1NC

1 — Cap K
(3:09)

The rights-based approach fails to account for neoliberal institutions and re-
inforces capitalism. Noonan 17:
Noonan 17, Jeff (Professor of Philosophy at the University of Windsor), and Josie Watson (clinical nurs-
ing Instructor at the University of Windsor). "Against Housing: Homes as a Human Life Requirement." Al-
ternate Routes: A Journal of Critical Social Research 28 (2017).

(0:24)
In February 2016, Canada was again criticized by the UN agency responsible for monitoring enforcement of The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966/1967) for
its lack of progress in solving the problem. The report criticized Canada for the “absence of a national housing strategy; inadequate housing subsidy within the social assistance benefit; short-
age of social housing units; increased evictions related to rental arrears; increased numbers of homeless and lack of homelessness prevention; shortage of emergency shelters; laws that penal-
ize people for being homeless; lack of adequate housing for people with psycho-social and intellectual disabilities; and the poor housing conditions of Canada’s indigenous peoples” (Monse-

braaten 2016). We of course concur with this criticism of decades of government inattention to the growing problem of homelessness ,
and do not disagree, in any dogmatic way, with the appeal to the right as a tactic of shaming governments into resuming their responsibilities for public investment in affordable housing. How-
ever, we want to argue that if access to housing is a right, it is a right because human beings have the sort of complex need for homes discussed in the previous section. If we accept that a)

people have this complex need for homes and b) that it is systematically ignored by the normal operation of real estate markets and government policy, then c) it follows that homelessness

is a structural problem of the normal operations of the socio-economic system, which prioritizes profitable investment over need satisfaction. Since, as we will now argue,
rights are also a normal part of this same system, they cannot, on their own, solve the problem of the unmet complex need for homes. Thus, in order to
understand the limits of a rights-based solution to the problem of homelessness, we must understand the role rights have historically

played in capitalism, and in order to understand the role they have played in capitalism, we must think of capitalist
society not only as a functional economic system, a mode of producing and distributing commodities, but also as a value-system which legitimates its way of producing and distributing com-
modities as good for those who live within it. Few if any societies have ever reproduced themselves solely on the basis of coercion, force, and overt political violence. Human societies, even
the most oppressive, typically appeal to sets of norms that determine for a given socio-cultural system what is good and what is bad, and identify their social system with the unique conditions
that allow that good to flourish (McMurtry 1998: 15). The threat of force against opponents is thus legitimated by appeal to the good that opponents threaten to ruin by their oppositional ac-
tivity. If a majority can be convinced of the legitimacy of the value system, they will comply with its demands, making the need for overt violence unnecessary, and also creating citizens who
will protect the integrity of the system against opponents, even in cases where, objectively speaking, the opponents make demands which are in the interests of the citizens. Liberal democratic
capitalist societies are unique in the history of social organization for building in self-correcting mechanisms in the form of means of legitimate protest and social change. Rights have, since the
eighteenth century, been essential to this self-correcting mechanism. The rights of citizens establish that which citizens may legitimately demand of their governments, and the formal proce-
dures of democratic politics are the accepted means for pursuing these protests. In one sense, the legitimacy of protest and opposition represents a great historical victory over alien and op-
pressive political and social power. It comes, however, with built in limitations. Marx was the first to understand the systematic limitations of citizenship rights as the political means to achieve
the social conditions for human freedom. In On the Jewish Question, he demonstrated that the condition of granting citizenship rights was their separation from the “private” economic
sphere. In the political realm people are considered equal citizens, but this equal citizenship did not entail material equality in the sphere of production (Marx 1977: 153). On the contrary, in
the sphere of production other laws prevail: the laws of self-interest, pursuit of individual advantage, and the distribution of income and advantage according to market forces (Marx 1986: 43).

While the development of social rights in the twentieth century ameliorated to some extent (in the wealthiest capitalist countries) the gross deprivations
of the Industrial Revolution and Victorian capitalism, they do not contest the dynamics of the capitalist system as a whole, its prioritization of private profit of com-
prehensive and universal need satisfaction, or legitimate the mobilization of oppressed and exploited and alienated themselves

to transform the structures that cause systematic need-deprivation in the first place (Wood 2002: 130-1). As evidence,
consider that explosion of inequality in the late twentieth and early twenty-first century, which did not require the formal revocation of any citizenship rights, but used political tactics to

weaken the power of workers to resist and protect their interests by intensifying competition be-
tween them for jobs and investment. Where market forces are allowed more or less free play, the prices for a given commodity can rise beyond the ability of a large number of peo-
ple to pay for it, with the result that, in cases where the commodity is a life-requirement, people are harmed because they are deprived of that

which they need. When this structure of deprivation obtains, the deprived have three general alternatives. On the one hand, people can be left to suffer the consequences of
their deprivation, as the homeless typically are today. On the other hand, governments can use public policy to meet the need , as they define it
and to the extent that they feel it is necessary to present themselves as champions of people’s rights and to maintain social stability. This alternative is clearly better than the first. Still, it is dis-

tinct from the third, which occurs wherethe need-deprived mobilize themselves, define the extent of their needs and what they
regard as adequate means of satisfying them, and demand access to the resources that would be required to satisfy them. The various direct action strug-
gles that the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty has organized over the years to combat homelessness in

Toronto (especially the occupation of empty buildings) is a small but significant example of the sort of movement we have in mind. Let us now
contrast the implications of rights and needs-based approaches to the problem of homelessness.
AND, The UN in particular is built upon patriarchal capitalism. Sayne 93:
Sayne 93 [Pamela; 1993; worked as a community organizer, educator, researcher, administrator, and activist for
housing and community development since the early 1970s; “Ideology as Law: Is There Room for Difference in the
Right to Housing?”; https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
referer=&httpsredir=1&filename=15&article=1001&context=books_fac&type=additional]
(0:27)

The legal framework for both the United Nations, and for nation states, reflects the ideology of patriarchal capital-
ism. It embodies social and economic practices of distancing through dualist relationships, sameness through non-
contextualized equality, and social hierarchies through competitive rights. Hierarchies enforce inequities based on
sex, race, and class differences. These practices are historically rooted in western patriarchal capitalism which up-
holds the profit-driven, linear, market economy as equally feasible for all. Women have traditionally been
marginalized by or excluded from the profit oriented market economy in modernized societies, restricting the right
to housing and related human needs.

AND, Capitalism leads to nuclear war, democratic collapse, extreme inequal-

ity, and perpetual exploitation – capitalism is an a priori impact and its try or
die for a transition. Foster 19:
Foster 19, Sociology Professor @ Oregon (John Bellamy, February 1st, “Capitalism Has Failed—What
Next?” The Monthly Review, Volume 70, Issue 9, https://monthlyreview.org/2019/02/01/capitalism-has-
failed-what-next/, Accessed 06-30-2021)

(0:50)

Less than two decades into the twenty-first century, it is evident that capitalism
has failed as a social system. The world is
mired in economic stagnation, financialization, and the most extreme inequality in human history, ac-
companied by mass unemployment and underemployment, precariousness, poverty, hunger, wasted output and lives, and what at
this point can only be called a planetary ecological “death spiral.”1 The digital revolution, the greatest technological ad-
vance of our time, has rapidly mutated from a promise of free communication and liberated production into new means of surveil-
lance, control, and displacement of the working population. The institutions of liberal democracy are at
the point of collapse, while fascism, the rear guard of the capitalist system, is again on the march, along
with patriarchy, racism, imperialism, and war. To say that capitalism is a failed system is not, of course, to suggest that its
breakdown and disintegration is imminent.2 It does, however, mean that it has passed from being a historically necessary and creative system
at its inception to being a historically unnecessary and destructive one in the present century. Today, more than ever, the world is faced with
the epochal choice between “the revolutionary reconstitution of society at large and the common ruin of the contending classes.”3 Indica-
tions of this failure of capitalism are everywhere. Stagnation of investment punctuated by bubbles of fi-
nancial expansion, which then inevitably burst, now characterizes the so-called free market.4 Soaring in-
equality in income and wealth has its counterpart in the declining material circumstances of a majority
of the population. Real wages for most workers in the United States have barely budged in forty years de-
spite steadily rising productivity.5 Work intensity has increased, while work and safety protections on the job have been systematically jetti-
soned. Unemployment data has become more and more meaningless due to a new institutionalized underemployment in the form of contract
labor in the gig economy.6 Unions have been reduced to mere shadows of their former glory as capitalism has asserted totali-
tarian control over workplaces. With the demise of Soviet-type societies, social democracy in Europe has perished in the new atmosphere of
“liberated capitalism.”7 The
capture of the surplus value produced by overexploited populations in the poor-
est regions of the world, via the global labor arbitrage instituted by multinational corporations, is leading to
an unprecedented amassing of financial wealth at the center of the world economy and relative poverty in the periphery.8 Around $21 trillion
of offshore funds are currently lodged in tax havens on islands mostly in the Caribbean, constituting “the fortified refuge of Big Finance.”9 Tech-
nologically driven monopolies resulting from the global-communications revolution, together with the rise to dominance of Wall Street-based
financial capital geared to speculative asset creation, have further contributed to the riches of today’s “1 percent.” Forty-two billionaires now
enjoy as much wealth as half the world’s population, while the three richest men in the United States—Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, and Warren Buf-
fett—have more wealth than half the U.S. population.10 In every region of the world, inequality has increased sharply in recent decades.11
The gap in per capita income and wealth between the richest and poorest nations , which has been the dominant
trend for centuries, is rapidly widening once again.12 More than 60 percent of the world’s employed population, some two billion
people, now work in the impoverished informal sector, forming a massive global proletariat. The global reserve army of labor is some 70 per-
cent larger than the active labor army of formally employed workers.13 Adequate health care, housing, education, and
clean water and air are increasingly out of reach for large sections of the population, even in wealthy
countries in North America and Europe, while transportation is becoming more difficult in the United States and many other countries due
to irrationally high levels of dependency on the automobile and disinvestment in public transportation. Urban structures are more and more
characterized by gentrification and segregation, with cities becoming the playthings of the well-to-do while marginalized populations are
shunted aside. About half a million people, most of them children, are homeless on any given night in the United States.14 New York City is ex-
periencing a major rat infestation, attributed to warming temperatures, mirroring trends around the world.15 In
the United States and
other high-income countries, life expectancy is in decline, with a remarkable resurgence of Victorian illnesses related to
poverty and exploitation. In Britain, gout, scarlet fever, whooping cough, and even scurvy are now resurgent, along with tuberculosis. With in-
adequate enforcement of work health and safety regulations, black lung disease has returned with a vengeance in U.S. coal country.16 Overuse
of antibiotics, particularly by capitalist agribusiness, is leading to an antibiotic-resistance crisis, with the dangerous growth of superbugs gener-
ating increasing numbers of deaths, which by mid–century could surpass annual cancer deaths, prompting
the World Health Orga-
nization to declare a “global health emergency.”17 These dire conditions, arising from the workings of the system, are consis-
tent with what Frederick Engels, in the Condition of the Working Class in England, called “social murder.”18 At the instigation of giant corpora-
tions, philanthrocapitalist foundations, and neoliberal governments, public education has been restructured around corporate-designed testing
based on the implementation of robotic common-core standards. This is generating massive databases on the student population, much of
which are now being surreptitiously marketed and sold.19 The corporatization and privatization of education is feeding the progressive subordi-
nation of children’s needs to the cash nexus of the commodity market. We are thus seeing a dramatic return of Thomas Gradgrind’s and Mr.
M’Choakumchild’s crass utilitarian philosophy dramatized in Charles Dickens’s Hard Times: “Facts are alone wanted in life” and “You are never
to fancy.”20 Having been reduced to intellectual dungeons, many of the poorest, most racially segregated schools in the
United States are mere pipelines for prisons or the military.21 More than two million people in the
United States are behind bars, a higher rate of incarceration than any other country in the world, constituting a new Jim
Crow. The total population in prison is nearly equal to the number of people in Houston, Texas, the fourth largest U.S. city. African Americans
and Latinos make up 56 percent of those incarcerated, while constituting only about 32 percent of the U.S. population. Nearly 50 percent of
American adults, and a much higher percentage among African Americans and Native Americans, have an immediate family member who has
spent or is currently spending time behind bars. Both black men and Native American men in the United States are nearly three times, Hispanic
men nearly two times, more likely to die of police shootings than white men.22 Racial
divides are now widening across the en-
tire planet. Violence against women and the expropriation of their unpaid labor, as well as the higher level of ex-
ploitation of their paid labor, are integral to the way in which power is organized in capitalist society —and how it
seeks to divide rather than unify the population. More than a third of women worldwide have experienced physical/sexual violence. Women’s
bodies, in particular, are objectified, reified, and commodified as part of the normal workings of monopoly-capitalist marketing.23 The
mass
media-propaganda system, part of the larger corporate matrix, is now merging into a social media-based propaganda system that is
more porous and seemingly anarchic, but more universal and more than ever favoring money and power. Utilizing mod-
ern marketing and surveillance techniques, which now dominate all digital interactions, vested interests are able to tailor their messages,
largely unchecked, to individuals and their social networks, creating concerns about “fake news” on all sides.24 Numerous business entities
promising technological manipulation of voters in countries across the world have now surfaced, auctioning off their services to the highest bid-
ders.25 The elimination of net neutrality in the United States means further concentration, centralization, and control over the entire Internet
by monopolistic service providers. Elections are increasingly prey to unregulated “dark money” emanating from
the coffers of corporations and the billionaire class. Although presenting itself as the world’s leading
democracy, the United States, as Paul Baran and Paul Sweezy stated in Monopoly Capital in 1966, “is democratic in form
and plutocratic in content.”26 In the Trump administration, following a long-established tradition, 72 percent of those appointed to
the cabinet have come from the higher corporate echelons, while others have been drawn from the military.27 War, engineered by the
United States and other major powers at the apex of the system, has become perpetual in strategic oil regions such as
the Middle East, and threatens to escalate into a global thermonuclear exchange. During the Obama adminis-
tration, the United States was engaged in wars/bombings in seven different countries—Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya,
Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan.28 Torture and assassinations have been reinstituted by Washington as acceptable instruments of war
against those now innumerable individuals, group networks, and whole societies that are branded as terrorist. A new Cold War and
nuclear arms race is in the making between the United States and Russia, while Washington is seeking
to place road blocks to the continued rise of China. The Trump administration has created a new space force as a separate
branch of the military in an attempt to ensure U.S. dominance in the militarization of space. Sounding the alarm on the increasing dangers of a
nuclear war and of climate destabilization, the distinguished Bulletin of Atomic Scientists moved its doomsday clock in 2018 to two minutes to
midnight, the closest since 1953, when it marked the advent of thermonuclear weapons.29 Increasingly severe economic sanctions are being
imposed by the United States on countries like Venezuela and Nicaragua, despite their democratic elections—or because of them. Trade
and currency wars are being actively promoted by core states, while racist barriers against immigration
continue to be erected in Europe and the United States as some 60 million refugees and internally displaced peoples flee devas-
tated environments. Migrant populations worldwide have risen to 250 million, with those residing in high-income countries constituting more
than 14 percent of the populations of those countries, up from less than 10 percent in 2000. Meanwhile, ruling circles and wealthy countries
seek to wall off islands of power and privilege from the mass of humanity, who are to be left to their fate.30 More than three-quarters
of a billion people, over 10 percent of the world population, are chronically malnourished.31 Food stress in the United States
keeps climbing, leading to the rapid growth of cheap dollar stores selling poor quality and toxic food. Around forty million Americans, repre-
senting one out of eight households, including nearly thirteen million children, are food insecure.32 Subsistence farmers are being pushed off
their lands by agribusiness, private capital, and sovereign wealth funds in a global depeasantization process that constitutes the greatest move-
ment of people in history.33 Urban overcrowding and poverty across much of the globe is so severe that one can now reasonably refer to a
“planet of slums.”34 Meanwhile, the world housing market is estimated to be worth up to $163 trillion (as compared to the value of gold mined
over all recorded history, estimated at $7.5 trillion).35 The
Anthropocene epoch, first ushered in by the Great Acceleration of the
world economy immediately after the Second World War, has generated enormous rifts in planetary boundaries, ex-
tending from climate change to ocean acidification, to the sixth extinction, to disruption of the global
nitrogen and phosphorus cycles, to the loss of freshwater, to the disappearance of forests, to wide-
spread toxic-chemical and radioactive pollution.36 It is now estimated that 60 percent of the world’s wildlife vertebrate popu-
lation (including mammals, reptiles, amphibians, birds, and fish) have been wiped out since 1970, while the worldwide abundance of inverte-
brates has declined by 45 percent in recent decades.37 What climatologist James Hansen calls the “species exterminations” result-
ing from accelerating climate change and rapidly shifting climate zones are only compounding this gen-
eral process of biodiversity loss. Biologists expect that half of all species will be facing extinction by the end of the century.38 If
present climate-change trends continue, the “global carbon budget” associated with a 2°C increase in
average global temperature will be broken in sixteen years (while a 1.5°C increase in global average temperature—stay-
ing beneath which is the key to long-term stabilization of the climate—will be reached in a decade). Earth System scientists warn
that the world is now perilously close to a Hothouse Earth, in which catastrophic climate change will be
locked in and irreversible.39 The ecological, social, and economic costs to humanity of continuing to increase car-
bon emissions by 2.0 percent a year as in recent decades (rising in 2018 by 2.7 percent—3.4 percent in the United States), and failing to
meet the minimal 3.0 percent annual reductions in emissions currently needed to avoid a catastrophic destabilization of the
earth’s energy balance, are simply incalculable.40 Nevertheless, major energy corporations continue to
lie about climate change, promoting and bankrolling climate denialism—while admitting the truth in their internal
documents. These corporations are working to accelerate the extraction and production of fossil fuels, including the dirtiest, most greenhouse
gas-generating varieties, reaping enormous profits in the process. The melting of the Arctic ice from global warming is seen by capital as a new
El Dorado, opening up massive additional oil and gas reserves to be exploited without regard to the consequences for the earth’s climate. In re-
sponse to scientific reports on climate change, Exxon Mobil declared that it intends to extract and sell all of the fossil-fuel reserves at its dis-
posal.41 Energy corporations continue to intervene in climate negotiations to ensure that any agreements to limit carbon emissions are de-
fanged. Capitalist
countries across the board are putting the accumulation of wealth for a few above
combatting climate destabilization, threatening the very future of humanity.
AND, Only dual power organizing can build institutions that meet the mate-
rial needs of community and construct a revolutionary base in the face of
compounding crises of climate change, imperialism, and fascism. Escalante
19:
Escalante, 19 [Alyson, you should totally read her work for non-debate reasons, Marxist-Leninist, Materialist Feminist and Anti-Imperi-
alist activist, "Communism and Climate Change: A Dual Power Approach," Failing That, Invent,
https://failingthatinvent.home.blog/2019/02/15/communism-and-climate-change-a-dual-power-
approach/]//AD(dmHL)
(0:47)

I have previously argued that a crucial advantage to dual power strategy is that it gives the masses an infrastructure of
socialist institutions which can directly provide for material needs in times of capitalist crisis. Socialist
agricultural and food distribution programs can take ground that the capitalist state cedes by simulta-
neously meeting the needs of the masses while proving that socialist self-management and political ins-
titutions can function independently of capitalism. This approach is not only capable of literally saving lives
in the case of crisis, but of demonstrating the possibility of a revolutionary project which seeks to destroy
rather than reform capitalism. One of the most pressing of the various crises which humanity faces today is climate
change. Capitalist production has devastated the planet, and everyday we discover that the small window of time for avoiding its most disas-
trous effects is shorter than previously understood. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that we
have 12 years to limit (not even prevent) the more catastrophic effects of climate change. The simple, and horrific,
fact that we all must face is that climate change has reached a point where many of its effects are
inevitable, and we are now in a post-brink world, where damage control is the primary concern. The
question is not whether we can escape a future of climate change, but whether we can survive it. Socialist
strategy must adapt accordingly. In the face of this crisis, the democratic socialists and social democrats in the United States
have largely settled on market based reforms. The Green New Deal, championed by Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and the left
wing of the Democratic Party, remains a thoroughly capitalist solution to a capitalist problem. The proposal does nothing to challenge
capitalism itself, but rather seeks to subsidize market solutions to reorient the US energy infrastructure to-
wards renewable energy production, to develop less energy consuming transportation, and the development of public in-
vestment towards these ends. The plan does nothing to call into question the profit incentives and
endless resource consumption of capitalism which led us to this point . Rather, it seeks to reorient the re-
lentless market forces of capitalism towards slightly less destructive technological developments. While
the plan would lead to a massive investment in the manufacturing and deployment of solar energy infra-
structure, National Geographic reports that, “Fabricating [solar] panels requires caustic chemicals such as sodium
hydroxide and hydrofluoric acid, and the process uses water as well as electricity, the production of
which emits greenhouse gases.” Technology alone cannot sufficiently combat this crisis, as the produc-
tion of such technology through capitalist manufacturing infrastructure only perpetuates environmental
harm. Furthermore, subsidizing and incentivizing renewable energy stops far short of actually combating the
fossil fuel industry driving the current climate crisis. The technocratic market solutions offered in the Green New Deal fail to adequately
combat the driving factors of climate change. What is worse, they rely on a violent imperialist global system in order to produce their techno-
logical solutions. The development
of high-tech energy infrastructure and the development of low or zero emission
transportation requires the import of raw material and rare earth minerals which the United States can only
access because of the imperial division of the Global South. This imperial division of the world requires constant
militarism from the imperial core nations, and as Lenin demonstrates in Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism, facili-
tates constant warfare as imperial states compete for spheres of influence in order to facilitate cheap
resource extraction. The US military, one of many imperialist forces, is the single largest user of petroleum, and
one of its main functions is to ensure oil access for the United States. Without challenging this imperialist division of
the world and the role of the United States military in upholding it, the Green New Deal fails even further to challenge the underlying causes of
climate change. Even with the failed promises of the Green New Deal itself, it is unlikely that this tepid market proposal will pass at all. Nancy
Pelosi and other lead Democrats have largely condemned it and consider it “impractical” and “unfeasible.” This dismissal is crucial because it re-
veals the total inability of capitalism to resolve this crisis. If the center-left party in the heart of the imperial core sees even milquetoast capital-
ist reforms as a step too far, we ought to have very little hope that a reformist solution will present itself within the ever shrinking 12 year time
frame. There are times for delicacy and there are times for bluntness, and we are in the latter. To put things bluntly: the capitalists
are
not going to save us, and if we don’t find a way to save ourselves, the collapse of human civilization is
a real possibility. The pressing question we now face is: how are we going to save ourselves? Revolution and Dual Power
If capitalism will not be able to resolve the current encroaching climate crisis, we must find a way to organize outside the con-
fines of capitalist institutions, towards the end of overthrowing capitalism. If the Democratic Socialists of America
backed candidates cannot offer real anti-capitalist solutions through the capitalist state, we should be skeptical of the possibility for any social-
ist organization doing so. TheDSA is far larger and far more well funded than any of the other socialist organizations
in the United States, and they have failed to produce anything more revolutionary than the Green New Deal . We
have to abandon the idea that electoral strategy will be sufficient to resolve the underlying causes of
this crisis within 12 years. While many radicals call for revolution instead of reform, the reformists often raise the same re-
sponse: revolution is well and good, but what are you going to do in the mean time? In many ways this question is fair. The
socialist left in the United States today is not ready for revolutionary action, and a mass base does not exist to back the various organizations
which might undertake such a struggle. Revolutionaries must concede that we
have much work to be done before a revolu-
tionary strategy can be enacted. This is a hard truth, but it is true. Much of the left has sought to ignore this truth by
embracing adventurism and violent protest theatrics, in the vain hope of sparking revolutionary momentum
which does not currently exist. If this is the core strategy of the socialist left, we will accomplish nothing in the
next 12 years. Such approaches are as useless as the opportunist reforms pushed by the social democrats. Our task in these 12 years is not
simply to arm ourselves and hope that magically the masses will wake up prepared for revolution and willing to put their trust in our small ideo-
logical cadres. We
must instead, build a movement, and with it we must build infrastructure which can survive revo-
lution and provide a framework for socialist development. Dual power is tooled towards this project
best. The Marxist Center network has done an impressive amount of work developing socialist institu-
tions across the US, largely through tenants organizing and serve the people programs. The left wing fac-
tions within the DSA itself have also begun to develop mutual aid programs that could be useful for dual power
strategy. At the same time, mutual aid is not enough. We cannot simply build these institutions as a re-
form to make capitalism more survivable. Rather, we must make these institutions part of a broader revo-
lutionary movement and they ought to function as a material prefiguration to a socialist society and
economy. The institutions we build as dual power outside the capitalist state today ought to be structured to-
wards revolutionary ends, such that they will someday function as the early institutions of a revolution-
ary socialist society. To accomplish this goal, we cannot simply declare these institutions to be revolutionary.
Rather they have to be linked together through an actual revolutionary movement working towards rev-
olutionary ends. This means that dual power institutions cannot exist as ends in and of themselves, nor
can abstract notions of mutual aid cannot be conceptualized as an end in itself. The explicit purpose of
these institutions has to be to radicalize the masses through meeting their needs, and providing an in-
frastructure for a socialist movement to meet the needs of its members and the communities in which
it operates. Revolutionary institutions that can provide food, housing, and other needs for a revolution-
ary movement will be crucial for building a base among the masses and for constructing the beginnings of a so-
cialist infrastructure for when we eventually engage in revolutionary
AND, The ROTB is to break down patriarchal neoliberal structures of knowl-
edge production. Debate should be a pedagogical space in which to produce
emancipatory education and nurture radical agency—our framing is a pre-re-
quisite to ethical political engagement, which is necessary for anti-capitalist
solidarity to solve this ongoing crisis, and determines whether the project of
the 1NC is a good idea. Giroux 20:
Giroux 20. [Henry Armand Giroux is an American and Canadian scholar and cultural critic. One of the
founding theorists of critical pedagogy in the United States, he is best known for his pioneering work in
public pedagogy, cultural studies, youth studies, higher education, media studies, and critical theory. 6-
19-2020. Accessed 12/30/2020. “Racist Violence Can’t Be Separated from the Violence of Neoliberal
Capitalism” https://socialistproject.ca/2020/06/racist-violence-neoliberal-capitalism//vg (dm recut)

- Framework of how we approach the round

- Lit a Pre req

- What type of education should be receiving

- Why different education is good

(0:41)

It should be clear that questions of economic and social justice cannot be addressed by a neoliberal pedagogy
that enshrines self-interest and privatization while converting every social problem into individualized market solutions or regressive matters of
personal responsibility. Under neoliberalism’s disimagination machine, individual responsibility is coupled with
an ethos of greed, avarice, and personal gain. One consequence is the tearing up of social solidarities,
public values, and an almost pathological disdain for democracy. This radical form of privatization is also
a powerful force for the rise of fascist politics because it depoliticizes individuals, immerses them in the
logic of social Darwinism, and makes them susceptible to the dehumanization of those considered a
threat or disposable. Just as the spread of the pandemic virus in the United States was not an innocent act of nature, neither is the rise
and pervasive grip of inequality. What is clear is that neoliberal support for unbridled individualism has weakened demo-
cratic pressures and eroded democracy and equality as governing principles. Moreover, as a mode of
public pedagogy, it has undercut social provisions, the social contract, and support for public goods such
as education, public health, essential infrastructure, public transportation, and the most basic elements
of the welfare state. As a form of pedagogical practice, neoliberalism has morphed into a form of pan-
demic pedagogy that sacrifices social needs and human life in the name of an economic rationality that
values reviving economic growth over human rights. As a lived system of meaning and values, self-reliance and rugged indi-
vidualism are the only categories available for shaping how individuals view themselves, and their relationship to others and to the planet. The
individualization of everyone and the reduction of social problems to private troubles is paralleled by sanctioning a world marked by borders,
walls, racism, hate, and a rejection of government intervention in the interest of the common good. Most importantly, neoliberalindivid-
ualization personalizes power, creating a depoliticized subject whose only obligation as a citizen is de-
fined by consuming and living in a world free from ethical and social responsibilities. In many ways, it
does not just empty politics of any substance, it destroys its emancipatory prospects. The neoliberal
strategists use education not only to mask their abuses and the effects of their criminogenic policies,
they also – in a time of crisis, when dissatisfaction of the masses might lead to chaos, revolts, and dangerous levels of resistance –
move dangerously close to creating the conditions for a fascist politics. The noted theologian Frei Betto is right in
stating that under such conditions, “…they
cover up the causes of social ills and cover up their effects with ideolo-
gies that, by obscuring causes, fuel mood in the face of the effects. That’s why neoliberalism is now
showing its authoritarian face – building walls that divide countries and ethnic groups, executive power
over legislature and judiciary, disinformation about digital networks, the cult of the homeland, the
brazen offensive against human rights.” Neoliberalism and its regressive notion of individualism and individual responsibil-
ity has undermined the belief that human beings both make the world and can change it. The pandemic
has ushered in a crisis that undermines that belief and opens the door for rethinking what kind of society and no-
tion of politics will be faithful to the creation of a socialist democracy that speaks to the core values of justice,
equality, and solidarity. Under such circumstances, private resistance must give way to collective resistance, and
personal and political rights must include economic rights. If inequality is to be defeated, the social state
must replace the corporate state, and social rights must be guaranteed for all. There can be no ade-
quate struggle for economic justice and social equality unless economic inequality on a global level is ad-
dressed along with a movement for climate justice, the elimination of systemic racism, and a halt to the
spiraling militarism that has resulted in endless wars. This can only take place if the anti-democratic
ideology of neoliberalism, with its collapse of the public into the private and its institutional structures
of domination, are fully addressed and discredited. Étienne Balibar is right in stating that the triumph of neoliberalism has
resulted in the “death zones of humanity.” Following Balibar, what must be made clear is that neoliberal capitalism is itself a pandemic and a
dangerous harbinger of an updated fascist politics. Overcoming Pandemic Pedagogy The kinds of societies that will emerge after the pandemic
is up for grabs. In some cases, the crisis will give way to authoritarian regimes such as Chile, Hungary, and Turkey, all of which have used the ur-
gency of COVID-19 as an excuse to impose more state control and surveillance, squelch dissent, eliminate civil liberties, and concentrate power
in the hands of an authoritarian political class. As is well documented, history in a time of crisis also has the potential to change dominant ide-
ologies, rethink the meaning of governance, and enlarge the sphere of justice and equality through a vision that fights for a more generous and
inclusive politics. It is crucial to rethink the project of politics in order to imagine forms of resistance that are collective, inclusive and global, and
capable of producing new democratic arrangements for social life, more radical values, and a “global economy which will no longer be at the
mercy of market mechanisms.” This is a politics that must move beyond siloed identities and fractured political factions in order to build
transnational solidarities in the service of an alternative radically democratic society. Making the pedagogical more political means challenging
those forms of pandemic pedagogy that turn politics into theater, a favorite tactic of Trump. In this case, the performance works to suspend
disbelief, hold power accountable, and unravel one’s sense of critical agency. Pandemic pedagogy does more than undermine
critical thinking and informed judgments; it dissolves the line between the truth and lies, fantasy and reality, and in
doing so, destroys the foundation for understanding, engaging, and promoting that social and economic justice.
The endgame under the rubric of a pandemic pedagogy is not simply the destruction of the truth, but the elimina-
tion of democracy itself. Central to developing an alternative democratic vision is development of a lan-
guage that refuses to look away and be commodified. Such a language should be able to break through the continuity and
consensus of common sense and appeal to the natural order of things. At stake here is the need to reclaim both critical and re-
demptive elements of a radical democracy in order to address the full spectrum of violence that struc-
tures institutions and everyday life in the United States. This is a language connected to the acquisition of civic literacy, and
it demands a different regime of desires and identifications to enable us to move from “shock and stunned silence toward a coherent visceral
speech, one as strong as the force that is charging at us.” Of course, there is more at stake here than a struggle over meaning; there
is also
the struggle over power, over the need to create a formative culture that will produce informed critical
agents who will fight for and contribute to a broad social movement that will translate meaning into a
fierce struggle for economic, political, and social justice. Agency in this sense must be connected to a notion of possibility
and education in the service of radical change. Reimagining the future only becomes meaningful when it is rooted in
a fierce struggle against the horrors and totalitarian practices of a pandemic pedagogy that falsely claims
that it exists outside of history. Václav Havel, the late Czech political dissident-turned-politician, once argued that politics follows
culture, by which he meant that changing consciousness is the first step toward building mass movements of resistance.
What is crucial here in the age of multiple crises is a thorough grasp of the notion that critical and engaged forms of agency are a product of
emancipatory education. Moreover, at the heart of any viable notion of politics is the recognition that politics begins with attempts to change
the way people think, act, and feel with respect to both how they view themselves and their relations to others. There is more to agency than
the neoliberal emphasis on the “empire of the self,” with its unchecked belief in the virtues of a form of self-interest that despises the bonds of
sociality, solidarity, and community. The US is in the midst of a political and pedagogical crisis. This is a crisis defined not only by a brutalizing
racism and massive inequality, but also by a constitutional crisis produced by a growing authoritarianism that has been in the making for some
time. The recent attacks by the police on journalists, peaceful protesters, and even elderly people marching for racial justice, echoes the vio-
lence of the Brownshirts in the 1930s. Let’s stop the futile debate about whether or not the US is in the midst of a fascist state and shift the reg-
ister to the more serious question of how to resist it and restore a semblance of real democracy. Under such circumstances, education
should be viewed as central to politics, and it plays a crucial role in producing informed judgments, ac-
tions, morality, and social responsibility at the forefront not only of agency, but politics itself. In this sce-
nario, truth and politics mutually inform each other to erupt in a pedagogical awakening at the moment
when the rules are broken. Taking risks becomes a necessity, self-reflection narrates its capacity for critically engaged
agency, and thinking the impossible is not an option, but a necessity. Without an informed and educated citizenry, democracy can lead to
tyranny, even fascism. Trump represents the malignant presence of a fascism that never dies and is ready to re-emerge at different times in
different context in sometimes not-so-recognizable forms. The COVID-19 crisis and the pandemic of inequality and racism have revealed ele-
ments of a fascist politics that are more than abstractions. The struggle against a fascist politics is now visible in the rebellions taking place
across the United States. While there are no political guarantees for a victory, there is a new sense that the future can be changed in the image
of a just and sustainable society. There is a new energy for reform taking place in the aftermath of the killing of George Floyd. Massive protests
for racial, economic, and social justice are emerging all over the globe. As I have argued in The Terror of the Unforeseen, at stake here is the
need for these protests to transition from a pedagogical moment and collective outburst of moral anger to a progressive international move-
ment that is well organized and unified. Such a movement must build solidarity among different groups, imagine
new forms of social life, make the impossible possible, and produce a revolutionary project in defense of
equality, social justice, and popular sovereignty. The racial, class, ecological, and public health crisis fac-
ing the globe can only be understood as part of a comprehensive crisis of the totality. Immediate solu-
tions such as defunding the police and improving community services are important, but they do not
deal with the larger issue of eliminating a neoliberal system structured in massive racial and economic
inequalities. David Harvey is right in arguing that the “immediate task is nothing more nor less than the self-con-
scious construction of a new political framework for approaching the question of inequality, through a
deep and profound critique of our economic and social system.” This is a crisis in which different threads
of oppression must be understood as part of the general crisis of capitalism. The various protests now evolving in-
ternationally at the popular level offer the promise of new global anti-fascist and anti-capitalist movements . In the
current moment, democracy may be under a severe threat and appear frighteningly vulnerable, but with young people and others rising up
across the globe – inspired, energized and marching in the streets – the future of a radical democracy is waiting to breathe again. •
2 — Needs CP
(1:00)

Counterplan: The United States ought to guarantee the need to housing.

Rights talk fails with housing; needs talk is better. Whitzman 22:
Whitzman 22 Whitzman, Carolyn. "Rights talk, needs talk and money talk in affordable housing part-
nerships." Journal of Planning Education and Research 42.3 (2022): 305-313. /becca

(0:18)

As alluded to by the Portland metropolitan planner, translating “the right to housing” as a simplistic
“right to shelter” is not enough to ensure an appropriate or secure home. There has been considerable
criticism, including by feminist theorists, of the individualist and homogenizing focus of much rights talk
(Fraser 1989a; Young 1990; Roy 2001; Fainstein 2010; Nussbaum 2011). What is sometimes called “third
generation rights” (Attoh 2011, 671, again citing Waldron 1993) focuses on recognition of different peo-
ple’s needs, including diverse housing needs. Fraser (1989b, 292–293) provides a detailed explanation of
how the complexity of human housing needs might be obscured by binary rights talk. While we can un-
controversially say that homeless people, like everyone else in nontropical climates, need shelter in or-
der to live … as soon as we descend to a lesser level of generality, needs claims become far more contro-
versial… What specific forms of provision are implied once we acknowledge their very general, thin
need? Do homeless people need forbearance to sleep undisturbed next to a hot air vent on a street cor-
ner? A space in a subway tunnel or a bus terminal? A bed in a temporary shelter? A permanent home?
Suppose we say the latter. What kind of permanent housing do homeless people need? Rental units in
high rises in center city areas remote from good schools, discount shopping, and job opportunities? Sin-
gle-family homes designed for singleearner, two-parent families? And what else do homeless people
need in order to have permanent homes? Rent subsidies? Income supports? Jobs? Job training and edu-
cation? Day care? Finally, what is needed at the level of housing policy, in order to insure an adequate
stock of affordable housing? Tax incentives to encourage private investment in low-income housing?
Concentrated or scattered site public housing within a generally commodified housing environment?
Rent control? De-commodification of urban housing? We could continue proliferating such questions in-
definitely. One of the challenges Fraser sets out is how to translate this thick or complex set of needs
claims into the bureaucratic language of policy development and administration. Similarly, Nussbaum’s
conceptualization of a “capabilities” approach asks what is necessary not only to sustain life, but also to
promote human dignity to the fullest degree: “having decent, ample housing may be enough [to sustain
life]; it is not clear that human dignity requires that everyone have exactly the same type of housing…
the whole issue needs further investigation” (Nussbaum 2011, 41). While rights talk is generalizing,
needs talk introduces further complexity and suggests a more individualized approach. There were two
related sets of arguments used by the interview participants to justify needs talk over rights talk in af-
fordable housing advocacy. Some argued that it was easier to win hearts and minds using needs rather
than rights discourses. Others, echoing Fraser and Nussbaum, posited that needs talk provided a
stronger basis for the policy challenge of developing appropriate responses for diverse populations than
rights talk.
AND, Needs talk is better than rights talk in terms of actually helping people.
Actual advocates push back on the utility of rights talk for a laundry list of
reasons. Whitzman 22:
Whitzman 22 Whitzman, Carolyn. "Rights talk, needs talk and money talk in affordable housing part-
nerships." Journal of Planning Education and Research 42.3 (2022): 305-313. /becca

(0:42)

Several interviewees hastened to say that while they were personally supportive of the right to housing,
it was not part of the mandate of their organization. The housing advocate working for the Portland philanthropy re-
sponded: “[The organization] doesn’t talk like that … Some people do talk about the idea and I’m fully supportive of the idea … [but] I think
the framing and the messages are really important, that’s where the political support comes from.” Simi-
larly, a Melbourne social housing developer was careful to separate out her personal views from her organization’s vision, based on needs talk:
“[Our organization]’s vision is that all people are affordably housed in neighbourhoods that support life opportunities. Personally I think it is a
universal right.” An argument used by several interviewees was that rights
talk was too confrontational within societies
which still differentiate between “deserving” and “undeserving” poor. A Portland community housing provider said:
“There is always a political battle over ‘the deserving’ versus the ‘undeserving,’ the ‘working poor’ versus the ‘nonworking poor.’” While “the
[the right to housing] being universally ac-
right to housing” is part of the affordable housing advocacy “mantra,” it is “difficult to see
cepted. It is
too divisive politically.” Similarly, another Portland community housing provider and advocate added: “There is very
effective demonization of ‘leeches’ and ‘I never got mine, why should they get theirs?’” Asked whether it
would help politically to talk about the right to housing, the head of the Portland regional homelessness initiative answered that: “It depends. It
“in other
could be a rallying point for allies … The rights language lends that weight – to ending homelessness, not just addressing it.” But
contexts, it is a debatable proposition. [Some people] might support initiatives, while being uncomfort-
able … thinking that government needs to build a home for everyone. I don’t want to lose potential al-
lies.” The concern expressed by affordable housing advocates that the right to housing was politically divisive and potentially alienating was
borne out by interviews in all four cities. Needs Talk as Empathy for Diverse People Related to the notion that
needs talk is more effective in winning the hearts and minds of diverse potential allies and the general
public is the rationale that rights talk does not put a “face” on people in need of affordable housing. The
Portland philanthropic investor, who spoke of the importance of framing messages, added that in the face of “50 years of a very
well-coordinated and well-funded campaign to undermine the legitimacy of government and of social
spending,” perhaps the priority was to “build empathy … some people aren’t able to work, they are dis-
abled or older or children.” A Vancouver community housing developer began by saying: “No, [the right to housing] isn’t part of [our
organization]’s message or rhetoric.” Then she added: “When I talk, it is about women and children’s safety, preventing homelessness, making
sure kids can stay in school, keeping them out of foster care, preventing substance abuse.” These were issues, she felt, which had more reso-
A Vancouver provincial housing planner also de-
nance with potential funders, supporters or objectors than an abstract right.
scribed how he preferred talking about concrete needs and first-hand experiences over abstract rights :
Look, my wife and I live in the Downtown East Side where we see the impact of not having enough housing, folks with mental health and addic-
tions, First Nations people suffering from colonialism and the generational impacts of residential schools and women forced to live in unsafe
conditions. I wish more politicians would spend time there. Housing isn’t the whole solution, but it is the first step. The
message from
these affordable housing actors is that speaking of needs enabled caring specificity about older people,
women, children, people with disabilities, indigenous people, in a way that a binary rights discourse
might not. Money Talk in Affordable Housing Discourse Collaborative partnerships generally bring together representatives of diverse inter-
ests who see those interests as interdependent and compatible (Innes and Booher 2010, 6). As Fraser (1989a, 162) points out, there is al-
ways an “uneasy relationship” between rights talk, needs talk and interests talk in capitalist welfare
states. One of the bridging discourses in affordable housing (or in the provision of any basic need, from education to
health care) is how meeting that need might save money in the long term. This cost –benefit analysis dis-
course of affordable housing enabling greater economic productivity emerged in all four cities, and I
have characterized it as “money talk.” The interview respondents used money talk in two different ways. The first was an exten-
sion of the “rights talk as ineffective” and “needs talk as bridging” discourses: that money talk is the most effective way to de-
velop allies and convince politicians and the general public who elect them. A second argument was that
you can do good while making money, or at least, that their organization’s affordable housing work is
based on pragmatism rather than altruism. Economic Productivity as a Compelling Narrative A common response to
the question about using rights talk was to assert, as did the Vancouver regional planner, that “the most effective advocacy ar-
guments are around economic productivity and the impact of affordable housing for the workforce.” A Toronto housing
provider from a limited equity nonprofit company, a recent arrival from Vancouver, began her response by stating: Because we
aren’t going for direct government grants, we don’t have to make some of those arguments. But if people are paying 45% of
their income on housing, what will happen to local economies?… What I saw extensively from Vancouver was people moving
away from the city because they could not realize their aspirations there, or felt that there would be some long term insecurity
for them. So there is a loss of talent – which is the engine of the city, and the key to a competitive city in the thinking of current
urbanists. Two of the four interview respondents who said their organizations talked about the right to housing also incorpo-
rated economic productivity arguments. A Toronto private developer with a 30-year history in social housing development ar-
gued that the right to housing is “the starting point for creating healthy communities. You can’t have economic development
when you have people without a roof over their heads.” While a Toronto social investor and former public housing manager
said his organization did talk about the right to housing, he stressed: “Housing is a pivot point for so many issues, a 20 year in-
vestment in better health, decreasing crime, etc. The economic productivity arguments need to be stronger.” Similarly, the con-
“We
vener of a Toronto affordable housing alliance, and one of the few people under the age of 40 I interviewed, stated:
need to create a new narrative … Housing is not seen as a public good and not seen as public infrastruc-
ture … Definitely [we are] talking about economic productivity … we aren’t just talking about homeless-
ness.” Another interview participant who emphasized persuasive messaging for effective negotiations was the Toronto local
government planner: “We talk about the benefits of social inclusion, social determinants of health, and income diversity. I think
diversity is valued in Toronto.” She then mused that even “income diversity” with communities was not universally accepted as
a goal: “It does become a question of how much diversity.” Combining a needs-based and interest-based approach
worked for a Vancouver philanthropic investor, who echoed several respondents in saying: You have to use what will get a
good donor response. I’m uncomfortable about the economic arguments – it isn’t like you are going to close down emergency room
beds if you get the homeless off the streets, although you will use that resource better … It is about allowing people to reach their potential.
Some will become tax contributing citizens, others will find that very difficult … Donors want to know whether people are “graduating” from
While goals such as “reduced crime,” “healthy communities” and
services – the need can’t continue to grow infinitely.
“social inclusion” are based in an understanding of complex human needs, they are also being explicitly
linked to a neoliberal project of infinitely expanding economic growth. Pragmatic Arguments for Affordable Housing
Several respondents, from a Portland investment organization to the Toronto limited equity developer who did not receive direct government
grants, argued that, as for-profit organizations, rights talk had little to do with their affordable housing mandates. One
of the more articulate arguments for a utilitarian “needs talk” approach was a private developer using Low Income Housing Tax Credits to pro-
vide affordable family housing in central Portland: I think thefocus should be on [affordable housing] production. Not
who owns it, or equity, or the other things the City asks for. In the state’s massive, 300 page, “streamlined” call for pro-
posals a couple of years ago, there was nothing about cost effectiveness. It isn’t even the last thing on the list. It isn’t on the list … Tenants
actually don’t come in asking whether you are doing God’s business. They want a decent place to live.
ON CASE
First,

Framework:
Concede their fw—it’s the same as ours—we’re charged with structural reform—reject the
structural institution of capitalism.

Extinction outweighs under any framework—magnitude & reversibility.

Pummer 15 [Theron, Junior Research Fellow in Philosophy at St. Anne's College, University of Oxford.
“Moral Agreement on Saving the World” Practical Ethics, University of Oxford. May 18, 2015, Moral
Agreement on Saving the World | Practical Ethics (ox.ac.uk)] brett

(0:33)

There appears to be lot of disagreement in moral philosophy. Whether these many apparent disagree-
ments are deep and irresolvable, I believe there is at least one thing it is reasonable to agree on right
now, whatever general moral view we adopt: that it is very important to reduce the risk that all intelligent beings
on this planet are eliminated by an enormous catastrophe, such as a nuclear war. How we might in fact try to re-
duce such existential risks is discussed elsewhere. My claim here is only that we – whether we’re consequentialists, deontol-
ogists, or virtue ethicists – should all agree that we should try to save the world. According to consequentialism,
we should maximize the good, where this is taken to be the goodness, from an impartial perspective, of outcomes. Clearly one thing
that makes an outcome good is that the people in it are doing well. There is little disagreement here. If
the happiness or well-being of possible future people is just as important as that of people who already exist, and if they would have good lives,
it is not hard to see how reducing existential risk is easily the most important thing in the whole world. This is for
the familiar reason that there are so many people who could exist in the future – there are trillions upon trillions… upon tril-
lions. There are so many possible future people that reducing existential risk is arguably the most important thing in the
world, even if the well-being of these possible people were given only 0.001% as much weight as that of
existing people. Even on a wholly person-affecting view – according to which there’s nothing (apart from effects on existing people) to be
said in favor of creating happy people – the case for reducing existential risk is very strong. As noted in this seminal paper, this case is strength-
ened by the fact that there’s
a good chance that many existing people will, with the aid of life-extension tech-
nology, live very long and very high quality lives. You might think what I have just argued applies to consequentialists only.
There is a tendency to assume that, if an argument appeals to consequentialist considerations (the good-
ness of outcomes), it is irrelevant to non-consequentialists. But that is a huge mistake. Non-consequential-
ism is the view that there’s more that determines rightness than the goodness of consequences or outcomes; it
is not the view that the latter don’t matter. Even John Rawls wrote, “All ethical doctrines worth our attention take
consequences into account in judging rightness. One which did not would simply be irrational, crazy.” Minimally plausi-
ble versions of deontology and virtue ethics must be concerned in part with promoting the good, from
an impartial point of view. They’d thus imply very strong reasons to reduce existential risk, at least when this doesn’t signifi-
cantly involve doing harm to others or damaging one’s character. What’s even more surprising, perhaps, is that even if our own good (or that of
those near and dear to us) has much greater weight than goodness from the impartial “point of view of the universe,” indeed even if the latter
is entirely morally irrelevant, we may nonetheless have very strong reasons to reduce existential risk. Even egoism, the view that
each agent should maximize her own good, might imply strong reasons to reduce existential risk. It will de-
pend, among other things, on what one’s own good consists in. If well-being consisted in pleasure only, it is somewhat harder to argue that
egoism would imply strong reasons to reduce existential risk – perhaps we could argue that one would maximize her expected hedonic well-be-
ing by funding life extension technology or by having herself cryogenically frozen at the time of her bodily death as well as giving money to re-
duce existential risk (so that there is a world for her to live in!). I am not sure, however, how strong the reasons to do this would be. But views
which imply that, if I don’t care about other people, I have no or very little reason to help them are not even minimally plausible views (in addi-
tion to hedonistic egoism, I here have in mind views that imply that one has no reason to perform an act unless one actually desires to do that
act). Tobe minimally plausible, egoism will need to be paired with a more sophisticated account of well-
being. To see this, it is enough to consider, as Plato did, the possibility of a ring of invisibility – suppose that, while wearing it,
Ayn could derive some pleasure by helping the poor, but instead could derive just a bit more by severely
harming them. Hedonistic egoism would absurdly imply she should do the latter. To avoid this implica-
tion, egoists would need to build something like the meaningfulness of a life into well-being , in some robust
way, where this would to a significant extent be a function of other-regarding concerns (see chapter 12 of this classic intro to ethics). But once
these elements are included, we can (roughly, as above) argue that this sort of egoism will imply strong
reasons to reduce existential risk. Add to all of this Samuel Scheffler’s recent intriguing arguments (quick podcast version available
here) that most of what makes our lives go well would be undermined if there were no future generations of intelligent persons. On his view,
my life would contain vastly less well-being if (say) a year after my death the world came to an end. So obviously if Scheffler were right I’d have
very strong reason to reduce existential risk. We should also take into account moral uncertainty. What is it reason-
able for one to do, when one is uncertain not (only) about the empirical facts, but also about the moral
facts? I’ve just argued that there’s agreement among minimally plausible ethical views that we have strong
reason to reduce existential risk – not only consequentialists, but also deontologists, virtue ethicists, and
sophisticated egoists should agree. But even those (hedonistic egoists) who disagree should have a signifi-
cant level of confidence that they are mistaken, and that one of the above views is correct. Even if they
were 90% sure that their view is the correct one (and 10% sure that one of these other ones is correct), they would
have pretty strong reason, from the standpoint of moral uncertainty, to reduce existential risk. Perhaps
most disturbingly still, even if we are only 1% sure that the well-being of possible future people matters, it is at least ar-
guable that, from the standpoint of moral uncertainty, reducing existential risk is the most important thing
in the world. Again, this is largely for the reason that there are so many people who could exist in the future – there are trillions upon tril-
lions… upon trillions. (For more on this and other related issues, see this excellent dissertation). Of course, it is uncertain whether these untold
trillions would, in general, have good lives. It’s possible they’ll be miserable. It
is enough for my claim that there is moral
agreement in the relevant sense if, at least given certain empirical claims about what future lives would most likely be like, all
minimally plausible moral views would converge on the conclusion that we should try to save the world.
While there are some non-crazy views that place significantly greater moral weight on avoiding suffering than on
promoting happiness, for reasons others have offered (and for independent reasons I won’t get into here unless requested to), they
nonetheless seem to be fairly implausible views. And even if things did not go well for our ancestors, I am op-
timistic that they will overall go fantastically well for our descendants, if we allow them to. I suspect that
most of us alive today – at least those of us not suffering from extreme illness or poverty – have lives
that are well worth living, and that things will continue to improve. Derek Parfit, whose work has emphasized future
generations as well as agreement in ethics, described our situation clearly and accurately: “We live during the hinge of history. Given the
scientific and technological discoveries of the last two centuries, the world has never changed as fast. We
shall soon have even greater powers to transform, not only our surroundings, but ourselves and our successors. If we act wisely in the
next few centuries, humanity will survive its most dangerous and decisive period. Our descendants could, if nec-
essary, go elsewhere, spreading through this galaxy…. Our descendants might, I believe, make the further future very
good. But that good future may also depend in part on us. If our selfish recklessness ends human his-
tory, we would be acting very wrongly.” (From chapter 36 of On What Matters)
A2: Article 11.1
https://docs.google.com/document/d/
1QKKPwe0SbU8qvxkyfBQIB_M4sF02mKHW2bjKgOVFoQo/edit

(1:17)

The Plan Text is an independent voter to reject the affirmative. Article 11.1, which my opponent
advocates for, states, “The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of every-
one to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family.”

The aff endorses the patriarchal institutions present in modern society, furthering social hierar-
chies that marginalize and exclude the female voice. Extend Sayne 93—The U.N. is built upon a
framework of patriarchal capitalism. In fact,

A right to housing has little solvency for women if greater change is not made:
Sayne 93
Sayne 93 [Pamela; 1993; worked as a community organizer, educator, researcher, administrator, and activist for housing and
community development since the early 1970s; “Ideology as Law: Is There Room for Difference in the Right to Housing?”;
https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
referer=&httpsredir=1&filename=15&article=1001&context=books_fac&type=additional]

Razack (1991,14-16) cautions against a legal approach to rights claims that does not acknowledge "a theory of dif-
ference" relating to the diversity of women as a group and as members of different and varied communities. Un-
less women's differing situations are contextualized and understood as interdependent within various communi-
ties, there is little chance that rights claims can move beyond the present liberal dualist framework of patriarchy.
Such dualist hierarchical frameworks encourage competitive legal claims where one's gain is another's loss. This
competitive framework is so pervasive in the legal system that it becomes difficult to see other options.

White men are an institution and sexism is the exclusion of women from academia: prioritize
literature written by women because they are excluded by current citational catering systems.
The affirmative's “policy-cards” with majority male authors represents the system which only a
ballot can discourage.

The counterplan solves better—needs directly address the specific needs of women outside of
the context of universal “rights.” Our alt destroys the institutions of patriarchal capitalism,
which is necessary to create space for greater change for women and other minorities.

The standard is inclusivity—reject the aff for being non-inclusive. Prefer because the ROB is to
break down patriarchal neoliberal structures, which the aff fails to do through their arguments
and their plan text.
A2: Advantages

No Inherency— Status quo solves. The stability voucher program prioritizes

households experiencing or attempting to flee domestic violence and human
trafficking.

HUD Public Affairs, June 5, 2023, US Department of Housing and Urban Development, "HUD PROVIDES $45 MILLION IN
FUNDING TO PUBLIC HOUSING AUTHORITIES TO HELP HOUSEHOLDS EXPERIENCING OR AT RISK OF HOMELESSNESS,”
https://www.hud.gov/press/press_releases_media_advisories/hud_no_23_110

(0:18）

The Stability Voucher Program makes Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) assistance available through a
competitive process to PHAs who are partnering with local Continuum's of Care (CoCs) and/or Victim Service Providers to as-
sist households experiencing or at risk of homelessness, those fleeing or attempting to flee
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, human trafficking , and veterans
and families that include a veteran family member that meets one of the proceeding criteria.
HUD gave first priority to PHAs that formally partnered with CoCs in responding to HUD’s Special Notice of Funding Opportunity
to Address Unsheltered and Rural Homelessness.

THEN, Group the advantages, aff has no solvency—A right to housing is not
feasible. Discrimination and inefficiency prevents adequate enforcement and
vague proposals don’t get enforced. Gott 23:
Browne Gott, Hannah, Mackie, Peter K. and England, Edith 2023. Housing rights, homelessness prevention and a paradox of bu-
reaucracy? Housing Studies 38 (2) , pp. 250-268.10.1080/02673037.2021.1880000
‘https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/137772/1/P%20Mackie%202021%20housing%20rights%20postprint.pdf
(0:23)
service users explored negative experiences through their contact with the
Correspondingly, where
homelessness service, the lack of differentiation between the workers in the bureaucracy and
the bureaucracy itself was clear. In some of the stories we were told, there were frontline workers practic-
ing selectivity and differentiating levels of support, largely to the detriment of single homeless
people, particularly prison leavers. These themes were evident in the interviews with service
users, where single homeless people claimed, more frequently than households with children,
that they had not received adequate support; I think they did the bare minimum. They didn't really care a s***
about me. Just wanted me out and off their books. (Homelessness service user, male) It was suggested during interviews with
selectivity, and to some extent the silencing evident within the
service users and key informants that this
implementation of the legislation, was largely the result of structural constraints , although
the exclusion of particular groups such as prison leavers would imply that judgements are be-
ing made about deservedness amongst the homeless population (Alden, 2015c). Structural con-
straints and the street level bureaucrat Previous research on the actions of street level bu-
reaucrats indicates that structural pressures impact heavily on the implementation of policy
(Alden, 2015b; Alden, 2015c). Asfront-line workers deliver policy in action, Lipsky (1980) argues that
their ability to fulfill their role will be affected by the structural conditions that they are working
within and forces that they have no power over. In this conception of a bureaucracy, Lipsky’s argument aligns
with that of Weber (1930) as frontline workers are at the mercy of larger bureaucratic processes . The in-
terview findings suggest that the actions of frontline workers are, in some cases, being affected by two main structural con-
straints on the homelessness service; resources and paperwork. It is established that the UK social welfare safety net is facing
severe cuts to resources, coupled with growing need (Forrest and Hirayama 2015; Fitzpatrick and Pawson 2013). These factors,
alongside a challenging UK housing market, including a lack of affordable housing, provide a backdrop to the findings in this arti-
cle, however they received little attention in research interviews and so they are not explored fully in this paper (Arundel 2017).
This is a notable exclusion and we could speculate this is due to the more pressing, seemingly everyday concerns faced by all of
the interviewees in this research – acknowledging the fact that many of the challenges explored in this work cannot be thought
of as distinct from these larger global challenges. 17 A lack of resources was perceived to be a key constraining factor on the
ability of frontline staff to effectively support people. A theme that arose from key informants was that some of the poor prac-
tice, including selectivity and silencing (discussed earlier), was the result of the lack of resources (people, time and money)
available to deliver the new rights created in Wales. Notably, these constraints were also highlighted by service users; They’ve
been completely overwhelmed this year by the number of people who are applying and some of that is to do with people hav-
ing more rights and coming forward but I think a lot of it is to do with welfare reform agenda and austerity and levels of poverty
and the rising cost of living and the rising cost of housing in Wales. So, they’ve got huge, huge challenges. (Key informant, third
sector policy expert) I would say they have done an excellent job. I think it is incredible. They must be under a lot of financial
pressures and everything because they are closing down different places, but no I think it was fantastic really. (Homelessness
service user, male) It has already been shown that the paperwork associated with the legislation in Wales appears to be exclud-
ing service users and interviews with key informants identified that paperwork is also constraining the actions of frontline staff.
These findings echo Weberian literature on bureaucracy, whereby those who work within bu-
reaucratic systems are constrained by them. Mirroring the narratives of service users and the
burden of the paperwork in their day to day lives, a similar theme arose in the interviews of the
key informants who expressed frustration at the additional time frontline staff needed to spend
on administration as a result of the new legislation. This tension exposes part of the paradox of
bureaucracy as much of the additional paperwork is required to demonstrate that the local au-
thority have done their best in terms of ‘reasonable steps’ to prevent or alleviate a household’s
homelessness.

AND, Universalism fails to take into account the social differences of people
and the result is that programs fail. Carrey and Crammond 17
[Gemma Carrey and Brad Crammond, March 2017, Journal of Epidemiology and Community
Health, “A glossary of policy frameworks: the many forms of 'universalism' and policy 'target-
ing'”, https://www.jstor.org/stable/44363653, Accessed July 12 2023, ah]

(0:52)

However, welfare scholars argue that many states which have been described as 'universal' ex-
clude certain groups by virtue of viewing populations as homogenous.20 This means that they
are either not really universal at all, or in practice have been found to incorporate various de-
grees of targeting.10 The universalist approaches of postwar Britain and the Nordic states have come under attack from scholars con-
cerned with social diversity.10 20-22 Labelled as 'false universalism', they are seen as insufficient for dealing
with social difference.20 For example, universalism in the postwar era overlooked the needs of
women and minority groups and catered predominately to white men .20 Meanwhile, significant gaps have
been found in the 'universalist' programmes of the Nordic states, particularly in benefits for immigrants and guest workers.21 Here, pro-
ponents of universalism are accused of confusing 'impartiality' with uniformity and 'equality of
treatment' with 'sameness of treatment' regardless of the different needs or ability to access
services.8 These ideas have their roots in the work of Ronald Dworkin23, who argued that equal treatment of all individu-
als is insufficient. Giving equal treatment to all people would mean, for example, providing the same resources to someone with a dis-
ability and someone without a disability. To be sensitive to differences in need, Dworkin's theory of equality
argued that individuals must be treated differently. Hence, while universalism is regarded as a
precondition of equality, it does little to promote redistribution and ignores existing inequali-
ties.23 Others argue that universalism does not truly exist in practice, as judgements are con-
stantly made in the delivery of services about who gets what, against a range of criteria .21 24 For
example, within a universal healthcare system, decisions are routinely made about which individuals need

which services. Some policy researchers suggest that this can still be considered 'universalism', and merely reflects the need for 'fine
tuning' at the margins.10 25

Finally, the counterplan solves better—we guarantee a need to housing, which

solves the aff’s impacts without realizing a right which is counterproductive and
ineffective. Thus, I negate.