|
Neurolimal posted:If the people choose to never behead themselves to amuse stockholders, then that is their choice and it should be respected. I hope you apply this same logic to keeping Jim Crow around because lots of people opposed removing it.
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 08:59 |
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:This already happens in the actual system, once the deal is negotiated and in a votable form. Why do you oppose this? What's the benefit gained by ending it earlier? I oppose the current setup because special interests with enormous influence are allowed to hype bills not even seen by the public a year in advance, while groups dedicated to our civil rights are given one month to interpret, coordinate, explain, and motivate the public into opposition. The benefit to making the bill transparent is that watchgroups dedicated to our rights get a more level playing field.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:I hope you apply this same logic to keeping Jim Crow around because lots of people opposed removing it. If such an enormous group of citizens were to oppose the global End Racism And Also Lower The Minimum Wage Bill that representatives had to take notice, then sure. My opinion on the operation of secretive trade deals between elite interests has little to do with our domestic government proccess.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:I oppose the current setup because special interests with enormous influence are allowed to hype bills not even seen by the public a year in advance, while groups dedicated to our civil rights are given one month to interpret, coordinate, explain, and motivate the public into opposition. The benefit to making the bill transparent is that watchgroups dedicated to our rights get a more level playing field. The "civil rights groups" are also allowed to "hype" all the bad things they'll think the deal will have, dude. In fact them and ignorant people like you are already doing it. There's also the minor matter that there hasn't been a "year of hyping up the TPP in advance" you nutball. So once again: you have prevented 0 benefit from attempting to convince all the nations to participate in a 7 year long negotiation in a way not usually done.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:If such an enormous group of citizens were to oppose the global End Racism And Also Lower The Minimum Wage Bill that representatives had to take notice, then sure. There was such a massive group of citizens opposing the civil rights act that it altered the political trajectory of the USA for the next 50 years and counting. It sounds to me like you're cherrypicking what circumstances your proposed system would be applicable to so that opposition is only empowered on a specific issue that you oppose.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:But we don't do that with Congress? It's also not about sparking outrage or not.  (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:There was such a massive group of citizens opposing the civil rights act that it altered the political trajectory of the USA for the next 50 years and counting. Yes, and then a larger, more energized group protested both peacefully and violently, until the representatives had no choice but to take note. You see in our domestic government representatives are influenced by their constitutents and vote accordingly. It is a flawed system, but it has its successes. Shutting out the constitutents until the last month where they must pick through legalese to find what the bill really does, is not the same.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:The "civil rights groups" are also allowed to "hype" all the bad things they'll think the deal will have, dude. In fact them and ignorant people like you are already doing it. There's also the minor matter that there hasn't been a "year of hyping up the TPP in advance" you nutball. Yes, and that is where debate sparks. In this case it's due to the secrecy of the bill and willfull ignorance of partisans. The bill is not yet up to be read and it is already being hyped. It was also being defended months prior as well. The people defending the bill are the only ones allowed to see the bill. That is a problem for democracy and the will of the people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
Maybe the elites discussing the deal don't want the negotiations to be public because the deal is good for the elites and not good for the average person.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Yes, and then a larger, more energized group protested both peacefully and violently, until the representatives had no choice but to take note. You see in our domestic government representatives are influenced by their constitutents and vote accordingly. It is a flawed system, but it has its successes. Shutting out the constitutents until the last month where they must pick through legalese to find what the bill really does, is not the same. The constituents aren't shut out, you people are already protesting it without any knowledge of it. Is that not enough? Neurolimal posted:Yes, and that is where debate sparks. In this case it's due to the secrecy of the bill and willfull ignorance of partisans. Hey genius, most of the people "defending" the bill haven't been able to see it, pretty much just high level diplomats and heads of state and government are allowed to see it. This is not a problem for democracy. There is plenty of time to be opposed to it. You are already opposed to it, after all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Well if you actually care about the constituents then it makes sense to give every advantage to the people negotiating on their behalf: that demands secrecy and fast track. I didn't elect Michael Froman and if his name was on a ballot there's no way I'd choose him to represent me in any capacity. It's of course not practical to elect every single government official and often the people you elect choose to appoint bad people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
Mystic_Shadow posted:Maybe the elites discussing the deal don't want the negotiations to be public because the deal is good for the elites and not good for the average person. I love that this thread is still grappling with that. Why worry about the PR impact of this thing when the secrecy itself will have people hamster-wheeling perpetually around whether it's good or bad?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:The constituents aren't shut out, you people are already protesting it without any knowledge of it. Is that not enough? The only reason that it is being protested now is the fact that a patriotic whistleblower risked his wellbeing to reveal its existence. We'd have nothing in place to protest it if that hadn't happened. quote:Hey genius, most of the people "defending" the bill haven't been able to see it, pretty much just high level diplomats and heads of state and government are allowed to see it. And I'm sure none of them are influenced by or speak to elite interests. I mean, this is the government we're talking about! They clearly are focusing on IP rights out of sympathy for impoverished stockholders. quote:This is not a problem for democracy. There is plenty of time to be opposed to it. You are already opposed to it, after all. Because the secrecy was broken months in advance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:I didn't elect Michael Froman and if his name was on a ballot there's no way I'd choose him to represent me in any capacity. It's of course not practical to elect every single government official and often the people you elect choose to appoint bad people. So you're against the concept of representative democracy, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:The only reason that it is being protested now is the fact that a patriotic whistleblower risked his wellbeing to reveal its existence. We'd have nothing in place to protest it if that hadn't happened. That's not a thing that happened. You would have been free to protest without the unverified leak regardless. Ok, and your point is? The secrecy hasn't been broken at all. Again, people were already upset about it before the unverified leak came out in 2013. But this is an interesting tack you're taking: you're basically saying it's a-ok to not have transparency so long as someone whips up a supposed leak out of a few paragraphs with no verification. Thus proving it's ok for the negotiations to be secret. Nice!
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
The TPP is Cool and Good
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
I really think that you'd have to take the deal as a whole to be able to determine the overall impact. Taking a component in isolation doesn't have a lot to say about the overall treaty. So, does something that tightens copyright and IP laws exist as a sop to a treaty that heavily benefits the poorer negotiators, or specifically to keep the deal sweet on the American end, or is it representative of the treaty being a dicta from the USA? You can't know without looking at the deal as a whole. Similarly, if the net result of TPP is enhanced development opportunities for poorer countries, that can easily outweigh the effects of liberalization on employment and wages. So secrecy until a deal is worked out is beneficial to meaningful public opinion on the bill. There's a separate discussion to be had about whether the jargon of diplomacy, the "legalese" is pointlessly obscurantist or not, but that's a tad bit away from the main thrust.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:That's not a thing that happened. You would have been free to protest without the unverified leak regardless. Except there wouldn't yet be a protest because nobody would know what the hell is in it beyond "Obama is making a deal, China doesn't like it". The leak gave watchgroups time to prepare and protest. quote:But this is an interesting tack you're taking: you're basically saying it's a-ok to not have transparency so long as someone whips up a supposed leak out of a few paragraphs with no verification. Thus proving it's ok for the negotiations to be secret. Nice! This is so hilariously close to gibberish that I'm really interested in whats going on in your head right now. The leak made us aware of the deal and its contents as of the draft, outside of its provisions (whuch are godawful) the fact that the people of all these nations are closed out from a deal selling off enormous rights and protections is still an enormous concern. The leak was good for allowing watchgroups to read, interpret, explain, and protest its contents well in advance. The secrecy that is still ongoing is still bad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Except there wouldn't yet be a protest because nobody would know what the hell is in it beyond "Obama is making a deal, China doesn't like it". The leak gave watchgroups time to prepare and protest. You already manifestly do not know what's in it. Yet you are against it. Your continued opposition to it proves your argument false. The leak remains unverified, and is essentially rumor. The leak did not make you aware of the deal because there's no evidence the leak has anything to do with the actual agreement. What don't you get? Making plans and investigations and interpretations on crap doesn't mean you make actual progress. Secrecy is how negotiations work in the main, and you need to get over the fact that the head negotiator for Singapore has way more influence then you do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
Another crosspost, Leftist Heartthrob Elizabeth Warren's opinion on the corporate court provision of TPP:TEAYCHES posted:im referring to what elizabeth warren wrote about in this article:
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
There's some really good reasons why the TPP would be favorable to poorer countries, which most people ignore in favor of raw, naive cynicism. Like, are we seriously engaging in the vulgar Marxoteenism where everything is done by Snidely Whiplash and Dick Dastardly for the purposes of loving people over and accumulating wealth?
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:There's some really good reasons why the TPP would be favorable to poorer countries, which most people ignore in favor of raw, naive cynicism. Like, are we seriously engaging in the vulgar Marxoteenism where everything is done by Snidely Whiplash and Dick Dastardly for the purposes of loving people over and accumulating wealth? i see what you're doing and in lovin' it
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:You already manifestly do not know what's in it. Yet you are against it. Your continued opposition to it proves your argument false. The leak remains unverified, and is essentially rumor. teh
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:You already manifestly do not know what's in it. Yet you are against it. Your continued opposition to it proves your argument false. The leak remains unverified, and is essentially rumor. so hold on is your argument "well it's secret so you can't know anything about it" and "since you can't know about it you can't oppose it" with a dash of "leaks don't count" because that is an interesting position for an avowed socialist to take on a free trade deal
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 11:35
|
|
|
That is an interesting position for a socialist. Waiting until evidence is actually available before passing judgement? Lenin is rolling in his grave.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 12:46
|
|
|
the ideologically reasonable stance would be "trade agreements between bourgeois governments will tend to serve the international bourgeoisie rather than the working class of any country" as a sort of a priori assumption. then you add in the rather ominous leaks, which we should of course ignore because we cannot know what's in the text right now and its relation to said leaks. the clintonian free-trade agreements were hardly a resounding success for the workers in any given country. unless one has a compelling case for why the "national interests" of the parties involved in this process are markedly different it seems as though the cases should be roughly analogous. like, i get that fishmech enjoys fishmeching, but i do not understand his ideological rationale here, in that he seems to prefer erring on the side of free-trade agreements rather than the opposite, which would be the more intuitive socialist position
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 12:55
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid isn't a socialist - he's a contrarian trust-funder
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 13:14
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:the clintonian free-trade agreements were hardly a resounding success for the workers in any given country. unless one has a compelling case for why the "national interests" of the parties involved in this process are markedly different it seems as though the cases should be roughly analogous. Yeah, didn't everybody basically go "lol nope" at the labour rights provisions in NAFTA once that it had been ratified?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 13:30
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:so hold on is your argument "well it's secret so you can't know anything about it" and "since you can't know about it you can't oppose it" with a dash of "leaks don't count" Since you don't know about it you also can't support it, as well as not oppose it. And yes, leaks that have never been verified don't count.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 14:35
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Since you don't know about it you also can't support it, as well as not oppose it. And yes, leaks that have never been verified don't count. well ok so you're saying that people should start from a blank slate to forming a coherent, effective opposition if opposition is necessary in thirty days if i'm reading you right does this not strike you as somewhat impractical?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 14:37
|
|
|
Exclamation Marx posted:Yeah, didn't everybody basically go "lol nope" at the labour rights provisions in NAFTA once that it had been ratified? The NAFTA provisions don't really have an enforcement mechanism. The TPP ones appear to be enforceable via sanctions, and generally include more than previous trade deals anyway. Like most of these provisions I'm reserving judgment til the text is available (and for non-IP ones, until I can get the take of colleagues who regularly work in those areas) but it appears promising.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 14:39
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:well ok so you're saying that people should start from a blank slate to forming a coherent, effective opposition if opposition is necessary in thirty days if i'm reading you right Not sure where this "30 days" thing came from, but it's completely incorrect. "The president would have to notify Congress of the accord’s completion 90 days before he intends to sign it, a delay similar to past requirements. But in a new twist, the full agreement would have to be made public for 60 days before the president gives his final assent and sends it to Congress. Congress could not begin considering it for 30 days after that." So there's 90 days with public text before Congress even begins to consider it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 14:45
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:the ideologically reasonable stance would be "trade agreements between bourgeois governments will tend to serve the international bourgeoisie rather than the working class of any country" as a sort of a priori assumption. then you add in the rather ominous leaks, which we should of course ignore because we cannot know what's in the text right now and its relation to said leaks. Yes, most socialists have stupid priori assumptions. A general case for trade is well established and the reasonable stance would be to wait until you know enough about a deal to decide whether it's good or bad. As effectronica pointed (seriously or not I'm not sure), you sort of do need to see the entire thing because complex agreements have good and bad things for everyone involved. Without a doubt you could cherry pick either all bad or all good parts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 14:59
|
|
|
ok three months is better than one. i don't think the point is defeated, though - building a movement to counter something like this takes time, and if you're going to wait until the finished draft is out you're severely minimising your chances of accomplishing anything. the reason i'm saying this is because, as i mentioned, it does not seem unreasonable to have an ideological skepticism to free-trade agreements based on historical precedent and some kind of power-analysis about who's doing the negotiations. what i'm driving at is that the game is rigged, and so taking shortcuts through ideology to try and even the odds a little strikes me as, well, perfectly reasonable. and, just to note, this is in America, which is likely to be the biggest player in the game. one assumes that other countries will have different rules and different clout on this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 14:59
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Yes, most socialists have stupid priori assumptions. you're implicitly lauding NAFTA and the eurozone as successes here, you realise
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 15:00
|
|
|
What do posters ITT think socialist support or detraction for the Eurozone is based on? Because it switches evertime I see a Socialist post. High tide and low tide? The relative position of Mars and Orion's Belt?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:ok three months is better than one. i don't think the point is defeated, though - building a movement to counter something like this takes time, and if you're going to wait until the finished draft is out you're severely minimising your chances of accomplishing anything. How long is required? I'd say three months is more than enough time to build a movement against something, as evidenced by a number of recent protests against bills.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 15:13
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:you're implicitly lauding NAFTA and the eurozone as successes here, you realise Yes. Again, trade is considered good by normal informed people. Particularly for the poor countries involved. NAFTA has probably been more clearly beneficial to Mexico than either Canada or the US. Baron Porkface posted:What do posters ITT think socialist support or detraction for the Eurozone is based on? Because it switches evertime I see a Socialist post. High tide and low tide? The relative position of Mars and Orion's Belt? Slightly amusing to me is recalling all the times I've gotten pushback when generalizing that socialism doesn't encourage trade and therefore would reduce it. And here we have an explicit "socialists shouldn't support trade".
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 15:21
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:well ok so you're saying that people should start from a blank slate to forming a coherent, effective opposition if opposition is necessary in thirty days if i'm reading you right I don't see what's impractical about doing it in 30 days, let alone the apparent actual 120 days, if there really is things so bad in it to be worth rejecting the whole thing? I seem to remember for example the protests for that one internet bill getting together in like a week (of course it was actually defeated because of corporate lobbying by those that opposed it for hurting their business model) What thing could there possibly be in it that is manifestly bad but also requires a month, hell even a week to determine that is bad? Do you expect major provisions to be encoded in a nest of riddles? V. Illych L. posted:ok three months is better than one. i don't think the point is defeated, though - building a movement to counter something like this takes time, It's at least 4 months, 90 days + 30 days. Also there already exists a movement opposed to it, because there's people who blindly oppose anything regarding trade. It doesn't matter that they're dumb to do it, they do it anyway. I've no idea what the terms for revealing the terms are in the other countries, it could well be even longer based on Singapore law or Chilean or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 08:59 |
|
|
one might hope that a challenge to fishmech to justify how his stated opinions are coherent with his stated ideology could be made without being dragged into a tedious mudslinging exerciseasdf32 posted:Yes. Again, trade is considered good by normal informed people. Particularly for the poor countries involved. NAFTA has probably been more clearly beneficial to Mexico than either Canada or the US. "trade" does not equal "free trade under current political-economic conditions", though your functional illiteracy is neither unexpected nor, i am afraid, curable also: lol eurozone success Kalman posted:How long is required? I'd say three months is more than enough time to build a movement against something, as evidenced by a number of recent protests against bills. i honestly don't know. it would certainly help if people had some idea as to what was on the table, though, so one knew if one had to prepare something. my main point remains a challenge to fishmech personally, i am not informed enough to discuss the specific merits of the TPP in the United States in particular
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 15:33
|
|