4 ms·

To be fair, a lot of these corporate interests, if applicable broadly and without prejudice (unlikely), would just reinforce property right. For instance, arti

by bko 12y ago

To be fair, a lot of these corporate interests, if applicable broadly and without prejudice (unlikely), would just reinforce property right. For instance, articles such as these always sensationalize some of the issues. This article claims that the agreement would allow corporations to sue governments for instituting policies that hurt their bottom line. This is probably true but this would cover expropriation, which many people feel is unjust. I know many in US cringe at reports of Venezuela's government expropriating business through force. Many would agree that if you have a law abiding business it would be wrong for the government to come in and take all your capital as their own. What I imagine corporations believe is that this should be interpreted more broadly. For instance, if you agree that expropriation is bad, at what point does negatively harming a brand image effectively become expropriation? If a government makes you put a warning label? Plain packaging? Patent infringement? Unfortunately, even if you agree with very strong property rights, this will almost certainly not be applied evenly and without special carve-outs. edit: repatriation -> expropriation

foolrush 12y ago
“would just reinforce property right” In many instances, the property right is questionable. Much of the property right, such as with IP, was built on the back of a looser interpretation. Disney's earliest years of spoofing mainstream cultural vernacular with Mickey Mouse is perhaps the most well cited example. We could also question the legitimacy of the well documented fleecing of earlier African American musical artists during the 40s-70s that in turn amassed vast libraries of IP. Art moves as language and relies on an interaction with the language of the culture. The excessive IP is nothing more than a locking away of the keys that permitted the mega corporations to come to power in the first place. Illegitimate hegemony. Appropriated content. Preserved as capital by those with little to no involvement with its creation.
- bko 12y ago
  I completely agree with you on IP and I am concerned over cooperation among countries to enforce IP protections. What I'm more concerned about is what I consider valid property rights such as physical property (equipment, your home, business) and your own body (expression, substances, etc). NPR had a great article about US tariff policy. It detailed a 3,000 page book that's used to set the appropriate tax: > The book lists the tax that importers have to pay on approximately every single thing in the universe — including, of course, T-shirts. They're right there under heading 6109: T-shirts, singlets, tank tops and similar garments, knitted or crocheted. The average tax rate on stuff coming into the U.S. is around 2 percent. The tax on T-shirts is much higher: 16.5 percent. That's what we'll be paying on the Planet Money men's shirts, which were made in Bangladesh. But the Planet Money women's shirts were made in Colombia — and those, according to the book of everything, come in duty-free, with no tariff at all. [0] To me it just seems very arbitrary and hence rife for corruption. [0] http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/12/06/247361423/the-giant-book-that-creates-and-destroys-entire-industries http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/12/06/247361423/the-gian...
  - foolrush 12y ago
    “What I'm more concerned about is what I consider valid property rights such as physical property (equipment, your home, business) and your own body (expression, substances, etc).” To an extent, even these forms of capital are accrued on the back of societal and cultural context. If one inherit's a home from a family member, under what contexts was that permitted? Did we stop to evaluate how much capital and property right was appropriated illegitimately? Did we evaluate government endorsed privilege and bias in the transaction[1]? Did we stop to evaluate what property was accumulated under corrupt special-interest lobbying such as the TPP itself? Ultimately, all capital and property is birthed from the culture. In many instances, gender and sex, birthright, race, and a plethora of other chance based factors result in an accumulation or deflation of capital and property. [1] See legislated housing policies in Chicago for example. http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117912/reparations-how-mortgage-market-hurts-african-americans http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117912/reparations-how-mo...
    - bko 12y ago
      I completely agree. The problem is that I, along with other people who lean libertarian in their ideology, read the word "we" and interpret it as "politicians" as they are the only party that can reasonably make these judgement calls. Did [Dick Cheney|Barack Obama|Hugo Chavez|Kim Jong Un] evaluate what property is legitimate? I honestly would rather not find out. One can argue that we can vote but most decisions made are so far removed from the democratic process that its effectively meaningless. In my home town of New York City, I hear people argue that such and such should be allowed or disallowed and there should be more discretion from officials. I always then question them as to who these officials are or who the relevant party is that makes such decisions. If they cannot answer, which they almost always cannot, I ask why they have such faith that those unknown, probably unelected officials will make wise decisions. Maybe I'm just a cynic and regulatory capture isn't really as prevalent as I imagine it is.
jjoonathan 12y ago
> To be fair, a lot of these corporate interests, if applicable broadly and without prejudice (unlikely), would just reinforce property right. That argument is unlikely to hold much weight for anyone who isn't an extremist libertarian. Even libertarian moderates usually accept that property rights are a means to an end (usually liberty, hence the name) and qualify their beliefs about property rights being a good thing to acknowledge that there are circumstances in which they can be abused. Perverse incentives are real and most sane people feel a need to at least acknowledge them in their philosophical wanderings.
- bko 12y ago
  I don't want to speak for all libertarians, but I would argue that liberty and property rights are essentially very linked in that you exert liberty over your own property, be it your body, mind or personal belongings. Perverse incentives are real but I guess I'm just skeptical of a centralized authoritative body sanctioned to use force can make them any better. To quote the (extremist?) classical liberal economist Friedrich Hayek, "the curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design"
  - jjoonathan 12y ago
    > I'm just skeptical of a centralized authoritative body sanctioned to use force can [do better than enforcing property rights]. I disagree but this is not what I was calling the extremist position. If you are skeptical that there are better ways of achieving liberty than enforcing property rights then you still acknowledge that the fundamental desirable quantity is something other than the property rights themselves. You admit the possibility, as I believe any reasonable person would, libertarian or not, that under some circumstances the connection between enforced property rights and the underlying good may occasionally break down and that you must therefore always ask yourself if enforcing a particular notion of property in a particular instance is a good idea -- even if you tend to lean one way or the other by default. (The "particular notion of property," by the way, is the bit that is especially amusing to watch libertarians dance around. It's possible to construct notions of property to make nearly anything seem reasonable or unreasonable, revealing the concept to be about as subjective as any other utility metric. But I digress.) On the other hand if you take the position that property rights are a fundamental good in and of themselves, then you close your ears to arguments like "X company is using Y strategy to take Z's money without adding net value to the situation. They should be stopped." I don't think that's reasonable. People find loopholes in the system all the time and if actions weren't taken to stop them the world would be a miserable place even fuller of monopolies than it is today.
pdabbadabba 12y ago
I think I agree, but I believe you're saying "repatriation" when you mean "expropriation." Repatriation usually refers to a requirements to realize gains, etc. in one's home country--not the taking of property by force. The taking of private property for government use is expropriation.
copsarebastards 12y ago
Governments have an imperative to serve their people, and no obligation at all to corporations. I get that corporations are made up of people, so sometimes protecting people benefits a corporation. But unless you're willing to make the blanket statement that all repatriations are bad for people, I don't think you can make a blanket statement about whether or not repatriations are unjust, at least not meaningfully. Corporations aren't owed justice, people are. Given that, the rest of what you're saying based on that unravels quickly.
- ajmurmann 12y ago
  To add to your argument: Although corporations are made up of people, the interest of the majority of the people that make up the corporation isn't necessarily aligned with that of the corporation.

by bko 12y ago

foolrush 12y ago

“would just reinforce property right” In many instances, the property right is questionable. Much of the property right, such as with IP, was built on the back of a looser interpretation. Disney's earliest years of spoofing mainstream cultural vernacular with Mickey Mouse is perhaps the most well cited example. We could also question the legitimacy of the well documented fleecing of earlier African American musical artists during the 40s-70s that in turn amassed vast libraries of IP. Art moves as language and relies on an interaction with the language of the culture. The excessive IP is nothing more than a locking away of the keys that permitted the mega corporations to come to power in the first place. Illegitimate hegemony. Appropriated content. Preserved as capital by those with little to no involvement with its creation.

bko 12y ago
I completely agree with you on IP and I am concerned over cooperation among countries to enforce IP protections. What I'm more concerned about is what I consider valid property rights such as physical property (equipment, your home, business) and your own body (expression, substances, etc). NPR had a great article about US tariff policy. It detailed a 3,000 page book that's used to set the appropriate tax: > The book lists the tax that importers have to pay on approximately every single thing in the universe — including, of course, T-shirts. They're right there under heading 6109: T-shirts, singlets, tank tops and similar garments, knitted or crocheted. The average tax rate on stuff coming into the U.S. is around 2 percent. The tax on T-shirts is much higher: 16.5 percent. That's what we'll be paying on the Planet Money men's shirts, which were made in Bangladesh. But the Planet Money women's shirts were made in Colombia — and those, according to the book of everything, come in duty-free, with no tariff at all. [0] To me it just seems very arbitrary and hence rife for corruption. [0] http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/12/06/247361423/the-giant-book-that-creates-and-destroys-entire-industries http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/12/06/247361423/the-gian...
- foolrush 12y ago
  “What I'm more concerned about is what I consider valid property rights such as physical property (equipment, your home, business) and your own body (expression, substances, etc).” To an extent, even these forms of capital are accrued on the back of societal and cultural context. If one inherit's a home from a family member, under what contexts was that permitted? Did we stop to evaluate how much capital and property right was appropriated illegitimately? Did we evaluate government endorsed privilege and bias in the transaction[1]? Did we stop to evaluate what property was accumulated under corrupt special-interest lobbying such as the TPP itself? Ultimately, all capital and property is birthed from the culture. In many instances, gender and sex, birthright, race, and a plethora of other chance based factors result in an accumulation or deflation of capital and property. [1] See legislated housing policies in Chicago for example. http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117912/reparations-how-mortgage-market-hurts-african-americans http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117912/reparations-how-mo...
  - bko 12y ago
    I completely agree. The problem is that I, along with other people who lean libertarian in their ideology, read the word "we" and interpret it as "politicians" as they are the only party that can reasonably make these judgement calls. Did [Dick Cheney|Barack Obama|Hugo Chavez|Kim Jong Un] evaluate what property is legitimate? I honestly would rather not find out. One can argue that we can vote but most decisions made are so far removed from the democratic process that its effectively meaningless. In my home town of New York City, I hear people argue that such and such should be allowed or disallowed and there should be more discretion from officials. I always then question them as to who these officials are or who the relevant party is that makes such decisions. If they cannot answer, which they almost always cannot, I ask why they have such faith that those unknown, probably unelected officials will make wise decisions. Maybe I'm just a cynic and regulatory capture isn't really as prevalent as I imagine it is.

jjoonathan 12y ago

> To be fair, a lot of these corporate interests, if applicable broadly and without prejudice (unlikely), would just reinforce property right. That argument is unlikely to hold much weight for anyone who isn't an extremist libertarian. Even libertarian moderates usually accept that property rights are a means to an end (usually liberty, hence the name) and qualify their beliefs about property rights being a good thing to acknowledge that there are circumstances in which they can be abused. Perverse incentives are real and most sane people feel a need to at least acknowledge them in their philosophical wanderings.

bko 12y ago
I don't want to speak for all libertarians, but I would argue that liberty and property rights are essentially very linked in that you exert liberty over your own property, be it your body, mind or personal belongings. Perverse incentives are real but I guess I'm just skeptical of a centralized authoritative body sanctioned to use force can make them any better. To quote the (extremist?) classical liberal economist Friedrich Hayek, "the curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design"
- jjoonathan 12y ago
  > I'm just skeptical of a centralized authoritative body sanctioned to use force can [do better than enforcing property rights]. I disagree but this is not what I was calling the extremist position. If you are skeptical that there are better ways of achieving liberty than enforcing property rights then you still acknowledge that the fundamental desirable quantity is something other than the property rights themselves. You admit the possibility, as I believe any reasonable person would, libertarian or not, that under some circumstances the connection between enforced property rights and the underlying good may occasionally break down and that you must therefore always ask yourself if enforcing a particular notion of property in a particular instance is a good idea -- even if you tend to lean one way or the other by default. (The "particular notion of property," by the way, is the bit that is especially amusing to watch libertarians dance around. It's possible to construct notions of property to make nearly anything seem reasonable or unreasonable, revealing the concept to be about as subjective as any other utility metric. But I digress.) On the other hand if you take the position that property rights are a fundamental good in and of themselves, then you close your ears to arguments like "X company is using Y strategy to take Z's money without adding net value to the situation. They should be stopped." I don't think that's reasonable. People find loopholes in the system all the time and if actions weren't taken to stop them the world would be a miserable place even fuller of monopolies than it is today.

pdabbadabba 12y ago

I think I agree, but I believe you're saying "repatriation" when you mean "expropriation." Repatriation usually refers to a requirements to realize gains, etc. in one's home country--not the taking of property by force. The taking of private property for government use is expropriation.

copsarebastards 12y ago

Governments have an imperative to serve their people, and no obligation at all to corporations. I get that corporations are made up of people, so sometimes protecting people benefits a corporation. But unless you're willing to make the blanket statement that all repatriations are bad for people, I don't think you can make a blanket statement about whether or not repatriations are unjust, at least not meaningfully. Corporations aren't owed justice, people are. Given that, the rest of what you're saying based on that unravels quickly.

ajmurmann 12y ago
To add to your argument: Although corporations are made up of people, the interest of the majority of the people that make up the corporation isn't necessarily aligned with that of the corporation.