Paging /u/tptacek: looking for HN's contrarian position
In this case, though: the site is positively littered with things I've said about TPP.
Short summary: I'm ambivalent about TPP, dismissive of the notion that it's a secret conspiracy, and irritated by advocacy writing that suggests it is one. That's about it.
I immediately acknowledge that I have a big blind spot about TPP: I'm an American, and TPP has only a marginal impact on US public policy, but a pretty significant impact on countries in Asia that had policies different from those of the US.
It's important to realize - and this is true for most topics, not just the TPP - that there isn't much practical difference between a "secret conspiracy" and a "loose collection of parties with similar interests". In casual language, it's easier to say something like
They [it's always 'they'] planned this! The people pushing the TPP are
trying to scam us!
The people in a position that has actual decision-making power or influence
usually got to that position by using large amounts of money. The sources of
that money vary, but in any case an attitude is cultivated where money ends
up as the primary indicator when judging success.
When considering future policies, people with this type of attitude will
tend to prefer plans that maximize what they see as "success"m which is
any plan that maximizes money, regardless of other effects. Hence concepts
like the ISDS (both as an idea and it's idiotic implementations) are seen as
absolutely necessary to "protect investors" (maximize money/success), while
national sovereignty, health-and-safety regulations, and the possibility of
laws that require exposing source code are all seen as roadblocks to success.
Therefor, without any need for conspiracy, plans such as the TPP can gain
significant support because it aligns with the priorities of the people in power.
Of course, sometimes people actually intend to make an accusation of conspiracy... and sometimes villainous people actually do get together and make harmful plans.
I suggest that it's useful to assume a charitable interpretation when reading this kind of statement for two reasons: 1) Hanlon's Razor, and 2) often the details don't really matter (an international treaty can be just as damaging regardless of it's origin).
Unfortunately, American politics has always had a certain paranoid style[1].
> TPP has only a marginal impact on US public policy
That may be true in the short term, but it's hard to change treaties and the laws they create once they are enacted. If our position in the world changes in the future, we may find the tools the TPP creates being used against us.
The American Empire is rapidly in decline[2]. While it's hard to say what that means for the political and economic future of the world, it's probably safe to say that at least some of the power that America currently holds will move elsewhere.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paranoid_Style_in_American...
it's hard to change treaties and the laws they create once they are enacted
... is not actually at all true. The laws put in place by treaties (ie: ratified by Congress to enable treaties that they approve) are no harder to override than any other law.
Sure, some are repealed, but it's a lot easier to fix a bad policy before it becomes the status quo. After a policy becomes law, fixing it now has the added hurdle of having to argue against an "incumbent" policy.
Local laws can be adapted piecemeal, but my understanding is that a treaty like this is all or nothing.
That is very short sighted, I'm am an American as well and feel TPP will have long and far reaching impact on Public Policy, While it ratification would only marginaly if at all change any policy currently in place, it will make any reforms to public policy impossible
It would forever ratify the terrible copyright and patent system preventing any reforms to them, that alone I believe should be classified as a major impact on public policy
I don't believe he even owns a Reddit account.
The convention we follow here is as follows: 'tptacek
All of this will be prefaced with "I'm no fan of the TPP, but..."
Here's how you write as an establishment equivocator:
---
There are certainly parts of the TPP which overreach. But the EFF is well known for taking things out of proportion [ignoring the absurd proportions of the actual situation]. Here we see another example: [point out something from the current EFF statement that is alarmist or not quite relevant to the TPP specifically, for instance...] a lot of what the EFF describes about copyright is specific to US law and copyright. The EFF is really just hitting its usual talking points and very little of this relates to the TPP; the TPP is just an excuse to talk about what they always talk about.