3 ms·

States (and the federal government) are stripped of sovereignty which is given to unelected judges. Now, if you really want to appeal to democracy, then it's pr

States (and the federal government) are stripped of sovereignty which is given to unelected judges. Now, if you really want to appeal to democracy, then it's pretty tough to criticize democratic sovereigns delegating their authority to other parties. Do you also consider the regulatory state (in which various unelected bureaucracies such as the EPA or SEC write regulations with minimal democratic oversight) to be a problem? In any case, I do favor the rule of law, which includes allowing unsympathetic parties to have their day in court and to have those cases decided on the legal merits. I also have no particular affection towards democracy or national sovereignty (I use protection of individual rights as my normative basis, and favor sovereignty and democracy only insofar as they protect individual rights).

crdoconnor 11y ago
>States (and the federal government) are stripped of sovereignty which is given to unelected judges. ...appointed by elected representatives. There's simply no comparison to the ISDS. >I also have no particular affection towards democracy It shows.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  Similarly, the ISDS tribunals are agreed to by elected representatives. The comparison is quite apt.
  - ZenoArrow 11y ago
    > "Similarly, the ISDS tribunals are agreed to by elected representatives." They agree about who represents them in the tribunal, but I don't think they have much choice over whether they are sued or not.
    - yummyfajitas 11y ago
      Federal and state governments also have no choice over whether they are sued for racial discrimination or contract violations.
      - ZenoArrow 11y ago
        That doesn't dispute the point I raised. The point was that the governments do not have a choice about whether to agree to the ISDS proceedings if they sign trade agreements that contain ISDS.
        yummyfajitas 11y ago
        And my point is that state governments don't have a choice about whether to agree to court proceedings over racial discrimination if they sign agreements accepting federal money. I mean yes - this is pretty clear. If a government chooses to allow oversight by courts, they can't choose who sues them. Why single out laws about free trade, as opposed to laws relating to environmental protection or racial discrimination?
        ZenoArrow 11y ago
        Environmental protection and race discrimination laws are designed to protect the health of the world and the dignity of the people that live upon it. The main reason ISDS would be used is if a company's future profits are put in jeopardy. This is either going to be because a democratic decision or a non-democratic decision restricts these profits. In my opinion, democracy wins over profits, and if the decision is non-democratic it's probably made by dictatorship, which is unlikely to take any ISDS decision seriously anyway. The main point though is this, the desire for corporate profits must not overrule the will of the people, and there's a strong possibility that trade agreements with ISDS will not meet this criteria (can see how it has been used already). ISDS has the power to negatively impact the quality of life in a country, and this is the main reason why ISDS is undesirable for the general population whereas environmental protection and racial discrimination laws are not.
        yummyfajitas 11y ago
        tl;dr; It's not really about democracy at all, that's just a post-hoc justification for your anti-corporate agenda. Incidentally, badly implemented environmental or discrimination laws can also negatively impact quality of life, just as badly implemented trade laws can. Why aren't you concerned that bad workers may file bogus discrimination lawsuits, just as tobacco companies file bad lawsuits. (See Ellen Pao as an example.) But I guess that stuff doesn't count, because it doesn't inspire the same negative feelings in you that corporations do.
  - crdoconnor 11y ago
    There is a world of difference between an elected representative giving up democratic oversight and an elected representative transferring democratic oversight. IIRC one of the judges in the "supersedes-supreme-court-rulings" ISDS dispute resolution mechanism is actually appointed by the investor. I'm sure they'll be fair.
- tptacek 11y ago
  Please remain civil.
nmrm2 11y ago
> Now, if you really want to appeal to democracy, then it's pretty tough to criticize democratic sovereigns delegating their authority to other parties. The problem is that TPP is a one-way transfer of power -- the costs of (democratically choosing to) flaunt these courts would be overly onerous to citizens of many signatory states. Because TPP is de facto irreversable, your argument here is structurally similar to the argument that dictators make when their transition to power happens via reforms approved by democractic mechanisms. I.e., just because a democracy at one point approves of a reform, doesn't make that reform tautologically democractic at all future points in time.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  TPP is not irreversible - it's just that by reversing it, consumers will again suffer the hardships associated to non-free trade, just as they currently suffer them now. Lots of laws are "irreversible" in that regard. For example, Obamacare is irreversible because if we reverse it, the people currently receiving wealth transfers will suffer in the exact same way they suffered prior to Obamacare. Does this mean Obamacare is a "one-way transfer of power" and somehow anti-democratic?
  - nmrm2 11y ago
    > TPP is not irreversible I hypothesize that for many signatory nations, it is de facto irreversible. > just as they currently suffer them now. Obviously I don't have the text, but it would be surprising if TPP contained no punitive clauses for openly flaunting the agreement. > Does this mean Obamacare is a "one-way transfer of power" and somehow anti-democratic? No. The "transfer of power" bit is the part that TPP and AFA don't have in common. It is the combination of a law that would be overly costly to change together with a transfer of sovereign power that makes TPP anti-democratic. Either one without the other is fine.
    - yummyfajitas 11y ago
      Obviously I don't have the text, but it would be surprising if TPP contained no punitive clauses for openly flaunting the agreement. Punitive clauses are unenforceable insofar as they extend beyond "if you tariff us we'll tariff you back". Obamacare transfers sovereign power to various unelected agencies (e.g. HHS) as well. I guess you now agree that Obamacare is an anti-democratic measure?

crdoconnor 11y ago

>States (and the federal government) are stripped of sovereignty which is given to unelected judges. ...appointed by elected representatives. There's simply no comparison to the ISDS. >I also have no particular affection towards democracy It shows.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
Similarly, the ISDS tribunals are agreed to by elected representatives. The comparison is quite apt.
- ZenoArrow 11y ago
  > "Similarly, the ISDS tribunals are agreed to by elected representatives." They agree about who represents them in the tribunal, but I don't think they have much choice over whether they are sued or not.
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    Federal and state governments also have no choice over whether they are sued for racial discrimination or contract violations.
    - ZenoArrow 11y ago
      That doesn't dispute the point I raised. The point was that the governments do not have a choice about whether to agree to the ISDS proceedings if they sign trade agreements that contain ISDS.
      - yummyfajitas 11y ago
        And my point is that state governments don't have a choice about whether to agree to court proceedings over racial discrimination if they sign agreements accepting federal money. I mean yes - this is pretty clear. If a government chooses to allow oversight by courts, they can't choose who sues them. Why single out laws about free trade, as opposed to laws relating to environmental protection or racial discrimination?
        ZenoArrow 11y ago
        Environmental protection and race discrimination laws are designed to protect the health of the world and the dignity of the people that live upon it. The main reason ISDS would be used is if a company's future profits are put in jeopardy. This is either going to be because a democratic decision or a non-democratic decision restricts these profits. In my opinion, democracy wins over profits, and if the decision is non-democratic it's probably made by dictatorship, which is unlikely to take any ISDS decision seriously anyway. The main point though is this, the desire for corporate profits must not overrule the will of the people, and there's a strong possibility that trade agreements with ISDS will not meet this criteria (can see how it has been used already). ISDS has the power to negatively impact the quality of life in a country, and this is the main reason why ISDS is undesirable for the general population whereas environmental protection and racial discrimination laws are not.
        yummyfajitas 11y ago
        tl;dr; It's not really about democracy at all, that's just a post-hoc justification for your anti-corporate agenda. Incidentally, badly implemented environmental or discrimination laws can also negatively impact quality of life, just as badly implemented trade laws can. Why aren't you concerned that bad workers may file bogus discrimination lawsuits, just as tobacco companies file bad lawsuits. (See Ellen Pao as an example.) But I guess that stuff doesn't count, because it doesn't inspire the same negative feelings in you that corporations do.
- crdoconnor 11y ago
  There is a world of difference between an elected representative giving up democratic oversight and an elected representative transferring democratic oversight. IIRC one of the judges in the "supersedes-supreme-court-rulings" ISDS dispute resolution mechanism is actually appointed by the investor. I'm sure they'll be fair.
tptacek 11y ago
Please remain civil.

nmrm2 11y ago

> Now, if you really want to appeal to democracy, then it's pretty tough to criticize democratic sovereigns delegating their authority to other parties. The problem is that TPP is a one-way transfer of power -- the costs of (democratically choosing to) flaunt these courts would be overly onerous to citizens of many signatory states. Because TPP is de facto irreversable, your argument here is structurally similar to the argument that dictators make when their transition to power happens via reforms approved by democractic mechanisms. I.e., just because a democracy at one point approves of a reform, doesn't make that reform tautologically democractic at all future points in time.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
TPP is not irreversible - it's just that by reversing it, consumers will again suffer the hardships associated to non-free trade, just as they currently suffer them now. Lots of laws are "irreversible" in that regard. For example, Obamacare is irreversible because if we reverse it, the people currently receiving wealth transfers will suffer in the exact same way they suffered prior to Obamacare. Does this mean Obamacare is a "one-way transfer of power" and somehow anti-democratic?
- nmrm2 11y ago
  > TPP is not irreversible I hypothesize that for many signatory nations, it is de facto irreversible. > just as they currently suffer them now. Obviously I don't have the text, but it would be surprising if TPP contained no punitive clauses for openly flaunting the agreement. > Does this mean Obamacare is a "one-way transfer of power" and somehow anti-democratic? No. The "transfer of power" bit is the part that TPP and AFA don't have in common. It is the combination of a law that would be overly costly to change together with a transfer of sovereign power that makes TPP anti-democratic. Either one without the other is fine.
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    Obviously I don't have the text, but it would be surprising if TPP contained no punitive clauses for openly flaunting the agreement. Punitive clauses are unenforceable insofar as they extend beyond "if you tariff us we'll tariff you back". Obamacare transfers sovereign power to various unelected agencies (e.g. HHS) as well. I guess you now agree that Obamacare is an anti-democratic measure?