7 ms·

> ... sacrifice sovereignty for globalist endeavors. Can anyone from the US really make this point with a straight face. A little hypocritical to say the leas

by Volpe 15y ago

> ... sacrifice sovereignty for globalist endeavors. Can anyone from the US really make this point with a straight face. A little hypocritical to say the least.

ColinDabritz 15y ago
If this was the position of the government it may be hypocritical. As individuals we have our own views. As a US citizen I dislike our interference around the world, especially when it is without the support of the global community. I also dislike the use of international treaties as a 'work around' to our sovereign law. While I do believe in respecting the treaties we make, I dislike the practice of intentionally making treaties that force us to change our laws as a 'hack' of our government processes. Where is the hypocrisy?
- potatolicious 15y ago
  > "I dislike the practice of intentionally making treaties that force us to change our laws as a 'hack' of our government processes." Isn't this the whole point of treaties though? What good is a treaty if member states don't have to change incompatible laws to conform with it? What's the point of, say, signing a human rights treaty, without changing currently compatible laws to fall in line?
  - rgraham 15y ago
    Sounds like these guys wouldn't sign most such treaties. I'm happy to be a good neighbor, but policy should happen as close to the local level as possible. I don't think that is a shocking insight.
  - dwiel 15y ago
    The point of the treaty is to come to an agreement between two governments. If the provisions of the treaty are not legally possible than the treaty is meaningless. For a more extreme example: If the US congress signs a treaty with England which agrees that the US Presidents will no longer have any power in exchange for the English Prime Ministers too also no longer have any power, it doesn't matter because congress didn't have the power to write such laws in the first place.
  - ColinDabritz 15y ago
    Treaties are fine, and they certainly can affect local laws and should if they were made in good faith and are reasonably beneficial to both countries. The problem is that some treaties are not about solving problems but are rather an intentional collusion between the governmental representatives to push unwanted law on one or both countries. That's what I object to. Say two countries have a particular copyright law, say 50 years in one and 60 years in another. So the two representatives, probably both receiving substantial funds from pro-copyright media conglomerates, get together and arrange a treaty that says they will extend copyright to 100 years. Well gee guys, we'll have to change our laws! Both countries missed out on reasonable legislative processes.
- Volpe 15y ago
  I didn't see SOPA like protests (wihtin the US) for the plethora of "Free-Trade" agreements that the US has put forward in other countries, that clearly put the US at an advantage and undermine (or attempt to) local markets. In fact I'd bet that there were 0 protests for some (all?) of those agreements. There has to be some personal accountability. The "I just live here, but have my own views" doesn't really cut it. Living in a democracy and saying "That's the position of the government... not mine". While, not completely invalid, is annoying to hear.
  - kls 15y ago
    I personally vote every chance I get. I emailed Mark Rubio a co-sponsor on SOPA as well as mutual contacts of his and mine to voice my displeasure and to try to leverage my influence to get a meeting (before he changed his mind), I had an effect he changed his position (I along with a lot of other people, I don't want it to appear that I am taking sole credit for his change of position). I don't know what else one can expect, but for many of us, we just live here now. We are outnumbered and outgunned. Short of leaving our entire life and more importantly family to move away from it, there is not much we can do other than rage against the machine. Part of that rage is to say I don't support it and it is the governments position and not mine. I am not going to hold a position just because a group of people think it is valid nor should we be held accountable for the action of the collective. I believe in sovereignty all the way down.
kls 15y ago
A little hypocritical to say the least. Absolutely, I agree that other nations should be free to protect their interest. I am a huge fan of the republic that America used to be before the Civil War, the seed of federalism was planted then it has blossomed since then. I am all for a coalition of small governments that have unique and independent laws that best governs their citizenry. Just because I am from the US does not mean that I support what we have become. I absolutely hate the fact that we enforce our will on other nations and our chickens are coming home to roost for sure on this one.
- philwelch 15y ago
  > I am a huge fan of the republic that America used to be before the Civil War Where men were held as slaves and women didn't have the right to vote? For all our problems now, I think we are a much freer country today than we were in 1860.
  - kls 15y ago
    My intent was not to re-fight the Civil War. But just like the Iraqi war it was not all roses and liberating the Iraqi people. A lot of good came from some of the issues surrounding the Civil War. A strong federal government was not one of them. We are well served to remember the things lost when tallying the things gained. The cultural issues of the day where not the product of a republic nor where they a product of a federal government. I can be a fan of the system of government without advocating for a return to the cultural norms of the time.
    - philwelch 15y ago
      A system of government that put states rights above human rights is exactly what allowed slavery to persist.
      - kls 15y ago
        I differ on that, the cultural norm of believing that humans can be owned, that existed over centuries dating back to the Mesopotamia is what allowed slavery to persist.

by Volpe 15y ago

> ... sacrifice sovereignty for globalist endeavors. Can anyone from the US really make this point with a straight face. A little hypocritical to say the least.

ColinDabritz 15y ago

If this was the position of the government it may be hypocritical. As individuals we have our own views. As a US citizen I dislike our interference around the world, especially when it is without the support of the global community. I also dislike the use of international treaties as a 'work around' to our sovereign law. While I do believe in respecting the treaties we make, I dislike the practice of intentionally making treaties that force us to change our laws as a 'hack' of our government processes. Where is the hypocrisy?

potatolicious 15y ago
> "I dislike the practice of intentionally making treaties that force us to change our laws as a 'hack' of our government processes." Isn't this the whole point of treaties though? What good is a treaty if member states don't have to change incompatible laws to conform with it? What's the point of, say, signing a human rights treaty, without changing currently compatible laws to fall in line?
- rgraham 15y ago
  Sounds like these guys wouldn't sign most such treaties. I'm happy to be a good neighbor, but policy should happen as close to the local level as possible. I don't think that is a shocking insight.
- dwiel 15y ago
  The point of the treaty is to come to an agreement between two governments. If the provisions of the treaty are not legally possible than the treaty is meaningless. For a more extreme example: If the US congress signs a treaty with England which agrees that the US Presidents will no longer have any power in exchange for the English Prime Ministers too also no longer have any power, it doesn't matter because congress didn't have the power to write such laws in the first place.
- ColinDabritz 15y ago
  Treaties are fine, and they certainly can affect local laws and should if they were made in good faith and are reasonably beneficial to both countries. The problem is that some treaties are not about solving problems but are rather an intentional collusion between the governmental representatives to push unwanted law on one or both countries. That's what I object to. Say two countries have a particular copyright law, say 50 years in one and 60 years in another. So the two representatives, probably both receiving substantial funds from pro-copyright media conglomerates, get together and arrange a treaty that says they will extend copyright to 100 years. Well gee guys, we'll have to change our laws! Both countries missed out on reasonable legislative processes.
Volpe 15y ago
I didn't see SOPA like protests (wihtin the US) for the plethora of "Free-Trade" agreements that the US has put forward in other countries, that clearly put the US at an advantage and undermine (or attempt to) local markets. In fact I'd bet that there were 0 protests for some (all?) of those agreements. There has to be some personal accountability. The "I just live here, but have my own views" doesn't really cut it. Living in a democracy and saying "That's the position of the government... not mine". While, not completely invalid, is annoying to hear.
- kls 15y ago
  I personally vote every chance I get. I emailed Mark Rubio a co-sponsor on SOPA as well as mutual contacts of his and mine to voice my displeasure and to try to leverage my influence to get a meeting (before he changed his mind), I had an effect he changed his position (I along with a lot of other people, I don't want it to appear that I am taking sole credit for his change of position). I don't know what else one can expect, but for many of us, we just live here now. We are outnumbered and outgunned. Short of leaving our entire life and more importantly family to move away from it, there is not much we can do other than rage against the machine. Part of that rage is to say I don't support it and it is the governments position and not mine. I am not going to hold a position just because a group of people think it is valid nor should we be held accountable for the action of the collective. I believe in sovereignty all the way down.

kls 15y ago

A little hypocritical to say the least. Absolutely, I agree that other nations should be free to protect their interest. I am a huge fan of the republic that America used to be before the Civil War, the seed of federalism was planted then it has blossomed since then. I am all for a coalition of small governments that have unique and independent laws that best governs their citizenry. Just because I am from the US does not mean that I support what we have become. I absolutely hate the fact that we enforce our will on other nations and our chickens are coming home to roost for sure on this one.

philwelch 15y ago
> I am a huge fan of the republic that America used to be before the Civil War Where men were held as slaves and women didn't have the right to vote? For all our problems now, I think we are a much freer country today than we were in 1860.
- kls 15y ago
  My intent was not to re-fight the Civil War. But just like the Iraqi war it was not all roses and liberating the Iraqi people. A lot of good came from some of the issues surrounding the Civil War. A strong federal government was not one of them. We are well served to remember the things lost when tallying the things gained. The cultural issues of the day where not the product of a republic nor where they a product of a federal government. I can be a fan of the system of government without advocating for a return to the cultural norms of the time.
  - philwelch 15y ago
    A system of government that put states rights above human rights is exactly what allowed slavery to persist.
    - kls 15y ago
      I differ on that, the cultural norm of believing that humans can be owned, that existed over centuries dating back to the Mesopotamia is what allowed slavery to persist.