K NEG SCHMITT PAUL 30 - WNDI 2010 Nick Paul 1 Friend Enemy...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
WNDI 2010 1 Friend Enemy K Friend Enemy K
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Friend Enemy K 1NC Shell 1/3 1NC Link- The Affirmative is engaged in a ‘war against war’. The strive towards peace is an insidious goal resulting in the elimination of anything that stand outside our concept of morality. Recognizing political enmity is the only way to bracket this internalization of difference resulting in biopolitical violence Rasch in 5 /Professor and Chair of Germanic Studies, Indian University Bloomington, Ph.D. U of Washington/ [William, “Lines in the Sand: Enmity as a Structuring Principle”, The South Atlantic Quarterly, 104:2, Spring] In The Concept of the Political, Schmitt concludes that ‘‘all genuine political theories presuppose man to be evil , i.e., by no means an unproblematic but a dangerous and dynamic being.’’2 This anthropological fiction —and Schmitt is aware of the claim’s fictional status— serves as the logical premise that secures Schmitt’s definition of the political as the friend/enemy distinction. We live in a world, he says, in which associations with likeminded others are our only means of security and happiness. Indiscriminate concourse of all with all cannot be the foundation for necessary political discriminations. Thus, the anthropological presupposition of evil, guilt, and violence is designed to expose what Schmitt sees as the duplicity of liberal theory, which consists in using the promise of formal equality to camouflage political power by displacing it in the realms of economics and morality. Liberal theory denies original enmity by assuming the innate goodness of the human being. Those communitarians and liberals alike— who say there is no war presuppose a counterfactual ‘‘ontological priority of non-violence,’’ a ‘‘state of total peace’’ 3 that invites universal inclusion based on the ‘‘essential homogeneity and natural virtue of mankind. ’’ 4 If, in such a benign state of nature, violence were to break out, such common Equity.’’ Such a ‘‘Criminal’’ has ‘‘declared War against all Mankind, and therefore may be destroyed as a Lyon or a Tyger, one of those wild Savage Beasts, with whom Men can have no Society nor Security.’’ 5 The violence would be considered a perversion and, if all else were to fail, would have to be extirpated by an even greater violence. To cite John Locke, this ‘‘State of perfect Freedom’’ and universal ‘‘Equality,’’ governed solely by reason and natural law, can be disturbed only by an ‘‘Offender’’ who ‘‘declares himself to live by another Rule, than that of reason and political, on this view, emerges only as the result of the Fall—that is, emerges only to fight the war against war , a war always initiated by a sinful or bestial other. It seeks to make itself superfluous by restoring or, more progressively, establishing for the first time this natural order of peace. Should one demur and find the perfect state to be less than advertised, then one’s demurral would most assuredly be
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 32

K NEG SCHMITT PAUL 30 - WNDI 2010 Nick Paul 1 Friend Enemy...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online