4 ms·

Why is the global government being built behind closed doors? Because only a miniscule minority would be in favor of what is being constructed.

• dlss 14y ago
  Because doing things in public is slow. Because doing things in public requires educating the populace on issues they don't understand. Because doing things in public politicizes the process. Because doing things in public leads to escalation. Because doing things in private is how almost all conflict resolution happens.
  • dalai 14y ago
    There are different levels of public involvement and doing things in public is not as bad as you make it sound to be. Even if it delays things a bit, then I would still prefer the delay over a treaty that is not in the public interest. We have already seen how well this process worked with ACTA which after four years of negotiations was shot down in the EU. Wouldn't it have been faster and more efficient to do it in public? Isn't this process already politicized - at least amongst those that care about it - because of the secrecy? Is it reasonable that the EFF (and probably many more stakeholders) have to guess at what the draft might say now, based on a leaked document from two years ago?
  • polymatter 14y ago
    But doing things in private means there is no oversight or accountability. But doing things in private increases voter apathy. But doing things in private is suspicious behaviour in a Western democracy. But doing things in private means that the people most affected will not be able to contribute to close loopholes, tighten up wording, spot inconsistencies, improve operational processes etc. But doing things in private means that bribes, extortion, blackmail etc. are par for the course during negotiations, with no penalty of a backlash. But doing things in private means she with the biggest bribe wins. But doing things in private is merely a delaying tactic as the law has to eventually become public knowledge at which point it will be politicized, escalated etc. But doing things in public is how we (attempt to) improve fairness in a modern Western democracy, despite the cost in efficiency. Clearly there is a compromise to be made between the two extremes, as dlss's points are very valid and are constantly a challenge for democracies to overcome. But I posit that the balance doesn't lie on the "keep everything secret" side.
    • snowwrestler 14y ago
      > But doing things in private means there is no oversight or accountability. This is not true--as a treaty, TPP will need to be approved by the U.S. Congress to attain the force of law. It will be published and roundly debated at that time. If necessary it will be rejected or adjusted. For now, negotiators are working in private so that they can work things out without several million backseat drivers. This is how all international treaties are negotiated, by the way, including recently passed FTAs with Colombia and South Korea. People who make a big deal about the fact that TPP is being negotiated in private simply demonstrate that they are not familiar with international negotiations in general.
  • olefoo 14y ago
    Because public debate and allowing multiple points of view to be heard is slow. Because educating the public is difficult and takes time. Because crafting the rules by which people are governed is an inherently political process. Because deep divisions, and the theft of property rights from the majority by secret laws is an escalation. Because doing things in a transparently public process is how you build institutions for the long term. ==== If we are building a global government, let us build it with the long term benefit of humanity as it's guiding principle. Not with the short term profits of a tiny elite at the expense of the future of our species. Any attempt to use trade negotiations to bypass national democracies is prima facie evidence of malfeasance. But further entrenching a shortsighted corporate feudalism that disregards ecosystem services and deprioritizes the health of the biosphere is species suicide in the making.