1

They read the resolution not the plan- must specify beyond legalize

Vote Neg

a. Makes the plan void for vagueness- undermines policy analysis Kleiman and Saiger 90 lecturer public policy Harvard, consultant drug policy Rand, 1990, A SYMPOSIUM ON DRUG DECRIMINALIZATION: DRUG LEGALIZATION: THE IMPORTANCE OF ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTION, 18 Hofstra L. Rev. 527

Defining Legalization Legalization, like prohibition, does not name a unique strategy. Perhaps the most prominent inadequacy of current legalization arguments is their failure to specify what is meant by "legalization." Current drug policy provides an illustration of this diversity. Heroin and marijuana are completely prohibited, 74 and cocaine can only be used in rigidly specified medical contexts, not including any where the drug's psychoactive properties are exercised. 75 On the other hand, a wide range of pain-killers, sleep-inducers, stimulants, tranquilizers and sedatives can be obtained with a doctor's prescription. 76 Alcohol is available for recreational use, but is subject to an array of controls including excise taxation, 77 limits on drinking ages, 78 limits on TV and radio advertising, 79 and retail licensing. 80 Nicotine is subject to age minimums, warning label requirements, 81 taxation, 82 and bans on smoking in some public places. 83 [*541] Drug legalization can therefore be thought of as moving drugs along a spectrum of regulated statuses in the direction of increased availability. However, while legalization advocates do not deny that some sort of controls will be required, their proposals rarely address the question of how far on the spectrum a given drug should be moved, or how to accomplish such a movement. Instead, such details are dismissed as easily determined, or postponed as a problem requiring future thought. 84 But the consequences of legalization depend almost entirely on the details of the remaining regulatory regime. The price and conditions of the availability of a newly legal drug will be more powerful in shaping its consumption than the fact that the drug is "legal." Rules about advertising, place and time of sale, and availability to minors help determine whether important aspects of the drug problem get better or worse. The amount of regulatory apparatus required and the way in which it is organized and enforced will determine how much budget reduction can be realized from dismantling current enforcement efforts. 85 Moreover, currently illicit drugs, because they are so varied pharmacologically, would not all pose the same range of the problems if they were to be made legally available for non-medical use. They would therefore require different control regimes. These regimes might need to be as diverse as the drugs themselves.What the United States means is a prerequisite to policy debates. Family Guardian Fellowship 9 AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE MEANING OF THE TERM "UNITED STATES", http://famguardian.org/subjects/Taxes/ChallJurisdiction/Definitions/freemaninvestigation.htmI doubt if many Americans have ever given a second thought to the meaning of the term United States, or would believe that it could be a perplexing question. It would have my vote, however, as being by far the most important and controversial word (or term) of art, vocabula artis also referred to as a statute term, leading word (or term), or what the French call parol de ley, technical word of law in all American legal writings as well as the most dangerous. For it is ambivalent, equivocal, and ambiguous. Indeed, as you will see, its use in the law exemplifies patent ambiguity, which is defined as: An ambiguity apparent on face of instrument [sic] and arising by reason of any inconsistency or inherent uncertainty of language used so that effect is either to convey no definite meaning or confused meaning. (Black's Law Dictionary, 6th edition. Emphasis added.) Reading Hamlet in the park this afternoon, I chanced on to an intriguing way to put it. In the words of King Claudius: The harlot's cheek, beautified with plast ring art, Is not more ugly to the thing that helps it Than is my deed to my most painted word. O heavy burden! (III, I, 51-54. Emphasis added.) The editor, Harold Jenkins, in his notes on painted says: " fair but false in appearance, like the beauty of the painted cheek." What serendipity to find this, just as I am on my final proofing of this paper. It is so appropriate, to describe how 'United States' usually is used by the government. And it has indeed imposed on us all a heavy burden ! With dogged determination and perseverance, however, one can succeed in seeing through this meticulous and painstakingly contrived duplicity. For, fortunately, Congress must define all terms that it uses in a particular and special way. For example, in the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), chapter 79 Definitions, Section 7701 Definitions, it states: "(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof " It goes on, then, to define many terms of art. These definitions apply throughout the code, "where not otherwise distinctly expressed" which will sometimes be done for a single chapter, section, subsection, or even sentence which, you will later see, can be very instructive. I fear that such analysis can be tedious, and for this I apologize. I will try to be as pithy and compendious as possible, but I am not writing merely to express opinions; I am writing to prove the points I discuss. And I will worry a question like a bull dog, until I am satisfied that I have presented enough hard data to conclusively establish my particular contention, especially in the eyes of those of a different persuasion. For there are intelligent and respected researchers, for whom I have the greatest regard, who do not agree, for example, with my interpretation of the meaning of 'United States' in Title 26, as well as in all the other titles. The history of the usage of United States, from the time of the American colonies to the present, is remarkably complex. This is thoroughly investigated in an easy-reading yet scholarly book that I highly recommend, by Sebastian de Gracia, A Country With No Name, Pantheon, 1997. Herein, however, I will have occasion to avail myself of virtually nothing from this wonderful tome. When I think of this, it astonishes even me. But my focus is primarily on the relevance of this term as it relates to the law, especially tax law, to which he simply doesn t allude at least in the way I do. Before getting started, let me give you just a hint as to why it is so extremely important to have an absolutely correct interpretation of the term United States, but also, in the two quotes below, nonresident alien, and gross income. This preview is an important section from the IRC, which is Title 26, also written in cites as 26 United States Code or 26 USC, Section (the symbol or, often, as in this paper, these are omitted) 872 Gross income: (a) General rule. In the case of a nonresident alien individual gross income includes only (1) gross income which is derived from sources within the United States and which is not effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United States, and (2) gross income which is effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United States Add to this 26 USC 7701(b)(1)(B): An individual is a nonresident alien if such individual is neither a citizen of the United States nor a resident of the United States and I think you will agree that the cardinal conundrum here indeed the very crux is the determination as to what is meant by the term "United States" and, above, nonresident alien. For, under certain circumstances we see that the nonresident alien is not subject to any federal income tax if his relationship to the United States is of a certain nature. The United States is an abstraction given substantiality when delegated duties began to be performed, and when 1:8:17 of the Constitution was implemented, which provided for land for the seat of government, as well as forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings. b. Neg ground- makes the 2AC a moving target.

2

Obama is spending PC to hold off sanctions---its keyDaniel Pipes 2/16, President of the Middle East Forum, "The Iran Sanctions Bill Is Toothless But Still Important by Daniel Pipes, National Review," 2-16-2015, http://www.nationalreview.com/article/398654/iran-sanctions-bill-toothless-still-important-daniel-pipes, DOA: 2-20-2015, y2k Kirk-Menendez allows the president to waive any sanctions. Heres why hes still fighting its passage. Nearly all of the 54 Republican U.S. senators will vote in favor of the Kirk-Menendez bill requiring sanctions on Iran if the P5+1 negotiations fail. President Obama has promised to veto it. Now, the Senate is gearing up for a high-drama vote; will Democrats provide the 13 to 15 votes needed for a veto-proof majority? Lost in the shuffle is a little-noticed section of the bill that, if passed, guts it. The Draft of Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act of 2015, posted on the website of Senator Mark Kirk (R., Ill.), contains a Waiver of Sanctions. Designed to win the support of skittish Democrats, it also undermines the bills goal of forcing Obamas hand in the negotiations. Section 208 bears quotation in full: The President may waive the application of any sanction pursuant to a provision of or amendment made by this title for a 30-day period, and may renew the waiver for additional 30-day periods, if the President, before the waiver or renewal, as the case may be (1) certifies to the appropriate congressional committees that (A) the waiver or renewal, as the case may be, is in the national security interest of the United States; (B) the waiver or renewal, as the case may be, is necessary to and likely to result in achieving a long-term comprehensive solution with Iran; and (C) Iran is not making further progress on its nuclear weapons program and is in compliance with all interim agreements with respect to that program; and (2) submits to the appropriate congressional committees a comprehensive report on the status of the negotiations toward a long-term comprehensive solution that includes an assessment of the likelihood of reaching that solution and the time frame anticipated for achieving that solution. Whats the point, one might ask, of the pro-sanctions side struggling so hard to attain a veto-proof majority when Obama can negate its provisions at will? Indeed, he has already made statements along the very lines the bill requires, notably in his State of the Union (SOTU) address in January, when he (falsely) claimed that for the first time in a decade, weve halted the progress of its nuclear program and reduced its stockpile of nuclear material. On the other side, why does the White House expend so much political capital stopping this bill when it could let it pass and then kill it by invoking the waiver? Why the major combat over what amounts to a symbolic resolution? In part, it increasingly embarrasses Obama by making him unceasingly justify the waiver every 30 days. But also, as he glancingly explained in the SOTU, he passionately wants Kirk-Menendez defeated because new sanctions passed by this Congress, at this moment in time, will all but guarantee that diplomacy fails . . . [by] ensuring that Iran starts up its nuclear program again. In other words, the Iranian pseudo-parliament (the Majlis) is warning that the bills passage even if its sanctions are subsequently waived in itself would cancel the existing interim accord and end the negotiating process. Irans foreign minister also declared that the Majlis would retaliate against any new U.S. sanctions legislation by ramping up the nuclear program; and that new sanctions would damage the Wests favorite Iranian politician, President Hassan Rouhani. With this clever tactic, the Iranians have provoked a grand test of wills in Washington, turning Obama into their enforcer obliged to tame Congress; Majlis speaker Ali Larijani has warned that if Obama cant solve his problems [with Congress], he himself will be responsible for the disruption of the negotiations. Rather than tell Tehran to take a hike, the administration (in keeping with its larger strategy) fell for this ruse, resulting in a forthcoming Senate battle royal. Of course, cajoling Tehran to the negotiating table ignores how the much Iranians benefited from the last accord, signed in November 2013, and how they expect to do as well in the next one. It also ignores the fact that they seek ad nauseam negotiations to provide diplomatic cover as their approximately 10,000 centrifuges busily whirl away, bringing this apocalyptic rogue regime closer to the point of acquiring and perhaps deploying nuclear weapons. And so, the toothless Kirk-Menendez bill actually does have real importance for the possibility of impeding Irans nuclear ambitions. It needs those 67 votes.

Legalization will be a fightOBrien 12 (Kerry OBrien J.D. Candidate at the University of Notre Dame, NOTE: THE GREAT WILDCARD: HOW 2011 SHOOK THE ONLINE POKER WORLD AND BECAME A GAME-CHANGER IN THE BATTLE FOR LEGALIZATION, 2012 38 J. Legis. 295, Lexis, date accessed: 11/10/14) TMAs previous trial and error has proven, pro-gaming legislation is a difficult sell in Congress. Morality and regulatory concerns plague any all proposals brought to light. For this reason, Barton's H.R. 2366 stands a better chance of becoming law than Campbell's H.R. 1174. Barton's bill limits its scope to online poker, which has earned a certain social acceptance denied to all other forms of Internet gambling. This general acceptance, coupled with persuasive arguments that poker is a game of skill rather than of chance, makes legalized web poker an easier pill to swallow than all-inclusive legalized Internet gambling. However, Barton's bill is far from "slam dunk" legislation. Though the Congressman may well have significant silent support from Republicans, that support could dwindle in election year 2012. Even normally supportive Democrats might be hesitant to support legislation on such a controversial topic when political control is at stake. Additionally, if the legislation does manage to pass the House, it may not gain crucial support from Harry Reid once it gets to the Senate due to AGA [*311] opposition over the lack of penalties for UIGEA violators. Currently, Nevada is developing a licensing and regulatory system for its legalized intrastate poker program. n161 Congress will probably take a wait-and-see approach to its own legislation while observing the effectiveness of the Nevada scheme. While legalized online poker does indeed seem an inevitability, it will likely come about once individual states have shown that their software technology can prevent underage users from gambling online and that governmental entities can safely and effectively run Internet poker rooms. Nevada's program is due to be up and running in mid-to-late 2012. If the program is implemented in a timely manner and proves successful, new poker-based legislation proposed in 2013 or 2014 will have a far more likely chance of passage than either H.R. 1174 or H.R. 2366.

Interim deal solves prolif- sanctions wreck itRawan Alkhatib 12/8, WAND staff, Womens Action for New Directions, "New Sanctions on Iran Would Undermine Diplomacy," 12-8-14, www.wand.org/2014/12/08/new-sanctions-on-iran-would-undermine-diplomacy/, DOA: 1-23-15, y2kNew Sanctions on Iran Would Undermine Diplomacy On November 24, the deadline for the nuclear negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 the permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany -- was extended for another seven months. Reacting to the extension, a number of members of Congress are demanding harsher sanctions on Iran to, in their view, increase pressure on the Iranians to make greater concessions. Imposing new sanctions on Iran would violate the terms of the Joint Plan of Action -- the interim agreement from November 2013 -- and undermine the United States role at the negotiating table. The Iranians must believe the United States is negotiating in good faith. Otherwise, U.S. credibility will diminish and reaching a nuclear deal with Iran that lessens the threat of nuclear proliferation will be near impossible. Republican Senators John McCain (AZ), Lindsey Graham (SC), and Kelly Ayotte (NH) are among those voicing the most significant opposition to the continuation of the nuclear negotiations without additional demands on the Iranians. They argue that the failure to impose more sanctions will diminish Irans incentive to maintain a nuclear program solely for energy rather than weapons and, in turn, set off an unbridled nuclear arms race in the Middle East. It is hard to take their intentions at face value. Indeed, in an interview with ABC News Radio, Senator-elect Tom Cotton (R-AR) revealed what he believes would result from this course of action: Cotton said the way to accomplish [an end to the negotiations] would be to reimpose the economic sanctions that were relaxed as part of an interim deal with Iran so that negotiations could continue. (As part of the JPOA, the P5+1 provided modest sanctions relief to Iran in exchange for Iran freezing and rolling back aspects of its nuclear program.) One thing seems clear: McCain, Graham, and Ayotte are not considering the political impact that renewed sanctions could have on Irans citizens and how this might subsequently play into the negotiations. We cannot risk losing the support of ordinary Iranians who will benefit from economic improvements once a deal is done and who would be most adversely impacted by new sanctions. Conversely, renewing sanctions on Iran will empower Iranian hard-liners that find ways around the economic pain while loudly calling for more aggression against the United States and for unchecked nuclear proliferation. While it was disappointing that the sides could not come to an agreement on the self-imposed November 24 deadline, the extension to the nuclear negotiations nonetheless represents progress. The obligations established by the JPOA are still in effect and as experts note, nothing in the extension weakens the hands of the P5+1 to secure a final agreement. That is, Iran continues to have curbs on its ability to produce materials for nuclear weapons and its facilities continue to be scrutinized by international inspectors. In fact, the extension requires heightened scrutiny. Iran must expand IAEA access to centrifuge production facilities to double the current frequency and allow for no-notice or "snap" inspections. If Congress were to impose renewed sanctions on Iran, the progress made up to this point would likely unravel. As Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein (CA) argued, "A collapse of the talks is counter to U.S. interests and would further destabilize an already volatile region." In this way, Congress needs to present a united front to crystallize the United States negotiating position. Splintering causes the Iranians to doubt American intentions. In a highly volatile region, diplomacy with Iran is the only good option. Moreover, engaging in meaningful dialogue with Iran is only possible when we demonstrate our own commitment to the process by making good on our commitments under the JPOA and holding off on actions that would undermine our position.

Iranian prolif causes regional nuclear conflictEdelman et al 11 The Dangers of a Nuclear Iran, The Limits of Containment, Eric S. Edelman, Andrew F. Krepinevich Jr, and Evan Braden Montgomery JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2011, ERIC S. EDELMAN is a Distinguished Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments; he was U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy in 2005-9. ANDREW F. KREPINEVICH is President of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. EVAN BRADEN MONTGOMERY is a Research Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67162/eric-s-edelman-andrew-f-krepinevich-jr-and-evan-braden-montgomer/the-dangers-of-a-nuclear-iranYet this view is far too sanguine. Above all, it rests on the questionable assumptions that possessing nuclear weapons induces caution and restraint, that other nations in the Middle East would balance against Iran rather than bandwagon with it, that a nuclear-armed Iran would respect new redlines even though a conventionally armed Iran has failed to comply with similar warnings, and that further proliferation in the region could be avoided. It seems more likely that Iran would become increasingly aggressive once it acquired a nuclear capability, that the United States' allies in the Middle East would feel greatly threatened and so would increasingly accommodate Tehran, that the United States' ability to promote and defend its interests in the region would be diminished, and that further nuclear proliferation, with all the dangers that entails, would occur. The greatest concern in the near term would be that an unstable Iranian-Israeli nuclear contest could emerge, with a significant risk that either side would launch a first strike on the other despite the enormous risks and costs involved. Over the longer term, Saudi Arabia and other states in the Middle East might pursue their own nuclear capabilities, raising the possibility of a highly unstable regional nuclear arms race.

3

The United States should repeal the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act and publically clarify affected institutions no longer have to comply with its mandate.

The United States should amend the Interstate Horseracing Act to prohibit all online gambling on horseracing and make all online gambling in the United States illegal.

The United States should pay annual compensation to Antigua and Barbuda for its online gambling including but not limited to the amount specified by the World Trade Organization.

Solves BankingEli Lehrer 8, Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, 8(Time to Fold the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, Competitive Enterprise Institute, 03-27-2008, Available Online at: http://cei.org/sites/default/files/1-Eli%20Lehrer%20-%20poker%20OnPoint%20-%20FINAL.pdf)3. Repeal of UIGEA. Even before it considers proposals for the regulation of online gambling, Congress should consider an outright repeal of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. The law has very little to do with gambling and serves as a poorly thought-out banking regulation fraught with potentially perverse incentives. Quite simply, it is a bad law. Repealing it makes sense. At the same time, Congress should strongly consider member proposals to perform comprehensive research related to the nature of Internet gambling. 23 This would give online casino operators, banking institutions, states, players, and other consumers time to create a workable and productive group of institutions for regulating Internet gambling.

Paying up solves WTO disputeNew 6/8 (William. 2014. William New is a writer for Intellectual Property Watch. Bark But No Bite? Antigua Talks Tough On WTO Gambling Case, But No TRIPS Remedy http://www.ip-watch.org/2014/06/18/bark-but-no-bite-antigua-talks-tough-on-wto-gambling-case-but-no-trips-remedy/) 11/12/14 RKThe tiny Caribbean nation of Antigua and Barbuda again had strong words today for the United States seeming incalcitrant refusal to change its law or pay up in a World Trade Organization case it lost for blocking the island nations online gambling business. But Antigua stopped short of any direct threat to use the weapon it was given by the WTO dispute settlement panel: to stop protecting US intellectual property rights in the amount of the damages.

CP Solves- maintains trade compliance Bloom 8 (Heather A. 1/1. Heather A. Bloom got her J.D. from George Washington University Law School. UPPING THE ANTE: THE UNLAWFUL INTERNET GAMBLING ENFORCEMENT ACT'S NONCOMPLIANCE WITH WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION LAW South Carolina Journal of International Law & Business, 5 S.C. J. Int'l L. & Bus. 75) 11/12/14 RK[*101] VI. PROPOSED MEASURES THE U.S. SHOULD TAKE TO COMPLY WITH GATS AND WHY COMPLIANCE IS NECESSARY A. PROPOSED MEASURES To comply with GATS, the U.S. should first clarify that the UIGEA applies to betting on horseracing, as well as amend the IHA to prohibit internet gambling on pari-mutuel wagering. Second, the U.S. should adjust the UIGEA to fit within the GATS public morals exception. The following suggestions are the most practical measures for the U.S. to take because they involve little change to existing U.S law, yet are significant enough to prevent further internet gambling complaints from member countries. n160 Amending the UIGEA would put the U.S. in a better position should future WTO complaints against the U.S. arise. Modifying existing U.S. law is necessary because it is difficult to amend the list of GATS commitments. n161 1. THE U.S. SHOULD MODIFY THE IHA AND UIGEA TO APPLY TO ONLINE WAGERING ON HORSERACING First, the U.S. should amend the IHA and clarify that the UIGEA applies to betting on horseracing. n162 Currently, the IHA discriminates against foreign service suppliers: it permits "domestic, but not foreign, services suppliers to offer remote betting service in relation to certain horse races." n163 Despite the DOJ's position that all types of remote internet gambling are illegal under existing federal law, the U.S. should follow the Appellate Body's interpretation and modify the IHA and [*102] UIGEA. n164 The DOJ's position conflicts with (1) the Fifth Circuit's holding in In re MasterCard; n165 (2) general principles of statutory construction; n166 and (3) the exceptions carved out in the UIGEA. n167 2. THE U.S. SHOULD MODIFY THE UIGEA TO ENSURE THAT IT FALLS WITHIN THE PUBLIC MORALS EXCEPTION Second, the U.S. should adjust the UIGEA to fit within the public morals exception. Although a WTO panel would likely find that the UIGEA satisfies the first prong of the public morals test, the scope of public morals exception, the U.S. should nevertheless amend the statute to clarify that the purpose of the UIGEA is not only to target debt collection and to improve law enforcement, but also to prevent fraud, money laundering, and underage gambling. n168 With respect to the second prong of the public morals test, the necessity requirement, the U.S. should amend the UIGEA to ban all forms of remote internet gambling. Prohibiting all offshore internet gambling is a more "WTO-consistent alternative measure" that the U.S. should take, given the likelihood that future complaints against the U.S. would focus on this second prong. n169 Thus, the best way for the U.S. to prohibit all forms of remote internet gambling is to apply the ban to horseracing. n170 [*103] B. THE U.S. SHOULD COMPLY WITH THE WTO TO A VOID FUTURE COMPLAINTS AND RETALIATION FROM MEMBER COUNTRIES, AND TO SUPPORT THE LEGITIMACY OF THE WTO The U.S. should comply with GATS and the Appellate Body's decision in the Antigua case for three reasons. First, compliance would help avoid future complaints from larger WTO member countries or the European Union. n171 For example, the European Union has already considered raising a prospective WTO claim regarding the new law. n172 Future complaints will most likely focus on whether the new UIGEA excludes pari-mutuel betting on horseracing and meets both prongs of the public morals exception. Second, complying with GATS is important to avoid patent retaliation from member countries. Under WTO law, if the U.S. ignores a WTO finding or decision, member countries will have the option to disregard treaties requiring them to comply with U.S. patent laws. n173 For example, because the U.S. refused to follow the Compliance Panel's findings in the Antigua case, WTO arbitration panel gave Antigua the right to disregard U.S. copyrights on (e.g.,) videos, music, electronics, or software. n174 This type of retaliation will pose serious ramifications for the U.S. if larger WTO member countries bring internet gambling complaints. Moreover, member countries [*104] might also retaliate by refusing to allow U.S. companies to use certain geographical indications. n175 Third, the U.S. has "interests in supporting the legitimacy of the WTO." n176 Continuing to ignore its commitments under the WTO with respect to the new law will cost the U.S. "significant trade capital" and lead to trade sanctions or concessions. n177 If the U.S. ignores its WTO obligations, then other countries might ignore their WTO obligations toward the U.S. n178 C. CRITICISM There are three main counterarguments in response to this proposal that focus on the public morals exception. First, critics might argue that a WTO panel should hold that the U.S. has not met the first prong of the public morals exception, and find that the U.S. intent behind the UIGEA is economic-based. Second, existing U.S. federal laws are the most WTO-consistent measures available. Third, the U.S. should not prohibit online wagering on horseracing. 1. THE U.S. HAS NOT MET THE FIRST PRONG OF THE PUBLIC MORALS EXCEPTION First, because the UIGEA presents no clear moral or cultural rationale in either its text or legislative history, a WTO panel might find that the public morals exception cannot encompass the UIGEA. Proponents of this view argue that the purpose behind the UIGEA is almost entirely "economic in nature." n179 The problem with this argument, however, is that the UIGEA's reference to money laundering and corruption in section 803 suggests that there are moral-based purposes behind the statute. n180 Moreover, because the WTO tends to [*105] loosely interpret the public morals exception's scope, section 803's reference to morals will be enough to satisfy this prong. n181 2. EXISTING FEDERAL LAWS ARE WTO-CONSISTENT Second, another area of contention centers on whether the U.S. could use any less trade-restrictive alternatives. n182 In line with the DOJ's position, critics argue that prohibiting all types of internet gambling is not a less trade-restrictive alternative, because the Wire Act already prohibits all forms of internet gambling. This reasoning, however, conflicts with the Appellate Body Report as well as the In re MasterCard decision. n183 3. THE U.S. SHOULD NOT PROHIBIT INTERNET WAGERING ON HORSERACING Lastly, the U.S. should not prohibit pari-mutuel wagering on horseracing. n184 Proponents of the horseracing industry have argued that horseracing is a major industry in the United States, whose "fastest growing segment" is the pari-mutuel business. n185 Carving out an exception for the IHA, however, discriminates against foreign internet [*106] service providers. If the U.S. does not wish to outlaw online betting on horseracing, its only other option is to allow "foreign racebooks to take [horseracing] bets" from the U.S., which would have "virtually no [negative] impact" on the current status of internet gambling. n186 Yet, Congress is not likely to pass a law expanding the scope of legal internet gambling. n187 Thus, the most realistic option for the U.S. is to include pari-mutuel wagering on horses within the overall reach of the UIGEA. VII. CONCLUSION The UIGEA violates GATS, in particular as examined against the backdrop of the Appellate Body Report. To comply with GATS, the U.S. should modify the law to include interstate gambling on horseracing and to satisfy the public morals exception. Instead of evading its WTO commitments altogether, the U.S. should amend the UIGEA as soon as possible to avoid future WTO complaints from larger member countries or the European Union

4

The 50 states and all relevant territories should legalize nearly all online gambling in the United States through inter-state compacts.

States can legalizeRose 13, Full Professor with Tenure at Whittier Law School, 13, Nelson, in Costa Mesa, California and a Visiting Professor at the University of Macau, The DOJ Gives States a Gift, 4 UNLV Gaming L.J. 1 2013But the reality is that Congressional advocates, like Barney Frank (D.- Mass.) and Joe Barton (R.-Tx.), have had some of the wind knocked out of their sails. Since states are now free to legalize intrastate online poker, and even interstate and international, there is not much reason to bother with a federal law. It might be a good idea to have one unified law. On the other hand, the success of the gambling currently licensed or operated solely by states and tribes demonstrates that consistency is not essential. Only the major operators, like Caesars Entertainment, need an overriding federal law, because they do not want to be competing with politically connected local gaming companies for limited numbers of licenses in 50 states. 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. The reaction to the DOJ's announcement shows that there never was much chance that Congress would carve out poker from the UIGEA. News media and online gaming opponents, both anti-gambling activists and potential competitors, attacked the decision as creating great danger to compulsive gamblers.60 The North American Association of State and Provincial Lotteries announced that there was now no need for federal legislation. 61 And, as I have pointed out - to the ire of some who have contributed money to politicians and lobbyists, hoping for a federal Internet gambling law - Congress has passed no new substantive laws, other than a change in patent laws, since the Republicans took over the House of Representatives in January 2011. Opponents, like Jon Kyl and Frank Wolf (R.-VA), might get some leverage for their attempts to expand the Wire Act to cover all forms of gambling. However, there is as little chance of this, or any, Congress passing a new prohibition as there is of it passing a repeal of the UIGEA. Internet years are like "dog years." In 1962, there were no legal state lotteries in the U.S. It took more than 45 years before almost all states made lotteries legal. Now, developments happen so fast, that it won't take four decades before Internet gambling is legal in almost every state. While Congress continues to do nothing, Internet gambling is about to explode across the nation, made legal under state laws.

5

The WTO and regulation are means of violent ordering of the worldNayar 99 Jayan, Law@UWarwick, Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems, "orders of inhumanity," 9 Transnat'l L. & Contemp. Probs. 599 lexisIn my identification of what may be regarded as the technologies of ordering, I have consciously omitted sustained discussion of one--the regulation of regulation. Regulation, as the coercive agent of ordering, means to be "included," kicking and screaming, into the global market-place, to engage in "free-trade" and be subject to the decisions of the WTO, to be persuaded of the necessary good of the Multilateral Agreement of Investment, to be "assisted" by the prescriptions of the "experts" of the World Bank and the IMF, to be good "subject-citizens" and be willing (or unwilling--it does not really matter) objects of "security"-related surveillance, to be modernized, trained, moved, developed. Regulation, then, is for the "critic" an obvious focus of analysis. My omission of any further discussion of the violence of the regulation of regulation, therefore, is not because I consider it unimportant, but rather, because this is the aspect of world (mis)ordering which has already been the subject of much sophisticated discussion. 39 For the purposes [*621] of the present discussion, I take it as a given that we stand informed by the effective repudiations of much of contemporary regulatory endeavors aimed at the coercive "integration" of human sociality into a universalizing and violent "order" of destructive globalization. Having said this, I wish instead to invite reflection on what is perhaps less often the focus of critiques of "ordering."

Global ordering is a form of physical and ontological violenceNayar 99 Jayan, Law@UWarwick, Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems, "orders of inhumanity," 9 Transnat'l L. & Contemp. Probs. 599 lexisThe discussion above was intended to provide a perspective of world-order as an historical process of ordering which, contrary to the benign symbolism of universalism evoked by notions such as "one world" and "global village," is constructed out of the violent destruction of diverse socialities. World-order, when re-viewed, therefore, may be understood as follows: As a concept that seeks to articulate the civilizational project of humanity, it is at best nonsense, and at worst a fraudulent ideology of legitimization for the perpetuation of colonizing violence--"world-order" as symbolic violence. . As a material reality of violent social relations, it is a conscious and systematized design for the control of resources through the disciplining of minds and bodies--"world-order" as embodied violence.

There is no reason to vote aff theres no link between their speech act and worldly effects - PresumptionSchlag 90 [Pierre Schlag, Professor of Law at the University of Colorado, Stanford Law Review, November, Lexis]In fact, normative legal thought is so much in a hurry that it will tell you what to do even though there is not the slightest chance that you might actually be in a position to do it. For instance, when was the last time you were in a position to put the difference principle n31 into effect, or to restructure [*179] the doctrinal corpus of the first amendment? "In the future, we should. . . ." When was the last time you were in a position to rule whether judges should become pragmatists, efficiency purveyors, civic republicans, or Hercules surrogates? Normative legal thought doesn't seem overly concerned with such worldly questions about the character and the effectiveness of its own discourse. It just goes along and proposes, recommends, prescribes, solves, and resolves. Yet despite its obvious desire to have worldly effects, worldly consequences, normative legal thought remains seemingly unconcerned that for all practical purposes, its only consumers are legal academics and perhaps a few law students -- persons who are virtually never in a position to put any of its wonderful normative advice into effect.

Our alternative is to use this classroom space as a site of counter-education to challenge dominant forms of thought Bowers 11 (C.A. Bowers, University of Oregon. Ecologically and Culturally Informed Educational Reforms in Teacher Education and Curriculum Studies. Critical Education. Volume 2 Number 14 December 20, 2011 ISSN 1920-4125)Classroom teachers and university professors do not have the political and economic power to challenge directly the global agenda of the military/corporate/religious alliances that are aggressively promoting a consumer-dependent lifestyle and winning converts in countries where political expediency dictates emulating the Western model of development. But teachers and professors can discuss the political, economic, and technological developments with students in the hope that it will raise awareness and thus the need for them to become more active in the political processone that seems now to be heavily tilted to the advantage of corporations in exercising even more control over the federal and state governments. Given the slippery political slope we are now on, and the increasing perils that await classroom teachers who deviate from the test-driven curriculum and the market liberal and libertarian ideologies promoted by members of local school boards, it is still possible to introduce reforms that focus on educating students about the local alternatives to a consumer-dependent lifestylewhich is, to reiterate a key point, the lifestyle that requires exploiting the earths natural systems and the economic colonization of other cultures. It is also the lifestyle that is dependent upon an industrial culture that is being radically transformed by information technologies. The Internet now enables corporations to ship jobs overseas to low-wage regions of the world, while computer-driven automation enables corporations to replace workers with machines that can run twenty-four hours a day, and do not require health insurance and other human costs. In effect, the consumer- dependent lifestyle that was based upon the assumption of lifetime employment is now only a possibility for the people who are highly educated, and for people who will perform the low-paying, low-status work that cannot be automated. The drive to further automate all levels of work, from the conceptual to the manual, means that everybodys economic future is now insecure and dependent upon corporate policies for maximizing their profits. Professors have a great many more opportunities to raise questions, to address the cultural roots of the ecological and cultural crises, and to introduce students to alternative lifestyles that are less dependent upon consumerismif they chose to do so. But this may also change, as the less expensive online courses begin to have the same impact on universities that online news has had on the countrys traditional newspapers.

Banks

Unipolarity doesnt create peaceFettweis 10 Christopher Fettweis, Professor of Political Science at Tulane University, 2010, Dangerous Times? The International Politics of Great Power Peace, p. 172-174The primary attack on restraint, or justification for internationalism, posits that if the United States were to withdraw from the world, a variety of ills would sweep over key regions and eventually pose threats to U.S. security and/or prosperity. These problems might take three forms (besides the obvious, if remarkably unlikely, direct threats to the homeland): generalized chaos, hostile imbalances in Eurasia, and/or failed states. Historian Arthur Schlesinger was typical when he worried that restraint would mean "a chaotic, violent, and ever more dangerous planet."69 All of these concerns either implicitly or explicitly assume that the presence of the United States is the primary reason for international stability, and if that presence were withdrawn chaos would ensue. In other words, they depend upon hegemonic-stability logic. Simply stated, the hegemonic stability theory proposes that international peace is only possible when there is one country strong enough to make and enforce a set of rules. At the height of Pax Romana between 27 BC and 180 AD, for example, Rome was able to bring unprecedented peace and security to the Mediterranean. The Pax Britannica of the nineteenth century brought a level of stability to the high seas. Perhaps the current era is peaceful because the United States has established a de facto Pax Americana where no power is strong enough to challenge its dominance, and because it has established a set of rules that are generally in the interests of all countries to follow. Without a benevolent hegemon, some strategists fear, instability may break out around the globe.70 Unchecked conflicts could cause humanitarian disaster and, in today's interconnected world, economic turmoil that would ripple throughout global financial markets. If the United States were to abandon its commitments abroad, argued Art, the world would "become a more dangerous place" and, sooner or later, that would "redound to Americas detriment."71 If the massive spending that the United States engages in actually provides stability in the international political and economic systems, then perhaps internationalism is worthwhile. There are good theoretical and empirical reasons, however, to believe that U.S hegemony is not the primary cause of the current era of stability. First of all, the hegemonic-stability argument overstates the role that the United States plays in the system. No country is strong enough to police the world on its own. The only way there can be stability in the community of great powers is if self-policing occurs, if states have decided that their interests are served by peace. If no pacific normative shift had occurred among the great powers that was filtering down through the system, then no amount of international constabulary work by the United States could maintain stability. Likewise, if it is true that such a shift has occurred, then most of what the hegemon spends to bring stability would be wasted. The 5 percent of the worlds population that live in the United States simply could not force peace upon an unwilling 95. At the risk of beating the metaphor to death, the United States maybe patrolling a neighborhood that has already rid itself of crime. Stability and unipolarity may be simply coincidental. In order for U.S. hegemony to be the reason for global stability, the rest of the world would have to expect reward for good behavior and fear punishment for bad. Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has not always proven to be especially eager to engage in humanitarian interventions abroad. Even rather incontrovertible evidence of genocide has not been sufficient to inspire action. Hegemonic stability can only take credit for influencing those decisions that would have ended in war without the presence, whether physical or psychological, of the United States. Ethiopia and Eritrea are hardly the only states that could go to war without the slightest threat of U.S. intervention. Since most of the world today is free to fight without U.S. involvement, something else must be at work. Stability exists in many places where no hegemony is present. Second, the limited empirical evidence we have suggests that there is little connection between the relative level of U.S. activism and international stability. During the 1990s the United States cut back on its defense spending fairly substantially. By 1998 the United States was spending $100 billion less on defense in real terms than it had in I990.72 To internationalists, defense hawks, and other believers in hegemonic stability, this irresponsible "peace dividend" endangered both national and global security. "No serious analyst of American military capabilities," argued Kristol and Kagan, "doubts that the defense budget has been cut much too far to meet America's responsibilities to itself and to world peace."7' If the pacific trends were due not to U.S. hegemony but a strengthening norm against interstate war, however, one would not have expected an increase in global instability and violence. The verdict from the past two decades is fairly plain: The world grew more peaceful while the United States cut its forces. No state seemed to believe that its security was endangered by a less-capable Pentagon, or at least none took any action that would suggest such a belief. No militaries were enhanced to address power vacuums; no security dilemmas drove mistrust and arms races; no regional balancing occurred once the stabilizing presence of the U.S. military was diminished. The rest of the world acted as if the threat of international war was not a pressing concern, despite the reduction in U.S. capabilities. The incidence and magnitude of global conflict declined while the United States cut its military spending under President Clinton, and it kept declining as the Bush Administration ramped spending back up. No complex statistical analysis should be necessary to reach the conclusion that the two are unrelated. It is also worth noting for our purposes that the United States was no less safe.

No econ impact Jervis 11 Robert Jervis, Professor in the Department of Political Science and School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University, December 2011, Force in Our Times, Survival, Vol. 25, No. 4, p. 403-425Even if war is still seen as evil, the security community could be dissolved if severe conflicts of interest were to arise. Could the more peaceful world generate new interests that would bring the members of the community into sharp disputes? 45 A zero-sum sense of status would be one example, perhaps linked to a steep rise in nationalism. More likely would be a worsening of the current economic difficulties, which could itself produce greater nationalism, undermine democracy and bring back old-fashioned beggar-my-neighbor economic policies. While these dangers are real, it is hard to believe that the conflicts could be great enough to lead the members of the community to contemplate fighting each other. It is not so much that economic interdependence has proceeded to the point where it could not be reversed states that were more internally interdependent than anything seen internationally have fought bloody civil wars. Rather it is that even if the more extreme versions of free trade and economic liberalism become discredited, it is hard to see how without building on a preexisting high level of political conflict leaders and mass opinion would come to believe that their countries could prosper by impoverishing or even attacking others. Is it possible that problems will not only become severe, but that people will entertain the thought that they have to be solved by war? While a pessimist could note that this argument does not appear as outlandish as it did before the financial crisis, an optimist could reply (correctly, in my view) that the very fact that we have seen such a sharp economic down-turn without anyone suggesting that force of arms is the solution shows that even if bad times bring about greater economic conflict, it will not make war thinkable.

Data provesDaniel Drezner 14, IR prof at Tufts, The System Worked: Global Economic Governance during the Great Recession, World Politics, Volume 66. Number 1, January 2014, pp. 123-164The final significant outcome addresses a dog that hasn't barked: the effect of the Great Recession on cross-border conflict and violence. During the initial stages of the crisis, multiple analysts asserted that the financial crisis would lead states to increase their use of force as a tool for staying in power.42 They voiced genuine concern that the global economic downturn would lead to an increase in conflictwhether through greater internal repression, diversionary wars, arms races, or a ratcheting up of great power conflict. Violence in the Middle East, border disputes in the South China Sea, and even the disruptions of the Occupy movement fueled impressions of a surge in global public disorder. The aggregate data suggest otherwise, however. The Institute for Economics and Peace has concluded that "the average level of peacefulness in 2012 is approximately the same as it was in 2007."43 Interstate violence in particular has declined since the start of the financial crisis, as have military expenditures in most sampled countries. Other studies confirm that the Great Recession has not triggered any increase in violent conflict, as Lotta Themner and Peter Wallensteen conclude: "[T]he pattern is one of relative stability when we consider the trend for the past five years."44 The secular decline in violence that started with the end of the Cold War has not been reversed. Rogers Brubaker observes that "the crisis has not to date generated the surge in protectionist nationalism or ethnic exclusion that might have been expected."43

Ongoing economic growth is unsustainable - causes resource scarcity, biodiversity loss, unstoppable climate change, and structural poverty Radical transition is necessaryAlexander 14 [Samuel, lecturer at the Office for Environmental Programs, University of Melbourne, Australia, and author of Entropia: Life Beyond Industrial Civilisation, PhD, AND Jonathon Rutherford, The Deep Green Alternative, http://simplicityinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/The-Deep-Green-Alternative.pdf, da 12-26-14]cdEvidence continues to mount that industrial civilisation, driven by a destructive and insatiable growth imperative, is chronically unsustainable, as well as being grossly unjust. The global economy is in ecological overshoot, currently consuming resources and emitting waste at rates the planet cannot possibly sustain (Global Footprint Network 2013). Peak oil is but the most prominent example of a more general situation of looming resource scarcity (Klare, 2012), with high oil prices having a debilitating effect on the oil--dependent economies which are seemingly dependent on cheap oil to maintain historic rates of growth (Heinberg, 2011). At the same time, great multitudes around the globe live lives of material destitution, representing a vast, marginalised segment of humanity that justifiably seeks to expand its economic capacities in some form (World Bank, 2008). Biodiversity continues to be devastated by deforestation and other forms of habitat destruction (United Nations, 2010), while the global development agenda seems to be aiming to provide an expanding global population with the high-- impact material affluence enjoyed by the richest parts of the world (Hamilton, 2003). This is despite evidence crying out that the universalisation of affluence is environmentally unsupportable (Smith and Positano, 2010; Turner, 2012) and not even a reliable path to happiness (Lane, 2001; Alexander, 2012a). Most worrying of all, perhaps, is the increasingly robust body of climate science indicating the magnitude of the global predicament (IPCC, 2013). According to the Climate Tracker Initiative (2013: 4), the world could exceed its carbon budget in around 18 years, essentially locking us into a future that is at least 2 degrees warmer, and threatening us with 4 degrees or more. It is unclear to what extent civilisation as we know it is compatible with runaway climate change. And still, almost without exception, all nations on the planet including or especially the richest ones continue to seek GDP growth without limit, as if the cause of these problems could somehow provide the solution. If once it was hoped that technology and science were going to be able decouple economic activity from ecological impact, such a position is no longer credible (Huesemann and Huesemann, 2011). Technology simply cannot provide any escape from the fact that there are biophysical limits to growth. Despite decades of extraordinary technological advance, which it is was promised would lighten the ecological burden of our economies, global energy and resource consumption continues to grow, exacerbated by a growing population, but which is primarily a function of the growth--orientated values that lie at the heart of global capitalism (Turner, 2012). Against this admittedly gloomy backdrop lies a heterogeneous tradition of critical theorists and activists promoting what could be called a deep green alternative to the growth--orientated, industrial economy. Ranging from the radical simplicity of Henry Thoreau (1983), to the post--growth economics of the Club of Rome (Meadows et al, 1972; 2004), and developing into contemporary expressions of radical reformism (Latouche, 2009; Heinberg, 2011; Jackson, 2009), eco--socialism (Sarkar, 1999; Smith, 2010), and eco--anarchism (Bookchin, 1989; Holmgren, 2002; Trainer; 2010a), this extremely diverse tradition nevertheless agrees that the nature of the existing system is inherently unsustainable. Tinkering with or softening its margins that is, any attempt to give capitalism a human face is not going to come close to addressing the problems we, the human species, are confronted with. What is needed, this tradition variously maintains, is a radically alternative way of living on the Earth something wholly other to the ways of industrialisation, consumerism, and limitless growth. However idealistic or utopian their arguments might seem, the basic reasoning is that the nature of any solutions to current problems must honestly confront the magnitude of the overlapping crises, for else one risks serving the destructive forces one ostensibly opposes.

Growth causes warTrainer 2 Senior Lecturer of School of Social Work @ University of New South Wales (Ted, If You Want Affluence, Prepare for War, Democracy & Nature, Vol. 8, No. 2, EBSCO)If this limits-to-growth analysis is at all valid, the implications for the problem of global peace and conflict and security are clear and savage. If we all remain determined to increase our living standards, our level of production and consumption, in a world where resources are already scarce, where only a few have affluent living standards but another 8 billion will be wanting them too, and which we, the rich, are determined to get richer without any limit, then nothing is more guaranteed than that there will be increasing levels of conflict and violence. To put it another way, if we insist on remaining affluent we will need to remain heavily armed. Increased conflict in at least the following categories can be expected. First, the present conflict over resources between the rich elites and the poor majority in the Third World must increase, for example, as development under globalisation takes more land, water and forests into export markets. Second, there are conflicts between the Third World and the rich world, the major recent examples being the war between the US and Iraq over control of oil. Iraq invaded Kuwait and the US intervened, accompanied by much high-sounding rhetoric (having found nothing unacceptable about Israels invasions of Lebanon or the Indonesian invasion of East Timor). As has often been noted, had Kuwait been one of the worlds leading exporters of broccoli, rather than oil, it is doubtful whether the US would have been so eager to come to its defence. At the time of writing, the US is at war in Central Asia over terrorism. Few would doubt that a collateral outcome will be the establishment of regimes that will give the West access to the oil wealth of Central Asia. Following are some references to the connection many have recognised between rich world affluence and conflict. General M.D. Taylor, US Army retired argued ... US military priorities just be shifted towards insuring a steady flow of resources from the Third World. Taylor referred to fierce competition among industrial powers for the same raw materials markets sought by the United States and growing hostility displayed by have-not nations towards their affluent counterparts.62 Struggles are taking place, or are in the offing, between rich and poor nations over their share of the world product; within the industrial world over their share of industrial resources and markets.63 That more than half of the people on this planet are poorly nourished while a small percentage live in historically unparalleled luxury is a sure recipe for continued and even escalating international conflict.64 The oil embargo placed on the US by OPEC in the early 1970s prompted the US to make it clear that it was prepared to go to war in order to secure supplies. President Carter last week issued a clear warning that any attempt to gain control of the Persian Gulf would lead to war. It would be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States.65 The US is ready to take military action if Russia threatens vital American interests in the Persian Gulf, the US Secretary of Defence, Mr Brown, said yesterday.66 Klares recent book Resource Wars discusses this theme in detail, stressing the coming significance of water as a source of international conflict. Global demand for many key materials is growing at an unsustainable rate. the incidence of conflict over vital materials is sure to grow. The wars of the future will largely be fought over the possession and control of vital economic goods. resource wars will become, in the years ahead, the most distinctive feature of the global security environment.67 Much of the rich worlds participation in the conflicts taking place throughout the world is driven by the determination to back a faction that will then look favourably on Western interests. In a report entitled, The rich prize that is Shaba, Breeze begins, Increasing rivalry over a share-out between France and Belgium of the mineral riches of Shaba Province lies behind the joint Franco Belgian paratroop airlift to Zaire. These mineral riches make the province a valuable prize and help explain the Wests extended diplomatic courtship 68 Then there is potential conflict between the rich nations who are after all the ones most dependent on securing large quantities of resources. The resource and energy intensive modes of production employed in nearly all industries necessitate continuing armed coercion and competition to secure raw materials.69 Struggles are taking place, or are in the offing, between rich and poor nations over their share of the world product, within the industrial world over their share of industrial resources and markets 70 Growth, competition, expansion and war Finally, at the most abstract level, the struggle for greater wealth and power is central in the literature on the causes of war. warfare appears as a normal and periodic form of competition within the capitalist world economy. world wars regularly occur during a period of economic expansion. 71 War is an inevitable result of the struggle between economies for expansion.72 Choucri and North say their most important finding is that domestic growth is a strong determinant of national expansion and that this results in competition between nations and war.73 The First and Second World Wars can be seen as being largely about imperial grabbing. Germany, Italy and Japan sought to expand their territory and resource access. Britain already held much of the world within its empire which it had previously fought 72 wars to take! Finite resources in a world of expanding populations and increasing per capita demands create a situation ripe for international violence.74 Ashley focuses on the significance of the quest for economic growth. War is mainly explicable in terms of differential growth in a world of scarce and unevenly distributed resources expansion is a prime source of conflict. So long as the dynamics of differential growth remain unmanaged, it is probable that these long term processes will sooner or later carry major powers into war.75 Security The point being made can be put in terms of security. One way to seek security is to develop greater capacity to repel attack. In the case of nations this means large expenditure of money, resources and effort on military preparedness. However there is a much better strategy; i.e. to live in ways that do not oblige you to take more than your fair share and therefore that do not give anyone any motive to attack you. Tut! This is not possible unless there is global economic justice. If a few insist on levels of affluence, industrialisation and economic growth that are totally impossible for all to achieve, and which could not be possible if they were taking only their fair share of global resources, then they must remain heavily armed and their security will require readiness to use their arms to defend their unjust privileges. In other words, if we want affluence we must prepare for war. If we insist on continuing to take most of the oil and other resources while many suffer intense deprivation because they cannot get access to them then we must be prepared to maintain the aircraft carriers and rapid deployment forces, and the despotic regimes, without which we cannot secure the oil fields and plantations. Global peace is not possible without global justice, and that is not possible unless rich countries move to The Simpler Way.

The affs economic crisis would spur a radical mindset shift toward a sustainable economy There is inevitably suffering, but the loss of civilization outweighsAlexander 14 [Samuel, lecturer at the Office for Environmental Programs, University of Melbourne, Australia, and author of Entropia: Life Beyond Industrial Civilisation, PhD, AND Jonathon Rutherford, The Deep Green Alternative, http://simplicityinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/The-Deep-Green-Alternative.pdf, da 12-26-14]cdAs industrial civilisation continues its global expansion and pursues growth without apparent limit, the possibility of economic, political, or ecological crises forcing an alternative way of life upon humanity seems to be growing in likelihood (Ehrlich and Ehrlich, 2013). That is, if the existing model of global development is not stopped via one of the pathways reviewed above, or some other strategy, then it seems clear enough that at some point in the future, industrial civilisation will grow itself to death (Turner, 2012). Whether collapse is initiated by an ecological tipping point, a financial breakdown of an overly indebted economy, a geopolitical disruption, an oil crisis, or some confluence of such forces, the possibility of collapse or deep global crisis can no longer be dismissed merely as the intellectual playground for doomsayers with curdled imaginations. Collapse is a prospect that ought to be taken seriously based on the logic of limitless growth on a finite planet, as well as the evidence of existing economic, ecological, or more specifically climatic instability. As Paul Gilding (2011) has suggested, perhaps it is already too late to avoid some form of great disruption. Could collapse or deep crisis be the most likely pathway to an alternative way of life? If it is, such a scenario must not be idealised or romanticised. Fundamental change through crisis would almost certainly involve great suffering for many, and quite possibly significant population decline through starvation, disease, or war. It is also possible that the alternative system that a crisis produces is equally or even more undesirable than the existing system. Nevertheless, it may be that this is the only way a post--growth or post--industrial way of life will ever arise. The Cuban oil crisis, prompted by the collapse of the USSR, provides one such example of a deep societal transition that arose not from a political or social movement, but from sheer force of circumstances (Piercy et al, 2010). Almost overnight Cuba had a large proportion of its oil supply cut off, forcing the nation to move away from oil--dependent, industrialised modes of food production and instead take up local and organic systems or perish. David Holmgren (2013) has recently published a deep and provocative essay, Crash on Demand, exploring the idea that a relatively small anti--consumerist movement could be enough to destabilise the global economy which is already struggling. This presents one means of bringing an end to the status quo by inducing a voluntary crisis, without relying on a mass movement. Needless to say, should people adopt such a strategy, it would be imperative to prefigure the alternative society as far as possible too, not merely withdraw support from the existing society. Again, one must not romanticise such theories or transitions. The Cuban crisis, for example, entailed much hardship. But it does expose the mechanisms by which crisis can induce significant societal change in ways that, in the end, are not always negative. In the face of a global crisis or breakdown, therefore, it could be that elements of the deep green vision (such as organic agriculture, frugal living, sharing, radical recycling, post--oil transportation, etc.) come to be forced upon humanity, in which case the question of strategy has less to do with avoiding a deep crisis or collapse (which may be inevitable) and more to do with negotiating the descent as wisely as possible. This is hardly a reliable path to the deep green alternative, but it presents itself as a possible path. Perhaps a more reliable path could be based on the possibility that, rather than imposing an alternative way of life on a society through sudden collapse, a deep crisis could provoke a social or political revolution in consciousness that opens up space for the deep green vision to be embraced and implemented as some form of crisis management strategy. Currently, there is insufficient social or political support for such an alternative, but perhaps a deep crisis will shake the world awake. Indeed, perhaps that is the only way to create the necessary mindset. After all, today we are hardly lacking in evidence on the need for radical change (Turner, 2012), suggesting that shock and response may be the form the transition takes, rather than it being induced through orderly, rational planning, whether from top down or from below. Again, this non-- ideal pathway to a post--growth or post--industrial society could be built into the other strategies discussed above, adding some realism to strategies that might otherwise appear too utopian. That is to say, it may be that only deep crisis will create the social support or political will needed for radical reformism, eco--socialism, or eco--anarchism to emerge as social or political movements capable of rapid transformation. Furthermore, it would be wise to keep an open and evolving mind regarding the best strategy to adopt, because the relative effectiveness of various strategies may change over time, depending on how forthcoming crises unfold. It was Milton Friedman (1982: ix) who once wrote: only a crisis actual or perceived produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. What this collapse or crisis theory of change suggests, as a matter of strategy, is that deep green social and political movements should be doing all they can to mainstream the practices and values of their alternative vision. By doing so they would be aiming to prefigure the deep green social, economic, and political structures, so far as that it is possible, in the hope that deep green ideas and systems are alive and available when the crises hit. Although Friedman obviously had a very different notion of what ideas should be lying around, the relevance of his point to this discussion is that in times of crisis, the politically or socially impossible can become politically or socially inevitable (Friedman, 1982: ix); or, one might say, if not inevitable, then perhaps much more likely. It is sometimes stated that every crisis is an opportunity from which the optimist infers that the more crises there are, the more opportunities there are. This may encapsulate one of the most realistic forms of hope we have left.

WTO

Online gambling is a drop in the bucket the U.S. is the world leader in WTO violations Ikenson, Cato Trade Policy Studies Center Director, 2013, (Daniel J., "Protectionist Antidumping Regime Is a Pox on Americas Glass House," Cato, 1-16, PAS) www.cato.org/publications/commentary/protectionist-antidumping-regime-pox-americas-glass-house 6-17-14

Other candidates come to mind when contemplating the worlds worst international trade scofflaw, but the United States makes a strong case for itself. A recent Commerce Department determination that foreign companies like Samsung, LG, and Electrolux engaged in targeted dumping by reducing prices on their washing machines for Black Friday sales confirms that the United States is actively seeking that ignominious distinction. U.S. policies have been the subject of more World Trade Organization disputes (119, followed by the EU with 73, then China with 30) and have been found to violate WTO rules more frequently than any other governments policies. No government is more likely to be out of compliance with a final WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) ruling or for a longer period than the U.S. government. To this day, the United States remains out of compliance in cases involving U.S. subsidies to cotton farmers, restrictions on Antiguas provision of gambling services, country of origin labeling requirements on meat products, the so-called Byrd Amendment, a variety of antidumping measures, and several other issues, some of which were adjudicated more than a decade ago. In some of these cases, U.S. trade partners have either retaliated, or been authorized to retaliate, against U.S. exporters or asset holders, yet the non-compliance continues as though the United States considers itself above the rules. Despite all the official high-minded rhetoric about the pitfalls of protectionism and the importance of minding the trade rules, the U.S. government is a serial transgressor. Nowhere is this tendency to break the rules more prevalent than it is with respect to the Commerce Departments administration of the antidumping law. Nearly 38 percent (45 of 119) of the WTO cases in which U.S. policies have been challenged concern U.S. violations of the WTO Antidumping Agreement. The epidemic of targeted dumping findings such as the one concerning washing machines, if the U.S. International Trade Commission renders an affirmative injury finding next week will more than likely produce new WTO cases.

WTO isnt key to tradeDadush 10 [Uri Dadush, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, "The Future of the World Trading System", 7-14-10, carnegieendowment.org/2010/07/14/future-of-world-trading-system/fxta da 10-30-14]cdLooking forward over the next twenty five years, it is difficult to see how a slow-moving WTO, dependent on the consensus and single undertaking principles (which require that virtually every item of the negotiation be part of a single package, and that everyone agree), can produce timely results. Four salient features of the post-crisis world economy will further challenge the current WTO set-up if it continues in the future. First, advanced countries are no longer able or willing to lead the process. Slow domestic growth, unaffordable entitlement spending, and high and rising public debtswhich are predicted by the IMF to reach 120 percent of GDP on average in advanced countries by 2050will make the United States, Europe, and Japan more self-absorbed and defensive than they have been in the past. Europes large internal imbalances, exposed by the Greek crisis, will make things worse. Second, the trading system is increasingly multipolar, with China, Brazil, and India playing a much larger role, reflecting the relative ease with which they navigated the crisis and their rising economic weight. These countries are, however, more focused on development and on dealing with huge internal poverty gaps than on leading a free trade offensive, even if the advanced countries were inclined to let them. Third, though the rise of these economies opens vast new markets, advanced countries increasingly view them as powerful commercial rivals, rather than as poor cousins in need of assistancedirectly counter to the declared motivation of the Doha Development Agenda. Fourth, many complex issues, including services, investment, agricultural subsidies, and the import of manufactures in developing countries, remain de facto outside the WTOs reach. Though most technically fall within the WTO, imposing disciplines on them in a highly differentiated and rapidly changing development context has proven difficult, and, as the weight of developing countries in negotiations rises, the difficulties are likely to increase. Formidable vested interests in both the developing and industrialized countries will continue to oppose the resolution of these issues. These trends are likely to be with us for a long time. For example, in a generation or so, over half of the ten largest economies will be developing countries, China will be the major trading partner of most nations, including the United States and Germany, and, while developing countries will double their share of world trade to 2/3, they will remain relatively poor.

Trade doesnt solve warGoldsmith 12 (Benjamin, Associate Professor in the Department of Government and International Relations at the University of Sydney, International Trade and the Onset and Escalation of Interstate Conflict: More to Fight About, or More Reasons Not to Fight?, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2074894, 6/4/12, PC, MM)However, at the stage of conflict escalation, trade interdependence should not have much further role. Factors like interdependence, observable to each side prior to militarized conflict onset, will be discounted by both states after force is threatened, as they engage in crisis communication either leading to escalation to deadly violence, or not. Resolve to fight cannot be observed before force is threatened, but once a militarized crisis begins, each side will try to understand how resolved the other is, while portraying itself as very resolved (Fearon 1995). The level of dependence alone will not provide sufficient information to distinguish states which are genuinely highly resolved, as Georgia seemed to be in its territorial confrontation with Russia, from those which are not. If trade were to play a role in this second stage of the process, it would likely be based on tools which could provide additional ways to communicate resolve. Thus, because interdependence should already be factored into the strategic calculations at the onset stage, its effect on the likelihood of escalation will be minimal.

Peaceful management of Chinas rise is inevitable assuming the WTO is key relies on an infantilized notion of Chinese foreign policyHerscovitch 14, Beijing-based Research Fellow at The Centre for Independent Studies (Benjamin, Preserving Peace as China Rises I, March, cis.org.au/images/stories/foreign-policy-analysis/fpa9.pdf)Beijing and Washington are certainly locked in a subtle and high-stakes strategic dance. Nevertheless, there are good reasons to expect each party to successfully pull off the necessary steps. Beijing and Washington have each committed to a new model of major country relations in a bid to emphasise mutually beneficial cooperation and manage inevitable tensions. Of course, good intentions alone do not guarantee that Beijing and Washington will be able to overcome strategic distrust and mitigate irritants straining the relationship. However, both capitals stand to benefit if they can muster what Yang Jiechi, Chinese state councillor and former foreign minister, calls the necessary wisdom to manage their differences and frictions. Two-way trade between China and the United States in goods alone has grown from US$33 billion in 1992 to more than US$536 billion in 2012.102 China exported US$426 billion worth of goods to the United States in 2012 (22% of total Chinese goods exports), and imported US$110 billion worth of US goods.103 In 2013, Chinese investment in the United States totalled US$64 billion, while Beijing holds approximately US$1.3 trillion in Treasury securities. The evolving balance of power in the Indo-Pacific and fraught regional relations will periodically strain Sino-US ties, but extensive and mutually beneficial economic interests will help minimise the fallout from these difficulties. Economic interdependence is certainly not a foolproof safeguard against conflict and war, but it offers a strong incentive for relatively stable and peaceful Sino-US relations. The notion that China and the United States lack the requisite wisdom to carefully manoeuvre around each other also inadvertently infantilises Beijing. Underlying the logic of a China choice is the assumption that China must get what it wants because otherwise it will bloody-mindedly risk war with the United States and its Indo-Pacific allies and partners. Notwithstanding Chinas gunboat diplomacy and sabre-rattling, Beijing understands that wise foreign policy often means accepting an imperfect but mutually profitable compromise, and forgoing the perfect realisation of strategic and territorial aims. With a leadership avowedly opposed to the Cold War mentality of zero-sum games, and committed to peaceful development and co-existence, Beijing can reliably be expected to choose economic growth and trade over achieving all of its strategic goals and gaining control of every tract of territory it claims. In cases of unresolvable disagreement, Beijing does not expect acquiescence to its demands; it instead wants other capitals to sidestep problems and focus on mutually beneficial arenas. As former Premier Li Peng argued: Disputes defying immediate solutions can be temporarily shelved in the spirit of seeking common ground while putting aside differences. They should never be allowed to stand in the way of the development of normal state-to-state relations.

2NC

States

The plan doesnt legalize PMs---theyre not online gambling Adam Ozimek 14, Director of Research and Senior Economist, Econsult Solutions, Inc, March 2014, THE REGULATION AND VALUE OF PREDICTION MARKETS, http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/Ozimek_PredictionMarkets_v1.pdfPrediction markets have long operated under a restrictive legal environment as a result of both explicit regulation and legal uncertainty. To understand this legal context, a natural first question is: why do these markets raise any legal issues to begin with? In fact, as long as there is no cash or prize offered, a prediction market would likely raise no legal issues. As a noncommercial means of reporting on opinions, it would likely be protected by the First Amendment as free expression rather than free enterprise (Bell 2011). The regulation of real-money prediction markets, on the other hand, is complicated because they resemble, but are not equivalent to, two other highly regulated goods: commodity futures and gambling. As a result, prediction markets have historically been affected by laws and regulatory bodies targeted at these industries.Absent federal subsidies, prediction markets will stay limited to entertainment topics John O. McGinnis 13, George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law at Northwestern, 2013, Accelerating Democracy: Transforming Governance Through Technology, p. 73 But bad laws alone are not responsible for the paucity of public policy prediction markets. Even in nations like Ireland where such markets are legal, markets generally have been focused on entertainment issues such as predicting Oscar winners and horse races of both the equine and electoral kind. Conditional markets that benefit public policy are relatively few. This development is also not surprising. Simple markets that concern celebrities and election results are likely to attract broader public interest.62 A larger stream of visitors helps the online gambling sites earn additional revenue from advertising. Events like winning an Oscar or an election are also easy to reduce to a contract. Bettors would be deterred from markets on the long-term effects of public policy, because in the interim they would lose the time value of money. Yet public policy markets, particularly conditional ones, help generate better information about policy effects of great significance to democracy in a manner that can catch citizens' attention. As a result, they provide a public good whose greater production society should support to a larger extent than the market supplies.61 The federal government should thus undertake a program of subsidizing these markets. It should do so in an experimental way, seeking to find the market designs that are most accurate and the circumstances in which markets will be most useful.Zero solvency for their vague future catastrophes impact---prediction markets are worthless for policy responses to them HLR 9 Harvard Law Review, February 2009, Note: Prediction Markets and Law: A Skeptical Account, 122 Harv. L. Rev. 12173. Information Pertains to Unlikely, But Catastrophic Harms. - At any moment, disaster might strike. These risks are not likely to be mitigated efficiently without large-scale collective action, n75 probably at the level of national governments. Without coercive cost-spreading through regulation and taxation, we are sitting ducks to environmental disasters, hurricanes, and stock market crashes. Increasingly, scholars are recognizing government's responsibility to fix these market failures, n76 but to do so it needs good information about these catastrophes - risks that are inherently difficult to measure and anticipate. The more remote a risk, and the greater its potential loss, the more urgent the need for regulation becomes. Some scholars have advanced prediction markets as a way to develop this information. n77 But remoteness of risk and magnitude of loss both correlate inversely with a prediction market's accuracy. n78 [*1233] (a) The Informational Problem of Catastrophe. - Responding efficiently to potential catastrophes presents formidable analytical and institutional challenges. n79 Cost-benefit analysis of catastrophe is "a function of both the probability that one or another of [the risks] will materialize if we do nothing and the awfulness of the consequences if that happens." n80 The result - the risk times the harm - is the benefit gained by taking a measure that prevents the risk, and so would be the maximum rational amount to spend on its prevention. This number is the product of a very small number (the likelihood) and a very large number (the harm), and so is very sensitive to error. n81 The most vexing part of the equation is the smaller number: the probability. According to Judge Posner, "the low probability of such disasters - frequently the unknown probability, as in the case of bioterrorism and abrupt global warming - is among the things that baffle efforts at responding rationally to them." n82 Some disasters are unimaginable, but even those that can be imagined cannot be confidently predicted; as Professor Sunstein argues, "in the case of terrorism and climate change, nations may be operating in the domain of uncertainty rather than risk, in the sense that they are able to identify the worst outcomes without being able to specify the likelihood that they will occur." n83 The reasons for this uncertainty are diverse and controversial. Professor Sunstein cites social-scientific and psychological phenomena such as availability, probability neglect, and outrage for both under-and over-estimation of low-probability risks. n84 More controversially, Judge Posner blames scientific illiteracy, science worship, science fiction, doomsters, optimists, limited horizons, false positives, temperament, economics of innovation, global decentralization, and the tragedy of the commons. n85 But most of Judge Posner's reasons, and all of Professor Sunstein's, have something in common: they involve irrationality in thinking about worst-case scenarios. Not surprisingly, both scholars include in their prescription the need to improve the rational assessment of very small probabilities. Might prediction markets help develop good factual predicates for assessing risk? (b) Limits of a Market Solution: Information Markets Poorly Predict Catastrophic Events. - Information markets are bad at predicting very low-probability events for two reasons; one pertains to a systematic [*1234] bias exhibited in prediction markets, and the other relates to market design. First, prediction markets exhibit a favorite-longshot bias. n86 This phenomenon may explain why a prediction market predicted an 8% chance that Arnold Schwarzenegger will become president by 2022 - a number Professor Abramowicz finds implausibly high, "given that the Constitution would need to be amended for this to take place and that he would then need to win the Republican nomination and the general election." n87 According to Professor Sunstein, the favorite-longshot bias could be endemic to information markets: "[If] bettors undervalue near certainties and overvalue low probabilities ... , prediction markets might not be accurate with respect to highly improbable events." n88 Second, predicting a very unlikely event presents a potentially insurmountable design problem. For a contract to have an underlying value that accurately reflects the likelihood of an event, the contract has to have a payout trigger. Defining this event is easy in the case of contests like elections and horse races, where there is a concrete moment at which the predictions will come to fruition. n89 The occurrence or nonoccurrence of the event is essential for disciplining the market since those with good information who made accurate predictions must be rewarded and those who made foolish bets must be punished. n90 When it comes to catastrophe, the triggering event (a disaster) is at best speculative, and anyway it is the very thing that the market is designed to help avoid. Mitigation of catastrophe can come in two forms: prevention and reduction of harm. For events that can be prevented - things that are sufficiently within human control - the market may be self-defeating. When a participant purchases a share that is redeemable for cash in the event of a particular catastrophe, he signals his belief that the [*1235] event will occur. Indeed, the value of the prediction market to lawmakers would be this information. Presumably, if investors manifested enough belief in a risk to make costly prevention efficient, then the government would take preventative action. But just as these measures will prevent the harm, so they will prevent investors from benefiting from their (presumably good) information about the risk, since the catastrophe will now not occur. In short, when an investor purchases a contract, he may actually reduce the likelihood of the event that would allow him to cash in. n91 Of course, some disasters cannot be preven