Ab_Em Neg v. Valladares/Pestcoe

huskyshiveringInternet και Εφαρμογές Web

11 Δεκ 2013 (πριν από 3 χρόνια και 8 μήνες)

74 εμφανίσεις

Ab_Em Neg v. Valladares/Pestcoe

1NC (Yohoho and a bottle of) Rum

OFF


Topicality

Economic engagement

A.

Interpretation
-
Engagement is

positive incentivizing
-
Removing
sanctions is excluded


Haass and O’Sullivan 2
000


(Richard N. Haass
, Director of Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution, and Meghan L. O’Sullivan, Fellow in the
Foreign Policy Studies Program at the Brookings Institution, vol. 42, no. 2, Summer 2000, pp. 113

35,
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1093/survival/42.2.113#preview
)


The term ‘engagement’ was popularised in the early 1980s amid controversy about the Reagan administration’s policy of
‘constructive engagemen
t’ towards South Africa. However, the term itself remains a source of confusion. Except in the few
instances where the US has sought to isolate a regime or country, America arguably ‘engages’ states and actors all the time
simply by interacting with th
em.
To be a meaningful subject of analysis,
the term ‘engagement’
must refer to something more specific than a policy of ‘non
-
isolation

. As used in this
article
, ‘
engagement’ refers to a foreign
-
policy strategy which depends to a significant
degree o
n positive incentives

to achieve its objectives
.

Certainly, it does not preclude the
simultaneous use of other foreign
-
policy instruments such as sanctions or military force: in practice, there is often
considerable overlap of strategies, particularly w
hen the termination or lifting of sanctions is used as a positive inducement.
Yet
the distinguishing feature of American engagement strategies is their reliance
on
the extension or provision of incentives to shape the behaviour of countries

with
which t
he US has important disagreements.


B.

Standards

1.

Limits
-
they explode the topic to every last law that has anything to do
with trade, making neg prep unbearable and damaging the quality of
debates.

2.

Effects
-
the aff

is required to prove their plan would result in increased
trade to prove they are topical, this mixes burdens and is an independent
voter for competitive equity.

C.


Topicality is a voting issue
-
prefer a competing interps framework.

Neolib
K


Demanding IPR
is an attempt to expand neoliberalism
-
they are inextricably
linked

Hatcher

and MacIntosh

11

Laura Hatcher and Wayne MacIntosh.

Property Rights and Neoliberalism (Law, Property and
Society)
.”
http://www.academia.edu/247356/Introduction_to_Property_Rights_and_Neoliberalism_

In the case of property rights,
neoliberalism
’s role matters in part because it
has
, over the
course of the last half of the twentieth centu
ry,
responded to and been a part of restructuring
our notions of property

and the institutions that regulate it.

“Neoliberalism,” however, is
notoriously difficult to define and readers should not be surprised to find some tensions in the
nuances discussed

by the various authors in this volume. Tackling the problem of definition early
on in this project, we asked our authors to use a broad understanding from Harrington and
Turem’s 2006 article, “Accountability in Neoliberal Regulatory Regimes.”

In it,
they
define
neoliberalsm as implying “the (re)emergence of the market and economic rationale as the
dominant organizing logic in society
” (Harrington and Turem 2006: 204).

Part of
this process
includes “the dismantling of the welfare state, erosion of social pr
ovisions, turn to
monetarism in fiscal and financial management, tax cuts for business, and increasing
disciplining of the state via markets and market mechanisms
” (Ibid: 204
-
205).

Similarly, David
Harvey points out that
the role of the state in this proce
ss is to “create and preserve”
institutional frameworks that are appropriate for these practices

(Harvey 2005: 2).

Since
property rights are fundamental to the market
,
understanding how property rights are
structured

as well as wielded to make claims
seems

an important element of understanding
how these institutional frameworks come into being
.



Moreover,
when property rights are
restructured or new forms of property are created, power shifts in a society. Distribution of
property, its uses, and whether ow
ners of new forms of property will

be granted the same
rights as owners of traditional property, all become elements of restructured power
.

This
strongly suggests that
when property rights are mobilized by activists, we are seeing not only
an attempt to sh
ift societal structures, but also a symptom that structures have already
shifted
. Sometimes this happens as official actors attempt to regulate new property forms. At
other times,
this happens as different forms of knowledge

(i.e., science, social science,

and so
on)
challenge the way property is traditionally understood

either through new forms of
property or by highlighting how recognized rights of old forms of property do not work with a
new invention or discovery
.

For example, do we own our own genetic
material?

Do the
scientists who discovered the processes for studying genes

(or any other patentable process
for studying biology, genetics and so forth)
own the material they can isolate
, examine, and
convert into marketable commodities? Does their right
to the process itself extend to the object
of that process?

Or, is this part of a base of knowledge to which all humans should have access?

Most importantly,
how does the political struggle that takes place over such issues restructure
power and create pol
itical claims
?


Movements in Latin America are successfully producing alternatives to global
neoliberalism


the plan’s economic imposition crushes these spaces of
resistance, reducing the globe to a single, monocultural economic model

Vattimo & Zabala 11

(Gianni, Prof. of Theoretical Philosophy @ U of Turin, Santiago, Prof. of Philosophy @ U of
Barcelona,
Hermeneutic Communism
, pgs. 124
-
131)


The “Bolivarian Revolution” is Chavez’s commitment to twenty first
-

century socialism.” Named
after Simon Bolivar,
the early eighteenth
-
century Latin American revolutionary leader in the
South American wars of independence,

the “Bolivarian Revolution” names the desire to bring
about Bolivar’s dream of a united Latin America
. While for Bolivar the union of Latin America

was against the Spanish oppressors,
for Chavez

the
unification is against

the
U.S.

neoliberal

and

military

impositions

that
, together with the “dictatorship of the Monetary Fund,”
have

reduced

the

region

to

a

great

slu
m
, that is, the discharge of capitalism. As we can predict,
it is
just from these slums that Chavez receives most of his electoral support
, as his political
initiatives are all directed toward the weakest population.
When Chavez

finally
managed to
secure co
ntrol over

the
oil resources

after the coup against him in 2002,
he obliged

Venezuela’s
largest oil company
PdVSA, to distribute oil wealth throughout the country
” This weak
communist plan is called the “Oil Sowing Plan,”3“ and
it invites communities to de
sign their
own development projects, for which PdVSA provides the funding
.
In 2005, social programs such as Barrio Adentro
(for community health), Sucre (for university scholarships), and others received more than 6.9 billion dollars from PdVSA. Pe
rhaps th
e most famous social program is Mision
Milagro, which performed free eye surgery on thousands of Venezuelans. This program is part of the greater Cuban
-
Venezuelan agreement where, in exchange for subsidized
petroleum, 14,000 Cuban doctors were sent to help

the country transform “the situation of the poor districts, where 11,000 neighborhood clinics have been established and the
health budget has tripled.””

As a consequence of this weak communist political program, extreme poverty
has been reduced by 72 perc
ent since 2003, infant mortality has dropped by more than one
-
third, and Venezuela has

now
become a territory free of illiteracy
" This cooperation with Cuba
is also a defense against common enemies: the United States and the IMF. As we have said,
Chavez’s
Bolivarian Revolution is not limited to his country"“ but takes interest in
the

whole

region
.

Together with Castro (who quickly also became his “mentor”),“ Chavez began to
support other politicians who shared these common enemies and were also interested i
n
favoring the weakest citizens of their countries.
Inspired by Chavez’s democratic election and
social revolt against neoliberalism

in 2002,
Lula was

(democratically)
elected president of
Brazil
,
Kirchner in Argentina

in zoo3,
Bachelet in Chile

in 2005,
M
orales in Bolivia

in 2005,
Correa in Ecuador

in zoo6,
Ortega in Nicaragua

in 2006,
Lugo in Paraguay

in 2008,
Funes in El
Salvador

in 2009,
and Mujica in Uruguay

in 2009.43 While most of
these politicians enacted, in
different ways, weak communist programs
,

the most representative politician and closest ally of Chavez is Evo Morales,““* who only three
months after taking office withdrew from the IMF and World Bank because of their tendencies “to settle disputes in favor of i
nternational corporations and agai
nst
governments.”‘*5 As Forest Hylton and Sinclair Thomson point out, although “Latin America has been the site of the most radic
al opposition to neoliberal restructuring over the
past five years, Bolivia has been its insurrectionary frontline.”‘*‘ Morales

not only has become the first president of Bolivia from the country’s ethnic majority (Aymaras) but also
is among the first in the region to undertake a radical nationalization of his countrys resources (oil, natural gas, and almo
st half of the world’s re
serves of lithium), against
exploitation by foreign corporations (BR General Motors, Bechtel) and in favor of control by native Indians." But in order to

recover control over Bolivia’s natural resources,
Morales was obliged (through a referendum held on Ja
nuary 25, 2009) to change the constitution, which had been written by the descendants of the Spanish colonizers. These
colonizers, who today as then, represent the ethnic minority live in the eastern provinces of Bolivia, which contain most of
the country’
s resources. As we can predict, Morales’s
greatest obstacle came from these white minorities, who, as Richard Gott of the Guardian explains, still “have a racist and f
ascist mentality and, after centuries in control, dislike
the prospect of their future be
ing dominated by the formerly suppressed indigenous majority” Nevertheless, the referendum passed with 61.43 percent of the v
ote, enabling a
reform of the land and judiciary systems “for the benefit of the people. Yet more important
-

and at the heart of th
e new constitutional charter
-
are the clauses that strengthen
the rights of the country’s indigenous peoples.”‘*9 Unfortunately to win approval, the new constitution needed more than popu
lar democratic support, because the eastern
provinces of Santa Cruz, T
arija, Beni, and Pando not only tried to boycott it but also violently threatened to declare their independence from Bolivia.

Although the European
Union deployed a group of observers during the election, 5° it was
UNASUR

(Union of South American Nations)
that managed, after an emergency summit held in the Chilean
capital, to obtain respect from the eastern provinces for their democratically elected president and receive assurances of th
eir peaceful participation in the referendum.

After the summit, which a
llowed the referendum to take place, Morales declared that this
was
the first time in the

history of the
region

“that the
countries have decided to resolve the
problems of South America themselves
.
In

the

past,

even

to

deal

with

some
internal

or
bilateral
. . .
Latin

American

issues
,
they

were

discussed

in

the

U
nited

S
tates.”"

In sum, both
Chavez’s initiatives and Morales’s nationalizations are paradigmatic examples of weak
communism
.
They decentralize the state bureaucratic system
, which was so counterproductive
in the Soviet Union:
while the independent counsels increase community involvement,
nationalization returned land, dignity and rights to the weakest segments of the population
.”
But
if Chavez and Morales managed to enact th
ese progressive policies

in their own countries,
it is

also
because the whole region has been able to resist some of capitalism’s most “extreme
characteristics and

even
set up innovative arrangements outside of formal market
structures
.”” Most of these arr
angements are monitored by organizations such as
ALBA

(Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas),
Mercosur

(Southern Common Market),
Banco del Sur

(Bank of the South),
and UNASUR
, among others.”
With these organizations,
South

America

is

providing

an

alternati
ve

not only for the weak
among its population
but also

for

other

continents

searching for a different political, economical, and ecological system
.” This is why
Banco del Sur was recently endorsed by Stiglitz against the IMF impositions and why UNASUR
was
praised by Chomsky as an “alternative” to U.S. dominance in the region.”
Weak
communism is the political alternative to the neoliberal impositions of framed democracies
.
After years of submission to capitalist market policies that obliged South American co
untries
,
among other entities,
to remove obstacles to foreign investments, weak communism has
began to take control
. This is why in 2009 Lula preferred to skip the Davos meeting in order to
participate again, together with Chavez, Morales, and other South
American leaders, in
the
World Social Forum

in Belem. Over the past ten years, this forum
has become

both an effective
alternative to the Swiss meeting and
the driving engine of

those
social movements

without
which Lula, Chavez, and other politicians would

not have been elected.
Although these

social
movements “differ

in many respects
from country to country they all share
antipathy

towards

US

political
,
economic
, and military
control
,”"
an opposition that is at the essence
of weak communism’s economic prog
rams
.
'This is why Lula, discussing the recent economic 2008 crisis at the social forum, felt compelled
to emphasize how it was “not caused by ‘the socialism of Chavez’ or by ‘the struggles of Morales’ but by the bankrupt policie
s and lack of financial con
trol of wealthy states
outside the continent.”5“

Given that “neoliberal methods created the third world
,”5’
South American
citizens will probably continue to vote for these communist leaders
. As Mark Weisbrot has
pointed out,
they have “succeeded where

their
neoliberal predecessors failed
” and changed
their economic policies in ways that increased economic growth.
Argentina’s economy grew
more than 60% in six years and Venezuela’s by 95%.

These are enormous growth rates

even
taking into account these co
untries’ prior recessions,
and allowed for large reductions in
poverty
.

Left governments have also taken greater control over their natural resources

(Ecuador, Bolivia, Venezuela)
and delivered on their promises to share the income

from these
resources
wit
h the poor. This is the way democracy is supposed to work: people voted for
change and got quite a bit of what they voted for, with reasonable expectations of more to
come
. We should not be surprised if most Latin American voters stick with the left throug
h hard
times. Who else is going to defend their interests ?‘°
South American governments manage to
defend their citizens’ economic interests because they have been detaching themselves not
only from neoliberal impositions but also from the attendant milita
ry presence
, that is,
armed

capitalism
.
UNASUR
, which was modeled after the European Union (prior to the
creation of a common parliament, currency and passport for all of its member states),
has tried,
through its member states, to evict the remaining U.S.

military bases present in the region
.
While
there are U.S. military bases throughout Europe, in South America only Peru, Paraguay Honduras, and Colombia,” which has the
sole remaining conservative government in the
region, recently agreed to an increase i
n U.S. military presence, in exchange for billions of dollars and privileged access to military supplies. Regardless of Colom
bia’s poor
human
-
rights record, the United States continues to sponsor President Uribe not only in exchange for these bases (which
also house nuclear weapons) but also for general
political support, given the prevailing antipathy toward the United States in the region.” But this is not the only indicatio
n that the United States is trying to regain control over
South America. ln zoo8,
the Fourth Fleet was reestablished in the region’s waters, and in zoo9 a military coup against the democratically elected pre
sident of Honduras was
allowed.” While this coup could have been easily avoided, considering that the United States still has a bas
e in the country; the United States instead supported the newly
imposed president, because the “constitutional reform process that Zelaya hoped to set in motion could easily lead to voters’

rejection of foreign troops on their soil.”°4 All
these are exampl
es of

U.S. interest in the region
, an interest that
goes far beyond its natural resources,
even considering that the “US gets half its oil from Latin America.”‘
5
Nevertheless, instead of a military response to
these provocations, UNASUR instructed its Defe
nse Council to investigate the danger that these bases in Colombia pose for the region and declared (after the summit held in

Bariloche, Argentina, on August 29, 2009) that “South America must be kept as ‘a land of peace,’ and that foreign military fo
rces
must not threaten the sovereignty or integrity
of any nation of the region.”“

If the region’s prevailing communist governments lose electoral support

one
day
it will not be because of the impositions of armed capitalism but rather because its own
social mo
vements have ceased to support them
. After all,
weak communism was chosen
because of the overwhelming poverty that dominates the region

after decades of neoliberal
impositions
-
the same poverty that now is also starting to appear in Western states. In sum,
the
U
nited
S
tates
feels the need to regain control over South America not only because of its vital
natural resources but

also, and
most of all,
because

its

social,

economic,

and

democratic

model

is

again

summoning

the

specter

of

communism

throughout

the

w
orld
."

The impact is extinction


neoliberalism reduces existence itself to property to
be exchanged, producing a drive to a single way of knowing and being


that
causes massive structural violence and environmental destruction

Lander ‘2
,

(Edgardo, Prof.

of Sociology and Latin American studies at the Venezuelan Central University in
Caracas,

Eurocentrism, Modern Knowledges, and the “Natural” Order of Global Capital,
Nepantla: Views from South
”,

3.2, muse)


Just as resources formerly considered to be comm
ons
, or of communal use,
were privately
appropriated through the enclosure

and private appropriation
of fields
, rivers, lakes,
and
forests, leading to the expulsion of European peasants from their land

and their forced
conversion into factory workers durin
g the Industrial Revolution,
through biopiracy, legalized by
the agreements protecting intellectual property, the ancestral collective knowledge of peoples
in all parts of the world is being expropriated and converted into private property
, for whose
use i
ts own creators must pay.
This represents the dispossession

or private appropriation
of
intellectual commons

(Shiva 1997, 10).
The potential

but

also
real

impact

of these ways of
defining and imposing the defense of so
-
called intellectual property
are
multiple, yet another
expression of the tendency
, in the current process of globalization,
to concentrate power in
Northern businesses and countries, to the detriment of the poor majorities in the South
.
At
stake are

matters as critical as
the

survival

of

life
-
forms

and

choices

that

do

not

completely

fit

within

the

universal

logic

of

the

market
, as well as
rural nutritional self
-
sufficiency and access
to food and health services for the planet’s underprivileged majorities
.
As a consequence of
the establishm
ent of patents on varieties of life
-
forms, and the appropriation
/expropriation
of
rural/communal knowledge, by transnational seed and agrochemical companies, the patterns
of rural production are changing ever more quickly
, on a global scale.
Peasants becom
e less
and less autonomous, and they depend more and more on expensive consumables

they must
purchase from transnational companies (Gaia Foundation and GRAIN 1998).
These companies
have also developed a “terminator” technology deliberately designed so that

harvested seeds
cannot germinate, forcing peasants to buy new seeds

for each planting cycle (Ho and Traavik
n.d.; Raghavan n.d.). All of
this has had a profound impact
, as much on the living conditions of
millions of people as
on genetic diversity on the
planet Earth
. The
“freedom of commerce”

that
the interests of these transnational companies increasingly impose on peasants throughout the
world
is leading to a reduction in the genetic variety of many staple food crops
.
This

reduction

in

genetic

diversity
, associated with a engineering view of agriculture and based on
an extreme, industrial type of control over each phase of the productive process

with
genetically modified seeds and the intensive use of agrochemicals

drastically

reduces

the

auto
-
adaptive

a
nd

regenerative

ability

of

ecological

systems
. And nevertheless,
the
conservation of biodiversity requires the existence of diverse communities with diverse
agricultural and medical systems that utilize diverse species

in situ.
Economic

decentralization

an
d

diversification

are

necessary

conditions

for

biodiversity

conservation
.
(Shiva 1997, 88) Agricultural biodiversity has been conserved only when farmers have total
control over their seeds. Monopoly rights regimens for seeds, either in the form of breeder
s’
rights or patents, will have the same impact on in situ conservation of plant genetic resources as
the alienation of rights of local communities has had on the erosion of tree cover and grasslands
in Ethiopia, India and other biodiversity
-
rich regions.
(99)12
As much as for preserving genetic
diversity

an

indispensable

condition

of

life

as for the survival of rural and indigenous
peoples and cultures all over the planet

a

plurality

of

ways

of

knowing

must

coexist,

democratically
.
Current

colonial

trends

toward

an

intensified,

totalitarian

monoculture

of

Eurocentric

knowledge

only

lead

to

destruction

and

death
.

The alternative


the judge should vote negative to reject neoliberal knowledge
production and endorse globalization from below

Refusing neoliberal
ism’s hegemonic control over knowledge production is
essential within the space of this debate


the alternative aligns the ballot with
Latin American resistance movements

Choi, Murphy, and Caro 4

Jung Min, John W, Manuel J, Professor of Sociology SDSU, Pr
ofessor of Sociology University of
Miami, Professor of Sociology Barry University, Globalization with a Human Face, pg. 6
-
9


Many critics have begun to wonder why hamburgers and jeans can be globalized, but the spread
of themes such as peace or justice is

thought by many politicians to be impossible to generalize
.
What many persons are calling for, especially in the Third World, is an alternative approach to
globalization.

Along with justice, they want to globalize resistance to current historical trends.
They want to call a halt, for example, to the economic hardships and rape of the environment
that have accompanied the rise of neoliberalism.
This new strategy is referred

to in many
circles as "globalization from below.
"
The point is that
current policies
have been driven from
above

from the capitalist centers around the world

and
reflect the economic and cultural
interests of these powerful classes.

Most other persons
, ac
cordingly,
are viewed as simply a
cheap source of labor or a possible market for cheap goods.

And because of this role in the
world capitalist system, their opportunities are severely restricted.
Even if they conform to the
cultural mandates of the market,

the likelihood of economic advancement is not very great.

This sort of mobility is simply not a part of the role persons play on the economic periphery.
What
actually
occurs,

indeed,
is that the system of controls, which are found in the economic
centers,

are reproduced on the periphery, but with more immediate devastation.
The
imposition of consumerism and materialism, for example, undermine the local economy and
community supports, thereby increasing strife and reinforcing local elites and their ties to
foreign investors. The old oligarchies are thus strengthened, while local institutions become
more dependent on outside intervention. The resulting hierarchy, accordingly, is more powerful
than ever before. As might be imagined,
globalization from below ha
s a very different agenda.

Different values guide economic development, in short, while new ways of organizing society
are sought. Instead of profit, for example, the general improvement of a community may be of
prime importance. Likewise, emphasis may be
placed on strengthening civil society, and thus
,advancing democracy, rather than identifying markets and potential investors. In general,
globalization from below is driven by local concerns

and the masses of persons who have little
influence in corporate

boardroo
ms.
These are the people
-
-
the majority of the world's
inhabitants
--
who are ignored unless their labor is suddenly profitable.
At

the core of this new
globalization is often the call for a postcapitalist logic. Novel ways of looking at, for example
,
production and consumption are regularly a part of this project, in addition to new definitions of
work and personal and group identity. Central to this scenario is that persons can remake
themselves entirely, and nothing is exempt from revision. What pr
oponents of globalization
from below have done, in effect, is to seize control of their history and invent a new future. They
have decided that history can be made, rather than merely experienced, and that there is no
inherent
telos

to this process. The pa
st is nothing, therefore, other than a point of departure of
a new course of action.
In the truest sense of the term, these activists are utopian thinkers.

They are not enamored by reality and are convinced that new social arrangements, which have
never ex
isted and may be very difficult to create, are possible. As many students chanted during
the 1960s, they are demanding the impossible and do not want to settle for more pragmatic
substitutes. They are simply asking that persons strive to fulfill their drea
ms. But
these demands
are not based on fantasy.

Instead, proponents of globalization from below are trying to
emphasize an idea advanced by Marx: that is, nothing that humans imagine is foreign to them.
Consequently, utopian ideals or practices are simply
inventions that have not , yet been realized.
Through effort and determination, and the absence foreign subversion, an economic system
that is founded on justice might eventually be enacted. Merely
because this vision has not been
actualized, does not nece
ssarily signal that such an aim contravenes human nature or is
hopelessly flawed. The problem may simply be that persons have been unwilling or unable to
purge themselves of certain biases or predispositions, and thus have never embarked on the
creation of

a new reality.
Those who champion globalization from below, however, are not
politically naive. They understand that powerful interests that benefit from injustice and
inequality have intervened in the past to undermine various utopian projects. The prope
r dream
is important, but so is the ability to implement this vision. These new utopians are thus trying to
convince the public to restrain those who want to destroy these projects. What they are saying,
in short, is that justice should be given the opport
unity to thrive. THE RESTORATION OF
COMMUNITY Various critics are saying that only the restoration of a strong sense of community
can guarantee the success of globalization. What is meant by community, however, is in dispute.
After all, even neoliberals la
ment the current loss of community that has ensued in the world
economy. From their perspective, a community of effective traders would strengthen
everyone's position at the marketplace.
Advocates of globalization from below,

as might be
expected, have som
ething very different in mind. They
are not calling for the general
assimilation of persons to a cosmopolitan ideal,

which is thought to instill civility and enforce
rationality. Persons who want to join the world market, as was noted earlier, are thought
to
need a good dose of these traits. Nonetheless, there is a high price for entry into this
community

cultural or personal uniqueness must be sacrificed to promote effective
economic discourse. Such reductionism, however, is simply unacceptable in a large
part of the
globe that is beginning to appreciate local customs and the resulting diversity. What these
new activists want,

therefore,
is a community predicated on human solidarity. This sort of
community, as Emmanuel Levinas describes, is focused on ethic
s
rather than metaphysics."
His
point is that establishing order does not require the internalization of a single ideal by all
persons, but simply their mutual recognition. The recognition of others as different, but
connected to a common fate, is a powerf
ul and unifying principle. Persons are basically united
through the recognition and appreciation of their uniqueness.

As should be noted, this image is
encompassing but not abstract. Uniformity, in other words, is replaced by the juxtaposition of
diversity

as the cement that binds a community together. Like a montage, a community based
on human solidarity is engendered at the boundaries of its various and diverse elements. The
genius of this rendition of community is that no one is by nature an outsider, an
d thus deserving
of special treatment. Many of the problems that exist today, in fact, result from persons sitting
idly while their neighbors are singled out as different and discriminated against or exploited.
When persons view themselves to be fundamenta
lly united, on the other hand, such
mistreatment is unlikely, because community members protect and encourage one another.
Indeed, this sort of obligation is neither selective nor optional among those who belong to a true
community. Basically
the idea is t
hat if no one is an outsider, there are no persons or groups to
exploit.

Such a community, moreover, does not require extraordinary actions on the part of its
members to end racism, sexism, or economic exploitation.

All that is required is persons
refuse t
o turn away and say nothing when such discrimination is witnessed. By refusing to go
along with these practices, any system that survives because of discrimination or exploitation
will eventually grind to a halt.

Clearly, there is an implicit threat behind

current trends of
globalization. Because globalization as it is currently defined is inevitable, anyone who expects
to be treated as rational and civilized must accept some temporary pain. Old cultural ways will
simply have to be abandoned, and a transiti
on to the new economic realities. Those who
cannot tolerate the mistreatment of fellow community members any longer appear to be a
part of this change, however, they are obligated to bare witness to these abuses. And by
refusing to be complicit these actio
ns, business as usual cannot continue. A globalization of
can be mounted, therefore, that might be able to create a more humane world. In the face of
mounting darkness

increasing economic hardship and degradation

why not seriously
entertain the possibility

that social life can be organized in less alienating ways? With little left
to why not pursue alternative visions?



CP

Text: The United States Federal Government should correct Section 211 of the
Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998 such that it applies to

all individuals
subject to Cuban confiscation regardless of nationality.

Solves the aff

1.

Complies with WTO law and restores its legitimacy

2.

Resolves the issue, smooth
s things over with other countries, complies
with international IP norms.

Lehman 10

Statem
ent of Bruce a. Lehman ¶ former assistant secretary of commerce ¶ and commissioner of patents and trademarks1¶
committee on the judiciary ¶ united states house of representatives ¶ march 3, 2010


It seems the reason this matter is receiving the attention of Congress is that


following the complaint by


the European Union


an adjudicatory panel of
the
W
orld
T
rade
O
rganization found that one aspect of


Section
211 is not in compliance with U.S. o
bligations under TRIPS.



While the WTO panel found that
nothing in

the
TRIPS

Agreement
prevented the United States from


refusing to enforce
claims
of the Cuban government

or its nationals
to
trademarks
of businesses whose


assets were
confiscated
witho
ut

consent

of their owners, it held that
Section 211 is defective because it



does not apply equally to U.S. nationals and to citizens of any country

who claims ownership
of


trademarks based on assets that have been confiscated by the Cuban government.


This
inconsistency

with the TRIPS Agreement
is easily correctible

by making a technical
amendment to


Section 211 making it clear that it applies to all parties claiming rights in
Cuban
-
confiscated trademarks,


regardless of nationality.
Such a technic
al correction will
satisfy the WTO ruling
, bring Section 211 into


full compliance with the TRIPs agreement,
and
preclude

the

European

Union

from applying trade


sanctions

against the United States.


PTX

The Anti
-
Castro lobby supports Section 211

O’Connell 6

Vanessa

O’Connell.

Bacardi Is to Bring Havana Club Rum Back to the U.S.


Wall Street Journal.
August 8, 2006.
http://www.tikiroom.com/tikicentral/bb/view
topic.php?topic=20592&forum=10


Bacardi Ltd., in a move aimed at blocking Cuba from eventually bringing its rum brand to the
U.S. market, is expected to announce today that it is relaunching Havana Club brand rum in
the U.S. Bacardi's action comes just day
s after the U.S. Patent and Trademark office on Aug. 3
notified Cuba, which has controlled the brand since 1959, that its Havana Club trademark
"registration will be cancelled/expired
." A few days earlier,
the U.S. Treasury's Office of Foreign
Assets Contr
ol had denied a Cuban government agency the license needed for U.S. trademark
renewal. These decisions made it difficult for the Cuban government to claim any rights to the
trademark in the U.S., giving Bacardi the chance to act.
The battle between Bacardi

and Cuba
over Havana Club has
its

roots

in

Fidel

Castro's

takeover

of Cuba in 1959
. The newly installed
Castro regime seized control of Cuba's rum industry, including both the Havana Club and
Bacardi businesses. Bacardi's owners left Cuba and rebuilt thei
r business using their Puerto
Rico plant, but Havana Club's original owners didn't have any alternative factory to continue
making the rum
--

allowing the Castro regime to retain control
. Until 1993, Cuba made Havana Club rum
primarily for domestic consump
tion and the Soviet bloc, but that year Cuba struck a deal with French liquor concern Pernod
-
Ricard
SA to sell the rum in 80 countries. Since then the rum has become popular around the world
--

except in the U.S. where the trade
embargo blocked sale of Cub
an
-
owned products.
While Cuba hasn't been able to sell Havana Club in the
U.S., it obtained the U.S. trademark in 1974 when the brand's original owners inadvertently
let the U.S. trademark lapse.
With the help of the powerful anti
-
Castro lobby
, however
,
Ba
cardi in 1999 persuaded lawmakers to change trademark law
to prevent the U.S. from
renewing trademarks for brands whose ownership was confiscated by the Castro regime
.

For its
part, Bacardi says it owns the rights to the Havana Club brand based on its attempt to launch Havana Club on a very small sca
le in
the U.S. years ago, as well as a deal it says it made with descendants of the brand's original owners. It also has a

pending application
to register the Havana Club mark in its own name, according to Bacardi USA spokeswoman Pat Neal. She said the closely held
company has been planning to relaunch Havana Club for at least three years.


CIR will pass now but it will be c
lose

Rosenberg 7/26
/2013

(Simon, Journalist, “Immigration Reform is Very Much Alive,”
http://www.newstaco.com/2013/07/26/simon
-
rosenberg
-
immigration
-
reform
-
is
-
very
-
much
-
alive/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Newstaco+(Ne
wsTaco))


Contrary to recent news accounts,
we are closer to passing
a meaningful
immigration
reform
bill
than at any point since

John McCain and

Ted Kennedy introduced their bill in
2005
.
Consider:

The Senate passed a bill with 68 votes, the most any immigrant reform bill has
received

since this process began. The last time an immigration bill passed the Senate it was in
2006, and it received just 62 votes.¶
The House
, whose last major vote on immi
gration reform
was in 2005 and called for the deportation of the 11 million unauthorized migrants in the U.S.,
ha
s
already passed five immigration and border related bills out of committee
. Last week
Speaker John Boehner said he believed the House needed t
o do something on immigration
reform this Congress, and next week
Republicans

are having a public hearing on the DREAM
Act.¶ While much has been written about

the
need

Republicans have
to support immigration
reform to get back in the game with Latino
voters
, I think an equally compelling reason why the
House is

already taking significant strides towards passing an immigration reform bill is the

pressure they feel to meet the very high bar set by the Senate “Gang of Eight” framework
. Their
framework wil
l give the country a better legal immigration system, one more based on bringing
growth producing skilled labor. It will close some of the holes in our interior enforcement
system, build on the significant gains made in border security in recent years and
make the
border region even safer. It will make needed investments in 47 ports of entry with Mexico,
facilitating more trade and tourism, creating more jobs on both sides of the border. It creates an
arduous but achievable path to citizenship for the 11 mi
llion unauthorized immigrants already in
the country. And remarkably, it will grow the economy, create jobs and lower the deficit by a $1
trillion over 20 years.¶
In a time where Americans have so little faith in their government to
meet the emerging chall
enges of our time,
the Gang of Eight framework is a bit of a political
miracle:

incredibly thoughtful public policy, broad bi
-
partisan support, a deep and diverse
political coalition backing it.

It just is very hard for the House Republicans to walk away f
rom all
that too.¶ And they haven’t. In the last few months the House Republicans have passed bills
relating to border security, interior enforcement and changes in the legal immigration system.
They are talking about the DREAM Act and a “path to legalizat
ion.” The Border Caucus is floating
smart proposals to invest in our ports of entry, something that could help bring border state
Republicans along. Some House Republicans have even said
they expect a bill with citizenship
to
eventually
pass and be signed
into law.

CIR is key to latin American relations

Hershberg 13

(Eric, “The Overlooked Dimension of U.S Immigration Reform,
American University, April 4
th
, 2013)

The 2012 U.S. presidential elections brought national attention to the Latino vote and, with it,

immigration reform
. Embarking
on his second term, President Obama immediately labeled the matter
a priority
, and some but not all of the Republican leadership
is eager to reach a deal. Beyond electoral calculations, there are many good reasons for Washing
ton to finally resolve the status of
roughly 11 million
people living in the United States without legal documentation. The border with Mexico has become increasingly
impermeable, stripping critics of reform of one of their principal talking points. Virtua
lly all credible studies demonstrate that
immigrants contribute more to the tax base than they receive from public expenditures, and they are a crucial source of commu
nity
revitalization in some of the nation’s depressed cities and towns. Meanwhile, a gene
ration of youth brought to the country as young
children


the “Dreamers



languishes without recognition of their de facto status as Americans. There are also humanitarian issues:
families and neighborhoods are torn apart by the more than 400,000 deporta
tions in each of the past several years.


Immigration
reform matters to Latin America

as well.
With millions of Latin Americans residing in the United
States, several of the region’s economies are highly dependent on a steady flow of
remittances,

which are

destined to increase if undocumented workers come out of the shadows. In 2012, Mexico and Central
America received more than $35 billion from migrants in the U.S. Particularly striking is the case of El Salvador, a U.S. all
y. Nearly a
third of its populat
ion lives in the U.S., and remittances surpass all other sources of revenue


now 16 percent of GDP.
For several
Central American governments the welfare of migrants working in the U.S. is not only a
humanitarian concern:
these citizens are a crucial found
ation for economic viability



and thus
nothing less than a national security priority.

Yet remarkably absent from the U.S. immigration debate are the
implications of a comprehensive reform for the eroded credibility of the U.S. in Latin America. Virtuall
y alone among senior officials,
former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton acknowledged soon before leaving her post that
creating a pathway to
citizenship “will be a huge benefit to us in the region, not just in Mexico, but further south
.” The
point merits emphasis.
The failure to enact comprehensive immigration reform,
the result of domestic policy
shortcomings,
has serious consequences for U.S. standing in the region



as serious as other policy failures
such as Washington’s continued i
nability to normalize relations with Cuba, to stop illicit gun exports, or to stem the demand for illicit
drugs that is fueling violence and corruption across the region. If the new administration wishes to avoid a replay of the op
en
rebellion by Latin Ame
rican governments against U.S. policy that emerged at last year’s Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, it
would do well to show the region that it is willing and able to enact comprehensive immigration reform.

U.S
-
Latin American relations are k2 solve for
energy security

Phelan 12

(Daniel Kurtz, “The United States: Good Neighbors, Finally, toward
Latin America,” Americas Quarterly)

There are

of course
plenty of reasons to want a stronger relationship with Latin America
. Thanks
to good economic management, t
he region has enjoyed mostly steady performance through the financial crisis

leading to such
strange occurrences as a Mexican president
-
elect going to Spain and telling the former colonial power, in the midst of economic
collapse, that Mexico is happy to h
elp. Latin America is home to booming middle classes that represent big new markets for U.S.
businesses. It is full of emerging powers eager to play a global role that will, more than often not, advance causes and valu
es that the
United States supports. It

is more important to our energy security than any other part of the world

6 of the U.S.’ top
11 sources
of oil imports are in the hemisphere, to say nothing of green
-
energy and natural
-
gas
resource
s

and represents
, in the energy analyst Daniel Yergin’s wo
rds,
a new center of gravity in global
energy markets.

Energy insecurity leads to food price increase

IFPRI 12

(International Food Policy Research Institute, “Sustainable Food Security
Under Land, Water, and Energy Stresses.”)

Recent developments in the la
nd, water, and energy sectors have been wake
-
up calls. The stark reality is that we need to
produce more with less while eliminating wasteful practices and policies. In other words, we need a new socioeconomic
model that is sustainable and that prioritizes

poor and marginalized people.


Higher food prices are one signal
of the need for a new model.
Prices rose by nearly 40 percent in 2007 and further increased in 2008, pushing
130

155 million people into extreme poverty. During this same period the number o
f children suffering permanent
cognitive and physical injury due to malnutrition may have increased by 44 million (World Bank 2009).
Food prices
flared up again in 2011 as well as in 2012 and are unlikely to decline in the foreseeable future
to the levels
achieved in the early to mid
-
1990s.

In addition to food price increases, food price volatility
increasingly affects poor consumers and producers across the globe (von Grebmer et al. 2011).


The way we use

land,
water,
and energy plays a significant role in

the changing global food economy.

Partly in response to
the food price hikes, the number of international and national agricultu
ral land deals has soared over the past 5

10 years
(Anseeuw et al. 2012a, b). Many of the land leases and other agreements hav
e targeted Sub
-
Saharan Africa, where land
rents are cheaper and regulatory systems are weaker. Moreover, land deals are found more often in those countries with
high GHI values. While demand for land is rising, continued land degradation is posing challeng
es
.
Soaring oil prices

have also
contributed to
both
higher food prices

and the drive for land investments in developing countries,
particularly for the production of first
-
generation bio
fuels (Anseeuw et al. 2012b). Rapid growth in domestic and
industria
l water demand

as a result of population and economic growth, increased urbanization, and associated,
changing lifestyles

as well as changing climate, increased variability in rainfall patterns, and rapidly growing water
pollution levels, have increased wa
ter scarcity across much of the developing world, especially in emerging countries
(Rosegrant, Ringler, and Zhu 2009). Water pollution and poor access to sanitation, especially in Sub
-
Saharan Africa and
South Asia, contribute to the contamination of food a
nd drinking water and lead to diarrheal disease, a major source of
childhood illness and death in the developing world. The need for increased investment to achieve water security has, for
example, been recognized by China, which plans to invest an unprece
dented US$630 billion in water conservation over
the next 10 years (Huang 2012).


As a result of economic and population growth, wealthier populations in the developed
and increasingly the developing world are juxtaposed with nearly 1 billion food
-
insecure

people and 2 billion people
suffering from micronutrient deficiencies. High levels of hunger are generally found in those countries and regions where
access and property rights to water and land are limited or contested and where modern energy sources and

access to
sanitation are under
developed (see Figure 3.1).


Besides population growth, other factors affect current and future global
water use. Economic growth, for example, increases demand for water by households, industries, and farmers.
Urbanization
is associated with more water
-
intensive diets (meats, milk, vegetables, and sugars).
Higher energy
prices raise the cost of pumping water for irrigation and increase demand for hydropower
.
Climate change is raising temperatures and changing precipitation p
atterns, directly increasing demand and reducing
availability of water for both rainfed and irrigated agriculture across the world.


Potential for growth in water supplies is
limited, but domestic and industrial demand for water is growing rapidly. As a re
sult, water is being transferred from
agriculture to domestic and industrial uses (Rosegrant, Cai, and Cline 2002). This transfer will make irrigation water
scarcer in rapidly growing, less
-
developed countries, and particularly in China and some countries
in the Middle East and
North Africa. By 2050 only 66 percent of irrigation water demands can likely be met, down from 78 percent in 2000. The
decline will be much steeper in water
-
scarce basins (Rosegrant, Ringler, and Zhu 2009). Thus, current levels of wa
ter
productivity, under a scenario of medium economic growth, will not be sufficient to ensure sustainability and reduce risks
to people, food systems, and economies. By 2050, it is projected that under ”business as usual” 52 percent of the global
populati
on (4.8 billion people), 49 percent of global grain production, and 45 percent of total GDP (US$63 trillion at 2000
prices) will be at risk due to water stress. This water stress will likely affect key investment decisions; increase operatio
nal
costs in th
e water, energy, and food sectors; and affect the competitiveness of water
-
scarce regions (Ringler et al. 2011).

An increase in food price immediately kills millions or potentially billions

LarouchePAC

13

(the Larouche

Political Action Committee, “The Ethanol
Mandate has Already Killed Millions,” July 6
th
, 2013)


The Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) is contributing to at least 250,000 deaths a year, and afflicting millions more with disea
se
and disability
. Since 2005, the
re have been millions of deaths
directly caused

by the

ethanol mandate,
internationally. If the RFS is not immediately repealed
,
this horror will only accelerate
, and become magnified
by the effects of the ongoing

shutdown of U.S. livestock production due to
high[food
]

corn
prices
.


The above
kill rate is a conservative estimate
, based on extrapolating from careful calculations done in 2011, using World Health
Organization and World Bank data, by Indur M. Goklany.
1



In brief, Goklany's method combined the followin
g elements:


1)
World Health Organization studies "suggest that for every one million people living in absolute poverty in developing coun
tries,
there are annually at least 5,270 deaths and 183,000 Disability
-
Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) lost to disease."


2
)
The
World
Bank estimated
that
more that 35 million people were pushed into poverty over 2004 to 2010,
because of the burden of high fo
od prices
,

and economic dislocation associated with the increase in biofuel
production over those six years.


3) Therefore, Goklany concludes that these two conditions together "lead to at least 192,000
excess deaths per year, plus disease resulting in th
e loss of 6.7 million disability
-
adjusted life
-
years (DALYS) per year." Goklany
states in his study that this is a very conservative number.


In the two and a half years since this study, the 2010 high rate of U.S.
corn
-
for
-
ethanol has continued, and othe
r forms of biofuels have increased worldwide, including cane
-
sugar gasohol, and oil
-
crop
biodiesel. The volume of U.S. corn going into biofuels, since Obama took office in 2009, has risen by 35% as of 2011. The rat
e of
world impoverishment, amidst
inflatin
g food costs

from biofuels and all factors

is high.


Therefore, a conservative linear
extrapolation shows that
today's internatinal death rate from
biofuels

is in the range of 25,000 people a
year; the actuality is far worse, given the Goklany's original
estimate was very conservative.

A
related study by Timothy Wise of Tufts University, illustrating the crime from another angle, calculated the effect of price
increases of corn imports for developing nations
. The study showed more than half of the ethano
l
-
driven price increase in corn
imports (accounting for 20
-
40% of all price increases in 2007
-
2008) is borne by the developing nations, amounting to $9.3 billion
from 2005
-
2011.
2

For example:


In Uganda, where poverty rate is at 65% and extreme poverty at 38%, U.S. corn ethanol
expansion since 2004 has increased corn prices by 20%. In Uganda, 65% of the cash income of the people is used to buy food, a
nd
the urban poor depend on c
orn for 20% of their calories. For Mexico, as of 2012, where corn is a staple and tortilla prices have
risen 69% since 2005, U.S. ethanol expansion has cost Mexico $1.5 billion. At the same time, since the 1990s many nations wer
e
being forced into import d
ependency, with Central American for example, going from less than 20% dependence on corn imports,
to nearly 50% in recent years. Now, the corn isnt there to be had; and the prices are impossible

ON

CASE

WTO

Non unique and no solvency
-
countries are increas
ing protectionism in ways
that circumvent the WTO

Wre
de 13

Isa Wrede
. “Protectionism through the Back Door.”
Deutsch Welle
. 7/9/13

http://www.dw.de/protectionism
-
through
-
the
-
b
ack
-
door/a
-
16937108

Many countries are battening the hatches in response to the financial crisis.
Protectionism is on the rise worldwide
-

a recent study names
400

measures

that
hampered free trade over the past 12 months
alone
.


In the wake of the financi
al crisis,
free trade as a concept has been facing increasing opposition
.

Governments

tend to
protect their companies from international competition

when the
economy slides
. Protectionism is on the rise again, according to the Global Trade Alert (GTA) repo
rt by independent
economists at St Gallen University in Switzerland and the British Centre for Economic Policy Research. The trade monitoring g
roup
has been publishing its findings on global protectionist measures annually since 2008.


Low
-
key protectionis
m


The report
sees a "quiet, wide
-
ranging assault on the commercial level playing field." Measures taken
since the fall of 2012 by far surpass anything that occurred since the crisis broke
, according to GTA
member and advisor Martin
Wermelinger: "
The type of
protectionism has changed

considerably"
-

because
of the
W
orld

T
rade
O
rganization,
traditional trade barriers are employed less often

than
before.


Many countries want to protect their industries against competition from abroad


For
decades, th
e WTO has tried to free trade from barriers.
Despite failure of the most recent round of
negotiations, the Doha Rou
nd, the fact remains that
governments which introduce traditional barriers like
tariffs and other protective measures risk being hauled befor
e the WTO.
As a result,
governments
protect their economies in such a way that
trade

partners,

the

media,

and

analysts

do

not

notice

the

obstacles
. Exports are subsidized, financial aid or incentives, including export
guarantees, are offered. Restricting m
igration is a new measure,

Wermelinger

told Deutsche Welle. "There
was a
huge increase

in 2012. Canada and Asian nations like India introduced temporary measures under which they admit fewer
people who might work there."


Peace through Trade Theory wrong
-

it assumes symmetrical trade

Delahunty 11

Robert J. Delahunty. “Trade, War, and Terror: A Reply to Bhala.” University of St. Thomas Law
Journal. 2011.

in his National Power and the Structure of Foreign

Trade (1945).34
Hirschman noted that
trade
between
two states may be¶ asymmetrical
. In other words,
one trading partner (usually, the
one with the¶ smaller economy) may be far more dependent on maintaining the trading
relationship

than the other partner (the larger economy
).35 Hirschman

thought that
Nazi
Germany sought to use foreign trade to make the smaller¶ economies of Central Europe
increasingly dependent on access to the German market and hence more submissive

to the
Nazis
’ foreign policy¶ goals
.36 In light of Hirschman’s analysis, some critics of th
e “peace
through

trade” thesis contend that while symmetrical trade ties may promote peace,


asymmetrical dependence creates tensions that

may
manifest themselves in¶ conflict
.”37 On
that approach,
liberal theorists

may be right about symmetrical trade b
ut
are mistaken about
asymmetrical trade
.38


IPR

No solvency
-
even if they solve Havana Club, the Cohiba Cigars case still
undermines US IPR leadership


Berkland 13

Stace Berkland.

Press Release: General Cigar Retains US Cohiba Trademark
.”

Leaf and
Grape.
com. March 29, 2013.
http://leafandgrape.com/2013/03/press
-
release
-
general
-
cigar
-
retains
-
us
-
cohiba
-
trademark/

General Cigars was

recently
vindicated by

the courts

again
in the

nearly 16 year old legal
battle

waged by Cubatabaco
to determine
rightful
ownership of
the
Cohiba®
trademark i
n the
United States
. After losing its legal battle in the Second Circuit, Cubatabaco continued to
exhaust all available l
egal channels by bringing this matter before the United States Trademark
Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”). ¶
The TTAB

granted General Cigar’s motion for summary
judgment, and d
ismissed with prejudice Cubatabaco’s petition

to cancel General Cigar’s
Cohiba re
gistrations.

The TTAB ruled that
because the
federal courts have held that
Cubatabaco may not sell Cohibacigars in the U.S
. or acquire any interest in the Cohiba
mark,Cubatabaco lacks any property interest in the Cohiba ma
rk. Cubatabaco therefore has
no st
anding to challenge General Cigar’s registrations of the Cohiba

mark
. ¶ General Cigar’s
President Dan Carr said, “This ruling once again affirms what we have believed all along: That
Cubatabaco has no merit in challenging General Cigar’s ownership of the C
ohiba trademark in
the United States
.Ӧ General Cigar received its first registration of the Cohiba trademark in the
U.S. in 1981, and again in 1992. The company has sold its Dominican Cohiba cigar in the U.S.
since the early 1980s.


Squo solves
-
their aut
hors don’t take into account the expanding global market

Boldrin and Levine 5

Michele Blodrin and David K. Levine. “Intellectual Property, International Trade and Economic
Development.”

¶=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.micheleboldrin.com%2FPapers%2Fip_china.doc&ei=qDjvU
f7xJ
-
nh4AO89IG4BQ&usg=AFQjCNGNnkdoWO8VNsY5YXIk4Gj_PlzJ2w&sig2=n8IU2pDktsI8EzgAgPFng
A&bvm=bv.49641647,d.dmg

The rush towards

ever stronger IPRs and “
harmonization

ignores the
single

greatest

economic feature of globalization
:
the

continuously
increasing
scale of the market
.
The larger
the market the greater the incentive for innovation
: this f act is of great importance.
A software
developer

developing monopolized “shareware” in the U.S. may sell thousands of copies for
$20 each to US consumers.
In the
global market without IPRs
, he
may only earn $5 for each
copy he sells
,
but if he sells four times as many copies
,
he still earns
more than
enough money
to defray the cost of his innovation
. Of course,
he will be
happier if

he can sell four times as many
c
opies for $20 a copy


and will lobby vociferously with the WTO to be allowed to do so.
However, this would mean granting him gratuitous and socially wasteful monopoly profits
:
as
the scale of his markets increases
,
the need for IPR
protection to create an

incentive to
innovate
is reduced
. The cost of developing the software does not increase with the market
size
; in fact, if anything,
the cost of innovating is coming down as a consequence of economic
progress
, thereby
further making IPRs redundant when not

damaging
. In other words:
even if
common
wisdom were logically and empirically correct, which it is not, and
some level of patent and copyright protection
was generally needed for innovation to take place, which it is not, the level of such protection
sho
uld be decreasing as economic growth and globalization continue
and the size of the market
increases. So, contrary to what lobbyists for big western monopolies argue
, globalization per
-
se requires less not
more IPRs protection
. Notice what this means:
if t
he size of the market doubles or triples, as it more
than did during the last thirty years, then the length of IPR protection should be cut in a half,
or a third, of its original level.


Turn
-
Western IPR is protectionist and slows innovation

Boldrin and Le
vine 5

Michele Blodrin and David K. Levine. “Intellectual Property, International Trade and Economic
Development.”


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCoQF
jAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.michele
boldrin.com%2FPapers%2Fip_china.doc&ei=qDjvUf7xJ
-
nh4AO89IG4BQ&usg=AFQjCNGNnkdoWO8VNsY5YXIk4Gj_PlzJ2w&sig2=n8IU2pDktsI8EzgAgPFng
A&bvm=bv.49641647,d.dmg

Economic analysis shows that, in more than a metaphorical sense,
patents and copyrights are
analogous to
trade tariffs. They mainly serve the purpose of defending vested interests and
creating
monopolies

either within a country or on a larger scale.
They impede competition
,
and retard the adoption and diffusion of innovative technologies

and socially efficient
methods of production
. In analogy with tariffs, patents and copyrights may be useful for a very limited period of time and
in special circumstances, but are damaging in general. Finally, and again
similarly to protective and discrim
inating
tariffs, patents and copyrights do exist and cannot be abolished overnight.
They can, and
should nevertheless be progressively and systematically reduced
. In other words, economic analysis
suggests that it is

in the interest of society to start tre
ating patents and copyright as we treat trade
tariffs: a bad policy of the past that we should progressively get rid of.


We advocate that a process,
similar to the one that during the last fifty years has successfully reduced trade barriers worldwide and
allowed trade and growth to
flourish, be started to progressively reduce the length and coverage of patents and copyrights worldwide. The insisting reque
st from
interest groups in the USA and the EU, that the rest of the world adopts IPR legislation simila
r to the one in those countries, should
be met by the argument that says that IPRs

are like tariffs: harmonization of IPR should take place, but
harmonization should take place by progressively lowering the level of all kinds of barriers to
free trade, be
they tariffs or IPRs
. In similarity with the various “rounds” of talks that continuously lowered tariffs, a
schedule of IPR’s length reduction should be agreed upon as a condition for developing countries adoption of Western style IP
R
legislation. This can

and should occur in the framework of the WTO
-
TRIPS accords. Large and successful developing countries, such
as Brazil, China, India, and others, should take the worldwide lead in this political process. On their side stands not just
their
immediate econom
ic interest but also the long run interest of economic growth worldwide.


Monopolies Turn

A.

Empirics prove IPR
creates
monopolies that

discourage innovation
.
Empirically, lack of normalization encourages innovation.

Boldrin and Levine 5

Michele Blodrin and
David K. Levine. “Intellectual Property, International Trade and Economic
Development.”


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCoQF
jAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.micheleboldrin.com%2FPapers%2Fip_c
hina.doc&ei=qDjvUf7xJ
-
nh4AO89IG4BQ&usg=AFQjCNGNnkdoWO8VNsY5YXIk4Gj_PlzJ2w&sig2=n8IU2pDktsI8EzgAgPFng
A&bvm=bv.49641647,d.dmg

Those who think they can get government monopolies have always lobbied for them; modern economic growth comes, in large part,

from s
ociety learning to say “No” to such special interest groups. Only in the world of IPR are these rent
-
seekers still successful. The
accepted wisdom in international organizations, such as the WTO and the World Bank, among national governments, and among
mos
t opinion makers, academics and what not, is that IP rights are “good” or at least “necessary” for economic growth and
continuing innovation. In the face of the globalization process, this point of view implies that all that the international c
ommunity
nee
ds to do is to progressively extend the application of “US
-

and EU
-
like” IPRs to more and more developing countries until
complete “harmonization” is reached. The stated goal of the TRIPS agreement is exactly this. The basic motivation given to su
pport
the

accepted wisdom is simple: creation of new goods and processes, and innovative work in general implies high fixed costs and
small variable costs. In order to recoup such large fixed costs and attract entrepreneurs into innovative activities a price
substa
ntially
larger than the marginal cost of the product should obtain for a certain amount of time
.
Providing innovators with
patents and copyrights is tantamount to granting them monopoly power

over their products
and the latter is,
according to accepted wis
dom, the most appropriate way of achieving the
desired results. This argument is both logically and empirically incorrect


It is incorrect logically
because
even
without the benefit of monopoly the innovator earns competitive rents and has a
first
-
mover a
dvantage

that compensates for his fixed cost of
innovation.
Imitation is neither
costless nor timeless
, and
the first
-
mover advantage allows innovators to earn rents

over
marginal cost for extended periods, often for many
years. Additional incentive

is
rarely
needed

and may be appropriate only in those rare occasions in which the initial cost of innovation is extremely high, imitation is
extremely easy, and marginal costs of making copies of the new good are very low. Nevertheless,
these circumstances
oc
cur much less
frequently than one may be inclined to believe. A relevant example is the U.S.
market for financial securities. Until recently, that is 1998; financial securities could not be
patented. Yet, the thriving innovation that took place in this ind
ustry has been extensively
documented
. Notice that
new financial securities are very expensive to develop, very easy to
imitate once publicized, and obviously quite cheap to reproduce, nevertheless the investment
banking industry thrived for decades

withou
t the need of IPRs
, and probably
thanks to the
absence of IPRs.
Other important
examples abound, as in the case of the software industry, which
experimented maximum growth absent IPR protection and has slowed down its growth and
innovation rates since IPRs

were introduced
in the software indsutry about fifteen years ago. Insofar as additional
incentive is needed, it will be needed only in a few very special cases


space travel, for example. Insofar as it is not already done,
these special cases should be t
argeted, and incentives provided efficiently through the use of prizes and through tax credits for
innovation. Further, in a complex and interconnected world,
the proliferation of patents and copyrights
covering more and more items, and smaller a
nd smaller

ones, becomes increasingly damaging
for innovation and economic growth
more ge
nerally.
Providing
monopoly power

to a large number
of individuals over crucial and common inputs in the production and innovation processes,
will make the cost of innovating

in

developed countries, or of adopting modern technologies
in developing countries
,

higher

and higher
. This, contrary to what accepted wisdom claims, is very bad for
economic growth and social welfare.



B.

Monopolies degrade trademark credibility and cause unf
air
entrepreneurial practices that turn case

Hommell 13

Jason Hommell
. “Monopolies are Bad.” Silver Stock Report.
March 19th, 2013
.

http://www.24hgold.com/english/contributor.aspx?article=4295855320G10020&contributor=Ja
son+Hommel

Monopolies happen in a competitive "free" market only when the monopolizer engages in
many kinds of unfair business practices

which are
comparable to extortio
n
, usually
taking the form
of some kind of threat such as, "carry our product, and not our competitors' products, or
else!"

Microsoft and Standard Oil both engaged in these kinds of threats. The companies should probably have been prosecuted
for making thr
eats, not for being monopolies, but the end result of being a monopoly was bad, too.


If there is to be a free
market, that means that free market competition must be allowed, because
competition is
good for the consumer
, as it drives down prices, and enco
urages improvements, and
innovation
.


I believe that
it is bad theory to assume that only monopoly grants will encourage
innovation
,
because that is

merely a belief system,
a false belief

system, a system that is
actually competing with the free market com
petition belief system
, which, again, is just one more reason
why
monopoly grants are not compatible with free market

libertarian economics
.


So,
government

granted

monopolies

are also bad
. But the government has a harder time
recognizing that it is doing

bad things.


The US government grants monopolies in several areas.
The most
common
ly

recognized
is the granting of

patents, copyright, and perhaps even
trademarks.


GMO’s


GMO’s have decreased food security and require pesticides

Vidal 11

John Vidal.

GM
crops promote superweeds, food insecurity and pesticides, say NGOs
.” The
Guardian. October 19, 2011.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/19/gm
-
crops
-
insecurity
-
superweeds
-
pesticides


Genetic engineering has failed to increase the yield of any
food

c
rop

but has vastly increased
the use of chemicals and the growth of "superweeds",
according to a report by 20
Indian,
south
-
east Asian, African and Latin American

food and conservation groups representing
millions of people
.


The so
-
called miracle crops, w
hich were first sold in the US about 20 years
ago and which are now grown in 29 countries on about 1.5bn hectares (3.7bn acres) of land,
have been billed as potential solutions to food crises, climate change and soil erosion, but
the
assessment finds that
they have not lived up to their promises
.


The report claims that
hunger
has reached "epic proportions" since the technology was developed
. Besides this,
only two
GM "traits"

have been developed

on any significant scale
,
despite investments of tens of
billions of dollars
, and benefits such as drought resistance and salt tolerance have yet to
materialise on any scale
.


Most worrisome, say the authors of the
Global Citizens' Report on
the State of GMOs
, is the greatly increased use of synthetic chemicals, used to control pests
despite biotech companies' justification that
GM
-
engineered crops would reduce insecticide
use
.


In
China
, where insect
-
resistant
Bt

cotton is widely planted,
populations of pests

that previously posed
only minor problems
have increased 12
-
fold

since 1997
. A
2008 study in the International Journal of
Biotechnology

found that an
y

benefits of planting Bt cotton have been eroded by the increasing use of
pesticides needed to combat them.


Additionally
, soya growers in Argentina and Brazil have been
found to use tw
ice as much herbicide on their GM as they do on conventional crops
, and a survey
by
Navdanya International
, in
India
, show
ed that
pesticide use increased 13
-
fold since Bt cotton was
introduced
.


The report, which draws on empirical research and companies' own statements, also
says weeds are now
developing resistance to the GM firms'
herbicides

and pesticides that are designed to be used
with their crops, and that this has led to growing infestations of "superweeds", especially in
the US.


Ten common weeds have now devel
oped resistance in at least 22 US states, with about 6m hectares (15m acres) of soya,
cotton and corn now affected.


Consequently,
farmers are being forced to use more herbicides to combat
the resistant weeds
, says the report. GM companies are paying farme
rs to use other, stronger, chemicals, they say. "The
genetic engineering miracle is quite clearly faltering

in farmers' fields," add the authors.


The companies have succeeded in
marketing their crops to more than 15 million farmers, largely by heavy lobby
ing of governments, buying up local seed companies,
and withdrawing conventional seeds from the market, the report claims.
Monsanto
,
Dupont

and
Syngenta
, the world's three largest
GM companies, now control nearly 70% of global seed sales. This allows them to "own" and sell GM seeds through patents and
intell
ectual property rights and to charge farmers extra, claims the report.


The study accuses Monsanto of gaining control of over
95% of the Indian cotton seed market and of massively pushing up prices. High levels of indebtedness among farmers is thought

to
b
e behind many of the 250,000 deaths by suicide of Indian farmers over the past 15 years.


The report, which is backed by
Friends of
the Earth International,

the
Center
for Food Safety

in the US,
Confédération Paysanne
, and the
Gaia foundation

among others, also
questions the safety of GM crops, citing studies and reports which indicate that people and animals have experienced apparent

allergic reactions.


But it suggests scientists are loath to question the safety aspects for fear of being att
acked by establishment
bodies, which often receive large grants from the companies who control the technology.


Monsanto disputes the report's findings:
"In our view the safety and benefits of GM are well established. Hundreds of millions of meals containi
ng food from GM crops have
been consumed and there has not been a single substantiated instance of illness or harm associated with GM crops."


It added:
"Last year the National Research Council, of the US National Academy of Sciences
, issued a report, The Impact of Genetically
Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States
, which concludes that US farmers growing biotech crops 'are realising
substantial eco
nomic and environmental benefits


such as lower production costs, fewer pest problems, reduced use of pesticides,
and better yields


compared with conventional crops'."


David King, the
former UK chief scientist

who is now director of the Smith
School of Enterprise and the Environment at Oxford University,
has blamed food shortages in Africa partly on anti
-
GM c
ampaigns in
rich countries
.


But, the report's authors claim,
GM crops are adding to food insecurity because
most are now being grown for
biofuels
,
whi
ch take away land from local food production
.


Vandana Shiva, director of the Indian organisation Navdanya International, which co
-
ordinated the report, said: "The GM model of farming undermines farmers trying to farm
ecologically.
Co
-
existence between GM
and conventional crops is not possible because genetic
pollution and contamination of conventional crops is impossible to control
.


"Choice is being
undermined as food systems are increasingly controlled by giant corporations and as chemical
and genetic po
llution spread. GM companies have put a noose round the neck of farmers.
They are destroying alternatives in the pursuit of profit."


Herbicides devastate ocean life

Sample 4

Chemical Fertilizers Destroying the Environment & Killing Ocean Life

9 Oct 2004

"Global peril" of
fire and fertilisers

Ian Sample, science correspondent

Saturday October 9, 2004

The Guardian.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/oceans101104.cfm


As an ingredient in fertiliser,
nitrogen helps to feed some 2 billion people
. But
when it is
washed from soils into water

courses
it can make rivers and lakes too rich in nutrients
.


As a
result,
algae and other life can grow out of control
, eventually
str
ipping oxygen from the water
which fish and other aquatic life need.


Dead zones have already begun to appear
,
notably in
the Gulf of Mexico
, which is fed by nitrogen
-
rich water from the Mississippi river.
"We are looking at major
effects in the US, Europe

and south
-
east Asia
," Dr Watson said.


Ocean bioD key to life on earth

Davidson 3


Osha Davidson, Founder of the Turtle House Foundation and Award
-
Winning Journalist, Fire in
the Turtle House, p. 47
-
51
.
http://books.google.com/books?id=IENUUqCkW2oC&pg=PA90&lpg=PA90&dq=ocean+biodiversi
ty+fire+in+the+turtle+house&source=bl&ots=t4MdXLkO1g&sig=KDGtZnkakmf_4TaOspjU2i_NRV
Y&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5zbvUaq3Jvi4AOe44G4AQ&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=ocean%20bi
odiver
sity%20fire%20in%20the%20turtle%20house&f=false


But surely the Athenians had it backward; it’s the land that rests in the lap of the sea. Thalassa, not Gaia, is the guardian

of life on
the blue planet. A simple, albeit apocalyptic, experiment suggests Tha
lassa’s power
. Destroy all life on land; the ocean
creatures will survive just fine. Given time, they’ll even repopulate the land. But
wipe out the
organisms that inhabit the oceans and all life on land is doomed
.

“Dust to dust,” says the Bible, but “water

to water” is more like it, for all life comes from and returns to the sea. Our ocean origins abid within us, our secret marin
e history.
The chemical makeup of our blood is strikingly similar to seawater. Every carbon atom in our body has cycled through th
e ocean
many times. Even the human embryo reveals our watery past. Tiny gill slits form and then fade during our development in the
womb.
The ocean is the cradle of life on our planet,

and it remains the axis of existence,
the
locus of planetary biodiversi
ty
,
and the engine of the chemical and hydrological cycles that
create and maintain our atmosphere and climate
.

The astonishing biodiversity is most evident on coral reefs,
often called the “rain forests of the sea.”
Occupying less than one
-
quarter of 1 percent of the global
ocean,
coral reefs are home to nearly a third of all marine fish species

and to as many as nine million
species in all. But life exists in profusion in every corner of the ocean, right down to the
hydrothermal vents on the seafloor
(discovered only in 1977), where more than a hundred newly described species thrive around superheated plumes of sulfurous
gasses. The abundance of organisms in the ocean isn’t surprising given that the sea was, as alread
y mentioned, the crucible of life on
Earth.
I
t

is the original ecosystem, the environment in which the “primordial soup” of nucleic
acids
(which can self
-
replicate, but are not alive)
and other molecules made the inexplicable and
miraculous leap into life,

probably as simple bacteria
, close to 3.9 billion years ago. A spectacular burst of new
life forms called the Cambrian explosion took place in the oceans some 500 million years ago, an evolutionary experiment that

produced countless body forms, the protot
ypes of virtually all organisms alive today. It wasn’t until 100 million years later that the
first primitive plants took up residence on terra firma. Another 30 million years passed before the first amphibians climbed
out of
the ocean. After this head sta
rt, it’s not surprising that evolution on that newcomer
-
dry land
-
has never caught up with the diversity
of the sea.
Of the thirty
-
three higher
-
level groupings of animals (called phyla), thirty
-
two are
found in the oceans and just twelve on land.

Disease


T
urn
-
imitation increases innovation


Richman 12

Sheldon Richman
. “Patent Nonsense.” The American Conservative
.
January 18, 2012
.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/patent
-
nonsense/


Underlying
the IP defense is the faulty assumption that imitation produces little value when in
fact it is critical to competitive markets and

progress
,
most of which comes through
incremental

improvements

to existing ideas

rather than big dramatic breakthroughs.
Copying
combined with product differentiation equals rising living standards
. Had imitation been forbidden
earlier in human history, s
tagnation would have been mankind’s lot. Attempts in that direction today concentrate economic power
and increase the cost of living for the rest of us.