Corporate Interests & Democracy's Death Knell

I realize there is nothing 'illegal' about what has happened. No thanks.But I am a little shocked that no one else finds this disturbing...You can talk about laws and technicalities all you want.But laws and technicalities have a long history of denying people their fundamental rights.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Nothing is ever perfect. I'll not argue your statement except to say, the reason we have adopted a government and a judiciary ruled by law and technicalities is because the alternatives show themselves to be even more destructively abusive.To paraphrase Churchill, the rule of law is the worst way to run a society except for all the others.

My thought is that it sounds like a Gish Gallop: "Never mind the first stupid thing I said; let's focus on the second."Pulling out of international organizations that occasionally disagree with you is stupid. And nobody is "banning local government".

And my point in all this was not only to discuss an instance of laws and technicalities violating the rights of the peoplethat this is at least possible should surprise no onebut also to question whether that makes these particular laws and technicalities unconstitutional, whether there is potential appeal to the highest law of the land to annul some of this nonsense.A relevant example:It is not at all uncommon for people of similar ethnicities/race to live in proximity to one another in, for example, cities. Their children then go to the same school. Based on the way most schools are fundedwith local property tax revenuesthe affluency of the immediate community can have a significant impact on the quality of education a school can offer its students and, consequently, those students' academic performance.When these factors combine to create schools populated by mostly minority students with low measures of academic achievement, state education authorities often get involved to ensure the district is not acting out any sort of segregation with its student body and suggest ways for the school districts in question to rectify what appears to be segregation.And so many schools now offer open enrollment or similar options. There was absolutely nothing illegal or technically wrong about the old practices, but measures such as open enrollment help to ensure that the technicalities of the law are not abused, whether intentionally or not, to deny rights.That something is technically legal doesn't mean it is okay; it also doesn't even mean it will be permitted if the practice effectively infringes on certain rights.If the technicalities in question are being used to deny people their rights, then it is entirely reasonable to question whether those technicalities deserve revision. It is also not enough to simply say "Texas is self-governed" when the question presented is whether or not industry is using its influence and control to quell self-governance in the state of Texas.Just because some schools aren't technically segregating doesn't mean they aren't effectively doing so. And just because Texas (or anywhere) is technically a democratic system doesn't mean it effectively is.

It wasn't the first thing I said.I have admitted that the WTO/USDA example is not as clear-cut as it could be, and since I am not interested in spending the time necessary to defend its inclusion in this discussion, I'm fine just tossing it aside.If you want to take the win, it's all yours.

It's not a win until you admit the stupidity of the second thing you said, that local democracy is being banned.

That relates to Texas' ban on banning fracking, not the WTO/USDA issue.

Yes, you're equally wrong about both.I might not agree with Texas' banning banning but it isn't democracy that they're banning.

What else do you call it when people's right to self-governance is limited by how well their decisions conform to the desires of industry?Or is democracy still alive and well so long as the city council can decide what day the hog judging will be?

I call it the state level of democracy taking precedence over the local level of democracy. The state's decision is a democratic one regardless of any influence exerted by industry. If the state decides democratically that that's what local democracy should be, then yes.

In other words, democracy by definition and definition only. That seems to be the standard of the times. But it need not be, and I am far from the first person to question whether the states' unhindered interference in local matters flies against basic principles of democracy and self-governance.

Does the State of Texas have a sovereign right to limit local initiatives on fracking? If not then, by that same precedent in law, they have no sovereign right to limit local initiatives on the state’s water rights plan. They have no sovereign right to limit local initiatives on the state’s education funding plan, or worker safety, or road construction, on a hundred different areas where the state has an interest in setting a coordinated state-wide plan. Any legal precedent you can find that will force Texas to give-up its sovereignty on one issue can, and will, be used to wrest control of other issues from the state. If local democracy is supreme, Jon, then if Plano loses its football game to Richardson can they go to war?Well, there have to be limits, of course, or the state will, in fact, have lost all sovereignty and been dissolved. So who sets those limits, Jon? Does Dallas go to SCOTUS for fracking rights, followed by San Antonio seeking its own water rights plan, followed by Austin wanting school funding control, followed by my once little hometown of Flower Mound wanting to control whether the quickly becoming defunct state can put a road between FM1171 and State Road 2499? SCOTUS is not going to have every county, municipality, city, town and village running into federal court to determine if this or that locality has this or that local right. So, who makes these decisions, Jon?I know! How about the democratically elected Texas State Legislature? That’s what Home Rule Charters are all about, Jon. The State gets to tell you what limits it is placing on your local rights to decide things. If Texas decides to not give a home rule charter to Denton or Abilene or Del Rio, no one outside of Texas gives a rat’s ass. If Texas decides to give no local initiative rights to anyone pertaining to fracking? Again, Jon, no rat’s ass.Do you want to know how democracy works, Jon? If you don’t like what the legislature does then you write blog posts, write letters to the editor, form citizens’ groups, hand out flyers, canvass neighborhoods, put up candidates and boot the bastards out of Austin.You want to know the other how that works in democracies, Jon? You can’t do it alone. If not enough other people hear, care or agree with your complaint you lose. No running to SCOTUS with a pout on your face crying that your rights to local democracy have been abused.Even in a democracy, Jon, sovereignty flows up, not down or we would all be little fiefdom's constantly at each other's throats. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

I suppose that this is a good time to remind you that your own definition of democracy includes an armed rebellion when election results don't go your way despite your attempts to rig the election in your favor (i.e. the Wilmington Massacre). Your definition of democracy and the rule of law don't exactly constitute any kind of high road in human evolution.If you really understand that no laws are broken, just what do you expect the Supreme Court to do?At least in the case of fracking there are relatively strong voices on each side of the issue. You can likely find prominent leaders who would likely be extremely interested in making sure you don't see a repeat of the Texas situation in your own town. If you are really concerned about how this stuff is going to work out, get off your pasty white and do something about it. I recommend something other than a massacre though.Yeah, I'm talking to you Jon.

I'm replying to the poster known variously as Jon, Agamemnon, and CreationJon who posted the naive, wingnut BS about the WTO, and who apparently could not navigate his way through high school level civics if his life depended on it.Is that not you, Jon?

It's democracy as defined by your own Constitution. I think that's better than defining undemocratic as anything you disagree with.