Capitalism Kritik Answers - Georgetown 2024

Cap K Answers – GDS - 2024
Top Level
FW---Short---2AC
The roll of the ballot is to evaluate actualization of the plan vs. the alt--Key to rigorous testing--Any alternative interp harms fairness--Explodes limits- debate is a game so debatability comes first
Util---2AC
Utilitarianism is good and opposite of the logic of targeting---universal ethics counters violence because it doesn’t make a value statement on subject---relativist ethics turns the K
---alternatives to util turn the K---without universal principle---people sink into stereotypes which reproduce racism
---it doesn’t discriminate between individuals and primary goal is to stop suffering
---A2: Util = All lives matter---wrong, it makes BLM easier to understand and fight for because black people are disproportionately targeted
---turns any argument about killing those deemed unlivable of unable because the whole point of util is that attempts to devalue certain lives violates universal ethics
John Sweeney 18, Bowdoin Globalist, Why the Left Should Forget about Fairness, 2-27, https://bowdoinglobalist.com/2018/02/27/why-the-left-should-forget-about-fairness/ DOA: 8-31-18, y2k
Oprah might say that such a good is relative to our identity. Many people may agree, as they cheer her on when she speaks about living or speaking “your truth.” But we should not be concerned with my truth or your truth; rather, we should focus on the truth. The left should attempt to move away from the accommodation of moral relativism toward a pursuit of moral objectivity based on reason. Ascribing objectivity or scientific properties to morality strikes some people as presumptuous. In actuality, all that objective morality implies is that we have reason to prefer some moral theories over others and that we are right in saying that there are some things that we ought to do more than we ought to do other things. Much of the right’s political platform relies on the “moral truths” of Judeo-Christianity and the existence of natural rights. Although these principles are often paraded as objective truths, the particular religious dogmas or natural rights to which people subscribe do not find their basis in something as universal as reason. Most often they result from cultural myth or tradition, as people who wish to codify customs into inalienable or divine ethics spread their narrative. These stories frequently overlook reason or evidence and even attempt to undermine it in favor of faith. This is a terrible mistake. Without the universal principle of reason, people simply further internalize their sociocultural intuitions, sinking further into their given social norms, religious teachings, and stereotypes about others. Such thinking (or lack of thinking) has been largely responsible for enduring racism, sexism, speciesism, and the like, which have caused immeasurable suffering to conscious minds. Not only is ignoring reason undesirable; it is also impossible. If one were to disagree with this assertion, one would have to offer their own reason when asked why. Reason is our language of argumentation and thought (which is not to say that it is always best to be purely reasonable; we are not unfounded in our adoption of irrational dispositions at times). In reconstructing itself, the American left should embrace reason. This is more controversial than it might sound. It implies that the left confine itself to producing results that will improve conscious life, not fairness, unreasoned religious instructions, or vague principles such as equality or individuality. We must somehow navigate the landscape of the well-being of conscious entities; we must traverse the peaks and valleys between endless suffering and infinite joy. The left can realign itself with reality by forging this consequentialist path, standing against suffering and pursuing happiness. This objective morality is no more than an aggregation of subjective ones, seeking to maximize desirable feelings and minimize undesirable ones. Experiencing desirable feelings is subjective, yet we have objective reason to believe that these experiences exist and carry value (whereas we could not say the same thing about natural rights, free will, or religious afterlife). This universal perspective does not discriminate and encompasses all conscious creatures. Henry Sidgwick explains how this theory can lead us to greater unity: “the good of any one individual is of no more importance, from the point of view (if I may say so) of the Universe, than the good of any other; unless that is, there are special grounds for believing that more good is likely to be realised in the one case than in the other.” This should be the guiding maxim of the left. Applying consequentialism to a movement like Black Lives Matter makes both easier to conceptualize. Since the taking and harming of black lives is a disproportionate problem, we have special grounds for proclaiming “Black Lives Matter” rather than simply saying “All Lives Matter”. Such social movements need to be revised, as many Americans find them inherently divisive. Indeed, fifty-seven percent of Americans have a negative view of Black Lives Matter movement. By incorporating Sidgwick’s exception for functionality into his general claim that the good of every individual is of equal importance, the left can at once hope to tackle the political problems that are most pressing and remind us of our ultimate equal importance. Emphasis on particular lives, just like the government invention of rights, may be important means to maximizing happiness, but they are not declarations of innate value. By presenting these means as tools for the pursuit of happiness, the left can focus on the very concrete goal of improving sentient lives while fulfilling the most often ignored promise of our founders (“the pursuit of happiness” is often treated as a vague accessory to life and liberty). Consequentialism can also be an antidote to elitism, when we consider, as philosopher Jeremy Bentham did, that “the question is not Can they reason? nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? Why should the law refuse its protection to any sensitive being?” Bentham was talking about the problem of animal suffering, but the claim implicates all conscious life. A consequentialist framework would further some current objectives and create others for the left. We have already considered implications for how we talk about and act upon issues of criminal and racial justice. The consequentialist view also reconceives wealth as a means to flourishing rather than a deserved end reflecting a person’s worth (this mentality is so deeply ingrained in our culture that we often refer to future earnings as “our money” and any disruptive change to the system of wealth distribution, which is more than anything else responsible for our earnings, as a kind of theft). Psychologist Daniel Kahneman and economist Angus Deaton have famously found that positive correlations between individual income and happiness fail to appear at incomes above $75,000 a year. Considering this, although traditional consequentialism grants equality no innate value, practical applications of the theory would almost certainly be more egalitarian than the current policies of the political left. It would still be beneficial to have some wealth variation to facilitate incentives to contribute actively and positively to society, but the retention of wealth based on a primordial claim to it would cease to be a compelling rationalization of wealth inequality. A reexamination of moral values based on happiness should not confine itself to concern for any one species. Accordingly, the suffering that we inflict on billions of non-human animals every year (bundled with the economic inefficiency and environmental degradation that results from creating non-human animal products for human consumption) through meat production, non-human animal testing, and other harmful practices should be considered a major political problem. Extending concern to what some may consider a fringe issue may seem like a political impossibility. However, a growing number of people support all animal rights, as a third of Americans believe that non-human animals deserve the same rights and forty-four percent of Americans now oppose any medical testing on animals as humans. Furthermore, to ignore mass suffering of any kind denotes moral inconsistency. Humans tend to devalue the lives of those who are not like us, through racism, sexism, religious discrimination, and speciesism. All of these forms of bias are predicated on a deeply ingrained suspicion of others, a ruinous evolutionary remnant from a time when our base tribal allegiances were beneficial for our survival. The left has a chance to advocate for those among us who are most vulnerable: those who are unable to “speak their truth” to us. And doing so, contrary to popular belief, would not be political suicide. The most extreme caricatures of the left almost always hone in on its relativistic tendencies. The term “snowflake” is a response to the moral declaration of feelings, not facts. Accusations of “pie in the sky” policies, overly-sentimental approaches, and idealistic reasoning presume that the left is in some sense creating a reality for its political project instead of creating a political project for reality. Indiscriminate charges of racism and ad hominem attacks on political opponents fire up the liberal base yet defy the rules of rational engagement and alienate people whose political leanings depend on slight philosophical differences, shaped and reinforced by their biology and culture. The prevailing mentality on the left seems to be that Trump supporters do not deserve our consideration, open-minds, or reasoned conversations. Most Americans do not believe that the Democratic Party’s supposed inclusion extends to them. A recent Gallup poll found that the Republican Party’s favorability has stayed steady at thirty-nine percent since Trump’s presidential victory, while the Democratic Party’s favorability has dropped from forty-five percent to forty percent in that same time period. Perhaps the public senses hypocrisy. At the Democratic National Convention in July of 2016, Michelle Obama delivered a mantra for the anti-Trump left that many found inspiring: “when they go low, we go high.” In the fall, with less than a month left until the day that Donald Trump won the election for President of the United States (and with Hillary Clinton’s victory presumed to be a foregone conclusion), debate moderator Chris Wallace asked Donald Trump if he would be willing to accept the results of the upcoming presidential election. Trump declared that he would tell us at the time, which Hillary Clinton called “horrifying.” Yet despite the left’s attempts to take the moral high-ground in anticipation of a resounding victory in the US 2016 Presidential Election, once Trump’s presidency became a reality, many on the left abandoned such high hopes and principles. It seems the left should not have been so quick to demand the unconditional acceptance of the election results; ever since Trump’s victory, those on the left (and across the entire political spectrum) have tried to delegitimize Trump’s position by claiming that Russian interference is somehow responsible for his victory. This may be true, but it has become, like many of Trump’s political peculiarities, too much of a distraction. A Washington Post poll has found that more Americans believe the Democratic Party only stands against Trump than believe that the Democratic Party stands for something, by a margin of fifty-two percent to thirty-seven percent. The left still seems nostalgic for Obama’s sense of hope, even though they have been unable to craft their own inspirational theme. Far too many liberals are ready to follow Bill Maher’s declaration: “when they go low, you go lower.” But politics are still about hope, not despair. The left has just failed to present a unified and promising message. We are in the midst of a cultural realignment; massive shifts are inevitable. The choice that Democrats and those on the left now have is whether or not they will direct these changes toward consequences that maximize well-being. Politics can guide, limit, or ignore us on our journey through the moral landscape. Most of the left remains blinded like deer in headlights, either nonplussed by the prevailing partisan atrocity or naively fixated on the unfairness of their present situation. While the left may continue to stumble through the darkness, their vision obscured by concern for fairness, we must not forget: there is a moral compass ready to help guide us toward the pursuit of happiness. For the moment, it remains buried beneath our accommodationist ethics. But we shouldn’t be afraid to uncover it.
Consequentialism---Antitrust---2AC
It is impossible to distinguish the ideological intent of antitrust law – we must look to the consequences of future reform to determine positive intent
Crane 15 [DANIEL A. CRANE, Associate Dean for Faculty and Research and Frederick Paul Furth, Sr. Professor of Law, University of Michigan, RATIONALES FOR ANTITRUST: Economics and Other Bases, Chapter 1 of THE OXFORD HANDBOOK OF INTERNATIONAL ANTITRUST ECONOMICS Volume 1, poapst]
What are the purposes or objectives of the antitrust laws? There are several ways to answer this question. To answer it descriptively, one could look at the history of antitrust enforcement and ask who the antitrust laws have actually benefited or what they have achieved over time as they have been enforced. As the economist George Stigler wrote, “The announced goals of a policy are sometimes unrelated or perversely related to its actual effect and the truly intended effects should be deduced from the actual effects” (Stigler 1975, 140). The actual beneficiaries of antitrust enforcement may be quite different from those intended by the legislative framers of the antitrust statutes or the ones proposed by normative theorists. The answer to the descriptive question is contested. Public choice scholars have claimed that the history of US antitrust enforcers shows that small, inefficient businesses are the primary beneficiaries of antitrust enforcement, often at the expense of consumers and economic efficiency (McChesney and Shughart 1995). Many antitrust advocates would contest this claim and argue that consumers have been the primary beneficiaries of antitrust enforcement. In this chapter, I will not attempt to answer the empirical question. One could also attempt to answer the rationale question as a matter of legislative intent by looking to the intentions of the framers of the Sherman Act (1890) in the United States, the Treaty of Rome (1957), reborn in 2009 as the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (“TFEU”), or the foundational antitrust statute of any of the more than 100 nations that currently have antitrust laws. Such an approach is highly contestable too. Claims about the intentions of the framers of the Sherman Act, for example, have been controversial. The Chicago School theorist Robert Bork claimed to locate an economic efficiency objective in the congressional minds of 1890 (Bork 1978). Subsequent scholarship refuted Bork’s claim, finding the avoidance of wealth transfers from consumers to producers or protection of small, inefficient businesses to be the predominant legislative purposes (Lande 1982, DiLorenzo 1985, Hovenkamp 1988, Hazlett 1992). A third approach to determining antitrust rationales is to engage in a free-form normative debate about the role of monopoly, competition, law, and regulation in modern society. Should we have antitrust laws and, if so, why? This is where most of the action is today. Most scholars and antitrust practitioners—at least in the established antitrust regimes, particularly the United States and Europe—tend to assume that the foundational legal instruments creating antitrust law are sufficiently open-textured and subject to interpretation to accommodate a variety of different and sometimes conflicting normative objectives. Hence, the existential purposes of antitrust law are open for continued creation and recreation by litigants, scholars, judges, and government officials. Further, whoever have been the actual beneficiaries of antitrust law in the past, most antitrust practitioners assume that the proper beneficiaries can be reached if the right substantive norms, procedural rules, and institutional constraints are enacted. Thus, objections based on the past record of antitrust enforcement have largely fallen on deaf ears.
Offense
Cap Solves Climate---2AC
Cap solves climate change and alternatives only accelerate it
---dismantling systems isn’t easy takes time, means warming accelerates in the interim
---causes wars because it forces political upheaval and people will fight to keep capitalism which is both offense and means alt fails
---US has decreased emissions now, sustainable energy like wind, solar, and hydro solve, our ev cites a report that looked at over 7000 cases says sustainable is competitive and will be adopted universally in 10 years
---during transition in order to beat the system, the movement would have to massively ramp up emissions to build weapons which locks in warming
Smith 19 [Noah Smith Noah Smith is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He was an assistant professor of finance at Stony Brook University, and he blogs at Noahpinion, “Dumping Capitalism Won’t Save the Planet”, April 5, 2019, https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-04-05/capitalism-is-more-likely-to-limit-climate-change-than-socialism, DOA: 8/20/19] Ian M
public-private cooperation will do more to limit climate change than eco-socialism. It has become fashionable on social media and in certain publications to argue that capitalism is killing the planet. Even renowned investor Jeremy Grantham, hardly a radical, made that assertion last year. The basic idea is that the profit motive drives the private sector to spew carbon into the air with reckless abandon. Though many economists and some climate activists believe that the problem is best addressed by modifying market incentives with a carbon tax, many activists believe that the problem can’t be addressed without rebuilding the economy along centrally planned lines. The climate threat is certainly dire, and carbon taxes are unlikely to be enough to solve the problem. But eco-socialism is probably not going to be an effective method of addressing that threat. Dismantling an entire economic system is never easy, and probably would touch off armed conflict and major political upheaval. In the scramble to win those battles, even the socialists would almost certainly abandon their limitation on fossil-fuel use — either to support military efforts, or to keep the population from turning against them. The precedent here is the Soviet Union, whose multidecade effort to reshape its economy by force amid confrontation with the West led to profound environmental degradation. The world's climate does not have several decades to spare. Even without international conflict, there’s little guarantee that moving away from capitalism would mitigate our impact on the environment. Since socialist leader Evo Morales took power in Bolivia, living standards have improved substantially for the average Bolivian, which is great. But this has come at the cost of higher emissions. Meanwhile, the capitalist U.S managed to decrease its per capita emissions a bit during this same period (though since the U.S. is a rich country, its absolute level of emissions is much higher). Doubting the Carbon-Capitalism Equation In other words, in terms of economic growth and carbon emissions, Bolivia looks similar to more capitalist developing countries. That suggests that faced with a choice of enriching their people or helping to save the climate, even socialist leaders will often choose the former. And th

Preview shortened. Download the file for the full document.