1AC

Plan
The United States should legalize nearly all online gambling in the United States.
1AC Trade

Advantage One: Trade
Well isolate three scenarios
Scenario One: The Dispute settlement mechanism
US noncompliance with the 2006 WTO decision in favor of Antigua decimates the
credibility of the dispute settlement mechanism. The plan is key to restoring faith in
the system.
Saez-IP watch-4/26/14 http://www.ip-watch.org/2014/04/26/antigua-questions-efficacy-of-wto-
dispute-system-over-ip-related-case/
Can the World Trade Organizations smallest members use the dispute settlement system
effectively? That is a question that seemed to be suggested by the tiny Caribbean nation of Antigua and Barbuda
at a WTO Dispute Settlement Body meeting yesterday, in an intellectual property-related case involving a United
States gambling ban . So just what does this dispute resolution process do for a country such as Antigua and Barbuda? a delegate
asked in a prepared statement for the 25 April DSB meeting. It seems, the statement continued, perhaps the harsh light of
this prolonged action by one of the weakest against the strongest is on the verge of condemning the
multilateral trading system established here some two decades ago as what its critics then feared a
vehicle by which the strong economies could extract concessions from the weak while at the same
time effectively stone-walling no, in fairness, denying the ability of small economies to obtain any meaningful
recourse when wronged by others. Antigua and Barbudas statement, delivered by Dominica on its behalf, was on its case
against the United States involving measures affecting the cross-border supply of gambling and betting services. The source of its
frustration is what it says is the US failure to comply with the WTO ruling the Caribbean nation won, and its
inability to employ the allowed penalties against the US out of fear of recrimination. Jamaica made a statement supporting Antigua and
Barbuda, noting in particular its belief that, For all countries who rely on the rules-based Multilateral Trading
System Small Vulnerable Economies in particular it is extremely important that the credibility of
the Dispute Settlement Mechanism be preserved and strengthened through faithful implementation
of decisions not undermined through non-compliance. In exchange for US blocking of Antiguan gambling services in
the US, Antigua has the right to not protect US$21 million worth of US intellectual property rights every year unless they mutually resolve the
issue. The United States has done nothing to resolve the issue , has cast Antigua and Barbuda as an impediment in US
efforts to alter commitments under the WTO services agreement, and has set the small nation up for harsh criticism for trying to use the
remedy provided it by the WTO dispute panel, Antigua said.
The Antigua decision has important symbolic value for solidifying the DSM as a
credible site for resolving economic conflicts. Economic disputes are inevitable-the
DSM is key to preventing them from escalating to global war.
Hamann, J.D. Vanderbilt University Law School, 2009 Replacing Slingshots with Swords: Implications of the
Antigua-Gambling 22.6 Panel Report for Developing Countries and the World Trading System http://www.vanderbilt.edu/jotl/manage/wp-
content/uploads/hamann-cr_final_final.pdf
Voluntary compliance with WTO rules and procedures is of the utmost importance to the international
trading system.100 Given the increasingly globalized market, the coming years will see an increase in
the importance of the WTO as a cohesive force and arbiter of disputes that likely will become more
frequent and injurious .101 The work of the WTO cannot be overstated in a nuclear-armed world , as
the body continues to promote respect and even amity among nations with opposing philosophical
goals or modes of governance.102 Demagogues in the U nites S tates may decry the rise of China as a
geopolitical threat,103 and extremists in Russia may play dangerous games of brinksmanship with other
great powers, but trade keeps politicians fingers off the button. 104 The WTO offers an astounding rate
of compliance for an organization with no standing army and no real power to enforce its decisions, suggesting that governments
recognize the value of maintaining the international construct of the WTO.105 In order to promote voluntary compliance,
the WTO must maintain a high level of credibility .106 Nations must perceive the WTO as the most reasonable option for
dispute resolution or fear that the WTO wields enough influence to enforce sanctions.107 The arbitrators charged with performing the
substantive work of the WTO by negotiating, compromising, and issuing judgments are keenly aware of the responsibility they have to uphold
the organizations credibility.108 Credibility is lost where a supranational organization appears irredeemably partisan or where
nations lack a sense of obligation to give effect to the organizations judgments.109 GATT, the precursor to the
WTO, could not approach the level of effectiveness of the WTO due to the systems close ties to the interests of the developed nations.110
Developing nations saw no advantage associated with participation in GATT.111 Thus, a secondary organizational goal of the WTO was to
create a system to accurately reflect the changing nature of economic development.112 To some extent, developed economies may feel a
sense of responsibility to help developing and less-developed nations who desire material prosperity;113 however, WTO compliance and
participation need not rest on humanitarian considerations alone the rise of previously imperiled economies such as India demonstrates the
continual flux of the global economy and the correlating incentives.114 Although developed nations frequently feel a sense of responsibility to
nations whose people live in poverty, developed nations also recognize the advantages of incorporating developing economies into the global
trade system and encouraging peaceful trade within and among such economies.115 Accordingly, the interests of developing nations have
garnered a considerable amount of attention within the organization116 and the critical literature surrounding the undertakings of the
WTO.117 The WTO, could not approach the level of effectiveness of the WTO due to the systems close ties to the interests of the developed
nations.110 Developing nations saw no advantage associated with participation in GATT.111 Thus, a secondary organizational goal of the WTO
was to create a system to accurately reflect the changing nature of economic development.112 To some extent, developed economies may feel
a sense of responsibility to help developing and less-developed nations who desire material prosperity;113 however, WTO compliance and
participation need not rest on humanitarian considerations alone the rise of previously imperiled economies such as India demonstrates the
continual flux of the global economy and the correlating incentives.114 Although developed nations frequently feel a sense of responsibility to
nations whose people live in poverty, developed nations also recognize the advantages of incorporating developing economies into the global
trade system and encouraging peaceful trade within and among such economies.115 Accordingly, the interests of developing nations have
garnered a considerable amount of attention within the organization116 and the critical literature surrounding the undertakings of the
WTO.117 The participation of developing nations has increased, but not sufficiently .118 The global
trading system (both the WTO as an institution and the countries with an economic stake in a smoothly* functioning global economy)
must work to encourage these nations to utilize the availability of WTO proceedings as a means of resolving
economic disputes.119 The decision in Antigua-Gambling has an impact analogous to a marketing
campaign promoting incentives for developing countries to join the WTO.120 If Antigua can
successfully challenge the U.S. refusal to comply with WTO arbitration,121 and if there are
mechanisms in place to enable Antigua to effect meaningful change in U.S. economic,122 then the WTO
truly is a forum where each member nation can expect a fair remedy.
Scenario Two: Trade Liberalization
Two internal links
First, Cross Retaliation
This year is key to resolving the gambling dispute-Antigua is on the verge of initiating
cross retaliation
Newell, 2014 (Jennifer, worked for the World Poker Tour in LA and is citing the governor general of Antigua, Antigua Makes Another
Move in Fight for Online Gambling Rights http://www.cardschat.com/news/antigua-makes-another-move-fight-online-gambling-rights-562)
The governments of the U nited S tates and Antigua and Barbuda have been battling over Internet gaming
rights for more than a decade. Even when the World T rade Organization ruled that the US violated the nations rights
in 2005, the US refused to budge . So Antigua and Barbuda is taking matters into its own hands. The
latest move came from Governor General Dame Louise Lake-Tack, who announced that the government
will make changes to its copyright legislation this year . This is the latest step in a radical movement by Antigua and
Barbuda to remove all protection that US intellectual property has in their territory, as
Antigua cross retaliation will set a precedent to interrupt commerce and trigger global
trade wars
Rosenthal-NYT-2/7/13 A New Front in Global Trade Wars
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/08/opinion/a-new-front-in-global-trade-wars.html?_r=0

A 10-year trade dispute between the United States and the Caribbean nation of Antigua and Barbuda involving
online gambling has reached an important turning point that could set a disturbing precedent for
global commerce. Last week, the World Trade Organization authorized Antigua and Barbuda to violate
intellectual property protections on American movies, books, pharmaceuticals and other goods as
compensation for United States policies that harmed the islands online gambling business. The
judgment, if carried out, could open up a whole new front in trade wars, in which countries retaliate
against unfair practices by imposing tariffs or quotas on other goods . But while its relatively easy to dole out
tit-for-tat punishment when it comes to goods like bananas, which are easy to measure, it will be much harder to do that with
intellectual property, because copies of, say, Hollywood movies, can be further copied. Antigua made a strong case to the W.T.O.
that American policies like restrictions on money transfers have undercut its online gambling sites in violation of trade agreements in
which the United States committed not to restrict such businesses. As a result, it says it has lost most of the 4,000 jobs connected to
online gambling it once had. It is unclear how, or if, Antigua will take advantage of the judgment, which limits the amount of harm it
can cause to the owners of copyrights and patents in the United States to $21 million a year. Some have speculated that it could
pirate American movies or music by offering them for sale online at cut-rate prices, or it could offer generic versions of patented
drugs. Antiguan officials say they would prefer a monetary settlement from Washington. United States officials have offered help in
increasing American tourists to the islands, which officials there have said is too paltry a remedy. Both sides need to return
to the negotiating table and come up with a deal that does not rely on legally approved piracy.
permitted by the WTO sanctions.
Second, US trade credibility
US noncompliance with the Antigua decision destroys US trade credibility-Internet
issues are particularly salient to the future of the global trading order-US hypocrisy
over gambling undermines the basis for international compliance with global trading
rules.
Levick, Esq., President and CEO of LEVICK, 12 (Richard, LEVICK represents countries and
companies in the highest-stakes global communications matters, was honored for the past three years
on NACD Directorships list of The 100 Most Influential People in the Boardroom, 9-18-12, Obama's
Case against China: The U.S. Has a WTO Credibility Gap,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardlevick/2012/09/18/obamas-case-against-china-the-u-s-has-a-wto-
credibility-gap/, accessed 8-6-14, CMM)

The Chinese have two good reasons to scoff dismissively at the Obama administrations trade case, filed yesterday at the World Trade
Organization, which accuses them of unfairly subsidizing auto and auto parts exports. The case specifically targets $1 billion in subsidies during
2009-2011, mainly of exports to developing countries where the automobiles are assembled and purportedly compete with cars manufactured
stateside. The U.S. is also about to take further legal action in an ongoing WTO case against China that involves anti-dumping duties levied last
year against American car exports to China. China has filed its own counter-complaint with the WTO over anti-dumping duties that Washington
had levied on $7 billion-plus in various Chinese goods.) The first reason for the Chinese to balk is fairly obvious. President Obama is
announcing the initiative amid the heat of the election and hes doing so in battleground Ohio. Its a fair guess the Chinese will try to derail his
initiatives by highlighting the blatantly ulterior motives at play. The second reason is even more important because it
potentially compromises any case the U.S. might bring before the WTO. It involves an ongoing
dispute , dating back to the early part of this century, between the government of Antigua and Barbuda (Antigua) and the
government of the United S tates. At issue is the total prohibition by the U.S. of cross-border gambling
services provided via the Internet. Antigua has challenged that prohibition. It seems a relatively narrow issue but
theres a catch: the WTO ruled on the matter and came heavily down on the side of Antigua, which is
the smallest WTO member to have ever opposed, much less prevailed against, the organizations
largest member in such a proceeding . So far, however, the U.S. has simply not complied with the
ruling. We have neither lifted the restrictions nor satisfied a damages penalty that continues to mount annually. It is levied each year the
U.S. fails to pay up in full. Typically, the United States takes a pretty high-minded approach to compliance
with global regimens of all sorts, from WTO rulings to anti-corruption initiatives. We have aggressively
sought a leadership role and more or less achieved it. Caesars wife must now be beyond reproach. The
consequences of hypocrisy are unacceptable, while only one instance of non-compliance is needed to
expose such hypocrisy. Never mind a blatantly political instance like the current Obama case over auto and supply subsidies.
Imagine youre the Peoples Bank of China, which has taken a number of steps since 2001 that discriminate against foreign suppliers of
electronic payment systems. On September 1, a WTO Panel Report found in favor of a case brought by the U.S. This decision makes it clear
that China should honor its WTO commitments to play by the rules and stop discriminating against American financial services providers, said
U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk. But why should it play by the rules? We dont, at least not in this case. A compromised WTO is
only one consequence of our non-compliance. Equally portentous, the WTO could itself approve violations of U.S.
intellectual property as fair retaliation for unfair trade practices. In 2010, for example, the U.S. settled a dispute with Brazil over American
subsidies to cotton growers, one day before Brazil was to begin sanctions with WTO authorization totaling $830 million. The sanctions
included tariffs on such items as autos, pharmaceuticals, medical equipment, electronics, textiles, and wheat. Brazil would also have been the
first country to infringe American intellectual property rights with the WTOs blessings. Brazilian farmers would have no longer been charged
fees for seeds developed by American biotech companies. American pharmaceutical patents would have been directly violated prior to
expiration. The prospective costs to U.S. businesses were estimated at $239 million. The United States blinked then and it better blink now in
its dispute with Antigua, or risk providing its global competitors with a powerful excuse for why they too can ignore the rules or simply
stonewall when called to task for doing so. The Antigua matter is especially intriguing because it also raises a
number of related questions about how global business is trending in the Internet Age. In March 2003,
Antigua took its case to the WTO after several months trying to engage the U.S. in meaningful negotiations. A year later, the Dispute Panel
Report found that the restrictions against online gambling violated the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) treaty. The ruling caused
quite a stir in the gaming industry as it presaged a new era of unambiguously legalized online gambling. The American position was that our
federal law simply prohibits all betting and gambling services provided by non-U.S. interests. So in 2005, the WTO heard and ruled on an
appeal, finding that: (1) free trade in gambling was indeed one of the commitments we made to GATS; (2) that we had adopted measures
including the 1961 Interstate Wire Act prohibiting the use of wire communication facilities to convey bets that interfere with that
commitment; and that (3) we could not rely on a moral defense, i.e., that gambling is immoral and the public needs to be protected from it.
The WTO explained that any moral defense in this case was obviated by, for one, the interstate online horse race betting that is today
altogether legal. The WTO gave the U.S. eleven months to either allow Antigua to provide online gambling or prohibit domestic online horse
betting. So much for morality! For the U.S., the WTO decision requires a re-haul of the Wire Act so that it is compatible with our GATS
commitment and, in a broader sense, adjusted to the realities of the digital age in a global economy. But the initial response from the U.S.
Trade Office was that it would not ask Congress to weaken restrictions. Then came the penalties. In 2007, the WTO awarded Antigua $21
million in annual damages. The tab has now accumulated to over $120 million. Throughout, the Antiguans have seemed most reasonable. This
August, their government approached the WTO, seeking a compromise on the damages issue even as it assembled a team to come up with
further solutions for consideration by both the U.S. and WTO. Meanwhile, the interminable American foot-dragging only
encourages others in the world to disregard any pressure we might try to impose on how they should
play by the rules . There are numerous lessons in this saga for American lawmakers. First, they need to realize what their
constituents think. A 2006 Zogby poll commissioned by Antigua found that over 70% of Americans do not want the government to stop online
betting. Lawmakers and enforcers should also view the Wire Act in context. In light of all the complex legal issues that Internet commerce has
raised in the past two decades, isnt it reasonable that a 1961 law governing wire communications ought to be revisited under any
circumstances? Bear in mind too the intent of the Wire Act, which then-Attorney General Robert Kennedy saw mainly as a weapon against
organized crime. The good news is that the DOJ has already showed some flexibility; notably, it reversed its position last year by exempting
lotteries from Wire Act enforcement. Perhaps the tide is slowly turning in favor of Antigua. Yet this story is not just about
gaming, nor is it just about Antigua . It is also about our own legal and competitive preparedness for
the digital age, and how that preparedness affects our credibility in the global marketplace. After all, it
would be a shame to see American companies lose millions in intellectual property because of our insistence that a 1961 law must govern
technologies that were unimagined when the law was written. Innovation and leadership are inseparable. If our
policies, legal and otherwise, do not evolve in tandem with marketplace realities, we will inevitably
fail our own standards at every level. There are people throughout the world who are just salivating to see that happen.
Independently, the David and Goliath nature of the conflict makes Antigua a key
precedent for developing world buy-into the multilateral trade system
Stradbrooke, 4/27/2014 (Steven, CalvinAyre.com, ANTIGUAS WTO DISPUTE WITH UNITED STATES PROVES MIGHT MAKES
RIGHT IN GLOBAL TRADE http://calvinayre.com/2014/04/27/business/antigua-says-wto-cant-help-small-nations/)
Antigua say s its long-running effort to get the United S tates to observe World Trade Organization (WTO) rulings on
online gambling underscores the fact that strong nations make their own global trade rules . On Friday,
representatives from Dominica attended the most recent meeting of the WTOs Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) in Geneva to read a statement
on behalf of Antigua and Barbuda conveying their frustration at the US stonewalling on the online gambling issue. More than a decade ago,
Antigua filed a WTO complaint over US efforts to prevent Antigua-licensed online gambling operators from serving US customers. The WTO
upheld Antiguas complaint and rejected subsequent efforts by the US to reverse the decision. However, the US has shown no
willingness to pay Antigua the $21m in annual damages it was awarded in 2006, creating a total unpaid tab of
around $150m (and growing). Given the US intransigence, the WTO authorized Antigua to collect these damages by other means,
including offering royalty-free downloads of US intellectual property such as films, TV shows and music files. As quoted by Intellectual Property
Watch, Antiguas statement to the DSB on Friday emphasized the David v. Goliath nature of this struggle , saying
this prolonged action by one of the weakest against the strongest was giving ammunition to critics
who believe the only truly binding global trade rule was might makes right. Failure to address the
issue would leave the WTO looking like a vehicle by which the strong economies could extract
concessions from the weak while at the same time effectively stone-walling no, in fairness, denying
the ability of small economies to obtain any meaningful recourse when wronged by others . Antigua has
engaged in multiple negotiating sessions with the US to resolve this issue but has yet to receive any offer they deemed serious. Antigua has
since come to the realization that the major economies of the world do not have to face the same fears and uncertainties when they as they
have indeed done make their own recourse to such remedies. The statement went on to detail US efforts to paint Antigua as the villain for
looking to collect on its WTO-authorized damages. Its been over a year since the DSB authorized Antigua to implement its digital download
site, yet Antigua has shown remarkable restraint in pulling the trigger. But as Antigua prepares to implement this remedy of last resort, the
US has made public statements and pronouncements, accusations that if the Antiguan government were to actually impose the suspension of
concessions, somehow Antigua and Barbuda would be the outliers here. Small wonder, then, that Antigua is left wondering: just
what does this dispute resolution process do for a country such as Antigua and Barbuda ?
Erosion of global trading system triggers multiple scenarios for escalatory nuclear
conflict
Panzner, 2008 Michael, faculty at the New York Institute of Finance, 25-year veteran of the global stock, bond, and currency markets
who has worked in New York and London for HSBC, Soros Funds, ABN Amro, Dresdner Bank, and JPMorgan Chase, Financial Armageddon:
Protect Your Future from Economic Collapse, p. 136-138)
Continuing calls for curbs on the flow of finance and trade will inspire the United States and other nations to spew forth protectionist
legislation like the notorious Smoot-Hawley bill. Introduced at the start of the Great Depression, it triggered a series of
tit-for-tat economic responses, which many commentators believe helped turn a serious economic
downturn into a prolonged and devastating global disaster. But if history is any guide, those lessons will have
been long forgotten during the next collapse. Eventually, fed by a mood of desperation and growing public anger,
restrictions on trade, finance, investment, and immigration will almost certainly intensify Authorities and
ordinary citizens will likely scrutinize the cross-border movement of Americans and outsiders alike, and lawmakers may even call for a general
crackdown on nonessential travel. Meanwhile, many nations will make transporting or sending funds to other countries exceedingly difficult.
As desperate officials try to limit the fallout from decades of ill-conceived, corrupt, and reckless
policies, they will introduce controls on foreign exchange. Foreign individuals and companies seeking to acquire certain
American infrastructure assets, or trying to buy property and other assets on the cheap thanks to a rapidly depreciating dollar, will be stymied
by limits on investment by noncitizens. Those efforts will cause spasms to ripple across economies and markets,
disrupting global payment, settlement, and clearing mechanisms. All of this will, of course, continue
to undermine business confidence and consumer spending. In a world of lockouts and lockdowns, any link that
transmits systemic financial pressures across markets through arbitrage or portfolio-based risk management, or that allows diseases to be
easily spread from one country to the next by tourists and wildlife, or that otherwise facilitates unwelcome exchanges of any kind will be
viewed with suspicion and dealt with accordingly. The rise in isolationism and protectionism will bring about ever
more heated arguments and dangerous confrontations over shared sources of oil, gas, and other key
commodities as well as factors of production that must, out of necessity, be acquired from less-than-
friendly nations. Whether involving raw materials used in strategic industries or basic necessities such
as food, water, and energy, efforts to secure adequate supplies will take increasing precedence in a
world where demand seems constantly out of kilter with supply. Disputes over the misuse, overuse, and pollution of the
environment and natural resources will become more commonplace. Around the world, such tensions will
give rise to fullscale military encounters, often with minimal provocation. In some instances, economic
conditions will serve as a convenient pretext for conflicts that stem from cultural and religious
differences. Alternatively, nations may look to divert attention away from domestic problems by
channeling frustration and populist sentiment toward other countries and cultures. Enabled by cheap
technology and the waning threat of American retribution, terrorist groups will likely boost the
frequency and scale of their horrifying attacks, bringing the threat of random violence to a whole new
level. Turbulent conditions will encourage aggressive saber rattling and interdictions by rogue nations running amok. Age-old clashes
will also take on a new, more heated sense of urgency. China will likely assume an increasingly
belligerent posture toward Taiwan, while Iran may embark on overt colonization of its neighbors in
the Mideast. Israel, for its part, may look to draw a dwindling list of allies from around the world into
a growing number of conflicts. Some observers, like John Mearsheimer, a political scientist at the University of Chicago, have even
speculated that an intense confrontation between the United States and China is inevitable at some point. More than a few disputes will
turn out to be almost wholly ideological. Growing cultural and religious differences will be transformed from wars of words to battles soaked in
blood. Long-simmering resentments could also degenerate quickly, spurring the basest of human instincts and triggering genocidal acts.
Terrorists employing biological or nuclear weapons will vie with conventional forces using jets, cruise missiles, and bunker-busting bombs to
cause widespread destruction. Many will interpret stepped-up conf icts between Muslims and Western societies as the beginnings of a new
world war.
Theres no alternative to a multilateral trade system collapse causes instability and
great power conflict.
Panitchpakdi, 2004 Panitchpakdi, 2/26/2004 Supachai secretary-general of the UN Conference on Trade and Development,
American Leadership and the World Trade Organization, p. http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/spsp_e/spsp22_e.htm
The second point is that strengthening the world trading system is essential to America's wider global objectives.
Fighting terrorism, reducing poverty, improving health, integrating China and other countries in the
global economy all of these issues are linked , in one way or another, to world trade . This is not to say that trade is the answer to
all America's economic concerns; only that meaningful solutions are inconceivable without it. The world trading system is the linchpin of today's
global order underpinning its security as well as its prosperity. A successful WTO is an example of
how multilateralism can work . Conversely, if it weakens or fails, much else could fail with it . This is
something which the US at the epicentre of a more interdependent world cannot afford to ignore. These priorities must continue to guide US
policy as they have done since the Second World War. America has been the main driving force behind eight rounds of multilateral trade negotiations, including the successful conclusion of
the Uruguay Round and the creation of the WTO. The US together with the EU was instrumental in launching the latest Doha Round two years ago. Likewise, the recent initiative,
spearheaded by Ambassador Zoellick, to re-energize the negotiations and move them towards a successful conclusion is yet another example of how essential the US is to the multilateral
process signalling that the US remains committed to further liberalization, that the Round is moving, and that other countries have a tangible reason to get on board. The reality is this:
when the US leads the system can move forward; when it withdraws , the system drifts . The fact that US
leadership is essential , does not mean it is easy. As WTO rules have expanded, so too has as the complexity of the issues the WTO deals with everything from
agriculture and accounting, to tariffs and telecommunication. The WTO is also exerting huge gravitational pull on countries to join and participate actively in the system. The WTO now
has 146 Members up from just 23 in 1947 and this could easily rise to 170 or more within a decade. Emerging powers like China, Brazil, and India rightly demand a greater say in an
institution in which they have a growing stake. So too do a rising number of voices outside the system as well. More and more people recognize that the WTO matters. More non-state actors
businesses, unions, environmentalists, development NGOs want the multilateral system to reflect their causes and concerns. A decade ago, few people had even heard of the GATT.
Today the WTO is front page news. A more visible WTO has inevitably become a more politicized WTO. The sound and fury surrounding the WTO's recent Ministerial Meeting in Cancun let
alone Seattle underline how challenging managing the WTO can be. But these challenges can be exaggerated. They exist precisely because so many countries have embraced a common
vision. Countries the world over have turned to open trade and a rules-based system as the key to their growth and development. They agreed to the Doha Round because they believed
their interests lay in freer trade, stronger rules, a more effective WTO. Even in Cancun the great debate was whether the multilateral trading system was moving fast and far enough not
whether it should be rolled back. Indeed, it is critically important that we draw the right conclusions from Cancun which are only now becoming clearer. The disappointment was that
ministers were unable to reach agreement. The achievement was that they exposed the risks of failure, highlighted the need for North-South collaboration, and after a period of
introspection acknowledged the inescapable logic of negotiation. Cancun showed that, if the challenges have increased, it is because the stakes are higher. The bigger challenge to American
leadership comes from inside not outside the United States. In America's current debate about trade, jobs and globalization we have heard a lot about the costs of liberalization. We need
to hear more about the opportunities. We need to be reminded of the advantages of America's openness and its trade with the world about the economic growth tied to exports; the
inflation-fighting role of imports, the innovative stimulus of global competition. We need to explain that freer trade works precisely because it involves positive change better products,
better job opportunities, better ways of doing things, better standards of living. While it is true that change can be threatening for people and societies, it is equally true that the vulnerable are
not helped by resisting change by putting up barriers and shutting out competition. They are helped by training, education, new and better opportunities that with the right support
policies can flow from a globalized economy. The fact is that for every job in the US threatened by imports there is a growing number of high-paid, high skill jobs created by exports. Exports
supported 7 million workers a decade ago; that number is approaching around 12 million today. And these new jobs in aerospace, finance, information technology pay 10 per cent more
than the average American wage. We especially need to inject some clarity and facts into the current debate over the outsourcing of services jobs. Over the next decade, the US is
projected to create an average of more than 2 million new services jobs a year compared to roughly 200,000 services jobs that will be outsourced. I am well aware that this issue is the
source of much anxiety in America today. Many Americans worry about the potential job losses that might arise from foreign competition in services sectors. But its worth remembering that
concerns about the impact of foreign competition are not new. Many of the reservations people are expressing today are echoes of what we heard in the 1970s and 1980s. But people at that
time didnt fully appreciate the power of American ingenuity. Remarkable advances in technology and productivity laid the foundation for unprecedented job creation in the 1990s and there is
no reason to doubt that this country, which has shown time and again such remarkable potential for competing in the global economy, will not soon embark again on such a burst of job-
creation. America's openness to service-sector trade combined with the high skills of its workforce will lead to more growth, stronger industries, and a shift towards higher value-added,
higher-paying employment. Conversely, closing the door to service trade is a strategy for killing jobs, not saving them. Americans have never run from a challenge and have never been
defeatist in the face of strong competition. Part of this challenge is to create the conditions for global growth and job creation here and around the world. I believe Americans realize what is at
stake. The process of opening to global trade can be disruptive, but they recognize that the US economy cannot grow and prosper any other way. They recognize the importance of finding
global solutions to shared global problems. Besides, what is the alternative to the WTO? Some argue that the world's only superpower need not be tied down
by the constraints of the multilateral system. They claim that US sovereignty is compromised by international rules, and that multilateral institutions limit rather than expand US influence.
Americans should be deeply sceptical about these claims. Almost none of the trade issues facing the US today are any easier to solve
unilaterally, bilaterally or regionally. The reality is probably just the opposite. What sense does it make for example to
negotiate e-commerce rules bilaterally? Who would be interested in disciplining agricultural subsidies
in a regional agreement but not globally? How can bilateral deals even dozens of them come close to
matching the economic impact of agreeing to global free trade among 146 countries? Bilateral and
regional deals can sometimes be a complement to the multilateral system, but they can never be a
substitute . There is a bigger danger. By treating some countries preferentially, bilateral and regional deals exclude
others fragmenting global trade and distorting the world economy . Instead of liberalizing trade
and widening growth they carve it up . Worse, they have a domino effect: bilateral deals inevitably beget more
bilateral deals , as countries left outside are forced to seek their own preferential arrangements, or risk further
marginalization. This is precisely what we see happening today. There are already over two hundred bilateral and regional agreements in existence, and each month we hear of a
new or expanded deal. There is a basic contradiction in the assumption that bilateral approaches serve to strengthen the multilateral, rules-based system. Even when
intended to spur free trade, they can ultimately risk undermining it . This is in no one's interest, least of all
the United States. America led in the creation of the multilateral system after 1945 precisely to avoid a return to hostile blocs
blocs that had done so much to fuel interwar instability and conflict . America's vision, in the words of Cordell Hull, was that enduring
peace and the welfare of nations was indissolubly connected with the friendliness, fairness and freedom of world trade. Trade would bind nations together,
making another war unthinkable . Non-discriminatory rules would prevent a return to preferential deals and closed alliances. A network of multilateral initiatives
and organizations the Marshal Plan, the IMF, the World Bank, and the GATT, now the WTO would provide the institutional bedrock for the international rule of law, not power.
Underpinning all this was the idea that freedom free trade, free democracies, the free exchange of ideas was essential to peace and prosperity, a more just world. It is a vision that has
emerged pre-eminent a half century later. Trade has expanded twenty-fold since 1950. Millions in Asia, Latin America, and Africa are being lifted out of poverty, and millions more have new
hope for the future. All the great powers the US, Europe, Japan, India, China and soon Russia are part of a
rules-based multilateral trading system, greatly increasing the chances for world prosperity and
peace . There is a growing realization that in our interdependent world sovereignty is constrained, not by multilateral rules, but by the absence of rules.
Scenario Three: US led multilateralism
A global economic and military transition is inevitable-US adherence to WTO decisions
is critical to building international support for institutions that can check the rise of
antagonistic and aggressive powers.
Engle, 2014 John, graduate of Trinity College Dublin, 7/31 A Foreign Policy Doctrine for the 21st Century
http://blog.heartland.org/2014/07/a-foreign-policy-doctrine-for-the-21st-century/
Perhaps worst of all, the US has actively sought to subvert the institutions it helped build when political expediency
has demanded it. By ignoring WTO policies and trade agreements, as well as a variety of other international laws, the United
S tates has succeeded in weakening the institutions it has been instrumental in building , by creating a
feeling in the international community that international law only applies to those countries not
strong enough to flout it . On balance, however, I would argue that the United States has done more good than harm. In truth it has
succeeded in fostering an era of unheard of peace and cooperation between nations great and small, respect for international institutions that
have now taken on a life and robustness all their own, and has served to prevent major conflicts both between and within states. However,
these positive efforts will not be sufficient in future, and those negative actions will only become more damaging as we progress into the 21st
century. The Rise of the East We live in a time of change, change far more rapid than anyone expected. Accelerated by the
financial crisis and the deep recession in the West, power, economic, political, and ideological, is flowing inexorably eastward. The rise of
China is the biggest headline grabber, but many other countries, such as Vietnam are no less startling in their explosive growth and expansion.
Many of the swiftly rising states, most notably China, are quite new to the international institutional and
legal system, and have proven to be rather cagey about accepting its precepts wholesale. This reluctance to
sign up to international laws and norms signals grave difficulties for the future of international relations. One need only look to the resurgence
of Russia to understand the dangers of an international system no longer moored by American leadership. Political and military
shenanigans like those of Vladimir Putin may one day soon not be an aberration, but the norm. It may
be easy to assume that the natural state of relations between governments and nations is one of
stability and peace , since that has been the reality, generally, for the past several decades. Yet this
peaceful status quo is in many ways the result of dominant American leadership in the international
arena. It was, after all, out of a relatively chaotic, often war-torn world that America built the current system. So long as the United States
and its allies are able to defend this order it has created, it will survive. Preserving the Pax Americana Yet, while the United S tates
remains the preeminent world power, with the worlds biggest economy, and by far its most powerful military, this reality
is changing. Soon enough the United S tates will be supplanted by China as the largest economy in the world.
After that, Americas military and technological advantages will face greater and greater challenges, if not eventual
erosion. For an international political order to outlive its creator is unheard of in history. Throughout history, as dominant powers decline,
the systems they create decline with them. As the political scientist Robert Kagan puts it, The present order will last only as long as those who
favor it and benefit from it retain the will and capacity to defend it. Such was the case with both the Roman and British empires. As Rome
declined in power, the stability it had created within its borders and on its periphery was washed away by the barbarian tide. So too did the end
of British naval supremacy precipitate the conflicts that would plunge the whole world into war. The Pax Romana and Pax Britannica died with
their creators. Yet this need not necessarily be the case for the American Peace. It is still possible for the United S tates to
build a lasting world order that will outlive its own era of supremacy, though its window of opportunity is certainly
closing fast. The question is not whether the US has the power to affect this solidification of the present order. The question facing
America, rather, is whether it has the will to change course from exceptionalism and flouting of the
international system it built for its own short-term strategic aims. America faces a major decision point. If the global system
the United S tates has created and defended is to survive the end of American preeminence, the United S tates must take full
advantage of the time it has left in the saddle of world affairs. There are a number of things it can do: First, it can use its power to help
struggling and nascent democracies, rather than wasting resources and political will in seeking to impose democratic systems where they are
not yet wanted and would not be accepted. American adventurism and instigation of regime-change is a costly and counterproductive exercise,
as the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan have taught us, in terms of money, goodwill, and most importantly lives. Better to foster organic change
where possible and to help in sustaining the many states still fighting to retain and entrench their democracies and the rule of law than to
pursue the quixotic unilateralism of the present. Second, Americas leaders must abandon the mindset of absolute
exceptionalism that has caused the US to not only charge into conflicts unbidden, but also to regularly ignore basic
international statutes and treaties when it finds it convenient to do so. In order to entrench the
institutions into which it has poured so much blood and treasure, the United S tates must accept that
those institutions must bind it too if they are to have any credibility in the long term.

Investing in multilateral institutions solves the transition and great power conflicts-its
the greatest threat to international stability.
Fujimoto, 2012 (Kevin, Lt. Colonel, U.S. Army, January 11, 2012, Preserving U.S. National Security Interests Through a Liberal World
Construct, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/index.cfm/articles/Preserving-US-National-Security-Interests-Liberal-World-
Construct/2012/1/11)
The emergence of peer competitors, not terrorism, presents the greatest long-term threat to our
national security. Over the past decade, while the United States concentrated its geopolitical focus on fighting two land wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,
China has quietly begun implementing a strategy to emerge as the dominant imperial power within
Southeast Asia and the Indian Ocean. Within the next 2 decades, China will likely replace the United States as the
Asia-Pacific regional hegemonic power, if not replace us as the global superpower.1 Although China presents its rise as peaceful and non-
hegemonic, its construction of naval bases in neighboring countries and military expansion in the region contradict that argument. With a credible
threat to its leading position in a unipolar global order, the United States should adopt a grand
strategy of investment, building legitimacy and capacity in the very institutions that will protect our
interests in a liberal global construct of the future when we are no longer the dominant imperial
power. Similar to the Clinton era's grand strategy of enlargement,2 investment supports a world order predicated upon a
system of basic rules and principles, however, it differs in that the United States should concentrate on the
institutions (i.e., United Nations, World Trade Organization, ASEAN, alliances, etc.) that support a world order, as opposed to
expanding democracy as a system of governance for other sovereign nations. Despite its claims of a benevolent expansion, China is already
executing a strategy of expansion similar to that of Imperial Japan's Manchukuo policy during the 1930s.3 This three-part strategy involves: (i)
(providing) significant investments in economic infrastructure for extracting natural resources; (ii) (conducting) military
interventions (to) protect economic interests; and, (iii) . . . (annexing) via installation of puppet governments.4 China has already solidified its control over
neighboring North Korea and Burma, and has similarly begun more ambitious engagements in Africa and Central Asia where it seeks to expand its frontier.5 Noted
political scientist Samuel P. Huntington provides further analysis of the motives behind China's imperial aspirations. He contends that China (has) historically
conceived itself as encompassing a Sinic Zone'. . . (with) two goals: to become the champion of Chinese culture . . . and to resume its historical position, which it
lost in the nineteenth century, as the hegemonic power in East Asia.6 Furthermore, China holds one quarter of the world's population, and rapid economic growth
will increase its demand for natural resources from outside its borders as its people seek a standard of living comparable to that of Western civilization. The rise
of peer competitors has historically resulted in regional instability and one should compare the emergence of China to
the rise of. . . Germany as the dominant power in Europe in the late nineteenth century.7 Furthermore, the rise of another peer competitor
on the level of the Soviet Union of the Cold War ultimately threatens U.S. global influence, challenging its concepts of human rights, liberalism,
and democracy; as well as its ability to co-opt other nations to accept them.8 This decline in influence, while initially limited to the Asia-Pacific
region, threatens to result in significant conflict if it ultimately leads to a paradigm shift in the ideas and
principles that govern the existing world order. A grand strategy of investment to address the threat of China requires
investing in institutions, addressing ungoverned states, and building legitimacy through multilateralism. The United States must
build capacity in the existing institutions and alliances accepted globally as legitimate representative bodies of the world's governments.
For true legitimacy, the United States must support these institutions, not only when convenient, in order to avoid the appearance of
unilateralism, which would ultimately undermine the very organizations upon whom it will rely when
it is no longer the global hegemon. The United States must also address ungoverned states, not only as
breeding grounds for terrorism, but as conflicts that threaten to spread into regional instability, thereby drawing in
superpowers with competing interests. Huntington proposes that the greatest source of conflict will come from what he defines
as one core nation's involvement in a conflict between another core nation and a minor state within its
immediate sphere of influence. 9 For example, regional instability in South Asia10 threatens to involve
combatants from the United States, India, China, and the surrounding nations. Appropriately, the United States,
as a global power, must apply all elements of its national power now to address the problem of weak
and failing states, which threaten to serve as the principal catalysts of future global conflicts.11 Admittedly,
the application of American power in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation raises issues. Experts have posed the question of whether the United States should
act as the world's enforcer of stability, imposing its concepts of human rights on other states. In response to this concern, The International Commission on
Intervention and State Sovereignty authored a study titled, The Responsibility to Protect,12 calling for revisions to the understanding of sovereignty within the
United Nations (UN) charter. This commission places the responsibility to protect peoples of sovereign nations on both the state itself and, more importantly, on the
international community.13 If approved, this revision will establish a precedent whereby the United States has not only the authority and responsibility to act within
the internal affairs of a repressive government, but does so with global legitimacy if done under the auspices of a UN mandate. Any effort to legitimize
and support a liberal world construct requires the United States to adopt a multilateral doctrine
which avoids the precepts of the previous administration: preemptive war, democratization, and U.S.
primacy of unilateralism,14 which have resulted in the alienation of former allies worldwide. Predominantly Muslim
nations, whose citizens had previously looked to the United States as an example of representative governance, viewed the Iraq invasion as the seminal dividing
action between the Western and the Islamic world. Appropriately, any future American interventions into the internal affairs of another sovereign nation must first
seek to establish consensus by gaining the approval of a body representing global opinion, and must reject military unilateralism as a threat to that governing body's
legitimacy. Despite the long-standing U.S. tradition of a liberal foreign policy since the start of the Cold War, the famous liberal leviathan, John Ikenberry, argues
that the post-9/11 doctrine of national security strategy . . . has been based on . . . American global dominance, the preventative use of force, coalitions of the
willing, and the struggle between liberty and evil.15 American foreign policy has misguidedly focused on spreading
democracy, as opposed to building a liberal international order based on universally accepted
principles that actually set the conditions for individual nation states to select their own system of governance. Anne-Marie Slaughter, the former Dean of the
Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, argues that true Wilsonian idealists support liberal democracy, but
reject the possibility of democratizing peoples . . .16 and reject military primacy in favor of supporting a
rules-based system of order. Investment in a liberal world order would also set the conditions for the United
States to garner support from noncommitted regional powers (i.e., Russia, India, Japan, etc.), or swing civilizations,
in countering China's increasing hegemonic influence.17 These states reside within close proximity to the Indian Ocean, which will likely emerge as the
geopolitical focus of the American foreign policy during the 21st century, and appropriately have the ability to offset China's imperial
dominance in the region.18 Critics of a liberal world construct argue that idealism is not necessary, based on the assumption that nations that trade together
will not go to war with each other.19 In response, foreign affairs columnist Thomas L. Friedman rebukes their arguments, acknowledging the predicate of
commercial interdependence as a factor only in the decision to go to war, and argues that while globalization is creating a new international order, differences
between civilizations still create friction that may overcome all other factors and lead to conflict.20 Detractors also warn that as China grows in power, it will no
longer observe the basic rules and principles of a liberal international order, which largely result from Western concepts of foreign relations. Ikenberry addresses
this risk, citing that China's leaders already recognize that they will gain more authority within the existing
liberal order, as opposed to contesting it. China's leaders want the protection and rights that come
from the international order's . . . defense of sovereignty,21 from which they have benefitted during their recent history of
economic growth and international expansion. Even if China executes a peaceful rise and the United States overestimates a
Sinic threat to its national security interest, the emergence of a new imperial power will challenge American leadership in the Indian
Ocean and Asia-Pacific region. That being said, it is more likely that China, as evidenced by its military and economic
expansion, will displace the United States as the regional hegemonic power. Recognizing this threat
now, the United States must prepare for the eventual transition and immediately begin building the
legitimacy and support of a system of rules that will protect its interests later when we are no longer
the world's only superpower.

1AC ML
The status quo pushes Americans to unregulated markets using third party processors
increases money laundering by removing any paper trail and exacerbates addiction
only legalization and regulation solves
Rychlak, Professor of Law @ University of Mississippi, 11 (Ronald J., M ississippi Defense Lawyers
Association and Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, THE LEGAL ANSWER TO CYBER - GAMBLING http://mississippilawjournal.org/wp-
content/uploads/2012/04/1_Rychlak_Final_Edit.pdf)
Many weaknesses have been recognized in UIGEA since its passage. It was rushed through Co ngress a mere thirty -
two minutes before Congress adjourned for fall recess as part of the Safe Port Act. 59 This was essentially an anti - terrorism bill designed to
protect United States ports from cargo ships carrying hazardous materials. Despite the fact t hat lawmakers had virtually no time to read the
bill, it passed by a nearly unanimous vote because voting against it would have been the equivalent of voting against the anti - terrorism bill. 60
According to Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D - NJ), no one on the Senate - House Conference Committee had even seen the final language of
the bill. 61 Rep resentative Barney Frank (D - Mass.), who later introduced his own pro - Internet gaming legislation, 62 stated that *t+his
midnight rulemaking will tie the hands of the new administration, burden the financial services industry at a time of economic crisis , and
contradict the stated intent of the Financial Services Committee. UIGEA was designed to prevent United S tates financial
institutions from providing monetary transfers to online gambling operations. 64 Banks have characterized it as
an unfunded mandate, because the federal government requires financial institutions to undertake the burden without any reimbursement.
65 The recordkeeping duty alone may total approximately on e million hours. 66 In an effort to alleviate this pressure, Congress created a no -
fault provision that excuses financial institutions if they block a legitimate transaction by mistake. 67 Unfortunately, this may lead financial
institutions to be overly conservative and err on the safe side by blocking many legitimate transactions. Another problem with
UIGEA relates to its jurisdictional limits. Most online gambling businesses are located overseas and
operated by foreign companies that are outside the reach of United S tates laws. [H]istory has shown
that trying to enforce domestic laws on foreign website operators is virtually impossible. 68 Nations
that license these operators are unlikely to 63 aid the United States with its prosecutions . 69 Moreover,
UIGEA will no t help the United States with the World Court and charges that it has discriminated against legitimate foreign businesses. 70
While UIGEA makes it more difficult to deposit money into online casinos, gamblers have found ways
to work around these regulations . 71 For one thing, casinos may use deceptive names to hide the true
nature of their business. As a result, the new rules force the financial institutions to be on the lookout for hidden corporations. 72 It
is also easy to advance funds to an offshore third - party processor who can then transfer funds to the
casino for later play. 73 Since these third - party processors are set up offshore, the jurisdictional limitation
issue reappears and enforcement becomes very difficult. 74 To further complicate matters, these third-party
processors often mix legal and illegal transactions. 75 UIGEA makes illegal online casinos harder to operate, but the great
profit to be made is a powerful incentive. Virtual casino operators will assist gamblers set up bank accounts with
foreign banks so that they can transfer the money to the online casino. 76 Casual and youthful
gamblers might be unlikely to set up such accounts, and that is a benefit from the law, but they could turn to a very simple way of
transferring money writing a check. UIGEA exempts paper checks because the sheer volume of handling and processing
checks would make monitoring impossible for banks. 77 Under UIGEA, the cost of regulation will be borne solely by financial institutions. 78
Without any other way to recoup this expense, it does not require much imagination to figure out to whom these costs will be passed. There is,
however, serious concern about smaller banks. Compliance enforcement could force some smaller banks out of the market completely because
they do not have the funds, technological resources, or personnel to successfully monitor the spending habits of their customers. 79 Under
UIGEA, gamblers will likely shift their betting from regulated publicly traded companies to unregulated
private websites . 80 The major legal sites, those that are well regulated, have already distanced
themselves from the United S tates market. 81 Under UIGEA, only private Internet sites, which are
essentially unregulated, are available . 82 UIGEA was intended to reduce the risk of money laundering. 83 However, when it
comes to transferring money to online casinos, UIGEA has essentially forced the American gambler to avoid domestic
financial institutions and use offshore third-party processors . 84 If the online gaming industry were
regulated, there would be no reason to bypass domestic financial institutions. Regulation would
allow for better monitoring, thereby reducing the risk of money laundering . The ultimate effect of
UIGEA is to diminish reputable payment processors and replace them with those that might not leave
a paper trail. By making online gambling illegal, UIGEA provides little incentive for offshore Internet gambling
sites to prevent underage gambling (since these sites already operate illegally). 85 UIGEA also does nothing to help
reduce fraud or assure that winners will be paid. 86 An online gambling operation that conducts its business
overseas is beyond the United S tates jurisdiction and can escape liability for violating American laws.
Furthermore, a ban on Internet gambling might dissuade so me people from gambling, but anyone can still go online and find a virtual casino.
Therefore , UIGEA is unlikely to prevent much gambling addiction. It merely places the addict in a riskier
and more unscrupulous gambling environment . Finally, as a result of UIGEAs prohibitory approach, as opposed to taxing
and regulating the industry, it is estimated that American enterprises are missing out on seven billion dollars in
revenue annually. 87
Massive money laundering operations destabilize financial sectors creates a spillover
effect and collapses the international economy
IMF 14 (International Monetary Fund, The IMF and the Fight Against Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism,
http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/facts/aml.htm)
Money laundering is a process by which the illicit source of assets obtained or generated by criminal activity is
concealed to obscure the link between the funds and the original criminal activity. Terrorist financing
involves the raising and processing of assets to supply terrorists with resources to pursue their
activities . While these two phenomena differ in many ways, they often exploit the same vulnerabilities in financial systems that allow for
an inappropriate level of anonymity and non-transparency in the execution of financial transactions. In 2000, the IMF responded to calls from
the international community to expand its work in the area of anti-money laundering (AML). After the tragic events of September 11, 2001, the
IMF intensified its AML activities and extended them to include combating the financing of terrorism (CFT). In March 2014, the IMFs Executive
Board reviewed the Funds AML/CFT strategy and gave strategic directions for the work ahead (see below). In May 2014, the IMF will launch the
second 5-year phase of a donor-supported trust fund to finance AML/CFT capacity development activities in its member countries. A threat to
economic and financial stability The international community has made the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing a priority.
The IMF is especially concerned about the possible consequences money laundering, terrorist
financing, and related governance issues have on the integrity and stability of the financial sector and
the broader economy . These activities can undermine the integrity and stability of financial
institutions and systems, discourage foreign investment, and distort international capital flows . They
may have negative consequences for a countrys financial stability and macroeconomic performance,
resulting in welfare losses, draining resources from more productive economic activities, and even have destabilizing spillover
effects on the economies of other countries . In an increasingly interconnected world, the negative
effects of these activities are global, and their impact on the financial integrity and stability of
countries is widely recognized. Money launderers and terrorist financiers exploit both the complexity inherent in the global
financial system as well as differences between national AML/CFT laws and systems, and they are especially attracted to
jurisdictions with weak or ineffective controls where they can more easily move their funds without
detection. Moreover, problems in one country can quickly spread to other countries in the region or in
other parts of the world. Strong AML/CFT regimes enhance financial sector integrity and stability, which in turn facilitate countries
integration into the global financial system. They also strengthen governance and fiscal administration. The integrity of national
financial systems is essential to financial sector and macroeconomic stability both at the national and
international levels .
Economic decline causes great power wars goes nuclear
Harris and Burrows, 9 *counselor in the National Intelligence Council, the principal drafter of Global Trends 2025, **member of
the NICs Long Range Analysis Unit Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis, Washington Quarterly,
http://www.twq.com/09april/docs/09apr_burrows.pdf)
Increased Potential for Global Conflict Of course, the report encompasses more than economics and indeed believes the future is likely to be
the result of a number of intersecting and interlocking forces. With so many possible permutations of outcomes, each with ample opportunity
for unintended consequences, there is a growing sense of insecurity. Even so, history may be more instructive than ever. While we
continue to believe that the Great Depression is not likely to be repeated, the lessons to be drawn from
that period include the harmful effects on fledgling democracies and multiethnic societies (think Central Europe
in 1920s and 1930s) and on the sustainability of multilateral institutions (think League of Nations in the same period). There is no reason
to think that this would not be true in the twenty-first as much as in the twentieth century. For that reason, the
ways in which the potential for greater conflict could grow would seem to be even more apt in a constantly volatile
economic environment as they would be if change would be steadier. In surveying those risks, the report stressed the likelihood that
terrorism and nonproliferation will remain priorities even as resource issues move up on the international agenda. Terrorisms appeal will
decline if economic growth continues in the Middle East and youth unemployment is reduced. For those terrorist groups that remain active in
2025, however, the diffusion of technologies and scientific knowledge will place some of the worlds most dangerous capabilities within their
reach. Terrorist groups in 2025 will likely be a combination of descendants of long established groups inheriting organizational
structures, command and control processes, and training procedures necessary to conduct sophisticated attacks and newly emergent
collections of the angry and disenfranchised that become self-radicalized, particularly in the absence of economic outlets that would
become narrower in an economic downturn. The most dangerous casualty of any economically-induced drawdown of
U.S. military presence would almost certainly be the Middle East. Although Irans acquisition of nuclear weapons is not inevitable,
worries about a nuclear-armed Iran could lead states in the region to develop new security
arrangements with external powers, acquire additional weapons, and consider pursuing their own nuclear
ambitions. It is not clear that the type of stable deterrent relationship that existed between the great powers for
most of the Cold War would emerge naturally in the Middle East with a nuclear Iran. Episodes of low intensity conflict and
terrorism taking place under a nuclear umbrella could lead to an unintended escalation and broader conflict if clear red lines between those
states involved are not well established. The close proximity of potential nuclear rivals combined with underdeveloped surveillance capabilities
and mobile dual-capable Iranian missile systems also will produce inherent difficulties in achieving reliable indications and warning of an
impending nuclear attack. The lack of strategic depth in neighboring states like Israel, short warning and missile flight
times, and uncertainty of Iranian intentions may place more focus on preemption rather than defense,
potentially leading to escalating crises. Types of conflict that the world continues to experience, such
as over resources, could reemerge, particularly if protectionism grows and there is a resort to neo-
mercantilist practices. Perceptions of renewed energy scarcity will drive countries to take actions to
assure their future access to energy supplies. In the worst case, this could result in interstate conflicts if
government leaders deem assured access to energy resources, for example, to be essential for maintaining domestic stability and the survival
of their regime. Even actions short of war, however, will have important geopolitical implications. Maritime security concerns are
providing a rationale for naval buildups and modernization efforts, such as Chinas and Indias development of blue water naval
capabilities. If the fiscal stimulus focus for these countries indeed turns inward, one of the most obvious funding targets may be military.
Buildup of regional naval capabilities could lead to increased tensions, rivalries, and counterbalancing moves, but it also will create
opportunities for multinational cooperation in protecting critical sea lanes. With water also becoming scarcer in Asia and the Middle East,
cooperation to manage changing water resources is likely to be increasingly difficult both within and between states in a more dog-eat-
dog world.
And, online gambling results in a direct increase in organized crime activity only
possible on illegal sites regulations check money laundering in a legal market
Fiedler, University of Hamburg Law and Econ prof, 13 (Ingo, research interests include Economics of
Gambling, Gambling regulation, and Gambling Studies, Online Gambling as a Game Changer to Money Laundering?, http://www.wiso.uni-
hamburg.de/fileadmin/bwl/rechtderwirtschaft/institut/Ingo_Fiedler/Online_Gambling_as_a_Game_Changer_to_Money_Laundering_01.pdf)
Organized crime needs to launder their illegal profits to invest it in the legitimate economy . This leads
to an estimated yearly volume of $1.6 billion being laundered (UNODC 2011). The higher the cost of money
laundering the less crime pays. Reduced costs of money laundering thus directly lead to a higher
profitability and prevalence of crime . This is the effect of the relatively new market of online gambling
which comes with the potential to launder money cheaply. Gambling per se is already prone to money
laundering due to three reasons: (1) gambling involves a huge volume of transactions and cash flows which
are necessary to disguise money laundering; (2) gambling does not involve a physical product making it
much more complicated to track the flow of money and proof real vs. virtual turnover; (3) gambling wins are tax
free in many jurisdictions. The huge potential for money laundering in online gambling lies in the
combination of these reasons with complexity of virtual cash flows and multiple involved jurisdictions which are
often regulatory havens, which do not share information with financial intelligence. Hence, online gambling can be used to
launder money easily. Small and medium sums of criminal proceedings can be laundered using
current unregulated gambling operators to transfer the funds into the legal system. To launder large sums an
online casino in a regulatory haven can be founded and fake revenues created which can be paid out to the owners as legal business profits.
All forms involve very low costs and a detection of virtually zero. Online gambling is thus a game
changer to money laundering . It increases the profitability and thus the prevalence of crime. All
forms of money laundering in online gambling involve unregulated or illegal operators as they do not
have to oblige to anti-money laundering directives but can hide in regulatory havens. Legal operators, in
contrast, are not prone to money laundering (Brooks 2012), es pecially because of the much lower payout ratios. However,
the online gambling market is still dominated by illegal operators; legal ones play only a minor role. This leaves plenty
of opportunities of money laundering.
Organized crime will finance terrorism, including WMDs
Stanojoska 10 (Angelina, Ph.D., St. Kliment Ohridski- Bitola, Faculty of Security, date estimated, THE CONNECTION BETWEEN
TERRORISM AND ORGANIZEDCRIME: NARCOTERRORISM AND THE OTHER HYBRIDS,
http://www.academia.edu/2163809/The_Connection_between_Terrorism_and_Organized_Crime_Narcoterrorism_and_other_hybrids)
In September 2003, the United N ations (UN) Security Council noted in its Resolution 1373the close connection between
international terrorism and transitional organized crime, illicit drugs, money laundering, illegal arms trafficking, and
illegal movement of nuclear, chemical, biological and other potentially deadly materials . 2 Most
international organized crime and terrorist groups operate secretly and usually take sanctuary in an
underground network. Both use intimidation, ruthlessness, and violence against mostly civilian targets. They use similar tactics such as
kidnapping, assassination and extortion. In both types of organizations, the control of the group over the individual is strong. Both use
front operations such as legitimate business or charities to obscure their activities and launder money. In
any case both types of criminals have to use underground economies and networks to move people,
goods, and weapons, contraband, and, most important, money. Terrorists use existing criminal networks for
logistics, including financial activities . Some terrorist groups even robe banks and create phony (shell) companies to launder
money, whereas others engage in secret arrangements and form alliances with organized crime groups. 3 Terrorist and criminal
organizations, which have fundamentally dissimilar motives for theircrimes, may cooperate by networking or
subcontracting on specific tasks when their objectives of interest intersect. For example certain South American
kidnapping gangs frequently sell custody of their victims to larger terrorist groups on what amounts to a secondary market. 4 The
connection between terrorism and organized crime is derived from the relationship between the two
kinds of groups and from the necessity of financial profit. What we find today is a convergence
between the terrorist groups and organized criminal networks to the extent that a single entity
simultaneously exhibits criminal and terrorist characteristics. For example, the Chechen terrorists may primarily be interested
in creating an independent state, but they might as well be interested in maintaining the degree of instability so that they can continue
engaging in extremely lucrative criminal activities. 5 The first form of contact between the two is alliances for mutual benefit. In this, the
terrorists enter agreements with transnational criminals solely to gain funding without engaging directly in
commercial activities or compromising their ideology. Then the terrorists get directly involved in organized crime,
removing the middleman but maintaining the ideological premise of their strategy . Ultimately, the
ideology gets replaced with the profit motive. 6 Terrorist organizations started to rely on legitimate businesses,
nongovernmentalorganizations and self criminal activities. They also mastered their skills in transborder movementof money, especially in the
usage of the havala system
And, empirically proven that terrorists can use online gambling sites to finance their
activities Al-Qaida, Hamas and Hezbollah are all turning to the internet
Jacobson 9 (Michael, senior fellow in The Washington Institute's Stein Program on Counterterrorism and Intelligence, worked for the FBI
for more than five years, served as a senior advisor in the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence at the Treasury Department, Terrorist
Financing on the Internet, https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/uploads/Documents/opeds/4a438817e3a3c.pdf)
Since the September 11 attacks on the United States, al-Qa`ida has come under growing international
pressure. In response, the terrorist organization has increasingly relied on the internet to spread its
message and gain support throughout the world. While its use of the internet for propaganda and recruiting purposes has received
wide publicity, al-Qa`ida has also utilized the internet for a variety of other purposes, including terrorist
financing. Al-Qa`ida is far from alone among terrorist organizations in exploiting the internet for financing. A
wide range of other terrorist groupsincluding Hamas, Lashkar-i-Tayyiba and Hizb Allahhave also used
the internet to raise and transfer needed funds to support their activities. The internet offers broad
reach, timely efficiency, as well as a certain degree of anonymity and security for both donors and recipients.
Although governments throughout the world now recognize that the internet is an increasingly valuable tool for terrorist organizations, the
response has been inconsistent. For the United States and its allies to effectively counter this dangerous trend, they will have to prioritize their
efforts in this area in the years to come. This article provides an example of early terrorist use of the internet, explains how and why terrorists
launder and raise funds through websites, and examines the challenges of countering this problem effectively. E arly Terrorist Financing on the
Internet While terrorists use of the internet for finance-related activities dramatically increased after 9/11, it began well before. The most
prominent example was Babar Ahmad, a young British citizen from South London who put his computer expertise to use early on in support of
the jihadist cause until his arrest in 2004.1 Beginning in 1997, Babar ran an entity called Azzam Publications and a number of associated
websites that were primarily focused on supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan and the mujahidin in Chechnya. On these sites, Babar solicited
funds, attempted to recruit fighters, and even provided detailed instructions on how individuals could move both themselves and money to
conflict zones.2 The website was explicit in its purpose.3 To persuade individuals to donate, Babar used a familiar argument: supporting jihad in
some fashion was an obligation incumbent upon every Muslim. Babar noted that even if one could not fight in the jihad, they nonetheless had a
religious obligation to contribute funds. He argued that the first and most important thing that Muslims can do in the West is to donate money
and to raise it amongst their families, friends and othersfor someone who is not able to fight at this moment in time due to a valid excuse
they can start by the collection and donation of funds.4 Babars case is just one example of early terrorist use of the internet for financing
purposes. Financing Earned through Online Criminal Activity One of the primary ways that terrorist
groups use the internet to raise funds is through criminal activity. Younis Tsouli, a young British man better
known by his internet code-name Irhabi 007,5 may today be the best known virtual terrorist. Tsouli began his
career by posting videos depicting terrorist activity on various websites. He came to the attention of
al-Qa`ida in Iraq (AQI), whose leaders were impressed by his computer knowledge and ambition. He quickly
developed close ties to the organization.6 AQI began feeding videos directly to Tsouli for him to post.7 At the outset,
Tsouli uploaded these videos to free webhosting services, and at this point he had few expenses and little need for funds. These free
sites, however, had limited bandwidth and soon came to slow Tsouli down as he ramped up his
activities. Tsouli then turned to sites with better technical capabilities, but that forced him to raise
money.8 Not surprisingly, given his expertise, Tsouli turned to the internet to raise the funds to pay for these sites. Tsouli and his
partner, Tariq al-Daour, began acquiring stolen credit card numbers on the web, purchasing them through various
online forums, such as Cardplanet.9 By the time Tsouli and his partner were arrested, al-Daour had accumulated
37,000 stolen credit card numbers on his computer, which they had used to make more than $3.5 million in
charges.10 Tsouli laundered money through a number of online gambling sites , such as absolutepoker.com and
paradisepoker.com, using the stolen credit card information. They conducted hundreds of transactions at 43 different
websites in total. Any winnings were cashed in and transferred electronically to bank accounts
specifically established for this purpose. In this way, the money would now appear legitimately won, and
thus successfully laundered.11 In total, Tsouli used 72 of these credit cards to register 180 websites, hosted by 95 different
companies.12
Terrorists have means and motive now-expertise and materials are widespread and
multiple attempts prove.
Jaspal, Quaid-i-Azam University IR professor, 2012 (Zafar, Nuclear/Radiological Terrorism: Myth or Reality?,
Journal of Political Studies, http://pu.edu.pk/images/journal/pols/pdf-
files/Nuclear%20Radiological%20terrorism%20Jaspa_Vol_19_Issue_1_2012.pdf)
The misperception, miscalculation and above all ignorance of the ruling elite about security puzzles are perilous for the national security of a state. Indeed, in
an age of transnational terrorism and unprecedented dissemination of dual-use nuclear technology,
ignoring nuclear terrorism threat is an imprudent policy choice. The incapability of terrorist
organizations to engineer fissile material does not eliminate completely the possibility of nuclear
terrorism. At the same time, the absence of an example or precedent of a nuclear/ radiological terrorism does not
qualify the assertion that the nuclear/radiological terrorism ought to be remained a myth.x Farsighted
rationality obligates that one should not miscalculate transnational terrorist groups whose behavior suggests that they have a death wish of acquiring nuclear,
radiological, chemical and biological material producing capabilities. In addition, one could be sensible about the published information that huge amount
of nuclear material is spread around the globe. According to estimate it is enough to build more than
120,000 Hiroshima-sized nuclear bombs (Fissile Material Working Group, 2010, April 1). The alarming fact is that a few
storage sites of nuclear/radiological materials are inadequately secured and continue to be
accumulated in unstable regions (Sambaiew, 2010, February). Attempts at stealing fissile material had already been
discovered (Din & Zhiwei, 2003: 18). Numerous evidences confirm that terrorist groups had aspired to acquire
fissile material for their terrorist acts. Late Osama bin Laden, the founder of al Qaeda stated that acquiring nuclear
weapons was areligious duty (Yusufzai, 1999, January 11). The IAEA also reported that al-Qaeda was actively seeking an atomic bomb.
Jamal Ahmad al-Fadl, a dissenter of Al Qaeda, in his trial testimony had revealed his extensive but
unsuccessful efforts to acquire enriched uranium for al-Qaeda (Allison, 2010, January: 11). On November 9, 2001, Osama bin
Laden claimed that we have chemical and nuclear weapons as a deterrent and if America used them against us we reserve the right to use them (Mir, 2001,
November 10). On May 28, 2010, Sultan Bashiruddin Mahmood, a Pakistani nuclear scientist confessed that he met Osama bin Laden. He claimed that I met
Osama bin Laden before 9/11 not to give him nuclear know-how, but to seek funds for establishing a technical college in Kabul (Syed, 2010, May 29). He was
arrested in 2003 and after extensive interrogation by American and Pakistani intelligence agencies he was released (Syed, 2010, May 29). Agreed, Mr. Mahmood did
not share nuclear know-how with Al Qaeda, but his meeting with Osama establishes the fact that the terrorist
organization was in contact with nuclear scientists. Second, the terrorist group has sympathizers in
the nuclear scientific bureaucracies. It also authenticates bin Ladens Deputy Ayman Zawahiris claim which he made in December 2001: If
you have $30 million, go to the black market in the central Asia, contact any disgruntled Soviet
scientist and a lot of dozens of smart briefcase bombs are available (Allison, 2010, January: 2). The covert meetings
between nuclear scientists and al Qaeda members could not be interpreted as idle threats and thereby the threat of nuclear/radiological terrorism is real. The
33Defense Secretary Robert Gates admitted in 2008 that what keeps every senior government leader awake at night is the thought of a terrorist ending up with a
weapon of mass destruction, especially nuclear (Mueller, 2011, August 2). Indeed, the nuclear deterrence strategy cannot deter the transnational terrorist
syndicate from nuclear/radiological terrorist attacks. Daniel Whiteneck pointed out: Evidence suggests, for example, that al Qaeda
might not only use WMD simply to demonstrate the magnitude of its capability but that it might
actually welcome the escalation of a strong U.S. response, especially if it included catalytic effects on governments and societies
in the Muslim world. An adversary that prefers escalation regardless of the consequences cannot be deterred (Whiteneck, 2005, Summer: 187)
And, that escalates and causes extinction.
Morgan, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, 2009
(Dennis, World on fire: two scenarios of the destruction of human civilization and possible extinction of the human
race Futures, Volume 41, Issue 10, December, ldg)
In a remarkable website on nuclear war, Carol Moore asks the question Is Nuclear War Inevitable?? In Section , Moore points out what most terrorists obviously
already know about the nuclear tensions between powerful countries. No doubt, theyve figured out that the best way to escalate
these tensions into nuclear war is to set off a nuclear exchange. As Moore points out, all that militant
terrorists would have to do is get their hands on one small nuclear bomb and explode it on either
Moscow or Israel. Because of the Russian dead hand system, where regional nuclear commanders would be given full
powers should Moscow be destroyed, it is likely that any attack would be blamed on the United States Israeli
leaders and Zionist supporters have, likewise, stated for years that if Israel were to suffer a nuclear attack, whether from
terrorists or a nation state, it would retaliate with the suicidal Samson option against all major Muslim cities in the Middle
East. Furthermore, the Israeli Samson option would also include attacks on Russia and even anti-
Semitic European cities In that case, of course, Russia would retaliate, and the U.S. would then retaliate
against Russia. China would probably be involved as well, as thousands, if not tens of thousands, of nuclear warheads, many of
them much more powerful than those used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, would rain upon most of the major cities in the Northern Hemisphere. Afterwards,
for years to come, massive radioactive clouds would drift throughout the Earth in the nuclear fallout,
bringing death or else radiation disease that would be genetically transmitted to future generations in
a nuclear winter that could last as long as a 100 years, taking a savage toll upon the environment and fragile ecosphere as well. And
what many people fail to realize is what a precarious, hair-trigger basis the nuclear web rests on. Any accident, mistaken communication,
false signal or lone wolf act of sabotage or treason could, in a matter of a few minutes, unleash the
use of nuclear weapons, and once a weapon is used, then the likelihood of a rapid escalation of
nuclear attacks is quite high while the likelihood of a limited nuclear war is actually less probable
since each country would act under the use them or lose them strategy and psychology; restraint
by one power would be interpreted as a weakness by the other , which could be exploited as a
window of opportunity to win the war . In other words, once Pandora's Box is opened, it will spread quickly, as it will be the signal for
permission for anyone to use them. Moore compares swift nuclear escalation to a room full of people embarrassed to cough. Once one does, however, everyone
else feels free to do so. The bottom line is that as long as large nation states use internal and external war to keep their disparate factions glued together and to
satisfy elites needs for power and plunder, these nations will attempt to obtain, keep, and inevitably use nuclear weapons. And as long as large nations oppress
groups who seek self-determination, some of those groups will look for any means to fight their oppressors In other words, as long as war and aggression are
backed up by the implicit threat of nuclear arms, it is only a matter of time before the escalation of violent conflict leads to the actual use of nuclear weapons, and
once even just one is used, it is very likely that many, if not all, will be used, leading to horrific scenarios of
global death and the destruction of much of human civilization while condemning a mutant human
remnant, if there is such a remnant, to a life of unimaginable misery and suffering in a nuclear winter.
In Scenarios, Moore summarizes the various ways a nuclear war could begin: Such a war could start through a reaction to terrorist
attacks, or through the need to protect against overwhelming military opposition, or through the use of small battle field tactical nuclear weapons meant to
destroy hardened targets. It might quickly move on to the use of strategic nuclear weapons delivered by short-range or inter-continental missiles or long-range
bombers. These could deliver high altitude bursts whose electromagnetic pulse knocks out electrical circuits for hundreds of square miles. Or they could deliver
nuclear bombs to destroy nuclear and/or non-nuclear military facilities, nuclear power plants, important industrial sites and cities. Or it could skip all those steps
and start through the accidental or reckless use of strategic weapons
Problem gambling wouldnt increase post-plan and regulation solves.
Sparrow 2009
Malcolm K., Professor of Public Management at the Harvard Kennedy School in Government, Can
Internet Gambling Be Effectively Regulated? Managing the Risks, November 2009
https://www.wiredsafety.org/pdf/Can_Internet_Gambling_Be_Effectively_Regulated_Managing_the_Ri
sks%20Final.pdf

It is relatively easy to demonstrate for the other risk categories that a well-structured regulatory regime coupled with relevant technologies
should provide better protection than the status quo. For problem gambling, however, the potential effect of legalization is less obvious a
priori. Many might assume that pathological or addictive gambling behaviors would be exacerbated by the
increased opportunity to gamble at any time and from anywhere online. But research on this topic does not
support this conclusion. In particular, the link between the availability of online gambling and
increases in the prevalence of problem gambling has not been established. Nevertheless, some online gamblers
would be problem gamblers. In a well-regulated online environment, gamblers could have opportunities and
technologies made available to them to help curb addictive or problematic gambling behaviors. Such
mechanisms would permit them to limit their gambling volume, deposit rates, loss rates, and the size of each wager.
Users could also access online clinical and self-help resources from links provided at the gambling site. The relationship
between legalization and potential effects on problem gambling rates must certainly be examined carefully. Opponents of legalization fear an
increase in problem gambling rates. However, gambling experts in the United States and the United Kingdom have reported that
the prevalence rates for pathological gambling have remained static and low (roughly 0.7% of the adult
population, in both countries) for many years. A large-scale study of gambling prevalence in the U.K. found the
0.7% rate remaining stable from 1999 through 2007 despite substantial increases in gambling opportunities
during this period.12 Because this issue is likely to receive considerable attention as the United States considers legalization, we have
attempted to analyze the various arguments given as to why the act of legalization might drive the level of problem gambling up or down. We
have identified five popularly discussed mechanisms through which legalization could drive problem gambling up, and describe them here
along with some observations that help mitigate the anticipated effects: Mechanism: Inhibitions to gamble that are based on would-be
gamblers knowledge of current legal restrictions would be removed. Observation: Gamblers in the United States are
generally ignorant of or completely confused about existing legal restrictions, and (until very recently) there has
been no enforcement against the gamblers themselves.13 Hence, the lifting of the prohibition itself is unlikely to have
any significant impact on would-be gamblers willingness to gamble online. Mechanism: Gamblers may be more
comfortable gambling online because licensed operators are reputed to be trustworthy. Observation: The gamblers most likely to be
influenced by the availability of trusted brand-name sites are those who gamble already, perhaps in the casino environment, and hence know
the brands. Knowledgeable gamblers may indeed shift their business, but this represents displacement, not overall growth. And the
displacement would be from bricks-and-mortar to online gambling, which can offer many more options and protections for problem gamblers
than can land-based casinos. Mechanism: Gambling opportunities would be ubiquitous and available 24/7. Observation: U.S. residents
already have online gambling options available to them all day, everyday, and from anywhere. So the
addition of U.S.-licensed sites would not alter that particular reality. Mechanism: Lifting the UIGEAs restrictions
on financial transactions might make it easier for consumers to place bets online. Observation: Lifting the restrictions of the
UIGEA would not make it significantly easier for U.S. residents to make deposits to online sites.
Enough workarounds have been designed, and are energetically promoted to consumers by the offshore sites, to render
the existing restrictions largely ineffective.14 Mechanism: Advertising by licensed online gambling sites might lead to
increased problem gambling. Observation: Although advertising is one avenue for the expected increase in online gambling that would follow
legalization, little evidence exists to show whether and to what extent advertising-induced growth in, or redistribution of, gambling volume
might produce increases in problem gambling rates.15 Furthermore, this mechanism (allowing advertising for online gambling sites) is
controllable to the extent deemed necessary or desirable, through regulatory restriction. We also looked at two mechanisms through which
legalization and regulation could drive problem gambling down: Mechanism: Tax and license-fee revenue distributions may
provide an opportunity to extend and enhance counseling, treatment, and support programs for
problem gamblers. Observation: Significant tax revenues might be anticipated from U.S. operators, and
revenue distributions from taxes and license fees could substantially boost publicly funded prevention, counseling,
and treatment programs, as well as research on gambling addiction. Existing budgets for counseling and
treatment services for problem gamblers have been limited, and most health insurance programs do not currently cover these
services.16 Mechanism: Regulators could require licensed domestic sites to lead the world in offering a full suite of advice and protections for
problem gamblers to an even greater extent than is the case in bricks-and-mortar casinos. Observation: U.S.-licensed sites could
be required to display offers of help prominently on their websites, including (1) registration pages that offer self-diagnostic tests
designed to help would-be gamblers understand their own attitudes and vulnerabilities; (2) web pages that display prominent links to support
and counseling services; and (3) availability of speed-of-play, compulsory time-outs, or player-loss-rate caps. All players should be
offered the opportunity up front and at subsequent intervals to voluntarily exclude themselves or to
limit their own deposit rates, loss rates, betting rates, or periods of play. We believe that the
opportunities to mitigate problem gambling provide significant benefits not available under the status
quo. These benefits provide a significant counterweight to any potential increases in problem
gambling that result from legalization. Furthermore, the potential benefits of mitigation would
become available to most existing online problem gamblers.\
Plan solves unregulated operators will leave the market undercuts their player
base
Ruddock 14 (Steve, covers nearly every angle of online poker in his job as a full-time freelance poker writer, Poll: NJ Online Poker
Players Are Abandoning Unregulated Sites in Droves, http://www.onlinepokerreport.com/10826/nj-online-poker-players-go-legit/)
A recent poll of 505 online gamblers by the research firm Commercial Intelligence (CI) has produced some eye-
opening numbers when it comes to player preference between licensed and unlicensed online
gambling operators in New Jersey. According to their findings, which CI spoke about at the ICE Totally Gaming Exhibition held in
London, 35% of New Jersey online poker players only started playing after licensed online gambling was
launched in the state. Furthermore, of the 65% of players who were already playing at unlicensed sites,
35% have transitioned to licensed online gaming sites. The data is good news for online gambling proponents These
numbers should help bolster the case for legalized online gambling in the US . The data from CIs poll
demonstrates two things: A substantial amount of potential online gamblers in New Jersey were unwilling
to play at illegal online gambling sites. A substantial amount of people willing to play at unlicensed
sites have already started transitioning toward legal online sites , showing that they prefer a legal option, but were
willing to play on whatever site was available. The obvious conclusion is that a vast majority of New Jersey online gamblers prefer legal rooms
to unregulated rooms The obvious conclusion is that a vast majority of New Jersey online gamblers prefer legal
rooms to unregulated rooms , even though the barely two months old legal online gambling industry is still ironing out kinks. This
is a very damaging argument for opponents of regulated online gambling, considering 65% of the current player
base in New Jersey was already gambling online prior to legal online wagering being offered. The idea that banning online
gambling will prevent people from playing seems detached from the reality of the situation. Common
sense and the statistics and data tells us that if there is a market of people who want to play,
illegal operators will step in to fill that void, whether the US has a ban on online poker or not. A ban may cut into the
numbers, but it will not eliminate access to online gaming sites. Squeezing the unlicensed online gambling industry Additionally, as licensed
online sites persist in increasing their player base and continue their marketing efforts its almost a
certainty that more new players will be added to the mix and a greater number of players will
abandon the unlicensed rooms in favor of the licensed rooms. This is a positive development whether you are for or against online
gambling. If people are going to gamble we should want them doing so in a regulated environment where there are safeguards in place. CIs
data indicates that licensed online gambling sites will squeeze unlicensed sites, and eventually put
them out of business , or make them an unappealing option a last resort for the desperate. Not to mention that unlicensed
rooms may find licensed markets unprofitable or simply not worth the time and energy, as was seemingly
the case when certain Merge Gaming Network rooms bailed on Delaware and New Jersey recently. The only appeal of unlicensed rooms If
given the option between licensed and unlicensed gambling sites, the only legitimate reason to play at the
unlicensed room would be if they possessed a larger player pool. So, if licensed online poker rooms
have already siphoned 35% of unlicensed rooms players in just a couple of months, imagine what those
numbers will look like a year from now, or if interstate compacts or federal legislation come about and the player pools at
licensed rooms dwarf those of unlicensed providers. For some people its all about the revenue Another important factor to consider is that
unlicensed rooms do not provide any revenue to the state (all that money goes overseas) whereas in New Jersey,
licensed online poker rooms not only pay licensing fees but also pay a 15% tax to the state on all revenue. In the first six weeks that number
was about $1.25 million for New Jersey. I feel like the guy in the AT&T commercial conducting the focus group with kids, but what would you
rather $1.25 million or nothing? Furthermore, there are the advertising dollars these companies pump into the
local economy as well as the numerous jobs created, ranging from customer support to technicians to marketing positions
that are created in the region. While many people consider online gambling sites to basically run themselves, the reality of the situation is that
there is more to it than that. One example of online gambling being vital to a local economy is the UK online gaming company Bet365, which
happens to be the largest employer in its home city (Stoke on Trent) where they employ some 2,300 people. And that number is expected to
grow as they move into a new headquarters. Bet365 is crucial to the local economy, and its possible that a US version or versions of Bet365
could prove a similar boon to employment figures.
And, regulated environments prevent money laundering audit trails and transaction
caps create disincentives to criminals
AML 14 (Anti Money Laundering, developed by the Institute for Professional Studies, which offers to professionals from the economic and
financial sectors the tools they need everyday to prevent and control money laundering and counter terrorism financing, cites experts from the
European Gaming and Betting Association, Debate about money laundering through online gaming in the EU,
http://www.antimoneylaundering.us/inter_det.php?id=44)
He explained to us in first place what the previous article (the reason for this paper) said, but in a delicate way. According to Florian
Cartoux there is no service sector immune from the attention of criminals, and that includes online gaming.
Our position is that online gaming in a regulated environment (like it is in the EU for our members as opposed to
the U.S) offers less incentive for money laundering purposes because of the perfect audit trail.
Nevertheless, Florian also added that there are very little statistics about how much money laundering can affect online gaming. This is
illustrated by a number of reports issued by different world organizations such as: Internet Gambling An overview of the issues, 2002 from
the United States General Accounting Office; The 2007 report of the German Financial Intelligence Unit at the Bundeskriminalamt; EUROPOL
Documents: The EU Organized Crime Threat Assessment, 2005 and 2008; and the French Lexsi Report Cybercriminalit des Jeux en Ligne
Livre Blanc du CERT-LEXSI July 2006. The EGBA Senior Advisor added: The online gaming industry (as far as EGBA
members are concerned) is a highly regulated sector which makes the laundering of money very
unattractive . For instance, all our operators are subject to the 3rd ML directive. The 3rd ML directive is the main piece
of EU legislation (adopted in October 26, 2005) which is designed to protect the financial sector and other
potential vulnerable sectors from being misused for money laundering and financing of terrorism
purposes. Cartoux said: In a regulated environment, Internet is the best transparency tool, where
every single transaction can be monitored, registered and traced. This means there is a perfect audit trail
of all transactions from the moment a customer registers until he cashes out. There is also no physical cash; payments are
received via regulated financial institutions and make therefore the concealment of money
laundering very complicated. According to a presentation by Dr. Michael Levi Professor of Criminology at Cardiff
University, and material provided by EGBA, there can be a number of money laundering indicators. They include: 1.
Attempting to register a number of payment options 2. Abnormal increase in deposits/withdrawals 3. Winning from or losing to the same
associates, and few others 4. Regularly playing the minimum number of hands before obtaining cash-out 5. Where the same players are linked
to more than two accounts 6. Behaviour of linked accounts look suspicious These indicators dont mean though that online
gaming websites are a real incentive to launder money. According to Professor Levi, the incentive to
launder money through online gaming is low and therefore the threat looks quite modest. This is due to the fact
online gaming in regulated environment make people deal with relatively small amounts per
account/transaction , so criminals would have to work hard to launder significant sums. Also regulated operators AML
models may trigger suspicion and then reports to the relevant Financial Investigation Units.
Nevertheless, in the United States, where online gaming is illegal, the situation may be a bit different .
The FBI believes that money launderers can set their own betting sites and move through them big
amounts of money, they also have another theory which is: somebody (not related to criminal organizations) can use
proceeds from illegal operations and bet on these sites under a false name. This could be the subject of another
article as the focus of this article is on the EU.
2AC
ML
No offense --- Collapse is worse for all their impacts and results in extermination of all
life on the planet. Even in the face of inevitable collapse its try or die.
Monbiot 2009
George, columnist for The Guardian, has held visiting fellowships or professorships at the universities of
Oxford (environmental policy), Bristol (philosophy), Keele (politics), Oxford Brookes (planning), and East
London (environmental science, August 17, 2009, Is there any point in fighting to stave off industrial
apocalypse?, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/aug/17/environment-climate-
change

I detect in your writings, and in the conversations we have had, an attraction towards almost a yearning for this apocalypse, a sense that
you see it as a cleansing fire that will rid the world of a diseased society. If this is your view, I do not share it. I'm sure we can agree that the
immediate consequences of collapse would be hideous: the breakdown of the systems that keep most
of us alive; mass starvation; war. These alone surely give us sufficient reason to fight on, however
faint our chances appear. But even if we were somehow able to put this out of our minds, I believe that what is likely to come out on
the other side will be worse than our current settlement. Here are three observations: 1 Our species (unlike most of its members) is tough and
resilient; 2 When civilisations collapse, psychopaths take over; 3 We seldom learn from others' mistakes. From the first observation, this
follows: even if you are hardened to the fate of humans, you can surely see that our species will not
become extinct without causing the extinction of almost all others. However hard we fall, we will
recover sufficiently to land another hammer blow on the biosphere. We will continue to do so until there is so little
left that even Homo sapiens can no longer survive. This is the ecological destiny of a species possessed of
outstanding intelligence, opposable thumbs and an ability to interpret and exploit almost every
possible resource in the absence of political restraint. From the second and third observations, this follows: instead of
gathering as free collectives of happy householders, survivors of this collapse will be subject to the will of people
seeking to monopolise remaining resources. This will is likely to be imposed through violence. Political
accountability will be a distant memory. The chances of conserving any resource in these circumstances are approximately zero. The human
and ecological consequences of the first global collapse are likely to persist for many generations, perhaps for our species' remaining time on
earth. To imagine that good could come of the involuntary failure of industrial civilisation is also to
succumb to denial. The answer to your question what will we learn from this collapse? is nothing. This is why, despite
everything, I fight on. I am not fighting to sustain economic growth. I am fighting to prevent both initial
collapse and the repeated catastrophe that follows. However faint the hopes of engineering a soft
landing an ordered and structured downsizing of the global economy might be, we must keep this possibility alive.
Perhaps we are both in denial: I, because I think the fight is still worth having; you, because you think it isn't.
They cant solve their impacts --- Collapse wouldnt cause a mindset shift, people
would rapidly re-develop civilization and industry.
Bostrom 2007
Nick, Faculty of Philosophy & Director, Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford, The Future of Humanity in
New Waves in Philosophy of Technology eds. Jan-Kyrre Berg Olsen and Evan Selinger. Palgrave McMillan
We need to distinguish different classes of scenarios involving societal collapse. First, we may have a merely local collapse: individual societies
can collapse, but this is unlikely to have a determining effect on the future of humanity if other advanced societies survive and take up where
the failed societies left off. All historical examples of collapse have been of this kind. Second, we might suppose that new kinds of threat (e.g.
nuclear holocaust or catastrophic changes in the global environment) or the trend towards globalization and increased interdependence of
different parts of the world create a vulnerability to human civilization as a whole. Suppose that a global societal collapse
were to occur. What happens next? If the collapse is of such a nature that a new advanced global civilization can never be rebuilt, the
outcome would qualify as an existential disaster. However, it is hard to think of a plausible collapse which the human
species survives but which nevertheless makes it permanently impossible to rebuild civilization.
Supposing, therefore, that a new technologically advanced civilization is eventually rebuilt, what is
the fate of this resurgent civilization? Again, there are two possibilities. The new civilization might avoid collapse; and in the
following two sections we will examine what could happen to such a sustainable global civilization. Alternatively, the new civilization
collapses again, and the cycle repeats. If eventually a sustainable civilization arises, we reach the kind of scenario that the
following sections will discuss. If instead one of the collapses leads to extinction, then we have the kind of scenario that was discussed in the
previous section. The remaining case is that we face a cycle of indefinitely repeating collapse and regeneration (see figure 1).

Capitalism is sustainable and their models are wrong.
Smith and Wei 2012
Fred L. Smith, Jr. is President and Founder of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, former Director of
Government Relations for the Council for a Competitive Economy, Michelle Wei is a former fellow at CEI,
Markets, Not Mandates, Are the Key to Sustainable Development, August 09, 2012 http://cei.org/op-
eds-articles/markets-not-mandates-are-key-sustainable-development

Today's advocates of sustainable development, however, take a more short-sighted view of the concept. They believe
resources are necessarily finite; thus, they call for caps on human activity. These advocates are asking for
a return to a pre-industrial mindset - a path that will result in massive depopulation, poverty, and
inequality . The conventional interpretation of sustainability, proposed long ago by the Reverend Thomas Malthus, has since been
translated into the simple equation I = PAT. Man's Footprint, I, equals P times A times T. P is population (the more people, the more stress); A is
affluence (the more wealth, the heavier the footprint per person); and T is technology (the risks of innovation, which are greater than the risks
of stagnation). This Malthusian perspective is spectacularly wrong. Population growth is addressed
through technological advances. More people do not increase the stress on resources since human
advancement in technology makes us more efficient in our resource use. That is the ultimate resource - people's
ability to adapt and innovate, which leads to an actual decrease in stress on the planet despite population increases. Affluence frees individuals'
time through technological breakthroughs. "Work-time" is the amount of time that people have to work in order to afford goods. As W.
Michael Cox and Richard Alm of Southern Methodist University concluded, "over just the past 27 years, consumers have benefited from work-
time declines of 60% for dishwashers, 56% for vacuum cleaners, 40% for refrigerators and 39% for lawn mowers." These tools increase our
wealth and cost less time to obtain. Of course, new materials were required for these tools, but the result was more, not fewer overall
resources. Dr. Indur M. Goklany has noted that to produce the same amount of food in 1993 with the agricultural technology of 1961, we
would go from using 34% to 61% of the Earth's land surface. Were that to occur, much of the world's wildlife and flora would be gone. The
various green revolutions - mechanization, pesticides, and bio-engineered crops - all made the world far more productive, better fed, and more
environmentally diverse, even as population exploded. Economic growth and technological progress have lightened
our environmental footprint in important ways. People do more than simply consume resources; they
also create new wealth and resources where none previously existed. Sustainability emerges from
these social interactions, which encourage firms and individuals to use existing resources more
efficiently and find new ways of meeting human needs. True sustainability comes from capitalism.
Consider the role of energy over the last few centuries. Few companies will invest if they could only make a profit for one year. Firms owe their
shareholders the responsibility to ensure energy will remain available as years progress. Therefore, firms continuously hunt for new resources
while avoiding activities that might deplete all the oil at once. Because energy is integrated in the global market, firms
have steadily improved their energy efficiency. According to the International Energy Agency, energy efficiency grew 0.9%
annually from 1990 to 2005. That trend resulted in fuel and electricity cost savings of at least $180 billion by 2005 - despite massive increases in
energy use during the preceding decade and a half. While experts continue to predict we've reached "peak
production" of energy sources like coal, oil, and natural gas, these "peaks" have yet to materialize. Multinational
corporations often happily carry the mantle of sustainability. It buys positive public relations, and, more
importantly, it sometimes communicates publicly what the firm is already attempting to achieve. In markets, people cooperate
and innovate to create sustainable supply for consumer demand. True sustainability has nothing to do
with Malthusian doomsday predictions. Sustainability means progress: the onward and upward movement of a
society that is making itself healthier, wealthier, faster and stronger.
2AC USFG
The United States generally refers to the 50 states and the territories
US Code - Section 4612: Definitions and special rules,
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/26/D/38/A/4612#sthash.fWW1o73T.dpuf
4) United States (A) In general The term "United States" means the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any possession of the United States, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
Their interpretation destroys affirmative ground and policy analysis:
A. Gambling
Rose, Full Professor with Tenure at Whittier Law School, 2013
(I. Nelson, The DOJ Gives States a Gift, UNLV Gaming Law Journal, 4 UNLV Gaming L.J. 1, Spring, p.
Lexis)
The control of gambling has always been left up to the states . A federal law would not significantly
change things. Every proposed federal restriction on Internet gambling allows states to opt in or out .
Even the UIGEA is only an enforcement act, requiring that the gambling be illegal under some other
federal or state statute.
B. Marijuana
Alex Kreit, Associate Professor and Director, Center for Law and Social Justice, Thomas Jefferson School
of Law, 2010 Spring, 2010, Chapman Law Review, 13 Chap. L. Rev. 555 Beyond the Prohibition
Debate: Thoughts on Federal Drug Laws in an Age of State Reforms
This essay considers the question of how to think about federal drug laws in a post-drug war era - one
in which states are enacting reforms that are at odds with stated federal policy. My approach here has been, by
design, limited and focused. I have, for example, omitted some of the most important proposals for reforming federal drug laws, such as
reforms that would reduce the severity of federal sentences for low-level drug offenders. Instead, this essay seeks to examine
possible reforms that relate to the role of federal law in shaping and enforcing our drug policies. The
discussion reveals the importance of cutting through the debate about prohibition and legalization when thinking about federal drug laws. By
looking at a proposal in Congress to "decriminalize" marijuana, we find that the federal government
could not unilaterally legalize or decriminalize a drug even if it wanted to. As a practical matter, if the
federal government were to remove federal penalties for possession of small amounts of marijuana,
the result would not be nationwide decriminalization but a shift in at most 600-odd defendants from
federal to state courts. This is in large part because, even in an age of unprecedented federal
involvement in criminal law enforcement, states still arrest and prosecute far more offenders than the
federal government. For this same reason, the federal government may be unable to stop states from enacting reforms like the
legalization of medical marijuana, even though they are inconsistent with federal policy. [*581] The federal government cannot
legalize marijuana on its own, but it also cannot stop a state from doing so . n103 As a result, if we
approach proposals to reform federal drug laws from the prohibition/legalization framework, we will
be asking the wrong questions . Instead, we would be much better served by thinking about these
issues in terms of the role of federal government in light of state laws. This is not only a more accurate way to
look at issues like how the federal government should respond to state medical marijuana laws, but it also has the potential to help
begin to bridge the divide in what is often a polarizing debate.
C. Prostitution
Ione Curva, Research Editor, Rutgers Law Review. Candidate for J.D., Rutgers School of Law - Newark,
2012, Thinking Globally, Acting Locally: How New Jersey Prostitution Law Reform Can Reduce Sex
Trafficking, 64 Rutgers L. Rev. 557, Winter 2012
Today prostitution is controlled entirely by state law. n60 Currently there is no federal law that
prohibits prostitution . n61 States' power to regulate prostitution derives from an 1884 proclamation
by the Supreme Court in Barbier v. Connolly, where the Court characterized state police powers as those that
"promote the health, peace, morals, education, and good order of the people." n62 Since each state is
entitled to create its own laws and regulations on prostitution, it is not surprising that the treatment of the various
parties involved differ from state to state. Punishments differ from state to state, as well as the particular prostitution-related charges. n63 An
examination of state prostitution statutes reveals a trend that shows the majority of states impose the greatest punishments for pimps,
including the degree of punishment, length of imprisonment, and monetary fines. n64 The District of Columbia and 31 states, including New
Jersey, have statutes that impose the harshest penalties on pimps, while imposing lesser but equal penalties on prostitutes and johns. n65
There are six states that impose [*566] equal penalties on pimps, prostitutes, and johns. n66 There are eight states where pimps are punished
the most harshly, followed by prostitutes, and then consumers. n67 Finally, there are five states where pimps are punished the most harshly,
followed by consumers, and then prostitutes. n68
D. PAS
Euthanasia.procon.org
http://euthanasia.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000132
0 Federal Laws on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide The federal government and all 50 states and the District of
Columbia prohibit euthanasia under general homicide laws. The federal government does not have assisted suicide laws.
Those laws are generally handled at the state level.

--literature should determine the agent. This turns their offense, encourages research
and debate over implementation questions.
---The topic doesnt specify a particular agent-This means that the affirmative isnt
bound to defend one either.
---Agent Counterplans are undesirable
A. Overly generic raise the same issues year after year.
B. Distract attention from the topic what should be done is more important than
who should do it.
C. Undermines case specific research. Gives the negative an easy alternative to case
specific work
Reasonability competing interpretations is a race to bottom and good is good
enough when the topic is already limited by areas and our aff is squarely in the lit
2AC-Legalize = Regulations
C/I Literature should determine the debate-specification begs the question of having
link debates grounded in the topic literature-this turns their education arguments
because it incentivizes research.
And, legalize does not include regulations
Bandow senior fellow at the Cato Institute 2000 Doug Dealing with Legalization The American
Prospect http://prospect.org/article/dealing-legalization
The question of what would follow the end of drug prohibition is thus vitally important. "Even if a
legalization option were adopted," says one outspoken opponent, Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY), "many questions
remain as to how drug usage would be regulated." But, he complains, advocates of legalization "never seem to have
answers."
Particularly true with gambling regulations are secondary legislation to legalization
Lycka, legal advisor, 14 (Martin, Betfair, Regulating Online Gambling Markets: Regulatory Guide, Gaming Law Review and
Economics, Volume 18, Issue 4)
The objective of any primary online gambling legislation is to lay down foundations for the future
successful operation of the local online gambling market under the effective supervision of local au- thorities and other enforcement
bodies. However, primary legislation cannot and should not spell out every single detail of the regulated
operation of the market. This is for two reasons: clarity and flexibility. Primary laws need to be clear and
include as few exceptions and exemptions as possible. Clear legislation contributes to legal and
market (opera- tional) certainty. The operators will certainly prefer entering a market with clear rules ,
where they know what expect, than an obscure market, where the rules are either too complicated or subject to
dispro- portionate discretion of the regulatory business. Unlike primary rules, which can usually be changed only by national
parliaments by way of a burdensome and time consuming procedure, sec- ondary legislation is in most cases, issued by
gov- ernments or even gambling regulators. Although, needless to say, the latter bodies are also bound to re- spect national
laws and legislation processes, they can be more flexible in their approach and, as a result, more acutely sensitive
to changes necessitated by the operation of the online gambling market when amending the
applicable secondary regulations. All in all, the role of secondary legislation is to im- plement the primary
laws and set out the rules for (and the boundaries of) the newly regulated market in more detail . Such as in
Denmark or Spain (the two primary regulatory examples discussed through- out this article), secondary legislation should set out the rules
applicable to, for example, the technical op- eration of the local data servers, certification of the online gambling products, management of
regulatory changes and developments (as part of the continuous communication between the operators and the na- tional regulator), and rules
in connection with the op- eration of the national identity verification systems or self-exclusion databases. Compliance with secondary
regulations should not only be tested upon sub- mission of operators license applications, but also throughout the lifetime of their licenses or
other permits issued by the national regulators. To ensure compliance, regulators should not only be granted access to operators data (live or
near real time), but also statutorily authorized to seek regular activity reports from the operators. Secondary legislation should
elaborate upon the rules laid down in the primary laws in connection with licensing of operators. In the EU, it is required
by EU law that licensing tenders and other pro- cesses are transparent, non-discriminatory, and based on rules known in advance. 11 This
mantra applies to both the primary and the secondary laws. Just as in the case of the substantive rules, the basic
primary procedural rules are established in the primary laws, whereas the operational details are the
domain of the secondary legislation.
No ground loss aff defends a sweeping change from the status quo sufficient for
links based off gambling bad and politics
Non-resolutional specification bad resolution only asks the question legalization
yes/no specification should be a question of solvency otherwise its infinitely
regressive forces the AFF to embed hundreds of competitive PICs in the 1AC which
kill clash and turns their education impact
Cross-ex checks they shouldve asked
Reasonability good is good enough when our affirmative is squarely in the literature
and the topic is already limited to five topical affs

Patent Trolls CP
Legalizing gambling allows political betting back in the country.
Dwoskin 2013
Elizabeth, Staff writer for Bloomberg Business Week, New Online Gambling Rules Might Bring Back
Intrade http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-03-01/new-online-gambling-rules-might-bring-
back-intrade

As of early November, 2012 was looking like a great year for Intrade. Traders on the online market where people bet money on political
contests had accurately predicted the results of the presidential race for the second time in a row. Then Intrades fortunes turned. On Nov. 26,
the Commodity Futures Trading Commission sued the Dublin-based company, accusing it of operating an illegal exchange.
Intrade immediately barred U.S. customers from the site. Since the company had previously told me most of its users are
in the U.S., I wagered in an article that it was doomed. Turns out that may have been a bad bet. This week, New
Jersey became the third state, after Delaware and Nevada, to pass an online gambling bill. This came thanks to
a complete reversal in policy at the U.S. Department of Justice. For years the agency had said online
gambling was illegala violation of the Wire Act of 1961 that bans betting across state linesand had prosecuted the owners of online
gaming sites. Then late last year it told states wanting to start online lotteries that the Wire Act applied
only to sports betting and not to other games. Industry observers were shocked. The Justice Department came out 180
degrees opposite of where it was before, says David Stewart, a lawyer specializing in gambling law at Ropes & Gray. Ive
never seen that. Although the CFTCs lawsuit against Intrade is still pending, the Justice Departments
new attitude appears to offer a way for Intrade to come back as a political betting site . The CFTCs
complaint against Intrade takes issue with its futures contracts on currency prices and some current
events, but not its line on politics. In a past ruling, the CFTC said that political betting is out of its scope. The
Nevada statute allows 20 games, including community poker and craps. Companies that want to start gambling sites for games not on that list
can seek special permission for a license from the Nevada Gaming Control Board. Theres nothing that would stop Intrade
from getting a license in the state of Nevada, says Anthony Cabot, a Las Vegas lawyer who specializes in gambling law. Cabot
says Nevadas gaming commission would investigate the governments allegations against Intrade, but the CFTC lawsuit wouldnt
automatically disqualify the company from getting a license. It would have a shot at certification if it could prove its
offering a game of chance, as opposed to a game of skill, he says. Intrade may resist transforming itself into a gambling site. It has always
thought of it itself as a market, not a casino. It was founded by a stock trader, and Intraders buy and sell shares in their candidate. The
difference between gambling and trading may be only semanticfor much of this century, commodities trading was considered illegal
gamblingbut Intrade could have a tough time making over its image. (Intrade did not return multiple requests for comment.) You can bet
that political Intraders in the U.S., whove been fuming since the company closed their accounts last
fall, want nothing more than for Intrade to come back.
Prediction markets key to manage accelerating technical change solves WMD use.
McGinnis 2012
John O., Northwestern Law Professor, Accelerating Democracy: Transforming Governance Through
Technology, pg 2-5

Yet the central political problem of our time is how to adapt our ven- erable democracy to the
acceleration of the information age. Modern technology creates a supply of new tools for improved governance, but it also
creates an urgent demand for putting these tools to use. The need bet- ter policies to obtain the benefits of innovation
as quickly as possible and to manage the social problems that speedier innovation will inevitably
createfrom pollution to weapons of mass destruction. Exponential growth in computation is driving today's social
change. The key advantage for politics is that increases in computational power dramatically improve information technology. Thus, unlike
most techno- logical innovations of the past, many innovations today directly supply new mechanisms for
evaluating the consequences of social policies. Our task is to place politics progressively within the domain of information
technologyto use its new or enhanced tools, such as empiricism, infor- mation markets, dispersed media, and artificial intelligence, to
reinvent governance. For instance, the Internet greatly facilitates betting pools called infor- mation or prediction
markets that permit people to bet on the occurrence of future events. Such markets already gauge election results
more accu- rately than polls do. If legalized and modestly subsidized, they could also foretell many policy
results better than politicians or experts alone. We could then better predict the consequences of
changes in educational pol- icy on educational outcomes or a stimulus program on economic growth. In short, prediction
markets would provide a visible hand to help guide policy choices. The Internet today also encourages dispersed
media like blogs to in- tensify confrontations about contending policy claims. Previously a less diverse mainstream media tended to settle for
received wisdom. Our more competitive media culture permits the rapid recombination of innovative policy proposals and expert analysis no
less than our more competitive scientific culture provides an incubator for new computer applications. A novel plan for reducing
unemployment is immediately analyzed, cri- tiqued, and compared to other programs. Because of this greater computational capacity,
society can also use more effective methods of social science to evaluate empirically the re- sults of
policies. Like prediction markets and dispersed media, the turn to empiricism benefits from competitive structures. Different jurisdictions,
from states to school districts, try to gain advantages over one another by adopting better policies. With our more sophisticated
empirical tools, we can then assess the effect of their distinctive policies, gauging the degree to which gun control
helps prevent crime or whether longer school hours improve student learning. Thus, the technological transformation of
society contains within it- self the dynamo of its own management, but only if we create laws and
regulations to permit the infonnation revolution to wash through our democratic structures. For instance.
Congress must legalize online pre- diction markets and systematically encourage policy
experimentation within the framework of its legislation. The Supreme Court must assure that the changing media can
deliver information to citizens, particularly at election time. We cannot tolerate social learning that moves at gla- cial speed when technological
change gallops apace; we cannot put up with a government that inaccurately assesses policy results with outdated methods when new smarter
mechanisms are within its reach. The techno- logical revolution is giving us progressively better hardware to gather the information in the
world to improve policy outcomes. But government structures and rules provide the essential social software to make that hardware work
effectively on behalf of society. With the advent of new technology, the ideal structure for social gov- ernance
today starkly contrasts with previous visions of modern govern- ment, like that celebrated in the New Deal,
which relied on centralized planning. There the focus was also on improved governance through the
use of social information, but the analysis was to be handed down from the topfrom experts and
bureaucrats. Today technology permits knowledge to bubble up from more dispersed sources that are
filtered through more competitive mechanisms, sustaining a more decentralized and accurate system
of social discovery. We can acquire general expertise without being beholden to particular experts.
The nation can retain and improve the best of the model of governance we havea politics that seeks
to be informed by expertise and social-scientific knowledgewhile shedding the error-prone
arrogance and insularity of a technocracy . The promise of modem information technology for improving social governance
should not be confused with an enthusiasm for using technol- ogy amply to Increase democratic participation. Often labeled "digital de-
mocracy," this perspective animates President Barack Obama's promise to respond to Web-based petitions that collect five thousand
signatures.' But more equal participation is not sufficient to assess more accurately the con- sequences of social policy, because citizens do not
possess equal knowledge. Modem information technology instead allows us to root improved governance in a realistic assessment of human
nature. It permits competi- tive mechanisms and the scientific method to harness man's self-interest and unequally distributed knowledge for
the public good. More Utopian visions of social reform, which rely solely either on the opinions of an elite
or the unrefined sentiment of the people to remake society, are worse than political blunders. They
are anachronisms in the information age, with its more accurate methods for sifting information and
translating it into the knowledge needed to evaluate policy. The use of market mechanisms and the scientific method
also could lower the political temperature. Such tools encourage a greater recog- nition of the uncertain effects of
all human action and thereby bring a greater dispassion to the business of social reform. This style of
politics makes it more likely that society will act on the best evidence available to make steady
improvements and avoid the worst catastrophes . Contemporary technology not only supplies tools for better decision
making but also creates a demand for their deployment to both speed the benefits of innovation and handle its dangers. Technological inno-
vations today hold the potential to provide a great boon to humanity. Advances in biotechnology and other fields promise longer life through
medical innovation, and those in computation generate greater wealth through enhanced productivity. But the pace of these beneficial inven-
tions depends in part on government decisions about taxes, government investments in basic science, and laws on intellectual property.
Govern- ment can create a virtuous circle by using technology to sustain social processes that in turn create a faster cycle of valuable
technologies. In contrast, bad government policy on innovation is today more costly than ever, because it can squander unparalleled
opportunities for tech- nological advance. Even more important, better government is needed to address the downsides
of faster and likely accelerating technological change. Energy- intensive machines began the process of injecting
greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at the time of industrialization. Yet almost no one rec- ognized this development until relatively
recently, in large part because we did not have the necessary predictive tools. Thus our prior failure to foretell global warming
signals the need for earlier and more accurate assessment of the possibly dangerous by-products of
more advanced and more rapidly developing technology. Domestically, fast-moving technology can be socially
disruptive. Im- proving machine intelligence can at times complement the value of an employee, enhancing his or her productivity. But it can
also at times pro- vide a complete substitute for human labor. As computer search capa- bilities become more effective, the human premium
on simply knowing things falls, as most recently demonstrated by the victory of the computer Watson over the best players in the history of
Jeopardy!the preeminent television quiz show. Such computer programs will perform a greater range of clerical tasks, displacing routine
white-collar jobs. The result is likely to be more unemployment in the short tenn and perhaps greater inequalitya recipe for social instability.
Economists are right to remind us that workers who are displaced by machine intelli- gence need not be condemned to long-term idleness.
Given the infinite variety of human desires, there is always more work to be done. But society will need to facilitate social structures that help
employees face a lifetime of job changes. Abroad, technological change will create even more disruption as the wave
of acceleration engulfs societies that have not yet come to terms with the social demands of industrialization, let alone more
recent technological change. Mass disorientation can become the source of both narional aggression and non-
state terrorismaggression and terrorism made all the more devastating by access to weapons that
are not only increasingly powerful but also [and] deployable by ever smaller groups. Even if almost all
nations in the world democratize, the one remaining rogue nation may exploit technology to cause
mass destruction. Even if most terrorist organizations subside, the few that are left may gain even
more power in asymmetric warfare through access to new destructive devices. Because of such
dangers, the dynamic of modem technology could as easily lead to a nightfall of civilization as to the
dawn of a far better world.- The quality of our politics may make the difference between nightfall and
dawn as we decide how to grapple with our fast-moving technological advances. Those decisions include when
to regulate tech- nologies that may prove dangerous and how to unleash from obsoles- cent regulation technologies that may prove beneficial.
It also includes more general policy improvements to increase economic growth and so- cial stability so that we can provide the resources and
rally the popular support to address the disruptions that successive waves of technological change will cause. The evolutionary history of
mankind highlights the challenge of ad- justing social governance to faster and faster change. Slowly animals evolved to leam from their
environment. Through writing. Homo sapiens then became the first species to preserve learning, enabling knowledge to grow, ultimately at an
exponential pace. Collective learning over time then became the source of technological improvement, a process that could move much faster
than evolution.
Unpredictable tech innovations are an existential risk.
Bostrom 2013
Nick, Professor, Faculty of Philosophy & Oxford Martin School Director, Future of Humanity Institute
Director, Programme on the Impacts of Future Technology, Existential Risk Prevention as Global
Priority, Global Policy Volume 4 . Issue 1 . February 2013 http://www.existential-risk.org/concept.pdf

An existential risk is one that threatens the premature extinction of Earth-originating intelligent life or the perma- nent
and drastic destruction of its potential for desirable future development (Bostrom, 2002). Although it is often difficult to assess
the probability of existential risks, there are many reasons to suppose that the total such risk
confronting humanity over the next few centuries is significant. Estimates of 10-20 per cent total
existential risk in this century are fairly typical among those who have examined the issue, though
inevitably such estimates rely heavily on subjective judgment.1 The most reasonable estimate might be substantially higher or lower. But
perhaps the strongest reason for judging the total existential risk within the next few centuries to be significant is the extreme magnitude of the
values at stake. Even a small probability of existential catastrophe could be highly practically significant
(Bostrom, 2003; Matheny, 2007; Posner. 2004; Weitzman, 2009). Humanity has survived what we might call natural existential
risks for hundreds of thousands of years; thus it is prima facie unlikely that any of them will do us in
within the next hundred.2 This conclusion is buttressed when we analyse specific risks from nature, such as asteroid impacts,
supervolcanic eruptions, earthquakes, gamma-ray bursts, and so forth: Empirical impact distributions and scientific models suggest that the
likelihood of extinction because of these kinds of risk is extremely small on a time scale of a century or so.3 In contrast, our species is
introducing entirely new kinds of existential riskthreats we have no track record of surviving. Our
longevity as a species therefore offers no strong prior grounds for confident optimism. Consideration
of specific existential-risk scenarios bears out the suspicion that the great bulk of existential risk in the
foreseeable future consists of anthropogenic existential risksthat is, those arising from human activity. In
particular, most of the biggest existential risks seem to be linked to potential future technological
breakthroughs that may radically expand our ability to manipulate the external world or our own biology.
As our powers expand, so will the scale of their potential consequencesintended and unintended,
positive and negative. For example, there appear to be significant existential risks in some of the
advanced forms of biotechnology, molecular nanotechnology, and machine intelligence that might be
developed in the decades ahead. The bulk of existential risk over the next century may thus reside in rather
speculative scenarios to which we cannot assign precise probabilities through any rigorous statistical or scientific
method. But the fact that the probability of some risk is difficult to quantify does not imply that the risk
is negligible. Probability can be understood in different senses. Most relevant here is the epistemic sense in which probability is construed
as (something like) the credence that an ideally reasonable observer should assign to the risk's mate- rialising based on currently available
evidence.4 If something cannot presently be known to be objectively safe, it is risky at least in the
subjective sense relevant to decision making. An empty cave is unsafe in just this sense if you cannot tell whether or not it is
home to a hungry lion. It would be rational for you to avoid the cave if you reasonably judge that the expected harm of entry outweighs the
expected benefit. The uncertainty and error-proneness of our first-order assessments of risk is itself something we must factor into our all-
things-considered probability assignments. This factor often dominates in low-probability, high- consequence
risksespecially those involving poorly understood natural phenomena, complex social dynamics, or new technology, or
that are difficult to assess for other reasons. Suppose that some scientific analysis A indicates that some catastrophe X has an extremely small
probability P{X) of occurring. Then the probability that A has some hidden crucial flaw may easily be much greater than P(X).S Furthermore, the
conditional probability of X given that A is crucially flawed, P[X \>A)l may be fairly high. We may then find that most of the risk of X resides in
the uncer- tainty of our scientific assessment that P(X) was small (Figure 1) (Ord, Hillerbrand and Sandberg, 2010).
Advantage CP 2AC
The plan is key to create a precedent for regulating global internet usage
compensation wont create a framework for causing compliance.
Carbajales, J.D. candidate, 2010 Noe Hamra Carbajales, J.D. candidate 2011, Tulane University Law School, Winter, 2010
Tulane Journal of International and Comparative Law 19 Tul. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 397, No More Bets: The United States Rolls the Dice One More
Time Regarding International Relations and Foreign Internet Gambling Services,
An analysis of U.S. laws regarding Internet gambling demonstrates the past and future conflicts in this area of the law. The ambiguity of the
laws and their interpretation by federal agencies caused the United States to be defeated in the WTO against Antigua. The WTO
Appellate Body decision has opened the floodgates for future litigants , including major players such
as the EU. Until now, the United States has utterly disregarded its GATS commitments regarding the cross-
border supply of gambling and betting services, whether the United States admits this or [*419] not. An attitude of
defiance and disregard for international law only fosters an environment of distrust, encouraging
other member states to follow suit by refusing to comply with their own commitments. No one
denies that the United States is a major, if not the biggest, player in the world economy and an essential pillar of the
WTO. But with leadership also come responsibilities. Accordingly, the United States will have to reconcile
the current situation by confronting the challenges ahead. A few options are available to the United States when
addressing the mess created by its inept Internet gambling laws. First, the United States should acknowledge the
problem that it has created by carving out exceptions for domestic providers of Internet gambling and
betting services in the IHA and the UIGEA. The United States could address it by either leveling the playing field for
all foreign Internet service providers or by banning these providers altogether without taking any discriminatory measures.
n143 Second, the United States could modify or withdraw its commitments pursuant to article XXI of the GATS. The viability of this option
would depend on how many members exercise their right to claim benefits for any loss they may suffer as a consequence of U.S. actions. It is
no secret that the EU is considering the option to commence proceedings against the United States in the WTO should the United States decide
to withdraw its commitments. This means that the United States could be exposed to potentially substantial damages should the EU and/or any
other countries decide to sue for any loss. As a last resort, the United States has the option of ignoring the issue and maintaining the position of
the DOJ regarding its compliance with the WTO. However, even this option is starting to crumble. A possible suit by the EU would pin the
United States to the ropes. To be successful, the EC must simply avoid the same mistakes committed by Antigua. Considering the weight of the
EU in the world economy, the United S tates might want to think twice before addressing the issue of Internet
gambling. In today's modern society, it is almost unthinkable that a country could forbid the
existence of a global Internet gambling market. Based on technology's role in the economy, it might
be best to begin by regulating a future Internet gambling market rather than banning it outright . Past
experiences with complete bans suggest that these measures only drive the targeted activity underground. n144 A policy of licensing
and regulation, however, has proven to be a successful method [*420] of dealing with the issue of Internet gambling.
n145 There is no doubt that the Internet has revolutionized the world we live in. With this new revolution also come new
challenges. The manner in which the United States deals with these challenges will dictate the place
it will occupy in the future . But in a world moving towards globalization , a position advocating
protectionism and isolationism has no place.
Strong regulations key to solve global internet
Chander, 2009 Anupam Chander, Visiting Professor, Yale Law School; Professor, University of
California, Davis, School of Law, 102 Am. Socy Intl L. Proc. 37, 2009, International Trade and Internet
Freedom

Proponents of human rights have often found themselves at odds with free traders. The desire to liberalize the flow of goods across borders in
service of efficient production has at times been insufficiently attentive to the rights of workers and the health of the environment.
Cyberspace, however, may offer a context in which the desire for free trade and the wish to promote
political freedom go hand-in-hand. By liberalizing trade in cyberspace, international trade law can
bolster the circulation of information that authoritarian regimes would repress . In this essay, I want to sketch
a hopeful possibility: how the Internet under the governance of international trade law might bolster political
freedom around the world. Unexpectedly, the G eneral A greement on T rade in S ervices 1 might emerge as a
human rights document. The new bugaboos of repressive governments are search engines, electronic bulletin boards, blogs
and YouTube. These are technologies that allow ordinary individuals to communicate outside the mainstream
media channels that often prove subservient to governments. 2 This feature, of course, also represents the original nature of the World
Wide Web itself, as it eschewed any central intermediating authority in information circulation. If international trade law can
help protect the free circulation of information in cyberspace, it can serve the cause of political freedom
around the world. The Intersection of International Trade and Human Rights Human rights law has typically sought to regulate the
production of goods in order to avoid the exploitation of labor (or relatedly, the environment). But with respect to trade in services delivered
over the Internet, the nature of the work and the presence of an often highly-educated workforce significantly reduce fears of worker
exploitation. This does not mean that labor rights are no longer of concern with respect to trade in services, 3 but those concerns are less with
sweatshops, below living wage, child labor or perilous working conditions than with the right to organize and the right to privacy. In trade
mediated via cyberspace, human rights law comes to bear in a largely novel fashion: to help further the right of individuals to share and receive
information. Trade in services shifts the locus of human rights attention from the production process to
its delivery and consumption. Thus, cyberspace offers new and fertile opportunity for human rights
law. Human rights law requires that nations not only provide their citizens with free speech rights within their nation, but also the right to
impart information regardless of frontiers. This formulation is repeated in both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as well. 4 The Declaration describes the right to impart information and ideas through any
media regardless of frontiers, and the Covenant subsequently reiterated the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all
kinds, regardless of frontiers. While the legal status of the Universal Declaration is open to question, it nonetheless offers the primary source
of global human rights standards. 5 Because of its nature as an international treaty, the Covenant carries more binding force than the
Declaration. 6 The Covenant makes clear that one countrys inhabitants have the right both to send and to receive information from another
country, and thus imposes obligations on both countries to allow the information exchange. Of course, information regulation is a central
business of governments, and governments and courts are unlikely to interpret the human rights principles as putting them out of this business
when it comes to domestic or foreign information. Like the freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution, the international free speech
norm tolerates regulation within appropriate bounds. Indeed, it contemplates it, permitting limitations set forth by law and necessary to
support public order. 7 As historys best medium for transmitting information worldwide, the Internet will test the limits of such regulation of
crossborder information flows. International trade law puts pressure on state repression of information through
two principal mechanisms. First, the transparency obligations of GATS require what is often absent in authoritarian statesa
set of public rules that governs both citizens and governmental authorities. WTO member states must
publish regulations governing services and establish inquiry points where foreign service providers can obtain information about
such regulations. 8 A publication requirement written for the benefit of foreigners may prove useful for local citizens, who will be given the
opportunity to understand the rules that bind themand the opportunity therefore to challenge those rules or their interpretation. Second,
the market access and national treatment commitments 9 provide opportunities for foreign information
service providers to disseminate information that local information service providers might eschew. Censorship by itself may
not necessarily constitute either a market access or a national treatment violation. But consider three scenarios: what if a country (1) declared
foreign blogging sites off-limits, or (2) required foreign information service providers to route their offerings through special traffic cops, or (3)
required local Internet service providers to deny access to certain foreign services in toto?10 In cases like these, the censorship
measures would likely run afoul of a countrys market access and national treatment obligations. 11 But
that does not end the inquiry. GATS permits derogation for measures necessary to protect public morals or to maintain public order.12 A
tricky question for trade law over the coming years will be whether states will be able to derogate from the above responsibilities in ways that
sustain the repression of political information. In order to avoid the exception swallowing the trade liberalization obligation, GATS limits
permissible derogations through two general requirements: (1) they must be necessary for the public morals or public order goal; and (2)
there must be no reasonably available alternative to the trade restrictive measure. The necessity requirement is stated directly in GATS
article XIV. The second requirement rests in the Appellate Bodys review of its first Internet dispute. In that dispute, the United States defended
its right to derogate from its free trade agreements with respect to online gambling, asserting the following public order and public morality
grounds: (1) organized crime; (2) money laundering; (3) fraud; (4) risks to youth, including underage gambling; and (5) public health.13 The
Appellate Body largely upheld the U.S. derogation, but only after concluding that no reasonably available alternatives had been presented to
the challenged trade-restrictive measure. The Appellate Body elaborated that a reasonably available alternative is one that preserve*s+ for
the responding Member its right to achieve its desired level of protection with respect to its public order or public morality objectives.14 If
one considers the array of recent efforts to censor material mediated by the Internet, it seems clear
that many of them would fall afoul of the reasonably available alternative requirement. That is, many of
the stated public order or public morality goals could have been achieved at the desired level of
protection by less trade-restrictive means. Consider, for example, the shuttering of Blogger because of one or two offending
blogs, or the disabling of YouTube because of one objectionable video, or shutting off of access to Wikipedia presumably because of a few
politically charged entries.15
Extinction
Genachowski, 2013 Julius Genachowski is chairman of the U.S. Federal Communications
Commission, First Amendment scholar Lee C. Bollinger is president of Columbia University. Bollinger
serves on the board of the Washington Post Company, Foreign Policy, April 16, 2013, "The Plot to Block
Internet Freedom",
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/04/16/plot_block_internet_freedom?page=full

The Internet has created an extraordinary new democratic forum for people around the world to express
their opinions. It is revolutionizing global access to information : Today, more than 1 billion people worldwide have access
to the Internet, and at current growth rates, 5 billion people -- about 70 percent of the world's population -- will be connected in five years. But
this growth trajectory is not inevitable, and threats are mounting to the global spread of an open and
truly "worldwide" web . The expansion of the open Internet must be allowed to continue : The mobile and
social media revolutions are critical not only for democratic institutions' ability to solve the collective problems of
a shrinking world , but also to a dynamic and innovative global economy that depends on financial
transparency and the free flow of information. The threats to the open Internet were on stark display at
last December's World Conference on International Telecommunications in Dubai, where the United S tates fought attempts
by a number of countries -- including Russia, China, and Saudi Arabia -- to give a U.N. organization, the
International Telecommunication Union (ITU), new regulatory authority over the Internet. Ultimately, over the objection of the
United States and many others, 89 countries voted to approve a treaty that could strengthen the power of governments to control online
content and deter broadband deployment. In Dubai, two deeply worrisome trends came to a head . First , we see that
the Arab Spring and similar events have awakened nondemocratic governments to the danger that the Internet
poses to their regimes. In Dubai, they pushed for a treaty that would give the ITU's imprimatur to governments'
blocking or favoring of online content under the guise of preventing spam and increasing network
security. Authoritarian countries' real goal is to legitimize content regulation, opening the door for governments to block any content they
do not like, such as political speech. Second , the basic commercial model underlying the open Internet is also
under threat. In particular, some proposals, like the one made last year by major European network operators, would change
the ground rules for payments for transferring Internet content. One species of these proposals is called "sender pays"
or "sending party pays." Since the beginning of the Internet, content creators -- individuals, news outlets, search engines, social media sites --
have been able to make their content available to Internet users without paying a fee to Internet service providers. A sender-pays rule would
change that, empowering governments to require Internet content creators to pay a fee to connect with an end user in that country. Sender
pays may look merely like a commercial issue, a different way to divide the pie. And proponents of sender pays and similar changes claim they
would benefit Internet deployment and Internet users. But the opposite is true: If a country imposed a payment requirement,
content creators would be less likely to serve that country. The loss of content would make the Internet
less attractive and would lessen demand for the deployment of Internet infrastructure in that country.
Repeat the process in a few more countries, and the growth of global connectivity -- as well as its attendant benefits for
democracy -- would slow dramatically. So too would the benefits accruing to the global economy .
Without continuing improvements in transparency and information sharing, the innovation that springs
from new commercial ideas and creative breakthroughs is sure to be severely inhibited. To their credit,
American Internet service providers have joined with the broader U.S. technology industry, civil society, and others in opposing these changes.
Together, we were able to win the battle in Dubai over sender pays, but we have not yet won the war . Issues
affecting global Internet openness, broadband deployment, and free speech will return in upcoming international
forums , including an important meeting in Geneva in May, the World Telecommunication/ICT Policy Forum. The massive investment in
wired and wireless broadband infrastructure in the United States demonstrates that preserving an open Internet is completely compatible with
broadband deployment. According to a recent UBS report, annual wireless capital investment in the United States increased 40 percent from
2009 to 2012, while investment in the rest of the world has barely inched upward. And according to the Information Technology and Innovation
Foundation, more fiber-optic cable was laid in the United States in 2011 and 2012 than in any year since 2000, and 15 percent more than in
Europe. All Internet users lose something when some countries are cut off from the World Wide Web .
Each person who is unable to connect to the Internet diminishes our own access to information. We become less able to
understand the world and formulate policies to respond to our shrinking planet. Conversely, we gain a
richer understanding of global events as more people connect around the world, and those societies nurturing
nascent democracy movements become more familiar with America's traditions of free speech and pluralism. That's why we believe that the
Internet should remain free of gatekeepers and that no entity -- public or private -- should be able to pick and choose the information web
users can receive. That is a principle the United States adopted in the Federal Communications Commission's 2010 Open Internet Order. And
it's why we are deeply concerned about arguments by some in the United States that broadband providers should be able to block, edit, or
favor Internet traffic that travels over their networks, or adopt economic models similar to international sender pays. We must
preserve the Internet as the most open and robust platform for the free exchange of information
ever devised. Keeping the Internet open is perhaps the most important free speech issue of our time.
Dems Good
The GOP will win the Senate back now
Enten, senior political writer and analyst for FiveThirtyEight, 9-10-14 (Harry, Senate
Update: A Push Day On The Polling Front , http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/senate-update-a-push-
day-on-the-polling-front/, accessed 9-13-14, CMM)
Its a push. Wednesday saw a mix of polls, with both Democrats and Republicans receiving good news,
and the FiveThirtyEight model continues to give Republicans a little less than a 63 percent chance of
taking back the Senate. Democrats continue to lead in blue states. A poll in Michigan from the Glengariff Group found Democrat Gary
Peters ahead of Republican Terri Lynn Land 47 to 36.5 percent. Its the second day in a row a poll gave Peters at least a 5 percentage point
advantage. We now have his odds of winning at 75 percent. But Republicans continue to lead in red states, and they
have a chance of picking up a purple state or two. A new SurveyUSA poll in Georgia found Republican David
Perdue only 3 percentage points in front of Democrat Michelle Nunn, 47 percent to 44 percent. Perdue had led Nunn in
SurveyUSAs previous poll by 9 points, 50 percent to 41 percent. The FiveThirtyEight model, however, had Perdue winning by 4 percentage
points before the poll came out, so Perdues chances of winning barely moved, inching down from 73 percent to 72 percent. Worse for
Democrats is that we were right in urging readers not to make too much of a Loras College poll of the
Iowa Senate race showing Democrat Bruce Braley pulling away from Republican Joni Ernst. A new Public
Policy Polling (PPP) survey of Iowa surfaced on Wednesday. The survey, conducted at the end of August for the left-leaning
group Americans for Tax Fairness, showed Ernst up 45 percent to 43 percent. Ernst had gained compared to PPPs previous
poll, which had her down by 1 point. Braley is still a very slight favorite the FiveThirtyEight model gives him a 54 percent chance of winning
but hes not running away with it in Iowa. Finally, its a good time to play the caution card in the three-way Senate
race in South Dakota. A SurveyUSA poll published Tuesday night put Republican Mike Rounds ahead of Democrat
Rick Weiland and independent Larry Pressler (a former Republican senator), 39 percent to 28 percent to 25 percent, respectively. The
biggest mover here was Pressler. He jumped 8 percentage points from SurveyUSAs last poll in May. SurveyUSA also discovered that, if Pressler
were to drop out, Rounds would lead a one-on-one against Weiland by only 2 percentage points, 44 percent to 42 percent. Races with viable
third party candidates (see Pressler) tend to be more fluid than your normal Democrat vs. Republican Senate race (see Presslers 8-point jump).
Therefore, FiveThirtyEights latest forecast gives Rounds an 89 percent chance of winning even though he has led throughout the campaign by
double-digits. We expect Rounds to win the race, but were not as sure of a Republican pickup in South
Dakota as we are of one in Montana and West Virginia.
Shields the link state politics dont build up
Broockman 2009 David, Yale Professor of Political Science, Do Congressional Candidates Have Reverse Coattails? Evidence from a
Regression Discontinuity Design http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~broockma/broockman_rdd.pdf
Finally, my results raise questions about the efficacy of making inroads in areas that reliably elect members of the opposite party through the
election of local officials. For example. Howard Dean's "50-state strategy." which famously diverted millions of
dollars in the 2006 elections to State Democratic parties in places such as Utah, was promoted to Party
donors and leaders on the premise that in order to compete effectively in 2008 and beyond the Party needed
to "lay the groundwork" by working to first elect Democrats down the ticket in 2006 (Gilgoff 2006). With the
Democratic Party continuing to invest in and praise the 50-state strategy well into 2008 (sec Rosenberg 2008). the chairman of the California
Republican Party, Ron Nehring, has also called for a Republican counterstrategy (2009). In his plea for funding and attention from the national
Republican party, Nehring wrote, "expanding the ranks of congressional, state and local officials from our party... makes it more likely a state
will be competitive in a presidential election down the road." My analysis suggests that Nehring and his counterparts in both
parties should be cautious about such claims. Although build- ing party get-out-the-vote infrastructure is no doubt important,
especially in light of recent results indicating that door-to-door canvassing can remain effective in getting out die vote even in high-salience
elections (Middleton and Green 2008). I find no evidence that the presence of well-funded and well-liked local
candidates has any benefits for these candi- dates' fellow partisans further up the ticket. For presidential
hopefuls, the key to victory is unlikely to be found tied to coattails.
Foreign policy shields voter focus
Schultheis 9/11 (Emily, political reporter for National Journal, GOP Tries To Turn Obamas Foreign Policy Into a November
Opportunity, http://www.defenseone.com/politics/2014/09/gop-tries-turn-obamas-foreign-policy-november-opportunity/93854/)
Foreign policy and the Middle East as a major issue in the midterms? A few months ago, it would have
been almost laughablebut with overseas news dominating the headlines and on voters minds, Republicans see the issue as
the final piece in the puzzle for using fears about President Obamas tenure against Democratic
candidates in key races. In the battle for Senate control in November, Republican strategists say GOP candidates
can use foreign policy to help tell a story about Obamaand, by extension, Democratic Senate
candidatesas incompetent and providing insufficient leadership for the country. If youd asked us two or
three months ago what kind of role is foreign affairs going to play in this election, nobody would have said it was going to play a role, said GOP
pollster Neil Newhouse. But now you see current events taking over and impacting voters concernsits current events that have forced this
issue onto the front burner. Foreign policy was never expected to be a top issue in this years midterms, which
thus far has been dominated by health care and economic issues. Its typically not something voters want to hear much about even in a
presidential race, let alone the midterms, and candidates tend to shy away from using fast-moving current events in TV advertising. But
voters are really paying attentionand their opinions on the issue arent good for the president or
for his party . Obamas big ISIS speech Wednesday night came just a day after an NBC News/Wall Street
Journal poll found his approval rating on foreign policy had plummeted to 32 percent. Voters gave Republicans an
18-point advantage on the issue of foreign policy, up 11 points from this time last year. And a whopping 94 percent of those surveyed said they
had seen or heard about the beheadings of journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloffmore than any other news event NBC/WSJ had tested in
the last five years. The developments of the last month, particularly the ISIS developments, have really permeated the
frontal lobe of the American political consciousness, said GOP strategist Phil Musser. And so when issues,
whether theyre domestic or international, break through in that kind of way in the final throes of an election
yearinevitably they become part of the narrative. The GOP argument goes something like this: the summers foreign
policy headlines, with the rise of ISIS in the Middle East and Russias encroaching power in Ukraine, arecoupled with economic concerns, the
border crisis, and Obamacarefurther proof of Obamas incompetence as chief executive. Democratic candidates in key races, particularly
incumbents whove frequently voted with Obama, will support his initiatives overseas. Therefore, voters who want to change the course of the
countrys leadership should vote against Democratic candidates this fall. That was the central theme of two recent ads from Senate Minority
Leader Mitch McConnell, whos facing off against Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes in Kentucky. These are serious times, a narrator says in
one, as news footage of ISIS, national unemployment, and the border crisis flash across the screen. In Kentucky, we have a proven leader
when somebody in Washington cant do the job, shouldnt Kentucky have a senator who can? Elizabeth Wilner of Kantar Media, which tracks
political advertising across the country, said that the number of TV spots featuring foreign policy or ISIS has been fairly small thus far but is
expected to grow. You certainly cant call it a flood, but were starting to see a trickleits likely, particularly after the president speaks, were
going to see more, she said. It certainly does look like a broad line of attack Republicans are going to start
using against Democrats for the next two months. Democrats responses to the situation have been varied. Some
incumbents with tough reelection battles, like Sen. Kay Hagan of North Carolina and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire,
have criticized the presidents handling of the situation; others have trod carefully on the issue, avoiding spending too
much time talking about Obamas actions. The National Republican Senatorial Committee has been playing up the importance of foreign policy,
sending out a memo to reporters Wednesday with polling proving the importance of foreign policy this fall. Is foreign policy going to stay as
hot as it is right now? I dont know, NRSC Executive Director Rob Collins said Tuesday at an event at the National Press Club. But we have to
prepare for it. The man in charge of leading Senate Republicans to a majority added that among moderates and other voters outside of the
GOP base, there was a creeping sense that the president was not a strong foreign policy leader. He said its the kind of issue
Republicans are comfortable talking about, and could help the partys candidates make their closing
argument to voters. Thats especially true of four veterans in the GOPs Senate lineup this year: state Sen.
Joni Ernst in Iowa, Rep. Tom Cotton in Arkansas, Dan Sullivan in Alaska, and Scott Brown in New Hampshire. All four have
served in the Middle East, which strategists say gives them additional credibility to talk about national
security and foreign policy issues. Brown, whos running for Senate in slain journalist James Foleys home state of New
Hampshire, has focused on the issue in recent weeks, running a Web video on foreign policy and calling on Congress to revoke the citizenship of
American-born ISIS fighters. He also talked foreign policy as he accepted the GOP Senate nomination Tuesday night.
There is no plan, either, to meet a crisis abroad that could quickly reach inside the U nited S tates if we do not
act. Terrorists are slaughtering innocent people across Iraq and Syria, including innocent Americans, Brown said. For all of this, the president
has been slow to move, and so far his foreign policy has been unsteady and incoherent. Ernst has had similar criticism of Obamas lack of
leadership, saying last week that there is no excuse for not having a strategy in this region. Cotton has been stressing the danger of ISIS all
summer, and in July asserted that it may be a greater danger today to Iraq than al-Qaida was on Sept. 10, 2001. Whats happening
abroad is on voters minds at least, anecdotally. On Wednesday night, focus groups of Walmart momsdefined
as working- and middle-class women who have shopped at Walmart at least once in the past month and have at least one child under 18in
Little Rock, Ark., and Des Moines, Iowa, mentioned ISIS and overseas conflicts unprompted. Asked to describe the world
today, many said it is not safe, scary, or a lot of unrest. I think we needed to take action and [Obama] just really sat backand this is a
pretty big deal, I think it does affect the American people, said one Des Moines participant, Louisa. Newhouse, whose firm Public Opinion
Strategies helped conduct the groups, said he was surprised by the extent to which international events have contributed to voters feelings
of unease. It almost seemed like they believe things have kind of gone to hell in a handbasket overseas and that we dont have as a good a
handle on it as we should, he said of the focus-group participants. For candidates, theres a difficult balance to strike between using the issue
to beat the drum against Obama and getting too far in the weeds on actual strategy proposals. Most GOP strategists agree that the way to talk
about foreign policy this fall is to make it a broad argument about leadership and stay out of such details as whether or not the U.S. should put
troops on the ground. I dont think that many Republicans are going to rush out there with detailed foreign policy initiatives in their own
campaigns, said GOP pollster Wes Anderson. I dont think theres any market for itwhat voters want to hear is that somebody is going to
take initiative and show leadership. Thats particularly true because events in the headlines are constantly changing, and what seemed like a
good policy prescription one week could be completely out of favor the next. Fast-moving stories, whether theyre domestic or foreign, are
always risky stories for politicians to be staking out positions on in something like a TV ad, Wilner said. Because once you take a position in an
ad, youre tied to that position. Democratic pollster Mark Mellman said theres a disconnect between Republicans argument about Obama
and foreign policy and what Democratic candidates can actually do on the issue. The reality is that President Obamas going to be the
president regardless of what happens in this congressional election, he said. So arguing that this somehow will affect President Obamas
foreign policy is foolish.
Multiple factors constrain Iranian aggression or adventurism
Kaye, RAND senior political scientist, 2010
(Dalia, Dangerous But Not Omnipotent,
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2009/RAND_MG781.pdf, ldg)

To accurately gauge the strategic challenges from Iran over a ten- to fifteen-year horizon, this study sought to assess the motivations
of the Islamic Republic, not just its capabilities. This approach , although difficult given the complexities of the Iranian
system, is critical in identifying potential sources of caution and pragmatism in Irans policy formulation .
Our exploration of Iranian strategic thinking revealed that ideology and bravado frequently mask
a preference for opportunism and realpolitik the qualities that define normal state behavior.
Similarly, when we canvassed Irans power projection options, we identified not only the extent of the threats posed by each but also their limitations and
liabilities. In each case, we found significant barriers and buffers to Irans strategic reach rooted in both the
regional geopolitics it is trying to influence and in its limited conventional military capacity,
diplomatic isolation, and past strategic missteps. Similarly, tensions between the regime and Iranian
societysegments of which have grown disenchanted with the Republics revolutionary idealscan also act as a constraint on
Iranian external behavior. This leads to our conclusion that analogies to the Cold War are mistaken: The
Islamic Republic does not seek territorial aggrandizement or even, despite its rhetoric, the forcible
imposition of its revolutionary ideology onto neighboring states. Instead, it feeds off existing grievances with the
status quo, particularly in the Arab world. Traditional containment options may actually create further opportunities for Tehran to exploit, thereby amplifying
the very influence the United States is trying to mitigate. A more useful strategy, therefore, is one that exploits existing checks on Irans
power and influence. These include the gap between its aspiration for asymmetric warfare
capabilities and the reality of its rather limited conventional forces , disagreements between Iran and
its militant proxies, and the potential for sharp criticism from Arab public opinion, which it has
long sought to exploit. In addition, we recommend a new U.S. approach to Iran that integrates elements of engagement and containment while
de-escalating unilateral U.S. pressure on Tehran and applying increased multilateral pressure against its nuclear ambitions. The analyses that informed these
conclusions also yielded the following insights for U.S. planners and strategists concerning Irans strategic culture, conventional military, ties to Islamist groups,
and ability to influence Arab public opinion.
K
Rejection alt will never lead to change
McCormack, Leicester international politics lecturer, 2010
(Tara, Critique, Security and Power: The Political Limits to Emancipatory Approaches, pg 58)

Contemporary critical and emancipatory approaches reject the possibility of reaching an objective evaluation of
the world or social reality because they reject the possibility of differentiating between facts and values.
For the contemporary critical theorists, theory can only ever be for someone and for some purpose. As this is so then quite
logically critical theorists elevate their own values to be the most important aspect of critical theory. As a result of the rejection of the
fact/value distinction we see within the work of contemporary critical theorists a highly unreflective
certainty about the power of their moral position. Critical theorists argue that all theory is normative,
they offer in its place better norms: ones, as we have seen, that will lead to emancipation and will help the marginalised.
The claims made for the central role of the values of the theorist reveal the theoretical limits of critical
and emancipatory theory today. Yet even good or critical theory has no agency, and only political action can
lead to change. Theory does of course play an important role in political change. This must be the first step towards a critical engagement with
contemporary power structures and discourses. In this sense, we can see that it is critical theory that really has the potential to solve problems, unlike problem-
solving theory which seeks only to ensure the smooth functioning of the existing order. Through substantive analysis the critical theorist can transcend the narrow
and conservative boundaries of problem-solving theory by explaining how the problematic arises. Unlike problem-solving theory, critical theory makes claims to be
able to explain why and how the social world functions as it does, it can go beyond the given framework for action. The critical theorist must
therefore be able to differentiate between facts (or social reality) and values , this ability is what marks the critical
theorist apart from the traditional or problem-solving theorists, who cannot, because of their values and commitment to the existing social world, go beyond the
given framework for action. If we cannot differentiate between our desires or values or norms (or our perspective, to put it in Coxs
terms) and actually occurring social and political and historical processes and relationships, it is hard to
see how we can have a critical perspective (Jahn, 1998: 614). Rather, through abolishing this division we can
no longer draw the line between what we would like and everything else, and thereby contemporary
critical theories are as much of a dogma as problem-solving theories. Contemporary critical theorists
are like modern-day alchemists, believing that they can transform the base metal of the unjust
international order into a golden realm of equality and justice through their own words. For contemporary
critical theorists, all that seems that the crucial step towards progress to a better world order is for the
theorist to state that their theory is for the purposes of emancipation and a just world order.
Psychoanalysis doesnt explain reality.
Bunge, McGill University philosopher, 2010
(Mario, Should Psychoanalysis Be in the Science Museum?, 10-5,
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827806.200-should-psychoanalysis-be-in-the-science-
museum.html)
We should congratulate the Science Museum for setting up an exhibition on psychoanalysis. Exposure to pseudoscience greatly helps understand genuine science,
just as learning about tyranny helps in understanding democracy. Over the past 30 years, psychoanalysis has quietly been displaced in academia by scientific
psychology. But it persists in popular culture as well as being a lucrative profession. It is the psychology of those who have not bothered to learn psychology, and
the psychotherapy of choice for those who believe in the power of immaterial mind over body. Psychoanalysis is a bogus science because
its practitioners do not do scientific research. When the field turned 100, a group of psychoanalysts
admitted this gap and endeavoured to fill it. They claimed to have performed the first experiment showing that patients benefited from
their treatment. Regrettably, they did not include a control group and did not entertain the possibility of
placebo effects. Hence, their claim remains untested (The International Journal of Psychoanalysis, vol 81, p 513). More recently, a
meta-analysis published in American Psychologist (vol 65, p 98) purported to support the claim that a form
of psychoanalysis called psychodynamic therapy is effective. However, once again, the original studies did not
involve control groups. In 110 years, psychoanalysts have not set up a single lab. They do not
participate in scientific congresses, do not submit their papers to scientific journals and are foreign to
the scientific community - a marginality typical of pseudoscience. This does not mean their
hypotheses have never been put to the test. True, they are so vague that they are hard to test and some
of them are, by Freud's own admission, irrefutable. Still, most of the testable ones have been soundly
refuted. For example, most dreams have no sexual content. The Oedipus complex is a myth; boys do not hate their
fathers because they would like to have sex with their mothers. The list goes on. As for therapeutic efficacy, little is known because psychoanalysts do not
perform double-blind clinical trials or follow-up studies. Psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience. Its concepts are woolly and
untestable yet are regarded as unassailable axioms. As a result of such dogmatism, psychoanalysis has
remained basically stagnant for more than a century, in contrast with scientific psychology, which is thriving.
Consensus of studies and best data prove the capitalist peace.
Hegre 2009
Department of Political Science, University of Oslo Center for the Study of Civil War, International Peace
Research Institute, Trade Does Promote Peace: New Simultaneous Estimates of the Reciprocal Effects of
Trade and Conflict* http://www.yale-university.com/leitner/resources/docs/HORJune09.pdf

Liberals expect economically important trade to reduce conflict because interstate violence adversely affects commerce, prospectively or
contemporaneously. Keshk, Reuveny, & Pollins (2004) and Kim & Rousseau (2005) report on the basis of simultaneous analyses of these
reciprocal relations that conflict impedes trade but trade does not deter conflict. Using refined measures of geographic proximity and sizethe
key elements in the gravity model of international interactionsreestablishes support for the liberal peace, however. Without careful
specification, trade becomes a proxy for these fundamental exogenous factors, which are also
important influences on dyadic conflict. KPRs and KRs results are spurious. Large, proximate states
fight more and trade more. Our re-analyses show that, as liberals would expect, commerce reduces the risk of
interstate conflict when proximity and size are properly modeled in both the conflict and trade
equations. We provided new simultaneous estimates of liberal theory using Oneal & Russetts (2005)
data and conflict equation and a trade model derived from Long (2008). These tests confirm the pacific
benefit of trade. Trade reduces the likelihood of a fatal militarized dispute, 19502000 in our most
comprehensive analysis, as it does in the years 1984-97 when additional measures of traders expectations of domestic
and interstate conflict are incorporated (Long, 2008) and in the period 1885-2000. This strong support for liberal
theory is consistent with Kims (1998) early simultaneous estimates, Oneal, Russett & Berbaums (2003)
Granger-style causality tests, and recent research by Robst, Polachek & Chang (2007). Reuveny & Kang (1998)
and Reuveny (2001) report mixed results. It is particularly encouraging that, when simultaneously estimated, the coefficient of trade in the
conflict equation is larger in absolute value than the corresponding value in a simple probit analysis. Thus, the dozens of published
articles that have addressed the endogeneity of trade by controlling for the years of peaceas virtually all
have done since 1999 have not overstated the benefit of interdependence . Admittedly, our instrumental variables are
not optimal. In some cases, for example, in violation of the identification rule, the creation or end of a PTA may be a casus belli. More
importantly, neither of our instruments explains a large amount of variance. Thus, future research should be directed to identifying better
instruments. Our confidence in the commercial peace does not depend entirely on the empirical evidence, however; it also rests on the logic of
liberal theory. Our new simultaneous estimates as well as our re-analyses of KPR and KRindicate that
fatal disputes reduce trade. Even with extensive controls for on-going domestic conflict, militarized disputes with third parties, and
expert estimates of the risks of such violence, interstate conflict has an adverse contemporaneous effect on bilateral trade. This is hardly
surprising (Anderton & Carter, 2001; Reuveny, 2001; Li & Sacko, 2002; Oneal, Russett & Berbaum, 2003; Glick & Taylor, 2005; Kastner, 2007;
Long, 2008; Findlay & ORourke, 2007; cf. Barbieri & Levy, 1999; Blomberg & Hess, 2006; and Ward & Hoff, 2007). If conflict did not impede
trade, economic agents would be indifferent to risk and the maximization of profit. Because conflict is costly, trade should reduce interstate
violence. Otherwise, national leaders would be insensitive to economic loss and the preferences of powerful domestic actors. Whether paid
prospectively or contemporaneously, the economic cost of conflict should reduce the likelihood of military conflict, ceteris paribus, if national
leaders are rational.
1AR
Markets Solve
Gambling laws create a chilling effect that blocks prediction markets legal
uncertainty.
Ozmiek 2014
Adam, Director of Research and Senior Economist Econsult Solutions, Inc, THE REGULATION AND VALUE
OF PREDICTION MARKETS, No. 14-07 MARCH 2014
http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/Ozimek_PredictionMarkets_v1.pdf

With the exception of IEM, the rest of the early prediction-market industry operated under a cloud of
regulatory uncertainty owing largely to gambling laws . As section 2 noted, the presence of skill in prediction markets
would appear to differentiate them from gambling under US law. However, US laws targeting gambling have had important
impacts on the functioning of prediction markets. One important source of uncertainty for prediction markets has been the
Wire Act of 1961, which prohibited the transmission of bets over telecommunications systems. Despite a 2002 Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
interpretation as only applying to sports betting, the Department of Justice early in the first decade of the 21st century held that the act applied
to all forms of gambling. The result was the prediction market industry operating in a "gray zone" of legality
(Chiang 2007). At that time, even legal scholars who believed some prediction markets would be legal saw
the chilling effect of the uncertainty , where the possibility of "even ill- considered and ultimately
futile claims" could mean judicial exoneration came only after "a bruising legal battle" (Bell 2006). The
uncertain application of gambling law and the CFTC's nonaction letter on IEM was the primary legal context for prediction markets from the
founding of IEM in 1989 until the middle of the first decade of the 21st century. Then in October 2005, the CFTC filed charges against Intrade
for allowing US citizens to trade in options for the following commodities that fell under its purview: gold futures daily crude oil light
sweet crude oil futures the intraday euro versus US dollar rate the US dollar versus yen exchange rate Intrade agreed to pay a fine and
comply with several conditions going forward, including warning US customers via website pop-ups about contracts they were banned from
trading. Then in November 2005, the CFTC granted Intrade the status of an exempt board of trade. While this status allowed Intrade to operate
legally, it could only allow eligible contract participants with assets of more than $5 million to $10 million (Bell 2005). 27 Complying with this
rule would have significantly reduced the liquidity of Intrade markets at a time when US residents represented as much as 40 percent of its
customer base (CFTC 2005). Another large regulatory setback for prediction markets came shortly after in 2006,
when President Bush signed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA). Among other things, this law
empowered the Treasury Department to create rules preventing US banks and credit card companies
from engaging in financial transactions with gambling sites abroad. Specifically, the act targets unlawful Internet
gambling, which it defines as any bets that violate federal or state law. The gray zone uncertainty created by the Wire
Act was not clarified, but instead magnified (Chiang 2007). Despite the continuing legal uncertainty, the
UIGEA effectively disrupted prediction markets. Even before the Treasury Department could write the
rules, some banks began refusing to transfer money. Intrade users received the following notice: Most US-based
members will find it difficult to fund their accounts by credit card. It is very likely that any attempted
credit card transfer will not be authorised by your bank. Please note that this is the policy of the bank and not that of the
Exchange. By the time the regulations were written, Intrade was not accepting credit cards, only check and wire payments (Goldberg 2010, n.
29).

Prediction markets are key to global sustainability forces internalization of
environmental costs.
Servan-Schreiber 2004
Emile, PhD in Cognitive Psychology from Carnegie Mellon and CEO of Lumenogic a prediction market
consulting firm, Environmental Futures Using Prediction Markets to enhance Security and Sustainability,
Discussion Paper for The Information Markets for Environmental Security Meeting Caltech, Sept 24-25,
2004., http://planet2025.net/files/2012/pdfpics/Environmental-Futures-Caltech.pdf

This, of course, is what the still-born Policy Analysis Market initiated by the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA)
attempted to do last year. In the post September 11 world this project perhaps tried to go one bridge too far too soon by tackling particularly
sensitive subjects like terrorism and middle-eastern politics. Yet, the 2004 report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence explicitly
accused the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of groupthink and the failure to elicit and aggregate information (Sunstein, 2004). It is therefore
interesting to note that prediction markets are particularly effective at aggregating information from a wide
range of sources efficiently. Hahn and Tetlock (2004) argue that prediction markets when combined with pay-
for-performance contracts have the potential to revolutionize the way the government, the non-profit
world, and the private sector do business. As such, prediction markets hold the promise of not only
better information for improved decision making, but also greater accountability and transparency in
the development of policy. We believe that environmental issues are valuable and globally significant
candidates for the development of a next generation of prediction markets . We call them "Environmental
Futures." Environmental Futures It has become increasingly evident that humankind's impact on the planet is
not sustainable and will result in an increasingly insecure and unstable world unless innovative
approaches are implemented which mobilize the necessary financial resources to invest in pro-active management of risks to
economic, environmental, and human security during the 2IU Century (Lovink et al, 2004). Leading environmental changes
affecting environmental, economic and human security include: climate change, depletion and pollution of fresh
water supplies, deforestation, ozone depletion, biodiversity loss and degradation, depletion and
collapse of fisheries, and decertification of agricultural lands. The consequences of environmental change include:
growing environmentally-induced economic losses, both in terms of frequency and severity, increased natural resources conflicts and
competition occurring at the global, regional, national or local level, mounting migration levels and environmental refugees. increased risk
and instability from the global to the local. We propose that prediction and decision markets may be used to empower
the general public and decision makers in government, the private sector, NGOs, academia and international
development organizations with the information, knowledge and market-based signals that promote a more
secure and sustainable future. A partial list of potential environmental futures markets along the inter-related thematic areas of
environmental, economic and human security, include: Environmental security: water scarcity, climate change, deforestation, desertification,
biodiversity loss, collapsing fisheries, and ozone depletion; Economic security: indices of economic growth, inflation, unemployment, interest
rates, budget deficits, oil prices, economic loss due to natural events, natural resources prices, conservation finance levels, socially responsible
investment levels, overseas development assistance, foreign direct investment, and; Human security: human development indicators,
millennium development goals, migration, refugees, number of violent conflicts, environ mentally-induced casualties, pollution-induced health
problems, and epidemics. Several reasons why such markets would be significant and valuable include the following: The environmental,
economic and human risks listed above impact all human beings in the core dimensions of their lives: security,
health, money and spiritual well-being. Environmental issues involve the global community, require good
governance, and new solutions need to draw on global knowledge, expertise and cooperation. Even when a problem
has a local impact, its causes may be found half-way around the globe. National and even continental borders are irrelevant. Global knowledge
aggregation is required. Decisions or non-decisions with high environmental impact are often made with
little debate, no public understanding of the consequences, or under cover of a scientific fog (sometimes
inappropriately maintained by special interest groups). It is a well established fact amongst economists that the true
cost of environmental externalities such as those precipitated by environmental change are not properly internalized
in day to day economic decision making. The net effect of this market failure has been that humankind consumes
environmental goods and services at a greater rate then the Earth is able to replenish. The trading prices of environmental
futures could offer an opportunity to redirect us towards a more sustainable future, because they can
serve as real-time market-based signals of the estimated probabilities of many important
environmental outcomes. Together, they could deliver the ultimate dynamic monitoring dashboard,
aggregating the latest available information and beliefs into easily understood figures (i.e market prices)
about environmental outcomes and costs. Environmental futures may thus one day help us better
internalize externalities and put a price on what is priceless security and sustainability. One could use
environmental futures not only to learn about current probability estimations, but also to measure how those estimations vary in response to
various developments in the real- world. For instance, come November, observers could readily measure the effect, if any, of Bush's re-election
(or not) on the price of oil in 2005. Going one step further, we could also design markets to predict ahead of time the
effects of particular events on some other events: so called "decision markets" (Hanson, 1999; Varian, 2003).
These could be used, for instance, to evaluate the relative impacts on the world's ecological debt (and its
associated risks) of a given set of economic or fiscal incentives promoting investments in renewable energy sources. Presumably, increased
investment levels in energy independence would be more beneficial for economic, environmental and human security, but by how much would
they lower ecological debt and associated risk? Markets would elicit this knowledge and convey this information.
Voters anywhere can use such forecasts as one more data point to help them decide whether or not
its worth it to vote for governments that support certain policy measures. Thats why such markets are called
decision markets. Another example would be a decision market to evaluate the impact of ratification of the Kyoto protocol on some economic
costs linked to global warming. It would help make explicit the consensus on the relative environmental cost of anyones decision not to take
part in the protocol.
Nuke extinction
Most recent studies say nuclear winter is true.
Choi 14
Charles Q., LiveScience Contributer citing a forthcoming peer reviewed study by Michael Mills, a
climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, 'Small' Nuclear War Could Trigger
Catastrophic Cooling, March 26 2014, http://www.livescience.com/44380-small-nuclear-war-could-
trigger-catastrophic-cooling.html

Even a relatively small regional nuclear war could trigger global cooling, damage the ozone layer and cause
droughts for more than a decade, researchers say. These findings should further spur the elimination of the more than 17,000 nuclear weapons
that exist today, scientists added. During the Cold War, a nuclear exchange between superpowers was feared for years. One potential
consequence of such a global nuclear war was "nuclear winter," wherein nuclear explosions sparked huge fires whose smoke, dust and ash
blotted out the sun, resulting in a "twilight at noon" for weeks. Much of humanity might eventually die from the
resulting crop failures and starvation. Today, with the United States the only standing superpower, nuclear winter might seem a
distant threat. Still, nuclear war remains a very real threat; for instance, between developing-world nuclear
powers such as India and Pakistan. To see what effects such a regional nuclear conflict might have on climate, scientists
modeled a war between India and Pakistan involving 100 Hiroshima-level bombs, each packing the equivalent of
15,000 tons of TNT just a small fraction of the world's current nuclear arsenal. They simulated interactions within and
between the atmosphere, ocean, land and sea ice components of the Earth's climate system. Scientists found the
effects of such a war could be catastrophic. "Most people would be surprised to know that even a very small
regional nuclear war on the other side of the planet could disrupt global climate for at least a decade and wipe
out the ozone layer for a decade," study lead author Michael Mills, an atmospheric scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric
Research in Colorado, told LiveScience. The researchers predicted the resulting firestorms would kick up about 5.5 million tons (5
million metric tons) of black carbon high into the atmosphere. This ash would absorb incoming solar heat,
cooling the surface below. The simulations hint that after such a war, global average surface temperatures would
drop suddenly by about 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius), their lowest levels in more than 1,000 years. In some places,
temperatures would get significantly colder most of North America, Asia, Europe and the Middle East would experience winters that are 4.5
to 10.8 degrees F (2.5 to 6 degrees C) colder, and summers 1.8 to 7.2 degrees F (1 to 4 degrees C) cooler. The colder temperatures
would lead to lethal frosts worldwide that would reduce growing seasons by 10 to 40 days annually for several
years. The ash that absorbed heat up in the atmosphere would also intensely heat the stratosphere,
accelerating chemical reactions that destroy ozone. This would allow much greater amounts of
ultraviolet radiation to reach Earth's surface, with a summertime ultraviolet increase of 30 to 80 percent in the mid-latitudes,
posing a threat to human health, agriculture and ecosystems on both land and sea. The models also suggest colder temperatures
would reduce global rainfall and other forms of precipitation by up to about 10 percent. This would likely trigger
widespread fires in regions such as the Amazon, and it would pump even more smoke into the
atmosphere. "All in all, these effects would be very detrimental to food production and to ecosystems," Mills said. Previous studies had
estimated that global temperatures would recover after about a decade. However, this latest work projected that cooling would
persist for more than 25 years, which is about as far into the future as the simulations went. Two major factors caused
this prolonged cooling an expansion of sea ice that reflected more solar heat into space, and a significant cooling in the upper 330 feet (100
meters) of the oceans, which would warm back up only gradually. " This is the third independent model examining the
effects a regional nuclear conflict on the atmosphere and the ocean and the land, and their conclusions all support
each other ," Mills said. "It's interesting that every time we've approached this same question with more
sophisticated models, the effects seem to be more pronounced ." These findings "show that one could
produce a global nuclear famine using just 100 of the smallest nuclear weapons," Mills said. "There are about
17,000 nuclear weapons on the planet right now, most of which are much more powerful than the 100 we looked at in this study. This raises
the questions of why so many of these weapons still exist, and whether they serve any purpose."

---Nuclear war outweighs and turns environmental collapse nuclear winter.
Starr 2008 (Steven, Associate member of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Director of Clinical Laboratory Science Program, University
of Missouri-Columbia, Catastrophic Climatic Consequences of Nuclear Conflict, International Network of Engineers and Scientists Against
Proliferation, Bulletin 28 April 2008, http://www.inesap.org/bulletin-28/catastrophic-climatic-consequences-nuclear-conflict)
Climatic changes resulting from nuclear conflict would occur many thousands of times faster and
thus would likely be far more catastrophic than the climatic changes predicted as a result of global warming.40
The rapidity of the war-induced changes, appearing in a matter of days and weeks, would allow human populations and
the whole plant and animal kingdoms no time to adapt. It is worth noting that the same methods and climate models used to predict
global warming were used in these studies to predict global cooling resulting from nuclear war. These climate models have proved highly
successful in describing the cooling effects of volcanic clouds during extensive U.S. evaluations and in international intercomparisons performed
as part of the Fourth Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.41 Predicted drops in average global temperatures caused
by small, moderate, and large nuclear conflicts are contrasted with the effects of global warming during the last century in Figure 4 and with
average surface air temperatures during the last 1,000 years in Figure 5. There are, of course, other important considerations
which must be made when estimating the overall environmental and ecological impacts of nuclear war. These
must include the release of enormous amounts of radioactive fallout, pyrotoxins, and toxic industrial
chemicals into the ecosystems. A decade after the conflict, when the smoke begins to clear, there will also be massive
increases in the amount of deadly ultraviolet light which will reach the surface of the Earth as a result
of ozone depletion. All these by-products of nuclear war must be taken into account when comparing
the danger of nuclear conflict to other potential dangers now confronting humanity and life on Earth.
Conclusions We cannot allow our political and military leaders to continue to ignore the potential
cataclysmic climatic and environmental consequences posed by the use of nuclear weapons.
Civilization remains at risk from nuclear winter despite a three-fold reduction in global nuclear arsenals during the last 20
years. This is due in part to the fact that nuclear arms control agreements have focused primarily on the dismantlement of delivery systems and
have failed to include the verified dismantlement of nuclear warheads. Future negotiations must consider all the potential effects of the total
number of nuclear weapons in the nuclear arsenals.44 The U.S. and Russia must recognize the senselessness of continued planning for a
nuclear first-strike which, if launched, would make the whole world including their own country uninhabitable. As a first step, they should end
their preparations for the pre-emptive use of their nuclear arsenals, stand-down their high-alert strategic nuclear forces, and eliminate the
standard operating procedure of launch-on-warning.45 It is essential that all the nuclear weapon states be convinced of the need to honor their
commitments under Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, to act in good faith to eliminate their nuclear arsenals. As long as they ignore
this commitment and maintain nuclear weaponry as the cornerstone of their military forces, they confer validity to the false idea that nuclear
weapons provide security to those who possess them, and thus encourage non-nuclear weapon states to follow in their footsteps. The
unalterable conclusion is that a nuclear war cannot be won and must not be fought. Nuclear weapons
must be seen not only as instruments of mass murder, but as instruments of global annihilation which
put all humanity and civilization under a common threat of destruction.

No transition
Recessions and economic collapse consolidate the worst forms of predatory
capitalism. Means their impacts are really our impacts.
Mead 2009
Walter Russell, Senior Fellow @ the Council on Foreign Relations,
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=571cbbb9-2887-4d81-8542-92e83915f5f8&p=2
And yet, this relentless series of crises has not disrupted the rise of a global capitalist system, centered first on the power of the United
Kingdom and then, since World War II, on the power of the United States. After more than 300 years, it seems reasonable
to conclude that financial and economic crises do not, by themselves, threaten either the
international capitalist system or the special role within it of leading capitalist powers like the United Kingdom and the United
States. If anything, the opposite seems true--that financial crises in some way sustain Anglophone power and capitalist development. Indeed,
many critics of both capitalism and the "Anglo-Saxons" who practice it so aggressively have pointed to what seems to be
a perverse relationship between such crises and the consolidation of the "core" capitalist economies
against the impoverished periphery. Marx noted that financial crises remorselessly crushed weaker
companies, allowing the most successful and ruthless capitalists to cement their domination of the
system. For dependency theorists like Raul Prebisch, crises served a similar function in the international system,
helping stronger countries marginalize and impoverish developing ones.
The transition is impossible, but attempting it causes disaster. Their argument is
wishful thinking.
Barnhizer 6
David R. Barnhizer, Emeritus Professor at Cleveland State Universitys Cleveland-Marshall College of Law,
2006 (Waking from Sustainability's Impossible Dream: The Decisionmaking Realities of Business and
Government, Georgetown International Environmental Law Review (18 Geo. Int'l Envtl. L. Rev. 595),
Lexis-Nexis
Some advocates of sustainability think they can slow the world down to a point of elegant stasis. n48
Because such people are invariably humane, I conclude they simply do not understand the
consequences to human societies and the ordinary residents of those societies that would flow from
their positions if the nightmare that they mistake for a dream were accomplished. The naive attitudes
underlying [*614] such positions are similar to the "deep ecology" movement where nature is
accorded only benign intentions. n49 The fact that we inhabit a savage and unheeding natural world
in which species consume each other, earthquakes destroy, tsunamis overwhelm, and volcanoes
spread ash, creating years without summers, is conveniently ignored .
Sustainability represents a wide and diverse variety of functions, methods, and values that on many
levels are incompatible . On the idealized plane this includes the values of ecological, economic,
social, and political harmony. These values are used to support an argument in favor of a form of
economic and social stasis writ large on the global stage. As an ideal, this form of sustainability stands
for such principles as the precautionary principle and embodies the warnings about overuse of
resources found in Garrett Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons, the Club of Rome's Limits to Growth, or
Lester Brown's Twenty-Ninth Day, where Brown argued that an exponential progression in abuse and
overuse of natural resources will generate a catastrophic collapse of systems. n50 These predictions of
disaster are well worth heeding , but there are countervailing social disasters that can result if we
take too aggressive a stance in our efforts to prevent the ecological harms. These trade-offs include
the need to generate wealth sufficient to sustain existing social justice and equity obligations and the
need to create jobs and opportunities to alleviate the tragedy of abject poverty and denial of fair
opportunity .
Mindset shifts are impossible --- (A.) Capitalism incentivizes conservative policies that
will fight to the last drop of oil to preserve the status quo.
Heinberg 2004
Richard, Member of the Core Faculty at the New College of California and Writer on Energy Resource
Issues, Power Down: Options and Actions for a Post-Carbon World, 2004, pg. 167-168
There is no need to belabor the point: the people of this world whose opinions count the most the people with the power
to command armies, economies, and governments have already made up their minds. The cards are
dealt and the bets are on the table. For them, the coming decades will constitute a fatal game of Last One Standing, a brutal contest for the
world's remaining resources. To the interested observer, this may seem patently insane. Even the nation that "wins" the game will be utterly
devastated. In the end, oil, natural gas, and even coal will run out, and not even the wealthy will be able
to maintain their current way of life. And in the meantime, hundreds of millions perhaps billions
will have violently perished. Why would anyone choose this path? It is possible to understand the reason for the
current course of events only by looking at who is choosing it, and at the incentives and constraints to which they are subject. The elites
corporate owners and managers, government officials, and military commanders are people who have been selected for
certain qualities: loyalty to the system, competitiveness, and hunger for power. Often they are literally bred for
their roles. Like George W. Bush, they are people born to wealth and power, and raised to assume that privilege is their birthright. These
are people who identify with the system and the status quo; they are constitutionally incapable of questioning its
fundamental assumptions. Moreover, the elites are guided day-to-day by a set of incentives that are
built into the system itself. Managers who pursue immediate gain get ahead, while those who make short-term sacrifices in order to
preserve long-term stability are often at a disadvantage. Likewise, managers are rewarded who keep up appearances, who generate good
news, and who exude confidence. Confessing errors accrues no benefit; instead, managers are encouraged to deny short-comings and to blame
competitors or subordinates.
(B.) Capitalist propaganda efforts will crush any hopes for a mindset shift and result in
re-development.
Heinberg 2004
Richard, Member of the Core Faculty at the New College of California and Writer on Energy Resource
Issues, Power Down: Options and Actions for a Post-Carbon World, 2004, pg. 178-179
The world must do both reduce human population and reduce per-capita resource consumption in the industrialized regions if society is
to power down rather than collapse in chaos. The Earth cannot afford rich people, nor can it continuously support six billion humans and
counting at any standard of living. But this news pleases no one. If the Movement were to truly embrace it, the
elites would pounce, and it would be the easiest PR takedown in history. A few well-paid public
relations firms would place some ads and op-ed pieces, and an "authoritative" study or two would be
issued saying, in effect, "Nonsense! There is plenty for everyone; technology and the market will fix everything."
Broadcast commentators would pile on, polls would be taken, and the foolish notion that humans actually face ecological constraints, just as all
other organisms do, would be thoroughly discredited and banished from serious conversation. Imagine how the talk show hosts
would rant: "Reduce our standard of living? Now `they' are trying to take away your car!" a car that will
cease to run anyway when oil becomes prohibitively expensive. "Reduce population? Why that sounds like genocide!"
which, ironically, is exactly what the elites themselves are preparing for through their investments in nuclear bombs and genetic bio-weapons.
And so the critical message is muted and truncated. The Movement tailors its utterances for maximum public-relations
effectiveness, just as the elites do. Politics trumps truth.
Enviro
No-growth fails and wont solve environmental problemsgreen growth is
comparatively better
Hepburn, London School of Economics Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the
Environment, 2012
(Cameron, Prosperity with growth: Economic growth, climate change and environmental limits, 10-26,
http://www.cameronhepburn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/WP93-prosperity-with-growth-
climate-change.pdf, ldg)
The conclusion is that even halting economic growth does not produce absolute decoupling (as ( > 0),
and it certainly does not deliver , as required to restrain temperature increases to less than 2oC.
Achieving this, under Jacksons zero growth scenario, would still require a radical, structural shift in
technology to T/T=-5.6%, implying a dramatic reduction in the emissions intensity of GDP. Indeed, it is
precisely this sort of structural shift that Jackson rules out to justify his no growth world.
It is clear to a very large number of scholars and others that shifting from 0.7% to 7% p.a. is an
extreme challenge. However, reducing to 5.6% while simultaneously is reduced to 0% is even more
difficult economically (observe the relationship between affluence, R&D investment and the potential
for a structural shift), and impossible politically, and is socially undesirable. The consequences of
sharply slowing (let alone stopping) growth are observable in the West at present: high
unemployment, increased levels of crime and mental illness, large-scale strikes and so on show the
social damage wrought by an economic contraction.
Our point is that both paths involve Herculean challenges, and a no growth world does not solve the
problem of climate change or other environmental problems. Rather, for the sake of prosperity and
indeed the likelihood of success, it is better to drive increases in technological progress, leading to
reductions in intensity, to generate absolute decoupling along with stable growth. Instead of trying to
work out how to stop growth at least cost, the significant and important question is how to stimulate
a structural shift and a radical change in T. We need green growth, not no growth.
Sustainable
Ahmed is a hack
Kloor 14 Keith Kloor, Faculty at the Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute at New York University,
Adjunct Faculty at the Graduate School of Journalism at the City University of New York, former Fellow
at the Center for Environmental Journalism at the University of Colorado, former Editor of Audubon
magazine, holds an M.A. in Environmental Policy from the New Jersey Institute of Technology, 2014
(Judging the Merits of a Media-Hyped Collapse Study, Collide-a-Scapea Discover magazine blog,
March 21
st
, Available Online at http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2014/03/21/judging-
merits-media-hyped-collapse-study/#.U9hmLoBdXXx, Accessed 07-29-2014)
As I discussed in the previous entry, a recent Guardian blog post (structured loosely as a news article)
made worldwide headlines. It was trumpeted by the Guardian blogger as an exclusive; he was given a
copy of a paper soon to be published in the journal Ecological Economics. Because he didnt provide any
context for the paper (the authors were not interviewed, nor were any independent experts), I thought
Id jump into this vacuum.
Lets start with the first paragraph of the studys abstract: There are widespread concerns that current trends in resource-use are
unsustainable, but possibilities of overshoot/collapse remain controversial. Collapses have occurred frequently in history, often followed by
centuries of economic, intellectual, and population decline. Many different natural and social phenomena have been invoked to explain specific
collapses, but a general explanation remains elusive. Anthropologists are loathe to make sweeping generalizations about the dissolution and/or
reorganization of prehistoric cultures. This hasnt stopped popular narratives about carrying capacity from taking hold and remaining immune
to mounting evidence that challenges prevailing views. Lets return to the studys abstract: In this paper, we build a human population
dynamics model by adding accumulated wealth and economic inequality to a predator-prey model of humans and nature. The model structure,
and simulated scenarios that offer significant implications, are explained. Four equations describe the evolution of Elites, Commoners, Nature,
and Wealth. The model shows Economic Stratification or Ecological Strain can independently lead to collapse, in agreement with the historical
record. In other words, overconsumption by elites and/or resource depletion lead to societal collapse, the authors assert. Early in the paper,
they walk us through the historical record, citing, among other examples, the fall of the Roman Empire and the crumbling of ancient societies
from Southeast Asia to the American Southwest as case studies that suggest the process of rise-and-collapse is actually a recurrent cycle found
throughout history. The question this raises, they write, is whether modern civilization is similarly susceptible to a crash. One of the
questions nagging at me when I read this study was whether prehistoric societies are appropriate analogues for our 21st century world.
Oxfords Steve Rayner, an anthropologist I contacted, provided valuable context: Whether historical empires were fragile or robust depends on
your time perspective and how you divide up historical epochs. But the authors insist in their paper: The fall of the Roman Empire, and the
equally (if not more) advanced Han, Mauryan, and Gupta Empires, as well as so many advanced Mesopotamian Empires, are all testimony to
the fact that advanced, sophisticated, complex, and creative civilizations can be both fragile and impermanent. Rayner counters: But China as a
civilization dates from at least 2070 BCE, that makes it 4000 years old at present. Just because it has been eclipsed by the west for a mere
couple of centuries should not blind us to this. The first Egyptian dynasty began around 3000 BCE and the Ptolemys collapsed in 30 BCE when
Egypt was incorporated into the Roman Empire, which lasted another 400-500 years, before itself morphing into the Holy Roman Empire and
Byzantium respectively, the latter morphing into the Ottoman Empire. These seem to me to be pretty long epochs in human terms, if not in
geological ones. Nothing lasts for ever and arguably while individual human societies come and go humanity seems to be better off in general
today than ever before. He also said that the very idea of collapse is ideologically loaded and offered a suggestion: For a much more balanced
approach to the issue of technological innovation and sustainability I recommend you take a look at the final chapter of Joseph Tainters book
The Collapse of Complex Societies. As it happens, Im very familiar with Tainters work, that book in particular. And since Tainter, a Utah State
University anthropologist, was repeatedly cited by the authors, I already thought it would be good to get his thoughts. His first response was
curt: Overall I found the paper to be trivial and deeply flawed . It is amazing that anyone would take
it seriously , but clearly some people do (at least in the media). You are correct that they cite my work a lot, but they seem
not to have been influenced by it, or even to understand it . I suspect they were strongly influenced by the work of Peter Turchinfor
which, please see the attached (short) review. He then promised to send a more detailed response, which he emailed several days later. Here it
is in full (emphasis mine) It is interesting how collapse theories mirror broader societal issues . During the Cold
War, we had theories ascribing collapse to elite mismanagement, class conflict, and peasant revolts.
As global warming became a public issue, scholars of the past began to discover that ancient societies
collapsed due to climate change. As we have become concerned about sustainability and resource use
today, we have learned that ancient societies collapsed due to depletion of critical resources, such as soil
and forests. Now that inequality and the 1% are topics of public discourse, we have this paper focusing
largely on elite resource consumption. Models depend on the assumptions that go into them. Thus the first four pages of the
paper are the part most worth discussing. The paper has many flaws . The first is that collapse is not defined ,
and the examples given conflate different processes and outcomes. Thus the authors are not even
clear what topic they are addressing. Collapses have occurred among both hierarchical and non-hierarchical societies, and the
authors even discuss the latter (although without understanding the implications for their thesis). Thus, although the authors
purport to offer a universal model of collapse (involving elite consumption), their own discussion undercuts
that argument . Contrary to the authors unsubstantiated assertion , there is no evidence that elite
consumption caused ancient societies to collapse. The authors simply have no empirical basis for this
assumption, and that point alone undercuts most of the paper . The authors assert that there is a
two-class structure of modern society, and indeed their analysis depends on this being the case. The
basis for this assertion comes from two papers published in obscure physics journals . Thats right, this
assertion does not come from peer-review social science. It comes from journals that have no
expertise in this topic , and whose audience is unqualified to evaluate the assertion critically. In other
words, there is no empirical or substantiated theoretical basis for this papers model . In modeling, once one
has established ones assumptions and parameters, it is a simple matter to program the mathematics that will give the outcome one wants or
expects. For this reason, models must be critically evaluated . Unfortunately, most readers are unable to
evaluate a models assumptions. Instead, readers are impressed by equations and colored graphs ,
and assume thereby that a model mimics real processes and outcomes. That seems to be the case
with this paper, and it represents the worst in modeling .
Environment Defense
Environmental threats exaggerated
Gordon 95 - a professor of mineral economics at Pennsylvania State University [Gordon, Richard,
Ecorealism Exposed, Regulation, 1995, http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv18n3/reg18n3-
readings.html

Easterbrook's argument is that although environmental problems deserve attention, the environmental movement has
exaggerated the threats and ignored evidence of improvement. His discontent causes him to adopt and incessantly
employ the pejoratively intended (and irritating) shorthand "enviros" to describe the leading environmental organizations and their admirers.
He proposes-and overuses-an equally infelicitous alternative phrase, "ecorealism," that seems to mean that most environmental initiatives can
be justifited by more moderate arguments. Given the mass, range, and defects of the book, any review of reasonable length must be selective.
Easterbrook's critique begins with an overview of environmentalism from a global perspective. He then turns to a much longer (almost 500-
page) survey of many specific environmental issues. The overview section is a shorter, more devastating criticism, but it is also more speculative
than the survey of specific issues. In essence, the overview argument is that human impacts on the environment are minor,
easily correctable influences on a world affected by far more powerful forces. That is a more penetrating
criticism than typically appears in works expressing skepticism about environmentalism. Easterbrook notes that mankind's effects on
nature long predate industrialization or the white colonization of America, but still have had only
minor impacts. We are then reminded of the vast, often highly destructive changes that occur
naturally and the recuperative power of natural systems.
Nature sustains damage and recovers.
Easterbrook 95 Distinguished Fellow, Fulbright Foundation (Gregg, A Moment on Earth)

Nature is not ending, nor is human damage to the environment unprecedented. Nature has repelled
forces of a magnitude many times greater than the worst human malfeasance. Nature is no ponderously slow.
Its just old. Old and slow are quite different concepts. That the living world can adjust with surprising alacrity is the
reason nature has been able to get old. Most natural recoveries from ecological duress happen with
amazing speed. Significant human tampering with the environment has been in progress for at least ten millennia and perhaps longer. If
nature has been interacting with genus Homo for thousands of years, then the living things that made it to the present day may be ones whose
genetic treasury renders them best suited to resist human mischief. This does not ensure any creature will continue to
survive any clash with humankind. It does make survival more likely than doomsday orthodox asserts.
If natures adjustment to the human presence began thousands of years ago, perhaps it will soon be complete. Far from reeling
helplessly before a human onslaught, nature may be on the verge of reasserting itself. Nature still rules much
more of the Earth than does genus Homo. To the statistical majority of natures creatures the arrival of men and women goes unnoticed.