Slashdot Mirror
Is Public Debate of Trade Agreements Against the Public Interest?
onproton writes The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), currently being negotiated in secret, has been subject to numerous draft leaks that indicate these talks are potentially harmful to everything from public health to internet freedom. So why isn't the public involved, and why are the terms of the agreement being debated behind closed doors? According to New Zealand's current Trade Minister, Tim Groser, full disclosure of what is being discussed would likely lead to "public debate on an ill-informed basis before the deal has been done." Leaving one to question how revealing the full context and scope of the agreement talks would lead to an increase in misinformation rather than clarity.
So no public debate based on no disclosure is better than ill-informed debate based on full disclosure? He might as well have said that as a form of government, dictatorship is superior to democracy.
According to New Zealand's current Trade Minister, Tim Groser, full disclosure of what is being discussed would likely lead to "public debate on an ill-informed basis before the deal has been done."
"We have to pass it to find out what's in it!" - Nancy Pelosi
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
"public debate on an ill-informed basis before the deal has been done."
It's a politician's job to inform us. If we are ill-informed they only have themselves to blame. Once the deal is complete it is extremely hard to impossible for the public to have any input because it then becomes a case of take it all or leave it all and there is always something good in there. This then allows some governments to use these treaties to ram extremely unpopular laws through which they can't get passed using the democratic process and, at the same time, foist them off on other nations whose people don't want them either.
Secret negotiations only work when you trust the people negotiating on your behalf to do so in your best interest. Let's face it, regardless of whichever country you are in, do you really trust your politicians to do that for you in this day and age?
its just another example of "we have to pass it before we can find out whats in it"
Id love to see a constitutional convention in my lifetime and a few new amendments. Term limits for congress, public debate on all bills (posted in full for public consumption for at least 180 days before a vote) and no secret treaties
br> there is more, but that would be a good start
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
It won't happen that way. They will gut the bill of rights, that's all.
And term limits don't work, not unless you can put one on the institutions the politicians represent. Take a trip to Mexico to see what good term limits have done them. The same ruling institutional party has been running the show for almost 80 years now. Our republican/democrat charade has been going on for 150. Until the voter develops the strength to resist the propaganda and simply tune out big money campaigns there is no hope.
The idea of majority rule is starting to hit the brick wall. We can't allow a majority to vote away the rights of the rest.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
The TPP isn't for American Citizens. It's for companies that are buying american politicians. That's why. It's very obvious..
- Kevin.
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"-B.Franklin
180 days before the vote? You do realize that there are only 730.5 days in a typical Congressional term? Since the last 200 or so of those days are wasted in Electoral BS, you've just forced Congress to get two years of policy making done in less then a year. Which means the President gets to do whatever he wants.
Like damn near everyone who wants to reduce the power of lobbyists, you have no fucking clue what makes them powerful. Lobbyists are not powerful because of Secret Plans. Their political donations help, but if just having a lot of money to donate guaranteed success we would have a second privately-owned span over the Detroit River rather then the DRIC project. They are powerful because they have the resources to participate in every single debate Congress ever has in a very meaningful way. They can send a dude to every Subcommittee meeting and have a very high-level discussion over whether obscure proposal X would hurt them. The People, as a body, have extremely limited bandwidth; and most of the time a lot of it is taken up by things that Congress has no control over.
What would actually happen in your system is Congress would post dozens of half-baked ideas in January, the people would bitch to high heaven about precisely three of them, and lobbyists would make a killing re-writing the rest.
> Most of the nogotiations are, or should not be, a game, where you try to achieve advantage over the other "partners", but try an agreement that benefits boths sides, or all, sides of the agreement.
Oh, dear. _All_ negotiations are games. Your goals, as an honest negotiator, should include your personal and group benefits, and do not have to include _hurting_ other people in the process. But the refusal to acknowledge that the game exists is much like "I refuse to play office politics." The people who make such claims are generally just very bad at it, and thus want everyone else to be equally hampered, or a very few of them are very subtle and want to be able to play their best game while their potential competitors think the game is not in progress.
If you worked for or with me, I'd be delighted to walk you through some of the typical salary negotiation games just so you're aware that they exist and in what ways they're inevitable. It helps reduce the conflicts and backbiting and tragic that occur when the games are kept entirely secret and the negotiations occur without the knowledge of other interested or directly affected parties.
Keep in mind that every state has strict term limits. Approximately 0 of them are significantly better run the the Feds. The problem with our democracy isn't the faces we're sending to Washington. It's the people who vote for those faces. And yes, I just said that most of the problems the American people have with American democracy are the fault of the American people.
We don't agree on jack-squat. Paul Ryan strongly believes that one of the biggest problems facing the nation today is that it is over-taxed, particularly on the wealthy. If you cut their taxes and allow them to create jobs everyone will be better off. Barack Obama believes the opposite. Therefore for them to agree on a budget (which includes taxes), they basically have to base it entirely on the last year's budget (aka: the one everyone hates), because otherwise one of them would be admitting defeat.
And the whole goddamn time they have snipe at each-other in a ridiculous attempt to gain some trivial advantage in negotiations our grandchildren will not give a fuck about. Seriously. A couple years back Bush's tax cuts expired, and there was a massive government shutdown because Obama wanted them to expire for like 99.8% of Americans, but for taxes to go up on the others; but Paul Ryan wanted to keep them around for every-damn-body. As a Democrat I loved that Obama stood up for his principles, because they are my principles, but even I am objective enough to acknowledge it was a fucking stupid fight to have.
The only ways to reduce the BS would be mass-murder of roughly 10 million of the voters from one side or the other, or centralize power more so that the guy who came in second didn't have veto-power over public policy.
A cultural-shift that would shame particularly outlandish ideas would probably help too, but that's unlikely when so many cling to things. Risking the flamewar that this might generate, the second amendment of the Constitution of the United States, even if one interprets it in the most liberal-as-in-permissive fashion, was written before the industrial revolution turned firearms into inexpensive commodities and before pistols were practical for anything more than honor duels. Hell, the long-guns generally weren't even rifles, they were smoothbore, muzzle-loading muskets, and only suitable for mass-volley. Each weapon was individually produced by a gunsmithing shop, and all parts had to be custom worked to make the weapon function. As a consequence, each weapon was very, very expensive and require service that was itself expensive.
The US Constitution was not written with the intent that firearms would cost less than a week's salary, would contain multiple rounds that would either self-chamber or be quickly chambered by the user, could be easily concealed under fairly immodest clothing, could accurately target at fairly considerable distances, and could function for hundreds of rounds with little more than regular cleaning. Even your average low-end pistol from companies like Jimenez Firearms will meet all of these conditions for around $125. So, contrast with what would have been thousands of dollars in today's money for slow, hard to reload, inaccurate, temperamental, and custom made, to today's $125 pistol or $200 rifle at the bottom end, through hundreds of dollars (and usually not thousands!) for higher end models.
A household of old might have owned more than one firearm, but it's exceedingly unlikely that a household would have had more than two firearms per capable man, and just about all would have been long-guns. By contrast, gun culture in the United States seems to encourage the ownership of as many firearms as possible and for as many people as possible to own firearms, particularly pistols. That has led to a significant amount of firearms violence, yet that firearms culture insists that there isn't a problem. Unfortunately, their "good guy with a firearm can stop a bad guy with a firearm" generally means that the bad guy has already used his firearm at least once and has made for at least one victim, and doesn't account for when the good guy with the firearm becomes the bad guy with the firearm. We're all the good guy until we decide to offend and become the bad guy.
And all of this is centered around a very small amount of ambiguous text that appears to cover more than one concept in a document whose authors are no longer alive to consult for their meaning. Hence my thoughts on a cultural shift to shame people. It's not that all guns are bad, but with the sheer number of firearms in the wild it's become possible for guns to be universally possessed by everyone regardless of intent, even if they have to technically be illegally obtained in order to get, as that sheer number of weapons makes for opportunity to illegally obtain. Since the law is apparently powerless to stop it, societal shame is the only thing that might be able to make a dent.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
except for none of what you said matters at all in the reality of it. The 2nd amendment was written for one reason and one reason only. to keep the federal government in text. Its not ambiguous at all, its pretty clear. its 1 god damn sentence which means that the people have the right to protect themselves, from both foreign and domestic threats.
The only people who think there is wiggle room in the constitution, and the 2nd specifically are agenda driven people, people who want to disarm america so that the plutocracy can reign supreme.
how about shaming people who dont work hard? or shaming people who dont participate in civics, local or national? why would you want to shame someone for what is a basic right to self defense??
I guess we could just give everyone rape whistles and everyone will be ok though
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
A mutually beneficial trade agreement is pretty simple. Don't blow us up and we'll allow you to freely trade with us. Get much more specific that and you are just carving out little exceptions to protect whichever pet industries fill your coffers.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.