Environmental Statism Kritik

AIM: YeahIMJon Enviro-statism-------------- 'summer 03 ( 1 / 70 )

Table of Contents

1-2…….TOC3………. Thesis4-7……. INC shell- pg 4 Link- pg 5 Internal Link- pg 6 Implication- Social Ecology- pg 7 Implication- Deep Ecology- pg 8 alternative - Free Market Capitalism- pg 9 Decision Rule/ Moral Obligation10……… 2NC/1NR overview11-22………Alternative Ext. Free market Environmentalism23………….Statism Herding24…………. Policy Obligation / Decision Rule ext.25…………… Public health impact26-27……………environment control by government bad28-30……………….. EPA bad31……………….. Regulation skyrocketed32……………….government regulation on environment unconstitutional33………………. Letter of the Law is a statist bind34………….. terms in law allow government oppression of property rights35………. Micropolitical action through litigation is thwarted by terms in law36……. Government/ EPA penalties unfair and totalitarian37……… Discourse Link38………. ANWR discourse Link39………… I/L ext trade pollution empirical evidence40………. Empirically State Herds public opinion41………. Environmental Regulations are statist42………. Free Trade Capitalism GOOD


43-62…….. Captialism good /turns on cap bad63-65…… anthro anwers/ DEEP ECO GOOD66………. Definitions in law is a loophole created for oppression67……… envrio reg = trade war/ international restriction68-70……… Enviro Sanctions = protectionism and US HEGE= BAD


THESIS/ INTRODUCTION

The argument of environmental statism is an argument of capitalism vs. statism when involving the government. The link is generally through a plan that would use environmental regulations ie; ban of harmful policy, restriction on harmful practices, and New laws or regulation to enforce a environmentalism through state power

The link through use of government is the primary link, however the discourse links in perpetuating statism and promoting ecological disaster thru the state by using more regulations to the point in which the public backlashes against these restrictions and then in face of serious ecological devastation no support will come from the public as a result of "the boy who cried wolf" calls.

The implication however is tricky. The Deep Ecology cards are for human relation to the world and they answer the speciesism or anthropocentrism Kritik. Implications also include governmental oppression / social control, and a lot of other impacts that you can add to make your own custom shell for the 1nc. The implications are throughout the file

The alternative is most important part of this file. You can make your own alternative if you choose to make a textual one or a CP with free market environmentalism. Remember the alternative is a mechanism for solving the statis quo because the implications of the kritik have already been preset through the current SQ. The alternative solves the best and that is what gives you the ….

Decision rule- This means that as long as you prove you take a step away from environmental government regulation you win the round because you can turn the round in which their policy would be usless because of the ecological devastation and you can improve it through you use of debate as a forum to voice ideas and opinions That utilize both macro and micro political reform .

I recommend that you make sure you know the alternative is endorsing capitalism as a free market alternative rather than the state when arguing capitalism is bad you need to prove it is better than statism to win the round.

~ If you have any questions on this file my AIM is YeahImJon and my email is [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


Environmental Statism K 1NC (Shell)

1. L/ The use of environmental regulations is a statist tool of government intrusionAnderson & Leal 2003 (Terry L and Donald, Spring of '03 L Field Expert at Political Economy Research Center in Bozeman, Montana. The Cato Review of Business & Government, "Regulation" Enviro-Capitalism vs. Environmental Statism p. google )

It may be true that "We are all environmentalists now," as Michael Kellogg claimed in his article "After Environmentalism," (Regulation, 1994 Number 1) but it is not true that you have to accept command and control to be an environmentalist. Nonetheless, for mainstream environmentalists the litmus test of "greenness" is the acceptance of more government to achieve environmental ends. They typically call for more environmental regulation and more government ownership of land, ad nauseam. But the message from free-market environmentalism is that more government is not necessary to improve environmental quality and may even be inimical to that end. Those who wave the banner of environmental statism cling to the notion that the stick is better than the carrot when it comes to the rights of private property owners. They ignore the enormous growth over the last decade in recreational markets, especially for fee hunting and fishing, that have led landowners such as International Paper Company, a major industrial forest owner, to nurture its environmental assets. Instead, their first line of defense against landowners always seems to be regulation. No wonder private landowners see endangered species and wetlands as liabilities instead of valuable assets. Not surprisingly, ranchers in northwest Montana, for the sake of their own financial survival, say in private that the remedy for grizzly bears or wolves on their property is "to shoot, shovel, and shut up." Meanwhile, the clamor goes on for more restrictive legislation, more lawsuits, more government intrusion.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg17n1-kellogg.html


I/L- Current Macro-Environmentalist movements are being corrupted to allow compensation that does not benefit the environment but instead continues to damage it

Anderson & Leal 2003 (Terry L and Donald, Spring of '03 L Field Expert at Political Economy Research Center in Bozeman, Montana. The Cato Review of Business & Government, "Regulation" Enviro-Capitalism vs. Environmental Statism p. google )

Unlike a market, however, the level of pollution is not determined by willing buyers and willing sellers, but by command and control. A market for pollution would have the polluter paying the receptor in a voluntary transaction. If the polluter is willing to pay the receptor more than the cost the receptor bears, more effluent will be emitted. That requires a system of well-specified property rights and a system of common-law torts that forces a polluter to pay for any damages he generates. Market-based solutions, on the other hand, establish the level of pollution through a political process with little if any compensation paid to those who receive the pollution. It is true that market-based solutions can make the process of meeting governmentally imposed pollution allowances more efficient, and free-market environmentalists applaud such efficiency gains. But there should be no mistaking the fact that the process of determining the level of pollution ought to be a market process.

AIM: YeahIMJon Enviro-statism-------------- 'summer 03 ( 6 / 70 )Implication- Ecology attached to the state forms hierarchical mentality and socio-economic barriers that allow environmental statist domination to permeate society through corporate tyranny destroying human

Bookchin '93 (Murray Bookchin cofounder and director emeritus of the Institute for Social Ecology. has long been a major figure in anarchist and utopian political theory The Philosophy of Social Ecology. http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bookchin/socecol.html )

Indeed, to separate ecological problems from social problems--or even to play down or give token recognition to this crucial relationship-- would be to grossly misconstrue the sources of the growing environmental crisis. The way human beings deal with each other as social beings is crucial to addressing the ecological crisis. Unless we clearly recognize this, we will surely fail to see that the hierarchical mentality and class relationships that so thoroughly permeate society give rise to the very idea of dominating the natural world.

Unless we realize that the present market society, structured around the brutally competitive imperative of "grow or die," is a thoroughly impersonal, self-operating mechanism, we will falsely tend to blame technology as such or population growth as such for environmental problems. We will ignore their root causes, such as trade for profit, industrial expansion, and the identification of "progress" with corporate self-interest. In short, we will tend to focus on the symptoms of a grim social pathology rather than on the pathology itself, and our efforts will be directed toward limited goals whose attainment is more cosmetic than curative.

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bookchin/socecol.html

AIM: YeahIMJon Enviro-statism-------------- 'summer 03 ( 7 / 70 )Implication- Loss of human relation with the world results in ontological damnation and ecological devastationZimmerman ‘97 (Michael. Contesting the Earth’s Future: Radical Ecology and postmodernity, p 19-20)

Heidegger asserted that human self-assertion, combined with the eclipse of being, threatens the relation between being and human Dasein. Loss of this relation would be even more dangerous than a nuclear war that might "bring about the complete annihilation of humanity and the destruction of the earth." This controversial claim is comparable to the Christian teaching that it is better to forfeit the world than to lose one's soul by losing one's relation to God. Heidegger apparently though along these lines: it is possible that after a nuclear war. life might once again emerge, but it is far less likely that there will ever again occur an ontological clearing through which such life could manifest itself, Further. since modernity's one-dimensional disclosure of entities virtually denies them any 'being" at all, the loss of humanity's openness for being is already occurring. Modernity's background mood is horror in the face of nihilism, which is consistent with the aim of providing material "happiness" for everyone by. reducing nature to pure energy. The unleashing of vast quantities of energy in nuclear war would be equivalent to modernity's slow-motion destruction of nature; unbounded destruction would equal limitless consumption. If humanity avoided nuclear war only to survive as contented clever animals. Heidegger -believed we would exist in a state of ontological damnation: hell on earth, masquerading as material paradise.


Alternative- Rejecting the affirmatives plan to endorse environmental statism and engaging in free-market environmentalism allows for the socioeconomic boundaries to be broken down and for exchange to limit harmful environmental waste. This also destroys incentive for coercion and breaks down the barrier of statism


The alternative to environmental statism is free-market environmentalism. As Kellogg notes, free-market environmentalism seems "like an oxymoron" but only because it does not depend on the coercive hand of government to steer the boat. Instead, free-market environmentalism depends on property rights and the law of contracts and torts, wherein willing buyers and sellers determine the course through their bargaining over the exchange of property rights. In the context of free-market environmentalism, pollution is not pollution as long as those who receive the byproducts are compensated for taking on what is unwanted by others. Hence the sign on the garbage truck that reads, "It may be garbage to you, but it's our bread and butter." Free-market environmentalism is based on two premises, the first of which is that free markets provide the higher incomes that in turn increase the demand for environmental quality. Few would deny that the demand for environmental quality has increased dramatically in the past 25 years, and there is growing consensus that the cause of that increased demand is rising incomes. New studies show that the relationship between per capita income and environmental quality follows a "J-curve" pattern. At very low levels of income, environmental quality may be high because no effluent is produced. As incomes rise above some minimum, pollutants increase and the environment deteriorates. But then at per capita incomes of approximately $5,000 per year, environmental quality begins to become a luxury good. Above that income level, estimates by Don Coursey of Washington University in St. Louis show that for every 10 percent increase in income there is a 30 to 50 percent increase in the demand for environmental quality. We may all be environmentalists now, but the cause is not a born-again experience at Walden Pond; it is increasing wealth generated by free markets that has given us the wherewithal to afford environmental luxuries. The second bulwark of free-market environmentalism is that markets for environmental amenities provide incentives for individuals to treat the environment as an asset rather than a liability. Kellogg acknowledges that there may be something to free-market environmentalism in that "the market can take us almost anywhere we want to go." But this misses the basic problem that the free-market environmentalism paradigm confronts: where do we want to go? Coercive environmentalists claim to know where we ought to go and use the powers of government to get us there. For them there is never enough wilderness, species should not go extinct, and pollution should not exist. That asserted, why not use command and control?


Decision Rule- The multidimensional approach which is critical to success in ecological crisis is successful only through capitalism and not through the state, this means you have the obligation as a policy maker to vote negative on state action in environmental affairs

Fotopoulos '98 (Takis Fotopoulos, editor of Democracy & Nature, The journal of Inclusive Democracy)

There is no doubt today that a major dimension of the present multidimensional crisis, which extends to the economic, political, cultural and general social level, is the ecological crisis, namely the crisis which concerns not the relations between social individuals, as the other dimensions of the crisis, but our interaction, as social individuals, with the environment. The upsetting of ecological systems, the widespread pollution, the threat to renewable resources, as well as the world running out of non-renewable resources and, in general, the rapid downgrading of the environment and the quality of life have made the ecological implications of economic growth manifestly apparent in the past 30 years. It was, also, during the same period that what we may call the Growth economy flourished. And by growth economy I mean the system of economic organisation which is geared-- either ‘objectively’ (as in the case of the capitalist market economy) or deliberately (as in the case of the now defunct ‘actually existing socialism’)-- toward maximising economic growth.

2NC/1NR Overview and CARD


Environmental Regulations are subtle forms of government intrusion and the affirmative has put us into a politically constructed bind. The negative's rejection of this statist environmental regulations should be awarded with the negative ballot even if the alternative fails because any act to limit coercion of the government in itself is a step away from the fixed-rule regime that the affirmative case locks us in with environmental regulations

Fung and Karkkainen '90 ( Sabel Fung and karkkainen Respond '90, Return to "Beyond backyard Environmentalism")

Finally Susskind, drawing from his broad professional experience as a master practitioner of alternative dispute resolutions (ADR) takes it for granted that parties holding contrary views might, through practical deliberation and exchange views, transcend their fixed understandings to reach mutually acceptable solutions. This capacity to innovate in the midst of conflict is surely among the most counterintuitive requirements of the new regime. (while in this sense ADR takes is an important precursor for the regime we propose, we disagree with Susskind's view that comprehensive alternative could emerge from the myriad of discrete local ADR decisions, if only those decisions had presidential character. Despite its broad accomplishments . ADR has remained peripheral to the reform of public administration, in part because it has no notion of how the center might be transformed to reflect , learn from, and guide the successes of local practical deliberation.) A deeper challenge to our view is the contention of several critics that the architecture is feasible, but only narrowly so, insofar as it has proved useful and practicable only in exceptional circumstances, and then only given the continuing backdrop of conventional regulation. From this perspective, the phenomenon we describe may never amount to more than tinkering at the margins of established regime. The core of this view is that effective regulation depends on state coercion that is inherent in the current regime but absent from architecture. Some of our critics believe in addition that the current system is less rigid and more extensible to new circumstances than we credit. At the limit this leads the Farber's claim that correcting the current regime though bilateral negotiation between regulators and private parties is preferable to our "multilateral" approach. Others appear to agree with our characterization of the limits of the current regime, but see our participatory remedy as so demanding as to be unworkable in most circumstances. We consider these objections in turn.As we argued in "Beyond Backyard Environmentalism," we fully agree that coercion is indispensable to effective regulation. Even where there are long-term, mutually beneficial solutions to regulatory disputes, self interested parties would be tempted to sacrifice broad and long-term gains for narrow and short-term benefits unless deterred by credible threats of penalities. The dispute with our critics, then turns on whether the necessary coercion can only be supplied by the current fixed-rule regime, or whether our rolling rule alternative can provide it better


A/T Free Market endorses socio-economic boundaries

[ ] Free market environmentalism is a display of mutual goals in a united effort to save the environment. All action is voluntary and is always preferable over the state governed control over the environment


Free-market environmentalists make no claims that they know what ought to be done. That will be determined by human action revealed in voluntary transactions where prices provide incentives for willing buyers and sellers to cooperate to achieve their mutual ends. In Kellogg's words, "If someone wants to buy Yosemite and put up condos . . . ,then condos there will be." Free-market environmentalists have no trouble with this conclusion, which is not to say that they necessarily prefer condos over a pristine Yosemite Valley. (Of course, a pristine valley is not what we now have under command and control so it may be that even condos would be more pristine than the overcrowding under bureaucratic management.) Free-market environmentalists would say that if they cannot outbid the condo lovers for whatever uses they want, then preferences, constrained by budgets, have been revealed. Here two criticisms usually are forthcoming, one raised by Kellogg and one not. The one not raised has to do with wealth distribution. Since the rich have more wealth than the poor, they will outbid the poor, it is said, in a market system. But the fact is that the rich do not always prevail. Rich people may prefer fancy cars like the Lexus over the Geo, but the latter gets produced. Indeed, Henry Ford got rich by producing for the masses, not for the elite, wealthy market. If environmental quality is demanded by lower- and middle-income consumers, suppliers will get rich supplying it. Of course, if that is not what people actually want (as opposed to what coercive environmentalists believe they should want), the market will "fail." Moreover, distributional problems as they relate to the environment are no different than with food. If there are poor people, it is surely better to give them money and let them decide whether they want wilderness areas or water parks. If they chose the latter, free-market environmentalists have no worry. Coercive environmentalists, however, generally conclude that they have the wrong preferences.


A/T monetary value should not be placed on sacred items/ capitalism bad

[ ] Environmentalist's intrinsic value of an item is held to public debate and prevents sacrilegious degradation


The second criticism of letting voluntary transactions determine what environmental goods will be produced is that "some things simply should not be reduced to monetary terms. Some things are, or should be, sacred." Here the true colors of the coercive environmentalists shine through. Knowing what is sacred, they have no qualms coercing those without the correct vision into doing what is right. In the vernacular of coercive environmentalists, the environment has "intrinsic value" which Kellogg defines as "a value that is independent of the choices of particular individuals and, hence, transcends market considerations." What he really means is that intrinsic (substitute sacred, spiritual, godliness) values are infinite and therefore cannot be traded off against other values or uses. They are the trump card. Not surprisingly then, "free-market environmentalism, in its purest form, cannot" take intrinsic values into account. Kellogg's solution is to have "a public debate in which the intrinsic value of nature can be considered by society as a whole, not simply bartered away in the private dealings of individuals." Here again sleight of hand makes everything seem fine. Who is this "society," and what is the process whereby society decides? Free-market environmentalism recognizes that society simply is a subterfuge term for political solutions wrought with at least as much failure as the "private dealing of individuals."


A/T Free Marker Environmentalism Bad

[ ] Free market environmentalism allows capitalist trade and and promotes rights


Free-market environmentalism recognizes that it is enviro-capitalists who discover the market potential of defining rights to environmental amenities, and capitalize on their discoveries by establishing property rights. For example, The Nature Conservancy recently tried to purchase and retire grazing rights on federal lands in New Mexico. Though the government may have created the grazing right on the public domain, it was the entrepreneurship of the Conservancy that attempted to create a new stick in the bundle of rights. Interestingly, an administrative law judge for the Department of the Interior disallowed the voluntary transaction designed to achieve an environmental end.


[ ] Free-market environmentalism allows for critical thinking and political solutions to resist environmental statism and eliminates bureaucracy


Free-market environmentalism challenges the status quo by offering a way of "rethinking the way we think" about environmental problems. Most of us accept that food, housing, and the production of other basic necessities are best left to the marketplace. Why not the environment? Even environmental problems offer profit niches to the environmental entrepreneur who can define and enforce property rights. Political solutions may be called for in cases where the costs of establishing property rights are presently insurmountable, but there is no reason to begin with the premise that only command and control can produce environmental quality. To the contrary, free-market environmentalism points out that it is often "bureaucracy versus the environment" and that political solutions become so entrenched that they often stand in the way of innovative market solutions. Overcoming the mindset of environmental statism is no small task because this has been the dominant paradigm for environmental policy formulation for nearly a century. Moving beyond the status quo will require forming new coalitions and abandoning the anti-market mind-set.


[ ] Empirically the market outperforms politics and gives conservatives and environmentalists a common ground increase the alternatives effectiveness


This has happened with water allocation because fiscal conservatives and environmentalists have found a common ground. Federal involvement in massive water projects designed to make the desert bloom like a rose seldom pass cost-benefit muster and generally wreak environmental havoc. Because of this, progress has been made in removing water allocation from the political agenda and turning it over to market forces. Even in the case of enhancing stream flows for environmental purposes, there is growing evidence that markets can outperform politics.


[ ] Free market environmentalism is good


We are all environmentalists now" because we in the United States and other wealthy western countries can afford to demand (as opposed to command) environmental quality. The basic premises of free-market environmentalism are 1) that environmental quality comes with increased wealth and 2) that free markets provide the incentive structure for increasing wealth and for producing environmental amenities. If coercive environmentalists with their elitist agendas continue to dominate environmental policy, the likelihood is that we will eventually have less wealth and fewer amenities. Of the three alternatives reviewed by Kellogg, only free-market environmentalism offers the prospect of more wealth, more amenities, and more freedom, the scarcest resource of all.


I/L Environmental Efforts are decreasing in popularity, thus the public would not accept a plan of the statis quo's environmentalism but instead reject it with more severity because it is on a slippery slope that will render all environmentalist efforts useless

Selick '90 (© 1990 Karen Selick A Dose of Capitalism for Environmental Ills An edited version of this article first appeared in the November, 1990 issue of Canadian Lawyer. http://www.karenselick.com/CL9011.html)

Despite these obvious advantages, few environmentalists have advocated this simple change. Instead, a steady barrage of books and articles attempts to persuade us all to be green using the same old moral suasion techniques and scare tactics that have been failing for so many years. In fact, so much has been written in this vein that I'm half expecting some zealous environmentalists to start a campaign for self-censorship soon, lest their own prolific paper output endanger our forests. Most environmentalists fail to realize that self-interest (in their jargon, a "renewable resource") can be more safely relied upon to correct environmental ills than coercive measures veiled by appeals to idealism, charity, fear or guilt.

http://www.karenselick.com/CL9011.html


[ ] Free Market Environmentalism is on a gray area between failing or succeeding every person to the movement counts small reform is potentially all it will take.

Adler '95 (CAPITALISM AND SUSTAINABILITY By Jonathan H. Adler (professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law. originally published in The Good Society) http://home.earthlink.net/~jhadler/pegs.html )

It is increasingly understood that the status quo approach to environmental concerns is unsustainable -- both economically and ecologically. The current preference for centrally-planned, monitored, and executed environmental protection strategies must undergo a thorough reexamination. Merely because the current system has produced some real environmental gains -- and it has -- is no reason for complacency. If environmental concerns are to be balanced with competing societal values, economic and otherwise, well into the future, it is time for fundamental reforms.Gar Alperovitz identifies existing institutional arrangements as the source of ecological unsustainability ("Sustainability and 'The System Problem,'" The Good Society, Fall 1995). However, Alperovitz's specific diagnosis fails to deal with the heart of the matter. By focusing on superficial indicators of environmental decline and mistaking existing economic institutions for those of free market capitalism, Alperovitz misses the opportunity to prescribe an effective cure to today's ecological ills

http://home.earthlink.net/~jhadler/pegs.html

http://lawwww.cwru.edu/default.asp



Marine Resource Ocean policy is the largest problem in need of free market environmentalism to protect against depletion of resources in an effective manner.

Adler '95 ("Markets don't fail, We fail to have markets," Environmental Forum professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law http://home.earthlink.net/~jhadler/eforum.html )

An alternative approach to environmental policy that is gaining adherents is "free market environmentalism." This approach rejects the idea that all good things environmental emanate from government dictates, and suggests that those institutions upon which free and prosperous societies are built - private property, voluntary exchange, freedom of contract, rule of law - will best provide for the protection of public health and ecological values.The free market environmental outlook can best be summed up in the statement: Markets don't fail, we fail to have markets. Most of the world's ecological problems plague those resources that are left outside of market institutions. The depletion of ocean fisheries is a constant reminder that the tragedy of the commons is still with us, and that the open-access commons - not capitalism - is the source of unsustainable activities.Where natural resources are incorporated into the marketplace, through property rights or some proxy, environmental improvements are regularly achieved. The world's temperate forests, largely privately owned, are stable and expanding; the world's tropical forests, largely unowned or "protected" by governments, are in decline. Similarly, the greatest wildlife conservation successes in the third world come not from bans and regulations, but from efforts to embrace market institutions and make conservation pay.

http://home.earthlink.net/~jhadler/eforum.html




The free market environmentalist movement takes a step away from federal regulation and allows creativity and solutions for endangered species that have been ignored in the past


The first step in enacting a free market environmental program would thus involve efforts to creatively extend property arrangements to cover more of the natural world so that there are fewer open-access commons and more private stewards. Public ownership and protection have not done much for federal lands or endangered species (one-quarter of all delisted species went extinct, and most should never have been listed in the first place). On the other hand, private stewardship, as practiced by environmental organizations, local land trusts, clubs, community associations, and even the occasional corporation, has preserved habitat and ecosystems, and helped protect numerous species, including egrets, common eider and wood ducks, scimitar-horned oryx, bluebirds, American bison, and several raptor species, from threats to their survival. Rather than seeking more federal regulation, those committed to improved environmental protection should seek ways of building upon these successes.





[ ] The Statis quo for environmental regulations is statist and reform is required, free market environmentalism doesn't impose regulations to micromanage meaning it is always going to be the best alternative


Current environmental laws, however, do not embody this principle. Federal air and water statutes are preoccupied with whether the proper technologies have been installed or whether the proper permits have been filed at the proper time with the proper agency. The U.S. Supreme Court once acknowledged a federal common law basis for water pollution actions by polluted parties downstream. Today, the federal Clean Water Act can preempt such claims, even where substantive allegations of harm exist. This is anti-private property and anti-market. To embody free market principles, environmental rules should be designed to replicate, or reinforce, common law environmental protections. They should not seek to micromanage the land-use of private citizens and the industrial practices of private corporations, as much federal environmental law does today.





[ ] The alternative eliminates government bureaucracy and attachmentAdler '95 (("Markets don't fail, We fail to have markets," Environmental Forum professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law http://home.earthlink.net/~jhadler/eforum.html )

There is not space here to fully explain the free market environmental approach, but the principles behind such an approach should now be clear. Free market environmentalists place far more faith in private citizens, endowed with private rights, acting in defense of their own perceived best interests, than they do in government bureaucracies. Given the current performance of environmental laws, this should be understandable.





Implication- The State is always and absolutely bad – faith that it may sometimes be beneficial draws us into the herd, making human extinction inevitable

Beres 94 (Louis , Prof @ Purdue University, Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, Spring 1994 )

The state tells lies in all the tongues of good and evil; and whatever it says it lies – and whatever it has it has stolen. Everything about it is false. In giving ourselves over completely to national self-determination, we actually turn national frontiers into prison walls that lock up capacity for thought and authentic feeling. We nurture incessant preparations for killing by embracing the cold metallic surfaces of the state. The state itself cannot inspire love, but itself kills, suppresses everything that might be loved; so one is forced to love it, because there is nothing else. That is the moral torment to which all of us today are exposed. We live in a twilight era. Faced with endless infamy of the modern state, if we are unwilling to accept abolition of the future, then we must rescue life from the threat of war and genocide.


[ ] You have the obligation to vote for the kritik because if the micropolitical action doesn't start the state will take over all environmental rights for their own benefit and the public will lose self determination

Lynch '95 (by Timothy Lynch Cato Policy anaylsis No. 223 april 20, 1995 Polluting Our Principles: Prosecutions And The Bill Of Rights)

American lawmakers, spurred by their concern for the natural environment, have created a regulatory environment in which "the barriers of government are broken down and the boundaries of the Constitution defaced."(1) They seem to have lost sight of the importance of constitutional protections as they measure their accomplishments in terms of numbers of prosecutions and convictions and the dollar value of fines.(2) All three branches of government at both the federal and state level have seriously eroded important protections, including the principle of "specificity" in penal statutes, the Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures, the constitutional bar on double prosecutions, and the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.


[ ] Impact-Without consideration for public health the government uses restrictions to ultimately gain control of all environmental laws so that they can alter them


In recent years environmental criminal prosecutions have become a major interest of federal prosecutors. Each year the Department of Justice announces "record levels" of fines imposed, persons indicted, and jail time served for infractions of environmental regulations. The ostensible purpose of the criminal program is to punish and deter polluters whose actions might endanger public health and the environment. However desirable those policy objectives may be, they should not obscure the means by which the government pursues its environmental mandate.


[ ] Implications- Government control of environmental safety is coercive and compromises constitutionality with its principles and warrantless prosecutions


Many of our most basic constitutional principles are being compromised to facilitate environmental investigations and prosecutions. Federal lawmakers have authorized coercive "self-confession" programs and warrantless inspections of commercial premises. The law has stripped environmental criminal suspects of traditional legal defenses such as good faith, fair warning, and double jeopardy. Stringent regulations make it extremely difficult for legitimate businesses to operate within the law. Indeed, the web of regulations has grown so dense that many observers believe compliance with the law is unachievable. It is no overstatement to say that many American businesses are currently operating in what is essentially a regulatory police state.A fundamental reexamination of the federal regulatory structure is in order. It is imperative that Congress reexamine the role of the federal government, as well as the role of criminal sanctions, in environmental law. Reform should begin with the immediate restoration of the legal rights and privileges that are enshrined in the Bill of Rights.


Impacts- 1. Empirically the government has used authority for irrelevant laws with no environmental benefit but rather just the label of "environmental law"2. This type of environmental jurisdiction has been controversial in the past and the acts such as these have always ended up in circumvention of the policy but are not repealed with out raising government control.


The federal government did not enter the field of environmental law until 1890, largely because early Congresses and presidents harbored serious doubts as to whether the federal government had the constitutional authority to develop and regulate natural resources.(3) The scope of the first federal environmental statute, the Rivers and Harbors Act (1890), was so modest that the act passed without fanfare or controversy.(4) Indeed, the primary purpose of the statute had nothing to do with environmental protection. The act was meant to facilitate trade among the states by prohibiting commercial obstructions of navigable waterways. A tangential purpose of the statute was to prohibit pollution of navigable waters. The law was not controversial, since it merely supplemented the public nuisance laws of the states. Criminal prosecutions under the act were extremely rare. In fact, only 25 environmental crimes were prosecuted by the federal government before 1982.(5)


A/T EPA = no link[ ] L/ The( EPA )environmental protection agency the lead branch of the federal government in environmental issues is operated by the same bureaucratic system that appropriates the environment to the government


Earth Day also captured the imagination of federal lawmakers. Sen. Gaylord Nelson (D-Wis.) advocated a constitutional amendment that would empower the federal government to guarantee every American an "inalienable right to a decent environment," and former vice president Hubert H. Humphrey called on the United Nations to establish a global agency to "strengthen, enforce and monitor pollution abatement throughout the world."(7) Although decidedly less enthusiastic, Republican leaders also joined the movement for political action. Through a White House spokesperson, President Richard M. Nixon issued a statement saying that he hoped Earth Day would be the start of a continuing campaign against pollution. A few months later, in July 1970, President Nixon proposed the creation of a new federal regulatory body, the Environmental Protection Agency.


The EPA is unfair in imposing regulations, by itself it imposes more intrusion than the government and prosecutes and fines innocent people


Such predetermined "achievement levels" or enforcement quotas help to explain some of the EPA's enforcement actions in the field. In the summer of 1994, for example, independent oil producer John Herlihy spent $15,000 in a timely cleanup effort when a mechanical malfunction at one of his wells resulted in a spill of 10 barrels of oil.(13) Although state regulatory authorities found no wrongdoing, the EPA stepped in and imposed a $37,000 fine because it found the firm's contingency plans "inadequate." A flabbergasted Herlihy told newspaper reporters, "I feel like I ought to be held up as a model, not fined."(14) Although Herlihy's fine may seem unduly harsh to most Americans, it can make perfect sense from the point of view of a regional EPA division director. After all, "enforcement performance" might suffer if the agency had to consider the mitigating circumstances in each and every case.(15)


Because the law makes it a crime to refuse EPA inspection even without warrant, the EPA has abused its power in imposing regulations on the "ecosystem" in theory allows them control over everything and that would be the embodiment of full social control through the plan.


A number of federal environmental laws explicitly authorize warrantless inspections of commercial premises. Section 6927(a) of RCRA, for example, provides,For purposes of developing or assisting in the development of any regulation or enforcing the provisions of this chapter, such officers, employees or representatives are authorized--(1) to enter at reasonable times any establishment or other place where hazardous wastes are or have been generated, stored, treated, disposed of, or transported from;(2) to inspect and obtain samples from any person of any such wastes and samples of any containers or labeling for such wastes.RCRA makes it a crime for a company to refuse entry to EPA investigators.(57) Such statutes can withstand constitutional challenge because of the closely regulated industry doctrine.(58) Agriculture, food sales, commercial fishing, and hazardous waste disposal have already been designated by the courts as closely regulated industries for purposes of Fourth Amendment analysis. In light of the plethora of environmental rules concerning air, water, and "ecosystems," the alarming question for civil libertarians and business-people is what industries will not fall into the closely regulated exception to the administrative warrant requirement. In 1987 Justice William Brennan recognized that the so-called exception was well on its way to becoming the rule: "If New York City's administrative scheme renders the vehicle-dismantling business closely regulated, few businesses will escape such a finding."(59) Although the closely regulated industry doctrine poses the most serious threat to Fourth Amendment privacy rights, there are at least three other significant search and seizure problems. First, the lower probable cause standard for the issuance of administrative warrants has spawned interagency "bootstrapping" searches. One of the original justifications for the administrative warrant was the notion that the government was interested only in making sure that civil regulations were being followed. In Camara v. United States (1967), for example, the Supreme Court noted, "A routine inspection of the physical condition of private property [was] a less hostile intrusion than a typical policeman's search for the fruits and instrumentalities of crime."(60) With that distinction in mind, the Court held that administrative warrants did not have to meet the probable cause standard that had been set for criminal matters.


[ ] Impact- Environmental Regulations and enforcement have skyrocketed to attack citizens on stringent lawsLynch '95 (by Timothy Lynch Cato Policy anaylsis No. 223 april 20, 1995 Polluting Our Principles: Prosecutions And The Bill Of Rights)

* Enforcement figures have skyrocketed. Since 1982 the federal government has secured over 1,400 criminal indictments and over 1,000 convictions. Since 1974 the courts have assessed over $3 billion in civil and judicial penalties and over $290 million in criminal penalties.(11)

AIM: YeahIMJon Enviro-statism-------------- 'summer 03 ( 32 / 70 )[ ] Impact- The environmental action perpetuates unconstitutional laws that destroy the 4th and 5th amendment


The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution guarantee that no American citizen can be deprived of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." One due process limitation on lawmaking is the idea that penal statutes should be drafted in clear and simple terms so that individuals "can know in advance whether the conduct on which they are about to embark is criminal or not."(19) The Supreme Court has held that "a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, violates the first essential of due process of law."(20) In recent years, however, the government has successfully limited the application of that principle in the context of "regulatory crimes." The explosion of vaguely written environmental rules has spawned a notorious civil liability minefield for business. The criminalization of violations of those regulations is making the terrain so treacherous that even lawyers are having difficulty remaining on the right side of the law.(21)


[ ]The letter of the law in environmental safety allows too much flexibility, which is the root statist power. The 1AC simply binds us further into the governments environmnetal control


Early American courts frequently relied on the specificity principle to reverse criminal convictions. In The Schooner Enterprise (1810), for example, a federal judge wrote, "It should be a principle of every criminal code, and certainly belongs to ours, that no person be adjudged guilty of an offense unless it be created and promulgated in terms which leave no reasonable doubt of their meaning."(24) Applying the principle in Tozer v. United States (1892), Justice David Brewer stated, "The criminality of an act cannot depend upon whether a jury may think it reasonable or unreasonable. There must be some definiteness and certainty."(25) Undaunted, legislators continued, however, to pass indefinite penal legislation, and government attorneys persistently argued that the specificity principle was too inflexible for the type of governing that was necessary in the modern age.

AIM: YeahIMJon Enviro-statism-------------- 'summer 03 ( 34 / 70 )Terms typically used in laws for environmental safety used vague terms making it impossible to standardize what is allowed without becoming a victim of the state. The loose worded law creates the need for resistance through rejection of the affirmative


Although the specificity requirement remains a basic principle of criminal law, a "regulatory" exception has crept into modern jurisprudence. The Supreme Court allows "greater leeway" in regulatory matters because the practicalities of modern governance supposedly limit "the specificity with which legislators can spell out prohibitions."(28) Over the past 50 years fuzzy regulatory terms such as "unreasonable," "unusual," and "excessive" have withstood constitutional challenge.The rule of lenity has not only been ignored in the context of regulatory offenses, it has been turned on its head. When an ordinary criminal statute is ambiguous, the courts give the benefit of the doubt to the accused, but when a regulatory provision is ambiguous, the benefit of the doubt is given to the prosecutor.(29)


The laws that are made make any resistance to the government impossible because lawyers cannot decipher the interpretation of the law thus it empirically causes them to lose cases in resistance the only way to overcome this is by rejection of the affirmatives policy and engaging in the negative alternative critically.


The modern Supreme Court precedents have allowed lawmakers at the federal and state level to pass vague environmental legislation. In a recent survey by Arthur Andersen Environmental Services and the National Law Journal, 47 percent of 200 corporate attorneys interviewed said that the environmental duty that occupied most of their time and energy was trying to determine the seemingly basic question of whether or not their companies were complying with the law. The Journal reported, "Nearly 70 percent [of the attorneys surveyed] said they didn't believe total compliance with the law was achievable--due to the complexity of the law, the varying interpretations of regulators, the ever-present role of human error, and the cost."(30) Owners and executives of small businesses are particularly vulnerable to prosecution when the law is unclear since they cannot afford full-time legal staffs to guide them through the regulatory jungle, whereas legal specialists warn large corporate clients about loopholes and inconsistencies that would probably go unnoticed by the novice. Attorney Judson Starr and two colleagues write,

AIM: YeahIMJon Enviro-statism-------------- 'summer 03 ( 36 / 70 )When dealing with environmental issues the government is not suitable for the job because they have an incorrect mindset on accusing those who are not culpable and harsh punishment.


One of the principal differences between an ordinary criminal prosecution and an environmental prosecution concerns the issue of "criminal intent." In ordinary criminal prosecutions, the government has to prove that the accused had some prescribed bad state of mind. That principle was expressed by the Latin maxim actus not facit reum nisi mens sit rea (an act does not make one guilty unless his mind is guilty).(69) A different legal standard, however, applies to persons accused of environmental offenses.(70) Congress and state legislatures have passed environmental laws that permit criminal punishment without a finding of fault or culpability on the part of the defendant. Unfortunately, the courts have held that such laws do not deprive individuals of due process. That is because both courts and legislatures are imbued with the modern view that places the interests of a "larger public good over the need to protect individual rights."(71)

AIM: YeahIMJon Enviro-statism-------------- 'summer 03 ( 37 / 70 )Discourse Link

An exaggerated scenario of environmental crisis decreases the meaningfulness of the affirmative intent and will result in the rejection of support from the public when a serious crisis arises

Harvey '98 (Donald Harvey-Prof. Of Geography and Environmental Engineering at The John Hopkins University, Marxism, Metaphor and Ecological Politics, Monthly Review, 1998)

If the collapse does not materialize in the near term or the grounds for such expectations are seriously disputed, with strong appeals to both scientific theory and evidence, then environmentalism in general (including its socialist variant) gets discredited for crying "wolf' too often. There is now a whole genre of writing along those lines. Not all of it comes form the right wing and some of the rebuttals, such as that of the Ehrlichs and the statement of the World Scientists, cited so approvingly by Foster, are every bit as problematic as the literature they rebut. The Ehrlichs' position on population control is very hard for socialists to accept and the language of "humanity on a collision course with the natural world" reeks of those abstract and ideological conceptions of which Marx complained "whenever (natural scientists) venture beyond the bounds of their own specialities."(1)

AIM: YeahIMJon Enviro-statism-------------- 'summer 03 ( 38 / 70 )L/ Decisions over environmental and economic trade-off such as ANWR and implies a willingness to trade between them and the decision is irrelevant.


In light of the many failures, we must ask why so many environmentalists consider policies based on command and control to he the litmus test for greenness. Our answer is that only those coercive powers allow environmentalists to remain pure in a fantasy land of zero costs where others bear the costs of purity. Put this in the context of oil development in pristine areas such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. True environmentalists "just say no." No oil is worth desecration of the environment; "costing the environment" is irrelevant because it implies a willingness to make tradeoffs. Trading off some environmental disturbance for oil revenues even if those revenues can be used for other environmental causes is not pure enough. This explains why many members of the National Audubon Society are not proud of the fact that the Society condones oil and gas development on some of its private preserves while opposing development on federal lands.

AIM: YeahIMJon Enviro-statism-------------- 'summer 03 ( 39 / 70 )I/L- Tradable pollution permits prove the government is steering the environmentalist movements in the government's favor because of the strings attached


One exception to total command and control that recently has gained acceptance in the environmental community is market-based solutions such as tradeable pollution permits. Those are accorded at least a light shade of green from mainstream environmentalists because they still "let the government steer." But market-based solutions really have little to do with markets; they are simply ways of making command and control more efficient. Such market-based solutions have been advocated for some time by economists pointing out that those solutions improve efficiency. Under a system of tradeable permits, a party holding a permit will have an incentive to reduce his pollution and sell the permit if he can do so at a profit. That will reduce the cost of meeting pollution standards by encouraging those with the lowest cost of reducing pollution to do so.

AIM: YeahIMJon Enviro-statism-------------- 'summer 03 ( 40 / 70 )Empirically the state uses appeal to lure public opinion and sway it towards their favor for benefit and increased social control, forms of capitalism and trade are the best form of rejection for this control

Libertarian Thought '03 ( http://www.libertarianthought.com/main/evaluation.html )

The inevitable question, when confronted by a popular but false ideology, is to ask why so many people believe wrongly. I like to say in those kinds of questions that we must first accept that there is some kind of motivation for people to believe, be it genetic, environmental, education, and so on. At a primal level, some forms of statism do fulfill spiritual instincts. Fascist and communist systems promote a sense of moral duty to the state, unity with the state, and faith in the state, and rightly see religion as a competitor.

I do not intend to say that this is the source of all state-belief. At a more pragmatic, environmental level, there is a phenomenon of erosion of freedom and erosion of ideas. Starting from a given problem, real or imagined, the state proposes a "solution" by which it can gain control and seem to solve it. But this "solution" only creates more problems, which then permit the state to gain support for more controls, claiming that only its intervention is preventing the problem from getting worse.

The example of the War against Drugs is eloquent. Instead of regulating possible fraudulent aspects of private drug selling, the state outlawed most drugs. This had the consequences of creating a gigantic black market, boosting criminality and lowering the level of life for everyone. The proposed solution : laws against our privacy and security... in the name of the War against Drugs. Finally, there is definitively an educational aspect to state-belief. From the youngest age, the child is taught collectivist values - first, that he must "share" with others (which really means to surrender what he wants, not real honest sharing), that the greatest wish possible is subjection to one's fellows, then he is taught that morality is altruistic, that people are soulless automatons that must be directed by the state, and that statism is good "in theory". If he is in a public system, he is caught in a rigid, freedom-less system, is not taught critical thinking or anything relevant to the subject of politics, and becomes alienated to the subject of learning. State-belief is a plague so great that it occupies the whole spectrum : the right-wing corporatist/fascist state opposes the left-wing syndicalist/socialist state, and we are supposed to find this meaningful. The capitalist rejects both options and upholds the principle of free action as the prime motivator of progress. As long as people can act in their self-interest, the whole of exchanges in a society is as optimal as it can be, and state intervention only brings about suboptimal situations. Only capitalism has brought, and can bring, lasting prosperity to the people of the Earth.

http://www.libertarianthought.com/main/evaluation.html

AIM: YeahIMJon Enviro-statism-------------- 'summer 03 ( 41 / 70 )Environmental Regulations are statist (full length from overview)

Fung and Karkkainen '90 ( Sabel Fung and karkkainen Respond '90, Return to "Beyond backyard Environmentalism")

Finally Susskind, drawing from his broad professional experience as a master practitioner of alternative dispute resolutions (ADR) takes it for granted that parties holding contrary views might, through practical deliberation and exchange views, transcend their fixed understandings to reach mutually acceptable solutions. This capacity to innovate in the midst of conflict is surely among the most counterintuitive requirements of the new regime. (while in this sense ADR takes is an important precursor for the regime we propose, we disagree with Susskind's view that comprehensive alternative could emerge from the myriad of discrete local ADR decisions, if only those decisions had presidential character. Despite its broad accomplishments . ADR has remained peripheral to the reform of public administration, in part because it has no notion of how the center might be transformed to reflect , learn from, and guide the successes of local practical deliberation.) A deeper challenge to our view is the contention of several critics that the architecture is feasible, but only narrowly so, insofar as it has proved useful and practicable only in exceptional cirumstances, and then only given the continuing backdrop of conventional regulation. From this perspective, the phenomenon we describe may never amount to more than tinkering at the margins of established regime. The core of this view is that effective regularion depends on state coercion that is inherent in the current regime but absent from architecture. Some of our critics believe in addition that the current system is less rigid and more extensible to new circumstances than we credit. At the limit this leads the Farber's claim that correcting the current regime though bilateral negotiation between regulators and private parties is preferable to our "multilateral" approach. Others appear to agree with our characterization of the limites of the current regime, but see our participatory remedy as so demanding as to be unworkable in most circumstances. We consider these objections in turn.As we argued in "Beyond Backyard Environmentalism," we fully agree that coercion is indispensible to effective regulation. Even where there are long-term, mutually beneficial solutions to regulatory disputes, self interested parties would be tempted to sacrfice borad and long-term gains for narrow and short-term benefits unless deterred by credible threats of penalities. The dispute with our critics, then turns on whether the necessary coercion can only be supplied by the current fixed-rule regime, or whether our rolling rule alternative can provide it better

AIM: YeahIMJon Enviro-statism-------------- 'summer 03 ( 42 / 70 )Free Trade Capitalism breaks down political and cultural barriers and solves war

Skousen 2001 (Mark, Peace on Earth, Good Will Toward Men-Through Capitalism and Freedom! December 2001, pg google)

The Middle East is also known for dictatorships and religious intolerance. It seems that economic repression goes hand in hand with political and religious repression, just as economic freedom leads to political and religious freedom.5 Montesquieu, Adam Smith, and other classical-liberal thinkers made the case that liberalized trade and the spirit of capitalism break down cultural and social monotheism and destroy fanaticism and intolerance. Montesquieu saw many virtues in doux commerce, stating that the pursuit of profit-making serves as a countervailing bridle against the violent passions of war and abusive political power. "Commerce cures destructive prejudices," Montesquieu declared. "It polishes and softens barbarous mores. The natural effect of commerce is to lead to peace."6 Adam Smith seconded Montesquieu and taught that the commercial society moderates the passions and prevents a descent into a Hobbesian jungle.

CAPITALISM IS A NECESSARY CONDITION FOR POLITICAL FREEDOM


FRIEDMAN 1962 (MILTON (B. 1912), U.S. ECONOMIST. CAPITALISM AND FREEDOM, CH. 1 (1962).

History suggests that capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom. Clearly it isnot a sufficient condition.

CAPTIALISM IS NEEDED BY SOCIETY


GANDHI 40 (MOHANDAS K. (1869-1948), INDIAN POLITICAL AND SPIRITUAL LEADER. HARIJAN)

Capital as such is not evil; it is its wrong use that is evil. Capital in some form or other will always be needed.


CAPITALISM MAKES US CONNOISSEURS OF LIBERTY

SONTAG SUSAN (B. 1933), U.S. ESSAYIST. AIDS AND ITS METAPHORS, CH. 7 (1989).

The ideology of capitalism makes us all into connoisseurs of liberty-of the indefiniteexpansion of possibility.


CAPITALISM HAS IMMENSELY RAISED LIVING STANDARDSRAND 67 (AYN, PHILOSOPHER AND NOVELIST, CAPITALISM: THE UNKNOWN IDEAL, 1967,P28.)

The magnificent progress achieved by capitalism in a brief span of time - the spectacularimprovement in the conditions of man's existence on earth-is a matter of historical record.


LAISSEZ-FAIRE CAPITALISM IS THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE TOTYRANNY

PEIKOFF 82( LEONARD, PROFESSOR OF PHILOSOPHY, HUNTER COLLEGE, THE OMINOUS PARALLELS, 1982, P310.)The government of a free society is prohibited from emulating the criminals it is created to apprehend. It is prohibited from initiating force against innocent men. It cannot inject the power of physical destruction into the lives of peaceful citizens, not for any purpose or in any realm of endeavor, including the realm of production and trade. This means therejection of any dichotomy between political and economic freedom. It means theseparation of state and economics. It means the only alternative to tyranny that has everbeen discovered: laissez-faire capitalism.


CAPITALISM PRODUCED THE LONGEST HISTORICAL PERIOD OFPEACE

RAND 67(AYN, PHILOSOPHER AND NOVELIST, CAPITALISM: THE UNKNOWN IDEAL, 1967,P12.)

The institution of serfdom had lasted, in one form or another, till well into the nineteenthcentury; it was abolished, politically, only by the advent of capitalism.Let those who are actually concerned with peace observe that capitalism gave mankind the longest period of peace in history--a period which there were no wars involving the entire civilized world--from the end of the Napoleonic wars in 1815 to the outbreak of World War I in 1914.Observe that the major wars of history were started by the more controlled economies of the time against the freer ones. For instance, World War I was started by monarchist Germany and Czarist Russia, who dragged in their freer allies. World War II was startedby the alliance of Nazi Germany with Soviet Russia and their joint attack on Poland.

AIM: YeahIMJon Enviro-statism-------------- 'summer 03 ( 49 / 70 )ONLY CAPITALISM FUNDAMENTALLY OPPOSES WAR

RAND 67(AYN, PHILOSOPHER AND NOVELIST, CAPITALISM: THE UNKNOWN IDEAL, 1967,P12.)

Laissez-faire capitalism is the only social system based on the recognition of individualrights and, therefore, the only system that bans force from social relationships. By thenature of its basic principles and interests, it is the only system fundamentally opposed towar.


HISTORICALLY, POLITICAL FREEDOM ACCOMPANIES ECONOMICFREEDOM

FRIEDMAN 62 (MILTON, NOBEL LAUREATE IN ECONOMICS, CAPITALISM AND FREEDOM, 1962,P9-10.)

The nineteenth century and early twentieth century in the Western world stand out asstriking exceptions to the general trend of historical development. Political freedom in this instance clearly came along with the free market and the development of capitalistinstitutions. So also did political freedom in the golden age of Greece and in the early daysof the Roman era.


NO SOCIETY IS FREE POLITICALLY WITHOUT ECONOMIC FREEDOM


Historical evidence speaks with a single voice on the relation between political freedom and a free market. I know of no example in time or place of a society that has been marked by a large measure of political freedom, and that has not also used something comparable to a free market to organize the bulk of economic activity.

AIM: YeahIMJon Enviro-statism-------------- 'summer 03 ( 52 / 70 )NO FREE SOCIETY EXISTS WITHOUT ECONOMIC FREEDOMFRIEDMAN 62 (MILTON, NOBEL LAUREATE IN ECONOMICS, CAPITALISM AND FREEDOM, 1962,P9-10.)A predominantly voluntary exchange economy, on the other hand, has within it thepotential to promote both prosperity and human freedom. It may not achieve its potential in either respect, but we know of no society that has ever achieved prosperity and freedom unless voluntary exchange has been its dominant principle of organization.

AIM: YeahIMJon Enviro-statism-------------- 'summer 03 ( 53 / 70 )LOSS OF ECONOMIC FREEDOM ENSURES TYRANNY


Economic freedom is an essential requisite for political freedom. By enabling people tocooperate with one another without coercion or central direction, it reduces the area overwhich political power is exercised. In addition, by dispersing power, the free marketprovides an offset to whatever concentration of political power may arise. The combination or economic and political power in the same hands is a sure recipe for tyranny.


LOSS OF ECONOMIC FREEDOM UNDERMINES GROWTH


The experience of recent years--slowing growth and declining productivity-raises a doubtwhether private ingenuity can continue to overcome the deadening effects of governmentcontrol if we continue to grant ever more power to government, to authorize a "new class" of civil servants to spend ever larger fractions of our income supposedly on our behalf.


GOVERNMENT CONTROL DESTROYS PROSPERITY


Sooner or later-and perhaps sooner than many of us expect-an ever bigger governmentwould destroy both the prosperity that we owe to the free market and the human freedomproclaimed so eloquently in the Declaration of Independence.


GOVERNMENT, NOT THE MARKET, CAUSED THE GREATDEPRESSIONLEPAGE 82 (HENRI, FRENCH JOURNALIST, TOMORROW, CAPITALISM, 1982, P40.)Economic depressions - and particularly the notorious crash of 1929 - are another example of economic misfortune caused by government rather than by capitalism. The new economists attribute the Great Depression of the 1930s not to endemic breakdown incapitalist economies (as we have been in the habit of believing since Keynes) but to stateintervention.


ECONOMIC FREEDOM VOICES THE OPPRESSED


No one who buys bread knows whether the wheat from which it is made was grown by aCommunist or a Republican. by a constitutionalist or a Fascist, or, for that matter, by aNegro or a white. This illustrates how an impersonal market separates economic activitiesfrom political views and protects men from being discriminated against in their economicactivities for reasons that are irrelevant to their productivity-whether these reasons areassociated with their views or their color.

ECONOMIC FREEDOM PROTECTS MINORITIES

AIM: YeahIMJon Enviro-statism-------------- 'summer 03 ( 58 / 70 )FRIEDMAN 62 (MILTON, NOBEL LAUREATE IN ECONOMICS, CAPITALISM AND FREEDOM, 1962,P9-10.)

As this example suggests, the groups in our society that have the most at stake in thepreservation and strengthening of competitive capitalism are those minority groups whichcan most easily become the object of the distrust and enmity of the majority - the Negroes, the Jews, the foreign-born, to mention only the most obvious.

RESTRICTIONS ON THE MARKET SNOWBALL

HAYEK 44( FRIEDRICH, ECONOMIST, THE ROAD TO SERFDOM, 1944, P1O5.)


We have already seen that the close interdependence of all economic phenomena makes it difficult to stop planning just where we wish and that, once the free working of the market is impeded beyond a certain degree, the planner will be forced to extend his controls until they become all-comprehensive.

ECONOMIC FREEDOM KEY TO PREVENTING PROTECTIONISM

AIM: YeahIMJon Enviro-statism-------------- 'summer 03 ( 60 / 70 )HAYEK 44( FRIEDRICH, ECONOMIST, THE ROAD TO SERFDOM, 1944, P1O5.)

Both competition and central direction become poor and inefficient tools if they areincomplete; they are alternative principles used to solve the same problem, and a mixture of the two means that neither will really work and that the result will be worse than if either system had been consistently relied upon. Or, to express it differently, planning andcompetition can be combined only by planning for competition but not by planning against competition.

AIM: YeahIMJon Enviro-statism-------------- 'summer 03 ( 61 / 70 )ECONOMIC FREEDOM PRESERVES INTELLECTUAL FREEDOM

RAND 67 (AYN, PHILOSOPHER AND NOVELIST, CAPITALISM: THE UNKNOWN IDEAL, 1967,P19.)

The right to agree with others. is not a problem in any society, it is the right to disagree that is crucial. It is the institution of private property that protects and implements the right to disagree - and thus keeps the road open to man's most valuable attribute (valuablepersonally, socially, and objectively): the creative mind.


ECONOMIC DECENTRALIZATION PROMOTES PEACE

RAND 67 (AYN, PHILOSOPHER AND NOVELIST, CAPITALISM: THE UNKNOWN IDEAL, 1967)

Economically, wars cost money; in a free economy, where wealth is privately owned, thecosts of war come out of the income of private citizens-there is no overblown publictreasury to hide that fact-and a citizen cannot hope to recoup his own financial losses (such as taxes or business dislocations or property destruction) by winning the war. Thus his own economic interests are on the side of peace.

A/T Anthropocentrism K


[ ] Humans complement nature in the web of life as a supporting species, and should not be mistaken for being a dominant one

Bookchin '93 (Murray Bookchin cofounder and director emeritus of the Institute for Social Ecology. has long been a major figure in anarchist and utopian political theory The Philosophy of Social Ecology. http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bookchin/socecol.html )

Thus social ecology has never eschewed the need for a radically new spirituality or mentality in its call for a collective effort to change society. Indeed, as early as 1965, the first public statement to advance the ideas of social ecology concluded with the injunction: "The cast of mind that today organizes differences among human and other life-forms along hierarchical lines of 'supremacy' or 'inferiority' will give way to an outlook that deals with diversity in an ecological manner--that is, according to an ethics of complementarity."1 In such an ethics, human beings would complement nonhuman beings with their own capacities to produce a richer, creative, and developmental whole-not as a "dominant" species but as a supportive one. Although this idea, expressed at times as an appeal for the "respiritization of the natural world," recurs throughout the literature of social ecology, it should not be mistaken for a theology that raises a deity above the natural world or that seeks to discover one within it. The spirituality advanced by social ecology is definitively naturalistic (as one would expect, given its relation to ecology itself, which stems from the biological sciences), rather than supernaturalistic or pantheistic.

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bookchin/socecol.html

AIM: YeahIMJon Enviro-statism-------------- 'summer 03 ( 64 / 70 )[ ]We must look at ourselves as active agents in the web of life rather than focusing on avoiding environmental disaster

Harvey '98 (Donald Harvey-Prof. Of Geography and Environmental Engineering at The John Hopkins University, Marxism, Metaphor and Ecological Politics, Monthly Review, 1998)

We have, I want to suggest, a choice of background metaphors for our deliberations. Against the idea that we are headed over the cliff into some abyss (collapse) or that we are about to run into a solid and immovable brick wall (limits), I think it far more consistent with both the better sorts of environmental thinking and Marx's dialectical materialism to construe ourselves as embedded within an on-going flow of living processes that we can individually and collectively affect through our actions, at the same time as we are profoundly affected by all manner of events (some self-induced) within the world we inhabit. To construe ourselves as active agents caught within the "web of life" is a much more useful metaphor than the linear thinking that has us heading off a cliff or crashing into a brick wall.

AIM: YeahIMJon Enviro-statism-------------- 'summer 03 ( 65 / 70 )Environmental Regulations that cause statism imprison us to be subjected to social control by a totalitarian government regime that would own all property and undermine the constitution

Mazulla '97 (Property Rights: Understanding Government Takings and Environmental RegulationNancie G. Marzulla and Roger J. Marzulla Rockville, Md.: Government Institutes, 1997, 325 pp.)

The Marzullas look at the takings issue in a series of specific contexts, reviewing the regulation of wetlands, the Endangered Species Act, Superfund, other environmental laws, and land use. All of those sections are short, designed to acquaint the reader with the basics, not to provide a treatise. The authors do a fine job of translating an area of great legal complexity into terms easily understood. They also use their hands-on experience to explain the practical impact of those doctrines on the people who must live with them. For example, they skillfully sketch the conflicting missions of the different agencies involved in defining protected "wetlands" and the bureaucratic imbroglios that result. One particularly chilling story is of a Pennsylvania farmer who wanted to expand a wet spot in a hay field into a two-acre pond. He was confronted with a bureaucratic maze and unable to get approval for a project that, while important to him, would have had a trivial environmental impact. Others fared even worse and were put in jail for having used their private property without the proper ticket-punching by the regulatory agencies

AIM: YeahIMJon Enviro-statism-------------- 'summer 03 ( 66 / 70 )[ ] Definitions create the loophole for government oppression on property owners they destroy their rights and coerces owner into government submission through threatening to seize property

Mazulla '97 (Property Rights: Understanding Government Takings and Environmental RegulationNancie G. Marzulla and Roger J. Marzulla Rockville, Md.: Government Institutes, 1997, 325 pp.)

The broad definition of property makes the definition of "takings" complex. Courts have had no trouble finding a taking when the government seizes title or takes physical possession, but the more difficult question, and the one that provides most of the current conflict, involves takings by regulation. Here, the government does not seize the property, but simply tells the owner what he can do with it--for example, by decreeing that nothing can be built on a wetland or that habitat be maintained for endangered species. The book documents the failure of the Supreme Court to develop any coherent standard for determining when a regulatory taking has occurred. The Court still clings to the formulation made by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in 1922: regulation becomes taking when "it goes too far." Of course, the Court has developed several tests purporting to provide more guidance, and those are reviewed in Property Rights.

AIM: YeahIMJon Enviro-statism-------------- 'summer 03 ( 67 / 70 )Environmental Regulations will lead to a world-wide trade war as countries start imposing trade restrictions on each other.

Kennedy 98 (Kevin C, Prof of law @ Michigan State U., Symposium: Species Protection and Development: Implications of United States Law and Policy on National and International Land Use, William & Mary Environmental Law & Policy Review, Spring 1998, pg. l/n)

Environmental protection, in combination with trade protectionism, can lead to an undisciplined, discriminatory use of trade sanctions. Consequently, when trade sanctions are invoked on environmental grounds, they need to be used in a very disciplined and discriminating fashion. Once a country imposes trade sanctions, it may be impossible to avoid the downward spiral of retaliation and counter-retaliation, leading to an all-out trade war. In any such war, the environment could be the big loser. An importing country's use of trade restrictions to block imports in the name of environmental protection may actually be at the cross-purposes with the goal of environmental protection. Such restrictions may promote environmental degradation by protecting less efficient manufacturers and producers from more efficiently produced imports.

AIM: YeahIMJon Enviro-statism-------------- 'summer 03 ( 68 / 70 )[ ] Environmental Sanctions are nothing but protectionist measures as businesses will rally behind the Affirmative plan to block out foreign competition.


Resorting to trade sanctions to address environmental issues is misguided for several reasons. First, trade sanctions, such as a ban on imported goods produced by polluting production processes or methods, rarely, if ever, attack the root of the problem. Second, such trade sanctions, when advocated by environmental groups with the support of domestic business groups, may have as its primary aim trade protectionism, not environmental protection. Such advocacy can be especially pernicious because it is so socially respectable. Trade sanctions can in turn lead to an escalation of trade tensions that rigger retaliatory trade responses from exporting countries.


[ ] Labor Unions and business will rally along with environmental groups to impose the Affirmative's protectionist measures.


In the name of environmental protection, a substantial volume of import trade could be affected significantly through the use of trade measures imposed ostensibly to advance environmental goals but which are in fact pretextual and nothing more than disguised nontariff barriers to trade. n726 Domestic business interests and unions anxious to erect barriers to import competition from low-wage countries may drape themselves in the green flag and join forces with environmental


[ ] Environmentalists are embracing trade protectionist measures to get their policies enforced.Kennedy 98 (Kevin C, Prof of law @ Michigan State U., Symposium: Species Protection and Development: Implications of United States Law and Policy on National and International Land Use, William & Mary Environmental Law & Policy Review, Spring 1998, pg. l/n)

Against this backdrop, it comes as no surprise then that environmentalists have borrowed a page from the national security and human rights book and embraced import bans and restrictions as the preferred method for forcing nations that trade with the United States to adopt measures to protect the environment. Indeed, the use of trade measures to enforce environmental standards can be compelling particularly when international trade is the direct cause of the environmental damage as, for example, with trade in hazardous waste or in endangered species.

Documents

Environmental Statism Kritik