WNDI 2k6 Statism K – Aff Addendum 1

STATISM K – AFF ADDENDUM

1. Index- Assorted State Good Impacts

2. Chinese Heg

3-4. Hyper capitalism

5. Education

6. Property

7. Tyranny
WNDI 2k6 Statism K – Aff Addendum 2

Hegemonic China is bad for the world system

Wilkinson D, the International Studies Review, Volume 1, Unipolarity Without Hegemony pp. 141-
172(32) Number 2, 1999,
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/misr/1999/00000001/00000002/art00158

The current power configuration of the world system is unipolarity without hegemony. Nonhegemonic
unipolarity is understudied, and deserves study. A few previous instances can be found in the history of the
Central world system: they are usually brief, associated with intense warfare, hegemonism, counteralliance,
exhaustion, and collapse into multipolarity. In other world systems, however, nonhegemonic unipolarity has
been more frequent, more durable, and with more diverse exits. Plausible exit scenarios from the current
unipolar nonhegemonic phase exist for U.S. hegemony, for bipolarity and tripolarity (via rise of the
European Union and/or China), and for multipolarity (via U.S. introversion), but all entail rather lengthy
evolutionary processes. Unipolarity without hegemony is not inherently unstable, and could endure for
decades. A unipolar configuration probably has equilibrium rules for its maintenance. Nonhegemonic
unipolarity affects the characteristic structure of “deadly quarrels” in the world system, and allows some
approaches to the policy issue of “deadly quarrels” not readily available in less centralized system
structures. Unipolarity without hegemony deserves further comparative and theoretical attention.
WNDI 2k6 Statism K – Aff Addendum 3

We have given enough power to corporations that they are poised to take over a lacking or nonexistent
government

William Kalle Lasn, author of The Uncooling of America: The History of Corporations in the United
States, 1999

In the early history of America, the corporation played an important but subordinate role. The people -- not
the corporations -- were in control. So what happened? How did corporations gain power and eventually
start exercising more control than the individuals who created them?

The shift began in the last third of the nineteenth century -- the start of a great period of struggle between
corporations and civil society. The turning point was the Civil War. Corporations made huge profits from
procurement contracts and took advantage of the disorder and corruption of the times to buy legislatures,
judges and even presidents. Corporations became the masters and keepers of business. President Abraham
Lincoln foresaw terrible trouble. Shortly before his death, he warned that "corporations have been
enthroned . . . . An era of corruption in high places will follow and the money power will endeavor to
prolong its reign by working on the prejudices of the people . . . until wealth is aggregated in a few hands . .
. and the republic is destroyed."

Then came a legal event that would not be understood for decades (and remains baffling even today), an
event that would change the course of American history. In Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific
Railroad, a dispute over a railbed route, the US Supreme Court deemed that a private corporation was a
"natural person" under the US Constitution and therefore entitled to protection under the Bill of Rights.
Suddenly, corporations enjoyed all the rights and sovereignty previously enjoyed only by the people,
including the right to free speech.

This 1886 decision ostensibly gave corporations the same powers as private citizens. But considering their
vast financial resources, corporations thereafter actually had far more power than any private citizen. They
could defend and exploit their rights and freedoms more vigorously than any individual and therefore they
were more free. In a single legal stroke, the whole intent of the American Constitution -- that all citizens
have one vote, and exercise an equal voice in public debates -- had been undermined. Sixty years after it
was inked, Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas concluded of Santa Clara that it "could not be
supported by history, logic or reason." One of the great legal blunders of the nineteenth century changed the
whole idea of democratic government.

We, the people, have lost control. Corporations, these legal fictions that we ourselves created two centuries
ago, now have more rights, freedoms and powers than we do. And we accept this as the normal state of
affairs. We go to corporations on our knees.
WNDI 2k6 Statism K – Aff Addendum 4

Anarchy leaves a vacuum that will inevitably be filled with major corporations, a new, worse quasi-
government.

Robert D. Kaplan, editor for The Atlantic Monthly, author of The Coming Anarchy: Shattering the Dreams
of the Post Cold War, 2000

Kaplan adds insult to this already apocalyptic injury, however. He seems to suggest that both short-sighted,
moralistic governments and self-interested, materialistic corporations have contributed to the accelerated
arrival and unparalleled impact of 'the coming anarchy'. But what does Kaplan propose as the salvation of
the impending tooth-and-claw world?

Answer: more formidable tooth-and-claw organizations.

Kaplan indeed sees world stability contingent upon the successful implementation of strictly self-interested,
market-based, balance-of-power policies: the triumph of power politics or Realpolitik. To Kaplan, the
entities that can best create and articulate such market-based policies to the people -- and subsequently
enforce these policies through omnipresent electronic surveillance and through the use of highly-mobile
covert security forces -- will literally inherit the earth. For Kaplan, these entities will more than likely not
be governments, and particularly not governments that are elected democratically. According to Kaplan, the
most effective coercive forces of the future -- the new "Leviathans" -- must be and will be multinational
corporations.
WNDI 2k6 Statism K – Aff Addendum 5

State involvement improves education

Martin Savidge NBC correspondent and The Associated Press Report finds state education
reforms boosting students' test scores CNN.com July 25, 2000

WASHINGTON -- A new report on education says state policies and school reforms are key to improving
students' scores, regardless of the economic status of the students.

According to RAND, a California-based think tank, states that reduce class sizes, enroll more children in
public preschool, give teachers more classroom materials and target additional money to poor children are
improving the lot of all students.

Among the findings, math scores across the country are on the rise, averaging an increase of 1 percentile
point per year. It may not sound like much, but that pace is far better than any time in the past two years.

"It does look to us that there is evidence that the reform initiatives across the states are working to increase
achievement at least in some states," said David Grissmer, the study's lead author.

Federal Government helps fill in gaps in education budgets

US. Department of Education The Federal Role in Education 02/04/2006

Education is primarily a State and local responsibility in the United States. It is States and communities, as
well as public and private organizations of all kinds, that establish schools and colleges, develop curricula,
and determine requirements for enrollment and graduation. The structure of education finance in America
reflects this predominant State and local role. Of an estimated $909 billion being spent nationwide on
education at all levels for school year 2004-2005, about 90 percent comes from State, local, and private
sources.

Although 8 percent may not sound like much, ED (Education Department) works hard to get a big bang for
its taxpayer-provided bucks by targeting its funds where they can do the most good. This targeting reflects
the historical development of the Federal role in education as a kind of "emergency response system," a
means of filling gaps in State and local support for education when critical national needs arise.

Federal Government oversees the improvement of educational system

US. Department of Education The Federal Role in Education 02/04/2006

Despite the growth of the Federal role in education, the Department never strayed far from what would
become its official mission: to ensure equal access to education and to promote educational excellence
throughout the Nation.

The Department carries out its mission in two major ways. First, the Secretary and the Department play a
leadership role in the ongoing national dialogue over how to improve the results of our education system
for all students. This involves such activities as raising national and community awareness of the education
challenges confronting the Nation, disseminating the latest discoveries on what works in teaching and
learning, and helping communities work out solutions to difficult educational issues.

Second, the Department pursues its twin goals of access and excellence through the administration of
programs that cover every area of education and range from preschool education through postdoctoral
research.
WNDI 2k6 Statism K – Aff Addendum 6

Most goods would be unattainable in a market where the state was not present.

David Kelley(Doctor of Philosophy from Princeton and Executive Director of The Objectivist Center). The
Necessity of Government”. http://www.freedom21santacruz .net/si te/article.php?sid=187. April 1974.
Here, then, is the first failure of the anarchist logic: it fails to discern that feature of coercion which
distinguishes it form the economic goods offered on the market. A second failure concerns the nature of the
market itself. It consists in the assumption that the market would exist without the government. Anarchists
wish to see the services presently offered by the government offered instead by private “protection
agencies” competing on the free market. We have seen why this is not appropriate, given the nature of this
particular good. We must now question the assumption that in the absence of governmental institutions
outside and protecting the market, a free market would even exist for protection agencies to offer their
services in.

The state is necessary to protect an individual’s property.

Locke, John. “The Second Treatise of Civil Government”. 1690. (note: lots of gendered
langueage)

If man in the state of nature be so free, as has been said; if he be absolute lord of his own person and
possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to no body, why will he part with his freedom? Why will he
give up this empire, and subject himself to the dominion and control of any other power? To which it is
obvious to answer, that though in the state of nature he hath such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is very
uncertain, and constantly exposed to the invasion of others: for all being kings as much as he, every man
his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has
in this state is very unsafe, very unsecure. This makes him willing to quit a condition, which, however free,
is full of fears and continual dangers: and it is not without reason, that he seeks out, and is willing to join in
society with others, who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their
lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name, property.
WNDI 2k6 Statism K – Aff Addendum 7

A State is needed to prevent the “initiation of force against its citizens”.

David Kelley (Doctor of Philosophy from Princeton and Executive Director of The Objectivist Center).
“The Necessity of Government”. http://www.freedom21santacruz .net/si te/article.php?sid=187. April 1974

The first and most basic failure of the anarchist logic is its failure to notice a crucial distinction. An
anarchist is one who wishes to place coercion, the use of force and the ability to use it, on the market. The
use of force to prevent the initiation of force against its citizens is the basic function of government, and the
essence of "free market" anarchism is to hold that this service should be on the market, like any other. In
holding this view, anarchists overlook a crucial difference between this coercive service, and all other
economic goods and services.

Where law ends, tyranny begins.

Locke, John. “The Second Treatise of Civil Government”. 1690.

Where-ever law ends, tyranny begins, if the law be transgressed to another's harm; and whosoever in
authority exceeds the power given him by the law, and makes use of the force he has under his command,
to compass that upon the subject, which the law allows not, ceases in that to be a magistrate; and, acting
without authority, may be opposed, as any other man, who by force invades the right of another. This is
acknowledged in subordinate magistrates. He that hath authority to seize my person in the street, may be
opposed as a thief and a robber, if he endeavours to break into my house to execute a writ, notwithstanding
that I know he has such a warrant, and such a legal authority, as will impower him to arrest me abroad. And
why this should not hold in the highest, as well as in the most inferior magistrate, I would gladly be
informed. Is it reasonable, that the eldest brother, because he has the greatest part of his father's estate,
should thereby have a right to take away any of his younger brothers portions? or that a rich man, who
possessed a whole country, should from thence have a right to seize, when he pleased, the cottage and
garden of his poor neighbour? The being rightfully possessed of great power and riches, exceedingly
beyond the greatest part of the sons of Adam, is so far from being an excuse, much less a reason, for rapine
and oppression, which the endamaging another without authority is, that it is a great aggravation of it: for
the exceeding the bounds of authority is no more a right in a great, than in a petty officer; no more
justifiable in a king than a constable; but is so much the worse in him, in that he has more trust put in him,
has already a much greater share than the rest of his brethren, and is supposed, from the advantages of his
education, employment, and counsellors, to be more knowing in the measures of right and wrong.