Presumption Negates

1. We presume things false, this is why people donÕt believe things like conspiracy theories.

2. There are an infinite number of ways to prove something false and only one way to prove it true.

3. The neg burden is to deny the evidence of truth so if thereÕs no offense as to why the resolution is true the neg has fulfilled their burden. 

Permissibility Negates

1. The aff must prove an obligation because ought indicates a moral obligation. If an action is permissible, definitionally, no obligation is present and you negate. 

 

The standard is consistency with the categorical imperative. This is the idea that maxims must be universalizable without contradiction. 

 

The meta ethics is practical reason, the ability to set and pursue ends, because practical reason is inescapable, since its constitutive of action and escaping practical reason is an action. This means practical reason is the most binding and determines morality.

 

Practical reason shows us morality must respect the equality of individuals.

1.    All individuals are agents with practical reason. Even if people have different capacities for setting and pursuing ends, practical reason is still binding since every agent has some sort of action, even if this just means thinking etc. Because all people are agents it means there canÕt be any morally relevant distinction between people. 

2.    History: Things like racism are objectively bad, because traits of someone's identity donÕt affect how ethical someone is. 

This means when you say something is obligatory youÕre saying all practical reasoners have that obligation because you canÕt arbitrarily exclude someone from ethics. Additionally, 

a) It doesnÕt make sense to say somethingÕs a rule for you but not others, I.e. 2+2=4 to me but not other people. 

b) Anything else means ethics is non binding since if certain people are in certain positions they don't have to follow rules, you can just put yourself in those positions whenever you donÕt want to follow rules. 

c) Identification of an obligation for oneself comes from our understanding that I as an agent have certain obligations, this means we must recognize this obligation for other agents too. 

And, things canÕt be both true and false.

Gahringer, Robert. ÒMoral law.Ó Ethics, Vol. 63, No. 4, July 1953, pp. 300-304. // (N8)

 

ÒWithin any deductive system the basic principle of criticism is self-consistency. To show a deductive system inconsistent is to disqualify it. If it is asked why be consistent, it will be answered that it is a basic condition of having a system. And if we ask why this, it will be answered that [Without this] a system would not be an intelligible unity in any other way. The demand for consistency rests ultimately on intelligibility; it is a condition of intelligibility. Consistency may appear as a principle of the bare absence of contradiction, and this may be only a matter of the independence of elements. But consistency may go much deeper. If someone suggests that we dispose of the principles of consistency, we can ask the consistency of such a suggestion. If the principle of consistency is the condition of intelligibility, the denial of it (which must be an intelligible denial) denies in principle what it assumes: it is transcendentally inconsistent. The proposal to abandon the principle of consistency (the law of noncontradiction) cannot be made within any system, since every system presupposes it; and it cannot be made outside, since every proposal assumes it. This is, of course, a material consideration belonging to logic in the larger sense.Ó

 

Thus our actions must be able to be universalized because all people are equal, and still be possible when universalized since an action canÕt be possible and not possible, I.e. an action must still be possible to take when everyone takes that action. 

 

This is a side constraint: even if you prove some other ethical theory is good, it canÕt provide obligations  that lead to contradictions because it canÕt say everyone is obligated to do something and not do something. 

 

Prefer additionally:

1. Regress: Any framework allows you to infinitely ask why, only my framework stops the regress because once you get to the point of practical reason, questioning it doesnÕt make sense, since to question practical reason concedes its validity. 

2. Performativity: We need freedom to make any arguments in debate, this means answers to my framework prove it true because you exercise your practical reason to try and contest it.

 

 

Contention 1)

Strikes use others as a mere means to achieve the end of the strikers. 

Fourie 17 Johan Fourie 11-30-2017 "Ethicality of Labor-Strike Demonstrates by Social Workers" https://www.otherpapers.com/essay/Ethicality-of-Labor-Strike-Demonstrates-by-Social-Workers/62694.html (Johan Fourie is professor of Economics and History at Stellenbosch University.) JG

A further formula of the Categorical Imperative is "so, act as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of any other context, never solely as a means to an end but always as an end within itself' (Parrott, 2006, p. 51). By this Kant meant people should be valued and respected as an individual and not used for the benefit of others. Participating in a labor-strike demonstration/action is a direct violation of this categorical perspective as it would not be ethically permissible because the severe dependence and well-being of clients, the effective functioning of the employer organization, and society is used to duly and unduly influence the bargaining process for better working conditions. In participating in the labor strike demonstration, the humanity, and well-being of clients and society is not seen as crucial and as an 'end', but rather used to demonstrate the undeniable need for the skills and expertise of social workers. Furthermore, through withholding services, social worker professionals demonstrate that the well-being and welfare of society have lost its inherent importance/value. Though the value of overall well-being is taught throughout the social work training process and is enshrined in the professional ethical codes.

This impacts back to my framework because using others as a means to an end isnÕt universalizable without contradiction since in order to use others as a means you must be an end in yourself, but if everyone is used as a means, no one can take the action of using others as means to ends. 

 

Contention 2)

Workers agree in contracts not to strike, these contracts grant employers the right to fire people if they strike and has been upheld by the state. This means strikes break these promises. 

"Employer Sanctions for Violation of No-Strike Clause: Union Busting through Mass Discharge and Rescission." Yale Law Journal, digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=8323&context=ylj. Accessed 23 June 2021.

 

EMPLOYERS often secure no-strike clauses 1 in collective bargaining contracts 2 with their employees' unions, 3 in order to ensure greater union responsibility for the maintenance of stable production schedules.4 Under such clauses, the union promises not to authorize or sanction any strike during the term of its contract.' The employer is usually given power to discipline or discharge all the individual union members who strike in violation of the no-strike clause.0

When confronted with a union-sponsored strike in violation of a no-strike clause, the employer may be forced to accede to the union's demands because of production requirements or the scarcity of replacement workers. 7 Alternatively, he may shut down his plant and wait out the strike, disciplining the strikers when they return to work, subject to an arbitrator's review.8 However, if he believes his bargaining position to be strong, he may discharge all the strikers, rescind the contract, and refuse thereafter to deal with the union.0 The National Labor Relations Board has upheld such employer actions on the grounds that they are justified by the union's prior material breach of the contract,' ¡ and that strikers in violation of contract are not protected by the National Labor Relations Act."1

This impacts back to my framework because promise breaking isnÕt universalizable without contradiction since if everyone breaks promises they have no bearing, but in order to break promises they must be valid for you to go against them. 

 

2

 

Interpretation: Debaters may not read util and extinction first.

Violation: ____

Standards:

1. Strat Skew:

2. Phil Ed:

 

Voters:

Fairness is a voter because the ballot makes debate a game and without fairness youÕre voting for the better cheater not the better debater. 

Drop the debater to deter future abuse, b) if I prove abuse it means substance has already been skewed. c) dta incentivizes abuse because it takes longer to check abuse than to commit it.

Competing interps because a) reasonability has broad and bidirectional brightlines that allow you to just keep shifting them to justify any abuse. b) competing interps sets the best norms because you have to justify your actual practice, so bad practices will lose. C) infinite abuse: d) it collapses.

No RVIs

a) an RVI would mean any time theory is introduced the entire debate comes down to it which kills substance eduation and all strategy because in a world where thereÕs an RVI the debate would just be is this theory shell true mooting everything else. 

b) you donÕt win for just being fair or educational. 

c) it encourages good theory debaters to be abusive so they can bait theory and win off the rvi.

d) It means the aff can just sit on one shell for four minutes, and auto win every round.

 

Dedem

Their notion of democracy is unsustainable.

Peter Isackson 19 (Peter Isackson is an author, media producer and chief visionary officer of Skillscaper. He is also the chief strategy officer at Fair Observer and the creator of the regular feature, The Daily DevilÕs Dictionary. Educated at UCLA and Oxford University, 8-29-2019, "Is Democracy Sustainable Anywhere in the World?," Fair Observer, https://www.fairobserver.com/region/central_south_asia/democracy-capitalism-india-world-biggest-democracy-latest-news-32301/ ,1)//gh

There is cause to believe that elections — the standard means of securing power and influence in modern democracies — have paradoxically come to represent the most fundamental obstacle to intelligent political decision-making. And here the paradox becomes a serious quandary. Is it possible to have democracy without elections? Or could we imagine an electoral system different from the models we now have? Are we even allowed to criticize those models and amend them without being accused of subversion? When we look at the resistance in the US to changing the antiquated Electoral College (to elect the president) with its increasingly evident perverse effects, the prospects for improving democracy seem bleak. Historical Note Athenian democracy was possible because Athens was a city-state, a small geographical entity with a restricted notion of citizenship. Its operational governing body, the Boule, consisted of 500 men, 50 from each of what were called the 10 Athenian tribes. Unlike modern democracy, Athenian democracy had no elections and was clearly not ÒrepresentativeÓ in the modern sense, in which legislators participate in government to reflect the interests of their local constituency. Tribes were not families, clans, guilds, corporations or social groups. They were more like political teams, composed of diverse elements taken from a cross-section of the Athenian population. Each tribe included citizens from the coastal, urban and inland areas. This means that within a tribe, a diversity of interests had to find or elaborate principles of cooperation and collective identity that did not directly correlate with any group or individualÕs purely economic interest. Greek religion provided what amounted to a fictional framework for the development of the tribeÕs group identity. Like a modern sports team and its brand, each tribe established its identity associated with a god oreponymous hero, around whom the members collectively evolved their tribeÕs culture. This model of democracy lasted for approximately 200 years, until the dominance of the Macedonian kingdom of Philip II, followed by his son, Alexander the Great, built a Greek empire. Modern democracy emerged in the 18th century in the context of the expanding economic culture we call capitalism. It paradoxically included a notion of empire akin to AlexanderÕs, though considerably more sophisticated. Capitalistic European empires focused not on the needs of their people and even less on those of its conquered people. They focused on the notion of ÒwealthÓ highlighted by Adam SmithÕs ÒThe Wealth of Nations.Ó The notion itself derived from the Old English word Òweal,Ó which essentially meant the well-being of a community. By the 18th century, ÒwealthÓ had come to include notions of organization, management, control and exploitation of resources as well as their translation into monetary value. In todayÕs culture, wealth has been further reduced to a fundamentally monetary concept. For some, it simply translates as gross domestic product. This evolution should highlight the fact that capitalism is not only a set of laws about property and its exploitation but also a culture. Because market value has become the measure of worth, the notion of property itself has changed from something perceived as a permanent attribute of a group or an individual to something temporary that can be freely bought or sold: an asset. US President Donald TrumpÕs offer to buy Greenland from Denmark provides the perfect illustration of the radical nature of the change in cultural mentality at the core of the capitalist culture. The Danish prime minister, Mette Frederiksen, whose capitalist culture is less evolved than TrumpÕs, called the offer Òabsurd.Ó Trump reacted by calling that an insult to the US. Only a few people cited in the media appear to be asking the big question facing all nations and cultures today. A question whose urgency is demonstrated in daily headlines, whether they concern Brexit; the yellow vest movement in France; TrumpÕs political racism; the incineration of the Amazon; the coalition of the month in Italy; blockades and sanctions on national economies; or the rise of a clearly undemocratic but, in many ways, the supremely capitalistic economy (but not the culture) of China. That is: Are democracy and capitalism compatible? People seem to have blindly accepted the idea that voting means expressing oneÕs purely economic interests. In such circumstances, the common good is no longer in anyoneÕs sights and the very idea of a ÒwealÓ or Òcommon wealth,Ó once a fixture of nationalism, disappears from the political horizon. Democracy itself becomes unsustainable because its operating principle and logic become anarchic, chaotic. All forces diverge and only local pockets of dominance can temporarily come to the fore. No principle of social harmony exists. Which is why itÕs worth reflecting that ChinaÕs commitment to communism has nothing to do with opposing capitalism and even less with imposing Marxism. Chinese culture, whatever the regime, has never abandoned its ideal and core value of harmony. India is radically different. Many of the local cultures of the Indian subcontinent (but not todayÕs Indian nation) may have had a sense of harmony in the past, but the lasting effects of the caste system, the colonial experience under British rule and the capitalist reconfiguration of the global economy have damaged that sense beyond repair. When the two most populous nations in the world provide, in contrasting ways, glaring examples of the dysfunction of the very idea of democracy or peopleÕs government in a capitalist world, it is certainly time for the rest of the world to rethink what they mean by both democracy and capitalism.

Democracy will always lead to failure and disparities – short-termism, short electoral cycles, failing infrastructure and lobbying.

Moyo 04/26/2018 (Damnbisa Moyo isand  international economist, Master of Public Administration (MPA) degree at Harvard, DPhil in economics from St Antony's College, Oxford University. ÒWhy Democracy DoesnÕt DeliverÓ https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/04/26/why-democracy-doesnt-deliver/ su/ )

Only 19 percent of Americans today say they can trust their government to do what is right. Meanwhile, citizens in developing countries see authoritarian leaders as more trustworthy than democratic politicians. Increasingly, it seems that people across the globe are skeptical of the ability of democratic governments to act effectively — including as good custodians of the economy. Indeed, the liberal democratic system is unwittingly undermining the economic growth that is necessary for its continued survival. At the root of the problem is a predilection for short-termism that has become embedded in the political and business culture of modern democracies. By design, Western politicians have relatively short political horizons; they are often in office for terms of less than five years. So they find their duties regularly interrupted by elections that distract from the job of addressing long-term policy challenges. As a result, politicians are naturally and rationally drawn to focus their efforts on seducing their electorates with short-term sweeteners — including economic policies designed to quickly produce favorable monthly inflation, unemployment, and GDP numbers. Voters generally favor policies that enhance their own well-being with little consideration for that of future generations or for long-term outcomes. Politicians are rewarded for pandering to votersÕ immediate demands and desires, to the detriment of growth over the long term.Politicians are rewarded for pandering to votersÕ immediate demands and desires, to the detriment of growth over the long term. Because democratic systems encourage such short-termism, it will be difficult to solve many of the seemingly intractable structural problems slowing global growth without an overhaul of democracy. One of the most fundamental obstacles to effective governance is the short electoral cycle embedded in many democratic systems. Frequent elections taint policymaking, as politicians, driven by the rational desire to win elections, opt for quick fixes that have a tendency to undermine long-term growth. Meanwhile, they neglect to address more entrenched, longer-term economic challenges, such as worsening education standards, the imminent pension crisis, and deteriorating physical infrastructure, that donÕt promise immediate political rewards. Navy divers survey damage to the I-35 bridge in Minneapolis that collapsed in 2007 killing 13 people. (Joshua Adam Nuzzo/U.S. Navy via Getty Images) AmericaÕs failing infrastructure encapsulates the problem of both public and private myopia. A 2017 report by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) gave the country a grade of D+ for overall infrastructure, citing 2,170 high-hazard dams, 56,007 structurally deficient bridges (9.1 percent of the nationÕs total), and $1 trillion in needed upgrades to drinking water systems over the next 25 years. At a minimum, the ASCE suggests that a $2 trillion investment is needed by 2020 to address the significant backlog of overdue maintenance and the pressing need for modernization. The effects of increased infrastructure investment on the prospects of low-skilled labor could be substantial. Investing in infrastructure would have all sorts of other benefits, but the prevailing democratic political system discourages the sort of long-term thinking necessary to do so. Clearly there have been periods in the past when governments have chosen to undertake large infrastructure projects without succumbing to political myopia. In the United States, for example, the federal government drove the rollout of the Work Projects Administration (WPA) in the 1930s. Launched under President Franklin D. RooseveltÕs New Deal to help address AmericaÕs chronic unemployment, the WPA was AmericaÕs largest and most ambitious project dedicated to constructing public buildings, roads, bridges, schools, and courthouses. It was possible because the short-term political incentive of reducing mass unemployment through the rapid creation of jobs aligned with a long-term agenda. Today, when it comes to infrastructure, China and India present a useful study in contrasts. Both countries needed roads to increase productivity. China built them, but IndiaÕs infrastructure programs got bogged down in red tape and political wrangling born of political fissures in its democratic system. Because vested interests in India have a stranglehold on policymaking and implementation, IndiaÕs democratic processes stifled decisions that could have helped drive economic growth. In the 2016-2017 World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report, India was ranked 68th of 138 countries for overall infrastructure, well behind China, which was ranked 42nd. The effects of underinvestment in infrastructure on the economy are real: For India, spending 1 percent of GDP on infrastructure is likely to boost the countryÕs GDP by 2 percent and create as many as 1.4 million jobs. A second major obstacle to effective democratic governance is interest group lobbying, a feature in many liberal democracies that tends to interfere with the proper allocation of assets. In 2016, more than $3.15 billion was spent lobbying the U.S. Congress, roughly double the amount spent in 2000. Across sectors, lobbying by special interest groups has a discernible impact on public policy decisions in ways that negatively affect trade, infrastructure, and ultimately economic growth. For example, environmental groups oppose pipelines and new oil exploration projects, agricultural interests lobby for farm subsidies, and American trucking interest groups oppose additional tolls earmarked for road maintenance. Political cycles too often keep politicians beholden to the individuals and corporate interests that help fund their campaigns and to the vagaries of public opinion polling. And because democratic politics rests on political contributions, it widens the inequality between rich and poor. It is the use of wealth to influence political outcomes that helps inequality take root. Until democracies push back on the use of wealth to influence elections and policies, initiatives to address inequality will be blunted.Until democracies push back on the use of wealth to influence elections and policies, initiatives to address inequality will be blunted.

 

Democracy is not efficient, people are too uneducated, leads to populism

Bakhtiyari 18 https://medium.com/futuristone/when-democracy-doesnt-work-anymore-cc15c1bdd951 PhD Candidate in Artificial Intelligence

Democracy is a system of processing issues in which outcomes depend on what participants do, but no single force controls what occurs and its outcomes. ÒRule of the majorityÓ is sometimes referred to as democracy. In a democracy, citizens exercise power through free and fair elections in which every citizen has equal right and share by voting. This is exactly where the problem begins. Almost all countries are claiming to be democratic, and people are willing to have democratic governments. Some western countries, on the other hand, are forcing non-democratic countries to move toward democracy. However, democracy is not the best solution for all. Public Education The main criticism against democracy is irrational voters, who make decisions without all of the facts or necessary information in order to make a truly informed decision. For example, only after the Brexit election, the search on Google over the advantages, disadvantages and the definition of EU was increased in the UK. This clearly shows that a number of Brexit voters voted without enough knowledge on the matter. Socrates was of the belief that democracy without educated masses would only lead to populism, and it is the criterion to become an elected leader and not competence. This would ultimately lead to a fall of the nation. Freedom of political expression, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and internet are important to ensure that voters are well informed, enabling them to vote according to their own interests, but they are not necessarily sufficient. Do we need democracy? A majority of educated masses with a proper knowledge is a strong requirement for a successful democracy. Otherwise, the democracy would eventually shift the exercise of power from oppression to manipulation. In some countries, where the Òper capita readingÓ is low, democracy might not be a suitable solution. In contrast, aristocracy, which is the opposite model of democracy, might be a better solution. Aristocracy is defined as below: Ò the highest class in certain societies, typically comprising people of noble birth holding hereditary titles and offices.Ó Although aristocrats are not necessarily the best class to rule society, they may have a more efficient government in comparison with a democratic government with an uneducated majority. Has this rebellion, sparked by economic mismanagement, corruption and inequality, produced solutions? Not really. Opinion polls suggest this weekendÕs vote wonÕt break the deadlock. Instead, it has deepened divisions over Catalan separatism and boosted the far right.

Studies cite leadership through authoritarianism results in better employee–work performance-turns the aff. 

Wang & Guan 18 (Honglei Wang, College of Economics and Management, Northeast Agricultural University, Harbin, China. Bichen Guan, Department of Marketing and Management, Faculty of Business and Economics, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia. ÒThe Positive Effect of Authoritarian Leadership on Employee Performance: The Moderating Role of Power DistanceÓ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5876282/ /su/)

In our research, we propose that authoritarian leadership would enhance employee performance based on the following reasons. First, authoritarian leaders can be effective by setting specific and unambiguous goals to their subordinates. Authoritarian leaders always have the last say in their organizations and provide a singular mission upon which followers can focus on their job responsibilities, without uncertainty (Cheng et al., 2000; Schaubroeck et al., 2017). According to goal setting theory, higher performance levels are usually reached when goals are specific, rather than ambiguous (Locke and Latham, 2006). As Locke and Latham (2006) noted, when a specific goal is set for employees, goal attainment provides them with an objective, unambiguous basis for evaluating the effectiveness of their performance. Thus, although authoritarian leaders exercise tight control and unquestioned submission, the underlying reason is to promote followersÕ performance. Second, authoritarian leaders typically enhance followersÕ sense of identity as group members, which further motivates employees to perform at a high level (Schaubroeck et al., 2017). As Rast et al. (2013) argued, authoritative leaders are more likely to provide a clear, unambiguous, and direct prototype with their subordinates. They usually require subordinates to obey their rules completely and punish them if they do not follow their orders (Chan et al., 2013). As a result, employees could gain a better understanding of what they should do and should not do as a team member. Prior research also suggested that authoritarian leaders offer a better sense of what it means in terms of identity, attitudes and behavior to be a member of the team (Rast et al., 2013; Schaubroeck et al., 2017). Authoritarian leaders are uniquely effective in this respect since they offer an unambiguous identity for their team members (Rast, 2015). Taking on this identity is likely to encourage an employee to dedicate effort to enhancing their performance. Third, some scholars believe that authoritarian leaders usually set high performance standard expectations for their subordinates (Aycan, 2006). As Chen et al. (2017) argued, authoritarian leaders demand their subordinates to achieve the best performance by exercising strict control, setting clear rules, establishing job responsibilities, issuing punishment and rewards. Consequently, employees are motivated to perform strongly, delivering excellent quality. Huang et al. (2015) also claimed that authoritarian leaders, who emphasize discipline, obedience, and unity, are likely to achieve operational performance by fostering a highly centralized decision-making structure. Therefore, we expect to observe a positive relationship between authoritarian leadership and employee performance.

 

Democracies are subject to terrorism

William Lee Eubank and Leonard Weinberg 94 (William Lee Eubank is an associate professor of political science at the University of Nevada, Leonard Weinberg is a professor of political science at the University of Nevada, 1994, ÒDoes democracy encourage terrorism?Ó Terrorism and Political Violence, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09546559408427271?journalCode=ftpv20 ,1)//gh

 

It may well be then that the contemporary linkage between terrorism and democracy is not an optical illusion or a spurious correlation based on data gathering problems. In fact modern democracies have certain characteristics that make them extremely vulnerable to terrorist operations. Schmid rounds up the usual suspects. In democracies there is freedom of movement; people are free to come and go without the kind of surveillance that often exists in closed societies. Similarly, there is freedom of association; the state does not prevent like-minded individuals from forming private groups and organizations. Third, open societies furnish would-be terrorists with an abundance of targets to strike. The legal systems require the presentation of evidence, proof of guilt and various due process protections before someone can be imprisoned for participating in terrorist activities. Schmid also goes on to point out the relative ease with which potential terrorists are able to obtain weapons and transfer funds from one anonymously-held bank account to another as additional factors that contribute to the democracy-terrorism linkage.6 To say that democracies provide settings within which it is relatively easy for terrorists to commit violent acts is not identical to asserting that there is something about democratic politics that promotes terrorist violence. Democracy, after all, provides a wide range of means by which the aggrieved can make their voices heard in the political arena without recourse to 'propaganda by deed'. Since the linkage between terrorism and democracy is usually calculated through the use of event data, it may very well be the case that the association is affected by the ease with which groups whose grievances and modus operandi are essentially foreign to a democracy may conduct their operations inside it. It was not, after all, dissatisfaction with life in Jersey City that prompted the followers of Sheik Abdul Rahman to bomb the New York World Trade Center in 1993 but, rather, religious and political conditions in Egypt. Over the last 25 years many acts of terrorist violence carried out in the democracies were committed by emigre groups, for example, South Moluccans in the Netherlands, or Sikhs in Canada, whose ultimate causes had little to do with their local circumstances. In addition, during the same period groups from the Middle East, emerging largely though not exclusively from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, found it desirable to carry out attacks in Western European nations for reasons of convenience, variously defined.7 If there is an abundance of terrorist events in the democracies involving groups and issues external to the countries involved, so too have there been many instances in which the targets of the attacks were essentially foreign to the countries in which they were carried out. For instance, in various European and Latin American democracies, Americans and American facilities of one kind or another have been major targets of terrorist violence. Many of these attacks seem to have been prompted by resentment over America's role in the World (as a successor to the European colonial powers of the nineteenth century) and by the possibilities of extensive coverage in the American-dominated mass media. For example, American targets have been repeatedly struck in Greece by the November 17 organization because of perceived US support for Turkey or opposition to Iraq. The condition of Greek democracy itself was decidedly peripheral to these considerations. Democratic societies, then, seem to provide environments in which terrorists from all over the world may conduct their operations. However justified this conclusion may be, it begs the question: what is the relationship between terrorism and democracy? To what extent do democracy and the politics generated by a democracy contribute to the appearance of terrorism? Is 'home-grown' terrorism the product of some particular set of social and political conditions existing in society that are thought to go hand in hand with democracy?8 Several speculations come to mind. In authoritarian governments, where the rulers may persist without being responsive to the fate of any but a handful of the elite, the plight of a few people held by terrorists may be of marginal interest and met with indifference. Thus terrorists may think there is no political advantage to be gained by activity in such settings. The terrorist may think, on the other hand, that the rules of democracy would require democratic governments to be sympathetic to the troubles of its citizens and would expect democratic leaders to be more sensitive to hostage taking and bombings than their authoritarian counterparts. Terrorists might think that democracies, being founded on the ideas of individualism and of responsiveness by the leaders to the people would be more susceptible to 'blackmail' than would authoritarian regimes. Thus for domestic groups that share similar grievances such as economic disadvantage or social discrimination, the use of terrorist activity may be believed to be more rational by those groups in democracies than by ones in authoritarian settings.9 Further, as Sidney Tarrow and others have called to our attention, capitalist democracies are susceptible to 'cycles of protest' to which authoritarian regimes often may be immune.10 As episodes of mass protest in the democracies subside, there is a clear tendency for terrorist groups to emerge in their wake. Anyone familiar with the history of popular protest movements in the 1960s can attest to the fact that, as these movements lost their momentum in the following decade, any number of revolutionary terrorist bands formed in Italy, Germany and the United States. So to the extent that democracies experience these protest cycles they may very well be more likely to cultivate terrorist groups thanauthoritarian governments unwilling to tolerate unconventional forms of political expression. Another consideration involves the stability of democratic governments. Democracies obviously differ with respect to the support they enjoy among their citizens. In some cases democracies have become so unpopular or so weak (e.g., Weimar Germany, Argentina and Uruguay at the beginning of the 1970s) that the appearance of terrorist groups represents a measure of their instability. Domestic terrorist activity may be an indicator of the breakdown of the democratic regimes.11 At the other end of political the inauguration of new democracies also may be associated with the appearance of terrorist groups. Groups seeking to prevent the stabilization of a new democratic regime in the context of a newly open society may use terrorist measures as a way of convincing the public that democracy only leads to chaos.