Leaked: What's in TPP’s intellectual property chapter(politico.com)
politico.com
Leaked: What's in TPP’s intellectual property chapter
http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/06/tpp-deal-leaked-pharma-000126
180 comments
Maybe the best way to ensure access to medicine is by providing economic opportunities to the worlds most impoverished citizens. In other words, if the trade off is say a 10% increase in per capita GDP in exchange for less access to generics, maybe the former is better than the latter?
Those writing the TPP have no interest in passing any of the profits of these trade deals off to impoverished third world nations to enrich their societies.
If you want a mutually beneficial trade agreement, you don't need secret meetings or a rush to get it through congress.
If you want a mutually beneficial trade agreement, you don't need secret meetings or a rush to get it through congress.
The reason it is kept secret is presumably because the general public has difficulty seeing the ancillary benefits (reduction of trade barriers) and pays close attention to the obvious drawbacks (IP rights for "evil" corporations). This contention is fairly well supported by a cursory read through this or any other internet thread about a trade agreement.
Whether the good in the TPP outweighs the bad is an open question that I don't have an answer to. I am just trying to provide some counter arguments to an otherwise one-sided discussion on here.
Whether the good in the TPP outweighs the bad is an open question that I don't have an answer to. I am just trying to provide some counter arguments to an otherwise one-sided discussion on here.
That's an incredibly weak justification, and it comes off as patronizing. You're telling me that they have to hide when they do trade deals, because people might object to the concessions?
So you're going to commit is to something we didn't agree to? That's exactly why we need transparency.
And who decides who gets to make these deals? "Oh let us decide for you." No, you'll make a decision I don't want.
So you're going to commit is to something we didn't agree to? That's exactly why we need transparency.
And who decides who gets to make these deals? "Oh let us decide for you." No, you'll make a decision I don't want.
They must be some pretty weak and nuanced ancillary benefits if you're unable to explain them in such a way this "dumb" populace can understand the trade offs.
> Whether the good in the TPP outweighs the bad is an open question that I don't have an answer to. I am just trying to provide some counter arguments to an otherwise one-sided discussion on here.
Its not an open question, its a closed, hidden question we don't get access to, let alone any answers to.
This is a one-sided discussion because it is a one-sided situation.
> Whether the good in the TPP outweighs the bad is an open question that I don't have an answer to. I am just trying to provide some counter arguments to an otherwise one-sided discussion on here.
Its not an open question, its a closed, hidden question we don't get access to, let alone any answers to.
This is a one-sided discussion because it is a one-sided situation.
Perhaps, but there is no way that the TPP is going to produce at 10% increase in GDP per capita. I'm generally supportive of free trade agreements, but in the case of the TPP, all the low-hanging economic fruit has already been picked. There are no significant remaining trade barriers that can be removed to generate quick growth.
http://www.brookings.edu/research/testimony/2012/05/16-us-tr...
> Economic modeling estimates that the benefits to the U.S. from the TPP will be $5 billion in 2015, rising to $14 billion in 2025
Yeah, its not worth it.
Btw US GDP is ~$16 trillion. This isn't going to move the meter at all. Its primarily about securing foreign IP rights for US companies, Obama's legacy, and strategic influence.
> Economic modeling estimates that the benefits to the U.S. from the TPP will be $5 billion in 2015, rising to $14 billion in 2025
Yeah, its not worth it.
Btw US GDP is ~$16 trillion. This isn't going to move the meter at all. Its primarily about securing foreign IP rights for US companies, Obama's legacy, and strategic influence.
I think the parent meant 10% GDP growth in the other (non-U.S.) countries.
It doesn't do that either.
I don't see why his affiliation with Doctors Without Borders carries argument-ending weight here. They do noble work, but their interest is the well-being of people outside the U.S. The best case scenario for them is U.S. companies doing all the expensive R&D, and their patients outside the U.S. getting the resulting drugs for free.
The USTR, in contrast, has the sole responsibility of maximizing the benefit to the U.S. It's in our interest if people outside the U.S. have to pay us a bunch of money to get the drugs we invent.
That is not to say that we shouldn't be giving free drugs to people who need it. But that's a policy decision decidedly outside the scope of the USTR. We have agencies like USAID whose job it is to handle humanitarian aid.
The USTR, in contrast, has the sole responsibility of maximizing the benefit to the U.S. It's in our interest if people outside the U.S. have to pay us a bunch of money to get the drugs we invent.
That is not to say that we shouldn't be giving free drugs to people who need it. But that's a policy decision decidedly outside the scope of the USTR. We have agencies like USAID whose job it is to handle humanitarian aid.
I live in New Zealand - we've chosen to have socialised medicine - we buy drugs in bulk, for the whole country - it gives the national drug buying agency lots of market power - it doesn't force drug companies to sell to us under cost - but it does pick and choose hich drugs it buys with its limited budget - if they want our business they have to compete with other companies in front of a knowledgable experienced buyer acting on our behalf.
No one here is getting drugs for free, just at reasonable prices that may not be available in the US
TPP as currently written will neuter this advantage costing us billions that will come out of my taxes
No one here is getting drugs for free, just at reasonable prices that may not be available in the US
TPP as currently written will neuter this advantage costing us billions that will come out of my taxes
Same for us in Australia. Both Australia and New Zealand are getting the spiky end of the stick in regards to pharmaceuticals, we have a similar system of socialised medicine.
It's probably very similar for most industrialized countries to some extent. In Netherland (which probably has the most expensive health care in Europe), insurance companies negotiate about the prices, which means those companies decide which medicine is and isn't covered, and while they still have a reasonable amount of negotiating power, it's not as much as that of a more centralized approach. Still better than the US approach, but certainly the weakest of the EU.
That sounds like a great reason for New Zealand to not enter the partnership. I don't see why it's a reason for the US to object?
Wel yeah... US govt has very large buying power to so by simple market economics, the US govt gets as good a deal as... oh wait. Shit. They made it illegal for themselves to negotiate. Oops.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/under-the-influence/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/under-the-influence/
Big fan of your comments usually, so it's disappointing to see such a specious argument. Not only is this a false dichotomy (free drugs vs getting paid fairly), it's dramatically removed from reality.
Currently, without the TPP, the large pharmaceutical companies make billions in profit every year even including the rampant "piracy" in countries like India and China.
Or, with the TPP, all of those generics go poof, billions lose legal access to modern drugs, and pharmaceutical companies increase profits by 30, maybe 40 percent?
Of course that slack will get taken up by USAID, like you said, which means that now American tax payers will be on the hook to provide medicine that is now more expensive because our own government made them so.
Doesn't really add up, does it?
Currently, without the TPP, the large pharmaceutical companies make billions in profit every year even including the rampant "piracy" in countries like India and China.
Or, with the TPP, all of those generics go poof, billions lose legal access to modern drugs, and pharmaceutical companies increase profits by 30, maybe 40 percent?
Of course that slack will get taken up by USAID, like you said, which means that now American tax payers will be on the hook to provide medicine that is now more expensive because our own government made them so.
Doesn't really add up, does it?
[deleted]
I'm using the limiting cases to illustrate the incentives of the parties, not as a characterization of the actual argument being made. My point is that Doctors without Borders and the USTR serve different constituencies with conflicting interests.
As for getting "paid fairly" I disagree with the general notion that companies that make unimportant things should get paid "what the market will bear" while companies that make important things should get "paid fairly." I think that creates perverse incentives.
As for getting "paid fairly" I disagree with the general notion that companies that make unimportant things should get paid "what the market will bear" while companies that make important things should get "paid fairly." I think that creates perverse incentives.
"What the market will bear" is actually pretty low in this case (medicine for the people helped by Doctors without Borders). The whole point of patents is to artificially reduce supply to increase the price.
Your comment seems to conflate 'our', 'us' and 'we' with the drug companies themselves. There should be more to such negotiations than just whatever is in the (self)interest of US-based drug companies.
That all this seems to be happening behind closed doors doesn't inspire confidence.
That all this seems to be happening behind closed doors doesn't inspire confidence.
[deleted]
Within limits, the interests of the drug companies coincide with those who want new and better drugs to treat various illnesses. Those against the drug companies are on the side of those who want lower prices for existing drugs.
I want both, so I want a balance...
I want both, so I want a balance...
>I don't see why his affiliation with Doctors Without Borders carries argument-ending weight here.
Because he has the requisite knowledge to understand it and because he clearly hasn't been bought.
Because he has the requisite knowledge to understand it and because he clearly hasn't been bought.
> is U.S. companies doing all the expensive R&D
And they're certainly not struggling despite that; not sure why they need a treaty to 'protect' them.
> It's in our interest if people outside the U.S. have to pay us a bunch of money to get the drugs we invent.
Only if you think dollars are the only important thing. Plenty of people see welfare (including foreigners) as being a worthy thing in its own right.
And they're certainly not struggling despite that; not sure why they need a treaty to 'protect' them.
> It's in our interest if people outside the U.S. have to pay us a bunch of money to get the drugs we invent.
Only if you think dollars are the only important thing. Plenty of people see welfare (including foreigners) as being a worthy thing in its own right.
If you think Big Pharma isn't struggling, you haven't payed close enough attention. There is a bit of a crisis in innovation that is commonly blamed on the low-hanging fruit being gone. To cope, almost all of the big US companies have cut their discovery and preclinical teams significantly. In their place companies are paying contract companies to do large chunks of the more monotonous chunks of research or buying assets that are already developed to clinical candidate from academia or small biotechs.
That sounds more like an industry with an unsustainable business model adapting and converting to a sustainable crowdsourced model.
"struggling" isn't the word I would use in this situation.
Things change, oil dries up. Doesn't mean we need to start making redflag laws to protect the old models.
"struggling" isn't the word I would use in this situation.
Things change, oil dries up. Doesn't mean we need to start making redflag laws to protect the old models.
And yet they have enough money to get the influence to get the US government to strongarm other governments through treaties. That's not cheap.
I do hear what you say about the font drying up, but it's also no secret that medication is ridiculously expensive in the US. Big pharma is very wealthy, and very politically powerful, despite the low-hanging fruit being gone. The point I'm trying to make is that they don't need a treaty to protect them.
I do hear what you say about the font drying up, but it's also no secret that medication is ridiculously expensive in the US. Big pharma is very wealthy, and very politically powerful, despite the low-hanging fruit being gone. The point I'm trying to make is that they don't need a treaty to protect them.
The USTR, in contrast, has the sole responsibility of maximizing the benefit to the U.S
Correction -- that should read "benefit to the US companies".
Correction -- that should read "benefit to the US companies".
"I don't see why his affiliation with Doctors Without Borders carries argument-ending weight here. They do noble work, but their interest is the well-being of people outside the U.S."
That's quite an interesting interpretation of "without borders".
That's quite an interesting interpretation of "without borders".
U.S. negotiators have basically functioned as drug lobbyists
I made a similar comment a few days ago - what we need is a crowd-funded lobbying platform for everyday people. A kind of Kickstarter for law and policy.
If a few thousand or even tens of thousands of people chip in a few dollars to lobby for a change in policy, we can compete with corporations who have bought their way into power.
While we're complaining on the internet big business is using pocket change to get what they want. It needs to be as easy if not easier to pay a few bucks for your desired policy as it is to complain about it in an online forum.
I made a similar comment a few days ago - what we need is a crowd-funded lobbying platform for everyday people. A kind of Kickstarter for law and policy.
If a few thousand or even tens of thousands of people chip in a few dollars to lobby for a change in policy, we can compete with corporations who have bought their way into power.
While we're complaining on the internet big business is using pocket change to get what they want. It needs to be as easy if not easier to pay a few bucks for your desired policy as it is to complain about it in an online forum.
There's no way everyday people can compete with corporations anymore.
There are approximately 244,673,000 adults aged 18+ in the US: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html 318,857,056 * (1 - 0.233% of Persons under 18 years, percent, 2013) ~= 244,563,362
And according to https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/ , to match the $3.24 Billion spent on lobbying in 2014 you'd have to get absolutely everyone in the US 18 or over to give you 13$ and a quarter just to match what corporations are spending.
It's not the least bit realistic, and if the pre-2008 growth rate in lobbying spend picks up again it'll just get more and more out of control.
What's really necessary to get this absolutely incredible amount of money out of politics. The two presidential candidates shouldn't have to spend over 30 billion dollars on an election. The amount of money in politics right now is just insane.
There are approximately 244,673,000 adults aged 18+ in the US: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html 318,857,056 * (1 - 0.233% of Persons under 18 years, percent, 2013) ~= 244,563,362
And according to https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/ , to match the $3.24 Billion spent on lobbying in 2014 you'd have to get absolutely everyone in the US 18 or over to give you 13$ and a quarter just to match what corporations are spending.
It's not the least bit realistic, and if the pre-2008 growth rate in lobbying spend picks up again it'll just get more and more out of control.
What's really necessary to get this absolutely incredible amount of money out of politics. The two presidential candidates shouldn't have to spend over 30 billion dollars on an election. The amount of money in politics right now is just insane.
to match the $3.24 Billion spent on lobbying in 2014
Who says every dollar needs to be matched? If a corporation lobbies for rubber subsidies, no one will give a shit. If a corporation lobbies to make it a criminal offence to mention their brand online without a license, that crosses into free speech which might be worth a dollar or twenty to those who find that kind of thing important.
It's not the least bit realistic
You don't necessarily need to spend more than the corporations, you just need to make it lucrative to stand up for the good guy. If you can have $1m to be evil or $900k to be good, the $100k lost is more than made up for by the advocacy of those you served. It's free advertising.
Who says every dollar needs to be matched? If a corporation lobbies for rubber subsidies, no one will give a shit. If a corporation lobbies to make it a criminal offence to mention their brand online without a license, that crosses into free speech which might be worth a dollar or twenty to those who find that kind of thing important.
It's not the least bit realistic
You don't necessarily need to spend more than the corporations, you just need to make it lucrative to stand up for the good guy. If you can have $1m to be evil or $900k to be good, the $100k lost is more than made up for by the advocacy of those you served. It's free advertising.
Yes but how do you do that when the supreme court has ruled that money equals free speech?
There's lots of people who can see that money in politics is the problem. How do we solve it though?
Wait for a supreme court judge to die and hope their replacement aligns with our views on this topic?
Petition the whitehouse?
Fund a kickstarter campaign to get our own people lobbying for this?
There's lots of people who can see that money in politics is the problem. How do we solve it though?
Wait for a supreme court judge to die and hope their replacement aligns with our views on this topic?
Petition the whitehouse?
Fund a kickstarter campaign to get our own people lobbying for this?
Fund alternative media whose cost structure is much lower than TV networks, e.g. this TISA explainer video on banking, public services regulation and corporations, https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wwkikCpQ6pk . The Young Turks is the top online news show on YouTube, I wish they had episode transcripts. There is a related PAC to reverse Citizens United, http://www.wolf-pac.com
TYT isn't really news in that they require the news to function. They comment on the other news gathering interests. So they can't really standalone.
Let's just bite the bullet and start an anti-lobbying lobby. Fund candidates that support transparency and anti-lobbying legislation.
> Fund candidates that support transparency and anti-lobbying legislation.
That would of funded the current President as well... that is, until he was elected President.
That would of funded the current President as well... that is, until he was elected President.
> There's no way everyday people can compete with corporations anymore.
Really? It's like you've never heard of a PAC before.
Really? It's like you've never heard of a PAC before.
PAC's and Super PAC's are often heavily funded by corporations.
And regular PAC's really cannot compete with the unlimited funding a Super PAC can levy (PAC's have strict limits on contributions to parties and candidates; $5,000 per candidate, $15,000 per party per year).
And regular PAC's really cannot compete with the unlimited funding a Super PAC can levy (PAC's have strict limits on contributions to parties and candidates; $5,000 per candidate, $15,000 per party per year).
How is this any different from the panoply of public lobbying and advocacy organizations that exist today? The Chamber of Commerce pulls in $200 million per year. EDF pulls in $121M. Sierra $98M. CAP $40M. Cato $29M. The Family Research Council $13M. The EFF pulls in $10M.
Even the smallest of these are not small numbers. And, if you're interested in policy or political change, you've heard of all of them, and they all make it pretty damn easy to donate money[0]. It's just people don't care that much, and for the people who do care, there's often someone else on the opposite side of things who cares just as much.
It doesn't seem to me that a crowd-funded lobbying platform offers much. Maybe it makes it easier to start up an organization? Sure, I guess, but it doesn't give me any confidence that they'll use any funds I give in an effective way. At least major, well-known organizations have a brand to defend and have to be able to prove repeatable successes.
[0] The EFF, which I got to in 5 seconds by DuckDuckGoing "EFF donate": https://supporters.eff.org/donate
Even the smallest of these are not small numbers. And, if you're interested in policy or political change, you've heard of all of them, and they all make it pretty damn easy to donate money[0]. It's just people don't care that much, and for the people who do care, there's often someone else on the opposite side of things who cares just as much.
It doesn't seem to me that a crowd-funded lobbying platform offers much. Maybe it makes it easier to start up an organization? Sure, I guess, but it doesn't give me any confidence that they'll use any funds I give in an effective way. At least major, well-known organizations have a brand to defend and have to be able to prove repeatable successes.
[0] The EFF, which I got to in 5 seconds by DuckDuckGoing "EFF donate": https://supporters.eff.org/donate
Going by this argument there's no point using Kickstarter because you could already fund projects without it. But what Kickstarter did was act as a hub for many different projects (EFF won't help much for anything pertaining to health care), a public tracker to monitor progress and outcome, a means of describing what the goals are and what different fund totals will help achieve, and a trusted method to transfer funds.
Within each Lobby Kickstarter you could outline which organizations would receive funds for specific goals, e.g. ACLU for particular civil liberties that are under attack, EFF to address dragnet surveillance etc. Yes you're adding a middleman but you have a one stop shop for initiatives that range far and wide. You could also keep score of which organizations have been successful so that you have an additional trust mechanism, much the way a company might keep track of its subcontractors when choosing who to use to get a job done.
Within each Lobby Kickstarter you could outline which organizations would receive funds for specific goals, e.g. ACLU for particular civil liberties that are under attack, EFF to address dragnet surveillance etc. Yes you're adding a middleman but you have a one stop shop for initiatives that range far and wide. You could also keep score of which organizations have been successful so that you have an additional trust mechanism, much the way a company might keep track of its subcontractors when choosing who to use to get a job done.
Cato is another front for corporate lobbying.
The EFF even has an Amazon Smile account, so you can donate that way too.
> what we need is a crowd-funded lobbying platform for everyday people
How about https://www.iWouldDo.it ?
How about https://www.iWouldDo.it ?
You mean... what voting is supposed to do for free in a normal democracy? Demos Kratos, yeah right, Large Companies Kratos.
I think a more practical idea is the notion of people running for office that vow to take a public vote for all their decisions through the internet (yes it could be done realistically with public/private key cryptography)
It seems that the TPP, TTIP and TiSA are not about the sort of “free trade” that would free local businesses to sell abroad. They are about freeing international corporations from the government regulation necessary to protect the economy, the people, and the environment. They are about preserving privatized monopolies and preventing competition from the public sector. And they are about moving litigation offshore into private arbitrary tribunals
What is going on was predicted by David Korten in his 1995 blockbuster, When Corporations Rule The World. Catherine Austin Fitts calls it a “corporate coup d’état.”
This corporate coup includes the privatization and offshoring of the judicial function [0] delegated to the US court system in the Constitution, through Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions that strengthen existing ISDS procedures.
As explained in The Economist [1], ISDS gives foreign firms a special right to apply to a secretive tribunal of highly paid corporate lawyers for compensation whenever the government passes a law to do things that hurt corporate profits — such things as discouraging smoking, protecting the environment or preventing a nuclear catastrophe. Arbitrators are paid $600-700 an hour, giving them little incentive to dismiss cases. The secretive nature of the arbitration process and the lack of any requirement to consider precedent give wide scope for creative judgments – the sort of arbitrary edicts satirized by Lewis Carroll in Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland.
To date, the highest ISDS award has been for $2.3 billion to Occidental Oil Company against the government of Ecuador over its termination of an oil-concession contract, although the termination was apparently legal. Under the TPP, however, even larger and more unpredictable judgments can be anticipated, since the sort of “investment” it protects includes not just “the commitment of capital or other resources” but “the expectation of gain or profit.” That means the rights of corporations extend not merely to their factories and other “capital” but to the profits they expect to receive. Just the threat of a massive damage award for impairing “expected corporate profits” could be enough to discourage prospective legislation by lawmakers.
0]: http://ellenbrown.com/2015/04/24/the-trans-pacific-partnersh...
1]: http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21623756...
What is going on was predicted by David Korten in his 1995 blockbuster, When Corporations Rule The World. Catherine Austin Fitts calls it a “corporate coup d’état.”
This corporate coup includes the privatization and offshoring of the judicial function [0] delegated to the US court system in the Constitution, through Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions that strengthen existing ISDS procedures.
As explained in The Economist [1], ISDS gives foreign firms a special right to apply to a secretive tribunal of highly paid corporate lawyers for compensation whenever the government passes a law to do things that hurt corporate profits — such things as discouraging smoking, protecting the environment or preventing a nuclear catastrophe. Arbitrators are paid $600-700 an hour, giving them little incentive to dismiss cases. The secretive nature of the arbitration process and the lack of any requirement to consider precedent give wide scope for creative judgments – the sort of arbitrary edicts satirized by Lewis Carroll in Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland.
To date, the highest ISDS award has been for $2.3 billion to Occidental Oil Company against the government of Ecuador over its termination of an oil-concession contract, although the termination was apparently legal. Under the TPP, however, even larger and more unpredictable judgments can be anticipated, since the sort of “investment” it protects includes not just “the commitment of capital or other resources” but “the expectation of gain or profit.” That means the rights of corporations extend not merely to their factories and other “capital” but to the profits they expect to receive. Just the threat of a massive damage award for impairing “expected corporate profits” could be enough to discourage prospective legislation by lawmakers.
0]: http://ellenbrown.com/2015/04/24/the-trans-pacific-partnersh...
1]: http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21623756...
There's also the fact that the Executive branch (for current and all future Presidents) has just greatly expanded it's power, and snubbed out Congress' ability to stone-wall any trade deals they don't agree with (via amendments, etc...).
Obama likes to constantly state that he will act because Congress "refuses" to... which completely ignores the fact that Congress' "lack" of action is exactly what they are supposed to do when there is no agreement on an issue. Just because Congress doesn't execute the President's will doesn't mean Congress is wrong!
Now the Executive branch gets to unilaterally decide what trade agreements are good for the nation (and that usually means which big lobbying firm courted the Executive branch the best) -- that doesn't sound very democratic to me.
Obama likes to constantly state that he will act because Congress "refuses" to... which completely ignores the fact that Congress' "lack" of action is exactly what they are supposed to do when there is no agreement on an issue. Just because Congress doesn't execute the President's will doesn't mean Congress is wrong!
Now the Executive branch gets to unilaterally decide what trade agreements are good for the nation (and that usually means which big lobbying firm courted the Executive branch the best) -- that doesn't sound very democratic to me.
When the Congress hands the Executive fast-track authority for such dealings, it is quite disingenuous to point the finger at the Executive. The Executive branch is going to take and hold every single power the Congress grants it. The Congress is there to balance a runaway Executive.
Congress surrendered the authority. They are the ones to blame.
Congress surrendered the authority. They are the ones to blame.
I, for one, am glad to know that that interests of everyone important are well protected in this treaty.
I just wish I knew how to join this class of people who are important. Apparently being a citizen is not enough anymore.
I just wish I knew how to join this class of people who are important. Apparently being a citizen is not enough anymore.
There's been several carefully crafted changes to the language of American politics over the past twenty-five years and "citizen" has been replaced by "taxpayer" [1] as the relevant political constituency. Since corporations ostensibly pay taxes, their personhood has been lifted. Likewise, since wealthy individuals tend to pay more taxes on an absolute basis (despite an increasingly regressive system) their interests within the constituency of taxpayers are also lifted.
[1]: The case for "taxpayers" has been assisted by the language of "victim's rights" wherein people first accepted the idea that some citizens should have higher status before the law than others. Using the idea that paying taxes is a form of theft, taxpayers establish their victimhood and by an extension a privileged interest over ordinary citizens in matters concerning taxation. The obverse of the coin is "consumer rights" wherein buying "Little Plastic Shit" is seen as a high form of social engagement and the primary civic duty of ordinary Americans.
[1]: The case for "taxpayers" has been assisted by the language of "victim's rights" wherein people first accepted the idea that some citizens should have higher status before the law than others. Using the idea that paying taxes is a form of theft, taxpayers establish their victimhood and by an extension a privileged interest over ordinary citizens in matters concerning taxation. The obverse of the coin is "consumer rights" wherein buying "Little Plastic Shit" is seen as a high form of social engagement and the primary civic duty of ordinary Americans.
More noticeably, "people" has been replaced with "citizen."
The bill of rights specifically delineates protections that apply to "people" and protections that apply to "citizens." The dialogue is often about civil rights violations of American citizens, but the original language is more often "people."
From Yick Wo v. Hopkins
The rights of the petitioners, as affected by the proceedings of which they complain, are not less because they are aliens and subjects of the emperor of China. . . . The fourteenth amendment to the constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: “Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws. . . . The questions we have to consider and decide in these cases, therefore, are to be treated as involving the rights of every citizen of the United States equally with those of the strangers and aliens who now invoke the jurisdiction of the court.
Example from the other side: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/01/07/kt-mcfarland-chris... With the Detroit bomber we now have a clear pattern that reveals how the Obama administration deals with terrorists – try them in civilian courts with the full rights of American citizens... The president is treating terrorists like citizens and citizens like terrorists.
Note: I've taken both these examples from an excellent Glenn Greenwald article on the subject
The bill of rights specifically delineates protections that apply to "people" and protections that apply to "citizens." The dialogue is often about civil rights violations of American citizens, but the original language is more often "people."
From Yick Wo v. Hopkins
The rights of the petitioners, as affected by the proceedings of which they complain, are not less because they are aliens and subjects of the emperor of China. . . . The fourteenth amendment to the constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: “Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws. . . . The questions we have to consider and decide in these cases, therefore, are to be treated as involving the rights of every citizen of the United States equally with those of the strangers and aliens who now invoke the jurisdiction of the court.
Example from the other side: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/01/07/kt-mcfarland-chris... With the Detroit bomber we now have a clear pattern that reveals how the Obama administration deals with terrorists – try them in civilian courts with the full rights of American citizens... The president is treating terrorists like citizens and citizens like terrorists.
Note: I've taken both these examples from an excellent Glenn Greenwald article on the subject
As a non-citizen residing in the US, I find this phenomenon particularly noticeable. Like when Dzhokar Tsarnaev was arrested for the Boston bombing and the question of whether he should have his Miranda rights read to him was discussed in the media, the argument seemed to generally hinge on 'but he's a US citizen', as if, if he weren't, obviously this conversation wouldn't be worth having; or when the nature of US drone strikes comes up, and people express specific outrage that drone strikes have been used to assassinate "US Citizens abroad", as if that somehow changes things.
I think you are letting the citizenry off the hook for their part in this. The only reason corporations gained this power is because they have more collective money (or at least are more willing to use that money) to lobby. The only reason lobbying works is because politicians need money to get elected. The only reason politicians need money to get elected is because people are so susceptible to political marketing. Coporate personhood is therefore just a symptom of a larger problem, a disinterested and easily manipulated electorate.
I, for one, am glad to learn that we can fix all this by voting more often, or better, or whatever. Now that I think back, my junior high civics class taught me the same thing!
I am sensing sarcasm, so I just want to point to the 2014 primary turnout numbers. Less than 18% [1] of total eligible voters cast a ballot in the 2014 primary elections. When you have that much apathy, it suddenly becomes a lot easier to sway elections with a few million dollars.
[1] - http://humanevents.com/2014/10/08/republican-2014-primary-tu...
[1] - http://humanevents.com/2014/10/08/republican-2014-primary-tu...
Only if you'd scale that up to the entire country.
But maybe not even then. You vote for the candidate that can best convince you to vote for them. So this is the metric the system will optimize for. Politicians that make good decisions or stick to their principles get outcompeted by those who focus on marketing themselves and pandering to the public. Even if you make the electorate more educated and engaged, this will only do so much to fix the misalignment of values. Unless you know a way to immunize someone to marketing completely, I see no hope for fixing voting. I infer that every democracy, as it matures, degenerates into a popularity contest.
But maybe not even then. You vote for the candidate that can best convince you to vote for them. So this is the metric the system will optimize for. Politicians that make good decisions or stick to their principles get outcompeted by those who focus on marketing themselves and pandering to the public. Even if you make the electorate more educated and engaged, this will only do so much to fix the misalignment of values. Unless you know a way to immunize someone to marketing completely, I see no hope for fixing voting. I infer that every democracy, as it matures, degenerates into a popularity contest.
It also does nothing to correct the apathetic public we have had for the past... sixty? Years. The incredible amount of gerrymandering done to rig the house of representatives is incredible, and the Senate is already inherently biased because its giving every voter in Wyoming 67 times the influence of a voter of California. Unsurprisingly, Wyoming has not elected a non-Republican senator in over fifty years.
It should be no surprise that the will of the people no longer has any real correlation with the policy voted into law by congress.
It should be no surprise that the will of the people no longer has any real correlation with the policy voted into law by congress.
Apathy may be something that grows with time as well. It seems to me (though I don't have much evidence to back it up so I welcome being shown I'm wrong) that a lifespan of a functioning democracy is ~100 years. The people who shed blood for it care. Their children are taught to care as well. But the grand-grand-children, born into a working system, don't have any context of how it was before that would give them motivation to care and perform required maintenance. And then, the system starts to degrade.
And for the US, one could plausibly start that 100 year clock in 1865, rather than in 1789. That would put the start of the apathy in 1965. Feels about right.
(Unless you're going to count it from 1945, in which case the real apathy hasn't started yet.)
(Unless you're going to count it from 1945, in which case the real apathy hasn't started yet.)
We have not yet begun not to care!
corporations gained this power...because they have more collective money
Consistent with the golden rule of economics.
Consistent with the golden rule of economics.
You make it sound as though being easily manipulated by people with a lot of resources is a character flaw, rather than a characteristic of all humans throughout history.
It is unlikely (and maybe even undesirable) that we are going to be able to easily overcome our inherent susceptibility to influence. Therefore if we are to improve things we must recognize that this is part of who we are, and design our institutions accordingly.
It is unlikely (and maybe even undesirable) that we are going to be able to easily overcome our inherent susceptibility to influence. Therefore if we are to improve things we must recognize that this is part of who we are, and design our institutions accordingly.
Realism on all sides of this debate would be amazingly helpful. For instance, this continual disingenuous cry of "the corporations!" is stupid on its face. Are corporations autonomous intelligent entities outside of the will of powerful people? No! It's powerful people lobbying for rules that will help them. Destroy the concept of corporations tomorrow and you will still have powerful people who bend government to their will - you'll probably just have fewer people with much greater shares of power.
Why do you bring this up? Do you think my comment involved taking a side?
Well said. And correspondingly, very little talk of responsibilities.
> "citizen" has been replaced by "taxpayer"
"When someone describes themselves as a taxpayer, they're about to be an asshole" - Demetri Martin
"When someone describes themselves as a taxpayer, they're about to be an asshole" - Demetri Martin
> I just wish I knew how to join this class of people who are important.
Here's a rough guide: be willing to spend lots of $$$ on politicians, and more than the other Johns. Own media companies so you can influence what people think. Work together with other rich people with similar goals, it will take some time.
Here's a rough guide: be willing to spend lots of $$$ on politicians, and more than the other Johns. Own media companies so you can influence what people think. Work together with other rich people with similar goals, it will take some time.
Corporations are the true citizens.
Charlie Stross has a somewhat amusing yet reasonably accurate way of putting it: "we are living in the aftermath of an alien invasion".
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/12/invaders...
> Corporations do not share our priorities. They are hive organisms constructed out of teeming workers who join or leave the collective: those who participate within it subordinate their goals to that of the collective, which pursues the three corporate objectives of growth, profitability, and pain avoidance.
...
> Corporations have a mean life expectancy of around 30 years, but are potentially immortal; they live only in the present, having little regard for past or (thanks to short term accounting regulations) the deep future: and they generally exhibit a sociopathic lack of empathy.
...
> Collectively, corporate groups lobby international trade treaty negotiations for operating conditions more conducive to pursuing their three goals.
...
> We are now living in a global state that has been structured for the benefit of non-human entities with non-human goals. They have enormous media reach, which they use to distract attention from threats to their own survival. They also have an enormous ability to support litigation against public participation, except in the very limited circumstances where such action is forbidden.
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/12/invaders...
> Corporations do not share our priorities. They are hive organisms constructed out of teeming workers who join or leave the collective: those who participate within it subordinate their goals to that of the collective, which pursues the three corporate objectives of growth, profitability, and pain avoidance.
...
> Corporations have a mean life expectancy of around 30 years, but are potentially immortal; they live only in the present, having little regard for past or (thanks to short term accounting regulations) the deep future: and they generally exhibit a sociopathic lack of empathy.
...
> Collectively, corporate groups lobby international trade treaty negotiations for operating conditions more conducive to pursuing their three goals.
...
> We are now living in a global state that has been structured for the benefit of non-human entities with non-human goals. They have enormous media reach, which they use to distract attention from threats to their own survival. They also have an enormous ability to support litigation against public participation, except in the very limited circumstances where such action is forbidden.
It reminds me of the conclusion I reached after hanging out with NWO conspiracy folks for a while. If what they say is true, it seems to me that those Rockefellers and Bilderberg group folks are the only people out there with a reasonable, good idea for the future. I only wish I knew how to join them.
What is their reasonable, good idea for the future, TeMPOral?
According to those conspiracy theorists I mention? Some things that they attribute to NWO and therefore want to fight against are: GMOs, vaccines, (moving away from fossil fuels to) nuclear energy, carbon tax, unified global government. Implementation may be tricky, but if you skip the accusations that They want to depopulate the world using above means, it seems like a bunch of pretty decent ideas for the future.
I agree, there are a lot of things that the hypothetical NWO does that I fully agree with.
I stand in full favour of GMOS, Nuclear Energy, Carbon Taxation/Trading, and also a global government (on the condition of it being a good one).
However, the extra political power being given to corporations and the reduction of citizen's capacity for political influence is something to stand firmly against. Of course I don't believe in a NWO in the traditional sense but the world is certainly largely run by a group of individuals in power.
The TPP makes me think of the Shadowrun timeline and the progression to extraterritoriality for corporations around the 2020s and 2030s.
I stand in full favour of GMOS, Nuclear Energy, Carbon Taxation/Trading, and also a global government (on the condition of it being a good one).
However, the extra political power being given to corporations and the reduction of citizen's capacity for political influence is something to stand firmly against. Of course I don't believe in a NWO in the traditional sense but the world is certainly largely run by a group of individuals in power.
The TPP makes me think of the Shadowrun timeline and the progression to extraterritoriality for corporations around the 2020s and 2030s.
Yeah, I didn't mean to suggest that I like the TPP. You're right about the power given to corporate entities being something to fight against.
> the world is certainly largely run by a group of individuals in power
This reminds me of an observation I once read - that there's no surprise those on top can look like they form a club even if they represent opposite spectrum on political scene; after all they studied at the same universities and probably know each other from the campus.
However, I'm not sure if the world is really shaped that much by conscious will of small group of individuals. As one blog puts it, "Almost No One is Evil. Almost Everything is Broken". It feels to me that a system of misaligned incentives is enough to explain most of the ways in which the world seems to evolve.
> The TPP makes me think of the Shadowrun timeline and the progression to extraterritoriality for corporations around the 2020s and 2030s.
Gotta check out Shadowrun, I haven't had a chance before :).
Speaking of works of fiction, the whole situation reminds me of Continuum series and the future of Corporate Congress.
> the world is certainly largely run by a group of individuals in power
This reminds me of an observation I once read - that there's no surprise those on top can look like they form a club even if they represent opposite spectrum on political scene; after all they studied at the same universities and probably know each other from the campus.
However, I'm not sure if the world is really shaped that much by conscious will of small group of individuals. As one blog puts it, "Almost No One is Evil. Almost Everything is Broken". It feels to me that a system of misaligned incentives is enough to explain most of the ways in which the world seems to evolve.
> The TPP makes me think of the Shadowrun timeline and the progression to extraterritoriality for corporations around the 2020s and 2030s.
Gotta check out Shadowrun, I haven't had a chance before :).
Speaking of works of fiction, the whole situation reminds me of Continuum series and the future of Corporate Congress.
Oh, that Continuum, not the Time Traveling RPG.
Shadowrun's future describes a collapsing of the middle class, combination of corporation & state (zero distinction), lots of poor folks and "shadowrunners" who do the dirty work for the megacorps (stealing data, assassinate, etc).
All Megacorps use Shadowrunners but none publically acknowledge their existence or the details of what they do. Sort of like spy agencies.
Shadowrun's future describes a collapsing of the middle class, combination of corporation & state (zero distinction), lots of poor folks and "shadowrunners" who do the dirty work for the megacorps (stealing data, assassinate, etc).
All Megacorps use Shadowrunners but none publically acknowledge their existence or the details of what they do. Sort of like spy agencies.
Yeah, that Continuum, with a pretty girl wearing a touchscreen :). Thanks for the description of Shadowrunner. I wonder how far off we're from it today. Don't corporations already outsource some of their dirty work?
> I agree, there are a lot of things that the hypothetical NWO does that I fully agree with.
https://youtu.be/MxSTmcwP4QI?t=1696
https://youtu.be/MxSTmcwP4QI?t=1696
So the next question is, will these NWO succeed in any of their goals?
It's not certain, but I just am surprised I found myself fighting on their side, at least for the issues mentioned above...
~Oh, no, no, no. You can't just be an important person any more. That's like being only a millionaire. You want to be a very important person nowadays, otherwise you're just the froth, floating on the scum, floating on the unwashed rabble.~
It appears that certain people have forgotten that the grandest plans of the grandest men may be thrown into chaos by a mere handful of angry serfs. I think I would very much prefer to be anonymous and free to act than to be important, and mortally afraid of every moving shadow, or wound up too tight because people are not respecting mah propertah or mah authoritah.
I think that perhaps now might be a good time to learn some glassware-only techniques for solid-phase peptide synthesis and HPLC purification. Alternately, become an unlicensed expert on CRISPR-based gene modifications. I'm very concerned about the provisions for "biologics", and I would much prefer that biohacking be freely available to the people, rather than locked up for the exclusive benefit of the VIPs. There are some genies out there that need to be unbottled quickly, before some jerkasses decide that they're the only ones who deserve to get wishes.
It appears that certain people have forgotten that the grandest plans of the grandest men may be thrown into chaos by a mere handful of angry serfs. I think I would very much prefer to be anonymous and free to act than to be important, and mortally afraid of every moving shadow, or wound up too tight because people are not respecting mah propertah or mah authoritah.
I think that perhaps now might be a good time to learn some glassware-only techniques for solid-phase peptide synthesis and HPLC purification. Alternately, become an unlicensed expert on CRISPR-based gene modifications. I'm very concerned about the provisions for "biologics", and I would much prefer that biohacking be freely available to the people, rather than locked up for the exclusive benefit of the VIPs. There are some genies out there that need to be unbottled quickly, before some jerkasses decide that they're the only ones who deserve to get wishes.
This interview with Assange that democracynow did sheds some light on this 'trade' agreement: http://www.democracynow.org/2015/5/27/julian_assange_on_the_...
The whole interview is worth watching.
The whole interview is worth watching.
In Spam Nation, the primary reason spam is successful (why people click those weird ads) is because they get working drugs for cheap that in many cases are chemically indifferent to their expensive prescription counterparts.
http://krebsonsecurity.com/tag/spam-nation/
http://krebsonsecurity.com/tag/spam-nation/
So if access to health care for the poor isn't a good enough reason to make drugs cheaper, then surely finally killing spam is?
"The Obama administration often describes TPP as the most progressive free-trade deal in history"
Does anyone see stronger government enforced monopolies (patents) as the opposite of free trade?
Does anyone see stronger government enforced monopolies (patents) as the opposite of free trade?
All property is a government enforced monopoly. Without property there is no trade. There is no reason to transact when you can just take or copy.
Governments don't create property rights, nor do they enforce then very well, usually governments seize private property.
We civilized humans have come to terms with natural rights, that there "inalienable" rights granted by being a conscious free willed beings.
All the bootlicking DC apologists would be wise to reread some philosophy and develop a moral code beyond the barbaric might makes right.
We civilized humans have come to terms with natural rights, that there "inalienable" rights granted by being a conscious free willed beings.
All the bootlicking DC apologists would be wise to reread some philosophy and develop a moral code beyond the barbaric might makes right.
That's a rather empty argument. Sure, protection intellectual "property" is important for encouraging innovation, but the length of protection must be carefully balanced to prevent rent-seeking (resting on laurels of past innovation). Currently, the terms are ridiculous for many categories (software patents, copyright). In particular, there's nothing that "encourages innovation" when terms get extended retroactively (for existing innovations).
That's an orthogonal point. You could make a similar argument for private land ownership (why should someone be able to keep a parcel in his ownership for decades if he doesn't plan to use it?)
>why should someone be able to keep a parcel in his ownership for decades if he doesn't plan to use it?
He shouldn't. Next question?
He shouldn't. Next question?
[deleted]
My next question would be "what is a persuasive argument against intellectual property for those of us who don't reject the concept of private property altogether?"
Do you have a persuasive (to you) argument for it?
Is the structure of that argument the same as the structure of your argument for physical property? (in which case my argument would be that there are very relevant differences)
There are pragmatic arguments against it: The costs copyright and patents impose on the market are huge. Not the prices, but all the good things that become difficult or illegal to do.
On principle: even if an IP system has some practical benefit, we usually set a pretty high bar for restricting people's communication or creativity. Is copying properly up there with fraud and slander?
I think we can come up with much better ways to pay for art. (Kickstarter is one.)
Is the structure of that argument the same as the structure of your argument for physical property? (in which case my argument would be that there are very relevant differences)
There are pragmatic arguments against it: The costs copyright and patents impose on the market are huge. Not the prices, but all the good things that become difficult or illegal to do.
On principle: even if an IP system has some practical benefit, we usually set a pretty high bar for restricting people's communication or creativity. Is copying properly up there with fraud and slander?
I think we can come up with much better ways to pay for art. (Kickstarter is one.)
Respectfully, I asked if you had an argument against IP that worked for those of us who do not believe that the whole concept of private property is flawed. I asked because you said "next question". Asking me to justify IP is not responsive to my question.
The only argument I see in here is that copying might not be on a par with fraud and slander. Frankly, I'm a lot more worried about criminalizing slander than I am about criminalizing copying. Slander law actually does clamp down on free speech. Copyright law just prevents free-riding.
The only argument I see in here is that copying might not be on a par with fraud and slander. Frankly, I'm a lot more worried about criminalizing slander than I am about criminalizing copying. Slander law actually does clamp down on free speech. Copyright law just prevents free-riding.
> Frankly, I'm a lot more worried about criminalizing slander than I am about criminalizing copying. Slander law actually does clamp down on free speech. Copyright law just prevents free-riding.
Indeed, I think the area of IP with the most significant impact on free speech is the one that hardly gets talked about: trademark. Causes of action for dilution and tarnishment have major free speech implications. IMHO, 15 USC 1125 is unconstitutional to the extent it allows an action for tarnishment.
Indeed, I think the area of IP with the most significant impact on free speech is the one that hardly gets talked about: trademark. Causes of action for dilution and tarnishment have major free speech implications. IMHO, 15 USC 1125 is unconstitutional to the extent it allows an action for tarnishment.
Wouldn't that argument just reinforce the comment's point? Land ownership is heavily regulated - taxes, zoning, easements, eminent domain and so on.
> why should someone be able to keep a parcel in his ownership for decades if he doesn't plan to use it?
Property taxes are structured to discourage productive land sitting idle.
Property taxes are structured to discourage productive land sitting idle.
You've written this, or something similar, before. It's kind of disingenuous.
For instance, I have a leatherman "Micra" in my pocket. It's my property. I can tell I still own it by putting my hand in my pocket... yep, it's still mine.
Now, "intellectual property" is another matter all together. I can't tell is my "intellectual property" is being infringed on without a large effort to police it. Is my fantastic new way of rigging sails being infringed upon by some "pirate" on Lake Michigan? I can't tell. My sailboat still have the fantastic new way of rigging, so I'm fat dumb and happy. I have to have a state, or some huge organization, find the infringement for me.
I think that's one difference in property theft vs "intellectual property" infringement. I'm not exactly sure what to call it, other than "government enforced monopoly". Yes, some laws around property need to be in place, and governments need to enforce them. There's a difference in both magnitude of enforcement, and type of enforcement that's necessary for "intellectual property" to exist.
As far as "just copy", well, I'm using my capital (expensive computer) to manufacture those copies myself, should I actually do that. The enforcers now need to keep me from using my capital in a way that I control. That's another significant difference you're glossing over.
For instance, I have a leatherman "Micra" in my pocket. It's my property. I can tell I still own it by putting my hand in my pocket... yep, it's still mine.
Now, "intellectual property" is another matter all together. I can't tell is my "intellectual property" is being infringed on without a large effort to police it. Is my fantastic new way of rigging sails being infringed upon by some "pirate" on Lake Michigan? I can't tell. My sailboat still have the fantastic new way of rigging, so I'm fat dumb and happy. I have to have a state, or some huge organization, find the infringement for me.
I think that's one difference in property theft vs "intellectual property" infringement. I'm not exactly sure what to call it, other than "government enforced monopoly". Yes, some laws around property need to be in place, and governments need to enforce them. There's a difference in both magnitude of enforcement, and type of enforcement that's necessary for "intellectual property" to exist.
As far as "just copy", well, I'm using my capital (expensive computer) to manufacture those copies myself, should I actually do that. The enforcers now need to keep me from using my capital in a way that I control. That's another significant difference you're glossing over.
> For instance, I have a leatherman "Micra" in my pocket. It's my property. I can tell I still own it by putting my hand in my pocket... yep, it's still mine.
You've confused possession with ownership. If you loan it to someone -- or someone steals it -- you won't find it in your pocket, you won't possess it, but you will still own it.
Ownership is a relation created in law. It is different than possession. In fact, its a meaningful concept only because it can differ from possession.
> Now, "intellectual property" is another matter all together. I can't tell is my "intellectual property" is being infringed on without a large effort to police it.
That's very much true of lots of real property (and even of tangible personal property that you don't keep in your possession). If I have real property spread around the different states -- and tangible personal property on the grounds of each of those real properties -- it takes a considerable policing effort to tell if the exclusive legal rights I have to those items which make them property are being infringed.
> I have to have a state, or some huge organization, find the infringement for me.
That's true, again, of all kinds of property in general, real property, tangible personal property, and intangible personal property other than intellectual property in general.
The tangible personal property you happen to keep in your immediate possession is actually the exception here, not the norm with property. Largely, the whole point of ownership existing as a legal relationship beyond mere possession is to enable people to have control of things that aren't under their immediate supervision all the time.
> I think that's one difference in property theft vs "intellectual property" infringement
And, in general, you are wrong. What you are pointing to is just largely true of physical property (real and tangible personal property) as of intangible personal property in general and intellectual property in particular.
> I'm not exactly sure what to call it, other than "government enforced monopoly".
Government enforced monopoly is exactly the defining characteristic of all property. So, its not a bad term to use for intellectual property, its just a mistake to use that to indicate something that is supposedly distinct about intellectual property as opposed to true of all property.
> There's a difference in both magnitude of enforcement, and type of enforcement that's necessary for "intellectual property" to exist.
There are differences in the steps taken to for enforcement between every pair of categories of property (this is just as true between tangible personal property and real property as between tangible personal property and intellectual property.)
Its these kind of distinctions that are a big part of the reason that we name different categories of property in the first place; if they were all identical, rather than subcategories of a common higher-level categories, we wouldn't need named types.
You've confused possession with ownership. If you loan it to someone -- or someone steals it -- you won't find it in your pocket, you won't possess it, but you will still own it.
Ownership is a relation created in law. It is different than possession. In fact, its a meaningful concept only because it can differ from possession.
> Now, "intellectual property" is another matter all together. I can't tell is my "intellectual property" is being infringed on without a large effort to police it.
That's very much true of lots of real property (and even of tangible personal property that you don't keep in your possession). If I have real property spread around the different states -- and tangible personal property on the grounds of each of those real properties -- it takes a considerable policing effort to tell if the exclusive legal rights I have to those items which make them property are being infringed.
> I have to have a state, or some huge organization, find the infringement for me.
That's true, again, of all kinds of property in general, real property, tangible personal property, and intangible personal property other than intellectual property in general.
The tangible personal property you happen to keep in your immediate possession is actually the exception here, not the norm with property. Largely, the whole point of ownership existing as a legal relationship beyond mere possession is to enable people to have control of things that aren't under their immediate supervision all the time.
> I think that's one difference in property theft vs "intellectual property" infringement
And, in general, you are wrong. What you are pointing to is just largely true of physical property (real and tangible personal property) as of intangible personal property in general and intellectual property in particular.
> I'm not exactly sure what to call it, other than "government enforced monopoly".
Government enforced monopoly is exactly the defining characteristic of all property. So, its not a bad term to use for intellectual property, its just a mistake to use that to indicate something that is supposedly distinct about intellectual property as opposed to true of all property.
> There's a difference in both magnitude of enforcement, and type of enforcement that's necessary for "intellectual property" to exist.
There are differences in the steps taken to for enforcement between every pair of categories of property (this is just as true between tangible personal property and real property as between tangible personal property and intellectual property.)
Its these kind of distinctions that are a big part of the reason that we name different categories of property in the first place; if they were all identical, rather than subcategories of a common higher-level categories, we wouldn't need named types.
Spoken like a true gentleman, and you raised a few good points. I still feel that there's a difference between physical property and "intellectual property" - probably because "intellectual property" is mostly licensed. It's the licensing that sets apart "intellectual property" and it's the giant, state support for enforcement of licenses that makes the difference. If we talked about people leasing or renting software or music, it might make more sense, but licensing something to a consumer, all the while encouraging them to think they've bought it, seems like a recipe for disaster.
The other thing about "intellectual property" is the distinct possibility of independent invention. Even if we disallow my use of my own capital hardware to make a duplicate via some state financed mechanism, there's still a very real possibility that someone else also invented the "intellectual property" in question. Several people invented the steam engine. Several people invented the telegraph, at more or less the same time. Someone in the Bronze age seems to have invented safety pins. Algorithms get independently discovered all the time - see KMP string matching for a classic, but there's certainly a lot of others. A bunch of people discovered continuations at different times. How do we stretch the idea of property to cover all this? This seems like it will lead to trouble.
The other thing about "intellectual property" is the distinct possibility of independent invention. Even if we disallow my use of my own capital hardware to make a duplicate via some state financed mechanism, there's still a very real possibility that someone else also invented the "intellectual property" in question. Several people invented the steam engine. Several people invented the telegraph, at more or less the same time. Someone in the Bronze age seems to have invented safety pins. Algorithms get independently discovered all the time - see KMP string matching for a classic, but there's certainly a lot of others. A bunch of people discovered continuations at different times. How do we stretch the idea of property to cover all this? This seems like it will lead to trouble.
I "license" the apartment I live in, and the state has elaborate enforcement mechanisms for kicking me out when I breach the terms of the license.
Independent invention is definitely a distinguishing characteristic, and the shakiest part of the rationale for patents. IMHO, independent invention should be a defense to patent infringement. That said, it's not really implicated in the drug industry, where the folks doing the copying don't have the resources to invent and test the drugs independently.
Independent invention is definitely a distinguishing characteristic, and the shakiest part of the rationale for patents. IMHO, independent invention should be a defense to patent infringement. That said, it's not really implicated in the drug industry, where the folks doing the copying don't have the resources to invent and test the drugs independently.
> I still feel that there's a difference between physical property and "intellectual property" - probably because "intellectual property" is mostly licensed.
Conditional, restricted-use-specific licensing of real and tangible personal property is common.
Conditional, restricted-use-specific licensing of real and tangible personal property is common.
There is a very interesting podcast (LSE series about a year ago now), with the chair of the previous round of physical goods talks explaining what has gone wrong, and how to fix it. In essence the idea is a good one - set out worldwide standards of trade - like WTO - for intellectual goods as well as physical.
If I remember it's things like having same standards of animal welfare innabbatoirs (the U.S. Think EU chickens are dirty IIRC).
But it has gone south because it was played badly politically - the heads of the main negotiating countries should apparently have a summit, announce it was crap and announce a new round that will be
- public and open - use a highest standard wins (ie if US rules on X are more stringent than EU then the U.S. Rules are the standard for TIPP) - something else about timelines - I think not setting big deadlines - being more multilateral like WTO
It seems a sensible move and likely to take a lot of the sting out of "rules made behind closed doors, race to the bottom etc"
Contrary views welcomed...
If I remember it's things like having same standards of animal welfare innabbatoirs (the U.S. Think EU chickens are dirty IIRC).
But it has gone south because it was played badly politically - the heads of the main negotiating countries should apparently have a summit, announce it was crap and announce a new round that will be
- public and open - use a highest standard wins (ie if US rules on X are more stringent than EU then the U.S. Rules are the standard for TIPP) - something else about timelines - I think not setting big deadlines - being more multilateral like WTO
It seems a sensible move and likely to take a lot of the sting out of "rules made behind closed doors, race to the bottom etc"
Contrary views welcomed...
Sometimes the "highest standard" is subjective, more regulation doesn't mean better regulation. Regulation, as expressed through licensing, also happens as a means to protect industry incumbents. Should the current most stringent taxi licensing be extended across multiple countries? What about cosmetology licenses[1]? It's a non-trivial issue to dissect what laws are worth keeping and what laws aren't, as there are people affected positively or negatively whichever way you go. It's a complex issue.
1: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/06/22/155596305/episo...
1: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/06/22/155596305/episo...
What about if one country wants to highen their standards in a certain area, will all the countries that signed up then immediately have to follow? Won't the other countries bully the first one to stay to the status quo?
Also, are there really always such a thing as 'highest standard'? Couldn't it be that more often than not, the rules aim for opposing values?
Also, are there really always such a thing as 'highest standard'? Couldn't it be that more often than not, the rules aim for opposing values?
> Won't the other countries bully the first one to stay to the status quo?
That is _precisely_ what all of these trade agreements are about, TPP, TiSA, etc..
That is _precisely_ what all of these trade agreements are about, TPP, TiSA, etc..
If the idea is "highest [regulatory] standard wins," I doubt the IP provisions of that new deal would be any more palatable to the folks here on HN than the TPP will be.
The "behind closed doors" concern is mostly fake. "Secrecy" is a story line that tests well with folks who don't know how policy gets made in general. For example, the PPACA (aka Obamacare) and Dodd-Frank bills were extensively negotiated in private before being offered on the House and Senate floors for votes. I don't recall much complaining about secrecy then (edit: I mean from Democrats like Senator Warren).
Generally speaking, people object to private negotiations only if they object to the substance of the negotiations.
The "behind closed doors" concern is mostly fake. "Secrecy" is a story line that tests well with folks who don't know how policy gets made in general. For example, the PPACA (aka Obamacare) and Dodd-Frank bills were extensively negotiated in private before being offered on the House and Senate floors for votes. I don't recall much complaining about secrecy then (edit: I mean from Democrats like Senator Warren).
Generally speaking, people object to private negotiations only if they object to the substance of the negotiations.
Warren was not a senator while the ACA was being drafted.
She is now, so the honorific is called for when people refer to her now.
Before running for office, she was a major contributor to the ideas in Dodd-Frank, and many of those meetings took place out of the public eye and before the public debate on the bill.
This is not to criticize that particular bill (or the ACA) or her role in drafting it. Just making the point that negotiating and drafting policy behind closed door is a totally standard and unremarkable first step in the process.
Before running for office, she was a major contributor to the ideas in Dodd-Frank, and many of those meetings took place out of the public eye and before the public debate on the bill.
This is not to criticize that particular bill (or the ACA) or her role in drafting it. Just making the point that negotiating and drafting policy behind closed door is a totally standard and unremarkable first step in the process.
> In essence the idea is a good one - set out worldwide standards of trade - like WTO - for intellectual goods as well as physical.
You must play our game of pretend scarcity of information or face trade sanctions? Sounds like fun.
I am incredibly glad to know this has not happened yet, because it can easily be the death of innovation. IP, being a completely artificial market that can only exist through state power, has been abused so much and so often (be it software patents or Oracle v. Google or how the damn happy birthday song or Martin Luther Kings "I Have a Dream" recording is still copyrighted) and I have no doubts that any global IP regime would see the rise of a generation of IP lawyers and the death of a generation of ingenuity in intellectual pursuits.
That is how a lot of these countries can get ahead. China's ability to outright ignore US IP law means it can rapidly innovate on foreign or domestic ideas without having to be constrained by what US companies allow.
You must play our game of pretend scarcity of information or face trade sanctions? Sounds like fun.
I am incredibly glad to know this has not happened yet, because it can easily be the death of innovation. IP, being a completely artificial market that can only exist through state power, has been abused so much and so often (be it software patents or Oracle v. Google or how the damn happy birthday song or Martin Luther Kings "I Have a Dream" recording is still copyrighted) and I have no doubts that any global IP regime would see the rise of a generation of IP lawyers and the death of a generation of ingenuity in intellectual pursuits.
That is how a lot of these countries can get ahead. China's ability to outright ignore US IP law means it can rapidly innovate on foreign or domestic ideas without having to be constrained by what US companies allow.
Even The Atlantic which I found one of the better "mass media" sources rejoices for TPP and lists none of the criticism. I am much afraid all this doesn't reach the masses.
The article missed some of the other giveaways to Big Pharma. One is a narrowing of the patent obviousness requirement for "me-too" drugs. Claritin (loratidine) is the classic example. Loratidine is a stereoisomer; there's a left handed and a right handed version of the molecule. One has an anti-allergy effect, and the other doesn't seem to do much. (That's very common; biology isn't symmetrical at the molecular level.)
When the patent ran out on Claritin, the manufacturer came out with Clarinex, which contains only the one isomer that does something useful. They then pitched doctors hard to switch their patients to Clarinex, with considerable success.
But the manufacturer lost a patent case, on the grounds that separating the isomers and only keeping the useful one is obvious to anyone skilled in the art.[1] Now that isomer separation is routine, although non-trivial, the FDA requires it as a purification step if the non-useful isomer has any negative effects.[2] You can't claim that a step required by existing regulation is a new invention.
There's a clause in the TPP IP section to reverse that decision.[3] "[US/JP propose; CL/MY/PE/SG/VN/BN/AU/NZ/CA/MX oppose: For greater certainty, a Party may not deny a patent solely on the basis that the product did not result in an enhanced efficacy of the known product when the applicant has set forth distinguishing features establishing that the invention is new, involves an inventive step, and is capable of industrial application.]" That's from last year's draft on Wikileaks; I haven't seen the new draft yet.
Incidentally, the TPP resolves the issue of patentablity for software and business methods: "Subject to the provisions of paragraph 2 and 3 (which relate mostly to plant and animal patents), each Party shall make patents available for any invention, whether a product or process, in all fields of technology, provided that the invention is new, involves an inventive step, and is capable of industrial application." So software and business methods must be made patentable in all TPP-signatory countries. This, again, is from last year's draft. Check the new one once it gets published.
[1] http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/schering-plough-lose... [2] http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInforma... [3] https://wikileaks.org/tpp-ip2/
When the patent ran out on Claritin, the manufacturer came out with Clarinex, which contains only the one isomer that does something useful. They then pitched doctors hard to switch their patients to Clarinex, with considerable success.
But the manufacturer lost a patent case, on the grounds that separating the isomers and only keeping the useful one is obvious to anyone skilled in the art.[1] Now that isomer separation is routine, although non-trivial, the FDA requires it as a purification step if the non-useful isomer has any negative effects.[2] You can't claim that a step required by existing regulation is a new invention.
There's a clause in the TPP IP section to reverse that decision.[3] "[US/JP propose; CL/MY/PE/SG/VN/BN/AU/NZ/CA/MX oppose: For greater certainty, a Party may not deny a patent solely on the basis that the product did not result in an enhanced efficacy of the known product when the applicant has set forth distinguishing features establishing that the invention is new, involves an inventive step, and is capable of industrial application.]" That's from last year's draft on Wikileaks; I haven't seen the new draft yet.
Incidentally, the TPP resolves the issue of patentablity for software and business methods: "Subject to the provisions of paragraph 2 and 3 (which relate mostly to plant and animal patents), each Party shall make patents available for any invention, whether a product or process, in all fields of technology, provided that the invention is new, involves an inventive step, and is capable of industrial application." So software and business methods must be made patentable in all TPP-signatory countries. This, again, is from last year's draft. Check the new one once it gets published.
[1] http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/schering-plough-lose... [2] http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInforma... [3] https://wikileaks.org/tpp-ip2/
Is it really clear that the draft TPP language quoted here would reverse the Clarinex decision? It seems to me that the phrase "involves an inventive step" would permit challenges based on obviousness. See for example [0]. While what is "obvious" and what is "inventive" can always be debated, I don't see that this language alters the ground on which that debate will play out.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-obvious...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-obvious...
It's intended to allow patents on "me too" drugs generally.[1][2][3]
[1] http://www.healthline.com/health-news/would-the-trans-partne... [2] https://www.citizen.org/documents/specific%20provisions%20fi... [3] http://www.nationalobserver.com/2015/06/04/opinion/implicati...
[1] http://www.healthline.com/health-news/would-the-trans-partne... [2] https://www.citizen.org/documents/specific%20provisions%20fi... [3] http://www.nationalobserver.com/2015/06/04/opinion/implicati...
At least they have avoided giving it an Orwellian name including the phrase "free trade". Free trade can be described in a few sentences. These voluminous inter-governmental managed trade agreements are just protectionism by another name.
TPP and any similar agreements should be totally opposed until they'll be negotiated in public.
Can a progressive democrat please explain to me why their hero is supporting this?
PS To those trying to claim he isn't a progressive... Obama may not be the progressive you want, but he is the one you deserve.
PS To those trying to claim he isn't a progressive... Obama may not be the progressive you want, but he is the one you deserve.
I'm by no means a progressive democrat and I am certainly no fan of Obama. In saying that, it's absolutely necessary to understand republicans are pushing for this just as much as democrats. It's not a red vs. blue issue, it's a red and blue issue.
To answer your question, there are probably many reasons, but one reason is because corporations are paying politicians. Here is a story from The Guardian that explains the payoff http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/may/27/corporations...
Also, here is another story from the Huffington Post that describes the corporate influence on the TPP. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/now-we-know-why-h...
One last comment, while it is indeed up to our politicians to vote yay or nay on this, it is absolutely up to the people to keep our politicians accountable. Right now, the American people are for more concerned about feelings and witty social media posts to care about the TPP. When Americans stop caring about politicians and stop holding politicians accountable, it's quite easy for them to pull something like the TPP.
To answer your question, there are probably many reasons, but one reason is because corporations are paying politicians. Here is a story from The Guardian that explains the payoff http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/may/27/corporations...
Also, here is another story from the Huffington Post that describes the corporate influence on the TPP. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/now-we-know-why-h...
One last comment, while it is indeed up to our politicians to vote yay or nay on this, it is absolutely up to the people to keep our politicians accountable. Right now, the American people are for more concerned about feelings and witty social media posts to care about the TPP. When Americans stop caring about politicians and stop holding politicians accountable, it's quite easy for them to pull something like the TPP.
no matter how much you care. if politicians can only run a campaign with millions of dollars, and that amount only come from corporations, and the corporations can see who voted on what it wanted, then the public is largely removed from politics.
That should not be news to anyone. The only thing that has recently changed is Citizens United makes it easier to just avoid having to pass through money through more middlemen to bribe politicians.
Before radio and TV, only the rich elite who had the time to research politics voted. After radio and TV, only the rich elite who had the money to buy election ad slots got representation.
Before radio and TV, only the rich elite who had the time to research politics voted. After radio and TV, only the rich elite who had the money to buy election ad slots got representation.
It is illegal for corporations to donate money to politicians. 61% of raised funds come from individuals donating up to $2600 each. 23% come from PACs (which themselves may only raise money from individuals, not corporations), and the rest comes from self-funding and political party committees.
Edit: These numbers are from 2010 congressional elections. Also it's illegal for federal elections. State elections have their own rules.
Edit: These numbers are from 2010 congressional elections. Also it's illegal for federal elections. State elections have their own rules.
Are the 23% from PACs money given directly to campaigns or does it also include independent expenditures?
Additionally, wouldn't it be better to look at expenditures in later elections such as the 2012 presidential election? Using the 2010 data is a bit biased because the Citizens United decision was only ruled on in 2010.
As for your point of donations being illegal for federal elections, it is true that direct donations are regulated, however outside "independent" spending by corporations is not illegal.
Additionally, Super PACs can accept unlimited contributions from corporations as long as they use the money for independent expenditures.
Additionally, wouldn't it be better to look at expenditures in later elections such as the 2012 presidential election? Using the 2010 data is a bit biased because the Citizens United decision was only ruled on in 2010.
As for your point of donations being illegal for federal elections, it is true that direct donations are regulated, however outside "independent" spending by corporations is not illegal.
Additionally, Super PACs can accept unlimited contributions from corporations as long as they use the money for independent expenditures.
That Guardian article is intentionally misleading. All it says is that some large companies support the TPP, and some employees of those large companies donate to politicians' campaigns. The data don't show anything other than standard fundraising.
Come on dude, was that statement really so controversial you had to use a green account to make it? If you think there's nothing wrong with the status quo pipeline of corruption from corporate interests to political pockets, then have the courage of your convictions!
I didn't have an account before. For some reason, misinformation about campaign finance triggers me to speak up and try to correct it.
Indeed. I generally like Obama (except for Espionage Act prosecutions, continued existence of Guantanamo detention centers, and drone wars), but this one makes no sense.
Can a conservative republican explain why the Republican leadership is supporting this? I can't really understand why free market people would be in favor of state-granted and enforced-at-taxpayer-expense monopolies. Nor do I understand why extreme patriots would be in favor of Investor-State Dispute Systems. The latter seems like a sovereignty giveaway, to an unaccountable international body. In a way, ISDS seems like big government gone wild, but it's an unelected, unaccountable international government, which should offend small government types, too.
Can a conservative republican explain why the Republican leadership is supporting this? I can't really understand why free market people would be in favor of state-granted and enforced-at-taxpayer-expense monopolies. Nor do I understand why extreme patriots would be in favor of Investor-State Dispute Systems. The latter seems like a sovereignty giveaway, to an unaccountable international body. In a way, ISDS seems like big government gone wild, but it's an unelected, unaccountable international government, which should offend small government types, too.
As a "conservative Republican" since the Nixon era (didn't know why it was important that he beat HHH and George Wallace in '68, knew why it was and still is important that he beat McGovern in '72), I can say in short that we don't support these things.
Why does the Republican leadership support them? At the more reductionist level, I've seen it best described as a "donor riot"; rather obviously the interests of the wealthy who identify as Republican are different that the base (and this is one reason why the Emmanuel Goldsteining of the libertarian Koch brothers strikes us as bizarre, then again they've got some truly dangerous thoughts).
At a more general level, these "establishment" Republicans are, or aspire to be, members of the ruling class. We of the base obviously aren't, and I don't think many of us aspire to be.
"Offend" is a good word, we are mightily offended by all this. But there's only so much we can do short of, say, starting a 3rd party that's successful enough to either threaten the Republican party such that it adopts our positions, or replace it like it replaced the Whigs (or there's a thesis that the Democratic party will die since its war on arithmetic means it will eventually fail to keep its promises, the Republican party will replace it as the party of the state, and the 3rd party becomes the natural opposition). Short of that, we can withdraw our votes, which has a strictly limited effect in the Congress, and we can and have withheld our money, which gets us back to that donor riot.
Ah, I should note there's always been a non-conservative faction in the Republican party. Its abolitionist roots were in opposition to the conservative nature of the Whigs, remember the trusting busting and imperialism of Teddy Roosevelt, and the north-east wing in general is much less conservative. Think of Nelson Rockefeller who opposed conservative Goldwater, not so conservative Nixon, and was Ford's first VP. Or former governor of Massachusetts and "severe conservative" Mitt Romney (hint, that's the first and last time I've every heard someone use the word "severe" like that).
Why does the Republican leadership support them? At the more reductionist level, I've seen it best described as a "donor riot"; rather obviously the interests of the wealthy who identify as Republican are different that the base (and this is one reason why the Emmanuel Goldsteining of the libertarian Koch brothers strikes us as bizarre, then again they've got some truly dangerous thoughts).
At a more general level, these "establishment" Republicans are, or aspire to be, members of the ruling class. We of the base obviously aren't, and I don't think many of us aspire to be.
"Offend" is a good word, we are mightily offended by all this. But there's only so much we can do short of, say, starting a 3rd party that's successful enough to either threaten the Republican party such that it adopts our positions, or replace it like it replaced the Whigs (or there's a thesis that the Democratic party will die since its war on arithmetic means it will eventually fail to keep its promises, the Republican party will replace it as the party of the state, and the 3rd party becomes the natural opposition). Short of that, we can withdraw our votes, which has a strictly limited effect in the Congress, and we can and have withheld our money, which gets us back to that donor riot.
Ah, I should note there's always been a non-conservative faction in the Republican party. Its abolitionist roots were in opposition to the conservative nature of the Whigs, remember the trusting busting and imperialism of Teddy Roosevelt, and the north-east wing in general is much less conservative. Think of Nelson Rockefeller who opposed conservative Goldwater, not so conservative Nixon, and was Ford's first VP. Or former governor of Massachusetts and "severe conservative" Mitt Romney (hint, that's the first and last time I've every heard someone use the word "severe" like that).
[deleted]
Because they're all owned by the same people who wrote this agreement.
"Republican leadership... free market people... patriot... small government types"
Figure out which of these does not belong, and you will have your answer.
Figure out which of these does not belong, and you will have your answer.
> I generally like Obama (except for Espionage Act prosecutions, continued existence of Guantanamo detention centers, and drone wars), but this one makes no sense.
What's there left to like? Legal pot and gay marriage?
What's there left to like? Legal pot and gay marriage?
Wait, pot became legal? Why didn't anyone tell me!
don't know why you're down voted, but your irony is correct.
pot is still very much illegal on the federal level... that's important because that's the level that handle your taxes.
pot is still very much illegal on the federal level... that's important because that's the level that handle your taxes.
Your income taxes, yeah. Your sales tax, highway tolls, certifications (state car inspection, state certifications to operate certain businesses, etc) and additional resource taxes (gas tax, tobacco tax) are going to your state, and your property / zoning taxes are going to your principality.
The federal level matters because it supplants state law. The FBI and other federal agents can arrest anyone in any state where pot is legal statewide under federal law. You just get out of having local PD arresting you for it.
The federal level matters because it supplants state law. The FBI and other federal agents can arrest anyone in any state where pot is legal statewide under federal law. You just get out of having local PD arresting you for it.
> The FBI and other federal agents can arrest anyone in any state where pot is legal statewide under federal law. You just get out of having local PD arresting you for it.
Not necessarily, as state (including) local agents can generally arrest you for violations of federal criminal law, too.
States, or local authorities within states, may deprioritize such arrests, or prohibit their officers from them entirely, for certain acts that are permitted by state but not federal law, but this is by no means guaranteed (and many local law enforcement agencies have continued to at least selectively make arrests under federal drug laws for marijuana even when the act involved was permitted under state law.)
Not necessarily, as state (including) local agents can generally arrest you for violations of federal criminal law, too.
States, or local authorities within states, may deprioritize such arrests, or prohibit their officers from them entirely, for certain acts that are permitted by state but not federal law, but this is by no means guaranteed (and many local law enforcement agencies have continued to at least selectively make arrests under federal drug laws for marijuana even when the act involved was permitted under state law.)
that's what he said.
Eh, i guess we'll see how it all shakes out in the next 5-10 years. Based on prohibition, the feds are in a tough spot. No support from local and state police, because it's not a crime. That said the feds could bring a lot of resources to bare against individuals.
The targeted individuals would likely be screwed. Probably the biggest risk is Colorado fighting the USA directly. Perhaps it's not interstate trade so the US can't regulate, perhaps Colorado sues for lost tax revenue.
The targeted individuals would likely be screwed. Probably the biggest risk is Colorado fighting the USA directly. Perhaps it's not interstate trade so the US can't regulate, perhaps Colorado sues for lost tax revenue.
Here in Oregon, pot just became legal today.
> Can a progressive democrat please explain to me why their hero is supporting this?
Did Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren start supporting TPP when I wasn't looking?
Or was "progressive" an elaborate typo for "centrist"?
Did Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren start supporting TPP when I wasn't looking?
Or was "progressive" an elaborate typo for "centrist"?
Ha. Fair weather fan.
Obama has always been a centrist, even though he campaigned as a progressive. Actions are louder than words.
For that accusation to work (even ignoring the difference between being a "fan" of Obama and agreeing that Obama is a "progressive" rather than a "centrist", which are really orthogonal concerns), you'd have to have me ever claiming Obama was a progressive rather than a centrist.
Obama is not a progressive and I don't think he's been particularly supported by progressives (other than the fact that they tend to vote for Democrats).
The possible exception is his initial campaign when he was an unknown quantity and, like all such politicians, everyone projected their "Hope" onto him.
The possible exception is his initial campaign when he was an unknown quantity and, like all such politicians, everyone projected their "Hope" onto him.
The 'you projected your hope onto him' suggestion is popular but doesn't really hold water. He explicitly said things that he did a 180 on. Many of them. For some I'm sure they projected hope on him, but many others who voted for him were just straight up betrayed.
> Obama is not a progressive and I don't think he's been particularly supported by progressives (other than the fact that they tend to vote for Democrats).
A lot of progressives supported Obama in 2008 primaries, especially toward the end of that season, because, as it was clear who the reasonably viable contenders were for the Democratic nomination, Obama generally seemed slightly to the progressive side of Hillary Clinton (which is perfectly compatible with him being a centrist Democrat rather than a particularly progressive one; I don't think anyone in the Democratic party has mistaken Clinton for anything other than a centrist for a long time.)
A lot of progressives supported Obama in 2008 primaries, especially toward the end of that season, because, as it was clear who the reasonably viable contenders were for the Democratic nomination, Obama generally seemed slightly to the progressive side of Hillary Clinton (which is perfectly compatible with him being a centrist Democrat rather than a particularly progressive one; I don't think anyone in the Democratic party has mistaken Clinton for anything other than a centrist for a long time.)
What are you talking about, both Sanders and Warren don't support TPP.
Sometimes I think that if a piece of legislation is not on the red vs blue divide its probably on the powerful elite vs little guy divide.
Centralization of power and control seems to be on a winning streak.
Democrat or Republican, this is about rich vs poor, and neither party represents the poor.
I'm not poor and I'm against the TPP. My opinion has nothing to do with how it treats the poor. I don't like how it empowers corporate interests at the expense of individual rights.
Poor is relative. The rich at war with everyone are not the 6 figure developers, or even the one-time cashout millionaires who sell their startup to Google. Its the billionaires who control entire swathes of global industry and are ego tripping power maniacs who are addicted to it. Its the Waltons and Kochs, not the Carmacks and Grams. Its even more the dynasties whose names are not national news because they own every news network or their best friend owns it.
If someone else in the world makes as much as you do in a year in a day (or better yet an hour for 99.99995% of people), you are incredibly poor relative to them. And 99.99999% of humanity falls into that class of poor.
The TPP is not being written for the betterment of the "rich" over the "poor". Its being written to make about 70,000 (overwhelmingly) men even richer than they already are, by subjugating national sovereignty underneath their corporate will.
If someone else in the world makes as much as you do in a year in a day (or better yet an hour for 99.99995% of people), you are incredibly poor relative to them. And 99.99999% of humanity falls into that class of poor.
The TPP is not being written for the betterment of the "rich" over the "poor". Its being written to make about 70,000 (overwhelmingly) men even richer than they already are, by subjugating national sovereignty underneath their corporate will.
I read stuff like this a lot, and it sounds plausible, but how can you know this? Where can I go to read someone connecting the dots from billionaires working in secret to advance trade deals through corrupt politicians?
Some nodes in an influence graph became visible in a FOIA request, http://www.ip-watch.org/2015/06/05/confidential-ustr-emails-... and 10 public interest groups are seeking a release of Wall St emails, http://www.foe.org/news/news-releases/2015-05-with-controver...
My point is that the narrative for my dissent from a bill with strong GOP support is that it violates individual freedom. You might argue semantics, but I claim my motivation has nothing to do with social justice in the progressive sense and everything to do with freedom.
I'm not a progressive Democrat, but I understand why Obama is pursuing this deal.
First, let's consider a contrast. Neoconservatives have for decades been obsessed with the Middle East. This is mostly because of its strategic importance as the source of oil.
There presents itself now an opportunity to change this strategic focus because of two trends. 1) Domestic oil production is up; so is fuel efficiency; so is the development of alternate energy. 2) Korea, China, Vietnam, and other Asian nations have growing economies and strategic ambitions. In the future of the U.S., oil will be less important; Asian trade relationships will be more important.
Thus Obama's "pivot to Asia." It has been mocked by Republicans, given the ongoing problems in both Russia and Iraq/Syria (both long-standing Republican policy bad guys). But really, something as big as the U.S. does not turn easily or fast.
TPP is a major component in that turn. It will create or enhance special relationships with a variety of Asian nations. It will firm up relationships that are currently being challenged by China, which has the biggest ambitions of anyone these days.
The details of the policy chapters are almost unimportant; they just need to be balanced well enough among all the parties, so that everyone gains slightly more than they lose. Trade agreements are, almost by definition, not optimal for any given single interest group or stakeholder.
In terms of IP specifically, it's worth considering that the U.S. is far more dependent on IP than other nations. If you think about our most successful companies, many of them make nothing but IP: Apple, Google, Microsoft, TV shows, movies, recorded music, software, pharamceuticals, etc. So U.S. negotiators are going to try for max protection on those things. (Does not mean they will get it.)
First, let's consider a contrast. Neoconservatives have for decades been obsessed with the Middle East. This is mostly because of its strategic importance as the source of oil.
There presents itself now an opportunity to change this strategic focus because of two trends. 1) Domestic oil production is up; so is fuel efficiency; so is the development of alternate energy. 2) Korea, China, Vietnam, and other Asian nations have growing economies and strategic ambitions. In the future of the U.S., oil will be less important; Asian trade relationships will be more important.
Thus Obama's "pivot to Asia." It has been mocked by Republicans, given the ongoing problems in both Russia and Iraq/Syria (both long-standing Republican policy bad guys). But really, something as big as the U.S. does not turn easily or fast.
TPP is a major component in that turn. It will create or enhance special relationships with a variety of Asian nations. It will firm up relationships that are currently being challenged by China, which has the biggest ambitions of anyone these days.
The details of the policy chapters are almost unimportant; they just need to be balanced well enough among all the parties, so that everyone gains slightly more than they lose. Trade agreements are, almost by definition, not optimal for any given single interest group or stakeholder.
In terms of IP specifically, it's worth considering that the U.S. is far more dependent on IP than other nations. If you think about our most successful companies, many of them make nothing but IP: Apple, Google, Microsoft, TV shows, movies, recorded music, software, pharamceuticals, etc. So U.S. negotiators are going to try for max protection on those things. (Does not mean they will get it.)
A second point would be that China's consumer class is booting up. The US wants to position itself to sell into that, effectively to reverse the trade deficit.
If the US government stops running those huge deficits, partially financed by foreigners, the US trade deficits will close naturally.
I just don't know why you'd want to do that, and why you'd want to do that now. But run those deficits too far, and you'll be forced to anyway.
I just don't know why you'd want to do that, and why you'd want to do that now. But run those deficits too far, and you'll be forced to anyway.
hmmm...because he's just another politician who hoodwinked people with great speeches??
He's not my hero. I didn't vote for him mainly because I'm not in a swing state; but if I were and you ran him against Romney and Paul Ryan tomorrow, I'd hold my nose and go vote for him. I might even go find myself an ACORN volunteer t shirt and go register a bunch of poors to go vote for him too. Go ahead though, and tell me how much better we'd all feel about TPP if your horse would've won.
I haven't had a horse in any of these races. I despise them all; I especially despise those sad true believers out there that pin their hopes to an empty suit.
Because the US government wants more tax revenue and tax revenue comes from corporate revenue and the salaries/capital gains that flow from it. US companies tend to generate a lot of revenue from IP. Therefore, the US Government has an incentive to help corporations extract more revenue from IP.
You know it's mostly House/Senate republicans who are voting for it right? Strange bedfellows really.
You're aware that the Executive Branch's vote is equal to the consolidated power of the Congress, right?
It still has to get to his desk, and that means a lot of Republican support. There's no dodging that.
So the GOP is forcing his hand? He has no free will? Manchurian candidate?
That's ridiculous, and I didn't say or imply that.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Gobs of Hollywood money. Obama honestly thinks this is good stuff because people in the passive content business are friends and donors and they like TPP.
Don't even need to read it - the whole secrecy farce surrounding it guarantees that its content is 100% rubber glove exam.
Where can I see the leaked document?
Going by rank of the top 10 pharma companies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pharmaceutical_compani... we can see that 4 are American and 6 are European.
The total revenue of that top 10 is 60% European companies and 40% American.
Now if this TTP chapter is two-way and with that equaly so for European markets then if anything would it not favour Europe more. Though between the two collectives involved. This only shuts out generics made outside of those two markets more than currently.
As for doctors without borders, they operate outside this trade agreement location wise and would not that open up for cheaper supplies from the producers outside this trade agreement. I would of thought so.
Though would perhaps, once settle reduce production runs of generics in some area's that depended upon this `sudo` gr[a¦e]y market. Then that may raise production costs, though if mroe than one generic then it would become more a price war without the more fruitful markets to utilise. Though always new markets and myself not sure about medical drugs and Russia and how that works at all.
But really such agreements need to be public before signing as about trade for the people as a whole and not a niche area that impacts national security of the people.
So the whole aspect not public just does not sit well, nor bode well for trust or indeed any scrutinising and that which has and has leaked. Just hard to get the full picture as hard to scale.
The total revenue of that top 10 is 60% European companies and 40% American.
Now if this TTP chapter is two-way and with that equaly so for European markets then if anything would it not favour Europe more. Though between the two collectives involved. This only shuts out generics made outside of those two markets more than currently.
As for doctors without borders, they operate outside this trade agreement location wise and would not that open up for cheaper supplies from the producers outside this trade agreement. I would of thought so.
Though would perhaps, once settle reduce production runs of generics in some area's that depended upon this `sudo` gr[a¦e]y market. Then that may raise production costs, though if mroe than one generic then it would become more a price war without the more fruitful markets to utilise. Though always new markets and myself not sure about medical drugs and Russia and how that works at all.
But really such agreements need to be public before signing as about trade for the people as a whole and not a niche area that impacts national security of the people.
So the whole aspect not public just does not sit well, nor bode well for trust or indeed any scrutinising and that which has and has leaked. Just hard to get the full picture as hard to scale.
I love that the best defense unnamed "U.S. officials" can offer is that "major compromises" will likely still be made. In other words: yes we're acting as drug company lobbyists, but we expect some of these other countries to stand up for their citizens enough to get a few concessions.
Fantastic stuff. "Thanks Obama" (and Hillary)