The privatization of civil services undermines democracy Compiled and Edited by Kyle Cheesewright



Download 301.42 Kb.
Page1/12
Date conversion03.05.2016
Size301.42 Kb.
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   12

The privatization of civil services undermines democracy

Compiled and Edited by Kyle Cheesewright

Contents


The privatization of civil services undermines democracy 1

Topic Analysis 4

Definitions 6

Aff Case 7

Top of case 8

Contention One 11

Contention 2 19

Contention 3 21

Contention One Extensions 23

Contention 2 Extensions 25

Contention 3 Extensions 28

Aff Cards 30

Neg Case 39

Top of case 40

Contention One 41

Contention 2 43

Contention 3 45

Contention 1 Extensions 49

Contention 2 Extensions 52

Contention 3 Extensions 53



Neg Cards 56


Topic Analysis




Resolved: The privatization of civil services undermines democracy




The topic is dealing with the private sector taking over public sector duties in the realm of civil services. Civil services are defined as: those branches of public service concerned with all governmental administrative functions outside the armed services (Webster). Essentially, we are talking about lots of smaller parts of the executive branch as well as many different local government offices. What the topic is focusing on more than anything else is the bureaucracy.




I believe the heart of the debate to be had is over social services. This is the biggest administrative hassle/best aspect of the topic to defend because it is the most tangible and effects the most people. The heart of this debate itself is over welfare. Privatized welfare through the privatization of civil services could mean a lot of different things, it could mean that companies would have to compete to be able to offer the most attractive coverage to customers and that this would mean very high quality welfare. Or it could mean that the profit motive behind privatized welfare would seek to keep people poor forever because it would make poverty profitable. It depends on which side of the debate you are on.




This case can be used in various different ways, and should probably be adapted to which circuit you are debating on. On a more traditional circuit, it might be a better idea to focus on the 2nd and 3rd contention rather than the first (for aff). That debate should be narrowed down to focus on the innovation and quality of work that the state can provide over privatized services, as well as the fact that privatized services mask the need for reform. In a more progressive setting this case is poised to be very dangerous. It has a heavy focus on critically analyzing the way that welfare is used to turn peoples misfortune into profit. It focuses on how undemocratic a system that keeps people permanently poor to function would be. The 3rd contention is also very important for a more progressive debate, detailing how the government needs to be held accountable for its institutions. If social services, for example, are failing to the point that private actors are needed to step in, then something needs to be done to fix that system. Instead, if the responsibility is shifted to private actors, nothing will happen because the burden will no longer fall on the government to change anything.




The negative deals with many of the same issues but approaches them from different standpoints. It can be used for either traditional or progressive debates as well, but the first and second contentions are tailored more for the traditional debates. It talks of how competition between various companies would mean that the best firm would either get contracted by the government, or the market would pick out the best service. This would mean that we have the highest quality and most efficient civil services possible. The second contention talks about welfare dependency, and about how privatized civil services would focus the effort towards alleviating the causes of poverty rather than simply alleviating the effects. The third contention talks about the racist practices behind state run social service programs. This contention is tailored for more progressive style debates, and will come in very handy in those situations.




Definitions




Privatization is the process of transferring an enterprise or industry from the public sectorto the private sector


Wigmore, 13 (http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/privatization)

Privatization is the process of transferring an enterprise or industry from the public sector to the private sector. The public sector is the part of the economic system that is run by government agencies. Privatization may involve either sale of government-held assets or removal of restrictions preventing private individuals and businesses from participating in a given industry. Privatization is an ongoing trend in many parts of the developed and developing world. Proponents of privatization maintain that the competition in the private sector fosters more efficient practices, which eventually yield better service and products, lower prices and less corruption. On the other hand, critics of privatization argue that some services -- such as health care, utilities, education and law enforcement -- should be in the public sector to enable greater control and ensure more equitable access.

Civil Service:

those branches of public service concerned with all governmentaladministrative functions outside the armed services.


civil service. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved September 07, 2015, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/civil service

Democracy:


democracy. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved September 07, 2015, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy

government by the people; a form of government in which thesupreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by themor by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   12


The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2016
send message

    Main page