Slashdot Mirror

Hmm. It seems like these abuses of corporate power are getting more and more. Maybe Nader has the right idea after all. I know who I'm voting for this election year.

This may be rather against the prevalent libertarian sentiment of notables like ESR, but this story seems to me to be a result of the libertarian mindset.

Given the choice of being bent over by a large inefficient government, or being bent over by a large efficient corporation, I chose government. Atleast I have the a _potential_ to make a difference in the government.

-Peter

Unfortunately, these taxes might be considered as a backdoor to socialism too :(

Anyone who thinks that, though, is an idiot. In a free capitalist society, who owns clean water and clean air? They are not just there for polluters to use as a convenient dumping ground, they are owned by the public. A lot of the environmental degradation we see is not the fault of capitalism at all, but that of our public representatives. If we, the public, allow producers to pollute for free, or for a cost much less than the cost of dirty air and water, then of course they are going to do so. Getting a fair price for our resources is not socialism, it's just good business.

Of course, it would help if the alleged guardians of public property (politicians) were actually concerned with the public trust as much as they are for bending over for corporate interests.

obVoteNader
--

The simple reason is that they are mis-informed about both issues. PNTR advocates falsely state if the United States does no grant PNTR to China that they will not have all of the trade benefits that China will extend to other countries, most notably WTO benefits. The US and China made an agreement in 1979 that clearly states that China must extend any trade privileges to the US that it gives to other countries. This agreement still applies if the US does not grant PNTR to China, in fact, the US gives away nothing if it does not grant PNTR to China. Anyone who states otherwise regarding this agreement either has not done the proper research or is trying to skew the facts. Quite the opposite is true if the United States does pass the bill for Chinese PNTR. The first thing that the US gives away is its yearly review of trade with China based on Chinese violation of US laws such as labor laws, human rights laws, and environmental laws. The second thing that the US gives away is the ability to enforce any domestic laws relating to labor, human rights, and the environment. This is because if the US grants PNTR to China, it will have to recognize a full WTO relationship with China. As we have seen many times before, the WTO overturns domestic laws that it deems "detrimental to free trade" and would cripple US ability to sway China based on trade. Not to mention that China is a potential threat to US national security. The United States is responsible for 42% of Chinese exports, and is in essence funding China's military mobilization. If China invades Taiwan and the US enters the battle to support them, China has indicated that it would strike out against the US. US importing of Chinese goods would only increase if China were granted PNTR. Why would the US even consider doing this?

Enter multi-national business interests. Until now, many corporations have held back on opening up factories in China because if the US were to restrict Chinese trade, they would stand to lose a lot of money. If PNTR is granted to China then there is a free ticket for these corporations to open up shop in China. With the lax Chinese labor laws, many companies will close manufacturing plants in countries that have better worker's rights to move to China and increase their profit, leaving many unemployed in countries with labor standards. It seems that everything pertaining the the US government these days is wrapped up in big business. It is also these big businesses that limit access to the truth about these issues. They all spread around the same lies that the politicians believe because they are paid to. It seems that Marx's predictions about capitalism are becoming a reality in the very times in which we live. It saddens and embarrasses me that the experiment in democracy that is the United States has been turning into nothing more than a corporate illusion almost from the nation's beginning.

The embargoes against Cuba are another matter altogether. The United States has tried everything it could possibly to do remove Fidel Castro from power. Yet he is still there, out lasting eight, soon to be nine, US presidents. This reflects the general attitude of the US towards Cuba since Cuba fought Spain for its independence one hundred years ago. That attitude is of control without ownership. The US wants control over the Cuban economy and will try anything to gain it. Cuba has set the dangerous precedent of having an economy and government that benefit those in need, an idea that the US can not reconcile. Those who deserve help the most in Cuba receive it, unlike our backwards system of further rewarding those who repress others and already have too much.

This is just a brief analysis of these situations as I see them from various resources that I have come across. Here are a few of the better ones:

• ZNet search for Cuba or China
• Public Citizen

Finally, I believe that this is a big issue right now because Bill Clinton feels that he has to leave some sort of legacy. So far the only thing that he will really be remembered for is scandal and he knows it. Clinton has been a major supporter of PNTR and would love to see this pass and be the final major contribution of his presidency. I believe that if PNTR is granted to China, the US will come to regret it and Clinton will be seen for the liar that he is. Many of the people who voted for Clinton did so because of his policies on gay rights and China. Since entering office, he has changed his stance on both. It is high time for the people of the United States to begin to put their government back where it belongs, in the hands of the people. On November 7, 2000, I urge the people of the United States to elect Ralph Nader as president. Only after we take back our government and force it into democracy can we begin to make meaningful change.

Ralph Reed no longer works for the Christian Coalition - he now runs Century Strategies, a political lobbying & campaign group. He left the CC shortly before they lost their tax exemption when the IRS determined they were not a non-partisan group (no big surprise to anyone with a functioning frontal lobe).

So many people on Slashdot bitch on and on about corporations running things or having an undue influence in public affairs in the States. There is one candidate who is actively campaigning against the current state of affairs. Check out Ralph Nader & the Green Party at www.votenader.org and www.greens.org.