Free trade should be valued above protectionism

==AC== I value Human Prosperity. This has the strongest link the resolution because the purpose of trade is for a human benefit, namely the flow of capital and goods. Trade is a human creation for human benefit, thus we must first evaluate how much free trade or protectionism benefits the human populous. The criterion is Maximizing Comparatively Good Ends. In other words, human prosperity is best achieved when governments implement policies, in this case - trade policies, that will lead to the best outcome. The best outcome, is the best benefit in comparison to the cost incurred. Thus, the burden: I must prove the aff is comparatively better than the neg world. C1: Free Trade Protects the Environment Free trade solves environmental collapse – three reasons Schoenbaum, homas J., Professor and Executive Director of the Center for International and Comparative Law and the University of Georgia, Analysis shows that existing GATT regulations place virtually no constraints on the ability of a nation to protect its own environment and resources against damage caused by either domestic production or domestically produced or imported products. n9 GATT rules can also be made consistent with efforts to preserve regional and global environmental quality. Furthermore, trade liberalization, whether on a global or regional basis, will actually help the environmentalists' cause by (1) fostering common standards for environmental protection that must be observed even by certain developing countries that currently ignore environmental concerns; (2) terminating subsidies, particularly in agriculture, that are environmentally destructive, as well as inefficient; and (3) ensuring economic growth, which will create the financial means, particularly for developing countries, to control pollution and protect the environment. Environmental collapse causes global wars Homer-Dixon, Thomas, Assistant Professor of Political Science and Director of the Peace and Conflict Studies Experts have proposed numerous possible links between environmental change and conflict. Some have suggested that environmental change may shift the balance of power between states either regionally or globally, causing instabilities that could lead to war. Another possibility is that global environmental damage might increase the gap between rich and poor societies, with the poor then violently confronting the rich for a fairer share of the world's wealth. Severe conflict may also arise from frustration with countries that do not go along with agreements to protect the global envronment, or that "free-ride" by letting other countries absorb the costs of environmental protection. Warmer temperatures could lead to contention over more easily harvested resources in the Antarctic. Bulging populations and land stress may produce waves of environmental refugees, spilling across borders and disrupting relations among ethnic groups. Countries might fight among themselves because of dwindling supplies of water and the effects of upstream pollution. A sharp decline in food crop production and grazing land could lead to conflict between nomadic tribes and sedentary farmers. Environmental change could in time cause a slow deepening of poverty in poor countries, which might open bitter divisions between classes and ethnic groups, corrode democratic institutions, and spawn revolutions and insurgencies. In general, many experts have the sense that environmental problems will "ratchet up" the level of stress within states and the inter-national community, increasing the likelihood of many different kinds of conflict—from war and rebellion to trade disputes—and undermining possibilities for cooperation. Environmental collapse causes extinction Diner ["The Army and the Endangered Species Act: Who's Endangering Whom" l/n] By causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dust bowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically, each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined effects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, [hu]mankind may be edging closer to the abyss. ([ ] = correction) ==NC== V: Sovereignty --> He provides no resolutional link. So there is no way to evaluate that sovereignty is important in the round. --> IMPACT TURN: Valuing sovereignty is bad because it promotes a national interest over a human interest. E.g. valuing sovereignty would have protected the Holocaust because it was under Hitler's sovereign protection. C1: Human Rights --> His analysis of China is completely unwarranted. He never gives solvency that making China follow protectionist measures means they wont be authoritarian-communist, will give their people better wages and rights in general. No warrants at all. --> LINK TURN: Free Trade Leads to Chinese Democracy Griswold (Daniel T., Associate director of the Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies, Trade, Democracy and Peace In China, the link between trade and political reform offers the best hope for encouraging democracy and greater respect for human rights in the world's most populous nation. After two decades of reform and rapid growth, an expanding middle class is experiencing for the first time the independence of home ownership, travel abroad, and cooperation with others in economic enterprise free of government control. The number of telephone lines, mobile phones, and Internet users has risen exponentially in the past decade. Tens of thousands of Chinese students are studying abroad each year. China's per capita GDP has reached about $7,600 per in terms of purchasing power parity. That puts China in the upper half of the world's countries and in an income neighborhood where more people live in political and civil freedom and fewer under tyranny. Among countries with lower per capita incomes than China, only 27 percent are free. Among those with higher incomes, 72 percent are free. Only 16 percent are not free, and almost all of those are wealthier than China not because of greater economic freedom but because of oil. C2: Better Alternative --> He completely misrepresents Japanese History. Japan was one of the Asian Tigers, namely one of the Asian Markets which promoted free trade and NOT protectionism. Its cause Japan could sell their electronics in foreign markets that their economy boomed. --> LINK TURN: Free Trade solves the economy Free trade promotes economic growth and solves the impact to downturn Griswold Daniel, Director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute International trade and investment are not to blame for downturns in the economy and may, in fact, be moderating the business cycle recessions have actually become milder and less frequent. Other countries that have opened themselves to global markets have been less vulnerable to financial and economic shocks. Countries that put all their economic eggs in the domestic basket lack the diversification that a more globally integrated economy can fall back on to weather a slowdown. economies that trade less with other countries are more prone to sudden stops and to currency crises. Access to foreign capital markets can allow domestic producers and consumers alike to more easily borrow to tide themselves over during difficult times.