|
Sailor Viy posted:I'm sorry, I still don't understand why the negotiations have to be kept secret. If the negotiations break down due to public pressure, isn't that just democracy functioning as it's supposed to? If you don't want your voters to complain about the agreement, how about writing an agreement that's in their interests rather than keeping it secret from them? Considering what we do know about the contents of the deal, and the massive influence that industry lobbyists have had on it, I find it hard to believe that the primary purpose of secrecy is not to quash public dissent. Frankly there's no reason for most of it to be kept secret. The folks who are in favor of that aspect might want to paint the whole thing as some kind of hush-hush negotiation, but the reality is that most of it is globally standardized and it'd be very possible to write it in such a way that would permit public debate over the broad strokes of all aspects of the treaty, as well as most details. If we can talk about nuclear weapons in an open way without giving away the classified details (aka SALT I & II), then certainly we can talk about trade and investment law.
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2015 14:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 14:35 |
|
|
Boon posted:Except Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, etc... can't misquote, mislead, or obfuscate if they don't have anything to go on. Nah you're totally wrong about this. You might work in a job that involves classified material (and frankly that's nothing special since tons of people do) but there's still plenty of ways to talk about that job in a non-classified way. Indeed the public talks about far more sensitive material than trade and investment law all the loving time. Beyond that, it isn't the government's role to decide the press would disagree with a policy initiative and therefore cut them out of the discussion. The simple fact is that massive multi-part trade treaties that affect everyone in the world should be widely debated, and it's absurd to suggest otherwise. Kaal fucked around with this message at 15:28 on Jun 14, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
Boon posted:It's weird then, that the details of this treaty cannot be found through other countries, no? The US is not negotiating with itself in a vaccuum after all. It is, however, threatening anyone who steps out of line during the negotiations. I mean basically this whole thing comes down to, "Do you believe that the megacorporations who are writing this are operating in good faith with the public's interest despite all signs to the contrary?" If not, then there's no reason to trust them.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
Boon posted:And while I could discuss my job in an unclassified manner, it would give you no idea what the true implications are but would certainly leave it open for a considerable amount of speculation that I would have no way to rebuke because of the classified details it would require. You might think so, but that isn't actually true. People deal with sensitive information all the time in all sorts of fields. It's not like a nurse or a soldier or a lawyer or a bureaucrat can't talk about her job without also divulging secret information. Somewhere, in whatever office or division you work in, there is a PR person whose job is to work with the press and portray your work in an open and non-classified manner. This is true for the most secretive elements of human society, so it is also true for whatever middling job you work at. And while you might want to portray yourself as working for the Secret Squirrel Illuminati, the fact is that you're probably more than capable of discussing 9/10ths of what you do on a day-to-day basis without involving classified material at all. Certainly this is true of most jobs involving classified information. In any case, this is true about the TPP. Kaal fucked around with this message at 15:42 on Jun 14, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
Boon posted:I might think so, because I see it everyday in D&D. My job is in Tomahawk cruise missiles, staff operations and planning. I see bullshit and misinformation in D&D all the time but I can't discuss exactly why someone is completely off base other than just saying, "You're wrong, but I can't tell you why but you should trust me" because obviously that doesn't work in D&D because it's just an argument from authority. If someone demands proof or logical reasoning, I am legally prevented from doing so. How can you not understand how this is a problem in public discourse? Lol. Ok well I know for a fact that you aren't "legally prevented" from talking about the basic principles of your job, why it's important, how it functions on a day-to-day basis, who are the organizations involved, etc. You might not be able to talk about specific elements about operational deployments or equipment design, but you're more than capable of discussing the broad strokes of your job in a way that the public understands and is able to base policy opinions on. Beyond that, you'd be quite able to speak even more freely with congressional representatives in a closed session.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2015 15:46
|
|
|
Boon posted:The broad strokes aren't what's important duder. You're talking PR. Well, duder, that's pretty much totally bullshit. Human society works on knowing the broad strokes. You have political, personal and professional opinions on a broad range of topics, and none of them are based on the exact wording of all the laws that govern them. There's no need to know every last detail about a topic before forming a meaningful opinion about it. Certainly if you work with classified material then you should know that. Which brings us back to the point, which is that it is quite possible for the TPP to be talked about in a fairly open way without necessarily divulging any information that needs to be sensitive. Kaal fucked around with this message at 15:55 on Jun 14, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2015 15:52
|
|
|
Boon posted:Opinion, yeah you're probably right. To effectively debate and negotiate however? The fewer details I know the worse position I'm in. Then again, you have nothing to lose by just blasting an opinion out there so why should you care about the details? "That's just, like, your opinion man" is not a particularly persuasive response. Political discourse is the exchange of opinion. Democracy is pretty much founded on the idea that a good society incorporates the opinions of all its citizenry.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
Boon posted:But not a representative democracy, which is what we are. A representative democracy is a democracy, and it is also founded on the same principle of open public participation and investment in the political process. Society becomes unstable when large parts of the population feel disengaged from the wheels of power. These are basic principles of government here.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
Boon posted:Our opinions are voiced at the polls, and only at the polls when it comes to federal matters. This isn't true at all, particularly in a representative democracy where the representatives are bound to uphold the interests of the people they represent. quote:Can broad ideas for a very complicated policy lead to speculation or interested opposition and eventually bad opinion? Can bad opinion be destructive to good policy? In this situation, good policy is just an idea not related to any current policy. It is not within the power of government to simply decide it no longer wants to listen to its citizens, nor is that within its best interest. Understand that fundamentally you are crafting a "Father Knows Best" argument, which is pretty much antithetical to good government. Boon posted:Don't patronize me. What you're saying does not mean that you have an explicit right to review all matters of state at any time you wish. You've ceded that right by simply existing in a representative democracy. It may still be a democracy but it's got that caveat. Not all matters of state at any time, but most matters of state at most times. And that doesn't have to do with the representative democracy / pure democracy distinction at all, since even a pure democracy can recognize the need for discretion and find accommodation. Similarly, not all of our representatives have an explicit right to review all matters of state at any time, but they still figure out ways to maintain congressional oversight as a collective entity, and they also maintain their right to review most matters of state at most times (which is also a real problem with the TPP). Kaal fucked around with this message at 16:18 on Jun 14, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
Boon posted:If you cede that not all matters of state are under your purview at any given time then what mechanism decides what you get to see whenever you want? What defines, "most"? I'm not "ceding" anything, these are basic principles of our government. And specifically the mechanism is the US Constitution and a series of Supreme Court judgments that have made it clear that the public has a fundamental right to know. That right is balanced against the government's responsibility to guard American interests. The enforcement of that balance is generally contingent upon the proof that censorship is required in the interests of national security, or personal privacy. It's the difference between saying, "There's a Tomahawk cruise missile with XYZ specifications and design specs, which is located at the following coordinates" and "There's a Tomahawk cruise missile with Block B Specifications and is located at the Howardson Strategic Air Force Base." There's a whole host of elements that you could look into, far too many to go into in a thread like this, but a good place to start would be Near v. Minnesota, and of course the First Amendment. Kaal fucked around with this message at 16:43 on Jun 14, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 14:35 |
|
|
I'd agree that it's been a good conversation. Certainly I think that we've discussed the point pretty well and have a good idea of the other's position, and since I need to run off to work I think that I'll just have to leave it at that.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2015 16:46
|
|