Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Monday May 18 2015, @06:06AM   Printer-friendly
from the national-sovereignty-in-peril dept.

Common Dreams reports:

Now that official debate has begun, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) wants to pass Fast Track bill before Memorial Day.

[...] The U.S. Senate on [May 14] approved a motion to begin debate on the Fast Track authority President Barack Obama needs to advance controversial trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The measure passed 65-33.

Senate Democrats blocked the first attempt to proceed on the trade legislation on Tuesday, but backtracked in the wake of further negotiations--and intense pressure from the White House.

Boing Boing warns URGENT: Senate backtracks on TPP fasttrack--call Congress to oppose the Trans Pacific Partnership

TPP is a treaty negotiated under extraordinary secrecy--Members of Congress were threatened with jail for discussing its contents--and virtually everything we know about it comes from leaks. One thing we do know is that it contains a provision to let multinational corporations sue governments for passing environmental and labor laws that undermine their profits (similar provisions in other treaties have been used by tobacco companies to sue the Australian government over a law mandating plain packaging for cigarettes). We also know that TPP hardens the worst elements of US copyright, trumping Congress's right to review the term of copyright and the scope of the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA (these are the rules that allowed John Deere to claim that farmers don't own their tractors, because of the copyrights in the software in their engines).

The Electronic Frontier Foundation needs your help to contact your Congresscritter to block this. TPP is a fragile monster, and it can really only pass if the Congress abdicates its legislative authority and lets the President make up laws and legal obligations without Congressional input. The Republican Congress--and many Democrats--is vulnerable to messages from voters opposing the extension of these powers to the President.

Related: Fast-Track Trade Measure Fails Key Test Vote In Senate

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by dmbasso on Monday May 18 2015, @06:52AM

    by dmbasso (3237) on Monday May 18 2015, @06:52AM (#184378)

    You say democracy does not work based on the false assumption that's the system currently in place. It is not. Someone more knowledgeable may correct me if I'm mistaken, but I believe what we have in place is a veiled oligarchy. That's what we need to get rid of.

    If you wanna help, join http://www.wolf-pac.com/ [wolf-pac.com]

    --
    `echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Interesting=1, Informative=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @07:07AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @07:07AM (#184380)

    You misunderstand the objection to the system currently in place and substitute your own assumptions about oligarchy. The objection is about voter idiocy. Idiot voters completely ignore policy and don't care who's in charge as long as they get to participate in a pointless popularity contest. The voters are the problem.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by dmbasso on Monday May 18 2015, @07:22AM

      by dmbasso (3237) on Monday May 18 2015, @07:22AM (#184386)

      The voters are the problem.

      No, the voters are irrelevant. When all the options they have have been selected by the oligarchs long before the election, voting or not voting has the exact same outcome. It doesn't matter if the voters are idiot or not.

      --
      `echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @07:32AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @07:32AM (#184389)

        You know there are other candidates outside the two party system, right? If enough voters actually voted for them, they would actually win. But that won't ever happen because independent candidates aren't popular winners, so the idiot voters won't ever vote for them. The voters are the problem.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by dmbasso on Monday May 18 2015, @07:59AM

          by dmbasso (3237) on Monday May 18 2015, @07:59AM (#184396)

          You know there are other candidates outside the two party system, right? If enough voters actually voted for them, they would actually win.

          Except they don't have any visibility, because their campaigns are not overflown with corporate money. As the probability of any of them winning is low, the most rational decision is to vote for the least worse of the top contenders.

          It is a perception trick, psychology manipulation... not unlike a magician making you believe in a illusion. You are saying people are idiots for believing in the magician's illusion. I'm saying ban the fucking magician.

          --
          `echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @08:47AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @08:47AM (#184406)

            During his election where did Obama advertise that he was going to support these sorts of treaties? The answer? He didn't. Voters vote for him based on one thing and, once elected, he does something else. This is not something easily remedied by simply voting for someone else. Every candidate will proclaim what the public wants to hear during elections. Once elected they all change their minds and do something they didn't tell us they were going to do while running. The fact that this isn't what politicians advertise during elections is evidence that this is not what the American people want and that the politicians running for office/in office know this.

          • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @08:53AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @08:53AM (#184409)

            Except they don't have any visibility, because their campaigns are not overflown with corporate money

            Ultimately it's still the voters responsibility.

            As the probability of any of them winning is low, the most rational decision is to vote for the least worse of the top contenders.

            Really? That "rational decision" is only rational for the case where there's going to be only one election. Don't play that stupid game theory stuff - the politicians play it better. How's that been working out for you all so far?

            The most rational decision in the event you're stuck in a Two Crap Party scenario is to start voting for the candidate that's closest to representing your interest. That candidate might never actually win. But be aware the Two Parties keep an eye for what the voters want and they often actually do try to give the people what they want most. So if more and more people want gay marriage or marijuana or "open carry" that's what they get. And that's what has been happening. The Two Parties have changed with the times - depending on what the voters want.

            Thing is, what the voters want most and what the Corporations want most are often not that conflicting. Most Corporations don't actually care about gay marriage or abortion. And most voters don't care about TPP. If you don't believe me just go speak about gay marriage or abortion and you'd get strong emotions from very many "normal" voters, try again with TPP - and they'll go "Huh what?".

            So the people get gay marriage and the Corporations get TPP. Win-win ;).

            Now if the voters really don't want TPP it's time for them to make more noise about it.

          • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday May 18 2015, @02:30PM

            by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Monday May 18 2015, @02:30PM (#184553)

            As the probability of any of them winning is low, the most rational decision is to vote for the least worse of the top contenders.

            The most rational decision is to vote for evil scumbags forever, thereby ensuring that nothing ever changes? No. That's just irrational and unprincipled, like a grand majority of voters. You have to look beyond the next election and keep voting based on your principles, and disregard the the self-fulfilling prophecies. You don't win by voting for evil; that is for sure.

  • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday May 18 2015, @08:43AM

    by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Monday May 18 2015, @08:43AM (#184402) Homepage
    At best, you have a democratically elected oligarchy. The oligarchy part is indisputable. The "democratically-elected" is the part that needs scrutiny.
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    • (Score: 3, Informative) by AudioGuy on Tuesday May 19 2015, @04:04AM

      by AudioGuy (24) on Tuesday May 19 2015, @04:04AM (#184920) Journal

      "At best, you have a democratically elected oligarchy. The oligarchy part is indisputable. The "democratically-elected" is the part that needs scrutiny."

      And the real problem is that BOTH are degenerate forms of government! Switching from one to the other does not help matters.

      I offer the following, from Aristotle, who wrote the best book on government ever written:

      "Having determined these points, we have next to consider how many forms of government there are, and what they are; and in the first place what are the true forms, for when they are determined the perversions of them will at once be apparent. The words constitution and government have the same meaning, and the government, which is the supreme authority in states, must be in the hands of one, or of a few, or of the many. The true forms of government, therefore, are those in which the one, or the few, or the many, govern with a view to the common interest; but governments which rule with a view to the private interest, whether of the one or of the few, or of the many, are perversions. For the members of a state, if they are truly citizens, ought to participate in its advantages. Of forms of government in which one rules, we call that which regards the common interests, kingship or royalty; that in which more than one, but not many, rule, aristocracy; and it is so called, either because the rulers are the best men, or because they have at heart the best interests of the state and of the citizens. But when the citizens at large administer the state for the common interest, the government is called by the generic name- a constitution. And there is a reason for this use of language. One man or a few may excel in virtue; but as the number increases it becomes more difficult for them to attain perfection in every kind of virtue, though they may in military virtue, for this is found in the masses. Hence in a constitutional government the fighting-men have the supreme power, and those who possess arms are the citizens.

      Of the above-mentioned forms, the perversions are as follows: of royalty, tyranny; of aristocracy, oligarchy; of constitutional government, democracy. For tyranny is a kind of monarchy which has in view the interest of the monarch only; oligarchy has in view the interest of the wealthy; democracy, of the needy: none of them the common good of all."

      The best form of government is constitutional government. Which we have lost.

      An earlier commenter wanted to know what was better than democracy. I offer the above for consideration.

      • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday May 19 2015, @07:49AM

        by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday May 19 2015, @07:49AM (#184965) Homepage
        I think the most important part of that quote is the "as the number increases it becomes more difficult" part. I've moved from a 60m-population country to a 5m-population country, and thence to a 1m-population country. Almost always, when I'm wandering around town, or when I visit other towns, I bump into people I know. The locals even desccribe their whole country as a "village" for this reason. It's a lot harder for the abusive few (oligarchy, who would typically be plutarchy, but I prefer to maintain the distinction) to attain such a position in such a situation, simply because they're closer to more of the population, the grapevine reaches a larger proportion of the electorate, any corruption is harder to get away with. And I like it that way.

        For that reason, I'd like to see the larger countries broken up. Give Bavaria and Texas back their independence. Sure, have trading and travel agreements, have legal alignment agreements even, but have self-governance. Don't get me wrong, I'm very pro-EU, and love the Euro (yay, 6 countries in 10 days last month, and didn't need to change money once), so I don't have a problem with super-structures existing. However, despite what the Flaily Fail tells you about pints and sausages, the EU really doesn't have that much control over the lives of hoi poloi in each individual country.
        --
        Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 19 2015, @06:51PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 19 2015, @06:51PM (#185175)

        Of the above-mentioned forms, the perversions are as follows: ... of constitutional government, democracy. For ... democracy [is a kind of constitutional government which has in view the interest] of the needy [only]

        I don't really see how that follows. I understand the rest, but I don't understand how democracy is a perversion of a constitutional government, nor how it is a perversion that only has a vested interest in the needy. It reads like a false equivalence to me.

  • (Score: 2) by moondrake on Monday May 18 2015, @08:49AM

    by moondrake (2658) on Monday May 18 2015, @08:49AM (#184408)

    > It is not.
    Why not?

    Without a good answer to that question we can only judge the system by what it purports to be. Consider:
    - Communism works, but the USSR (and China, N. Korea, etc) were not real communists
    - Monarchy works, but King George III was not a real monarch

    We know over 2000 years that Democracy has problems. Whether you agree with all Plato's arguments or not, I'd say history shows that there is a real danger that democracy selects for people that win elections, which is not the same as people who govern well. This problem is part of democracy. You cannot simply say, its not democracy's fault that we have a veiled oligarchy, as this is exactly one of the consequences of setting up a democratic system. It might be possible to patch up a democracy to prevent such problems, but I am not very confident in that (laws can always be changed or ignored. Besides, nobody currently in power is going to do the patching).

    I also find it quite narrow-minded to think that the current system is the best one. There are ways of governing possible in the current age that were impossible 30 years ago. Such things have never been tried and might have advantages (though I am sure they come with their own set of problems).

    I should write a book about it and after a bloody war, some psychopath will attempt to implement it all wrong...

    • (Score: 2) by tathra on Monday May 18 2015, @07:31PM

      by tathra (3367) on Monday May 18 2015, @07:31PM (#184747)

      - Communism works, but the USSR (and China, N. Korea, etc) were not real communists

      communism isn't a political system, its an economic system. if you're going to list communism as a political system, you must also list capitalism, ie, oligarchy or feudalism (eg, the people with the most capital have all the power, our exact system today). capitalism does have direct equivalencies to political systems, what's the political equivalent to communism? and don't say "communism" because its not a political system, you know, by definition.

      • (Score: 1) by moondrake on Monday May 18 2015, @08:56PM

        by moondrake (2658) on Monday May 18 2015, @08:56PM (#184808)

        Agreed (and a silly mistake of me, having argued this exact point at some moment in the past).

        My main point still stands though.

        • (Score: 2) by tathra on Monday May 18 2015, @09:55PM

          by tathra (3367) on Monday May 18 2015, @09:55PM (#184837)

          i agree, democracy has problems. its basically just mob rule. what are the alternatives though (specifically the ones you say weren't possible 30 years ago)? authoritarianism/totalitarianism are pretty obviously bad; monarchies are hit-or-miss, depending on the individual ruler, and can fluctuate wildly; afaik, that just leaves us with various flavors of democracy (since i brought it up earlier, i'm pretty sure democracy would be the political equivalent of communism).

          • (Score: 2) by moondrake on Wednesday May 20 2015, @08:38AM

            by moondrake (2658) on Wednesday May 20 2015, @08:38AM (#185353)

            well, the "should write a book about it" was meant mostly tongue in cheek, but I do not think one can propose a consistent new political system in a few lines. Besides, I am a scientist, and never studied political "sciences", so I would have to do research.

            A major problem with the current implementation of democracy in most countries is that it works by selecting representatives. If people were to directly vote, they made make stupid decisions, but it is much more difficult to make selfish decisions. However, the problem is that a lot of people select evil/selfish or incompetent representatives. Power accumulated in such people is never a good idea.

            I think the world is currently connected well enough to move to far more direct forms of democracy. People can collect info on all kinds of things, and people can quickly vote on such things. There is much less need for representatives. Switzerland is a nice example of such a system, but is still mostly semi-direct. One of the problems that need to be solved is how to get a significant group of people interested in understanding complex problems, so that they can make a qualified decision on this.

            Merging direct democracy with some kind of AI decision making could be interesting. There are fun little projects around (like this one [zemerge.com] that I think should be further developed and tested. To make a car analogy: humans can drive a car, but make mistakes because of being tired, emotions, limited capacities, etc. But we can, with a group of people, program a car to nearly always drive perfectly (at least, I think we can). Why could we not program a computer to make decisions that are always best for the country/city?

            I am sure many of us would get nervous when hearing that I propose to let an emotionless machine (which may have bugs) control a country, but I actually think it would be not worse compared to some of the jokers that have power now. Machines are reliable though, they will never break the constitution, nor let emotions or money dictate policy. There needs to be a safety switch ("checks and balances") though, to take care of bugs and other unforeseen issues. It would be trivial to just allow all people to veto AI government decisions. And a system for updating the set of rules needs to be developed.

            Rather than think and discuss endlessly about the pros and cons of such a system, I think it should just be tested on a small scale.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @11:24PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @11:24PM (#184875)

      We know over 2000 years that Democracy has problems. Whether you agree with all Plato's arguments or not, I'd say history shows that there is a real danger that democracy selects for people that win elections, which is not the same as people who govern well.

      Your mistake--and the mistake of many others--is in believing that democratic elections are to select people who govern well. It does not. As others have pointed out the painfully obvious, politicians routinely promise one thing while campaigning and do another after being elected. Rather democratic elections mean that elected officials who govern poorly can be easily removed, at least in theory. Before the birth of modern democracy, those who governed poorly often could only be removed by (typically violent) revolutions or assassination. In that sense, modern democracy is a definite improvement. Of course, it goes without saying that we can and should make some improvements to the system. It seems to me that one thing that needs desperate attention is to raise up a better informed electorate. It makes it a bit harder to bamboozle voters if they can immediately see through the obvious bullshit that a politician is proffering to them at election time.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @10:12AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @10:12AM (#184440)

    You say democracy does not work based on the false assumption that's the system currently in place. It is not.

    So, you mean Democracy is like Agile?