3 ms·

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 accept

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.
  - ZenoArrow 11y ago
    Not anti-corporate, but anti-corporate power grab. ISDS gives companies too much power, so I'm against it. Corporations should act in the best interest of the people, not the other way around.
  - dang 11y ago
    > because it doesn't inspire the same negative feelings in you that corporations do Needlessly personal. Please don't.

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.
- ZenoArrow 11y ago
  Not anti-corporate, but anti-corporate power grab. ISDS gives companies too much power, so I'm against it. Corporations should act in the best interest of the people, not the other way around.
- dang 11y ago
  > because it doesn't inspire the same negative feelings in you that corporations do Needlessly personal. Please don't.