|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Corporate Interests & Democracy's Death Knell | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Corporations have been slyly working against the will of the people for decades with campaign finance, lobbying, and the like.
But it seems that lately they are taking more direct approaches to squashing the opposition that is the poor masses they fuck overby seeking to legally ban democracy itself. Two cases in point: the first involves Texas' ban on banning fracking, the second the WTO's recent ruling against USDA meat labeling standards. Just last week, Texas governor Greg Abbot passed through a law that prohibits localities from banning hydraulic fracturing:
quote: It appears that in Texas, and perhaps soon several other states, democracy is banned when it conflicts with corporate interests. In other news, the USDAan arm of the democratically elected government of the U.S. tasked with protecting the interests of both U.S. food consumers and producershas lost an appeal to the World Trade Organization regarding its rules on meat labeling:
quote: Some legislators now want to adjust the rules to comply with the WTO decision instead of the decisions of the U.S. democracy. And who is giddy with excitement over all this? Why, it's the company store of course:
quote: I think it can be argued, convincingly, that both of these steps, and many others lately taken to advance corporate interests, are direct violations of the Constitutional rights of U.S. citizens and in opposition to our country's founding principles respecting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What do you think? If these issues ever came before SCoTUS, would they decide that they violate basic principles of democracy and the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens to self government?Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
What do you think? If these issues ever came before SCoTUS, would they decide that they violate basic principles of democracy and the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens to self government? No.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Just last week, Texas governor Greg Abbot passed through a law that prohibits localities from banning hydraulic fracturing: This should give people something to think about the next time they hear a wingnut complaint about the how the 10th amendment protects you from tyranny. As if reserving the right for state government tyranny hasn't historically proven to be a very immediate concern.
The appellate body of the World Trade Organization announced Monday that it has ruled against a U.S. appeal of an earlier decision that the U.S. Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) law treats Canadian beef and pork and Mexican beef unfairly. Some legislators now want to adjust the rules to comply with the WTO decision instead of the decisions of the U.S. democracy. What democracy is involved with the way we regulate beef and pork labeling? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Je Suis Charlie Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
What democracy is involved with the way we regulate beef and pork labeling? Aren't those rules just more of corporate influence on the government. Is the general public helped or hindered by COOL labeling or is it big business getting its way? You might want to compare your stances on this two issues. I'm aware of the fine line.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
What do you think? If these issues ever came before SCoTUS, would they decide that they violate basic principles of democracy and the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens to self government? No. In each issue the actions were taken within our democratic institutions. No fine lines, Jon. Both the fracking and the labeling are the result of moneyed corporate-interests’ undue influence on politics. Both seek to quell opposition to enhance their bottom lines. You oppose the Texas moves as un-democratic even though these moves are instituted into law by a democratically elected legislature. You support the labeling actions for the same reason; instituted into law by a democratically elected congress. Both are the results of the twisted politics that is, and always has been, democracy in this country. And both are bad. There is another parallel that pops up in the labeling situation in that it parallels Faith’s problems for her Christian bakers. She is upset that US society is changing and that her beloved TrueChristians are seeing their longstanding undue privilege in the society erode away. You are upset because in the label issue global society is changing and you are seeing longstanding undue US privilege erode away. The questions become, do the TrueChristians resist the changes in our domestic society to their own detriment on the national stage, and, do Americans resist the changes in our global society to our own detriment on the international stage? The TrueChristians in the one case and the US Congress in the other are members of these greater societies and these societies, as is the right of every society, large or small, determine the rules within which its members are expected to act. Edited by AZPaul3, : title
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
You oppose the Texas moves as un-democratic even though these moves are instituted into law by a democratically elected legislature. With two caveats: The Texas decision specifically denies people the right to self-governance in decisions relating to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and the decision was specifically backed by the oil industry. Local government has always been the holdout for real democracy, but now it denying democracy. The influence of industry had been restricted to pushing through legislation favoring it through tax benefits, crappy minimum wages, etc. Now, the industries are pushing through laws that specifically block democratic processes.
You support the labeling actions for the same reason; instituted into law by a democratically elected congress. No; the issue here is that multinational industries have used their influence in the WTO to tell the U.S. that it is forbidden from taking democratically-approved actions that conflict with industry interests.
There is another parallel that pops up in the labeling situation in that it parallels Faith’s problems for her Christian bakers. She is upset that US society is changing and that her beloved TrueChristians are seeing their longstanding undue privilege in the society erode away. You are upset because in the label issue global society is changing and you are seeing longstanding undue US privilege erode away. If 'U.S. privilege' means the right to determine matters within U.S. borders, then I suppose you are right. Your attempt to draw a parallel between these things is just stupid.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Jon writes:
Is the WTO subject to the US Constitution?
I think it can be argued, convincingly, that both of these steps, and many others lately taken to advance corporate interests, are direct violations of the Constitutional rights of U.S. citizens and in opposition to our country's founding principles respecting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Is the WTO subject to the US Constitution? Of course not. And the fact that the WTO seeks to interfere with the self-governance of the U.S. people should be all the reason the Supreme Court needs to deem unconstitutional the United States' participation, recognition, and respect for WTO rulings that conflict with decisions made by U.S. government organizations. And that some legislators now want to revise COOL to comply with the WTO ruling is nothing other than a failure of those legislators to do their job on the most basic level. However, since it's caused so much controversy I'm comfortable setting aside the WTO/USDA issue and focusing on state governments banning local democracy. Do you have thoughts on that?Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
...and focusing on state governments banning local democracy. Do you have thoughts on that? How do you feel about the state of Missouri having a law that limits how much money local municipalities can earn from traffic fines?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
How do you feel about the state of Missouri having a law that limits how much money local municipalities can earn from traffic fines? On the other hand states are not above setting traffic fines ridiculously high to gather revenue. IIRC Virginia at one time during the past recession enacted 'Abuser fees' that were charged on top of regular traffic fines that were so high that a serious speeding violation had the possibility of throwing people who were struggling financially into abject poverty. The laws only applied to instate drivers. In that case the legislature received enough public heat to drop the increases. How about states like NC refusing to let municipalities enact living wage legislation or refusing to let cities pass sales tax increases even by public referendum? How about when the state votes as a whole that your particular city cannot have gay civil unions? The fracking law issue is worth considering on its own. In every state that considers implementing fracking policy, there will be corporate pressure on the state to allow the fracking frackers to hide the exact chemicals they use, to limit the leverage of people who 'hold out' against allowing fracking on their land, and to 'unify' the law in the state by prohibiting local legislation. The corporate interest normally get most of what they want, but there does seem to be a tendency to tell the public to BOHICA that is strongly correlated by which party happens to be in charge at the state level. This stuff is unfolding in NC right now. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Je Suis Charlie Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
How do you feel about the state of Missouri having a law that limits how much money local municipalities can earn from traffic fines? Sounds like crap.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Of course not. And the fact that the WTO seeks to interfere with the self-governance of the U.S. people should be all the reason the Supreme Court needs to deem unconstitutional the United States' participation, recognition, and respect for WTO rulings that conflict with decisions made by U.S. government organizations. Seriously, Jon. Your statement above is straight wing nut, BS rhetoric. The goals of the WTO are far from nefarious. Participation in the WTO is voluntary, and nations join or stay out solely based on their own interests in trading with other members. Further there is a process within the US for evaluating which agreements to sign onto and which not to sign onto. The US as a whole benefits enormously from WTO membership. You would expect that in such an organization that the goals agreed upon are not going to match national goals of any one country. The US is only subject to rules that they've agreed to. Accordingly, even when they do things Jon does not like they are not subverting US sovereignty. The WTO cannot do that. All they can really do is require that the US pay the assessed fines that they've agreed to pay if they don't follow the agreement. In some cases the US chooses to do exactly that. Assuming that the proper process is followed, the treaties signed by the US have equal weight as a source of law as the US Constitution. The Supreme Court can do diddly squat about that. How old are you Jon? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Je Suis Charlie Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
I don't know who you're replying to, but it sure as hell isn't me.
Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Oh I dunno...there is a particularly obnoxious photo cam at one of the local intersections whose sole purpose is to generate revenue....most citizens wish to do away with it. If revenue is the motivator, revenue should be limited. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, as does absolute greed for ticket revenue.
Saying, "I don't know," is the same as saying, "Maybe."~ZombieRingo It's easy to see the speck in somebody else's ideas - unless it's blocked by the beam in your own.~Ringo If a savage stops believing in his wooden god, it does not mean that there is no God only that God is not wooden.(Leo Tolstoy)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
The Texas decision specifically denies people the right to self-governance in decisions relating to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and the decision was specifically backed by the oil industry. Naive. Texas is self-governed. Local self-rule is a state-determined (read legislature) issue. You don't like it? Move to Texas and have a voice in changing it. I assure you SCOTUS won't touch it.
the issue here is that multinational industries have used their influence in the WTO to tell the U.S. that it is forbidden from taking democratically-approved actions that conflict with industry interests. Naive. Two countries cried "foul" when corporate interests bought the US Congress and passed a labeling law specifically designed to unbalance world trade in their favor. Rather than shoot at each other, first GATT, now its progeny, WTO, was brought into existence to solve such complaints. WE, the United States, not just helped, but had a lion's share of influence in determining and codifying exactly what/where WTO can and cannot be involved. WE, The United States, signed on agreeing to the terms, stipulations, conflict resolution panels, the whole set up, Jon. WE, the United States agreed to abide by WTO conflict resolution rulings. WE, the United States use those same panels to air our complaints against Korea and China among others. WE, the United States accepted the WTO as a legally binding treaty under the terms of our Constitution. (Though it can be argued the WTO agreement is not a "treaty" in the strict legal formal sense we use in the US. Still it is considered a binding international agreement like a treaty, just with an escape clause.) In our Constitution, Jon, such officially approved treaties have as equal a force as "supreme law of the land" as does the Constitution. So the question you find so naively "stupid" is whether WE, the United Sates, honor our obligations to the global society we helped, in very large measure, to create or if we take Faith's route and refuse, crying about how unfair this society has treated us for not just accepting us throwing our weight around the way we want. I think, Jon, you really should think about these things before you jerk your knees out of place. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024