BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Supporting domestic development and domestic markets

Using central government spending to encourage growth is still a viable development strategy. Whilst the important role that local markets play in the development process should be recognised, they are not capable of generating widespread economic change. NGOs serve a different purpose to governments. They construct local infrastructure projects such as schools and wells, in addition to augmenting skills practiced by established communities by providing access to up-to-date tools and tuition that would normally be unaffordable to the citizens of developing states. However, economic growth also requires significant central spending, in order to develop national infrastructure such as roads and universities. Indian well-drilling efficiency has increased by 70% since the nascent Indian national space programme was tasked with using satellite technology to identify water pockets. The diverse origins, policies and skillsets of NGOs tend to prevent them from collaborating in an effective fashion. Brazil’s hydroelectric power network could only have been constructed by a single, coherent organisation. A national education policy could not be formulated by NGOs. To reduce government aid would be to remove the backbone of central spending needed for national development.
Protecting sovereignty

Direct Aid creates an international welfare trap. ODA incentivises states to restrict development spending, in order to avoid the cuts in aid donations that would accompany rising productivity, public health and growth indicators. This is made worse by the fact that one of the primary measures of poverty is income below $1 or $2 a day (depending on the region), so governments have an incentive to channel aid to the elites or to schemes that incentivise or entrenched foreign investment, whilst leaving the very poorest members of their population below this poverty line. The construction of hydroelectric facilities, for example, may reduce the amount that private industrial plants and manufacturers pay for their power. However, an improved power distribution network may also be irrelevant to the needs of ordinary citizens within a state, unable to afford tools, medication or education, let alone electronic equipment. Tax breaks and lax wage protection laws implemented in order to encourage foreign direct investment in a developing economy may act as a further incentive to stratify spending. Moreover, the suppression of average earnings in such environments tends to concentrate wealth among the owners of large amounts of land and other capital. Further, a large proportion of direct aid is simply recycled by developing states’ governments as debt servicing. A significant proportion (over 60%) of aid donated to the poorest nations is spent to service interest (not even capital repayments) on debts incurred during the short post-colonial investment booms of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s[i], often by dictatorial governments. Payment of aid to NGOs would shift priorities, adding impetus to large scale developments and stimulating further growth via multiple, smaller-scale schemes. Increases in tax revenue resulting from a general increase in economic prosperity throughout a state will enable faster repayment of sovereign debts. [i] “Debt relief under the heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC) initiative.” International Monetary Fund. 06 September 2011. http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/facts/hipc.htm
NGOs do not deliver aid effectively

NGOS are better at delivering aid. Governments in those nations most in need of aid are often the least able or willing to deliver that aid. This is particularly true in those states where the line-drawing of colonialism has pitched ethnic groups into conflicts over resources, territory and political recognition. For example, the central government of the former Sudan consistently refused to apportion aid to the country’s restive southern region. Khartoum’s conduct prolonged conflicts in the area and hastened South Sudan’s secession. Similarly, the Nigerian government has no credibility in the Niger Delta region. The Somali government, barely able to assert control over the city of Mogadishu, is unable to distribute aid to other areas of the country. The same is true of south American and south east Asian nations that have been affected by regional insurgencies. Under these circumstances, many first world states have been forced to withdraw ODA. By contrast, charities have the credibility of not being associated with governments; they can cross national borders and have a presence in rebel controlled areas such as the enclaves of northern Sri Lanka. NGOs are simply more effective at aid delivery in many of the poorest nations.
Creative commons is not a good option for many government works

While there will be a few cases where it is undesirable that things that the government pays the funding for to be licensed through creative commons this should not stop creative commons from being the default choice. Creative commons is a good choice for the vast majority of what government does as weapons systems and other security related items are only a small part of government investment. Think of all the IT systems for government departments, it clearly makes sense that they should be creative commons so that they can be improved and adapted when it turns out they don’t work in quite the way they were designed. For example the UK government wasted £2,7billion on an IT project for the NHS,[1] in such a situation it would have made a lot of sense to have what was done open to others to pick up on and build upon if there was any of the software that could be of any use. [1] Wright, Oliver, ‘NHS pulls the plug on its £11bn IT system’, The Independent, 3 August 2011, http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/nhs-pulls-the-plug-on-its-11bn-it-system-2330906.html
Creative commons prevents the incentive of profit

The government should not be interested in the profit motive but what is best for its citizens which will usually mean creative commons licenses rather than the state making a profit. This is even more likely when developments are a joint project with a for profit operation; taxpayers will rightly ask why they should be paying the research costs only for a private business to reap the profit from that investment. The government already provides a leg up to businesses in the form of providing infrastructure, a stable business environment, education etc., it should not be paying for their R&D too.
If the public funds a product it belongs to them

Everyone benefits and is enriched by open access to resources that the government can provide. A work is the province of its creator in most respects, since it is from the mind and hand of its creator that it is born. But when the state opts to fund a project, it too becomes a part-owner of the ideas and creation that springs forth. The state should thus seek to make public the work it spends taxpayer money to create. This is in exactly the same way that when an employee of a company creates something presuming there is the correct contract the rights to that work go to the company not the employee.[1] The best means for doing this is through mandating that work created with state funding be released under creative commons licenses, which allow the work to be redistributed, re-explored, and to be used as springboards for new, derivative works. This is hampered by either the creator, or the government, retaining stricter forms of copyright, which effectively entitles the holder of the copyright to full control of the work that would not exist had it not been for the largesse of society. If state funded work is to have meaning it must be in the public sphere and reusable by the public in whatever form they wish. Simply put taxpayer bought so they own it. [1] Harper, Georgia K., ‘Who owns what?’, Copyright Crash Course, 2007, http://copyright.lib.utexas.edu/whoowns.html
The default of copyright restricts the spreading of information

Current copyright law assigns too many rights, automatically, to the creator. Law gives the generator a work full copyright protection that is extremely restrictive of that works reuse, except when strictly agreed in contracts and agreements. Making the Creative Commons license the standard for publicly-funded works generates a powerful normalizing force toward a general alteration of people’s defaults on what copyright and creator protections should actually be like. The creative commons license guarantees attribution to the creator and they retain the power to set up other for-profit deals with distributors, something that is particularly useful for building programs that need to be maintained.[1] At base the default setting of somehow having absolute control means creators of work often do not even consider the reuse by others in the commons. The result is creation and then stagnation, as others do not expend the time and energy to seek special permissions from the creator. By normalizing the creative commons through the state funding system, more people will be willing to accept the creative commons as their private default. This means greater access to more works, for the enrichment of all. The result is that a norm is created whereby the assumption is that information should be open and shared rather than controlled and owned for profit by an individual or corporation. All governments recognise a right to freedom of information as part of freedom of expression making it the government’s responsibility to provide access to public information[2] and many are enabling this through creating freedom of information acts.[3] This is simply another part of that right. [1] ‘About The Licenses’, Creative Commons, 2010, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ [2] ‘Access to public information is government’s responsibility, concludes seminar in Montevideo’, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 8 October 2010, http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID=30887&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html [3] See ‘This House believes that there should be a presumption in favour of publication for information held by public bodies’
Creative commons allows existing work to be used as a building block by others

The nature of the internet and mass media is such that many creators can benefit from the freedom and flexibility that creative commons licenses furnish to them. Creative commons provides vast benefits in allowing a creation to have life after its funding has run out or beyond its original specifications. Creative commons means that the original work can be considered to be a building block that can simply be used as a foundation for more applications and modifications. For example in many countries government has for decades produced official maps for the country but these can only be irregularly updated – often with a new release of a paper map. However the internet means that maps could easily be regularly updated online by enthusiastic users and volunteers as things change on the ground if those maps were available under creative commons. This is why applications like openstreetmap or google maps (which is not creative commons but can be easily built upon by creative commons projects) are now much more successful than traditional mapping and has often forced government map providers to follow suit such as the UK’s Ordnance Survey making many of its maps free and downloadable.[1] It is important to recollect that those operating under a creative commons license still maintain control of the marketable aspects of their work and can enter into deals for the commercial distribution of their works.[2] [1] Arthur, Charles, ‘Ordnance Survey launches free downloadable maps’, The Guardian, 1 April 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/apr/01/ordnance-survey-maps-download-free [2] ‘About The Licenses’, Creative Commons, 2010, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
Government, like everyone else, should be able to profit from its work, that profit benefits its citizens rather than harming them

We generally accept the principle that people who create something deserve to benefit from that act of creation as they should own that work.[1] This is a principle that can be applied as easily to government, whether through works they are funding or works they are directly engaged in, as to anyone else. The owners of the work deserve to have the choice to benefit from their own endeavours through having copyright over that work. Sometimes this will mean the copyright will remain with the person who was paid to do the work but most of the time this will mean government ownership. Public funding does not change this fundamental ownership and the quixotic bargain state funding in exchange for mandatory creative commons licensing is a perversion of that ownership. The Texas Emerging Technology Fund is an example of the use of state funding in the private sector to produce socially useful technologies without thieving the ownership of new technologies from their creators.[2] Moreover states clearly benefit from being able to use any profit from their funding. It would clearly be in taxpayers interest if the state is able to make a profit out of the investments that taxpayers funding creates as this would mean taxes could be lower. [1] Greenberg, M. ‘Reason or Madness: A Defense of Copyright’s Growing Pains’. John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law. 2007. http://www.jmripl.com/Publications/Vol7/Issue1/Greenberg.pdf [2] Office of the Governor. ‘Texas Emerging Technology Fund’. 2012, http://governor.state.tx.us/ecodev/etf/
Creative commons is not a good option for many government works

It is simply wrong to paint all government funding with one brush decreeing that it should only be spent if the results are going to be made available through creative commons. Governments fund a vast diversity of projects that could be subject to licensing and the pragmatic approach would be for the government to use whatever license is most suitable to the work at hand. For funding for art, or for public facing software creative commons licences may well be the best option. For software with strong commercial possibilities there may be good financial reasons to keep the work in copyright, there have been many successful commercial products that have started life being developed with government money, the internet being the most famous (though of course this is something for which the government never made much money and anyway the patent would run out before it became big).[1] With many military or intelligence related software, or studies, there may want to be a tough layer of secrecy preventing even selling the work in question, we clearly would not want to have creative commons licensing for the software for anything to do with nuclear weapons.[2] [1] Manjoo, Farhad, ‘Obama Was Right: The Government Invented the Internet’, Slate, 24 July 2012, http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2012/07/who_invented_the_internet_the_outrageous_conservative_claim_that_every_tech_innovation_came_from_private_enterprise_.html [2] It should however be noted that many governments do sell hardware and software that might be considered militarily sensitive. See ‘This House would ban the sale of surveillance technology to non-democratic countries’
Creative commons prevents the incentive of profit

The incentive of profit, rather than a creative productive drive, spurs the creation of new work. Without the guarantee of ownership over one’s work, the incentive to invest time and effort in its creation is significantly diminished. When the state is the only body willing to pay for the work and offers support only on these strict terms, there will be less interest in being involved with that work. Within a robust copyright system, individuals feel free to invest time in their pursuits because they have full knowledge that the fruits of their efforts will be theirs to reap.[1] If their work were to immediately leave their control, they would be less inclined to do so. The current copyright system that is built on profit encourages innovation and finding the best use for technology. Even when government has been the source of innovation those innovations have only become widespread when someone is able to make a profit from it; the internet became big when profit making companies began opening it up. If the government wants partnerships with businesses, or universities that are not directly linked to government then it has to accept that those partners can make a profit. Furthermore, the inability of others to simply duplicate existing works as their own means they too will be galvanized to break ground on new ideas, rather than simply re-tread over current ideas and to cannibalize the fecund ground of creative commons works. [1] Greenberg, M. ‘Reason or Madness: A Defense of Copyright’s Growing Pains’. John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law. 2007. http://www.jmripl.com/Publications/Vol7/Issue1/Greenberg.pdf
If the public funds a product it belongs to them

There is a difference between the general public and the government. It is the government that bought the rights to the work not the people even if the people are the ones that originally provided the money to develop the work by paying their taxes. It can be considered to be analogous to a business. Consumers pay for the products they buy and the profits from this enable the business to make the next generation of products. But that the consumers provided the profit that enabled that development does not enable the consumers to either get an upgrade or for the product to be released with a creative commons license
The default of copyright restricts the spreading of information

Is it really in the public interest that there should be a norm that government information should be shared? There are clearly some areas where we do not want our government to share information; most clearly in the realm of security,[1] but also where the government and through them taxpayers can make a profit out of the product that the government has created. If the government creates a new radar system for the navy does it not make sense that they should be able to sell it at a profit for use by other country’s shipping? Also, the abundance of piracy online is not a reason to submit to the pirates and give them free access to information they should not receive. [1] See ‘This House believes transparency is necessary for security’
Creative commons allows existing work to be used as a building block by others

The choice to release work into the viral market is a business decision creators should have the power to choose, not a mandated requirement for funding. Some may decide that they will profit and gain more recognition through releasing their work into the creative commons, others may not. It should be remembered that Ordinance Survey was originally mapping for military purposes rather than for the general public so it might very well have decided that there is no reason to have its data open to the public and it would pose no benefit to enable to public to use that data for modification.
The constitution should not be amended

We should always be cautious of altering the United States’ Constitution. Once an amendment is passed, it is extremely hard to overturn, even if its consequences are clearly negative (as the experience of constitutionally-mandated prohibition of alcohol should make clear). It would be both difficult and unnecessary. There are problems of wording and interpretation. The 1996 Act covered 22 pages and went into great detail to define the extent and limits of Presidential authority under the legislation, including the exact meanings of “single item of appropriation”, ''direct spending'' and ''limited tax benefit'', as well as the means by which Congress could override his decisions.1 It is hard to believe that a one-paragraph amendment to the Constitution could achieve such precision, opening the budgetary process up to confusion, shifting interpretation and constant legal challenge. It is also unnecessary. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia argues "The short of the matter is this: Had the Line Item Veto Act authorized the president to 'decline to spend' any item of spending ... there is not the slightest doubt that authorization would have been constitutional… What the Line Item Veto Act does instead -- authorizing the president to 'cancel' an item of spending -- is technically different."2 Thus the act could simply have been worded differently in order to make it constitutional. This would not change the substance of the ability of the ‘veto’ to cut spending. 1One hundred fourth Congress of the United States of America at the second session, “Line Item Veto Act”, 3/1/1996, The Library of Congress, accessed 6/5/11 2Supreme Court Justice Scalia quoted in Michael Kirkland, ‘Under the U.S. Supreme Court: Like the South, will line item veto rise again?’, upi.com, 17/4/11 accessed 6/5/11 improve this   COUNTERPOINT "I do not take these matters lightly in amending the Constitution. However, I am convinced in this case it is the only way to provide the President with the same authority that 44 Governors already have to influence spending."1It would in general be preferable to make such a change through normal legislation, but that was attempted in 1996 and found unconstitutional. Supreme Court Justice Stevens in his majority opinion for the Supreme Court argued that it was necessary for there to be an amendment to make it constitutional, "If there is to be a new procedure in which the president will play a different role in determining the text of what may "become a law", such change must come not by legislation but through the amendment procedures set forth in Article V of the Constitution."2 1 Item veto constitutional amendment hearing before the subcommittee on the constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary House of Representatives, 23/3/00, accessed 5/5/11 2 Clinton, President of the United States, et al. v. City of New York et al. No.97-1374, United States Supreme Court, 1998,accessed 5/5/11 improve this   APPENDIX
Has made little difference in the past

The use of the line-item veto power by President Clinton in 1997 demonstrates the advantages of such authority. Although the power was declared unconstitutional in 1998 by the Supreme Court, while he held it Clinton demonstrated what could be achieved. He acted cautiously, only cancelling 82 appropriations, but these totalled nearly $2 billion1– a useful contribution in itself to reducing the federal deficit, and one that suggested that much bigger savings could be achieved by a more determined President. The Congressional Budget Office agreed according to the Congressional Budget Office "The 1997 cancellations had a relatively small impact on the budget's bottom line, but that outcome may have resulted in part from temporary factors, such as last year's balanced budget agreement."2 This period also demonstrated that Congress would still retain the power of the purse, as it was able to overrule one of Clinton’s deletions, on the Military Construction bill worth $287billion, by majority vote in both houses.3 1It is time for congress to kill the pig, Center for individual freedom, 11/11/04, accessed 6/5/11 2The line item veto act after one year’, Congressional Budget Office, April 1998,accessed 6/5/11 3Marc Lacey, ‘Senate Votes 1st Override of Clinton Line-Item Vetos, Los Angeles Times, 26/2/1998, accessed 6/5/11 improve this