The United States federal government should substantially curtail its domestic surveillance.

Burdens - because the affirmative holds the change in the status quo in their hands, they have the burden of proof to show why we need to affirm. If they do not fulfill this burden, vote neg on presumption.------------------------------Capitalism KritikFirst, I concede all of their inherency. Yes, the lines between government and corporations are vanishing - I concede. I concede that the current corporate presence is the only way to have modern state surveilance. I concede that surveillance ensures a culture of compliance. Now, onto the plan. The affirmative's plan is using the courts to absolve the amount of corporate interest within the surveillance state as we see today, but this is something that is fundamentally flawed. As Howard Zinn (“It’s not up to the Court,” The Progressive, November, http://www.progressive.org...) writes, the focus on the court is myopic – the court and constitution are infinitely flexible, and always used to further interests of capital. Capital is the main influence of the courts, so the affirmative's plantext furthers the inherent use of capital and its influence on the modern status quo and the future - they are continuing the capitalist totality that we see today.Further, Istvan Meszaros (“Structural Crisis of Politics,” Monthly Review, September, Proquest) writes that the court is blatantly and openly disregarded with no consequence when the interests of capital dictate it – tinkering with the law can’t solve the structural causes of the aff harms. So we can see from these two authors that the affirmative's plantext refers to the use of the court to absolve corporatism, but corporatism is actually enforced in the future!Joel Kovel (“The Enemy of Nature,” p140-141, 2002) writes that capitalist influence on nature and the current court system negates the entire value to human life - everything becomes a market abstraction [though the use of courts] and makes extinction inevitable. David Harvey (The Limits to Capital, p. 442-443, 2006) writes that capital’s thirst for geographical expansion culminates in horrifyingly destructive inter-imperialist global wars and the violent eradication and domination of ‘primitive’ populations. The use of these courts to futher corporatism, under the affirmative's plan, will lead to the courts being decided by the corporate interests and resource wars and attacking primitive populations to continue.Daniel Quinn in My Ishmael writes that capitalism as it stands today is the complete and total erosion of the Other, leading to only what we want to continue to exist. Native populations did and will continue to die off if we continue the idea of corporate or 'fundamental' capitalism.David Harvey continues from above that the contradictory spatial dynamics of capitalist accumulation culminate in imperialist war and the violent exploitation and impoverishment of subordinate populations. Poverty will increase as corporatism does, the affirmative's plantext is continuing the exploitation and impoverishment of the natural person - vote aff and continue poverty and all of the harms that exist from it (drugs, gambling, structural collapse, etc.)The alternative is to reject the affirmative's plan as it exists to further the use of the court. The act of rejection creates a the fissures necessary to resist global capitalism (John Holloway 05 John, 8-16, “Can We Change The World Without Taking Power?”). As an intellectual your rejection of capitalism has emancipatory results relentless criticism allows capitalism to be challenged (Joel Kovel from above). Today, you need to reject capitalism - it creates the fissures needed to actually prevent this capitalist totality that we see today taking over the world!------------------------------Afropessimism KritikIf you don't buy what I said above, now you can really listen! Again, with the inherency, I drop all of it as I outlined above.The affirmative's plantext is guided through the world of heavenly and utopian reform. They reform the surveillance state as it exists, and they claim that it is a net benefit. However, as Haritaworn et al (Queer Necropolitics, 2014) writes that reform is just reactionary conservatism – their unwillingness to accept that systemic antagonisms cannot be fixed means their project is permeated with whiteness. That's right - the reform of the affirmative's worldview is riddled with the unwillingness to actually do something to the surveillance state - they do not attack the systemic antagonisms, and thus, they are continuing only whiteness and are oppressing the black.Further, they are continuing the use of the court, meaning that they are using the state as a means to solve for all of their harms. What they fail to realise, as Martinot and Sexton (“The Avant-Garde of White Supremacy”, Social Identities, Volume 9, Number 2, 2003) write, state involvement and court-ordered equality perpetuates white supremacy, shifts attention away from gratuitous violence. The use of the court continues the love of the white over the black and continues the oppression that the black faces.It comes to no surprise that this anti-blackness of the affirmative's worldview has some real world realised impacts that are tangible. The black becomes synonymous with worthlessness, and the value to black life ceases to exist ... we no longer care for black flesh because we can find meaning only in white flesh (Peter, “Utilitarianism Is Unjust” 2007). They continue to rectify these inherently bad power structures that come into play, because whites are the only people that they believe are worth caring for (Thomas Powell, "The Persistence of Race in America"). So, instead of accepting the affirmative's plan as the gospel and oppressing the black, we need to burn down the systems that the affirmative is working within - only though burning down these systems can we finally know peace. We need to bring down the court, not give them the ability to give warrants, to see real change in the world, as Anthony Paul Farley ("Perfecting Slavery," 2005) writes. We need to burn down the affirmative's plantext to see freedom.------------------------------Queer TheoryAgain, inherency and all that, just see above.The affirmative uses the idea of political debate here today, they use the systems as they are in place to talk about what we ought to do. But as Lee Edelman ("No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive" 2004) writes, political debate is necessarily framed in terms of the Child, which ideologically constrains our thinking in terms of heteronormativity. Any possible political reform will remain within this heterosexist mindset, making real change impossible. Queerness refuses political reaffirmation of the future Child, resisting the social structures that authenticate reproductive futurism. What this means is that the affirmative's use of the political debate as we have today is framed in the future - something only affirming of heteronormative stances on the world. The impact is disastorous and cannot be imagined ... heteronormativity has so much power that the people it ends up destroying the identity of those it affects in what is called 'Soul Murder', as Gust Yep, Karen Lovaas, John Elia write ("Journal of Homosexual Studies, Vol. 45, No. 2/3/4", 2003).Further, as Moshe Rozdzial ("Anti-Semitism and Heterosexism: Common Constructs of Oppression" Winter 2000) writes, heterosexism justifies dehumanization and violence as Anti-Semitism did with the Jews in Nazi Germany. The affirmative's discourse ensures that we dehumanise the queer and to make the queer Othered, making violence as bad as the Holocaust become a stark reality. Alternative - do not continue the idea of the state as we know it or the political discourses of the affirmative's plan.