6 ms·

Another thing to consider is as soon as the details are public, we will be assaulted by ad campaigns by various interest groups which this negatively effects te

Another thing to consider is as soon as the details are public, we will be assaulted by ad campaigns by various interest groups which this negatively effects telling us why it will ruin our lives. While the general Hacker News population may be too smart to be swayed from reason by these ads, ads like this exist because they work. A portion of the public will be swayed by the plight of the American Pipe Layers Union or whoever is potentially going to lose a little bit of business as the ads, like others of their kind, will provide them with a partial picture of the deal and telling them why this is horrible, without providing enough context for them to come to a different conclusion. Some portion of the public outcry when something like this becomes public will be due these special interest groups effectively buying the opinions of the public by telling them what to think in the same manner they usually do.

0xffff2 11y ago
I was under the impression that most of the Hacker News population needs no help in being set against the TPP...
- genericuser 11y ago
  I agree with you, but I do not agree with what seems to be the prevailing opinion here which I would summarize as "If you don't have information about something, that something is bad" I realize I phrased this in what is probably an offensive way to many, and I apologize I didn't want to spend 20 minutes rewording it so I could figure out how to insult as few people as possible. I agree it is better to have transparency but honestly, because not all actors (businesses, special interest groups, other countries) are guaranteed to act transparently, sometimes it is actually in the American public's best interest for some level of obfuscation. Is this one of those instances? Hell if I know. Transparency from only one party in an arrangement between many parties has costs as well as benefits is my point, costs which should be considered.
  - yellowapple 11y ago
    What? Obfuscation is never in the best interests of a democracy. Democracy relies on the public being able to make informed decisions, and that ability is physically impossible when the relevant information is obfuscated.
    - genericuser 11y ago
      Would you mind if I create a strawman of an edge case to test your devotion to the use of the word 'never'? That is a fairly absolute word, and I tend to doubt you actually mean never.
      - yellowapple 11y ago
        Sure, go ahead and create a strawman if you think it helps you. It won't change the fact (not opinion, but fact) that the democratic process depends on transparency.
        genericuser 11y ago
        I agree that democracy depends on transparency, I don't know where you got the idea I thought otherwise. I just stated that sometimes, and I mean sometimes as in not all the time, it is in the best interest of the public to not have all the information. Alright say there is a pretty decent leader who has a personal trait which would make them unelectable to the public, but really shouldn't in any reasonable situation effect their ability to lead and make decisions. Is it in the public's best interest to know about that trait prior to the election?
        yellowapple 11y ago
        > Alright say there is a pretty decent leader who has a personal trait which would make them unelectable to the public, but really shouldn't in any reasonable situation effect their ability to lead and make decisions. Is it in the public's best interest to know about that trait prior to the election? Yes. Elected officials are representatives of the people. If that personal trait really does make the candidate unelectable, it means that the public does not want someone with that trait representing them. It's therefore in their best interests to not elect that person, since said person is not an accurate/desirable representation of the public. > but really shouldn't in any reasonable situation effect their ability to lead and make decisions Then why would it make them unelectable?
rilita 11y ago
Summary of your position: 1. If the details are published, minority won't like it and will complain loudly. 2. Those vocal groups will sway people to oppose it 3. Opposition would destroy it 4. We should instead keep it secret and trust that the vocal minority groups will be fairly represented. Personally, if opposition can destroy it, I think it should.
- genericuser 11y ago
  No, and you are really reading a shitload into what I wrote. I didn't actually state my position at all, just state events that will happen. The logical outcome of which I believe would be my position which is the following. My position was that if the details are made public it won't matter if the trade deal is going to be a good deal or a bad deal for the American public currently. That is due to the fact that American bussiness interests will buy the view points of easily controlled people, twist them to the interests of their view points as they do in many (all?) elections and votes, and the deal will be changed to be categorically worse for the American People in general while being better for specific business interests. I do not think it will be destroyed, just made shittier.
  - rilita 11y ago
    All of that is rampant personal speculation. You are saying I am reading into your statements... but you are reading into what will happen way more so. Kettle calling the pot black is kind of lame.
    - genericuser 11y ago
      While I will acknowledge that it is possible parties won't place ads to try and persuade people to support their point of view, I personally would find it amazing considering how many ads are run on TV around any election or vote by special interest groups. Also regardless of me being a hypocrite you were reading into it. Just because I do something something stupid doesn't mean you should. While it doesn't make my hypocrisy better, the only assumptions I stated as anything other than personal opinion is that there will be ads by interested parties, and that most people are stupid. In the second post I made I expressed my view of the outcome, I clearly stated it as personal opinion. Your message however tried to state my personal opinion, and did so incorrectly.

0xffff2 11y ago

I was under the impression that most of the Hacker News population needs no help in being set against the TPP...

genericuser 11y ago
I agree with you, but I do not agree with what seems to be the prevailing opinion here which I would summarize as "If you don't have information about something, that something is bad" I realize I phrased this in what is probably an offensive way to many, and I apologize I didn't want to spend 20 minutes rewording it so I could figure out how to insult as few people as possible. I agree it is better to have transparency but honestly, because not all actors (businesses, special interest groups, other countries) are guaranteed to act transparently, sometimes it is actually in the American public's best interest for some level of obfuscation. Is this one of those instances? Hell if I know. Transparency from only one party in an arrangement between many parties has costs as well as benefits is my point, costs which should be considered.
- yellowapple 11y ago
  What? Obfuscation is never in the best interests of a democracy. Democracy relies on the public being able to make informed decisions, and that ability is physically impossible when the relevant information is obfuscated.
  - genericuser 11y ago
    Would you mind if I create a strawman of an edge case to test your devotion to the use of the word 'never'? That is a fairly absolute word, and I tend to doubt you actually mean never.
    - yellowapple 11y ago
      Sure, go ahead and create a strawman if you think it helps you. It won't change the fact (not opinion, but fact) that the democratic process depends on transparency.
      - genericuser 11y ago
        I agree that democracy depends on transparency, I don't know where you got the idea I thought otherwise. I just stated that sometimes, and I mean sometimes as in not all the time, it is in the best interest of the public to not have all the information. Alright say there is a pretty decent leader who has a personal trait which would make them unelectable to the public, but really shouldn't in any reasonable situation effect their ability to lead and make decisions. Is it in the public's best interest to know about that trait prior to the election?
        yellowapple 11y ago
        > Alright say there is a pretty decent leader who has a personal trait which would make them unelectable to the public, but really shouldn't in any reasonable situation effect their ability to lead and make decisions. Is it in the public's best interest to know about that trait prior to the election? Yes. Elected officials are representatives of the people. If that personal trait really does make the candidate unelectable, it means that the public does not want someone with that trait representing them. It's therefore in their best interests to not elect that person, since said person is not an accurate/desirable representation of the public. > but really shouldn't in any reasonable situation effect their ability to lead and make decisions Then why would it make them unelectable?

rilita 11y ago

Summary of your position: 1. If the details are published, minority won't like it and will complain loudly. 2. Those vocal groups will sway people to oppose it 3. Opposition would destroy it 4. We should instead keep it secret and trust that the vocal minority groups will be fairly represented. Personally, if opposition can destroy it, I think it should.

genericuser 11y ago
No, and you are really reading a shitload into what I wrote. I didn't actually state my position at all, just state events that will happen. The logical outcome of which I believe would be my position which is the following. My position was that if the details are made public it won't matter if the trade deal is going to be a good deal or a bad deal for the American public currently. That is due to the fact that American bussiness interests will buy the view points of easily controlled people, twist them to the interests of their view points as they do in many (all?) elections and votes, and the deal will be changed to be categorically worse for the American People in general while being better for specific business interests. I do not think it will be destroyed, just made shittier.
- rilita 11y ago
  All of that is rampant personal speculation. You are saying I am reading into your statements... but you are reading into what will happen way more so. Kettle calling the pot black is kind of lame.
  - genericuser 11y ago
    While I will acknowledge that it is possible parties won't place ads to try and persuade people to support their point of view, I personally would find it amazing considering how many ads are run on TV around any election or vote by special interest groups. Also regardless of me being a hypocrite you were reading into it. Just because I do something something stupid doesn't mean you should. While it doesn't make my hypocrisy better, the only assumptions I stated as anything other than personal opinion is that there will be ads by interested parties, and that most people are stupid. In the second post I made I expressed my view of the outcome, I clearly stated it as personal opinion. Your message however tried to state my personal opinion, and did so incorrectly.