Citizens Demand To See Secret ACTA Treaty 223
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "One hundred groups of concerned citizens have united to demand a look at the secret ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) treaty and have drafted a letter to their representatives asking for information. We've discussed ACTA before, including what are believed to be parts of ACTA that lawmakers are trying to get a head start on."
Brave New World, 1984 (Score:5, Insightful)
Brave New World, 1984, Fahrenheit 451, Animal Farm, etc...
When I was in school (a while ago) these were books we had to read.
Seems most people 10, 15, or more years younger than myself haven't even heard of these stories.
Corporations are taking over the world. A well functioning democracy requires an educated populace.
Considering what public schools are turning out here in the US, so much of what happens in the world isn't surprising to me anymore.
I don't know what is more disturbing, the fact that so many people don't seem bothered by things like TFA, or that people aren't aware of them and/or don't understand them.
Re:ACTA?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Occam's razor? (Score:5, Insightful)
yes, but it's much easier to arrange a "civil protest" about an action when you know what's going on BEFORE they vote on it.
not to push buttons here, but if there had been enough time prior to the patriot act being voted on, do you think people would have gotten into an uproar?
for this whole democracy thing to work right, we need to have an edumacated populace, we need to know what's going on in enough time to tell our congress-critters how we feel they should represent us.
Re:Brave New World, 1984 (Score:5, Insightful)
What bothers me the most, and what I don't think most people understand / are aware of, is how international treaties can be signed, thus becoming laws which supersede the most supreme law of the country (constitution, charter, bill of rights etc.) all without public knowledge or involvement.
I think every single democratic country desperately needs to update their charters with clauses requiring that all international agreements be signed with public knowledge, consent and involvement and to clearly make available avenues for referendums so that the public can force their governments to withdraw if the majority of the population wishes (without replacing their government obviously).
Shouldn't even be a question. (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, even figuring out who is responsible is a rather murky business. This is the one thing that really bothers me about a lot of international/multinational activities and organizations. Democracy is tenuous enough with the layers of alleged representation within a nation, once you lay a mass of appointed diplomats on top of that, you get something largely opaque and unresponsive. That might be ok if your job is agreeing that starving orphans are tragic; but if you work will end up as law across the developed world, you need to do better than that.(well, actually you don't, and we just have to suck it up; but I meant that in the normative sense)
Re:ACTA?! (Score:1, Insightful)
Ditto. Stop worrying about where taxation money goes and start realizing, "wait a second, they stole my money!"
Re:ACTA?! (Score:1, Insightful)
This government has forgot a basic precept, that we are citizens, not subjects.
That their power exists only so long as we grant it to them.
Re:Brave New World, 1984 (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem ultimately is that people in the West have become incredibly coddled. It's not that they trust governments more than they did in the past, it's just that they can't get out of their web browser, off the telephone to Aunt Mavis or turn off the TV long enough to give a shit about the nature of liberty and the need of vigilance. People may not always be happy to surrender personal responsibility to their governments, but they're too fucking lazy to realize that it's not themselves they're selling down the river, but rather their children and grandchildren, who will suffer the consequences much more severely than us.
Governments always have and always will tend towards tyranny. It is the nature of the species that we organize ourselves into dominance hierarchies, and that very fundamental encoded behavior is a powerful force. The Founding Fathers, along with many great minds of the Enlightenment, hoped to create societies and complimentary political systems that could overcome to some degree human nature, to create societies that could strive for freedom, justice and equality, where the least in society could at least dare to hope that they might be able to enjoy the liberties of the greatest.
But, sadly, America, like most of the West, is turning its back on the Enlightenment. We are rapidly becoming a civilization that will sell itself away bit by bit, giving away every hard-earned freedom for the promise of security (which, as even the most tyrannical regimes in history demonstrate, can never really be bought). So many believe the lies of the corporate-government oligarchies, not because the lies are believable, but because believing the lies is so much easier than the alternative, which involves using democracy to punish the liars.
And now look. Wall Street is melting down, and the liars are begging for aid from the catastrophe they caused. Where are the citizens, commanding their political servants, flexing their muscle, making the mighty tremble in their cracking ivory towers? No, much easier to let our betters do what's right, even though letting our betters do what's right has thus far lead to one of the most severe (if not the most severe) financial crises since 1929.
But that's alright, because a new television season is here, and the Feds will throw lots of money around, and it's Tuesday and I'm tired after picking the kids up from soccer practice, and I've got to get to work early tomorrow, and what can one vote do, and voting for a third party is throwing my vote way, and... and... and... and...
You'll never get your money back (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Brave New World, 1984 (Score:4, Insightful)
Brave New World, 1984, Fahrenheit 451, Animal Farm, etc...
When I was in school (a while ago) these were books we had to read.
Seems most people 10, 15, or more years younger than myself haven't even heard of these stories.
Nope, but they've watched V for Vendetta, the Matrix... and maybe Gattaca.
Re:Brave New World, 1984 (Score:4, Insightful)
I demonstrate my point 1 one very simple exercise. Say the Pledge of Allegiance.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
On top of that, democracies are bad.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
- Benjamin Franklin
Also, nothing the government does can supersede the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is not a declaration of what the people are allowed. It is a list to remind the government of what they cannot prevent. We made the Government, and gave it privileges. It can NOT infringe on the rights we have for being sovereign individuals. In fact...
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson
/rant
Re:Brave New World, 1984 (Score:5, Insightful)
When you say "Corporations are taking over the world", are you generalizing a bit, or do you really hate Capitalism
I'm not the OP, but hating what Capitalism has wrought is not the same as hating Capitalism, just as hating your wife's lasagna is not the same as hating your wife.
Corporations, and Capitalism, have a very critical role in our world, but ruling the world is not their role. Corporations exist primarily (some would say solely, but I think that's too simplistic) to serve the interests of their shareholders, or owners. If Corporations were to rule the world, essentially, we would be taking the rulership away from The People, where it belongs, and giving it to the wealthy few.
So, for me, I don't hate Capitalism, but I do most definitely hate many of the things Capitalists have done.
The world is not so black-and-white.
Re:You'll never get your money back (Score:5, Insightful)
If only they would stop at those actions!! Yes, those indeed are what a govt. are for for the most part, yet they seem hell bent on overstepping those powers, in order to restrict the rights and privacy of the citizens from whom their power (supposedly) comes from. They seem to be more interested in locking down society, and protecting corporate issues and interests.
THAT is what we're all wary of and protesting....
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Brave New World, 1984 (Score:2, Insightful)
When you say "Corporations are taking over the world", are you generalizing a bit, or do you really hate Capitalism, or do you have a better explanation for Corporations as the cause of the crap storm that is our future?
I'd really love to say that I'm generalizing a bit. I'm not an expert, and it'd be better if I'm dead wrong. The tired cliché is 'follow the money'. Corporations act legally as individuals but with only the obligation to increase shareholder value. I don't hate capitalism. Historically it seems to have been good for the US (where I'm from) and for other parts of the world as well. But I think maybe it is getting out of control, with the legal invention of the corporation and how that legal device has evolved to where it is now. Corporations are global and transcend national boundaries. Corporations are able to merge and aquire each other. Branches of them are able to operate under umbrella companies, just consider Proctor and Gamble, to name one example off the top of my head. Or think about the entertainment industry... Time, Warner Bros., Netscape, AOL, how many entities that appear to be different are actually different branches of one company?
When that much power and money to becomes organized into a single entity, the influence over governments and politics is incredible. I've read many times that in our little war with Iraq, there are more private contractors over there than US troops. Halliburton scare anybody?
So to me, with what I have time to read, and am able to make of it, yes, it seems like corporations ARE taking over the world. (I know I should do my homework and post more links, but I need to go to bed, and somebody else can do it - for or against - if they want to).
If ACTA isn't corporations exerting global influence on nations for only the gain of corporations, at the loss of the individuals, etc. etc. etc. than I know I can't think of any better current examples.
Thanks for mentioning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged [wikipedia.org]Atlas Shrugged, I'll definitely go to the library and work those inter-library loan ladies. I admit I don't recall every hearing of it or reading it.
And I agree with you, people who don't think seem to be taking over the world. Or maybe, people have become sheep and think what they're told to think.
There are many other things people have said I'd like to jump in on but, it's late. I didn't mean to accidentally start a discussion. I promise to go back in my hole and lurk more.
Re:Shouldn't even be a question. (Score:1, Insightful)
The federal government has always done more than that. In the case of drugs in general, you're fooling yourself if you believe that the effects are going to just stay in the state which legalizes.
I mean just look at fireworks as an example, those frequently cross state lines or leave reservations. If the feds weren't allowed to regulate that it would be a huge nightmare for your average person to figure out what combination of policies would be in force.
Cigarettes are another one, around here we have a really high tax on them, much higher than the surrounding states. They do get smuggled in regularly without paying the relevant taxes to the state.
I know it's popular to suggest that marijuana isn't that bad, and perhaps it is. But that's really not a judgment to make until the facts are in. It's been less than 20 years since the more potent varieties have shown up, and it would be surprising if there were any reasonable conclusion for at least a decade or two. In cases like this the onus is always on the person that's arguing that it's safe. Basically because the harm of not doing is far less than the possible harm of doing in most cases.
You completely misunderstand... (Score:1, Insightful)
Any representative of your government, my government, or any other western-style democratic government can sign any treaty they like.
But, until that treaty is passed through the necessary legislative body/bodies and ratified then it hasn't become law.
Put another way both the executive branch and the legislative branch have to approve of any treaty for it to be entered into the statute books.
Even if that weren't the case, if the wording of the treaty conflicts with the wording of a constitution, charter, bill of rights, or any other already existing law. It becomes the responsibility of the judicial branch to decide which has a higher standing in-law, in almost all cases you will find that the constitution, charter, or bill of rights will be found to have precedence.
What bothers me the most, and what I don't think most people understand / are aware of, is how international treaties can be signed, thus becoming laws which supersede the most supreme law of the country (constitution, charter, bill of rights etc.) all without public knowledge or involvement.
I think every single democratic country desperately needs to update their charters with clauses requiring that all international agreements be signed with public knowledge, consent and involvement and to clearly make available avenues for referendums so that the public can force their governments to withdraw if the majority of the population wishes (without replacing their government obviously).
corporations != capitalism (Score:1, Insightful)
It's amazing that everyone seems to equate corporations=capitalism.
If you actually sit down and analyse the way most corporations behave in an economic sense, you'll find that there is very little about their behaviour that fits with laissez-faire style of capitalism of which you obviously believe they are manifest.
SME are a close fit to the capitalist model. Multinational corporations have a much closer kinship with centrally planned marxist models.
When you say "Corporations are taking over the world", are you generalizing a bit, or do you really hate Capitalism, or do you have a better explanation for Corporations as the cause of the crap storm that is our future?
Please don't read this as a troll I'm just trying to understand your perspective on the matter.
Essentially you and I can agree on a number of things although I would add Atlas Shrugged to that list, and I would say "People who do not think are taking over the world."
I'm curious as to how far apart our view points are while still arriving at a similar estimation of the problem. That will be the true test of how bad it is.
Re:Brave New World, 1984 (Score:3, Insightful)
No need to apologize, in this day and age you should be congratulated.
I agree with you basic assessment of Corporations in the fact that they are more or less headless entities. They are a collective which is treated as an individual. If I had my way there would be no such thing as publicly owned companies. But that's my simple summation of it, and I realize it wouldn't solve everything, but when you can hang your ire on a single man, and that single man knows that the ire of some 300 million people is directed at him for the decisions he makes, and the decide who to give the money to every second of every day, it tends to put moral men in charge of the companies. First and foremost I'm a firm believer in individualism, so the idea that I would sell parts of any company I make to people I don't know really really bugs me.
But you have my vote for the sleep thing...
Re:ACTA?! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:ACTA?! (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh... I'm thinking if all they wanted was to kill a few thousand people anywhere, it would have cost a lot less than the Billions of dollars spent on the Iraq project
I don't get it- secret laws still exist in the US? (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, how can this still be called a "democracy" when those people, who are supposedly holding the power, are not allowed to know what their so-called representatives are doing?
Re:You'll never get your money back (Score:3, Insightful)
And exactly which of these does the Constitution authorize the government to do?
Build Roads
Don't recall reading that job description for the feds. States, maybe.
Build Hospitals
Not even mentioned. Maybe you could stretch Promote the general welfare from the Preamble
Strengthen a Military
Ok, that one is there.
Protection from Criminals
There is no explicit provisions for law enforcement in the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment gives me the ability to defend myself (even from the government)
Educate the Young
Can't find anything in the Constitution about that, meaning it was a state responsibility.
Stop threats against the country
Well, there's details about defending the country. Stopping threats could be interpreted as preemptive strikes, like Iraq. This one is grey, 1/2 point.
Help those who have run into misfortune
Not anywhere in the Constitution I can find. That started with the New Deal.
So by my count, you have a score of 1.5 out of 7.
Re:You'll never get your money back (Score:3, Insightful)
THAT is what we're all wary of and protesting....
Fine protest, but let's not go overboard with our cynicism and say the government does nothing good ever. Then we look like a bunch of ridiculous, clueless archanists. Plus I come to your house and steal all your stuff and call you a hypocrite if you go to the police.
Threat to free software (Score:1, Insightful)
The Free Software Foundation has published "Speak out against ACTA", stating that the ACTA threatens free software by creating a culture "in which the freedom that is required to produce free software is seen as dangerous and threatening rather than creative, innovative, and exciting."[7] Specifically the FSF argues that ACTA will makes it more difficult and expensive to distribute free software via file sharing and P2P technologies like BitTorrent, which are currently used to distributing large amounts of free software. The FSF also argues that ACTA will make it harder for users of free operating systems to play media because DRMed media cannot be played with free software
Re:You'll never get your money back (Score:2, Insightful)