State Inevitable --- Aff Ans

State Inevitable --- Aff Ans

---State systems are inevitable --- The critique is ethnocentric and fails to analyze the history of government.

Hussein, Senior Researcher, Human Security Project, Institute for Defence Policy, “In Defence of Realism,” African Security Review, Vol 5, No 2, http://www.iss.co.za/pubs/ASR/5No2/5No2/InDefence.html

One aspect of this criticism relates to the fact that realists see the State as an ‘a-historical given in the global system’.83 Post-modernists posit the notion that the State is a relatively recent historical figure (that the birth of the State is to be found in the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648 which ended the Thirty Years War). It is argued that the State historically evolved from set circumstances, and that in the present era of massive global change it shows every indication to be on the wane.84 However, such a view is extremely problematic. Does this mean that Julius Caesar did not rule over a State? Does this mean that the rulers of ancient Han China did not rule over a state? Does this mean that Montezuma’s sophisticated Aztec polity was not a state? And what of King Solomon’s Israel, rulers of the mighty kingdoms of Mali and Ghana, Atahualapa’s vast Inca empire, and the sophisticated Indus Valley polity which existed millennia before the birth of Christ? These questions necessitate a more fundamental question: what exactly is a state? The classic political science definition of a state is a people occupying a specific territory, having rulers (government) who pass laws which are binding on those people.85 By this definition, all the above historical examples are indeed states. More importantly, it illustrates a deep Eurocentric bias among those scholars who claim that the State is a relatively recent historical phenomenon which began with the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. Those who argue that the State is withering away lack an understanding of human history which proves that states are complex social structures and have always been changing in response to new historical conditions. As such, the State as defined above will always be with us in one form or another. After all, somebody has to see to the need of citizens, ranging from protection from the mugger in the dark alley to the army of a foreign government.

A2 Coercion Bad --- Aff Ans

---Coercion is good --- It’s key to protect liberty and property rights. Blanket rejection in the name of liberty is self defeating.

(Daniel B. Klein is a professor of economics at George Mason University. May 14, 2007. Economist’s Views. “Acceptable Government Coercion?” http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/05/acceptable_gove.html) Sherman

But, as Klein notes, just because something is coercive, doesn’t mean that it is wrong. The coercive power of the state is useful when it protects our lives and property from outside harm. If we think that state-sponsored redistribution is desirable, then we are willing to accept more coercion to help the less fortunate. We also rely on state-sponsored coercion regularly when writing private contracts. The ability of creditors to collect depends on the power of the state to coerce borrowers.

---The affirmative view of freedom from coercion as the absence of law is a fallacy that artificially inflates the importance of government while simultaneously masking private coercion and violence which is worse because under the affirmative’s view .

The second fallacy is one that I personally refer to as the Libertarian Fallacy, since unlike the Revolutionary Fallacy it is specific to this branch of philosophy.  It is popular with several subtypes of conservatives and most anarchists, as well as with Libertarians.  It can be expressed as the idea that freedom is measured by absence of laws.  Another say of stating it is that only the government can restrict your rights.  (Some Libertarians strongly support this wording, saying that a law removes or restricts your rights, but a private entity can only infringe on your rights without changing them.)  To me, this is an artificial double standard, which labels a restraint on your freedom by one outfit in a completely different way than the same restraint by a different outfit, because one has the label of "government" and the other does not.  Indeed, much of the fabric of reasoning in Libertarianism is based on presuming that the government is uniquely unlike any other entity, and therefore must be judged by entirely different standards from how anything else is appraised. To me, the question is how much power others have over you and how constrained your choice of actions is, not whether the constraint is by public action rather than private action.  In the viewpoint of those who hold this fallacy, what matters is how free you are on paper, not how free you are in what choices are actually open to you right now in real life.  According to this view, a destitute person with no public support is more free than one who gets some kind of pension or welfare, despite the fact that the latter is the one who can do many things that are closed off to the former.

---Private coercion is worse-greater impact on the poor.

Taylor 2003 (Ian L, “Why I am not a Libertarian”, Airs, 2003, http://airs.com/ian/essays/libertarian/libertarian.html) SWOAP

A key reason that libertarians give for their dislike of government is that government action constrains personal liberty. Taxation is a typical example: if you don't pay your taxes, the government will send men with guns to collect them. Libertarians consider this to be an unacceptable form of coercion. However, there are many types of coercion which come from the private sector. For example, your employer may tell you that you must start working mandatory unpaid overtime. This effectively lowers your hourly wage. Naturally, you can quit, but there may not be any other jobs in town, and you may not be able to afford to move, or to get training for another type of job. (I didn't just make up this example--there is a class action lawsuit against Walmart about this). For another example, your landlord may decide to raise the rent, or to stop doing maintenance on the heating system, unless you agree to do some personal chores. Naturally, you can move elsewhere, but there may not be any other place available which is close enough to your work, or all the other places may be more expensive. These and other typical examples of coercion by the private sector have a greater effect on people who happen to be poor. Poor people generally have fewer options. Many people become poor through no fault of their own, for reasons such as an unexpected death in the family or being laid off. Such people are very vulnerable to many types of private sector coercion. In general, in daily life in the U.S., coercion by the private sector is much more obvious day to day than coercion by the government. The government normally leaves people alone other than garnishing their paycheck. The private sector rarely leaves people alone, and limits our choices every day--most obviously at our jobs. The fact that private sector coercion is not backed by the threat of direct violence does not mean that it is not coercion. Indirect violence, in the form of loss of income, shelter, or food, is just as effective as direct violence. People sometimes cite a couple of reasons why private sector coercion seems different from government coercion: you can refuse to take part, or you can move somewhere else. However, those reasons are misleading. Refusing to take part can mean losing your job and/or becoming homeless. Moving elsewhere, besides being expensive in itself, is only possible if there is a job elsewhere. It's true that in principle, if everything works out, you have a choice. But in practice, if something goes wrong, you do not. Moreover, you actually have the same choices with a government. If you refuse to pay your taxes, you may eventually be put in jail. But at least you will be fed and sheltered. Or you can always move to a different country. There are countries with very minimal governments, such as Afghanistan or Somalia. While those choices may not seem appealing, they are just as real as the choices you have to avoid private sector coercion.

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 0.65 Mb.

Share with your friends: