Giroux/Foucault LinksDemocracy Discourse LinkRomanticizing discourse of democracy justifies tremendous atrocities and turns the affVltchek 14 (Andre Vltchek is a novelist, philosopher, investigative journalist, filmmaker, photographer and playwright who covers war zones and conflict. Down With Western Democracy! 5/23/14 http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/05/23/down-with-western-democracy/)A specter is haunting Europe and Western world it is this time, the specter of fascism. It came quietly, without great fanfare and parades, without raised hands and loud shouts. But it came, or it returned, as it has always been present in this culture, one that has, for centuries, been enslaving our entire planet. As was in Nazi Germany, resistance to the fascist empire is again given an unsavory name: terrorism. Partisans and patriots, resistance fighters all of them were and have always been defined by fascist bigots as terrorists. By the logic of Empire, to murder millions of men, women and children in all corners of the world abroad is considered legitimate and patriotic, but to defend ones motherland was and is a sign of extremism. German Nazis and Italian Fascists defined their rule as democratic, and so does this Empire. The British and French empires that exterminated tens of millions of people all over the world, always promoted themselves as democracies. And now, once again, we are witnessing a tremendous onslaught by the business-political-imperialist Western apparatus, destabilizing or directly destroying entire nations, overthrowing governments and bombing rebellious states into the ground. All this is done in the name of democracy, in the name of freedom. An unelected monster, as it has done for centuries, is playing with the world, torturing some, and plundering others, or both. The West, in a final act of arrogance, has somehow confused itself with its own concept of God. It has decided that it has the full right to shape the planet, to punish and to reward, to destroy and rebuild as it wishes. This horrible wave of terror unleashed against our planet, is justified by an increasingly meaningless but fanatically defended dogma, symbolized by a box (made of card or wood, usually), and masses of people sticking pieces of paper into the opening on the top of that box. This is the altar of Western ideological fundamentalism. This is a supreme idiocy that cannot be questioned, as it guarantees the status quo for ruling elites and business interests, an absurdity that justifies all crimes, all lies and all madness. This sacrificial altar is called, Democracy, in direct mockery to what the term symbolizes in its original, Greek, language. *** In our latest book, On Western Terrorism from Hiroshima to Drone Warfare, Noam Chomsky commented on the democratic process in the Western world: The goal of elections now is to undermine democracy. They are run by the public relations industry and theyre certainly not trying to create informed voters wholl make rational choices. They are trying to delude people into making irrational choices. The same techniques that are used to undermine markets are used to undermine democracy. Its one of the major industries in the country and its basic workings are invisible. But what is it that really signifies this sacred word, this almost religious term, and this pinnacle of Western demagogy? We hear it everywhere. We are ready to sacrifice millions of lives (not ours of course, at least not yet, but definitely lives of the others) in the name of it. Democracy! All those grand slogans and propaganda! Last year I visited Pyongyang, but I have to testify that North Koreans are not as good at slogans as the Western propagandists are. In the name of freedom and democracy! Hundreds of millions tons of bombs fell from the sky on the Laotian, Cambodian and Vietnamese countryside bodies were burned by napalm, mutilated by spectacular explosions. Defending democracy! Children were raped in front of their parents in Central America, men and women machine-gunned down by death squads that had been trained in military bases in the United States of America. Civilizing the world and spreading democracy! That has always been a European slogan, their stuff to do, and a way of showing their great civilization to others. Amputating hands of Congolese people, murdering around ten million of them, and many more in Namibia, East Africa, West Africa and Algiers; gassing people of the Middle East (I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes, to borrow from the colorful lexicon of (Sir) Winston Churchill). So what is it really? Who is it, that strange lady with an axe in her hand and with a covered face the lady whose name is Democracy?The affs heralding of the democratic order is founded in a neoliberal lie that we live in a democracy at all neoliberalism has reappropriated the ideology of freedom and democracy for its own interests as radical dissent is destroyedGiroux 04 (Henry A., Global TV Network Chair Professor at McMaster University in the English and Cultural Studies Department and a Distinguished Visiting Professor at Ryerson University, Neoliberalism and the Demise of Democracy: Resurrecting Hope in Dark Times 8/7/04 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Aug04/Giroux0807.htm)///CWNeoliberalism has become one of the most pervasive, if not, dangerous ideologies of the 21st century. Its pervasiveness is evident not only by its unparalleled influence on the global economy, but also by its power to redefine the very nature of politics itself. Free market fundamentalism rather than democratic idealism is now the driving force of economics and politics in most of the world, and it is a market ideology driven not just by profits but by an ability to reproduce itself with such success that, to paraphrase Fred Jameson, it is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of neoliberal capitalism. Wedded to the belief that the market should be the organizing principle for all political, social, and economic decisions, neoliberalism wages an incessant attack on democracy, public goods, the welfare state, and non-commodified values. Under neoliberalism everything either is for sale or is plundered for profit. Public lands are looted by logging companies and corporate ranchers; politicians willingly hand the publics airwaves over to powerful broadcasters and large corporate interests without a dime going into the public trust; Halliburton gives war profiteering a new meaning as it is granted corporate contracts without any competitive bidding and then bilks the U.S. government for millions; the environment is polluted and despoiled in the name of profit-making just as the government passes legislation to make it easier for corporations to do so; public services are gutted in order to lower the taxes of major corporations; schools more closely resemble either malls or jails, and teachers are forced to get revenue for their school by hawking everything from hamburgers to pizza parties. As markets are touted as the driving force of everyday life, big government is disparaged as either incompetent or threatening to individual freedom, suggesting that power should reside in markets and corporations rather than in governments (except for their support for corporate interests and national security) and citizens. Under neoliberalism, the state now makes a grim alignment with corporate capital and transnational corporations. Gone are the days when the state assumed responsibility for a range of social needs. [1] Instead, agencies of government now pursues a wide range of deregulations, privatizations, and abdications of responsibility to the market and private philanthropy. [2] Deregulation, in turn, promotes widespread, systematic disinvestment in the nations basic productive capacity. [3] Flexible production encourages wage slavery and disposable populations at home. And the search for ever greater profits leads to outsourcing which accentuates the flight of capital and jobs abroad. Neoliberalism has now become the prevailing logic in the United States, and according to Stanley Aronowitz ...the neoliberal economic doctrine proclaiming the superiority of free markets over public ownership, or even public regulation of private economic activities, has become the conventional wisdom, not only among conservatives but among social progressives. [4] The ideology and power of neoliberalism also cuts across national boundaries. Throughout the globe, the forces of neoliberalism are on the march, dismantling the historically guaranteed social provisions provided by the welfare state, defining profit-making as the essence of democracy, and equating freedom with the unrestricted ability of markets to govern economic relations free of government regulation. [5] Transnational in scope, neoliberalism now imposes its economic regime and market values on developing and weaker nations through structural adjustment policies enforced by powerful financial institutions such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Trade Organization (WTO). Secure in its dystopian vision that there are no alternatives, as Englands former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher once put it, neoliberalism obviates issues of contingency, struggle, and social agency by celebrating the inevitability of economic laws in which the ethical ideal of intervening in the world gives way to the idea that we have no choice but to adapt both our hopes and our abilities to the new global market. [6] Coupled with a new culture of fear, market freedoms seem securely grounded in a defense of national security, capital, and property rights. When coupled with a media driven culture of fear and the everyday reality of insecurity, public space becomes increasingly militarized as state governments invest more in prison construction than in education. Prison guards and security personnel in public schools are two of the fastest growing professions. In its capacity to dehistoricize and depoliticize society, as well as in its aggressive attempts to destroy all of the public spheres necessary for the defense of a genuine democracy, neoliberalism reproduces the conditions for unleashing the most brutalizing forces of capitalism. Social Darwinism has been resurrected from the ashes of the 19th century sweatshops and can now be seen in full bloom in most reality TV programs and in the unfettered self-interests that now drives popular culture. As narcissism is replaced by unadulterated materialism, public concerns collapse into utterly private considerations and where public space does exist it is mainly used as a confessional for private woes, a cut throat game of winner take all, or a advertisement for consumerism. Neoliberal policies dominate the discourse of politics and use the breathless rhetoric of the global victory of free-market rationality to cut public expenditures and undermine those non-commodified public spheres that serve as the repository for critical education, language, and public intervention. Spewed forth by the mass media, right-wing intellectuals, religious fanatics, and politicians, neoliberal ideology, with its ongoing emphasis on deregulation and privatization, has found its material expression in an all-out attack on democratic values and on the very notion of the public sphere. Within the discourse of neoliberalism, the notion of the public good is devalued and, where possible, eliminated as part of a wider rationale for a handful of private interests to control as much of social life as possible in order to maximize their personal profit. Public services such as health care, child care, public assistance, education, and transportation are now subject to the rules of the market. Construing the public good as a private good and the needs of the corporate and private sector as the only source of investment, neoliberal ideology produces, legitimates, and exacerbates the existence of persistent poverty, inadequate health care, racial apartheid in the inner cities, and the growing inequalities between the rich and the poor. [7] As Stanley Aronowitz points out, the Bush administration has made neoliberal ideology the cornerstone of its program and has been in the forefront in actively supporting and implementing the following policies: [D]eregulation of business at all levels of enterprises and trade; tax reduction for wealthy individuals and corporations; the revival of the near-dormant nuclear energy industry; limitations and abrogation of labors right to organize and bargain collectively; a land policy favoring commercial and industrial development at the expense of conservation and other pro environment policies; elimination of income support to the chronically unemployed; reduced federal aid to education and health; privatization of the main federal pension programs, Social Security; limitation on the right of aggrieved individuals to sue employers and corporations who provide services; in addition, as social programs are reduced, [Republicans] are joined by the Democrats in favoring increases in the repressive functions of the state, expressed in the dubious drug wars in the name of fighting crime, more funds for surveillance of ordinary citizens, and the expansion of the federal and local police forces. [8] Central to both neoliberal ideology and its implementation by the Bush administration is the ongoing attempts by free-market fundamentalists and right wing politicians to view government as the enemy of freedom (except when it aids big business) and discount it as a guardian of the public interest. The call to eliminate big government is neoliberalisms great unifying idea and has broad popular appeal in the United States because it is a principle deeply embedded in the countrys history and tangled up with its notion of political freedom. And yet, the right wing appropriation of this tradition is racked with contradictions in terms of neoliberal policies. The advocates of neoliberalism have attacked what they call big government when it has provided essential services such as crucial safety nets for the less fortunate, but they have no qualms about using the government to bailout the airline industry after the economic nosedive that followed the 2000 election of George W. Bush and the events of 9/11. Nor are there any expressions of outrage from the cheerleaders of neoliberalism when the state engages in promoting various forms of corporate welfare by providing billions of dollars in direct and indirect subsidies to multinational corporations. In short, government bears no obligation for either the poor and dispossessed or for the collective future of young people. As the laws of the market take precedence over the laws of the state as guardians of the public good, the government increasingly offers little help in mediating the interface between the advance of capital and its rapacious commercial interests. Neither does it aid non-commodified interests and non-market spheres that create the political, economic, and social spaces and discursive conditions vital for critical citizenship and democratic public life. Within the discourse of neoliberalism, it becomes difficult for the average citizen to speak about political or social transformation, or to even challenge, outside of a grudging nod toward rampant corruption, the ruthless downsizing, the ongoing liquidation of job security, or the elimination of benefits for people now hired on part-time. The liberal democratic vocabulary of rights, entitlements, social provisions, community, social responsibility, living wage, job security, equality, and justice seem oddly out of place in a country where the promise of democracy has been replaced by casino capitalism, a winner-take-all philosophy, suited to lotto players and day traders alike. As corporate culture extends even deeper into the basic institutions of civil and political society, buttressed daily by a culture industry largely in the hands of concentrated capital, it is reinforced even further by the pervasive fear and insecurity of the public that the future holds nothing beyond a watered down version of the present. As the prevailing discourse of neoliberalism seizes the public imagination, there is no vocabulary for progressive social change, democratically inspired visions, or critical notions of social agency to expand the meaning and purpose of democratic public life. Against the reality of low wage jobs, the erosion of social provisions for a growing number of people and the expanding war against young people of color at home and empire-building abroad, the market-driven juggernaut of neoliberalism continues to mobilize desires in the interest of producing market identities and market relationships that ultimately sever the link between education and social change while reducing agency to the obligations of consumerism.Alt Card SpecificThe alternative is an embrace of radical democratic spaces the role of the judge is to be an educator who leads the movement absent the alternative a proto-facist corporatocracy will emerge that will crush true democracy forever and turn the caseGiroux 04 (Henry A., Global TV Network Chair Professor at McMaster University in the English and Cultural Studies Department and a Distinguished Visiting Professor at Ryerson University, Neoliberalism and the Demise of Democracy: Resurrecting Hope in Dark Times 8/7/04 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Aug04/Giroux0807.htm)///CWAs public space is increasingly commodified and the state becomes more closely aligned with capital, politics is defined largely by its policing functions rather than an agency for peace and social reform. As the state abandons its social investments in health, education, and the public welfare. It increasingly takes on the functions of an enhanced police or security state, the signs of which are most visible in the increasing use of the state apparatus to spy on and arrests its subjects, the incarceration of individuals coincided disposable (primarily people of color), and the ongoing criminalization of social policies. Examples of the latter include anti-begging ordinances and anti-loitering that fine or punish homeless people for sitting or lying down too long in public places. [11] An even more despicable example of the barbaric nature of neoliberalism with its emphasis on profits over people and its willingness to punish rather than serve the poor and disenfranchised can be seen in the growing tendency of many hospitals across the country to have patients arrested and jailed if they cannot pay their medical bills. The policy, right out of the pages of George Orwells 1984, represents a return to debtors prisons, which is now chillingly called body attachment, and is basically a warrant for... the patients arrest. [12] Neoliberalism is not simply an economic policy designed to cut government spending, pursue free trade policies, and free market forces from government regulations; it is also a political philosophy and ideology that effects every dimension of social life. Neoliberalism has heralded a radical economic, political, and experiential shift that now largely defines the citizen as a consumer, disbands the social contract in the interests of privatized considerations, and separates capital from the context of place. Under such circumstances, neoliberalism portends the death of politics as we know it, strips the social of its democratic values, and reconstructs agency in terms that are utterly privatized and provides the conditions for an emerging form of proto-fascism that must be resisted at all costs. Neoliberalism not only enshrines unbridled individualism, it also destroys any vestige of democratic society by undercutting its moral, material, and regulatory moorings, [13] and in doing so it offers no language for understanding how the future might be grasped outside of the narrow logic of the market. But there is even more at stake here than the obliteration of public concerns, the death of the social, the emergence of a market-based fundamentalism that undercuts the ability of people to understand how to translate the privately experienced misery into collective action, and the elimination of the gains of the welfare state. There is also the growing threat of displacing political sovereignty with the sovereignty of the market, as if the latter has a mind and morality of its own. [14] As democracy becomes a burden under the reign of neoliberalism, civic discourse disappears and the reign of unfettered social Darwinism with its survival-of-the-slickest philosophy emerges as the template for a new form of proto-fascism. None of this will happen in the face of sufficient resistance, nor is the increasing move toward proto-fascism inevitable, but the conditions exist for democracy to lose all semblance of meaning in the United States.. Educators, parents, activists, workers, and others can address this challenge by building local and global alliances and engaging in struggles that acknowledge and transcend national boundaries, but also engage in modes of politics that connect with peoples everyday lives. Democratic struggles cannot under emphasize the special responsibility of intellectuals to shatter the conventional wisdom and myths of neoliberalism with its stunted definition of freedom and its depoliticized and dehistoricized definition of its own alleged universality. As the late Pierre Bourdieu argued, any viable politics that challenges neoliberalism must refigure the role of the state in limiting the excesses of capital and providing important social provisions. [15] At the same time, social movements must address the crucial issue of education as it develops throughout the cultural sphere because the power of the dominant order is not just economic, but intellectuallying in the realm of beliefs, and it is precisely within the domain of ideas that a sense of utopian possibility can be restored to the public realm. [16] Most specifically, democracy necessitates forms of education that provide a new ethic of freedom and a reassertion of collective identity as central preoccupations of a vibrant democratic culture and society. Such a task, in part, suggests that intellectuals, artists, unions, and other progressive movements create teach-ins all over the country in order to name, critique, and connect the forces of market fundamentalism to the war at home and abroad, the shameful tax cuts for the rich, the dismantling of the welfare state, the attack on unions, the erosion of civil liberties, the incarceration of a generation of young black and brown men, the attack on public schools, and the growing militarization of public life. As Bushs credibility crisis is growing, the time has come to link the matters of economics with the crisis of political culture, and to connect the latter to the crisis of democracy itself. We need a new language for politics, for analyzing where it can take place, and what it means to mobilize alliances of workers, intellectuals, academics, journalists, youth groups, and others to reclaim, as Cornel West has aptly put it, hope in dark times.Democracy GoodDisease ModuleDisease ModuleDemocracy is a prerequisite to effectively combatting diseaseRuger 05, (Jennifer Prah, Democracy and health. Harvard University, PhD, Health Policy. Yale University, MSL, Law. Oxford University, MSc, Comparative Social Research. Tufts University, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, MA, International Relations. (Qualified as hell) http://qjmed.oxfordjournals.org/content/qjmed/98/4/299.full.pdfDemocratic institutions and practices can affect human development in multiple ways, including population health and well-being. The absence of democracy, in particular, can have deleterious affects on health, as the 19581961 Chinese famine and the 2003 SARS outbreak demonstrate. These case studies highlight factors that are essential for preventing a full-scale HIV/AIDS epidemic in China: new and better standards of public accountability; an international imperative to cooperate globally to ensure health; freely available information, especially about disease prevention, control, and treatment; protection of individual rights and freedom of assembly, association and expression; and the ability to voice complaints and opposition. By instituting these rights in a timely fashion, China may be able to contain the HIV/AIDS epidemic before it loses millions of its citizens to yet another public health tragedy.

Diseases causes extinctionDUJS 09, (Dartmouth Undergraduate Journal of Science, Human Extinction: The Uncertainty of Our Fate, http://dujs.dartmouth.edu/spring-2009/human-extinction-the-uncertainty-of-our-fate)RIP Homo sapiens A pandemic will kill off all humans. In the past, humans have indeed fallen victim to viruses. Perhaps the best-known case was the bubonic plague that killed up to one third of the European population in the mid-14th century (7). While vaccines have been developed for the plague and some other infectious diseases, new viral strains are constantly emerging a process that maintains the possibility of a pandemic-facilitated human extinction. Some surveyed students mentioned AIDS as a potential pandemic-causing virus. It is true that scientists have been unable thus far to find a sustainable cure for AIDS, mainly due to HIVs rapid and constant evolution. Specifically, two factors account for the viruss abnormally high mutation rate: 1. HIVs use of reverse transcriptase, which does not have a proof-reading mechanism, and 2. the lack of an error-correction mechanism in HIV DNA polymerase (8). Luckily, though, there are certain characteristics of HIV that make it a poor candidate for a large-scale global infection: HIV can lie dormant in the human body for years without manifesting itself, and AIDS itself does not kill directly, but rather through the weakening of the immune system. However, for more easily transmitted viruses such as influenza, the evolution of new strains could prove far more consequential. The simultaneous occurrence of antigenic drift (point mutations that lead to new strains) and antigenic shift (the inter-species transfer of disease) in the influenza virus could produce a new version of influenza for which scientists may not immediately find a cure. Since influenza can spread quickly, this lag time could potentially lead to a global influenza pandemic, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (9). The most recent scare of this variety came in 1918 when bird flu managed to kill over 50 million people around the world in what is sometimes referred to as the Spanish flu pandemic. Perhaps even more frightening is the fact that only 25 mutations were required to convert the original viral strain which could only infect birds into a human-viable strain (10).Famine ModuleFamine ModuleDemocracy solves famineLynn-Jones 98 (Sean Lynn-Jones is editor of the Harvard Internal Security Programs quarterly journal and of the programs book series, the Belfer Center Studies in International Security. He is a member of the Editorial Board of Security Studies. Why the United States Should Spread Democracy March 1998 http://live.belfercenter.org/publication/2830/why_the_united_states_should_spread_democracy.html?breadcrumb=%2Fpublication%2F25468%2Fcan_a_us_deal_force_iran_to_fess_up_to_the_military_dimensions_of_its_nuke_program)///CWFourth, the United States should spread democracy because the citizens of democracies do not suffer from famines. The economist Amartya Sen concludes that "one of the remarkable facts in the terrible history of famine is that no substantial famine has ever occurred in a country with a democratic form of government and a relatively free press."43 This striking empirical regularity has been overshadowed by the apparent existence of a "democratic peace" (see below), but it provides a powerful argument for promoting democracy. Although this claim has been most closely identified with Sen, other scholars who have studied famines and hunger reach similar conclusions. Joseph Collins, for example, argues that: "Wherever political rights for all citizens truly flourish, people will see to it that, in due course, they share in control over economic resources vital to their survival. Lasting food security thus requires real and sustained democracy."44 Most of the countries that have experienced severe famines in recent decades have been among the world's least democratic: the Soviet Union (Ukraine in the early 1930s), China, Ethiopia, Somalia, Cambodia and Sudan. Throughout history, famines have occurred in many different types of countries, but never in a democracy. Democracies do not experience famines for two reasons. First, in democracies governments are accountable to their populations and their leaders have electoral incentives to prevent mass starvation. The need to be reelected impels politicians to ensure that their people do not starve. As Sen points out, "the plight of famine victims is easy to politicize" and "the effectiveness of democracy in the prevention of famine has tended to depend on the politicization of the plight of famine victims, through the process of public discussion, which generates political solidarity."45 On the other hand, authoritarian and totalitarian regimes are not accountable to the public; they are less likely to pay a political price for failing to prevent famines. Moreover, authoritarian and totalitarian rulers often have political incentives to use famine as a means of exterminating their domestic opponents. Second, the existence of a free press and the free flow of information in democracies prevents famine by serving as an early warning system on the effects of natural catastrophes such as floods and droughts that may cause food scarcities. A free press that criticizes government policies also can publicize the true level of food stocks and reveal problems of distribution that might cause famines even when food is plentiful.46 Inadequate information has contributed to several famines. During the 1958-61 famine in China that killed 20-30 million people, the Chinese authorities overestimated the country's grain reserves by 100 million metric tons. This disaster later led Mao Zedong to concede that "Without democracy, you have no understanding of what is happening down below."47 The 1974 Bangladesh famine also could have been avoided if the government had had better information. The food supply was high, but floods, unemployment, and panic made it harder for those in need to obtain food.48 The two factors that prevent famines in democracies-electoral incentives and the free flow of information-are likely to be present even in democracies that do not have a liberal political culture. These factors exist when leaders face periodic elections and when the press is free to report information that might embarrass the government. A full-fledged liberal democracy with guarantees of civil liberties, a relatively free economic market, and an independent judiciary might be even less likely to suffer famines, but it appears that the rudiments of electoral democracy will suffice to prevent famines. The ability of democracies to avoid famines cannot be attributed to any tendency of democracies to fare better economically. Poor democracies as well as rich ones have not had famines. India, Botswana, and Zimbabwe have avoided famines, even when they have suffered large crop shortfalls. In fact, the evidence suggests that democracies can avoid famines in the face of large crop failures, whereas nondemocracies plunge into famine after smaller shortfalls. Botswana's food production fell by 17% and Zimbabwe's by 38% between 1979-81 and 1983-84, whereas Sudan and Ethiopia saw a decline in food production of 11-12% during the same period. Sudan and Ethiopia, which were nondemocracies, suffered major famines, whereas the democracies of Botswana and Zimbabwe did not.49 If, as I have argued, democracies enjoy better long-run economic performance than nondemocracies, higher levels of economic development may help democracies to avoid famines. But the absence of famines in new, poor democracies suggests that democratic governance itself is sufficient to prevent famines. The case of India before and after independence provides further evidence that democratic rule is a key factor in preventing famines. Prior to independence in 1947, India suffered frequent famines. Shortly before India became independent, the Bengal famine of 1943 killed 2-3 million people. Since India became independent and democratic, the country has suffered severe crop failures and food shortages in 1968, 1973, 1979, and 1987, but it has never suffered a famine.50 B. 2AC Democracy Solves FamineDemocracies stop famine Massing 2003 (Does Democracy Avert Famine? By MICHAEL MASSING March 1, 2003 Saturday)few scholars have left more of a mark on the field of development economics than Amartya Sen. The winner of the 1998 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science, Mr. Sen has changed the way economists think about such issues as collective decision-making, welfare economics and measuring poverty. He has pioneered the use of economic tools to highlight gender inequality, and he helped the United Nations devise its Human Development Index -- today the most widely used measure of how well nations meet basic social needs. More than anything, though, Mr. Sen is known for his work on famine. Just as Adam Smith is associated with the phrase "invisible hand" and Joseph Schumpeter with "creative destruction," Mr. Sen is famous for his assertion that famines do not occur in democracies. "No famine has ever taken place in the history of the world in a functioning democracy," he wrote in "Democracy as Freedom" (Anchor, 1999). This, he explained, is because democratic governments "have to win elections and face public criticism, and havestrong incentive to undertake measures to avert famines and other catastrophes." This proposition, advanced in a host of books and articles, has shaped the thinking of a generation of policy makers, scholars and relief workers who deal with famine.Democracy will prevent famineMargot Norman 95 (Famine has no place in a democracy Margot Norman March 13, 1995, Monday)She could have started by quoting Amartya Sen, an Indian professor whose years of work on the causes of starvation led him to this conclusion: ''There has never been a famine in any country that's been a democracy with a relatively free press. I know of no exception. It applies to very poor countries with democratic systems as well as rich ones.'' The point, he went on, was that ''if famine is about to develop, democracy can guarantee that it won't''. She could have gone on to say that there has been no famine in India since independence despite a steadily rising population and severe food shortages in 1967, 1973, 1979 and 1987. She could have contrasted democratic India's situation with that of totalitarian China, where it was acts of ideological man, not of God, that caused 30 million people to starve between 1958 and 1961. The hunger was caused by politicians whom their suffering people were unable to call to account.Econ. Module1ACDemocracy increases economic growth and stability-most comprehensive studySmith 1-22(Noah Smith, 1-22-15, Prof. at Stony Brook University, Bloomberg View, Democracy Is Good for Business, http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-01-22/democracy-is-good-for-business, Accessed 6-26-15, AA)

But is it correlation, or causation? Does democracy actually make countries richer, or is democracy merely a luxury in which rich countries can indulge? This question is hard to answer. For one thing, countries only get rich once, and democracies usually only become democratic once or twice. Also, there are lots of other things about countries that might cause wealth, democracy or both. Although we will never know the answer for sure, a top team of economists has done what is just about the most careful study that is humanly possible. MIT economist Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson of Harvard, famous for the idea that inclusive institutions are the key to national development, teamed up with Suresh Naidu and Pascual Restrepo to tackle the problem. They use a large number of different statistical techniques to examine the effect of democratizations. They also use an alternate technique, where they look at waves of democratization. All of the methods give the same answer: Democracy increases gross domestic product by about 20 percent in the long run. That isn't a huge number -- almost certainly less than democracys proponents would like. But its not nothing, either. It turns out that Viktor Orban is wrong; authoritarianism probably wont help his country get rich, though it wont doom Hungary either. Acemoglu and company also examine the question of how democracy boosts growth. They find that countries with democracy have better government -- they pursue more economic reforms, provide more schooling, provide more public goods and reduce social unrest. They also find, contrary to many who have been following Chinas story, that business investment is higher in democracies. Now, that isn't a definitive, final answer. We may never have one -- or at least, not for hundreds of years. Maybe democracies have done well in the last century simply because they could trade with, and be protected by, the U.S. -- the richest and most powerful country around. Perhaps now that China, by dint of its sheer size, is wresting the crown away from the U.S., we will see things reverse. We cant yet rule that out. But the institutional improvements that Acemoglu et al. find suggest that the reasons go deeper into the structure of society. These observations match the theory of New York University political scientist Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, who hypothesizes that in democracies, there are too many voters to pay off with cronyism, forcing leaders to provide more public goods like education, infrastructure and property rights. Our best guess is that democracy really is the best form of government currently available. There is also the question, however, of whether democracy will survive. Some critics of democracy observe that humanity spent a very long time under some kind of authoritarian rule, such as monarchies or military dictatorships, while democracy is only a recent innovation. But economists Toke Aidt, Raphael Franck, Peter Jensen, and Gabriel Leon recently did a study that found that since the early 1800s, revolution, or the threat of revolution, has tended to nudge countries toward democracy. If this study is to be believed, it means that democracy is a more stable configuration for a society than autocracy in the modern, industrial age. Just as a tower of blocks tends to fall over when shaken, autocracies tend to turn into democracies when the system is disturbed. This clearly wasnt the case before the Industrial Revolution, so democracy is best seen as an adaptation to the new technological environment. Not only is democracy good for business, it's here to stay unless the world undergoes some other dramatic shift on the scale of the Industrial Revolution. Viktor Orban, and even Chinas mighty Communist Party, really do seem to be on the wrong side of history.

Econ decline escalates Harris and Burrows, 9 *counselor in the National Intelligence Council, the principal drafter of Global Trends 2025, **member of the NICs Long Range Analysis Unit Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis, Washington Quarterly, http://www.twq.com/09april/docs/09apr_burrows.pdf)Increased Potential for Global ConflictOf course, the report encompasses more than economics and indeed believes the future is likely to be the result of a number of intersecting and interlocking forces. With so many possible permutations of outcomes, each with ample opportunity for unintended consequences, there is a growing sense of insecurity. Even so, history may be more instructive than ever. While we continue to believe that the Great Depression is not likely to be repeated, the lessons to be drawn from that period include the harmful effects on fledgling democracies and multiethnic societies (think Central Europe in 1920s and 1930s) and on the sustainability of multilateral institutions (think League of Nations in the same period). There is no reason to think that this would not be true in the twenty-first as much as in the twentieth century. For that reason, the ways in which the potential for greater conflict could grow would seem to be even more apt in a constantly volatile economic environment as they would be if change would be steadier.In surveying those risks, the report stressed the likelihood that terrorism and nonproliferation will remain priorities even as resource issues move up on the international agenda. Terrorisms appeal will decline if economic growth continues in the Middle East and youth unemployment is reduced. For those terrorist groups that remain active in 2025, however, the diffusion of technologies and scientific knowledge will place some of the worlds most dangerous capabilities within their reach. Terrorist groups in 2025 will likely be a combination of descendants of long established groups inheriting organizational structures, command and control processes, and training procedures necessary to conduct sophisticated attacks and newly emergent collections of the angry and disenfranchised that become self-radicalized, particularly in the absence of economic outlets that would become narrower in an economic downturn.The most dangerous casualty of any economically-induced drawdown of U.S. military presence would almost certainly be the Middle East. Although Irans acquisition of nuclear weapons is not inevitable, worries about a nuclear-armed Iran could lead states in the region to develop new security arrangements with external powers, acquire additional weapons, and consider pursuing their own nuclear ambitions. It is not clear that the type of stable deterrent relationship that existed between the great powers for most of the Cold War would emerge naturally in the Middle East with a nuclear Iran. Episodes of low intensity conflict and terrorism taking place under a nuclear umbrella could lead to an unintended escalation and broader conflict if clear red lines between those states involved are not well established. The close proximity of potential nuclear rivals combined with underdeveloped surveillance capabilities and mobile dual-capable Iranian missile systems also will produce inherent difficulties in achieving reliable indications and warning of an impending nuclear attack. The lack of strategic depth in neighboring states like Israel, short warning and missile flight times, and uncertainty of Iranian intentions may place more focus on preemption rather than defense, potentially leading to escalating crises.Types of conflict that the world continues to experience, such as over resources, could reemerge, particularly if protectionism grows and there is a resort to neo-mercantilist practices. Perceptions of renewed energy scarcity will drive countries to take actions to assure their future access to energy supplies. In the worst case, this could result in interstate conflicts if government leaders deem assured access to energy resources, for example, to be essential for maintaining domestic stability and the survival of their regime. Even actions short of war, however, will have important geopolitical implications. Maritime security concerns are providing a rationale for naval buildups and modernization efforts, such as Chinas and Indias development of blue water naval capabilities. If the fiscal stimulus focus for these countries indeed turns inward, one of the most obvious funding targets may be military. Buildup of regional naval capabilities could lead to increased tensions, rivalries, and counterbalancing moves, but it also will create opportunities for multinational cooperation in protecting critical sea lanes. With water also becoming scarcer in Asia and the Middle East, cooperation to manage changing water resources is likely to be increasingly difficult both within and between states in a more dog-eat-dog world.2AC Democracy -> GrowthDemocracy has a positive relationship with economic growthZouhaier and Karim 12(Hadhek Superior Institut of Gestion (ISG) of Gabs- Tunisia, Kefi Mohamed ISTEC Business School, Paris, France., 2012, Democracy, Investment and Economic Growth, International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, Volume: 2 Number 3, page # 223-240, AA)In this research project, I have tried to make a contribution to solve the fundamental question: Is there any link between a countrys democracy, investment, and the economic performances that it achieves? To this end, we employed a dynamic panel data model covering a sample of 11 countries from the MENA region during the period 2000-2009. After studying the relationship between democracy and economic growth, and the democracy and the investment, an interactive variable has been introduced in order to test the effect of the political institutions (democracy) on these countries investment productivity. The main findings derived from this empirical analysis reveal the following: - A positive impact of democracy on investment. - A positive effect of civil liberties on economic growth. -A positive interaction between political rights and investment. Generally speaking, the heterogeneous results in terms of link between institutional factors and economic growth which have been reached by the empirical tests carried out within the framework of this research reinforce the conclusion achieved by the empirical literature of the subject; that a clear relationship between the institutional sphere and the economic sphere is far from being found. The census done by Borner et al. (1995) falls within this same framework, since among all the studies done to test this relationship, they registered three empirical studies leading to a positive relationship, three going in the opposite direction, and ten which identify no conclusive relationship between democracy and economic growth. To conclude, these analyses have permitted, though in part, to show that there exists a relationship between democracy and the economic performances and to detect certain essential channels through which may transit the effects of the political institutions on the performances of the countries as regards economic growth.Environment Module1ACDemocracy is key to checking Climate ChangeFredriksson and Neumayer, Department of Economics, University of Louisville, and London School of Economics, Department of Geography & Environment and Grantham Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, November 2013(Per G. and Eric, Democracy and climate change policies: Is history important?, Ecological Economics)While the theories discussed above focus on the policy effects of the current level of democracy, they are still relevant for our empirical investigation which focuses on the stock of democratic capital. Today's environmental policies are the result of numerous historical institutional and policy choices, all influenced by the level of democracy at the time. Different historical experiences with democracy are likely to lead to different policy outcomes, as previous decisions form the base for subsequent choices. Our measure of democratic capital takes this historical process into account. Moreover, our measure helps capture transitions between democracy and autocracy which are by themselves likely to be detrimental to building the institutions needed to produce global public goods. It may also take time for environmental policy to become a focus of the democratic process. In countries such as Serbia and Sierra Leone with high values of current democracy but with limited histories of democracy, the democratic and electoral process may not have had enough time to focus on a secondary policy (List and Sturm, 2006) such as environmental policy.3 Only over time will voters and environmental interest groups (needing time to organize) pressure politicians to start formulating appropriate institutions and policies. One channel through which the democratic capital stock may affect environmental policy is by raising expectations that the country will be a stable democracy in the future (Persson and Tabellini, 2009). Persson and Tabellini report that the probability of a currently democratic country remaining democratic increases with a larger democratic capital stock, and that democratic capital raises economic growth (indirectly, by increasing stability).4 Persson and Tabellini argue that a virtuous circle exists where the accumulation of democratic and physical capital reinforces each other. Thus, democratic capital may actually help drive the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) relationship documented in the literature (Dinda, 2004 and Fosten et al., 2012). Second, an expectation of continued stable democracy may also result in advocates for environmental policies having a greater incentive to fight for reform because their influence will continue in the future. Third, an expectation of continued democracy increases the time horizon of politicians and political parties. This matters for environmental policymaking where costs occur earlier than the benefits, especially for climate change policies. If democracy is more likely to prevail, democratic parties and their constituent groups are more likely to benefit from implemented environmental policies in the future.5 Fourth, if polluting industries have higher expectations that the country will remain democratic it may be relatively less beneficial to wait with investment in pollution control technology and to lobby against regulations. Fifth, competitive leadership selection processes in democracies are likely to yield more competent leaders (Besley and Reynal-Querol, 2011).6 Since environmental policies are generally built slowly over time, a history of competent leaders influences policy outcomes positively.

Biodiversity loss leads to extinctionCoyne and Hoekstra, professor at the University of Chicago in the Department of Ecology and Evolution, Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology in the Museum of Comparative Zoology Professor of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology Professor of Molecular and Cellular Biology Curator of Mammals in the Museum of Comparative Zoology Harvard College Professor Howard Hughes Medical Institute Investigator, September 24 2007(Jerry and Hopi, The Greatest Dying, The New Republic)Aside from the Great Dying, there have been four other mass extinctions, all of which severely pruned life's diversity. Scientists agree that we're now in the midst of a sixth such episode. This new one, however, is different - and, in many ways, much worse. For, unlike earlier extinctions, this one results from the work of a single species, Homo sapiens. We are relentlessly taking over the planet, laying it to waste and eliminating most of our fellow species. Moreover, we're doing it much faster than the mass extinctions that came before. Every year, up to 30,000 species disappear due to human activity alone. At this rate, we could lose half of Earth's species in this century. And, unlike with previous extinctions, there's no hope that biodiversity will ever recover, since the cause of the decimation - us - is here to stay. To scientists, this is an unparalleled calamity, far more severe than global warming, which is, after all, only one of many threats to biodiversity. Yet global warming gets far more press. Why? One reason is that, while the increase in temperature is easy to document, the decrease of species is not. Biologists don't know, for example, exactly how many species exist on Earth. Estimates range widely, from three million to more than 50 million, and that doesn't count microbes, critical (albeit invisible) components of ecosystems. We're not certain about the rate of extinction, either; how could we be, since the vast majority of species have yet to be described? We're even less sure how the loss of some species will affect the ecosystems in which they're embedded, since the intricate connection between organisms means that the loss of a single species can ramify unpredictably. But we do know some things. Tropical rainforests are disappearing at a rate of 2 percent per year. Populations of most large fish are down to only 10 percent of what they were in 1950. Many primates and all the great apes - our closest relatives - are nearly gone from the wild. And we know that extinction and global warming act synergistically. Extinction exacerbates global warming: By burning rainforests, we're not only polluting the atmosphere with carbon dioxide (a major greenhouse gas) but destroying the very plants that can remove this gas from the air. Conversely, global warming increases extinction, both directly (killing corals) and indirectly (destroying the habitats of Arctic and Antarctic animals). As extinction increases, then, so does global warming, which in turn causes more extinction - and so on, into a downward spiral of destruction. Why, exactly, should we care? Let's start with the most celebrated case: the rainforests. Their loss will worsen global warming - raising temperatures, melting icecaps, and flooding coastal cities. And, as the forest habitat shrinks, so begins the inevitable contact between organisms that have not evolved together, a scenario played out many times, and one that is never good. Dreadful diseases have successfully jumped species boundaries, with humans as prime recipients. We have gotten aids from apes, sars from civets, and Ebola from fruit bats. Additional worldwide plagues from unknown microbes are a very real possibility. But it isn't just the destruction of the rainforests that should trouble us. Healthy ecosystems the world over provide hidden services like waste disposal, nutrient cycling, soil formation, water purification, and oxygen production. Such services are best rendered by ecosystems that are diverse. Yet, through both intention and accident, humans have introduced exotic species that turn biodiversity into monoculture. Fast-growing zebra mussels, for example, have outcompeted more than 15 species of native mussels in North America's Great Lakes and have damaged harbors and water-treatment plants. Native prairies are becoming dominated by single species (often genetically homogenous) of corn or wheat. Thanks to these developments, soils will erode and become unproductive - which, along with temperature change, will diminish agricultural yields. Meanwhile, with increased pollution and runoff, as well as reduced forest cover, ecosystems will no longer be able to purify water; and a shortage of clean water spells disaster. In many ways, oceans are the most vulnerable areas of all. As overfishing eliminates major predators, while polluted and warming waters kill off phytoplankton, the intricate aquatic food web could collapse from both sides. Fish, on which so many humans depend, will be a fond memory. As phytoplankton vanish, so does the ability of the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide and produce oxygen. (Half of the oxygen we breathe is made by phytoplankton, with the rest coming from land plants.) Species extinction is also imperiling coral reefs - a major problem since these reefs have far more than recreational value: They provide tremendous amounts of food for human populations and buffer coastlines against erosion. In fact, the global value of "hidden" services provided by ecosystems - those services, like waste disposal, that aren't bought and sold in the marketplace - has been estimated to be as much as $50 trillion per year, roughly equal to the gross domestic product of all countries combined. And that doesn't include tangible goods like fish and timber. Life as we know it would be impossible if ecosystems collapsed. Yet that is where we're heading if species extinction continues at its current pace. Extinction also has a huge impact on medicine. Who really cares if, say, a worm in the remote swamps of French Guiana goes extinct? Well, those who suffer from cardiovascular disease. The recent discovery of a rare South American leech has led to the isolation of a powerful enzyme that, unlike other anticoagulants, not only prevents blood from clotting but also dissolves existing clots. And it's not just this one species of worm: Its wriggly relatives have evolved other biomedically valuable proteins, including antistatin (a potential anticancer agent), decorsin and ornatin (platelet aggregation inhibitors), and hirudin (another anticoagulant). Plants, too, are pharmaceutical gold mines. The bark of trees, for example, has given us quinine (the first cure for malaria), taxol (a drug highly effective against ovarian and breast cancer), and aspirin. More than a quarter of the medicines on our pharmacy shelves were originally derived from plants. The sap of the Madagascar periwinkle contains more than 70 useful alkaloids, including vincristine, a powerful anticancer drug that saved the life of one of our friends. Of the roughly 250,000 plant species on Earth, fewer than 5 percent have been screened for pharmaceutical properties. Who knows what life-saving drugs remain to be discovered? Given current extinction rates, it's estimated that we're losing one valuable drug every two years. Our arguments so far have tacitly assumed that species are worth saving only in proportion to their economic value and their effects on our quality of life, an attitude that is strongly ingrained, especially in Americans. That is why conservationists always base their case on an economic calculus. But we biologists know in our hearts that there are deeper and equally compelling reasons to worry about the loss of biodiversity: namely, simple morality and intellectual values that transcend pecuniary interests. What, for example, gives us the right to destroy other creatures? And what could be more thrilling than looking around us, seeing that we are surrounded by our evolutionary cousins, and realizing that we all got here by the same simple process of natural selection? To biologists, and potentially everyone else, apprehending the genetic kinship and common origin of all species is a spiritual experience - not necessarily religious, but spiritual nonetheless, for it stirs the soul. But, whether or not one is moved by such concerns, it is certain that our future is bleak if we do nothing to stem this sixth extinction. We are creating a world in which exotic diseases flourish but natural medicinal cures are lost; a world in which carbon waste accumulates while food sources dwindle; a world of sweltering heat, failing crops, and impure water. In the end, we must accept the possibility that we ourselves are not immune to extinction. Or, if we survive, perhaps only a few of us will remain, scratching out a grubby existence on a devastated planet. Global warming will seem like a secondary problem when humanity finally faces the consequences of what we have done to nature: not just another Great Dying, but perhaps the greatest dying of them all.2AC Yes Environment DestructionComprehensive study concludes species extinction rate is going upUrban, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut, May 1 2015(Mark C., Accelerating extinction risk from climate change, Science (New York, N.Y.) [2015, 348(6234):571-573], pg1Overall, 7.9% of species are predicted to become extinct from climate change; (95% CIs, 6.2 and 9.8) (Fig. 1). Results were robust to model type, weighting scheme, statistical method, potential publication bias, and missing studies (fig. S1 and table S2) (6). This proportion supports an estimate from a 5-year synthesis of studies (7). Its divergence from individual studies (14) can be explained by their specific assumptions and taxonomic and geographic foci. These differences provide the opportunity to understand how divergent factors and assumptions influence extinction risk from climate change. The factor that best explained variation in extinction risk was the level of future climate change. The future global extinction risk from climate change is predicted not only to increase but to accelerate as global temperatures rise (regression coefficient = 0.53; CIs, 0.46 and 0.61) (Fig. 2). Global extinction risks increase from 2.8% at present to 5.2% at the international policy target of a 2C post-industrial rise, which most experts believe is no longer achievable (8). If the Earth warms to 3C, the extinction risk rises to 8.5%. If we follow our current, businessas-usual trajectory [representative concentration pathway (RCP) 8.5; 4.3C rise], climate change threatens one in six species (16%). Results were robust to alternative data transformations and were bracketed by models with liberal and conservative extinction thresholds (figs. S2 and S3 and table S3). Regions also differed significantly in extinction risk (DDIC = 12.6) (Fig. 3 and table S4). North America and Europe were characterized by the lowest risks (5 and 6%, respectively), and South America (23%) and Australia and New Zealand (14%) were characterized by the highest risks. These latter regions face noanalog climates (9) and harbor diverse assemblages of endemic species with small ranges. Extinction risks in Australia and New Zealand are further exacerbated by small land masses that limit shifts to new habitat (10). Poorly studied regions might face higher risks, but insights are limited without more research (for example, only four studies in Asia). Currently, most predictions (60%) center on North America and Europe, suggesting a need to refocus efforts toward less studied and more threatened regions. Genocide ModuleGenocide ModuleDemocracy averts genocide and enforces human rightsHamburg 10, (David A., Recent advances in preventing mass violence. President Emeritus at Carnegie Corporation of New York, previously President of the Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences and President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, previously chair of the department of psychiatry at Stanford, M.D. from Indiana University.)Prevention of deadly conflict starts with the recognition of the immense dangers of egregious, pervasive human rights violations, typically enforced in repressive states. Such violations lead toward ethnic, religious, and international wars as well as genocide. Sooner or later, these atrocities must be prevented, and bad outcomes averted, by promoting democracy, equitable economies, and the creation of strong civil institutions that protect human rights. Prevention is not simply smoothing over a rough spot in intergroup or international relationsit requires creating a durable basis for peaceful conditions of living together, especially by protecting the human rights of all the people through clear norms and effective, humane institutions.

Genocide destabilizes regional powers - triggers nuclear war and extinctionMawdsley 8, (Christy, Texas A&M U. An Interest in Intervention: A Moral Argument for Darfur. http://asq.africa.ufl.edu/files/Mawdsley-Vol10Issue1.pdf)Scholars and policymakers who propose that international stability is not relevant to U.S. national interests misunderstand the very nature of a globalized world. A globalized world, by definition, is one that entails aggregated systems of all types: economic, communications, transportation, ecological, and others. International stability levels have the potential to feed in to each one of these systems, thereby affecting American quality of life either positively or negatively (albeit to varying degrees). Genocide and similar atrocities have historically shown to have destabilizing effects. Because of globalization, this may have an (indirect or direct) negative effect on the American national interest. In the Darfur genocide, for instance, millions of refugees have fled over the SudaneseChadian border into Chad, contributing to higher monetary and resource costs for the already poor government of Chad. The humanitarian crisis that has ensued in both Chad and Sudan divert resources from important areas in need of funding such as education, the fight against the HIV/AIDS epidemic, and economic development. In a world of independent nations, U.S. policymakers could write this off as irrelevant to the national interest. But in a globalized world, airplanes cross borders thousands of times a day, and the U.S. imports goods and resources from hundreds of nations, and nuclear weapons can be launched from one continent and hit another. Though these impacts might be irrelevant in the Darfur genocide, they might become far more relevant in a future genocide in a more strategically-relevant location. Ideas and products flow freely in this age, and it is certainly in the U.S. national interest to prevent the spread of the instability caused by genocide in our globalized world. What makes an activist approach when faced with genocide or similar events far more compelling is the argument that action is not only consistent with U.S. interests but also with U.S. values. Values are important because, in a multi-cultural, multi-lingual, multi-ethnic country such as the United States, they are precisely what bring American citizens together as a nation. The values upheld in the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Constitution are the glue that gives American people a shared identity. They are thus of immense weight in U.S. survival as a nation. Our values should be upheld consistently both in domestic and foreign policy. An inconsistent application of our values in the broadest sense will lead to an erosion of the strength of the United States as a common nation as values are indeed the foundation.

We have an ethical obligation to combat human rights violations - they are a-priori issuesFasterling and Demuijnck 13, (Bjorn Fasterling, Law professor at Edhec Business School, Bjrn Fasterling holds both German Law degrees, Ph.D. in Law, from the University of Osnabrck (2001). Geert Demuijnck, Professor of business ethics, economic ethics and political philosophy. PhD in Philosophy from the University of Leuven. Human Rights in the Void? Due Diligence in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.)Despite the fact that some human rights violations may be much more severe than others, and despite the fact that it may be difficult to draw a very precise line between what we usually call human rights violations (with the dimension of official disrespect) and ordinary crimes committed by individuals, the common thread here is that we are talking about situations in which peoples fundamental, i.e. intrinsically valid, moral rights have been violated. Intrinsic validity relates to two ideas: first, no reference to whatever prevailing legal framework can justify the violation, and second, no consideration of another nature (economic interest or moral particularism) either. For instance, the right not to have ones life taken directly as a means to any further end can be qualified as an exceptionless, absolute human right (Finnis 1980, p. 225). A consequence of this is that only trade-offs between different human rights violations are acceptable, not between human rights violations and other considerations. There may be a conflict between freedom of expression and the principle of non-discrimination (should we accept racist opinions in the public sphere?) but we cannot weigh up a human right against an economic interest. For example, it is pointless to calculate whether the economic interest of the alleged complicity of Shell in the execution of the Nigerian author Ken Saro-Wiwa3 exceeds the 15.5 million dollars they paid for a settlement of this case on the eve of a trial in New York. It was inacceptable to kill Ken Saro-Wiwa, whatever the profit Shell could make by being complicit in this killing. It may be helpful to formulate the exceptionless and absolute character of human rights in the vocabulary of moral obligations. Human rights, understood as fundamental moral rights of humans qua humans, necessarily imply perfect duties, i.e. duties admitting no exception in favour of inclination to refrain from acting on it. Perfect duties have to be fulfilled to the fullest extent possible (Kant 2002/1785, pp. 2425).Human RightsHR ModuleDemocracy assures human rightsThe New Nation 13(Human rights suffer where democracy fails The New Nation (Bangladesh) May 17, 2013 Friday)Dhaka, May 17 -- A Bangladeshi human rights activist of international fame Ms Irene has written a touching piece on recent tragic violation of human rights in Bangladesh under the caption 'Lost rights, Lost lives' in the Herald Tribune of America this Wednesday. She narrated the most tragic incident causing death to hundreds of poorly paid women garment workers, who in her words, contribute most in bringing vital resources to the country. They lost their lives in appallingly unsafe conditions resulted from callous neglect. In the context of the so many loss of lives at Savar, she saw it as an irony that the extremist Islamists, Hefazat-e-Islam, demanded free mixing of men and women to be banned. Feeling disconcerted, Ms Irene has noted that in a country where for more than a decade two women "swapped the political leadership back and forth" there is so much indifference to securing women's human rights. For easy abuse of police power human rights of all of us are violated every other way also. Politically motivated police cases are rampant and human rights are violated when the bail is denied and persons are sent into police custody, called police remand. What Ms Irene has said about the young bloggers should be seen as very incisive. Referring to their demand of death penalty for the accused of war crimes she told them: It does not occur to them that human rights apply as much to the guilty as the innocent; that even the worst perpetrator deserves due process of law. Ms Irene quite fairly discussed some of the contradictions in the politics of the party in power as well as the opposition. But taken as a whole her commentary is about expressing anxiety for labour rights, women rights and political rights in the broader context of human rights and how these rights feed into each other. And the question she has rightly asked is whether Bangladesh has the vision, courage and the political will to keep its commitment to human rights as it expounded during the liberation war in 1971. It is a forceful argument deserving a forceful answer. What is absent in the whole article of her's is any reference as to the importance of democracy as an expression of political will to uphold human rights. Our liberation war was most emphatically about democracy and democratic process for making freedom meaningful. Not for once she used the expression democracy in her entire narrative. This aspect in her write-up struck us as a serious weakness in the otherwise compelling arguments from a life- long human rights activist. Though she cited rampant corruption as the reason for putting the lives of millions of women workers at risk in Bangladesh. We find it both distressful and disappointing that most human rights advocates suffer from the contradiction in an unconcerned way, that they can hope to protect human rights and see these rights well-established without caring for the essential prerequisite of democratic good governance and the rule of law. We do not imply to say that in the absence of democratic good governance or the rule of law they will not raise and insist on observance of human rights issues for men, women and children anywhere. We have no hesitation in accepting that the human rights are universal as highlighted by Ms Irene and these are not only democratic rights to be upheld under a democracy. But in order to ensure that the human rights to be safe and protected there is no alternative to striving for democracy and the rule of law. We must condemn human rights violations taking place in the worst of dictatorships. But disregarding due importance of making democracy work for the enjoyment of human rights by the people is a lapse that must not be taken lightly by those who fight for human rights most earnestly and often in harshest of situations.Democracy supports human rights The Malta Business Weekly 14 (Supporting democracy and human rights The Malta Business Weekly September 18, 2014)This is confirmed by studies that consistently show a decline in interest among young people in traditional politics, with decreasing levels of participation in elections, political parties and other political organisation Call for proposals to establish a European Union Human Rights Defence Mechanism Declared by a 2007 United Nations resolution. Call for proposals to establish a European Union Human Rights Defence Mechanism Declared by a 2007 United Nations resolution, 15 September marks the International Day of Democracy a celebration intended to provide an opportunity to review the state of democracy in the world. With the scope of highlighting the challenges and opportunities of young people involved in democratic processes, the theme chosen for this years International Day of Democracy was, Engaging Young People on Democracy. For those who enjoy it, democracy is a concept that is often taken for granted. It is seen as something that simply should be there and will never be lost. It is viewed as a guaranteed integral part of the system, something that is in permanent good health without the need of any form of nurturing, strengthening or maintaining. This is confirmed by studies that consistently show a decline in interest among young people in traditional politics, with decreasing levels of participation in elections, political parties and other political organisations. Democracy however, is neither guaranteed nor enjoyed by all. Described by the United Nations as a universal value based on the freely expressed will of people to determine their own political, economic and cultural systems and their full participation in all aspects of their lives, democracy is a concept that can be turned into reality and enjoyed by everyone only with the full participation of the international community, national authorities, civil society and individuals. Democracy is also intrinsically linked to human rights. The values of freedom, respect for human rights and the holding of regular genuine elections are essential pillars of democracy, which means that, by its own nature, democracy provides the natural environment for the protection and effective realisation of human rights. The European Union believes that a strong and effective civil society is essential to ensure human rights are respected and that democracy is strong and effective. Going by the Treaty that establishes it, the EU also believes that its action on the international scene shall be guided by the principles which have inspired its own creation... and which it seeks to advance in the wider world: democracy, the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for human dignity... Within this context, the EUs European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) is a financial instrument designed to help civil society become an effective force of political reform and defence of human rights. This instrument is not dependent on the consent of the host government, and as such can address sensitive political issues and cooperate directly with local civil society without any interference, pressures or restrictions from public authorities. EIDHR can grant aid even where no established cooperation exists, and can intervene without the agreement of thirdcountry governments. Its financial support is available both to groups or individuals within civil society defending democracy and to inter-governmental organisations that work to protect human rights. Financial assistance under EIDHR complements other EU tools such as political dialogue, diplomatic initiatives and technical cooperation. Such assistance may take the form of grants to finance projects submitted by civil society, international or inter-governmental organisations, small grants to human rights defenders, and human and material resources for EU election and observation missions.Trade Module1ACDemocracy has a positive relationship with trade and economic growthDecker and Lim 9 (Jessica Henson, Jamus Jerome, Democracy and trade: an empirical study Economics of Governance10.2 (Apr 2009): 165-186. AA)In closing, we return to the central question that motivated this paper do democracies trade more? The answer, at least within the context of this present study, is a qualified yes. Trade fosters the fertilization of ideas, and democracy is surely one of them. This finding has been demonstrated using the gravity specification for a very large panel dataset together with panel regression techniques. To that end this study has upheld the findings of earlier studies that demonstrate that democracies are more likely to trade with each other. It has, however, also shown that this result depends on several key assumptions. The key democracy variable seems to be sensitive to alternative renderings of time periods and cross sectionsin the sense that the time series aspect of the data appears to drive the resultand democracy is also moderated by inter alia, economic size. As such, a one-size-fils-all theory of democratic processes and their political economic influences on trade flows and trade patterns is unlikely to be fruitful. Instead, future theoretical research should distinguish between the motivations of trading nations based not just on their broad political-institutional structures, but also on their level of economic development as well as global economic trends. Future theoretical research would naturally fall along the lines of attempting to build a more coherent model of how democracy affects trade outcomes. Existing research, as reviewed earlier, seldom provide an explicit basis for democracies affecting trade outcomes. Given the generally strong empirical evidence that suggests that the effects of democracy might be first order instead of second order, theoretical models of trade should consider explicitly accounting for this characteristic, instead of treating such outcomes as exogenous, as Grossman and Helpman (1994) do. Clearly, any model to this effect should also allow for heterogeneity between developed and developing countries, and. if possible, take into account the role of constraints and influences imposed by the external environment. In this regard, Mansfield et al. (2000) is an important step forward in this direction. (O'Rourke and Taylor 2006) also develop a model premised on a two-country Heckscher-Ohlin world.

Econ decline escalates Harris and Burrows, 9 *counselor in the National Intelligence Council, the principal drafter of Global Trends 2025, **member of the NICs Long Range Analysis Unit Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis, Washington Quarterly, http://www.twq.com/09april/docs/09apr_burrows.pdf)

Increased Potential for Global ConflictOf course, the report encompasses more than economics and indeed believes the future is likely to be the result of a number of intersecting and interlocking forces. With so many possible permutations of outcomes, each with ample opportunity for unintended consequences, there is a growing sense of insecurity. Even so, history may be more instructive than ever. While we continue to believe that the Great Depression is not likely to be repeated, the lessons to be drawn from that period include the harmful effects on fledgling democracies and multiethnic societies (think Central Europe in 1920s and 1930s) and on the sustainability of multilateral institutions (think League of Nations in the same period). There is no reason to think that this would not be true in the twenty-first as much as in the twentieth century. For that reason, the ways in which the potential for greater conflict could grow would seem to be even more apt in a constantly volatile economic environment as they would be if change would be steadier.In surveying those risks, the report stressed the likelihood that terrorism and nonproliferation will remain priorities even as resource issues move up on the international agenda. Terrorisms appeal will decline if economic growth continues in the Middle East and youth unemployment is reduced. For those terrorist groups that remain active in 2025, however, the diffusion of technologies and scientific knowledge will place some of the worlds most dangerous capabilities within their reach. Terrorist groups in 2025 will likely be a combination of descendants of long established groups inheriting organizational structures, command and control processes, and training procedures necessary to conduct sophisticated attacks and newly emergent collections of the angry and disenfranchised that become self-radicalized, particularly in the absence of economic outlets that would become narrower in an economic downturn.The most dangerous casualty of any economically-induced drawdown of U.S. military presence would almost certainly be the Middle East. Although Irans acquisition of nuclear weapons is not inevitable, worries about a nuclear-armed Iran could lead states in the region to develop new security arrangements with external powers, acquire additional weapons, and consider pursuing their own nuclear ambitions. It is not clear that the type of stable deterrent relationship that existed between the great powers for most of the Cold War would emerge naturally in the Middle East with a nuclear Iran. Episodes of low intensity conflict and terrorism taking place under a nuclear umbrella could lead to an unintended escalation and broader conflict if clear red lines between those states involved are not well established. The close proximity of potential nuclear rivals combined with underdeveloped surveillance capabilities and mobile dual-capable Iranian missile systems also will produce inherent difficulties in achieving reliable indications and warning of an impending nuclear attack. The lack of strategic depth in neighboring states like Israel, short warning and missile flight times, and uncertainty of Iranian intentions may place more focus on preemption rather than defense, potentially leading to escalating crises.Types of conflict that the world continues to experience, such as over resources, could reemerge, particularly if protectionism grows and there is a resort to neo-mercantilist practices. Perceptions of renewed energy scarcity will drive countries to take actions to assure their future access to energy supplies. In the worst case, this could result in interstate conflicts if government leaders deem assured access to energy resources, for example, to be essential for maintaining domestic stability and the survival of their regime. Even actions short of war, however, will have important geopolitical implications. Maritime security concerns are providing a rationale for naval buildups and modernization efforts, such as Chinas and Indias development of blue water naval capabilities. If the fiscal stimulus focus for these countries indeed turns inward, one of the most obvious funding targets may be military. Buildup of regional naval capabilities could lead to increased tensions, rivalries, and counterbalancing moves, but it also will create opportunities for multinational cooperation in protecting critical sea lanes. With water also becoming scarcer in Asia and the Middle East, cooperation to manage changing water resources is likely to be increasingly difficult both within and between states in a more dog-eat-dog world.2AC Democracy -> TradeSpreading democracy stimulates free trade globally Kwon, PhD currently an assistant professor of sociology at the University of La Verne, Jan 29 2014(Roy, What factors matter for trade at the global level? Testing five approaches to globalization, 18202007, International Journal of Comparative Sociology, pg 394-395)A number of economists and political scientists observe that the recent boom of world trade corresponds with a third wave of democratization that began in the 1970s (e.g. Milner and Mukherjee, 2009). Over the years, many scholars studied this relationship in an attempt to scrutinize the link between a countrys political regime type and its level of international trade. Early theoretical propositions claim that autocracies are better positioned than their democratic counterparts to implement trade-conducive policies. As a prominent example, Haggard (1990) argues that autocratic governments are more insulated from the influence of interest groups that lobby in favor of trade protectionism. By extension, the unencumbered political power of autocratic states allows these regimes to increase their tax returns by implementing free trade policies (Haggard and Kaufman, 1995). However, recent works question the notion that autocracies are more conducive for trade. For example, Mansfield et al. (2000) examine the bilateral trade levels of countries paired by regime type. They find that bilateral trade within democratic and autocratic pairs is significantly higher than within mixed pairs. Furthermore, these scholars find no significant difference in the overall level of trade when comparing democratic and autocratic pairs. More recent works tend to argue that democratic regimes are more likely to engage in trade than their autocratic counterparts (e.g. Przeworski, 1991). According to this line of research, democratization reduces the political power of those that benefit most from protectionist policies, thereby paving the way for the adoption of free trade (Stokes, 2001). Dutt and Mitra (2002) extend the literature by presenting the observation that democratization increases trade, only if a majority of voters will accrue economic gains as a result of liberalization. Still others suggest that increased trade benefits the low-skill segments of the national economy, especially in developing countries. As such, governments of developing economies tend to favor lowering their trade barriers in order to appease the mass electorate (Milner and Kubota, 2005)Empirics prove: Democracies face peer pressure to adopt free trade policiesKwon, PhD currently an assistant professor of sociology at the University of La Verne, Jan 29 2014(Roy, What factors matter for trade at the global level? Testing five approaches to globalization, 18202007, International Journal of Comparative Sociology, pg 395)Nevertheless, the claim that neoliberalism decreases the impact of political regimes on trade is questioned by various scholars. In fact, many note that the spread of a neoliberal ideology actually enhances the link between regime type and international trade. In particular, democratic countries are generally more exposed to the outside world and are likely to adopt the norms and ideologies of the international community. By extension, democratic states are more likely to succumb to external pressures and adopt free trade policies when compared to their autocratic counterparts (Russett and Oneal, 2001). Thus, insofar as democratic nation-states are more likely to adopt an ideology free trade, regime type should remain a robust predictor of international trade.Democracies increase IGOs which fosters tradeKwon, PhD currently an assistant professor of sociology at the University of La Verne, June 2012(Roy, Sociological Forum Vol. 27, pg 330)Following this line of inquiry, world-polity scholars successfully demonstrate that IGOs diffuse cultural scripts to create a world-wide homogenization in the form and content of nations (Hafner-Burton and Tsutsui, 2005; Paxton et al., 2006; Schofer and Meyer, 2005). And although worldpolity scholars have yet to directly study the effect of IGOs on world trade, there exist a number of works that examine the relationship between bilateral IGO ties and bilateral trade. The foremost sociological contribution to the study of IGOs and trade comes from Ingram et al. (2005), who show that countries increasingly interconnected through IGOs signicantly increase their levels of bilateral trade. Using the gravity model, these scholars show a robust and positive association between IGO connectedness and trade, and nd that a doubling of the level of connection between two countries across all IGOs is associated with a 58% increase in trade (Ingram et al., 2005:850). From these ndings, the authors conclude that IGOs knit together national cultures, creating empathy, sympathy, and trust (Ingram et al., 2005:851). These ndings are conrmed by Zhou (2010), who nds that IGO ties are positive and signicantly associated with bilateral trade net of other independent variables. 4 Thus, although it is important to note that world-polity scholars concentrate on the relationship between bilateral IGO connectedness and its relationship to bilateral trade, the current investigation will attempt to extend the empirical world-polity literature and argue that increases in the number of IGOs will increase trade globalization. Likewise, world-polity scholars also observe that IGO [International Government Organization] afliation is positively associated with the spread of democracy and argue that IGO networks diffuse democratic forms of political organization (Torfason and Ingram, 2010). As one of the rst empirical studies to examine the impact of IGO connectedness on national levels o