4 ms·

The sad thing about all of these agreements is that they will most likely all be ratified by participating countries. Democracy has been watered down to; we can

The sad thing about all of these agreements is that they will most likely all be ratified by participating countries. Democracy has been watered down to; we can choose where we live, where we work and if we are lucky where we get buried when we die. That's it. People no longer get to influence the laws that govern them, society has been reduced down to: we pass these laws to protect you, we have your best interests at heart, because terrorism, because ISIS or some threat to our supposed freedom. We all frown upon countries like China who restrict what their people can do online and offline, what they can say and do, but the ironic thing is these countries don't try to hide their actions and intents like the US and its corporate lobbyists do. We are told the TPP and all of those other agreements will be great for our countries, but will they? The TPP specifically is a horrible piece of work. I understand free trade agreements are beneficial to keeping the economy going, but Australia (where I reside) ironically already has trade agreements with 8 of the 11 participating countries in the TPP anyway. Do we really need to sign a new agreement just to trade with 3 extra partners? We have a free healthcare system (free as in paid for using tax) where we get access to subsidised generic medicines and doctor visits that don't cost anything (like Canada) and under the TPP these freedoms thanks to corporate interests could be removed entirely. The very fact that Australia has had to request exemption from our environment and healthcare system from being affected by the TPP and possible ISDS provisions is worrying in itself. If we even get these exemptions will be another matter entirely. Extending the duration under which pharmaceutical companies can block out generic medicines is a lose-lose situation for the poor. I'm scared for what the future holds. I want my children to grow up having the same freedoms and benefits that I did, not having to pay exorbitant amounts of money to access medicines that would currently cost $10 or so under the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

madaxe_again 11y ago
You write as though in some mythical past democracy was more open - but the reality is that while things are as bad as they ever have been, democracy has always been a Punch and Judy show for the masses while the man behind the curtain commits atrocities. We're just more aware of it now as the Internet has hurt their information control, and governments' reactive nationalistic propaganda is blatant and overt. The meat has realised that it's caged, and the people-farmers are trying very hard to get the rest of the herd to trample the ones who say "guys, we could walk out through this open gate".
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  The question is: walk out and go where? Sad as it is, you can't just let everyone manage everything in truly equal fashion, because almost everyone is totally incompetent in almost everything except their profession and their hobby, and majority has a lifestyle that is not conductive to managing a happy and prospering civilization. It seems to me that you'll always need someone with a vision at the top, because you can't direct things anywhere by committee.
  - madaxe_again 11y ago
    I see. So the need for structure mandates the need for nation-states, as there is no alternative, and there have always been nation-states? Recommend reading Hobbes' Leviathan and Hayek's Road to Serfdom, if this topic interests you.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      I didn't mean that. AFAIK, nation states are quite recent development. But structure was always there, since the beginning of civilization. Sans full-blown digital fluid democracy I don't see how a society can be managed without a hierarchy. That probably reflects more my lack of imagination than something about the real world though. I have a copy of Leviathan sitting on my desk right now, but I haven't got around to reading it yet :).
      - madaxe_again 11y ago
        Nation states are a very recent development indeed - they've only really existed (as firm concepts) for about 400 years, and Hobbes essentially set out the system of the world we operate to today in Leviathan - prior to that, state power was vested in individuals and families, and was drawn from the divine (think "dieu et mon droit" or "l'etat, c'est moi"). There has been a hierarchical structure for as long as we recall, from tribal "big men" to pharaonic rule through to the POTUS - and we see this mirrored in Chimpanzees and Bonobos - but it does not mean that we must be bound to it. Consensus based rule becomes feasible when your arbiter and enforcer ceases to be human - the tragedy of the commons, Abilene paradox, etc., can be systemically dealt with - and replacing our current systems of governance and our current concepts of nationhood does not require a turn of the wheel, a revolution - rather it can happen from within, and co-exist, and with sufficient mass, simply render the current system an anachronism. Consider monarchy - why do we still have it? Because thinkers in the enlightenment realised that trying to outright do away with it would be too painful a tear for their societies, so instead, they invented systems (parliament, representation of commoners) which worked within, and then subverted the existing power structure. The English Civil War and its aftermath (Glorious Revolution, specifically) underscored the fact that change happens best when you seek not to replace or overthrow, but simply to do better. It can happen again. We just need to try.

madaxe_again 11y ago

You write as though in some mythical past democracy was more open - but the reality is that while things are as bad as they ever have been, democracy has always been a Punch and Judy show for the masses while the man behind the curtain commits atrocities. We're just more aware of it now as the Internet has hurt their information control, and governments' reactive nationalistic propaganda is blatant and overt. The meat has realised that it's caged, and the people-farmers are trying very hard to get the rest of the herd to trample the ones who say "guys, we could walk out through this open gate".

TeMPOraL 11y ago
The question is: walk out and go where? Sad as it is, you can't just let everyone manage everything in truly equal fashion, because almost everyone is totally incompetent in almost everything except their profession and their hobby, and majority has a lifestyle that is not conductive to managing a happy and prospering civilization. It seems to me that you'll always need someone with a vision at the top, because you can't direct things anywhere by committee.
- madaxe_again 11y ago
  I see. So the need for structure mandates the need for nation-states, as there is no alternative, and there have always been nation-states? Recommend reading Hobbes' Leviathan and Hayek's Road to Serfdom, if this topic interests you.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    I didn't mean that. AFAIK, nation states are quite recent development. But structure was always there, since the beginning of civilization. Sans full-blown digital fluid democracy I don't see how a society can be managed without a hierarchy. That probably reflects more my lack of imagination than something about the real world though. I have a copy of Leviathan sitting on my desk right now, but I haven't got around to reading it yet :).
    - madaxe_again 11y ago
      Nation states are a very recent development indeed - they've only really existed (as firm concepts) for about 400 years, and Hobbes essentially set out the system of the world we operate to today in Leviathan - prior to that, state power was vested in individuals and families, and was drawn from the divine (think "dieu et mon droit" or "l'etat, c'est moi"). There has been a hierarchical structure for as long as we recall, from tribal "big men" to pharaonic rule through to the POTUS - and we see this mirrored in Chimpanzees and Bonobos - but it does not mean that we must be bound to it. Consensus based rule becomes feasible when your arbiter and enforcer ceases to be human - the tragedy of the commons, Abilene paradox, etc., can be systemically dealt with - and replacing our current systems of governance and our current concepts of nationhood does not require a turn of the wheel, a revolution - rather it can happen from within, and co-exist, and with sufficient mass, simply render the current system an anachronism. Consider monarchy - why do we still have it? Because thinkers in the enlightenment realised that trying to outright do away with it would be too painful a tear for their societies, so instead, they invented systems (parliament, representation of commoners) which worked within, and then subverted the existing power structure. The English Civil War and its aftermath (Glorious Revolution, specifically) underscored the fact that change happens best when you seek not to replace or overthrow, but simply to do better. It can happen again. We just need to try.