TPP vs. Democracy: Leaked Draft of Secretive Trade Deal Spells Out Plan for Corporate Power Grab

a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

It's simple. The people need to regulate their gov't, hence our democracy. That means we, the people, need to hold them accountable, and we have been failing miserably over the decades. I think I addressed your position in my post above, which was in regard to greencmp.

originally posted by: Flux8
a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

It's simple. The people need to regulate their gov't, hence our democracy. That means we, the people, need to hold them accountable, and we have been failing miserably over the decades. I think I addressed your position in my post above, which was in regard to greencmp.

I understand what you are saying here, but I think it's time for us to try something different, and I think an anarchist society is the answer.

Maybe even competing governments, instead of having one, centralized, place for which we put all human power imaginable.

If competition between businesses is good for the consumer, then competition between governments would be a win for citizens for the same reason.

I am simply calling out that, if we continue doing what we've been doing (cycles of revolution and tyranny), we are only setting ourselves up for future failures (wash, rinse, repeat ad ininitum).

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon
I understand what you are saying here, but I think it's time for us to try something different, and I think an anarchist society is the answer.

Maybe even competing governments, instead of having one, centralized, place for which we put all human power imaginable.

If competition between businesses is good for the consumer, then competition between governments would be a win for citizens for the same reason.

I am simply calling out that, if we continue doing what we've been doing (cycles of revolution and tyranny), we are only setting ourselves up for future failures (wash, rinse, repeat ad ininitum).

I disagree with an anarchist society, if that's what you want just take a look at Somalia. I don't know about you but I would prefer to not live in Somalia. Putting aside issues such as law enforcement, a nation that's anarchist loses the ability to protect it's borders which results in things like our coastline becoming the new dumping grounds for the rest of the worlds waste.

On the subject of competing governments we already have this. They're called elections. In elections multiple people with different viewpoints, agendas, and goals make their case as to how to steer government, and even the scale of government. We also have city, state, and federal levels which compete with each other for power and jurisdiction.

The Seattle City Council resoundingly approved a resolution Monday evening cementing its opposition to so-called Fast Track authority that's needed to speed passage of corporate-friendly, rights-trampling trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

The resolution (pdf), which passed the nine-member council unanimously, expresses concern with the "closed-door manner" in which that 12-nation pact is being brokered, as well as its potential to "undermine local governmental authority to create reasonable rules and regulations, including those related to environmental safeguards, future climate policy, and food safety standards."

Furthermore, it outright opposes Fast Track authority, which would allow the TPP to be finalized with no opportunity for Congress to amend, review, or debate it. Lawmakers are expected to take up Fast Track as soon as they return from Easter recess on April 13.

"I am pro-trade," insisted councilmember Mike O'Brien, the resolution's other co-sponsor. "And I believe the U.S. can negotiate truly progressive trade deals. But I oppose Fast Track for the TPP because Seattle has some of the highest environmental and labor standards in the country, and it is critical that multinational corporations do not have the power to undermine our laws or values."

www.commondreams.org...

Some Big Trans Pacific Partnership (plus 'fast-track' gang):

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)

Committee chair Orrin Hatch (R-Utah),

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)

and libertarian darling:

Meanwhile, House Ways and Means Committee chair Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) pointed to two upcoming events—a visit to Washington, D.C., in late April by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, and a ministerial meeting of the 12 Trans-Pacific Partnership countries in May—as reasons to push full steam ahead with Fast Track.

"We've got exterior deadlines that I think we need to be mindful of," Ryan told reporters last week.

www.commondreams.org...

a reply to: Aazadan

I disagree with an anarchist society, if that's what you want just take a look at Somalia. I don't know about you but I would prefer to not live in Somalia. Putting aside issues such as law enforcement, a nation that's anarchist loses the ability to protect it's borders which results in things like our coastline becoming the new dumping grounds for the rest of the worlds waste.

Somalia is not an anarchist nation, they are a failed state that has been preyed on by numerous military dictatorships. Somalians lack access to the needed resources to properly defend themselves--not government.

Government and organization are not mutually inclusive concepts, government is one form of organization, but organization happens outside of government.

Anarchy is the voluntary organization of organisms according to their nature; government is the coercive organization of organisms against their nature.

Anarchy is also a form of organization.

Human action is not compelled by government alone. There are many forces that push us towards doing--our borders being polluted by other countries would be an example of this.

On the subject of competing governments we already have this. They're called elections. In elections multiple people with different viewpoints, agendas, and goals make their case as to how to steer government, and even the scale of government. We also have city, state, and federal levels which compete with each other for power and jurisdiction.

We do not have competing governments, we have competing members that want to take roles in a government that is unchanging other than the faces.

When I said competing governments I meant something different. I meant splitting the United States government up into 4 separate governments, and effectively splitting the US up into 4 new countries.

Government one will be left-authoritarian in orientation, government two will be right-authoritarian in orientation, government three will be left-libertarian in orientation, and government 4 will be right-libertarian in orientation.

The catch is that each of the 4 countries holds an open border policy, citizens from any of the 4 countries can freely travel between countries, and even establish themselves as citizens of their chosen country according to the governing style they wish to live under.

In that way you have 4 competing governments vying to win-over the citizens of the neighborhooring 3 countries. Census data should be collected at intervals to determine which governing style people prefer.


As I said before, if we continue doing what we are doing now, this cycle of businesses buying politicians is only going to continue. Writing laws that make it illegal for politicians to take corporate bribes will only push their dealings behind closed doors. As has happened before.

originally posted by: FyreByrd
Some Big Trans Pacific Partnership (plus 'fast-track' gang):

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)

Committee chair Orrin Hatch (R-Utah),

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)

and libertarian darling:

Meanwhile, House Ways and Means Committee chair Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) pointed to two upcoming events—a visit to Washington, D.C., in late April by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, and a ministerial meeting of the 12 Trans-Pacific Partnership countries in May—as reasons to push full steam ahead with Fast Track.

"We've got exterior deadlines that I think we need to be mindful of," Ryan told reporters last week.

www.commondreams.org...

For future reference, Paul Ryan is not a libertarian.

If I haven't communicated clearly I should reiterate that truly free trade requires no legislation, only the removal of obstacles to it.

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon

originally posted by: Flux8
a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

It's simple. The people need to regulate their gov't, hence our democracy. That means we, the people, need to hold them accountable, and we have been failing miserably over the decades. I think I addressed your position in my post above, which was in regard to greencmp.

I understand what you are saying here, but I think it's time for us to try something different, and I think an anarchist society is the answer.

Maybe even competing governments, instead of having one, centralized, place for which we put all human power imaginable.

If competition between businesses is good for the consumer, then competition between governments would be a win for citizens for the same reason.

I am simply calling out that, if we continue doing what we've been doing (cycles of revolution and tyranny), we are only setting ourselves up for future failures (wash, rinse, repeat ad ininitum).

This is essentially what our association of states is supposed to be, a competition of governments vying for populations.

originally posted by: greencmp
If I haven't communicated clearly I should reiterate that truly free trade requires no legislation, only the removal of obstacles to it.

Of course it doesn't require legislation, that's the point. You are not saying anything new or adding to the discussion. It is redundant.

Again, I ask, freedom for whom?

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: FyreByrd
Some Big Trans Pacific Partnership (plus 'fast-track' gang):

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)

Committee chair Orrin Hatch (R-Utah),

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)

and libertarian darling:

Meanwhile, House Ways and Means Committee chair Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) pointed to two upcoming events—a visit to Washington, D.C., in late April by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, and a ministerial meeting of the 12 Trans-Pacific Partnership countries in May—as reasons to push full steam ahead with Fast Track.

"We've got exterior deadlines that I think we need to be mindful of," Ryan told reporters last week.

www.commondreams.org...

For future reference, Paul Ryan is not a libertarian.

If I haven't communicated clearly I should reiterate that truly free trade requires no legislation, only the removal of obstacles to it.

Never in history has there been 'free trade' - it's a bloody myth, a nice story to tell around the fire, but a myth.

originally posted by: Flux8

originally posted by: greencmp
If I haven't communicated clearly I should reiterate that truly free trade requires no legislation, only the removal of obstacles to it.

Of course it doesn't require legislation, that's the point. You are not saying anything new or adding to the discussion. It is redundant.

Again, I ask, freedom for whom?

Freedom for individuals and associations to engage in voluntary trade without interference.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: FyreByrd
Some Big Trans Pacific Partnership (plus 'fast-track' gang):

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)

Committee chair Orrin Hatch (R-Utah),

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)

and libertarian darling:

Meanwhile, House Ways and Means Committee chair Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) pointed to two upcoming events—a visit to Washington, D.C., in late April by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, and a ministerial meeting of the 12 Trans-Pacific Partnership countries in May—as reasons to push full steam ahead with Fast Track.

"We've got exterior deadlines that I think we need to be mindful of," Ryan told reporters last week.

www.commondreams.org...

For future reference, Paul Ryan is not a libertarian.

If I haven't communicated clearly I should reiterate that truly free trade requires no legislation, only the removal of obstacles to it.

Never in history has there been 'free trade' - it's a bloody myth, a nice story to tell around the fire, but a myth.

There actually was a near anarchy here in north america in the 17th century that lasted for 80 years and was the most successful colony as a result.

Holy Experiment

"If we will not be governed by God, we must be governed by tyrants."

-William Penn

originally posted by: greencmp
This is essentially what our association of states is supposed to be, a competition of governments vying for populations.

Where did this notion come from???

Our association of states was NOT supposed to be a competition of gov'ts vying for populations, (ie- California = oligarchy, Texas = monarchy, Massachussetts = dictatorship). That's absurd. We, the people, the states, are a democracy, not an anarchy or any other such, (anarchy, which is only a transitional state between gov'ts, and short lived at best). If those states do not like the confederacy then they (supposedly) have the right to secede from the union. Go it alone. Be your own country. But you will NOT be a part of the confederacy... the American gov't... the UNION.

Seriously, where did this idea/notion ever come from, a competition of gov'ts within the union??

originally posted by: Flux8

originally posted by: greencmp
This is essentially what our association of states is supposed to be, a competition of governments vying for populations.

Where did this notion come from???

Our association of states was NOT supposed to be a competition of gov'ts vying for populations, (ie- California = oligarchy, Texas = monarchy, Massachussetts = dictatorship). That's absurd. We, the people, the states, are a democracy, not an anarchy or any other such, (anarchy, which is only a transitional state between gov'ts, and short lived at best). If those states do not like the confederacy then they (supposedly) have the right to secede from the union. Go it alone. Be your own country. But you will NOT be a part of the confederacy... the American gov't... the UNION.

Seriously, here did this idea/notion ever come from, a competition of gov'ts within the union??

The states were and are still states, that is why we call them states. Each one has its own government.

Populations are encouraged to migrate away from the least free states and to the most free, liberal and open states. This is the only non-political mechanism which citizens have to register their disapproval of tyranny.

originally posted by: [post=19185260]greencmp[/post
Freedom for individuals and associations to engage in voluntary trade without interference.

Like slavery. Those two slave trading companies should be allowed to trade their "wares, goods, and services" freely, without interference.

Or those companies, (that over-fished the community's waters to the point of extinction) should be allowed to do so in the name of their profit, regardless of the effects it has on the environment and the people.

Yeah, those pesky regulations keep getting in the way.

originally posted by: Flux8

originally posted by: [post=19185260]greencmp[/post
Freedom for individuals and associations to engage in voluntary trade without interference.

Like slavery. Those two slave trading companies should be allowed to trade their "wares, goods, and services" freely, without interference.

Or those companies, (that over-fished the community's waters to the point of extinction) should be allowed to do so in the name of their profit, regardless of the effects it has on the environment and the people.

Yeah, those pesky regulations keep getting in the way.

What part of voluntary did you not get?

originally posted by: greencmp
The states were and are still states, that is why we call them states. Each one has its own government.

Populations are encouraged to migrate away from the least free states and to the most free, liberal and open states. This is the only non-political mechanism which citizens have to register their disapproval of tyranny.

Each state does not have it's own "gov't", in the sense of being a monarchy, democracy, plutocracy, oligarchy, autocracy, technocracy, etc. Each one is a democracy under the union which is our confederated gov't, which is ruled by federal law... Confederacy law... Represented by those elected into congress to represent each state in the confederacy and the confederate laws that are proposed and/or passed.

Each state has it's own statutory law (state law) which may not supersede federal law (confederacy law). Therefore, if a state wants to be/have it's own gov't then it must secede from the union, thereby making themselves their own country. Then, they can impose whatever gov't they want.

And populations are neither encouraged nor discouraged to migrate away from the least "free, liberal, and open" states.

Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are writing?

a reply to: greencmp

Do you mean "voluntary" between two parties, as if the 3, 4, 5 or more parties "non-seen" to the transaction are not involved/have a say in the matter. It is overly simplistic. I think Bastiat would digress.

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: FyreByrd
Some Big Trans Pacific Partnership (plus 'fast-track' gang):

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)

Committee chair Orrin Hatch (R-Utah),

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)

and libertarian darling:

Meanwhile, House Ways and Means Committee chair Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) pointed to two upcoming events—a visit to Washington, D.C., in late April by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, and a ministerial meeting of the 12 Trans-Pacific Partnership countries in May—as reasons to push full steam ahead with Fast Track.

"We've got exterior deadlines that I think we need to be mindful of," Ryan told reporters last week.

www.commondreams.org...

For future reference, Paul Ryan is not a libertarian.

If I haven't communicated clearly I should reiterate that truly free trade requires no legislation, only the removal of obstacles to it.

Never in history has there been 'free trade' - it's a bloody myth, a nice story to tell around the fire, but a myth.

There actually was a near anarchy here in north america in the 17th century that lasted for 80 years and was the most successful colony as a result.

Holy Experiment

"If we will not be governed by God, we must be governed by tyrants."

-William Penn

I guess that would depend the definition of success. Thanks for the reference, I'll take a look at it.

Update after looking at the reference:

the experiment failed

And it could not really be labeled as anarchy when Penn owned all the land - he may have been a benevolent dictator but nonetheless a dictator. And they were following a set LAW as defined by Penn and the Quaker doctrine. It's called 'norms' and all groups have them - non written rules.

The Quaker's actually have an excellent 'governance' model they've been using for 350 years based on consensus. But it only works if all participants are school in it's methods and committed to following them even when they don't agree.

The closest I've seen to a working anarchic governance is Alcoholics Anonymous - and they are not a true anarchy either (though it really acts like one at some levels.

originally posted by: Flux8

originally posted by: greencmp
This is essentially what our association of states is supposed to be, a competition of governments vying for populations.

Where did this notion come from???

Our association of states was NOT supposed to be a competition of gov'ts vying for populations, (ie- California = oligarchy, Texas = monarchy, Massachussetts = dictatorship). That's absurd. We, the people, the states, are a democracy, not an anarchy or any other such, (anarchy, which is only a transitional state between gov'ts, and short lived at best). If those states do not like the confederacy then they (supposedly) have the right to secede from the union. Go it alone. Be your own country. But you will NOT be a part of the confederacy... the American gov't... the UNION.

Seriously, where did this idea/notion ever come from, a competition of gov'ts within the union??

As an off-topic aside. Maybe the states are competing in the manner you state. We here in the progressive/liberal west are getting new residents all the time from the Kansases and Floridas of the Union.