Japan Aff Michigan
Free Speech Prevents Wars
Download 1.23 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Free Speech Prevents Disasters
- Japan Democracy Property Rights Add-On
Free Speech Prevents WarsFree Speech prevents wars Jensen 1- University of Texas Journalism Professor (Robert, “Against Dissent: Why Free Speech is Important as the US Drops Cluster Bombs on Afghanistan”, Lecture to UT teach-in on war and civil liberties, 4/2/01, http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/freelance/attack15.htm) It might seem strange, given my involvement in antiwar work at a time when most people support the war, that I would title a talk “Against Dissent.” How could I be against something in which I seem to be engaged quite actively? I am not going to argue against political activity that challenges the dominant view, but instead will suggest a different way to understand that political activity. The point is not simply semantic, but goes to the heart of what it means to be a citizen in a democracy. More on that later. Let me say up front that I believe that in light of what is happening in Afghanistan at the moment, the topic of free speech seems, in some sense, trivial. I do not mean that speech does not matter. I believe free speech is a good thing in and of itself. But my main concern at the moment is not the intrinsic value of free speech, the way it fosters the growth and development of individuals, which is one powerful argument for protecting free speech. Right now, free speech is on my mind because I live in the nation that has the most destructive military capacity in the history of the world. I live in a nation that has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to use that capacity to kill, and kill civilians. And I live in the nation that at this moment is using that capacity again to kill civilians in a conflict that is being sold to us as a war on terrorism that will keep us safe, but is, I believe, primarily a war to extend the power of a particular segment of U.S. society. In other words, free speech matters so much right now not primarily because it is good for us, which it is, but because without it citizens of this country will have fewer chances to stop our government from destroying human life abroad. Tonight I want to talk about why free speech and democracy are in some sense more important than ever. In this sense, free speech is not a trivial matter. How we defend and use our free speech is, quite literally, a matter of life and death. It is a matter of life and death for the Afghan child who sees the bright yellow cylinder on the ground and bends over to pick it up; the child who picks up the bright yellow unexploded bomblet from a cluster bomb dropped from a U.S. plane; unexploded because 7 percent of the bomblets released by a cluster bomb do not detonate at first; a bomblet that will explode when picked up and send steel shards ripping into the child’s body. And then the child will die. And then U.S. officials explain that we must keep using cluster bombs because they are effective antipersonnel and antiarmor weapons. Our freedom to speak is not trivial to that child. So let us speak of free speech. Let us begin with a little history. On June 16, 1918, labor leader Eugene Debs made a speech in Canton, Ohio, in which he dared to question U.S. involvement in World War I. In this speech, he said, “Wars throughout history have been waged for conquest and plunder. …the working class who fight all the battles, the working class who make the supreme sacrifices, the working class who freely shed their blood and furnish their corpses, have never yet had a voice in either declaring war or making peace. It is the ruling class that invariably does both. They alone declare war and they alone make peace.” He continued: “They are continually talking about their patriotic duty. It is not their but your patriotic duty that they are concerned about. There is a decided difference. Their patriotic duty never takes them to the firing line or chucks them into the trenches.” Free Speech Prevents DisastersFree speech prevents economic disasters Gemede-05 Senior Associate and Oppenheimer Fellow, St. Antony's College, Oxford (William, 4/18/05, “Democracy and the importance of criticism, dissent and public dialogue”, paper presented at the Harold Wolpe Lecture Series, http://www.wolpetrust.org.za/dialogue2005/DN042005gumede_paper.htm) The responses of governments to the suffering of people often depend on the pressure that is put on them. The great Indian economist Amartya Sen makes the example of how criticisms, open public debates and dissent play such a crucial role in preventing economic disasters such as famines or social unrest. So, freedom of expression and discussion, are not only crucial in pinpointing economic and social needs, but are also important in deciding on what needs should have priority; and what demands should attention be paid to. Obviously, criticisms can also have its downside, when simply the loudest voice or the richest voices receive political attention. Japan Democracy Property Rights Add-OnA. The Okinawa base has put Japan democracy into question, Japan is hurting private property rights Mulgan, 2k (Aurelia George, completed her PhD at the ANU in Japanese Politics in 1980, and subsequently worked as a Research Fellow in the Australia-Japan Research Centre at the ANU, “Managing the US Base Issue in Okinawa: A Test for Japanese Democracy,” Japanese Studies, Vol. 2, No. 2, pgs 159-177 //ag) The domestic politics of US base management in Okinawa has become more problematic since the September 1995 rape of a 12-year-old Iapanese schoolgirl by three American servicemen. More than any other single event in recent times, this act catalysed waves of protest against the presence of US forces in Okinawa and a defiant challenge by the former prefectural governor, Ota Masahide, to the central govern- ment’s rights and prerogatives on base-related issues. How the Okinawa base problem has been handled by the central government since late 1995 generates insights into the workings of Japanese democracy: the extent to which individual property rights are subordinated to national policies; the level of judicial independence from political interference; the use of economic compensation as an adiunct to more coercive instruments of state authority; the balance of power between central and local govern- ments; the level of state responsiveness to minority interests; and the effectiveness of local protest movements in eliciting concessions to national policymakers. The analysis raises a number of questions about the quality of Japanese democracy. The central government has consistently subordinated issues of human rights and the rights of local property owners to the overriding imperative of maintaining the Security Treaty with the United States and Japan’s obligation under that treaty to make land and facilities available to US military forces. In this enterprise it has been aided and abetted by a nominally independent judiciary and in particular by a Supreme Court that has subordinated its rights of iudicial review to a consistently conservative, pro-regime posture. In a similar mode, the legislative superiority of the national government has been reasserted in order to undermine the limited prerogatives of local government and to reject the legitimate protests of local residents on base-related issues. B. Cooperation replaces conflict if property rights are well defined which spurs greater benefits Anderson and Huggins 3 (Terry and Laura, Anderson is a leading economist and director of PERC, Huggins is the director of development at PERC and a research fellow at Hoover Institution, “Property Rights: A Practical Guide to Freedom and Prosperity,” Hoover Institution, pgs 16-17 //ag) How competition for use of a scarce resource is resolved depends on whether property rights are well defined, well enforced, and readily transferable. In the absence of these three dimensions, conflict results because people do not know who has the right to the property in question, what the boundaries of the rights are, and whether they can trade with one another to resolve their competing demands. If property rights are not well defined and enforced, their value is up for grabs and people fight for use of the property rather than find ways of cooperating. Without property rights, people race to capture valuable assets or expend precious time and effort fighting over ownership. Racing is well illustrated by open access to fisheries, when fishers must be first to catch the fish lest it is caught by others. Leaving a fish to grow larger or to reproduce is the equivalent of leaving money on the table for others to take. If one fisher does not take a fish, another will, with fish stocks possibly reduced to the point where populations are unsustainable. This explains why the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations finds that 25 percent of the com- mercial fish stocks in the world are overfished. Similarly, in a 2007 report to the U.S. Congress, the National Ma- rine Fisheries Service categorized 45 out of 184 fish stocks in United States water as overfished. The rush to claim Internet addresses illustrates an- other case of racing. Domain name space was initially seen as a public resource, leading to confusion over ownership. Companies discovered quickly that they had to race to secure their Internet identities, often only to discover that those names had already been claimed. Squabbling broke out and cybersquatters and cyberpirates became prevalent. Fighting over resources diverts resources away from consumption and investments in new assets and toward efforts to take or defend. The worst example of fighting over property rights is war wherein “to the victor go the spoils” (see Haddock 2003). History has shown that cooperation will replace racing and conflict if property rights are well defined, enforced, and transferable. Definition of the property and the rights of its owner clarifies who can enjoy and benefit from the property and determines who is in control. Enforcement means that those who do not own the property (or lack permission from its owner) are unable to use the property or capture benefits from it. Well- defined and enforced property rights also guarantee that the owner reaps the rewards from good stewardship and bears the costs of poor stewardship. Finally, transferability means the owner will take into account the values of other potential users. If another user values a resource more highly than the current owner and offers to purchase it, the two have an incentive to cooperate in order to realize the gains available from trade. Directory: files files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations Download 1.23 Mb. Share with your friends:
|