Alan Apthorp, HSDC, R8 Competition in Gov/Society CON

Competition in Government & Society CON

Government and cooperation are in all things the laws of life. Anarchy and competition, the laws of
death.” ~ John Ruskin

Democracy
1. Too much competition in a democracy leads to less freedom
2. The social contract is the foundation of [or the means to] democracy, and based on cooperation
3. Social capital, which requires cooperation, helps the economy and civic success
4. Japan is a democracy with all the usual civil liberties, but only one party, so no real competition
5. The first characteristic of society is cooperation
6. Government is simply an articulation of the cooperative will of society

Checks and Balances

1. Separation of powers is a vague term, and older concepts of it don't apply to the modern world
2. When defined, checks and balances is isolation of powers, not competition if it
3. Separation of powers is dangerous at the state level - devastating to California
4. Founding Fathers wanted to prevent redistribution of wealth, but checks and balances didn't work in
that
5. Examples of unconstitutional laws that are unchecked:

Communism
1. Communism as we see it is not cooperation
2. Communism is competition for power between people and government
3. Common-store system failure was not caused by cooperation, but rather lack of it

Individualism
1. Accept the extremes - Cooperation can function at extremes, while competition cannot function there
2. Reject the extremes - Everything is bad at extremes, so don't go there.
3. Cooperation came from people pursuing their own interests
4. Pursuing self-interests takes away from the nobility of actions (ex. patriotism)
5. If every man pursues his own interests, they will unavoidably conflict
6. Individualism is selfishness, and nothing else; and if selfishness is good, benevolence is wrong

1
Alan Apthorp, HSDC, R8 Competition in Gov/Society CON

Democracy and cooperation

CX:
- Does competition alway help a democracy? [tie to pt. 1]
- If they say yes: what about military coups?
- If they say no: then when would competition be superior, and when wouldn't it be? ["good"
competition, or some variation on that.] Who determines when it's good and bad?
- Is cooperation necessary between the government and the people in a democracy? [tie to pt. 2]
- Can a country be a democracy without competitive parties? [tie to pt. 4]

1. Too much competition in a democracy leads to less freedom

[if pressed for time, just hit the main points, which are underlined]
In Nigeria, there are three major ethnic groups: the Igbo, Yaruba, and Hausa-Fulani. Nigeria is an
electoral democracy (that is, they have elections), yet it is ranked by the Heritage Foundation 117th out
of 178 nations in terms of economic freedom.1 In that report, Heritage gave Nigeria a score of 30 out
of a possible 100 in upholding property rights; this is lower than the world average of 44. They ranked
22.0 in freedom from corruption (again, out of 100); again, below the the world average of 40.3.
The reason Nigeria is lacking these freedoms is because of the intense competition among the three
major ethnic groups over resources. Each group tries to use the national resources to help people of
their own group, so the people as a whole remain poor and unfree. If these groups would cooperate
with each other, they would be able to start making progress, but as long as they keep competing,
progress will be impossible.
1(2009 Index of Economic Freedom, http://www.heritage.org/index/Country/Nigeria)
[NOTE: If they claim this is competition at an extreme, respond that this is competition while still
following the rules of democracy; an extreme of competition would be a military coup, breaking the
rules of democracy]

2. The social contract is the foundation of [or the means to] democracy, and based on cooperation
The social contract is the idea that government is based on the will of the people, and that the people
and government cooperate for mutual gain. The people give up some liberty, and in turn the
government provides them with law and order. President Abraham Lincoln spoke of a government "of
the people, by the people, for the people." This is the main premise of the social contract, and the
foundation of democracy - government based on the will of the governed. If either group decided to
compete for total power, the nation would fall apart; it's only by cooperating that the country survives.
This social conract is the basis of democracy, and requires cooperation.

3. Social capital, which requires cooperation, helps the economy and civic success
Robert Leonardi (director of Economic and Social Cohesion Laboratory), Raffaella Y. Nanetti
(Professor of Urban Planning and Policy in the College of Urban Planning and Public Affairs,
University of Illinois at Chicago) & Robert Putman (political scientist and professor of public policy at
the Harvard University John F. Kennedy School of Government), "Making Democracy Work: Civic
Traditions in Modern Italy", 1993, http://www.cooperationcommons.com/node/369
Social capital – the use of social networks, trust, and reciprocity to enable cooperation among citizens
beyond that required by law or employment – can lead to higher levels of economic and civic success.

2
Alan Apthorp, HSDC, R8 Competition in Gov/Society CON

4. Japan is a democracy with all the usual civil liberties, but only one party, so no real
competition
Ethan Scheiner, faculty member in the Department of Political Science at the University of California,
Davis. Ph.D. in Political Science at Duke University, Advanced Research Fellow in the Program on
U.S.-Japan Relations at Harvard University (2001-02), and a postdoctoral fellow at the Stanford
Institute for International Studies (2002-2004).
http://psfaculty.ucdavis.edu/scheiner/New_Folder/Democracy%20without%20Competition/Book
%20Page.htm
Two points make this puzzle all the more difficult to understand. First, Japan is a democracy. Citizens maintain all the usual civil
liberties, and non-LDP parties contest elections, hoping to topple the LDP. Second, and most troubling, the
LDP is not popular. As of the writing of this book, it had been over 40 years since the party received a majority of the vote in an election for the national House
of Representatives. During the 1990s, in the face of severe economic stagnation, party corruption, and seeming
paralysis on the part of the LDP to do anything about such issues, displeasure with the party grew
dramatically. Nevertheless, no real challenge to the LDP was able to sustain itself.

5. The first characteristic of society is cooperation

Axel Honneth, professor of philosophy at the University of Frankfurt, Germany and director of the
Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt am Main, Germany, "DEMOCRACY AS REFLEXIVE
COOPERATION: John Dewey and the theory of democracy today." 1998,
accessmylibrary:http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-54163676/democracy-reflexive-
cooperation-john.html
As in all his early writings, the concept of society by which Dewey lets himself be guided in this draft of an alternative theory of democracy is still heavily influenced by Hegel.
Hence, the intersubjectivity within whose framework social life has always unfolded is presented according to the model of a "social organism" in which each individual
The first fact characteristic of every kind of sociality is the
contributes to the reproduction of the whole through her own activity.(16)
existence of cooperation. However unguided or contingent, individuals do relate to one another by
pursuing, on the basis of a division of labor, activities that together contribute to the maintenance of
society. Given such a model of social life, for Dewey both personal autonomy and political government have to be conceived of as related to one another, for the reality of
social cooperation consists in a type of jointly shared good, whereby individual freedom and state politics have to be conceived of as its opposite embodiments. Because each
member of society contributes, on the basis of a division of labor, through her own activities to the maintenance of society, she represents a "vital embodiment"(17) of the ends
of society. For that reason, she is entitled not just to a part of the freedom made socially possible; rather, as an individual she always possesses the entire sovereignty through
which all jointly as a people become the sovereign bearer of power. It is not without pride that Dewey declares that this notion of an embodiment of popular sovereignty in each
individual citizen represents the central contribution made by the American revolution to the history of political ideas: "And this is the theory, often crudely expressed, but none
the less true in substance, that every citizen is a sovereign, the American theory, a doctrine which in grandeur has but one equal in history, and that its fellow, namely, that every
man is a priest of God."(18)

6. Government is simply an articulation of the cooperative will of society

Axel Honneth, [see above], "DEMOCRACY AS REFLEXIVE COOPERATION: John Dewey and the
theory of democracy today." 1998, accessmylibrary:http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-
54163676/democracy-reflexive-cooperation-john.html
Having appropriated the Christian heritage in this almost Marxist manner--according to which each citizen is completely sovereign as an individual because she serves, on the
. Because a "common will" is
basis of a division of labor, the common good--Dewey can understand the state as the opposite pole of the relation outlined
articulated always more or less consciously in the mere fact of social cooperation, the state apparatus
has to be determined as the political, executing institution of this will.(19) That is why the government
is to be conceived of not as a separate sphere to which public representatives are delegated under the
application of the majority rule but only as a "living expression" of the combined effort to help
implement the cooperatively pursued ends more effectively, that is, by concentrating reflexive
forces. Here, Dewey takes the organism analogy even further by designating the government apparatus as the "eye" of the political community: "The eye is the body
organized for seeing, and just so government is the state organized for declaring and executing its judgments. Government is to the state what language is to thought; it not only
communicates the purposes of the state, but in so doing gives them for the first time articulation and generality."(20)

3
Alan Apthorp, HSDC, R8 Competition in Gov/Society CON

Checks and Balances

[Method of argumentation: Useless on federal level, dangerous on local level; or it's not competition]
CX:
- Is isolation the same thing as competition? [tie in to pt. 2]
- Are checks and balances good at all level of government? [tie in to pt. 3]
- Do checks and balances always work? [tie in to pts. 4-5]

1. Separation of powers is a vague term, and older concepts of it don't apply to the modern world
M.J.C. Vile, Professor of Politics at the University of Kent at Canterbury, ONE: The Doctrine of the
Separation of Powers and Institutional Theory - M.J.C. Vile, Constitutionalism and the Separation of
Powers [1967], http://olldownload.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php
%3Ftitle=677&chapter=122664&layout=html&Itemid=27
...The “doctrine of the separation of powers” is by no means a simple and immediately recognizable,
unambiguous set of concepts. On the contrary it represents an area of political thought in which there
has been an extraordinary confusion in the definition and use of terms. Furthermore, much of the
specific content of the writings of earlier centuries is quite inappropriate to the problems of the mid
twentieth century. The doctrine of the separation of powers, standing alone as a theory of government, has, as will be demonstrated later, uniformly failed to provide
an adequate basis for an effective, stable political system....

2. When defined, checks and balances is isolation of powers, not competition if it

M.J.C. Vile, Professor of Politics at the University of Kent at Canterbury, ONE: The Doctrine of the
Separation of Powers and Institutional Theory - M.J.C. Vile, Constitutionalism and the Separation of
Powers [1967], http://olldownload.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php
%3Ftitle=677&chapter=122664&layout=html&Itemid=27
A “pure doctrine” of the separation of powers might be formulated in the following way: It is essential for the
establishment and maintenance of political liberty that the government be divided into three branches or departments, the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. To each of
Each branch of the government
these three branches there is a corresponding identifiable function of government, legislative, executive, or judicial.
must be confined to the exercise of its own function and not allowed to encroach upon the functions of
the other branches. Furthermore, the persons who compose these three agencies of government must be
kept separate and distinct, no individual being allowed to be at the same time a member of more than one branch. In this way each of the
branches will be a check to the others and no single group of people will be able to control the
machinery of the State.

3. Separation of powers is dangerous at the state level - devastating to California

Barry Keene, former California Senator, held position of majority leader in the Senate; graduare of
Stanford and the Stanford School of Law, "The Dangers of Government Gridlock and the Need for the
Constitutional Convention", 1992
Dispersion of power may make some sense for the federal government, which has great power. But the state
copied it mindlessly, shackling themselves in their attempts to solve problems and leaving them less able to stand up to
the growth of federal power in this century.
In California, our government is not only divided but subdivided. We are virtually alone in requiring a
two-thirds majority of each house of the Legislature to decide most controversial matters, including the
budget. The consequences are devastating. A tiny minority can bring this sate of 31 million people to a
halt.

4
Alan Apthorp, HSDC, R8 Competition in Gov/Society CON

4. Founding Fathers wanted to prevent redistribution of wealth, but checks and balances didn't
work in that
Daniel J. Mitchell, top expert on tax reform, senior fellow at CATO Institute, formerly a senior fellow
with The Heritage Foundation, "Say No to the Auto Bailout", November 13, 2008
A bailout is a perverse transfer from poor taxpayers to rich taxpayers. America's Founding Fathers surely never envisaged that the
federal government would take money from one group of Americans and give it to another group. Yet
much of the federal budget is devoted to redistribution programs.

5. Examples of unconstitutional laws that are unchecked:

- 10 U.S.C. §772 When wearing . . . authorized
While portraying a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps, an actor in a theatrical or
motion-picture production may wear the uniform of that armed force if the portrayal does not tend to
discredit that armed force. [regardless of personal opinion, this is against rights to free speech and
expression]
- 18 U.S.C. §1302 Mailing lottery tickets or related matter
Whoever knowingly . . . delivers by mail . . . [a]ny circular concerning any lottery, gift enterprise, or
similar scheme offering prizes dependent in whole or in part upon lot or chance . . . [s]hall be fined not
more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both; and for any subsequent offense shall
be imprisoned not more than five years. [no mailing lottery tickets...again, violation of speech and
expression]
- 18 U.S.C. §1696 Private express for letters and packets
(a) Whoever establishes any private express for the conveyance of letters or packets, or in any manner
causes or provides for the conveyance of the same by regular trips or at stated periods over any post
route which is or may be established by law, or from any city, town, or place to any other city, town, or
place, between which the mail is regularly carried, shall be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned not
more than six months, or both. [you can't have a mail carrier set up a regular route...free enterprise
violation]

5
Alan Apthorp, HSDC, R8 Competition in Gov/Society CON

Communism as Cooperation
CX:
1. do you have a definition of communism? [ties into pt. 1]
- if yes: does it say anything about actually cooperating, or just abolishing private property?
- if no: <read: Merriam Webster Online Dictionary - "a theory advocating elimination of private
property"> Does this say anything about cooperation?
2. In Communism, does the government compete or cooperate with the people for power? [tie in to pt.
2]
- [if they mention common store] Was the problem in the common store the cooperation, or lack of
people cooperating? [tie in to pt. 3]
- [if they mention common store] What was the solution to the common-store failure? [tie to pt. 3
extension]

1. Communism as we see it is not cooperation

The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition, 2005
Communism: An economic and social system envisioned by the nineteenth-century German scholar Karl Marx. In theory, under communism, all
means of production are owned in common, rather than by individuals. In practice, a single
authoritarian party controls both the political and economic systems. In the twentieth century, communism was associated with
the economic and political systems of China and the Soviet Union and of the satellites of the Soviet Union.
Analysis: While in theory Communism is based on cooperation, never has the world seen true
Communism. The countries we see which claim to practice Communism are simply authoritarian
rulers; they have nothing to do with cooperation.

2. Communism is competition for power between people and government

The social contract says that government is based on the will of the people; basically, that people and
government cooperate over power for each's mutual gain. However, under Communism, there is
competition for power...and the government wins. When the government and people cooperate, the
result is responsive government and democracy; when they compete, the result is
authoritarianism/Communism.

3. Common-store system failure was not caused by cooperation, but rather lack of it
Judge, yes, the common-store system did fail. But was it caused by cooperation...or lack of it? As is
well known, the problem was that members of the system stopped working because they expected
others to provide for them. Is this cooperation - "acting or working together for a particular purpose.."
(Cambridge University Press, 2009) ? The answer is no. The problem was that people would NOT
cooperate. Each person pursued his own interest, and often it was not in the interest of the community.
It was LACK of cooperation that caused the downfall of the common-store system.
Extension: Not solved by competition
Beyond the fact that cooperation was not the problem of the common-store, competition was not the
solution. The leaders of Jamestown used private property to solve the problem. Private property is not
competition, it is simply personal incentive. So what really saved Jamestown was personal incentive,
not competition.

6
Alan Apthorp, HSDC, R8 Competition in Gov/Society CON

Cooperation leads to collectivism, competition leads to individualism

Note: Pt. 3 shows how cooperation comes from individualism; pts. 4-6 show why individualism is bad.
Try to avoid saying both that cooperation ties to individualism and that individualism is bad.

CX:
- can cooperation serve self-interests? [tie in to pt. 3]
- can everyone pursue their own interest without them eventually coming into conflict? [tie in to pt. 5]

1. Accept the extremes - Cooperation can function at extremes, while competition cannot function
there
[underlined is main points to hit if pressed for time]
The Affirmative speaker has stated that valuing competition ultimately leads to individualism, while
cooperation ultimately leads to Communism. By stating this, they are taking both sides to very extreme
measures. So let's examine both side at an extreme. Does competition lead only to individualism? Yes
and no. Taken to its fullest extent, competition is anarchy - no rules, no law, every man for himself.
There is no business, no family, no society, no law. Every man is governed by himself. Now let's look
at cooperation to the extreme. Contrary to the affirmative position, it is not communism as we see it in
the world; the world has never seen true communism. Cooperation would simply be everyone working
together for the common good of everyone. While it may not be as efficient as a society with some
competition, it can exist. On the other hand, total competition cannot exist functionally; therefore,
cooperation would be superior at the extremes simply because it is feasible.

2. Reject the extremes - Everything is bad at extremes, so don't go there.

The affirmative position deals with competition and cooperation taken to their furthest end. However,
judge, we should not debate extremes in debate; too much of anything is going to be a bad thing. We
need to take both sides in moderation, so we can see which is a superior means to excellence. In the
real world, there is always a measure of both in any situation. Our job today is to measure which one is
superior, not which one can go on its own. If we value either absolutely, we'll have problems; we must
weigh each of them in moderation.

3. Cooperation came from people pursuing their own interests

Robert Axelrod, Professor of Political Science and Public Policy at the University of Michigan, "The
Evolution of Cooperation", 1985, http://www.cooperationcommons.com/node/398
The emergence of cooperation can be seen as a consequence of agents pursuing their own interests. It is
not necessary to assume that those agents are more honest, more generous, or more cooperative per se.

4. Pursuing self-interests takes away from the nobility of actions (ex. patriotism)
Reverend Charles G. Finney, "Selfishness: Not True Religion", 1837
What has the common sense of mankind decided on this point. Look at the common sense of mankind in regard to what is called patriotism. No man was ever
regarded as a true patriot, in fighting for his country, if his object was to subserve his own interest.
Suppose it should appear that his object in fighting was to get himself crowned king; would any body
give him credit for patriotism? No. All men agree that it is patriotism when a man is disinterested, like
Washington; and fights for his country, for his country's sake. The common sense of mankind has written reprobation on that spirit
that seeks its own things, and prefers its own interests, to the greater interests of others. It is evident that all men so regard it. Otherwise, how is it that every one is anxious to
appear disinterested?

7
Alan Apthorp, HSDC, R8 Competition in Gov/Society CON

5. If every man pursues his own interests, they will unavoidably conflict
Reverend Charles G. Finney, "Selfishness: Not True Religion", 1837
It is inconsistent with the public happiness. If each individual is to aim at his own happiness as his chief
end, these interests will unavoidably clash and come into collision, and universal war and confusion
will follow in the train of universal selfishness
- Analysis: If I always want to get my way, and someone else always wants to get their way,
they will eventually conflict. Take for example Dr. Seuss's story "The Zax". Two character, one going
only North and one going only South, come face to face with each other, and because they each only
care for themselves, they both refuse to move out of the others way They stand waiting forever for the
other to move so they can continue. When we all supremely uphold ourselves, we will inevitably come
into conflict.

6. Individualism is selfishness, and nothing else; and if selfishness is good, benevolence is wrong
Reverend Charles G. Finney, "Selfishness: Not True Religion", 1837
When I gave out the subject of this lecture, I avoided the use of the term, selfishness, lest it should be
thought invidious. But I now affirm, that a supreme regard to our own interest is selfishness, and
nothing else. It would be selfishness in God, if he regarded his own interest supremely because it is his own. And it is selfishness in man. And whoever maintains that a
supreme regard to our own interest is true religion, maintains that selfishness is true religion.
- Impact. If selfishness [individualism] is good, then benevolence is wrong
Reverend Charles G. Finney, "Selfishness: Not True Religion", 1837
If selfishness is virtue, then benevolence is sin. They are direct opposites and can not both be virtue. For a
man to set up his own interest over God's interest, giving it a preference, and placing it in opposition to God's interest is selfishness. And if this is virtue, then Jesus Christ, in
seeking the good of mankind as he did, departed from the principles of virtue. Who will pretend this?
- Backup. Definition of individualism is pursuit of personal interests
Individualism - the pursuit of personal happiness and independence rather than collective goals or
interests (Encarta® World English Dictionary [North American Edition] 2009)