Moten & Intellectual Property Protections
This is an 9 part series on Moten and the 2021 September-October LD Topic about WTO intellectual property protections for medicines.
In this part 1, Nae introduces Moten and explains how you could use Moten to critique the WTO intellectual property model and how policy is implemented. Nae thinks the culture of intellectual property protections monopolizes how western science brings humanity into the future as the savior of humankind. Intellectual property protections establishes and perpetuates total knowledge. This pushes the relationship between policy and planning that Moten and Harney discuss. The WTO expands the coercive forces of international western governance.
In part 2, Nae continues talking about Moten and the IPP September/October resolution. When reading Moten against policy teams, Nae gives some tips for how to make planning and policy link arguments and how to use concise language to tie the different parts of the debate together. White, western understanding of knowledge, invention, and scientific understanding is a great place to start because it is at the crux of the resolution. Pulling good examples of international struggle from IP and medicine will be important to resolving how the government will withdraw its authority for the alternative. Policy blocks off radical alternatives in the status quo and is a good way of answering the permutation. The WTO changes the debate because it works in the name of multiple entities as a whole governing body and is more encompassing.
In part 3, Nae continues talking about using Moten and Harney against policy style teams. Nae starts with the link level of the debate. Kritiks of global modeling and kritiks of global organizations that are about capitalism and colonial extraction are good link arguments to read with Moten and Harney. The action the aff takes within intellectual property could also be a good place to get link arguments about colonial extraction. Privatization and kritiking economic salvation and how that dooms peoples' ability to access medicine is another place to look for link arguments. How can marginally groups more easily access this? A lot of these link arguments prove mutual exclusivity for the alternative. For an impact level, Moten says a socioecological crisis is consumed by colonialism and pollutes our social relationships and our physical bodies which blocks out alternatives in the status quo.
In part 4 of this 9 part series on Moten & Intellectual Property Protections, Nae talks about how policy teams can better respond to Moten and Harney arguments. A lot of the arguments for Moten are strongly connected together, so a strong push on the central thesis of the criticism is important. You want to indict the separation between policy and planning and that policy isn't a predetermined violent system. Pushing back against governmentality disproving all law is important and helps resolve a lot of problems policy teams have. For the framework debate, you should make sure you also get to weigh your impacts against the alternative and push back against the alternative's ability to scale and resolve. A full rejection of the law would make it impossible to sustain ourselves and deep conversations about IP might set the standard for accessing radical alternatives of planning.
In part 5, Nae continues from part 4 in talking about how policy teams should answer Moten. If this is the first video you're watching in this series, Nae recommends at least going back to part 4 because that is where this discussion of policy teams answering Moten begins. Nae discusses the link portion of the debate. Nae suggests making a push between what are links to the status quo and what are links to the aff's solvency. Any examples you can give of before and after of affirmative change can be important for defending ideas like economic prosperity. Nae recommends affs that defend countries other than the United States and how those countries relationships with the WTO is encoded by things like colonialism.
In Part 6, Moten talks about Moten on the affirmative on the September/October LD resolution. Nae thinks Moten could be good on the aff because it kritiks the international context of the resolution with the WTO as well as kritiking the field of IP law as a whole. Nae recommends either reading Moten's kritik of sovereignty and the international or just a kritik of IP as a set of logic and laws that govern knowledge production. Internationalism strives off the ability to mimic colonial governance that subsumes radical life.
In Part 7, Nae continues from part 6 talking about reading Moten on the aff. A strong framework argument about why intellectual property protections and the WTO requires us to have a different relationship to how we socially organize. Nae mentions some Moten and Harney quotes that he think could be used in the context of medicine on this topic.
In Part 8 of this series on Moten and IPP, Nae talks about answering Moten on this resolution from the perspective of being neg against a Moten aff.
In the final video, Nae finishes talking about Moten and the Intellectual Property Protections topic. Nae finishes talking about how to answer affirmatives reading Moten. Nae thinks that both CPs/Disads and Kritiks are viable strategies versus the Moten aff. Nae suggests attacking the affirmative at the praxis level and how certain groups resisting might complicate other groups ability to resist. Nae thinks there are obvious core DAs to abolishing IP as a field is bad for the economy, medicine, and how it could destabilize the international order.
