into the following problem areas: the
aggregation of individual preferences into collective values on the environment, the expression of environmental costs and benefits as
market prices, techniques of environmental accounting and the measurement of depreciation, issues of intergenerational equity and the
choice of an appropriate discount rate, imbalances of power and equity issues within and among societies, the imposition by the North
on the South of both neoclassically driven development initiatives and environmental agendas, the use of linear models and
equilibrium concepts to study ecological processes, and the treatment of the environment and natural resources as externalities.
Given these basic theoretical problems, as well as the poor environmental record of neoclassically
driven development projects in many Third World countries, many analysts are calling for changes in both
development theories and practices. To provide more sustainable forms of development, economic
mechanisms must be complemented by specific regulations designed by the state and other
authorities to ensure that development practices conform to ecological standards and social goals. In
order to be effective, this will also mean the creation of democratic institutions at various scales to facilitate popular participation in
environmental decision making.



Neoclassical theories, the foundation of neoliberalism, structurally decimates
the environment – destroys the “commons”
Brohman 95 [John, Professor of Geography at Simon Fraser University, Canada, Third World
Quarterly: Volume 16, Issue 2, 1995, “Economism and critical silences in development studies: A
theoretical critique of neoliberalism”, Taylor Francis Online, d/a: 7-19-2011 WL]

             in which neoclassical theory treats environmental questions fails to consider the impact
Fifth, the way
of imbalances of power within and among societies. This means that neoclassical methods neglect equity
issues not only among generations, but also among current classes and social groups. Imbalances of
power present dominant economic and political groups with opportunities to put their individual and
short-term interests ahead of the collective and long-term interest of a sustainable social and physical
environment. Neoclassical recommendations to internalise external `diseconomies’ disregard imbalances of power. It has been
pointed out that forces in most societies with interests in such diseconomies are much more powerful than forces in favour of a sound
environment. 56 Moreover, many poor and otherwise disadvantaged people may be virtually defenceless to
prevent environmental damage resulting from pollution and other `diseconomies’ generated by
others. Broad and Cavanaugh, for example, offer the example of poor families on Palawan Island in
the Philippines who were powerless to stop the destruction of their traditional fishing grounds by
environmentally unsound logging practices pursued by large corporations with close ties to the
national government.

Environmental destruction leads to a global rash of interstate and civil wars
Thomas Homer-Dixon, assistant professor of political science and director of the Peace and Conflict
Studies Programme at the University of Toronto, associate fellow of the Canadian Institute for Advanced
Research, 1998, World Security: Challenges for a New Century, Third Edition, edited by Michael Klare
and Yogesh Chandrani, p. 342-3




                                                                                                                                          42
SDI 11
File Title

Experts have proposed numerous possible links between environmental change and conflict. Some have
suggested that environmental change may shift the balance of power between states either regionally or
globally, causing instabilities that could lead to war.4 Another possibility is that global environmental
damage might increase the gap between rich and poor societies, with the poor then violently confronting
the rich for a fairer share of the world’s wealth.5 Severe conflict may also arise from frustration with
countries that do not go along with agreements to protect the global environment, or that “free-ride” by
letting other countries absorb the costs of environmental protection. Warmer temperatures could lead to
contention over more easily harvested resources in the Antarctic. Bulging populations and land stress may
produce waves of environmental refugees, spilling across borders and disrupting relations among ethnic
groups. Countries might fight among themselves because of dwindling supplies of water and the effects of
upstream pollution.6 A sharp decline in food crop production and grazing land could lead to conflict
between nomadic tribes and sedentary farmers. Environmental change could in time cause a slow
deepening of poverty in poor countries, which might open bitter divisions between classes and ethnic
groups, corrode democratic institutions, and spawn revolutions and insurgencies.7 In general, many experts
have the sense that environmental problems will “ratchet up” the level of stress within states and the
international community, increasing the likelihood of many different kinds of conflict—from war and
rebellion to trade disputes—and undermining possibilities for cooperation.




                                                                                                        43
SDI 11
File Title



                        A2: Neoliberalism Solves Poverty
Neoliberalism doesn’t solve global poverty – economic models ignore the
global destruction that neoliberalism has caused
Shiva 2005 (Vandana, physicist, ecologist, activist, editor, and author of many books and ZNet daily
commentaries, “making poverty history
and the history of poverty”, May 11, http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2005-05/11shiva.cfm. July
19, 2011.)

And economic poverty is only one form of poverty. Cultural poverty, social poverty, ethical poverty,
ecological poverty, spiritual poverty are other forms of poverty more prevalent in the so called rich
North than in the so called poor South. And those other poverties cannot be overcome by dollars.
They need compassion and justice, caring and sharing. Ending poverty requires knowing how
poverty is created. However, Jeffrey Sachs views poverty as the original sin. As he declares: A few
generations ago, almost everybody was poor. The Industrial Revolution led to new riches, but much
of the world was left far behind. This is totally false history of poverty, and cannot be the basis of
making poverty history. Jeffrey Sachs has got it wrong. The poor are not those who were left behind,
they are the ones who were pushed out and excluded from access to their own wealth and resources.
The "poor are not poor because they are lazy or their governments are corrupt". They are poor
because their wealth has been appropriated and wealth creating capacity destroyed. The riches
accumulated by Europe were based on riches appropriated from Asia, Africa and Latin America.
Without the destruction of India's rich textile industry, without the take over of the spice trade,
without the genocide of the native American tribes, without the Africa's slavery, the industrial
revolution would not have led to new riches for Europe or the U.S. It was the violent take over of
Third World resources and Third World markets that created wealth in the North - but it
simultaneously created poverty in the South. Two economic myths facilitate a separation between
two intimately linked processes: the growth of affluence and the growth of poverty. Firstly, growth is
viewed only as growth of capital. What goes unperceived is the destruction in nature and in people's
sustenance economy that this growth creates. The two simultaneously created 'externalities' of
growth - environmental destruction and poverty creation - are then casually linked, not to the
processes of growth, but to each other. Poverty, it is stated, causes environmental destruction. The
disease is then offered as a cure: growth will solve the problems of poverty and environmental crisis
it has given rise to in the first place. This is the message of Jeffrey Sachs analysis.




                                                                                                    44
SDI 11
File Title



                                      A2: Neolib Theory Right
Neolib based on neoclassical theories are ignorant of non-market values and
relations – moving away from these economic absolutes solves
Brohman 95 [John, Professor of Geography at Simon Fraser University, Canada, Third World
Quarterly: Volume 16, Issue 2, 1995, “Economism and critical silences in development studies: A
theoretical critique of neoliberalism”, Taylor Francis Online, d/a: 7-19-2011 WL]

Ultimately, what neoclassical      theorists have to understand is that there is no independent, universal
sphere of economic rationality that is explicable by equilibrium equations and formal models based
on assumptions of individualistic exchange relations. By precluding attention to elements of human behaviour
that do not fit its narrow definition of economic rationality, neoclassical theory leaves itself no mechanism for
understanding and explaining the often messy empirical world that so desires its models. Moreover,
even rational behaviour (eg the pursuit of profits) cannot be understood without paying attention to
non-market values, rules, relations and institutions. Development is not simply economic growth, but also
involves critical changes in social relations and institutions. Changes in practices spring from mutual actions and relations
among classes and social groups; they cannot simply be understood as aggregations of isolated individual actions, as is posited
by neoclassical theory. 8 Inevitably, neoclassical theorists pay a heavy price for the simplicity and elegance
of their models: empirical ignorance, a misunderstanding of socioeconomic processes, and, as a
result, the advocacy of unrealistic and bizarre policy recommendations. 9 In order to explain how
actual economic activities unfold in their real-world settings, we must understand the local historical
and geographical context in which these activities take place. This means moving away from
universal models based on absolutes, such as the homo economicus assumption




                                                                                                                            45
SDI 11
File Title



                                    A2: Neolib Inevitable
The idea that neoliberalism is inevitable is what must be rejected in order to
find an alternative- voting negative obliviates neoliberalism domination
Giroux, Prof of Comm @ McMaster, 2004 p. 45-46
(Henry, The Terror of Neoliberalism)

Under neoliberalism, the state now makes a grim alignment with corporate power, transnational
corporations, and the forces of militarization. Gone are the days when the state “assumed
responsibility for a range of social needs.”75 Instead, agencies of government now pursue a wide range
of “deregulations,’ privatizations, and abdications of responsibility to the market and private
philanthropy.”76 Deregulations, in turn, promote “widespread, systematic disinvestment in the nation’s
basic productive capacity.”77 Flexible production encourages wage slavery at home. And the search for
ever greater profits leads to outsourcing, which accentuates the flight of capital and jobs abroad.
Neoliberalism has now become the prevailing logic in the United States; indeed, according to Stanley
Aronowitz, “the neoliberal economic doctrine proclaiming the superiority of free markets over public
ownership, or even public regulation of private economic activities, has become the conventional wisdom,
not only among conservatives but among social progressives.”78 The ideology and power of neoliberalism
also cuts across national boundaries. Throughout the globe, the forces of neoliberalism are on the march,
dismantling the historically guaranteed social provisions provided by the welfare state, defining profit-
making as the essence of democracy, and equating freedom with the unrestricted ability of markets to
“govern economic relations free of government regulation.”79 Transnational in scope, neoliberalism now
imposes its economic regime and market values on developing and weaker nations through structural
adjustment policies enforced by powerful financial institutions such as the World Bank, the International
Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Trade Organization (WTO). Secure in its dystopian vision that
there are no alternatives, as Margaret Thatcher once put it, neoliberalism obviates issues of
contingency, struggle, and social agency by celebrating the inevitability of economic laws in which the
ethical ideal of intervening in the world gives way to the idea that we “have no choice but to adapt both our
hopes and our abilities to the new global market.”t° Coupled with a new culture of fear, market freedoms
seem securely grounded in a defense of national security, capital, and property rights.
In its capacity to dehistoricize and depoliticize society, as well as in its aggressive attempts to destroy
all of the public spheres necessary for the defense of a genuine democracy, neoliberalism reproduces
the conditions for unleashing the most brutalizing forces of capitalism and accentuating the central
elements of proto-fascism. As the late Pierre Bourdieu argued, neoliberalism is a policy of depoliticization,
attempting to liberate the economic sphere from all government controls:
Drawing shamelessly on the lexicon of liberty, liberalism, and deregulation, it aims to grant economic
determinisms a fatal stranglehold by liberating them from all controls, and to obtain the submission of
citizens and governments to the economic and social forces thus liberated.... [TI his policy has imposed
itself through the most varied means, especially juridical, on the liberal—or even social democratic—
governments of a set of economically advanced countries, leading them gradually to divest themselves of
the power to control economic forces.’8’
At the same time, neoliberalism uses the breathless rhetoric of the global victory of free-market rationality
to cut public expenditures and undermine those noncommodified public spheres that serve as the repository
for critical education, language, and public intervention. Spewed forth by the mass media, right-wing
intellectuals, and governments alike, neoliberal ideology, with its ongoing emphasis on deregulation and
privatization, has found its material expression in an all-out attack on democratic values and on the very
notion of the public sphere. Within the discourse of neoliberalism, the notion of the public good is devalued
and, where possible, eliminated as part of a wider rationale for a handful of private interests to control as
much of social life as possible in order to maximize their personal profit. Public services such as health
care, child care, public assistance, education, and transportation are now subject to the rules of the markei
Construing the public good as a private good and the needs of the corporate and private sector as the only
source of investment, neoliberal ideology produces, legitimates, and exacerbates the existence of persistent
poverty, inadequate health care, racial apartheid in the inner cities, and growing inequalities between the
rich and the poor.’82


                                                                                                          46
SDI 11
File Title




             Militarism




                          47
SDI 11
File Title



                                                 Militarism Adv.
Military corporations favor outsourcing space
Mick 2010 (Jason, DailyTech blogger, “Obama’s Plan to Commercialize Space…”
http://www.dailytech.com/Obamas+Plan+to+Commercialize+Space+Flight+Gets+Boost+From+Falcon+9+
Launch/article18636.htm Date Accessed 7/17/11)
The issue of the commercialization of the space industry has created an unusual role reversal for the
Democrats and Republicans in Washington D.C. President Obama, amid criticism about
"nationalizing" the automobile industry is charging ahead with plans to privatize the space industry,
a move long championed by the U.S. Armed Forces. Under his leadership, NASA has pledged $3.5B
USD in contracts to SpaceX and Orbital Transportation Services, a rival firm.

Space militarization is caused by privatization of space
Salin 01 (Patrick, Professor at McGill University, “Privatization and militarization in the space business environment,” Elsevier
Science, 2/19, DA: 7/19/11, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0265964600000503#fn1)
We may consider that outer space should no longer be considered as a sanctuary safe from military operations as of 19 June 1999. On
that day, a US Theater High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) rocket hit a target missile outside the Earth's atmosphere. Outer
space is now undergoing a militarization process that is developing within a totally new framework,
that of the privatization of space ventures and projects . The bipolar Cold War stage has been removed and gone is
the threatening vision of nuclear warfare via all sorts of Earth-based and spaceborne weapons. Yet the big industrial concerns
that manufactured the weapons of the Cold War have simply converted themselves and regrouped
into mammoth civilian manufacturers, deploying constellations of civilian assets in outer space.2
Instead of procuring the much-criticized US Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), they now produce dual-use goods
that can be used in an undifferentiated manner for both civilian and military objectives [3 and 4] 3. The
borderlines between civilian and military high technology goods that prevailed only a few years ago
have become meaningless and technical parameters that qualified equipment as being military , less
than five years ago, are now useless, commercial entities being able to sell these, once forbidden tools, as
plain commercial gadgets.4 The confusion between the US Department of Commerce and the US Department of State over
determining what is (or should be) subject to authorization and what is not is illustrative of this situation. Yet, thanks to the
loopholes and inconsistencies of the international treaties on outer space, we may soon end up with
exactly the same result as during the Cold War — Hollywood's Star Wars, live!

Privatization has led to accelerated militarization of space
Salin 01 (Patrick, Professor at McGill University, “Privatization and militarization in the space business environment,” Elsevier
Science, 2/19, DA: 7/19/11, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0265964600000503#fn1)
We are slowly discovering that the militarization process of outer space seems to be a given, thanks to
increasing competition within the space business environment. And, as privatization has accelerated
during the last decade, we can clearly see an acceleration of the militarization process of outer space.
This has become apparent through two main observations: (1) private space corporations are, more than ever,
vanguards of national interests; and (2) commercial competition is another way for nations to impose
their influence in space (and world) affairs. In the end, what is at stake here is the fragile equilibrium
between world peace and tensions, now transported into outer space . Private corporations have
grown in number as a consequence of the privatization of space activities and act in outer space like citizens that
are not answerable to the international community.


Lockheed-Martin among the most profitable and promising of the private
space firms
The UK Register 2011 (Newspaper, “SpaceX goes to court as US rocket wars begin”,
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/20/spacex_sues_consultant/ Date Accessed 7/19/11)
Upstart startup SpaceX, which seems set to overturn every applecart in the space business with its cheap
new launchers and capsules, has gone to court after an industry consultant allegedly spread rumours that its
rockets were unsafe. According to SpaceX's filing with the Fairfax County circuit court in Virginia, Joseph


                                                                                                                                 48
SDI 11
File Title

Fragola, veep at tech consulting firm Valador, tried to obtain a hefty deal from SpaceX at the beginning of
June: Fragola attempted to obtain a consulting contract from SpaceX worth as much as $1 million. He
claimed that SpaceX needed an "independent" analysis of its rocket to bolster its reputation with NASA
based on what he called an unfair "perception" about SpaceX. SpaceX did not respond favorably to
Fragola's offer. The rocket company - which as everyone knows is helmed, CTO'd and in part bankrolled
by famous nerdwealth kingpin Elon Musk - says it then found out that Fragola had subsequently done his
level best to create such a perception: SpaceX subsequently leamed that Fragola has been contacting
officials in the United States Government to make disparaging remarks about SpaceX, which have created
the very "perception" that he claimed SpaceX needed his help to rectify. For instance, in an email he wrote
on June 8, 2011, to Bryan O'Connor, a NASA official at NASA's headquarters in Washington, DC, Fragola
falsely stated: "I have just heard a rumor, and I am trying now to check its veracity, that the Falcon 9
experienced a double engine failure in the first stage and that the entire stage blew up just after the first
stage separated. I also heard that this information was being held from NASA until SpaceX can 'verify' it."
SpaceX for its part says that this rumour is "blatantly false... as a purported 'expert' in the industry, he
should have known that the statements were false." The rocket firm says that two of the nine engines in the
Falcon's first stage shut down according to plan ten seconds before the other seven on its most recent flight,
in which it carried the firm's "Dragon" capsule successfully into orbit: there was no engine failure. As for
the first stage blowing up, its separation was videoed from the Dragon and no explosion occurred.
Furthermore, telemetry from the falling first stage carried on uninterrupted as it descended. SpaceX adds:
Even after being informed that his statements were false, Fragola has continued to contact US Government
officials spreading false information about the second Falcon 9 flight. SpaceX is seeking $1m for
defamation from Valador, contending that Fragola's actions were taken on behalf of the consulting firm as
part of its operations (SpaceX claims that Fragola used his Valador email account in contacting the various
government functionaries). The complete court filing can be read here in pdf courtesy of Courthouse News.
The Valador case follows the recent publication of a vicious attack on SpaceX by Loren Thompson, a well-
known aerospace industry mouthpiece who openly admits that he takes money from US mammoth
Lockheed. Lockheed is partnered with Boeing in United Launch Alliance, the massive operation which has
for years supplied almost all US space lift apart from the Shuttle programme. Lockheed also runs the
multibillion-dollar Orion space capsule programme, which has survived the demise of the "Constellation"
moon landing project of which it was part - even though it will probably not go into space until at least the
2020s. We here on the Reg space desk suggested some time ago that if SpaceX could really do what it says
it can, the stage would be set for a vicious battle in which the large rocketry corporations and workforces
which the startup threatens would use all the means at their disposal in a bid to protect their business.

Massive military involvement will coopt current space privatization in the
name of the military industrial complex—this cooption is a way of dealing
with the earth-based crises of capital**
Dickens 2010 (Peter, Professor of Sociology at Cambridge, “The Humanization of the Cosmos”
http://monthlyreview.org/2010/11/01/the-humanization-of-the-cosmos-to-what-end Date Accessed 7/19/11)
What evidence is there that economic, social, and environmental crises lie behind the growing
humanization of the cosmos? One indication is that, between 2004 and 2009, the global space economy
(this including commercial satellites, military hardware, space tourism infrastructure costs, and launch
services) increased by 40 percent.12 So, while the global economic crisis starting in 2008 has been
grabbing the headlines, the sectors involved in the outer space economy have experienced very rapid
growth. In 2009 space industry and government budgets involved in outer space rose by 7 percent to
$261.61 billion. A 2010 survey of the global outer space economy puts this as follows: “amidst a
widespread international economic crisis, the space industry proved resilient, demonstrating growth and
expansion into 2010. While several other leading industries suffered dramatically, and many
governments struggled to remain fiscally viable, the space industry defied the upheaval and
broadened its fields of endeavour.”13 All this suggests not just that the outer space economy is doing
well while other sectors are doing less well, but that growing investment in the solar system is a
response to global economic crisis. Again, this growth of the private space economy underlines the
significance of President Obama’s shift toward private sector “solutions” to space humanization. The
private sector has long argued that, in terms of creating technological innovation and reducing costs,
it is superior to NASA and other government agencies. Now—and, it should be noted, with extensive


                                                                                                           49
SDI 11
File Title

earlier financial backing from NASA—it is advancing itself as capable of taking over large parts of
the space program. But, at the same time, restructuring within the space industry is following some
very familiar lines. Close links and mergers are taking place between large monopolistic companies
and the smaller enterprises celebrated by the Space Renaissance Initiative. For example, Northrop-
Grumman, one of the leading U.S. defense manufacturers, has recently bought Scaled Composites, the
latter having pioneered lightweight materials used for space tourism vehicles. Northrop-Grumman has
for many years designed and constructed satellite-guided drones used in Iraq, Afghanistan, and
elsewhere. This merger raises the prospect of skills and technologies originally designed to take wealthy
people into outer space being developed to observe and eliminate warlords—and others—back on earth.
Space-X is another relatively small space tourism company. It was founded in 2002 by Elon Musk, a
cofounder of PayPal. But this small enterprise is now rapidly growing as a result of a number of
contracts from the American Airforce. Launch services provided to the USAF by Space-X are resulting
in contracts worth up to $1 billion. Other links, this time between big and small capital, are also
developing. Bob Bigelow, for example, has long been an important but small-scale contender in the outer
space tourism business. His proposals have included hotels on the moon and in other parts of outer space.
He has already constructed 1:3-scale working models of these projects. Now, his company is in close
partnership with Boeing, the exceptionally large aerospace company. Together, they will supply the
space taxis outlined by President Obama. They will take astronauts and scientists to the International
Space Station. Bigelow declares himself very enthusiastic as “part of the Boeing team”: “We’re very
excited about this program and the Boeing partnership in general. Boeing brings with it unparalleled
experience and expertise in human spaceflight systems, which will be combined with Bigelow’s
Aerospace’s entrepreneurial spirit and cost conscious practices.”14 But another, more downbeat,
assessment is that the individualistic, entrepreneurial spirit endorsed by the Space Renaissance
Initiative is, in practice, being co-opted into the military-industrial complex.

Reject casual associations between militaristic technological applications and
civilian/private sectors
MacDonald 2007 (Fraser, Professor of Geography, University of Melbourne, “Anti-Astropolitik –
outer space and the orbit of geography” Progress in Human Geography 31(5))

I should emphasize that I am not advancing some technologically determinist argument to the effect
that if something is military in origin it is somehow ‘tainted’ or forever in the service of militarism.
Walter Benjamin reminds us that the meaning of technology has no umbilical link to its origins: he
noted that the Eiffel Tower ‘found’ its purpose as a military radio transmitter long after it had been built
simply as a monument to industrial confidence in iron (Benjamin, 1999: 568). But we should be
concerned when the needs of basic civilian infrastructure come to be regarded as coterminous with
those of military strategy, particularly in circumstances when technologies of the state are so readily
adapt- able to monitoring the lives of its citizenry. Another consequence of this conflation is that dual-
use systems underpinning normal life have become a ready target of military efforts, being exempt
from the usual civilian protections of international law (Graham, 2005c). To use Stephen Graham’s
phrase, US air and space power is increasingly aimed at ‘switching cities off’ (Graham, 2005c). This may
very easily develop from targeting electricity networks (Belgrade, Baghdad, Beirut) to the destruction of
satellite provision on which so much of our civilian infrastructure depends. As Tim Luke observed: many
more human beings live highly cyber- organized lives, totally dependent upon the Denature of machinic
ensembles with their elaborate extra-terrestrial ecologies of mega- technical economics. This is true for the
Rwandans in the refugee camps of Zaire [sic] as it is for the Manhattanites in the luxury coops of New
York City. (Luke, quoted in Graham, 2005c: 171) I am reluctant to reiterate Paul Virilio’s pre- occupation
with the crash and the accident as defining features of modernity (Virilio, 2000; Leslie, 2000), but one
cannot avoid the fact that systems that have become vital for sustaining our current mode of
existence are now obvious and accessible targets. Concerns have even been raised that constellations of
satellites are vulnerable to hackers with destructive intent (Kent, 2006). The point of all this gloomy talk is
to qualify rather than to overturn the emphases of Nigel Thrift’s recent work. Moreover, I hope to
contextualize some of the tendencies Thrift describes within the systems of geopower from which they
have materialized. In the final section I want to show something of the strategic struggle for space; a
struggle that is by no means distant from the discipline of geography.



                                                                                                             50
SDI 11
File Title



               Continued militarism guarantees extinction
Kevin Clements, President of the International Peace Research
Association, Director of the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution at George Mason, April
3, 1996, Toda Institute Seminar, “The Future of Peace and Conflict Studies,”
http://www.toda.org/Default.aspx?PageID=39
    What I am suggesting by all of this is that peace and conflict studies in the past have been
    overwhelmingly biased by sets of Western middle class concerns. (I could also add white, male,
    reformist concerns.) This is not of itself a bad thing since it did result in the evolutionary of a new
    interdisciplinary field albeit around a rather narrow range of critical problems, e.g., analysis of the
    conditions for negative peace (or the absence of war and direct violence) or positive peace (the
    elimination of structural violence and the promotion of social and economic justice and fairness.) Both
    of these preoccupations, i.e., the causes of war and violence and the conditions for peace and justice
    remain at the heart of peace and conflict studies but they need to be broadened if we are to make a
    significant contribution to the survival of the species and if we are to develop a deepened enhancement
    of the quality of life for all peoples. So how do we wish to do this? In the first place we must build on
    the traditions that have been established in the field in order to eliminate militarism, national and global
    violent conflict and the threat of global destruction. In relation to nuclear weapons, for example,
    although the risk of nuclear confrontation has diminished considerably, there is continuing anxiety
    about the command and control of such weapons in Russia and far too many states that wish to cross the
    nuclear threshold to enhance their international bargaining power, e. g., Pakistan, India, Iran, and Iraq,
    etc. Generally, however, as the recently formed Canberra Commission notes, this is an opportune time
    to push for the total abolition of nuclear weapons and all weapons of mass destruction. They have no
    military utility and are increasingly seen as a political liability as well.




                                                                                                             51
SDI 11
File Title




             Solvency




                        52
SDI 11
File Title



                                 Solvency—Privatization
Going to space with the state solves corporatization—resolves ambiguity of
space law against corporations
Dickens 2010 (Peter, Professor of Sociology at Cambridge, “The Humanization of the Cosmos”
http://monthlyreview.org/2010/11/01/the-humanization-of-the-cosmos-to-what-end Date Accessed 7/19/11)
Given the increased emphasis on the commercialization of outer space, it comes as no surprise to find the
question of private property in outer space opened up for debate. If capital is to undertake a space
program and commodify nearby parts of the solar system, it needs reassurance that its investments
will be protected by law. The issue is now being highlighted by an argument over the geostationary orbit
(GEO). This is the 30 km-wide strip 35,786 km above the equator, one in which satellites can orbit at the
same speed as the ground below them. With only three satellites in the GEO, a media conglomerate, a
communications company, or a government surveillance agency can cover the whole world. No wonder it
has been called “space’s most valuable real estate.”15 This raises the urgent question, one still not
adequately resolved, of who actually owns this area of outer space. Is it owned by the equatorial countries
such as Colombia, Indonesia, and Kenya under this strip? Or is it jointly owned and managed by all states?
The debate over the GEO is a microcosm of that concerning outer space as a whole. The present
position is one in which the moon and other celestial bodies cannot be legally owned. Under Article II
of the 1967 United Nations Outer Space Treaty, the whole of outer space “is not subject to national
appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.”16 It seems
clear that the intention here was to prevent ownership and commodification of outer space. But this is
now being challenged. Mirroring the perspective of the Space Renaissance Initiative, lawyers
promoting the extension of the private sector into outer space argue that the framers of the UN Outer
Space Treaty “were deliberately ambiguous about private property as opposed to nationally owned
property.”17 “Besides helping to ensure the survival of mankind,” these lawyers argue, “the settling of
space—including the establishment of permanent settlements on the Moon and Mars—will bring
incalculable economic and social benefits to all nations.”18 Sufficient profits must be guaranteed, and
this can only be done by ensuring property rights in space. Future outer space treaties should, according
to one group of space lawyers, allow private ownership of a circle of land about 437 miles around an initial
base. This means the reward for ensuring the future of humankind would be about six hundred thousand
square miles of cosmic real estate, approximately the size of Alaska.




                                                                                                         53
SDI 11
File Title



                                     Solvency—Framing
Naming and identifying neoliberal ideology is the alternative- only bringing it
out can enable successful resistance
Giroux, Prof of Comm @ McMaster, 2004 p. xxii
(Henry, The Terror of Neoliberalism)
One of the main arguments of this book is that neoliberalism is not a neutral, technical, economic
discourse that can be measured with the precision of a mathematical formula or defended through an
appeal to the rules of a presumptively unassailable science that conveniently leaves its own history behind.
Nor is it a paragon of economic rationality that offers the best “route to optimum efficiency, rapid
economic growth and innovation, and rising prosperity for all who are willing to work hard and take
advantage of available opportunities.”2’ On the contrary, neoliberalism is an ideology and politics buoyed
by the spirit of a market fundamentalism that subordinates the art of democratic politics to the rapacious
laws of a market economy that expands its reach to include all aspects of social life within the dictates and
values of a market—driven society. More important, it is an economic and implicitly cultural theory—a
historical and socially constructed ideology that needs to be made visible, critically engaged, and
shaken from the stranglehold of power it currently exercises over most of the commanding
institutions of national and global life. As such, neoliberalism makes it difficult for many people
either to imagine a notion of individual and social agency necessary for reclaiming a substantive
democracy or to theorize the economic, cultural, and political conditions necessary for a viable global
public sphere in which public institutions, spaces, and goods become valued as part of a larger
democratic struggle for a sustainable future amid the downward distribution of wealth, resources, and
power.




                                                                                                          54
SDI 11
File Title



                                                           Solvency
Government intervention is key—space is a public good
Maital 2011 (Shlomo, senior research fellow at the S. Neaman Institute, “Putting Capitalism Into
Orbit…” http://timnovate.wordpress.com/2011/05/08/putting-capitalism-into-orbit-can-private-enterprise-
put-americans-back-into-space/ Date Accessed 7/21/11)
A decision by President Barack Obama, desperately strapped for cash, has ended the NASA space
shuttle program. The flight of Discovery this month , and a last flight in June, will mark the last time
Americans will go into orbit in an American space vehicle. From now on, Americans will reach the ISS
(International Space Station) on Russian Soyuz rockets. Last month, the U.S. House and Senate approved a
spending plan for the remainder of the 2011 fiscal year that cuts NASA’s total budget by $241 million from
2010 levels, to $18.48 billion. Meanwhile, America continues to build costly aircraft carriers, at $6 b. a
pop. Why does America need more aircraft carriers? Is this truly a good use of America’s now-scarce
resources? Are Americans pleased that they need Russian help to get their astronauts onto the Space
Station? The theory is that the gap will be filled by private enterprise and innovation, driven by the
profit motive. But it is an open question whether space can truly be profitable, in the near term.
Many believe space is apublic good – one governments must provide, because the spillover benefits,
hard to capture by private capital, are very large.

Outerspace should not be privatized, it belongs to everyone—plan solves
Frenkel 04 (Sheera, Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor, “Writing the rules to govern the
cosmos,” Christen Science Monitor, 8/4, DA: 7/23/11, http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0804/p15s02-
stss.html)
Wherever man may go, lawyers are quick to follow, and for some decades now, a forward-thinking cluster of attorneys have their
sights set on outer-space. From Sputnik to SpaceShipOne, "space lawyers" have stood beside astronauts, studying the exploration of
outer space with careful intent. Yet with a trek through the stars still more fantasy than reality, it is easy to question the need for
recycling laws for the moon. Space lawyers, however, insist that their immediate purpose is simple: to preserve
outer space from the lawless free-for-all that characterized exploration and colonization here on
Earth. "Outer space is a province of all mankind," says Sylvia Ospina, a member of the board of directors at the
International Institute of Space Law. "There is not, and should not be, any privatization of outer space. It is a
common thing that should belong to all." To try to ensure that space remains a "common thing," space lawyers have
drafted five international treaties under UN direction. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 provides the basis of all space law with its clear
decree that no nation can claim ownership to any part of it, and all nations must agree to its peaceful use. The treaty was signed by all
major space powers and remains the guiding light of space initiatives.


Plan solves—reduces private spaceflight budgets
Salin 01 (Patrick, Professor at McGill University, “Privatization and militarization in the space business environment,” Elsevier
Science, 2/19, DA: 7/24/11, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0265964600000503#fn1)
Commercial competition is actually substituted to standard diplomacy and hides huge national
interests that cannot be sponsored in the open but that are still pursued with different means. This is
the other side of the coin tossed by the large spacefaring nations that intend to make their presence in
outer space impregnable. 3.1. National interests and non-national customers Huge strategic ‘national’ interests
are increasingly funded by ‘non-national’ customers worldwide. The only motive for privatizing
space projects came from the shrinking of public budgets. Is this a decaying business? No, it is estimated that
“satellite communications is a global business with sales and services of $45 billion a year and is growing strongly” [23]. Indeed,
some analysts even estimate that it is growing at an annual rate of 20%. Therefore, we may say that the privatization of space
ventures is fueling unbridled competition in a domain that is only lightly regulated.

Public and private space travel is a zero-sum game
Salin 01 (Patrick, Professor at McGill University, “Privatization and militarization in the space business environment,” Elsevier
Science, 2/19, DA: 7/24/11, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0265964600000503#fn1)
Private operators must find the money where it is, and quickly . Officially, the lack of public money has been the
leitmotiv of the past decade in order to transfer to the private sector the operating and financing of space ventures. In the end, many
space activities may be performed by private ventures, provided governments maintain minimal



                                                                                                                                      55
SDI 11
File Title

control.16 But the private sector must find the funds for itself, and ‘‘create’’ new needs in order to put
into use technologies developed by public funds, via ad hoc civilian applications [23]. 17 Indeed, there is a double
mismatch here in the refunding process of national public (and quasi-military) sources of funds by
global civilian customers that creates a vicious spiraling and legitimizing effect in favour of the
militarization of outer space.




                                                                                                                 56
SDI 11
File Title



                                                      Subsidies Key
NASA’s subsidies/incentives key to private space sector
Perna 6-19-2011 [Gabriel, staff writer for the International Business Times, IB Times, “Private Space
Exploration: The Next Frontier”, http://m.ibtimes.com/nasa-space-shuttle-space-exploration-spacex-space-
adventures-183212.html, d/a: 7-25-2011 WL]
As NASA wraps up its final mission of the space shuttle program, many are left wondering what will come of space
exploration. The probable answer? The private sector. Even NASA is in on it, as the agency recently
awarded contracts to companies like Lockheed Martin to built new age spacecrafts . Other companies like
Blue Origin, Sierra Nevada Corporation, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) and The Boeing
Company were awarded NASA contracts as well. "With NASA's support, SpaceX will be ready to fly
its first manned mission in 2014," SpaceX CEO and Chief Designer Elon Musk said recently. SpaceX is working on a
spacecraft it has called the Dragon. The company says it can carry seven astronauts at a time to the space station at a cost of $20
million a seat. Spacex's Falcon 9 became the first non Shuttle rocket to be man-rated for space exploration in 2010. Like NASA, the
company even has its sights set on Mars. While NASA is looking to send a man to Mars by the 2030s, Musk says it can happen in 10-
20 years. Other companies are similarly looking at private space exploration. Space Adventures President Tom Shelley said the
company has already sent seven private citizens into space on eight missions and has plans for much more. "We were the first
company to arrange for a private citizen to fly into space when we sent Dennis Tito up into space in 2001," Shelley said. " We were
the start of the private space industry and I think over the next few years you'll see space travel
dominated by private companies sending more and more people into space." Space Adventures uses Russian
Soyuz spacecraft to travel into space. However, in has already partnered with Boeing to sell seats on future Boeing spacecraft trips.
The Common Man and Space There are essentially two types of space travel packages for the common man. There is the super
expensive and time costly one: approximately $50 million for a trip to the international space station and lots of training. While some
people may do that option, he says it's likely that people will do the cheaper one. "The sub-orbital space flight costs about $110,000.
You go 110 kilometers above the earth's surface, you see the curvature and beauty of the earth, spend about five minutes there floating
in weightlessness and then go back down," Shelley said. He says space travel will eventually become affordable to the common man
but it will be "a few decades" before it's as low as something like a transcontinental flight. "It's because of physics, gravity is holding
us down," he said. Shelley is among the many which look to create a space tourism industry.


NASA subsidies key
Spotts 7-21-2011 [Pete, staff writer for Christian Monitor, article via MinnPost, “With Atlantis landing,
an era ends. Are private space firms ready for duty?”,
http://www.minnpost.com/worldcsm/2011/07/21/30212/with_atlantis_landing_an_era_ends_are_private_sp
ace_firms_ready_for_duty d/a: 7-25-2011 WL]
Earlier this year, NASA picked four companies to advance designs for craft or major components to
carry crews to and from low-Earth orbit. The agency made a $269.3 million pot available, with
payments made as each company meets specified milestones. Boeing Co., with a long history in the space-
hardware business, drew the lion's share of the money, garnering $92.3 million. Sierra Nevada Corp.
received $80 million for its "Dream Chaser," a reusable shuttlelike glider that can launch atop an Atlas V rocket. SpaceX is
in line for $75 million as it aims to adjust its Falcon 9 and Dragon capsule for human use. And Blue Origin, set up by
Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos, is slated for $22 million. In addition, on Monday NASA inked a deal with United
Launch Alliance, a nine-year-old joint venture between Boeing and Lockheed Martin, to explore in detail the
potential the ULA's Atlas V rocket has for lofting humans. The Atlas V has been launching NASA science
missions and Pentagon payloads into orbit and beyond since 2002. If the Atlas V becomes part of commercial human-spaceflight's
stable of rockets, it will mark a return home of sorts. Earlier versions of the Atlas rocket lofted four Mercury astronauts into orbit in
the 1960s, including John Glenn, the first American to orbit Earth. Under the agreement, ULA receives no money from NASA. But it
will receive technical support from the agency with an eye toward tailoring the rocket to meet NASA's crew-safety requirements.



Empirics prove – Subsidies are key
Spotts 7-21-2011 [Pete, staff writer for Christian Monitor, article via MinnPost, “With Atlantis landing,
an era ends. Are private space firms ready for duty?”,
http://www.minnpost.com/worldcsm/2011/07/21/30212/with_atlantis_landing_an_era_ends_are_private_sp
ace_firms_ready_for_duty d/a: 7-25-2011 WL]
With the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's space-shuttle program shifting from missions to
memories, the US human spaceflight program is undergoing a historic change as the agency turns over its transport


                                                                                                                                        57
SDI 11
File Title

service to and from the space station to commercial rocketmakers and focuses instead on sending human
explorers deeper into the solar system. The shift from government venture to commercial carriers is a familiar,
often uncomfortable, transition. Historians note that transcontinental railroads initially required
decades of subsidies because banks and business tycoons east of the Mississippi refused to invest in a venture for which they
saw no obvious markets. Who lived in the "Great American Desert" and beyond, after all? After World War I, passage of the
Kelly Act – which required the US Post Office to begin shipping mail via privately operated airplanes
– triggered the establishment and growth of airlines. The commercial sector's emerging role in human spaceflight
is following those historical patterns, proponents of the shift say. If private industry can achieve the goal of driving down
the cost of reaching Earth orbit, the payoff could be just as significant over the long term as railroads or airplane travel – this time for
sectors ranging from manufacturing to mining to energy. "If we choose to take the right steps, there is every reason to believe that 10
years from now multiple private entities can be taking payloads and passengers on a for-profit basis to suborbital space and to orbital
space," says Jeff Greason, cofounder and chief executive officer of XCOR Aerospace, based in Mojave, Calif., and a member of a
panel President Obama appointed in 2009 to provide options for the US human-spaceflight program. "And there's every reason to
believe that 10 years from now there will be destinations to go to," he adds. Bigelow Aerospace in Las Vegas, he notes, is
building and testing on-orbit habitat modules that can be joined to make structures ranging from
orbiting hotels to small lab complexes that companies or governments can lease for research.




                                                                                                                                          58
SDI 11
File Title



                                                    Solvency--State
The State solves better than neoliberalism – differentiation of internal
structures and broader social composition takes into non-market, social
compositions
 Brohman 95 [John, Professor of Geography at Simon Fraser University, Canada, Third World
Quarterly: Volume 16, Issue 2, 1995, “Economism and critical silences in development studies: A
theoretical critique of neoliberalism”, Taylor Francis Online, d/a: 7-19-2011 WL]

A basic inconsistency pervades the neoclassical and, by extension, neoliberal attitude towards state
intervention. On the one hand, the Third World state is typically characterised as almost completely omnipotent in its ability to set
policy according to its macroeconomic objectives. On the other hand, it is also described as virtually totally impotent and incapable of
acting in an economically rational and efficient manner (unless, of course, it effectively follows neoclassical policy prescriptions).
Contrary to this rather naive, monistic view of politics, however, the state is neither all-powerful nor
completely powerless. In reality, both states and their polities are highly differentiated. Sources of
state differentiation originate both from the internal composition of the state itself (eg bureaucratic
structures, types of government) and from its broader social composition (eg relations with powerful classes, regional
groups, familial and ethnic groups). As a result, states often have divergent technical capacities and other
capabilities with which to carry out policy. Moreover, states are normally permeated by contrasting
interests and tensions that may be reflected in diverse forms of economic intervention and other
political behaviour. Economic as well as political actors struggle to make dominant those forms of
intervention from which they and their allies will benefit most . Therefore, neither the structures nor the functions
of the state should be seen as monolithic.




                                                                                                                                     59
SDI 11
File Title




             Framework




                         60
SDI 11
File Title



                                     Framework Answers
A. Their framework argument is an attempt to preserve the privileged
Orwellian discourse of neoliberalism- its language policing destroys the
critical capacity of citizenry
Giroux, Prof of Comm @ McMaster, 2004 p. 22-23
(Henry, The Terror of Neoliberalism)
A fifth element of proto-fascism in the United States is the rise of an Orwellian version of Newspeak, or
what Umberto Eco labels as the language of “eternal fascism,” whose purpose is to produce “an
impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax [whose consequence is] to limit the instruments for
complex and critical reasoning.” 86 Under the Bush administration, especially since the horrible events of
September 11th, the tools of language, sound, and image are increasingly being appropriated in an effort to
diminish the capacity of the American public to think critically. As the critical power of language is
reduced in official discourse to the simulacra of communication, it becomes more difficult for the
American public to engage in critical debates, translate private considerations into public concerns, and
recognize the distortions and lies that underlie many of the current government policies. What happens to
critical language under the emergence of official Newspeak can be seen in the various ways in which the
Bush administration and its official supporters misrepresent by misnaming government policies and engage
in lying to cover up their own regressive politics and policies. 87


B. Destroying the critical capacity of citizenry guarantees neoliberal
dominance- rejecting their framework argument is a prerequisite for the
success of our alternative- resist the fascist framework at all costs
Giroux, Prof of Comm @ McMaster, 2004 p. 52-53
(Henry, The Terror of Neoliberalism)
Neoliberalism is not simply an economic policy designed to cut government spending, pursue free-trade
policies, and free market forces from government regulations; it is also a political philosophy and ideology
that affects every dimension of social life. Indeed, neoliberalism has heralded a radical economic,
political, and experiential shift that now largely defines the citizen as a consumer, disbands the social
contract in the interests of privatized considerations, and separates capital from the context of place. Within
this discourse, as Jean and John Comaroff have argued, “the personal is the only politics there is, the only
politics with a tangible referent or emotional valence. It is in these privatized terms that action is organized,
that the experience of inequity and antagonism takes meaningful shape.”96 Under such circumstances,
neoliberalism portends the death of politics as we know it, strips the social of its democratic values,
reconstructs agency in terms that are utterly privatized, and provides the conditions for an emerging
form of proto-fascism that must be resisted at all costs. Neoliberalism not only enshrines unbridled
individualism as a central feature of proto-fascism, as Herbert Marcuse reminds us,’97 it also destroys any
vestige of democratic society by undercutting its “moral, material, and regulatory moorings;”98 and
in doing so it offers no language for understanding how the future might be grasped outside of the
narrow logic of the market. But there is even more at stake here than the obliteration of public concerns,
the death of the social, the emergence of a market-based fundamentalism that undercuts the ability of
people to understand how to translate the privately experienced misery into collective action, and the
elimination of the gains of the welfare state: There is also the growing threat of displacing “political
sovereignty with the sovereignty of the market, as if the latter has a mind and morality of its own.”99
As democracy becomes a burden under the reign of neoliberalism, civic discourse disappears and the
reign of unfettered social Darwinism with its survival-of-the-slickest philosophy emerges as the
template for a new form of proto-fascism. None of this will happen in the face of sufficient resistance, nor
is the increasing move toward protofascism inevitable; but the conditions exist for democracy to lose all
semblance of meaning in the United States. Against this encroaching form of fascism, a new language is
needed for redefining the meaning of politics and the importance of public life.




                                                                                                              61
SDI 11
File Title

Educators, parents, activists, workers, and others can address this challenge by building local and
global alliances and engaging in struggles that acknowledge and transcend national boundaries, but
also engage in modes of politics that connect with people’s everyday lives. Democratic struggles
cannot underplay the special responsibility of intellectuals to shatter the conventional wisdom and
myths of neoliberalism with its stunted definition of freedom and its depoliticized and dehistoricized
definition of its own alleged universality. As Bourdieu argued, any viable politics that challenges
neoliberalism must refigure the role of the state in limiting the excesses of capital and providing
important social provisions.200 At the same time, social movements must address the crucial issue of
education as it develops throughout the cultural sphere because the “power of the dominant order is not just
economic, but intellectual—lying in the realm of beliefs,” and it is precisely within the domain of ideas
that a sense of utopian possibility can be restored to the public realm.20’ Most specifically, democracy
necessitates forms of education that provide a new ethic of freedom and a reassertion of collective identity
as central preoccupations of a vibrant democratic culture and society. Such a task, in part, suggests
addressing the crucial pedagogical challenge of educating individuals and groups as social actors while
refusing to allow them to be portrayed simply as victims. Pondering the devastation following decades of
European fascism, the theorist Theodor Adorno once wrote that “the premier demand upon all education is
that Auschwitz not happen again.”202 While recognizing that the particularity of Auschwitz as a specific
historical event should never be generalized, I believe that Adorno’s comment extends beyond the reality of
Auschwitz and speaks to the need to grasp the deeper meaning of education as a political and ethical
intervention into what it means to shape the future. Every debate about education should address the
important responsibility it has in preventing any relapse into barbarism from happening again. The
time to act is now because the stakes have never been so high and the future so dark.

Rejecting corporate alternatives through our performance effectively rejects
neoliberalism, producing a new commons
Biljoy 2009 (C.R., “Beyond Resistance And Cooption” Z-Net Magazine, online, Date Accessed
7/20/11)
More than ever before, reclaiming ‘life' mean finding ways to recover the commons and its
governance, and the state from the clutches of capital. It also means the recovery of social movements
from neo-liberal ideologies of cooption to which they have slipped into. The alliance between various
concrete existing social and political movements for ending exploitation - ethnic, caste, gender, racial, class
and any social group as a community - is possible only when these movements break away from the
confines of their ‘enclosures' into a cohesive coming together to forge themselves into a ‘revolutionary
commons' for struggle, recovering and refining the ideology of revolutionary transformation. The
‘revolutionary commons' has to base its commonness in the ‘recovery of the commons' - its
‘biodiversity' or ‘genetic' commons, ‘physical or environmental commons', the ‘knowledge commons'
and the ‘institutional commons'. The programmatic expressions of this struggle for recovery of the
commons has to grounded with the basic expressions of local communities to take command of the
physical space (territory) and its resources, and exercising a counter hegemonic collective power over
them to govern themselves - its ‘physical or environmental commons' and the ‘biodiversity' or
‘genetic' commons - forging ‘non-centralised' governance structures to demolish all hegemonic
structures. This process triggers the recovery of ‘democracy' and its recreation based on equity and
justice as the fundamental pre-requisite of democracy exercised through participatory democracy
and consensus decision-making. The emergence of non-centralised governance structures at
community level is not only a counter to hegemonic structures but also a prerequisite to the
demolition of hegemonic structures. It is also the basis for the creation of heterogeneously inclusive
democratic governance. The focus of the struggle shifts from individual rights to power of people over
resources and governance at community level, going beyond the legal rights to creating the spaces for
establishment of peoples' control for progressive transformation in all matters of production and community
life.
A rise in neoliberalism signals the fall of democratic ideals and personal
liberties




                                                                                                            62
SDI 11
File Title

Giroux 05 (Henry A, Global Television Network Chair in English and Cultural Studies at
McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario. “The Terror of Neoliberalism: Rethinking the
Significance of Cultural Politics.” College Literature. July 19, 2011)

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.

Neoliberal dominance is not inevitable- the negative can represent a struggle
against the dominant ideology which can overthrow neoliberal violence
Giroux, Prof of Comm @ McMaster, 2004 p. 52-53
(Henry, The Terror of Neoliberalism)

Neoliberalism is not simply an economic policy designed to cut government spending, pursue free-trade
policies, and free market forces from government regulations; it is also a political philosophy and ideology
that affects every dimension of social life. Indeed, neoliberalism has heralded a radical economic,
political, and experiential shift that now largely defines the citizen as a consumer, disbands the social
contract in the interests of privatized considerations, and separates capital from the context of place. Within
this discourse, as Jean and John Comaroff have argued, “the personal is the only politics there is, the only
politics with a tangible referent or emotional valence. It is in these privatized terms that action is organized,
that the experience of inequity and antagonism takes meaningful shape.”96 Under such circumstances,
neoliberalism portends the death of politics as we know it, strips the social of its democratic values,
reconstructs agency in terms that are utterly privatized, and provides the conditions for an emerging
form of proto-fascism that must be resisted at all costs. Neoliberalism not only enshrines unbridled
individualism as a central feature of proto-fascism, as Herbert Marcuse reminds us,’97 it also destroys any
vestige of democratic society by undercutting its “moral, material, and regulatory moorings;”98 and
in doing so it offers no language for understanding how the future might be grasped outside of the
narrow logic of the market. But there is even more at stake here than the obliteration of public concerns,
the death of the social, the emergence of a market-based fundamentalism that undercuts the ability of
people to understand how to translate the privately experienced misery into collective action, and the
elimination of the gains of the welfare state: There is also the growing threat of displacing “political
sovereignty with the sovereignty of the market, as if the latter has a mind and morality of its own.”99
As democracy becomes a burden under the reign of neoliberalism, civic discourse disappears and the
reign of unfettered social Darwinism with its survival-of-the-slickest philosophy emerges as the
template for a new form of proto-fascism. None of this will happen in the face of sufficient resistance, nor


                                                                                                              63
SDI 11
File Title

is the increasing move toward protofascism inevitable; but the conditions exist for democracy to lose all
semblance of meaning in the United States. Against this encroaching form of fascism, a new language is
needed for redefining the meaning of politics and the importance of public life.
Educators, parents, activists, workers, and others can address this challenge by building local and
global alliances and engaging in struggles that acknowledge and transcend national boundaries, but
also engage in modes of politics that connect with people’s everyday lives. Democratic struggles
cannot underplay the special responsibility of intellectuals to shatter the conventional wisdom and
myths of neoliberalism with its stunted definition of freedom and its depoliticized and dehistoricized
definition of its own alleged universality. As Bourdieu argued, any viable politics that challenges
neoliberalism must refigure the role of the state in limiting the excesses of capital and providing
important social provisions.200 At the same time, social movements must address the crucial issue of
education as it develops throughout the cultural sphere because the “power of the dominant order is not just
economic, but intellectual—lying in the realm of beliefs,” and it is precisely within the domain of ideas
that a sense of utopian possibility can be restored to the public realm.20’ Most specifically, democracy
necessitates forms of education that provide a new ethic of freedom and a reassertion of collective identity
as central preoccupations of a vibrant democratic culture and society. Such a task, in part, suggests
addressing the crucial pedagogical challenge of educating individuals and groups as social actors while
refusing to allow them to be portrayed simply as victims. Pondering the devastation following decades of
European fascism, the theorist Theodor Adorno once wrote that “the premier demand upon all education is
that Auschwitz not happen again.”202 While recognizing that the particularity of Auschwitz as a specific
historical event should never be generalized, I believe that Adorno’s comment extends beyond the reality of
Auschwitz and speaks to the need to grasp the deeper meaning of education as a political and ethical
intervention into what it means to shape the future. Every debate about education should address the
important responsibility it has in preventing any relapse into barbarism from happening again. The
time to act is now because the stakes have never been so high and the future so dark.

Framework is an eternal fascism which polices language and argument-
refusing to allow critical language is part of governmental tyranny and
authoritarianism
Giroux, Prof of Comm @ McMaster, 2004 p. 22-23
(Henry, The Terror of Neoliberalism)

A fifth element of proto-fascism in the United States is the rise of an Orwellian version of Newspeak, or
what Umberto Eco labels as the language of “eternal fascism,” whose purpose is to produce “an
impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax [whose consequence is] to limit the instruments
for complex and critical reasoning.” 86 Under the Bush administration, especially since the horrible
events of September 11th, the tools of language, sound, and image are increasingly being appropriated in an
effort to diminish the capacity of the American public to think critically. As the critical power of
language is reduced in official discourse to the simulacra of communication, it becomes more difficult
for the American public to engage in critical debates, translate private considerations into public
concerns, and recognize the distortions and lies that underlie many of the current government
policies. What happens to critical language under the emergence of official Newspeak can be seen in the
various ways in which the Bush administration and its official supporters misrepresent by misnaming
government policies and engage in lying to cover up their own regressive politics and policies. 87

Silences dissent, destroys hope and is marked by ideological purity
Giroux, Prof of Comm @ McMaster, 2004 p. 50-51
(Henry, The Terror of Neoliberalism)

As public space is increasingly commodified and the state becomes more closely aligned with capital,
politics is defined largely by its policing functions rather than as an agency for peace and social
reform. Its ideological counterpart is a public pedagogy that mobilizes power in the interest of a
social order marked by the progressive removal of autonomous spheres of cultural production such
as journalism, publishing, and film; by the destruction of collective structures capable of



                                                                                                         64
SDI 11
File Title

counteracting the widespread imposition of commercial values and effects of the pure market; by the
creation of a global reserve army of the unemployed; and by the subordination of nation-states to the real
masters of the economy. Bourdieu emphasized the effects of neoliberalism on this dystopian world:
First is the destruction of all the collective institutions capable of counteracting the effects of the
infernal machine, primarily those of the state, repository of. all of the universal values associated
with the idea of the public realm. Second is the imposition everywhere, in the upper spheres of the
economy and the state as at the heart of corporations, of that sort of moral Darwinism that, with the cult of
the winner, schooled in higher mathematics and bungee jumping, institutes the struggle of all against all
and cynicism as the norm of all action and behaviour.’93




                                                                                                           65
SDI 11
File Title



                                        Framework – Ontology
Our critique comes first
Comaroff and Comaroff 2000 [Jean is the Bernard E. and Ellen C. Sunny Distinguished Service
Professor in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Chicago, John is the Harold H. Swift
Distinguished Service Professor in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Chicago and
senior research fellow at the American Bar Foundation in Chicago Duke University Press, Public Culture
12.2 (2000) pgs 291-343 “Millennial Capitalism: First Thoughts on a Second Coming”, ProjectMuse, d/a:
7-23-2011 WL]

Let us, then, cut to the heart of the matter: to the ontological conditions-of-being under millennial
capitalism. This begins for us--as it did for the "fathers" of modernist social theory--with epochal shifts in the constitutive
relationship of production to consumption, and hence of labor to capital. This requires, in turn, that we consider the
meaning of social class under prevailing political and economic conditions, conditions that place
growing stress on generation, gender, and race as indices of identity, affect, and political action. In
light of these reflections we go on to explore three corollaries, three critical faces of the millennial moment: the shifting
provenance of the nation-state and its fetishes, the rise of new forms of enchantment, and the explosion of neoliberal
discourses of civil society.




                                                                                                                             66
SDI 11
File Title



                                          Framework – Education
Our pedagogical struggle challenges the neoliberal biopolitics – it comes first
because it’s a precondition for political engagement
Giroux 2006 [Henry A, Global Television Network Chair in English and Cultural Studies at McMaster
University in Hamilton, Ontario, College Literature 33.3 (2006) pgs 171-196 “Reading Hurricane Katrina:
Race, Class, and the Biopolitics of Disposability”, ProjectMuse, d/a: 7-24-2011 WL]
Any viable attempt to challenge the biopolitical project that now shapes American life and culture
must do more than unearth the powerful antidemocratic forces that now govern American
economics, politics, education, media, and culture; it must also deepen possibilities of individual and collective struggles by
fighting for the rebuilding of civil society and the creation of a vast network of democratic public spheres such as schools and
the alternative media in order to develop new models of individual and social agency that can expand and deepen the reality of
democratic public life. This is a call for a diverse "radical party," following Stanley Aronowitz's exhortation, a party that
prioritizes democracy as a global task, views hope as a precondition for political engagement, gives
primacy to making the political more pedagogical, and understands the importance of the totality of
the struggle as it informs and articulates within and across a wide range of sites and sectors of everyday life—
domestically and globally. Democratically minded citizens and social movements must return to the
crucial issue of how race, class, power, and inequality in America contribute to the suffering and
hardships experienced daily by the poor, people of color, and working- and middle-class people. The
fight for equality offers new challenges in the process of constructing a politics that directly addresses
poverty, class domination, and a resurgent racism. Such a politics would take seriously what it means
to struggle pedagogically and politically over both ideas and material relations of power as they
affect diverse individuals and groups at the level of daily life. Such struggles would combine a
democratically energized cultural politics of resistance and hope with a politics aimed at offering
workers a living wage and all citizens a guaranteed standard of living, one that provides a decent education,
housing, and health care to all residents of the United States.



Utilizing debate as public space and pedagogy proves essential – only then can we
rupture and refuse the politics of the market
Giroux 2006 [Henry A, Global Television Network Chair in English and Cultural Studies at McMaster
University in Hamilton, Ontario, College Literature 33.3 (2006) pgs 171-196 “Reading Hurricane Katrina:
Race, Class, and the Biopolitics of Disposability”, ProjectMuse, d/a: 7-24-2011 WL]
Biopolitics is not just about the reduction of selected elements of the population to the necessities of bare life or worse; it is
also potentially about enhancing life by linking hope and a new vision to the struggle for reclaiming the
social, providing a language capable of translating individual issues into public considerations , and recognizing that in
the age of the new media the terrain of culture is one of the most important pedagogical spheres
through which to challenge the most basic precepts of the new authoritarianism. The waste machine of
modernity, as Bauman points out, must be challenged within a new understanding of environmental justice, human rights, and
democratic politics (2000, 15). Negative globalization with its attachment to the mutually enforcing modalities of militarism
and racial segregation must be exposed and dismantled. And this demands new forms of resistance that are both more global
and differentiated. But if these struggles are going to emerge, especially in the United States, then we need a politics and
pedagogy of hope, one that takes seriously Hannah Arendt's call to use the [End Page 189] public realm to throw light on
the "dark times" that threaten to extinguish the very idea of democracy. Against the tyranny of market fundamentalism,
religious dogmatism, unchecked militarism, and ideological claims to certainty, an emancipatory biopolitics must enlist
education as a crucial force in the struggle over democratic identities, spaces, and ideals. Central to the biopolitics of
disposability is the recognition that abiding powerlessness atrophies the public imagination and leads
to political paralysis. Consequently, its policies avidly attack critical education at all levels of cultural production in an
all-out effort to undermine critical thought, imagination, and substantive agency. To significantly confront the force of
a biopolitics in the service of the new authoritarianism, intellectuals, artists, and others in various cultural sites—
from schools to higher education to the media—will have to rethink what it means to secure the
conditions for critical education both within and outside of the schools. In the context of formal schooling,
this means fighting against the corporatization, commercialism, and privatization of public schools. Higher education has to be
defended in the same terms. Against the biopolitics of racial exclusion, the university should be a principal site where dialogue,
negotiation, mutual understanding, and respect provide the knowledge and experience for students to develop a shared space




                                                                                                                               67
SDI 11
File Title

for affirming differences while simultaneously learning those shared values necessary for an inclusive democratic society.
Similarly, both public and higher education must address with new courage the history of American slavery, the enduring
legacy of racism in the United States, and its interface with both political nationalism and the enduring market and religious
fundamentalisms at work in contemporary society. Similarly, racism must be not be reduced to a private matter, a case of
individual prejudice removed from the dictates of state violence and the broader realm of politics, and left to matters of "taste,
preference, and ultimately, of consumer, or lifestyle choice" (Gilroy 2005, 146-47). What must be instituted and fought for in
higher education is a critical and anti-racist pedagogy that unsettles, stirs up human consciousness, "breeds dissatisfaction
with the level of both freedom and democracy achieved thus far," and inextricably connects the fates of freedom, democracy,
and critical education (Bauman 2003, 14). Hannah Arendt once argued that "the public realm has lost the power of
illumination," and one result is that more and more people "have retreated from the world and their obligations within it"
(1955, 4). The public realm is not merely a space where the political, social, economic, and cultural interconnect; it is also
the pre-eminent space of public pedagogy—that is, a space where subjectivities are shaped, public
commitments are formed, and choices are made. As sites of cultural politics and public pedagogy,
public spaces offer a unique opportunity for critically engaged citizens, young people, academics , [End
Page 190] teachers, and various intellectuals to engage in pedagogical struggles that provide the
conditions for social empowerment. Such struggles can be waged through the new media, films, publications, radio
interviews, and a range of other forms of cultural production. It is especially crucial, as Mark Poster has argued, that scholars,
teachers, public intellectuals, artists, and cultural theorists take on the challenge of understanding how the new media
technologies construct subjects differently with multiple forms of literacy that engage a range of intellectual capacities (2001).
This also means deploying new technologies of communication such as the Internet, camcorder, and cell phone in political and
pedagogically strategic ways to build protracted struggles and reclaim the promise of a democracy that insists on racial,
gender, and economic equality. The new technoculture is a powerful pedagogical tool that needs to be used, on the one hand, in
the struggle against both dominant media and the hegemonic ideologies they produce, circulate, and legitimate, and, on the
other hand, as a valuable tool in treating men and women as agents of change, mindful of the consequences of their actions,
and utterly capable of pursuing truly egalitarian models of democracy. The promise of a better world cannot be found in
modes of authority that lack a vision of social justice, renounce the promise of democracy, and reject the dream of a better
future, offering instead of dreams the pale assurance of protection from the nightmare of an all-embracing terrorism. Against
this stripped-down legitimation of authority is the promise of public spheres, which in their diverse forms, sites, and
content offer pedagogical and political possibilities for strengthening the social bonds of democracy,
new spaces within which to cultivate the capacities for critical modes of individual and social agency, and crucial opportunities
to form alliances to collectively struggle for a biopolitics that expands the scope of vision, operations of democracy, and the
range of democratic institutions—that is, a biopolitics that fights against the terrors of totalitarianism. Such spheres are about
more than legal rights guaranteeing freedom of speech; they are also sites that demand a certain kind of citizen informed by
particular forms of education, a citizen whose education provides the essential conditions for democratic public spheres to
flourish. Cornelius Castoriadis, the great philosopher of democracy, argues that if public space is not to be experienced not as
a private affair, but as a vibrant sphere in which people learn how to participate in and shape public life, then it must be
shaped through an education that provides the decisive traits of courage, responsibility, and shame, all of which connect the
fate of each individual to the fate of others, the planet, and global democracy (1991, 81-123). In the aftermath of Hurricane
Katrina, the biopolitical calculus of massive power differentials and iniquitous market relations put the scourge of poverty and
racism on full display. To confront [End Page 191] the biopolitics of disposability, we need to recognize the
dark times in which we live and offer up a vision of hope that creates the conditions for multiple
collective and global struggles that refuse to use politics as an act of war and markets as the measure
of democracy. Making human beings superfluous is the essence of totalitarianism, and democracy is the antidote in urgent
need of being reclaimed. Katrina should keep the hope of such a struggle alive for quite some time because for many of us the
images of those floating bodies serve as an desperate reminder of what it means when justice, as the lifeblood of democracy,
becomes cold and indifferent in the face of death.

Neoliberalism is a self sustaining cycle of political and social destruction that is
now regulating the teaching of the new generation
GIROUX 04 (HENRY A.-- McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada--Policy Futures in Education,
Volume 2, Numbers 3 & 4, 2004)

The ascendancy of neo-liberal corporate culture into every aspect of American life both consolidates
economic power in the hands of the few and aggressively attempts to break the power of unions,
decouple income from productivity, subordinate the needs of society to the market, and deem public
services and goods an unconscionable luxury. But it does more. It thrives on a culture of cynicism, fear,
insecurity, and despair. Defined as the paragon of modern social relations by Friedrich A. von Hayek, Milton Friedman,
Robert Nozick, Francis Fukuyama, and other market fundamentalists, neo-liberalism attempts to eliminate an engaged
critique about its most basic principles and social consequences by embracing the ‘market as the
arbiter of social destiny’.[1] Not only does neo-liberalism bankrupt public funds, hollow out public
services, limit the vocabulary and imagery available to recognize anti-democratic forms of power,
and produce narrow models of individual agency, it also undermines the critical functions of any



                                                                                                                               68
SDI 11
File Title

viable democracy by undercutting the ability of individuals to engage in the continuous translation
between public considerations and private interests by collapsing the public into the realm of the
private. As Bauman observes, ‘It is no longer true that the “public” is set on colonizing the “private”. The opposite is the case: it is
the private that colonizes the public space, squeezing out and chasing away everything which cannot
be fully, without residue, translated into the vocabulary of private interests and pursuits.’[2] Divested of
its political possibilities and social underpinnings, freedom offers few opportunities for people to translate private
worries into public concerns and collective struggles. Central to the hegemony of neo-liberal ideology
is a particular view of education in which market-driven identities and values are both produced and
legitimated. Under such circumstances, pedagogy both within and outside of schools increasingly
becomes a powerful force for creating the ideological and affective regimes central to reproducing
neo-liberalism In the current historical moment, critical education and the promise of global democracy
face a crisis of enormous proportions. It is a crisis grounded in the now common-sense belief that
education should be divorced from politics and that politics should be removed from the imperatives
of democracy. At the center of this crisis, particularly in the United States, is a tension between democratic values and market
values, between dialogic engagement and rigid authoritarianism. Faith in social amelioration and a sustainable future
appears to be in short supply as neo-liberal capitalism performs the dual task of using education to
train workers for service sector jobs and produce life-long consumers. At the same time, neo-
liberalism feeds a growing authoritarianism steeped in religious fundamentalism and jingoistic
patriotism, encouraging intolerance and hate as it punishes critical thought, especially if it is at odds
with the reactionary religious and political agenda being pushed by the Bush administration. Increasingly, education appears
useful to those who hold power, and issues regarding how public and higher education might contribute to the quality of democratic
public life are either ignored or dismissed. Moral outrage and creative energy seem utterly ineffective in the
political sphere, just as any collective struggle to preserve education as a basis for creating critical
citizens is rendered defunct within the corporate drive for efficiency, a logic that has inspired
bankrupt reform initiatives such as standardization, high stakes testing, rigid accountability
schemes, and privatization. Cornel West has argued that just as we need to analyze those dark forces shutting
down democracy, ‘we also need to be very clear about the vision that lures us toward hope and the sources of that vision’.[3] In
what follows I want to recapture the vital role that critical and public pedagogy might play for educators,
cultural studies advocates, and other cultural workers as both a language of critique and possibility
by not only addressing the growing threat of free-market fundamentalism and rigid
authoritarianism, but also the promise of a cultural politics in which pedagogy occupies a formative role


As critical thinkers we must first counter the neoliberalists’ hold not only on
our education but our community
GIROUX 04 (HENRY A.-- McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada--Policy Futures in Education,
Volume 2, Numbers 3 & 4, 2004)
At this point in American history, neo-liberal capitalism is not simply too overpowering; on the contrary, ‘democracy is too
weak’.[13] Under neo-liberalism, pedagogy has become thoroughly reactionary as it constructs
knowledge, values, and identities through a variety of educational sites and forms of pedagogical
address that have largely become the handmaiden of corporate power, religious fundamentalism,
and neo-conservative ideology. These new sites of public pedagogy, which have become the
organizing force of neo-liberal ideology, are not restricted to schools, blackboards, and test-taking.
Nor do they incorporate the limited forms of address often found in school settings. Such sites operate within a wide
variety of social institutions and formats including sports and entertainment media, cable television
networks, churches, and channels of elite and popular culture, such as advertising. Profound
transformations have taken place in the public space, producing new sites of pedagogy marked by a
distinctive confluence of new digital and media technologies, growing concentrations of corporate
power, and unparalleled meaning-producing capacities. Unlike traditional forms of pedagogy,
knowledge and desire are inextricably connected to modes of pedagogical address mediated through
unprecedented electronic technologies that include high-speed computers, new types of digitized film,
and CD-ROMs. The result is a public pedagogy that plays a decisive role in producing a diverse cultural sphere that gives new
meaning to education as a political force. What is surprising about the cultural politics of neo-liberalism is that cultural studies
theorists have either ignored or largely underestimated the symbolic and pedagogical dimensions of the struggle that neo-liberal
corporate power has put into place for the last 30 years, particularly under the ruthless administration of George W. Bush. While Paulo
Freire and other leading educational theorists were right about linking education and democracy, they had no way in their time of



                                                                                                                                     69
SDI 11
File Title

recognizing that the larger culture would extend beyond, if not supersede, institutionalized education as the most important
educational force in the developed societies. In fact, education and pedagogy have been synonymous with
schooling in the public mind. Challenging such a recognition does not invalidate the importance of
formal education to democracy, but it does require a critical understanding of how the work of
education takes place in such institutions as well as in a range of other spheres such as advertising,
television, film, the Internet, video game culture, and the popular press. Rather than invalidating the
importance of schooling, it extends the sites of pedagogy and, in doing so, broadens and deepens the meaning and importance of
public pedagogy. The educational force of the wider culture and its ongoing processes of what Raymond Williams called ‘permanent
education’ [14] must become a central concern of formal schooling itself. The concept of public pedagogy also
underscores the central importance of formal spheres of learning, which unlike their popular
counterparts – that are driven largely by commercial interests and more often miseducate the public
– must provide citizens with those critical capacities, modes of literacy, knowledge, and skills that
enable them both to read the world critically and participate in shaping and governing it. Put differently,
formal spheres of learning provide one of the few sites where students can be educated to
understand, engage critically, and transform those dominant spheres of public pedagogy that are
largely shaping their beliefs and sense of agency. I am not claiming that public or higher education are free from
corporate influence and dominant ideologies, but that such models of education, at best, provide the spaces and conditions for
prioritizing civic values over commercial interests (i.e. they self-consciously educate future citizens to be capable of participating in
and reproducing a democratic society). In spite of its present embattled status and contradictory roles, higher
education remains uniquely placed – though also under attack from the forces of corporatization – to
prepare students both to understand and influence the larger educational forces that shape their
lives. Needless to say, those of us who work in such institutions by virtue of our privileged positions within a rather obvious division
of labor coupled with higher education’s lingering if not damaged dedication to freedom and democracy have an obligation to draw
upon those traditions and resources that are capable of providing a critical education to all students in order to prepare them for a
world in which information and power have taken on new and powerful dimensions. In fact, Scott Lash has brilliantly and rightly
argued that the critique of information cannot be separated from the critique of power itself, and that
this provides a new challenge for how we are to theorize a new politics for the twenty-first
century.[15] One entry into this challenge is to address the theoretical contributions that a number of
radical educators and cultural studies theorists have made in engaging not only the primacy of
pedagogy as a political force, but also how the relationship between culture and power constitutes a
new site of both politics and pedagogy.


The allowed continuation of pedagogy and the political sustains the thirst for
power without self-critically realizing the role that plays. So we must delink
these two attributes to reach justice
GIROUX 04 (HENRY A.-- McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada--Policy Futures in Education,
Volume 2, Numbers 3 & 4, 2004)

In opposition to these positions I want to reclaim a long tradition in radical educational theory that makes clear that pedagogy
as an oppositional practice and active process of learning is central to any viable notion of critical citizenship, inclusive
democracy, and the democratic demands of a broader global public sphere. Pedagogy as a language of both critique
and possibility looms large in this critical tradition not as a technique or a-priori set of methods, but
as a political and moral practice. As a political practice, pedagogy illuminates the relationship
between power, knowledge, and ideology, while self-consciously, if not self-critically, recognizing the
role it plays in a deliberate attempt to influence how and what knowledge and identities are produced
within particular sets of social relations. As a moral practice, pedagogy recognizes that what cultural
workers, artists, activists, media workers, and others teach cannot be abstracted from what it means
to invest in public life, presuppose some notion of the future, or locate oneself in a public discourse.
The moral implications of pedagogy also suggest that our responsibility as public intellectuals cannot
be separated from the consequences of the knowledge we produce, the social relations we legitimate,
and the ideologies and identities we offer up to students. Refusing to decouple politics from pedagogy
means, in part, that teaching in classrooms or in any other public sphere should not only simply
honor the experiences students bring to such sites, but should also connect their experiences to
specific problems that emanate from the material contexts of their everyday lives. Pedagogy in this sense
becomes performative in that it is not merely about deconstructing texts, but is also about situating politics itself within a
broader set of relations that address what it might mean to create modes of individual and social agency which enable rather




                                                                                                                                        70
SDI 11
File Title

than shut down democratic values, practices, and social relations. Sucha project recognizes not only the political
nature of pedagogy, but also situates it within a call for intellectuals to assume responsibility for their
actions, to link their teaching to those moral principles that allow us to do something about human
suffering, as the late Susan Sontag has recently suggested.[19] Part of this task necessitates that cultural studies
theorists and educators anchor their own work, however diverse, in a radical project that seriously
engages the promise of an unrealized democracy against its really existing forms. Of crucial
importance to such a project is the rejection of the assumption that theory can understand social
problems without contesting their appearance in public life. More specifically, any viable cultural politics
needs a socially committed notion of injustice if we are to take seriously what it means to fight for the
idea of the good society. I think Zygmunt Bauman is right in arguing that: ‘If there is no room for the idea of
wrong society, there is hardly much chance for the idea of good society to be born, let alone make
waves.’[20] Cultural studies theorists need to be more forceful, if not committed, in linking their overall politics to modes of
critique and collective action that address the presupposition that democratic societies are never too just or just enough.
Such a recognition means that a society must constantly nurture the possibilities for self-critique,
collective agency, and forms of citizenship in which people play a fundamental role in critically
discussing, administrating, and shaping the material relations of power and ideological forces that
bear down on their everyday lives. At stake here is the task, as the late Jacques Derrida insisted, of viewing the
project of democracy as a promise – a possibility rooted in the continuing struggle for economic,
cultural, and social justice.[21] Democracy in this instance is not a sutured or formalistic regime, it is
the site of struggle itself. The struggle over creating an inclusive and just democracy can take many
forms, offers no political guarantees, and provides an important normative dimension to politics as
an ongoing process of democratization that never ends. Such a project is based on the realization that
a democracy which is open to exchange, question, and self-criticism never reaches the limits of
justice.

Neoliberalism endorses the complete privatization of the public sphere – the plan
rejects this notion
Giroux 05 (Henry A, Global Television Network Chair in English and Cultural Studies at
McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario. “The Terror of Neoliberalism: Rethinking the
Significance of Cultural Politics.” College Literature. July 19, 2011)

Under the reign of neoliberalism with its growing commercialization of everyday life, the
corporatization of higher education, the dismantling of the welfare state, the militarizing of public
space, and the increasing privatization of the public sphere, it has become more difficult to address
not only the complex nature of social agency and the importance of democratic public spheres, but
also the fact that active and critical political agents have to be formed, educated, and socialized into the
world of politics. Lacking a theoretical paradigm for linking learning to social change, existing political
vocabularies appear increasingly powerless about how to theorize the crisis of political agency and
political pessimism in the face of neoliberal assaults on all democratic public spheres. As the vast
majority of citizens become detached from public forums that nourish social critique, political agency not
only becomes a mockery of itself, it is replaced by market-based driven form of cultural politics in
which private satisfactions replace social responsibilities and confessional culture become a substitute
for systemic change.




                                                                                                                                   71
SDI 11
File Title



                                Framework Impact—Democracy
Democracy solves extinction.
Diamond -95 (Larry Diamond, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, December, PROMOTING DEMOCRACY IN THE
1990S,
1995, p. http://www.carnegie.org//sub/pubs/deadly/diam_rpt.html //)
Nuclear, chemical and biological weapons continue to proliferate. The very source of life on Earth,
the global ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered. Most of these new and unconventional threats to
security are associated with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of democracy, with its provisions
for legality, accountability, popular sovereignty and openness. The experience of this century offers important lessons.
Countries that govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do not go to war with one another.
They do not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize themselves or glorify their leaders. Democratic governments do not
ethnically "cleanse" their own populations, and they are much less likely to face ethnic insurgency. Democracies do not sponsor
terrorism against one another. They do not build weapons of mass destruction to use on or to threaten one another. Democratic
countries form more reliable, open, and enduring trading partnerships. In the long run they offer better and more stable climates for
investment. They are more environmentally responsible because they must answer to their own citizens, who organize to protest the
destruction of their environments. They are better bets to honor international treaties since they value legal obligations and because
their openness makes it much more difficult to breach agreements in secret. Precisely because, within their own borders, they respect
competition, civil liberties, property rights, and the rule of law, democracies are the only reliable foundation on which a new world
order of international security and prosperity can be built.




                                                                                                                                    72
SDI 11
File Title




             “Answers To”




                            73
SDI 11
File Title



                                        A2: No Spillover
This brutal version of capitalism is being protested now – plan is key to
solidify a US stance of the rejection of neoliberalism
Giroux 05 (Henry A, Global Television Network Chair in English and Cultural Studies at
McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario. “The Terror of Neoliberalism: Rethinking the
Significance of Cultural Politics.” College Literature. July 19, 2011)

Fortunately, the corporate capitalist fairytale of neoliberalism has been challenged all over the globe
by students, labor organizers, intellectuals, community activists, and a host of individuals and groups
unwilling to allow democracy to be bought and sold by multinational corporations, corporate swindlers,
international political institutions, and those government politicians who willingly align themselves with
multinational, corporate interests and rapacious profits. From Seattle to Genoa, people engaged in
popular resistance are collectively taking up the challenge of neoliberalism and reviving both the meaning
of resistance and the sites where it takes place. Political culture is now global and resistance is amorphous,
connecting students with workers, schoolteachers with parents, and intellectuals with artists. Groups
protesting the attack on farmers in India whose land is being destroyed by the government in order
to build dams now find themselves in alliance with young people resisting sweatshop labor in New
York City. Environmental activists are joining up with key sections of organized labor as well as
groups protesting Third World debt. The collapse of the neoliberal showcase, Argentina, along with
numerous corporate bankruptcies and scandals (notably including Enron), reveals the cracks in
neoliberal hegemony and domination. In addition, the multiple forms of resistance against neoliberal
capitalism are not limited by a version of identity politics focused exclusively on particularized rights and
interests. On the contrary, identity politics is affirmed within a broader crisis of political culture and
democracy that connects the militarization of public life with the collapse of the welfare state and the attack
on civil liberties. Central to these new movements is the notion that neoliberalism has to be understood
within a larger crisis of vision, meaning, education, and political agency. Democracy in this view is not
limited to the struggle over economic resources and power; indeed, it also includes the creation of public
spheres where individuals can be educated as political agents equipped with the skills, capacities, and
knowledge they need to perform as autonomous political agents. I want to expand the reaches of this debate
by arguing that any struggle against neoliberalism must address the discourse of political agency, civic
education, and cultural politics as part of a broader struggle over the relationship between democratization
Henry A. Giroux 3 (the ongoing struggle for a substantive and inclusive democracy) and the global public
sphere.




                                                                                                            74
SDI 11
File Title



                                          A2: Cap Good
The structure we identify is not classical Adam Smith style capitalism
Giroux, Prof of Comm @ McMaster, 2004 p. xxii-xxiii
 (Henry, The Terror of Neoliberalism)
As a public pedagogy and political ideology, the neoliberalism of Friediich Hayek and Milton Friedman is
far more ruthless than the classic liberal economic theory developed by Adam Smith and David
Ricardo in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Neoliberalism has become the current
conservative revolution because it harkens back to a period in American history that supported the
sovereignty of the market over the sovereignty of the democratic state and the common good.
Reproducing the future in the image of the distant past, it represents a struggle designed to roll back,
if not dismantle, all of the policies put into place over seventy years ago by the New Deal to curb
corporate power and give substance to the liberal meaning of the social contract. The late Pierre
Bordieu captures what is new about neoliberalism in his comment that neoliberalism is a new kind of
conservative revolution that] appeals to progress, reason and science (economics in this case) to justify the
restoration and so tries to write off progressive thought and action as archaic. hr sets up as the norm of all
practices, and therefore as ideal rules, the real regularities of the economic world abandoned to its own
logic, the so—called laws of the market. It reifies and glorifies the reign of what are called the financial
markets, in other words the return to a kind of radical capitalism, with no other law than that of
maximum profit, an unfettered capitalism without any disguise, hut rationalized, pushed to the limit
of its economic efficacy by the introduction of modern forms of domination, such as “business
administration,” and techniques of manipulation, such as market research and advertising.24




                                                                                                           75
SDI 11
File Title



                                A2: Neolib Key to Growth
Neoliberalism destroys markets and increases economic volatility, killing
growth
Martorell, contributor at Marxist.com, 10/15/02 p. http://www.marxist.com/neo-liberalism-globalisation-
left151002.htm
However, the anarchic character of capitalist production reaffirmed itself in a number of crises that
started in 1997 and which started to shatter the myth of the viability of these "neo-liberal" policies. Thus
we saw the collapse of the South East Asian "tigers" (which had been presented as models of capitalist
success) in 1997 (The First Tremors, Ted Grant, 1997), the collapse of the Russian economy in the
summer of 1998, the collapse of the "new economy" stock exchange bubble in April 2001 (Bulls, bears
and bust, Michael Roberts, 2000), the devaluation of the Brazilian real in 2000, which in turn led to the
massive devaluation of the Turkish lira in February 2001, the collapse of the Argentinean economy in
December 2001, which led to the revolutionary events currently taking place in that country (Argentina -
The Revolution has Begun, Alan Woods, 2001), the biggest corporate bankruptcies in history (Enron
and Worldcom - See: Enrongate, Mick Brooks, 2002), and so on and so forth...In fact it is increasingly
clear that these "neo-liberal" policies have failed to deliver what they promised. For instance
privatisation of public services was supposed to bring about cheaper and more efficient service delivery. If
we have a look at the results of the privatisation of the railways in Britain we can see that this has been an
unmitigated disaster. Train services in Britain are now more expensive, less reliable, less safe and one of
the private companies, Railtrack, has just gone bankrupt and the state has had to intervene to save it! No
wonder that more than 75% of the population in Britain is now in favour of renationalising the railways
(Rail privatisation in Britain - a warning, Socialist Appeal, 2001). Argentina was a country that was
presented as one of the best "pupils of the IMF". The country's government followed faithfully all the
advice coming from the IMF and the World Bank, privatising all public companies, opening up its trade
barriers, reducing public spending and basically pursuing "sound economic policies" and "fiscal prudence".
As a result, Argentina defaulted on its foreign debt, is suffering a massive economic depression and 40% of
its population now live under the poverty line, all this in a country which used to compare itself to Europe
and look down on its Latin American neighbours.




                                                                                                           76
SDI 11
File Title



                                                 A2: K’s
Permutation capable of solving—multiple axes key
MacDonald 2007 (Fraser, Professor of Geography, University of Melbourne, “Anti-Astropolitik –
outer space and the orbit of geography” Progress in Human Geography 31(5))
Geography is already well placed to think about these things; there are many well- worn lines of
geographical critique that have their parallel in space. For instance, there are pressing ‘environmental’
questions about the pollution of Earth’s orbit with space ‘junk’, a development which is seriously
comprom- ising the sustainable use of Lower Earth Orbit. This high-speed midden, already of interest to
archaeologists (see Gorman, 2005), is coming up for its 50th anniversary in 2007, after the launch of the
Russian satellite Sputnik on 4 October 1957. Since then, the sheer variety and number of discarded objects
is re- markable. From lens caps to astronaut faeces, the number of orbiting articles greater than 10 cm in
diameter currently being tracked is over 9000 (Brearley, 2005: 9). The ability to think critically about
nature conservation and heritage policy – another aspect of the geographer’s remit – may also have an
extra- terrestrial transference, as wilderness and ‘first contact’ paradigms look set to be mob- ilized in space
(Cockell and Horneck, 2004; Rogers, 2004; Spennemann, 2004). One might further speculate that the
economic geography of outer space would be a rich, if as yet undeveloped, avenue of inquiry. A cultural
and historical geography of space also offers numerous flights of fancy, from questions of astronautical
embodiment to the politics of planetary representation. All of this is to say that a geography of outer space
should be a broad undertaking, aside from the obvious project of a critical geo/astropolitics.




                                                                                                             77
SDI 11
File Title



                                       Pure Critique Fails
Must have a policy proposal to solve neoliberalism
Giroux, Prof of Comm @ McMaster, 2004 p.138
(Henry, The Terror of Neoliberalism)

Central to such a politics would be a critical public pedagogy that attempts to make visible alternative
models of radical democratic relations in a wide variety of sites. These spaces can make the pedagogical
more political by raising fundamental questions such as:
What is the relationship between social justice and the distribution of public resources and goods? What
conditions, knowledge, and skills are prerequisites for political agency and social change? At the very least,
such a project involves understanding and critically engaging dominant public transcripts and values within
a broader set of historical and institutional contexts. It means moving beyond the often paralyzing language
of critique or refusing to relate the discourse of politics to the everyday relations through which people
experience their lives. It also means refusing to offer scripted narratives that fix people in a particular
notion of identity, agency, or future. As I have stressed before, many educators have failed to take seriously
Antonio Gramsci’s insight that “[e]very relationship of ‘hegemony’ is necessarily an educational
relationship”—with its implication that education as a cultural pedagogical practice takes place across
multiple sites as it signals how, within diverse contexts, education makes us both subjects of and subject to
relations of power.44 Education in this sense assigns critical meaning to action, connects understanding
with engagement, and links engagement with the hope of democratic transformation. In other words, it is a
precondition for producing subjects capable of making their own histories within diverse economies of
power and politics. As Edward Said has insisted, education mediated through the politics of hope is not
about “appropriating power and then using it to create new forms of orthodoxy and antidemocratic
authority ... but [about] the employment of the simpler, and indeed more elegant, spur of trying right now to
alleviate human suffering, reducing the wakefulness of corporate profligacy and redirecting resources back
to communities and individuals.”45 In what follows, I comment on what it would mean to make the
pedagogical more political as part of a broader effort to reclaim the radically democratic role of public and
higher education, as well as on the implication of addressing educators as critical public intellectuals.




                                                                                                           78
SDI 11
File Title



                                              State Good
Key to fighting injustice
Giroux, Prof of Comm @ McMaster, 2004 p. 77-78
(Henry, The Terror of Neoliberalism)

Defined through the ideology of racelessness, the state removes itself from either addressing or correcting
the effects of racial discrimination, reducing matters of racism to individual concerns to be largely solved
through private negotiations between individuals, and adopting an entirely uncritical role in the way in
which the racial state shapes racial policies and their effects throughout the economic, social, and cultural
landscape. Lost here is any critical engagement with state power and how it imposes immigration policies,
decides who gets resources and access to a quality education, defines what constitutes a crime, how people
are punished, how and whether social problems are criminalized, who is worthy of citizenship, and who is
responsible for addressing racial injustices. As the late Pierre Bourdieu argued, there is a political and
pedagogical need, not only to protect the social gains, embodied in state policies, that have been the
outcome of important collective struggles, but also “to invent another kind of state.”64 This means
challenging the political irresponsibility and moral indifference that are the organizing principles at the
heart of the neoliberal vision. As Bourdieu suggests, it is necessary to restore the sense of utopian
possibility rooted in the struggle for a democratic state. The racial state and its neoliberal ideology need to
be challenged as part of a viable anti-racist pedagogy and politics.
Anti-racist pedagogy also needs to move beyond the conundrums of a limited identity politics and begin to
include in its analysis what it would mean to imagine the state as a vehicle for democratic values and a
strong proponent of social and racial justice. In part, reclaiming the democratic and public responsibility of
the state would mean arguing for a state in which tax cuts for the rich, rather than social spending, are seen
as the problem; using the state to protect the public good rather than waging a war on all things public;
engaging and resisting the use of state power to both protect and define the public sphere as utterly white;
redefining the power and role of the state so as to minimize its policing functions and strengthen its
accountability to the public interests of all citizens rather than to the wealthy and corporations. Removing
the state from its subordination to market values means reclaiming the importance of social needs over
commercial interests and democratic politics over corporate power; it also means addressing a host of
urgent social problems that include but are not limited to the escalating costs of health care, housing, the
schooling crisis, the growing gap between rich and poor, the environmental crisis, the rebuilding of the
nation’s cities and impoverished rural areas, the economic crisis facing most of the states, and the
increasing assault on people of color. The struggle over the state must be linked to a struggle for a racially
just, inclusive democracy. Crucial to any viable politics of anti-racism is the role the state will play as a
guardian of the public interest and as a force in creating a multiracial democracy.




                                                                                                             79
SDI 11
File Title



                                         A2: Militarism
Must continue to engage with space technology, mindful of militarist roots
MacDonald 2007 (Fraser, Professor of Geography, University of Melbourne, “Anti-Astropolitik –
outer space and the orbit of geography” Progress in Human Geography 31(5))
Lastly, a critical geography must not be overly pessimistic, nor must it relinquish an engagement with
space technology on the grounds that this has, to date, been driven largely by military agendas. The means
of our critique may require us to adopt such technologies, or at least to ask what opportu- nities they
present for praxis. One thinks here of various forms of playful and subversive activism, experiment and art-
event that have knowingly toyed with space hardware (Triscott and la Frenais, 2005; Spacearts, 2006). GPS
receivers can help us think re- flexively about position (Parks, 2001); remote sensing can be used to explore
political conditions in the world (Parks and Biemann, 2003); amateur radio-telescopy can help us
reconceptualize space by attuning us to the sonorous qualities of its scientific ‘data’ (Radioqualia, 2003);
even rocket science can still carry utopian freight (Chalcraft, 2006). Through such means, can space be
given a truly human geography.




                                                                                                          80
SDI 11
File Title



                                          A2: US Imperialism Bad
Generalizing the US as an empire is untrue; doing so would allow many
others to be characterized similarly.
Motyl 6 (Alexander J., Prof of Poli-Sci at Rutgers Univ, Foreign Affairs, “Empire Falls”,
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/61764/alexander-j-motyl/empire-falls, p. 1)

                                                                                of empire have to
Matthew Connelly begins his contribution to the SSRC's Lessons of Empire with a puzzle: "Scholars
ask themselves why, after several decades of research and teaching, almost all of it critical of
imperialism and its legacies, we seem not to have had the slightest impact." One good answer can be
found in the conclusion to George Steinmetz's essay in the same volume: "A preferable way of avoiding having one's work
functionalized for empire, to avoid the 'ear of the prince,' is to try to create accounts that are ontologically and epistemologically
adequate to the processual, conjunctural, contingent nature of social life, and hence irreducible to simple policy statements."
Ontological and epistemological adequacy may not do the trick, but stylistic opacity and intentional irrelevance will surely kill a
putative prince's interest in academic writing. Sheldon Pollock's piece wanders even further into academic obscurantism, arguing
that "contemporary discussions of the lessons past empires may have for present ones make several
assumptions that must come as a surprise to anyone who has followed the debates on historical
knowledge over the past few decades. One is that we really can acquire true knowledge of history;
another is that this knowledge is useful to us, that we will benefit by acting upon its truth." Oddly
enough, the book's editors share some of this skepticism about the relevance of history to the present, writing that "the lessons
of studying past empires reinforce a cautious attitude toward claims made about the present." That
may be so, but if historians really believe that they have little to say to policymakers, why write such books in the first place?
One can draw lessons from the past only if one believes that history is real, that knowledge of history is possible, and that such
knowledge can be packaged appropriately. Assuming one accepts these propositions, one then has to identify conceptual
similarities between the objects to be compared and the contexts within which they exist and then develop meaningful theories of
causality. Lessons of empire can be drawn, in other words, only if the United States is or has an empire
and only if the foreign policy environment in which it pursues its supposedly imperial aims is
comparable to that of past empires. It is that simple. If the United States is not an empire, or does not
have one, there is nothing more to say about this particular subject. In Among Empires, Maier tries to
sidestep this problem by claiming that "the United States reveals many, but not all -- at least not
yet -- of the traits that have distinguished empires." But if the United States does not share all the
defining characteristics of empires, then it is not an empire, and there is little reason to believe
that valid lessons of imperial history will apply to it. After all, the United States shares "many,
but not all" traits (such as bigness, multiethnicity, and arrogance) with non-empires such as Brazil, Canada,
France, and Indonesia, so why not draw lessons from their experiences with equal justification?


The US isn’t characterized as an empire now, and it would be conceptually
impossible to attempt to become one
Motyl 6 (Alexander J., Prof of Poli-Sci at Rutgers Univ, Foreign Affairs, “Empire Falls”,
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/61764/alexander-j-motyl/empire-falls, p. 3)
Not only is the United States not an empire, but it probably could not become one today. Several
decades ago, the political scholar Rein Taagepera -- who, distressingly, is not mentioned by any of the authors in the books under
review -- plotted the life spans of empires, graphically demonstrating what is now the conventional wisdom: empires have
been among the most durable, stable, and successful political entities of all time. Empire actually
works -- or, rather, worked -- quite well. Despite empire's long and venerable track record,
however, there are strong reasons to think that empire building is no longer a viable political
project. Imperial states have acquired territory in three ways: by marriage, by purchase, and by
conquest. Marriage no longer works, as no contemporary ruler (not even a dictator) claims to own the territory he
rules. Purchase is a dead end, as all the world's land is divided among jealous states and oftentimes empowered
populations. Conquest is still possible in principle, and the twentieth century is full of instances in which it was
attempted in practice. But the limits of conquest are clear, in the aftermath of Iraq if not before. International and most
national norms, for example, now hold that the conquest of foreign nations and states almost certainly
involves violations of human rights and the principles of self-determination and cultural
autonomy, and is therefore illegitimate. Moreover, nation-states are unusually effective vehicles of mass



                                                                                                                                         81
SDI 11
File Title

                               sustained conquest harder now than in the past. And a growing
mobilization and resistance, making
aversion to violence militates against the ruthlessness that overcoming resistance requires. The
international community may look the other way if mass murder is confined to a localized area of the developing world, such as
Darfur, but it is hard to imagine that repeated genocidal policies in the service of imperialist expansion would not provoke severe
condemnation and some countermeasures. In sum, while history suggests that being or having an empire is a
guarantee of longevity, it also shows that acquiring an empire is probably no longer possible.
What has caused the empire vogue recently has been not the sudden appearance of imperially
structured U.S. power, but the seemingly arbitrary use of that power. The invasion of
Afghanistan did not provoke talk of a U.S. empire, because most people in most countries believed that it was a
reasonable response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and because it was the Taliban, not the United States, that was
arbitrarily violating widely held norms about human rights, cultural autonomy, democracy, and national self-determination. It was
the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the Bush administration's tub-thumping unilateralist rhetoric that made the difference. Empire
talk made sense not because the United States suddenly had an empire, but because the exercise
of the United States' vast power seemed imperial to some in its potential beneficence and wisdom
and imperious to others in its arrogance and arbitrariness. Seen in this light, it comes as no surprise that the
authors who are cited the most in Lessons of Empire are Niall Ferguson and the writing team of Michael Hardt and Antonio
Negri. Ferguson is an enthusiastic proponent of empire, whereas Hardt and Negri are self-declared foes of it. All three have
written books that have been as popular as they are weakly argued and incoherent. The empire talk such authors
promote may be of interest to students of "discourses" or intellectual fads, but policy analysts and
officials would do well to abandon the term "empire" instead of fetishizing it. Fortunately, that should
not be difficult. Before there was empire talk, it was perfectly possible to discuss U.S. foreign policy in
nonimperial terms. Michael Mandelbaum has recently shown in his book The Case for Goliath that it still is. Once
President George W. Bush leaves office and the United States withdraws from Iraq, empire talk may well go the way of empires
themselves. The issues it purported to clarify will remain.



The US doesn’t fall under the definition of an empire, and it can’t be
characterized as possessing an empire either
Motyl 6 (Alexander J., Prof of Poli-Sci at Rutgers Univ, Foreign Affairs, “Empire Falls”,
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/61764/alexander-j-motyl/empire-falls, p. 2)
So does the United States qualify? It would be absurd to say that the 50 states are an empire. Does the United
States have an empire? It is too soon to say whether occupied Iraq will become a U.S. colony, although from the way the war has
been going, the chances are that it will not. Afghanistan is hardly a U.S. periphery. Puerto Rico's relationship with the mainland
might be "colonial," as might Samoa's and Guam's, but a few minor islands make for a pretty dull empire. The
United States and its institutions, political and cultural, certainly have an overbearing influence on the
world today, but why should that influence be termed "imperial," as opposed to "hegemonic" or
just "exceptionally powerful"? McDonald's may offend people, but it is unclear how a fast-food
chain sustains U.S. control of peripheral territories. U.S. military bases dot the world and may
facilitate Washington's bullying, but they would be indicative of empire only if they were imposed
and maintained without the consent of local governments. Hollywood may promote
Americanization -- or anti-Americanism -- but its cultural influence is surely no more imperial
than the vaunted "soft power" of the European Union. Ronald Grigor Suny thus sensibly
concludes his essay in the SSRC volume by noting that if "empire" is defined rigorously, the
United States cannot be said to have one. Appropriate lessons might therefore be drawn from comparisons with other
polities that have had vast power in the international system, some of which might have been empires, some of which might not.
This point is not just academic. If the United States is not an empire, then the lessons of empire are the
wrong ones for U.S. policymakers to heed. Maier implicitly acknowledges that "empire" is a
dispensable term when he says he wants to investigate U.S. ascendancy without "claiming that the
United States is or is not an empire." And indeed, his history of U.S. power could easily have been
written without reference to empire. Imagine, then, that policy analysts and scholars stopped applying the label to the
United States. Would it make any difference? I think not. The challenges facing the country -- war in Iraq, nuclear weapons in
Iran and North Korea, rising authoritarianism in Russia, growing military power in China, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,
terrorism, avian flu, climate change, and so forth -- would be exactly the same, as would U.S. policy options. Allies would still be
allies; foreign critics would still express outrage at what they perceive to be American stupidity, arrogance, unilateralism, and the
like. Life would go on, and no one -- except for scholars of empire -- would notice the difference.




                                                                                                                                        82
SDI 11
File Title



                                          A2: US Imperialism DA
Asymetric nature of space inhabitation solves imperialism—produces stable
space norms
Tannenwald 03 (Nina, Fellow at Watson Institute for International Studies “Law Versus Power on
the High Frontier” http://www.cissm.umd.edu/papers/files/tannenwald.pdf Date Accessed 7/19/11)
What are the prospects for a nonweaponization regime for space? It is obvious that no viable legal regime
for space can be established without the agreement of the major space powers. On the other hand, it is
equally obvious that a regime that neglected the needs of others would be rejected by subsequent space-
active countries. Today, there are more spacefaring countries that are in a position to influence the issue
than there were in the 1960s and 1970s. This provides some reason for optimism. What led to the dramatic
changes in ocean law was that the multitude of developing states realized that, although they could not
match the great powers in long distance fleets and technology, they could thwart their freedom of
movement by extending jurisdictional claims into the oceans. Likewise in space, other states will not be
able to match the United States in capabilities, but they can thwart U.S. freedom of action through
various kinds of interference, such as jamming satellite signals. This creates a strong incentive for the
United States to negotiate clear rules of behavior that will preserve its broad interests in space.

Private space colonization still triggers the link to the imperialism/militarism
DA
Salin 01 (Patrick, Professor at McGill University, “Privatization and militarization in the space business environment,” Elsevier
Science, 2/19, DA: 7/24/11, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0265964600000503#fn1)
Outer Space only knows national flags, so that the increasing presence of private entities will    inevitably lead to
raising protection issues, diplomatic and military, paving the way for the militarization issue. Private
corporations also act as de facto ambassadors of spacefaring nations, and private assets in space do
not exist in their capacity as international object s (which they are, just like astronauts are to be regarded “as envoys of
mankind” as per Art. V of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty). This means that private satellites are objects moving
freely in an open domain that forms part of the common heritage of mankind, a res communis environment, with voices
advocating the discarding of a bygone vision of Outer Space [16 and 17]. 11 This is a reminder of the dreadnought theory of the early
twentieth century, with its right of passage. However, in our case, the right of passage is being transformed into a right of stay,
including new practices that could be revealed as pernicious in the long run [18]. 12 This is why some nations may
abruptly intervene at any time if they consider their national interest, as vested in these flying birds,
to be in jeopardy. Since we are in both a highly competitive and a strategically important
environment, watchful nations may also intervene in advance, in order to foster their own national
interest and secure strongholds regarding other nations they consider to be foes , or simply rivals. Very
seldom do nations intervene in order to impose sanctions on those of their nationals active in space. The most recent (and rare)
example confirming this observation is the cancellation last June by the FCC of the licenses it had granted to three US satellite
operators.13 These were participants in the first round of 14 Ka-band systems, licensed in May 1997. These cancellations have raised
protests, especially from PanAmSat, even though the FCC order clearly explained how each of the three operators did not abide by the
construction deadlines and jeopardized the conditional license they had been granted. So, were there grounds for a protest? Although
the FCC's action had one precedent in the recent past, it is not a practice and we welcome seeing the FCC take a firm stance, in tune
with the USA's obligations under ITU regulations [19]. With regard to the blurred relationship between defense
and outer space, it was quite common a few years ago to read that, for some defense analysts, the Gulf War of the early 1990 s
was considered to be the first outer space conflict, demonstrating clearly that the outer space environment is now
integrated into military doctrine. It is a vital complement to armed conflicts on Earth and is not intended to be
maintained as an open and new environment that should be immune from earthly considerations and their inevitable environmental
pollution.14 It is a replica of the doctrine of ‘hot pursuit’, which was in favor at other times during ground conflicts that could not be
restricted to a specific territory because of alleged outside interventions. This doctrine will eventually and inevitably transport Earth
conflicts into outer space, when retaliation threats by opposing forces will target the satellites of the
adversary. Not surprisingly, the next US Air Force war game, scheduled for January 2001, was to focus on “how space and air
operations can be integrated in the 2015 time frame”, as well as on “the potential utility of military and commercial space systems”.15
We see that, in a context of slowly decaying international rules (the space treaties), the evolution of
practice tends to make obsolete the debates on the limit of the Earth's atmosphere, because for the
military this is waste of time.




                                                                                                                                      83
SDI 11
File Title

Private and national interests blurred—future militarization is done in the
name of the nation state but strengthens the markets
Salin 01 (Patrick, Professor at McGill University, “Privatization and militarization in the space business environment,” Elsevier
Science, 2/19, DA: 7/24/11, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0265964600000503#fn1)
What is really at stake here and should be the object of a widespread and open democratic debate is the notion of ‘public interest’ .
We question what should eventually prevail: is it the so-called ‘‘national’’ public interest, or should it
not rather be a ‘global’ public interest, which goes well beyond the limited list of corporations or
professional associations that reply to and comment on a proposed new set of regulations [30]. 18
Private operators must launch risky adventurous projects in order to survive. Extravagant promises
in terms of financial returns or technical prowess, as in the case of Iridium, play an important role in
attracting investors with the lure of high dividends, but may not satisfy customers with more basic needs, who are
looking for practical functionality at a reasonable cost [31]. Competition includes price wars, which, in the end, kill
weaker competitors. One space market analyst has said that “Iridium's business plan met 1980 s needs with 1990 s technology
and died spectacularly in 2000” [32]. 19 This only means that Iridium was unfortunately conceived in another era, that of the Cold
War, and it did not survive the new paradigm we previously referred to, that of exacerbated global
competition as a consequence of the shift from the public sector to the private sector. Its difficulty
stemmed from the fact that many analysts did not take into account this change of paradigm in their own professional practice: “... a
company whose managers have a history of dealing with defense and other government markets does not worry about marketing ...”
[33]. 20 This is not a new discovery: private business and military affairs do not follow the same logic . This was
once openly expressed by a senior official at the US Department Commerce: “In space, our national security, foreign policy, and
economic security are inexorably linked” [35]. 21 However, we can — without hesitation — assert here that the Mahan doctrine (on
the influence of sea power upon history) is not applicable within the context of space law. What is good for America is not
necessarily good for the rest of the world. Private operators are led to create a world of plenty that
may be out of sync with actual demand. A good example is given to us right now by the launch business. An artificial
bottleneck seems presently to be developing as a result of both (i) excess industrial capacity in the satellite-building industry and (ii)
excess launch capacity [36 and 24]. Following the successes of the expansion of the satellite market in the 1980s and the 1990s, during
which we mostly saw four nations or groups of nations competing against one another — the USA, Russia, Europe and China — we
are now seeing important developments in the US launch market through the appearance of several new launchers with their own
spaceports pads and the will to modernize existing launching facilities, including a quasi-privatization of spaceports, with tax
incentives and various other forms of US government financial support. The Europeans are not far behind, with the set-up of a few
launch joint-ventures with the Russians and with other non-European partners. China is also gaining success in establishing itself as a
valid, full sized, space competitor. To this list should be added brand new launch actors in new spacefaring nations such as India,
Australia, Brazil. This activity addresses an environment that is monitored by treaties that should operate like ‘codes of conduct’
ruling a unique environment in human experience. This activity has also been earmarked by the same treaties to sustain the economic
development of second- and third-tier developing nations. One may therefore question the need for new launch companies in the USA
and Europe, with the risk of fueling an unnecessary price war with innumerable economic consequences. Are we already in a mass
market? The space and defense industry is becoming just another kind of business. Whether their
missions are public or private, manufacturers are the same. Just as international trade is gradually including
satellite communications since the advent of the World Trade Organization (WTO), international trade, through the grand
scheme of globalization, is now including the defense business. Four of the largest US and UK space and defense
conglomerates have recently created a B2B Internet platform, headquartered in Washington, DC, which introduces itself as an
“aerospace & defense global trading exchange” [24]. 22 From a purely business standpoint, one can easily understand the benefits of
such an initiative that the Internet makes possible. But again, is the business point of view the only one to be
considered in defense matters and should outer space be considered just like any other plain business
marketplace?A greater concentration of power
This is the most logical business consequence, reinforcing the probability of future national
interventions and conflicts. These interventions may be based on a legitimate desire to protect ‘national’ assets, i.e. a
proactive type of intervention. When the US Congress and the FCC constantly refer to the necessity of maintaining US industry
leadership and advantages in the space business, it seems legitimate that the US Space Command authorities at the same time reassert
the need to protect US assets in outer space and request adequate funding in order to develop and operate the most sophisticated space
weapons ever. Even though military commanders do (or should) not dictate public policies, their leitmotiv constitutes the permanent
background ‘‘noise’’ that any present and future US administration and Congress has to live with [37, 38 and 39]. 23




                                                                                                                                        84

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:68
posted:5/18/2012
language:Latin
pages:84
fanzhongqing fanzhongqing http://
About