4 ms·
Ugh, I hate this facile argument. No agreement need be negotiated in secret, with the possible exception of a constitution. And once negotiated, especially with
by s_q_b 11y ago
Ugh, I hate this facile argument. No agreement need be negotiated in secret, with the possible exception of a constitution. And once negotiated, especially with fast track authority, it becomes almost impossible for our elected legislature to modify it, leading to outcomes that favor industry.
Mobilizing the populace and involving our elected representatives is the very purpose of democracy. It is a moral and public good, not an obstacle. You may argue that money has too much influence, but that is a separate debate. This is to say nothing of the fact that lobbyists, such as the MPAA/RIAA, dominate the treaty negotiation process, which is why the TPP is loaded with copyright provisions.
If you actually go back and read the Federalist Papers, or any scholarship on why treaties are negotiated in secret, it is precisely because they are intended to have minimal effect on domestic law.
Instead, they have become a way for the upper houses of legislatures and the executive to bypass the normal democratic process, ignore the populace, and change domestic law. This deceit is deplorable.
- hga 11y agoAs I say in the other reply to this message, your position is that there should be no 'free trade' agreements. That's a potentially respectable position, but one corollary is that we would not be having this discussion right now, for computers would be too expensive for all but the relatively wealthy to be using them for things as frivolous as political discussions.
- s_q_b 11y agoIn response to the sibling, that's an absurdist characterization and a pathetic strawman. There were free trade agreements before this ridiculous process. I believe deeply in free trade. I also believe in democracy. Thus I believe all free trade agreements should be negotiated in public with free and open debate, like all other laws.
- tptacek 11y agoYou aren't responding to the parent comment, but rather just using it as a springboard for more rhetoric. You claimed upthread that the administration is attempting to pass the TPP in secret. You appear to be wrong about that. They're negotiating in secret, which is not the same thing. At this point, you should either acknowledge that you overstated your case, or present additional evidence.