Hacker News Reader

Comment by ColinDabritz | Hacker News Reader

If this was the position of the government it may be hypocritical. As individuals we have our own views.

As a US citizen I dislike our interference around the world, especially when it is without the support of the global community. I also dislike the use of international treaties as a 'work around' to our sovereign law. While I do believe in respecting the treaties we make, I dislike the practice of intentionally making treaties that force us to change our laws as a 'hack' of our government processes.

Where is the hypocrisy?

View on HN

> "I dislike the practice of intentionally making treaties that force us to change our laws as a 'hack' of our government processes."

Isn't this the whole point of treaties though? What good is a treaty if member states don't have to change incompatible laws to conform with it?

What's the point of, say, signing a human rights treaty, without changing currently compatible laws to fall in line?

Sounds like these guys wouldn't sign most such treaties.

I'm happy to be a good neighbor, but policy should happen as close to the local level as possible. I don't think that is a shocking insight.

The point of the treaty is to come to an agreement between two governments. If the provisions of the treaty are not legally possible than the treaty is meaningless. For a more extreme example:

If the US congress signs a treaty with England which agrees that the US Presidents will no longer have any power in exchange for the English Prime Ministers too also no longer have any power, it doesn't matter because congress didn't have the power to write such laws in the first place.

Treaties are fine, and they certainly can affect local laws and should if they were made in good faith and are reasonably beneficial to both countries. The problem is that some treaties are not about solving problems but are rather an intentional collusion between the governmental representatives to push unwanted law on one or both countries. That's what I object to.

Say two countries have a particular copyright law, say 50 years in one and 60 years in another. So the two representatives, probably both receiving substantial funds from pro-copyright media conglomerates, get together and arrange a treaty that says they will extend copyright to 100 years. Well gee guys, we'll have to change our laws! Both countries missed out on reasonable legislative processes.

I didn't see SOPA like protests (wihtin the US) for the plethora of "Free-Trade" agreements that the US has put forward in other countries, that clearly put the US at an advantage and undermine (or attempt to) local markets. In fact I'd bet that there were 0 protests for some (all?) of those agreements.

There has to be some personal accountability. The "I just live here, but have my own views" doesn't really cut it.

Living in a democracy and saying "That's the position of the government... not mine". While, not completely invalid, is annoying to hear.

I personally vote every chance I get. I emailed Mark Rubio a co-sponsor on SOPA as well as mutual contacts of his and mine to voice my displeasure and to try to leverage my influence to get a meeting (before he changed his mind), I had an effect he changed his position (I along with a lot of other people, I don't want it to appear that I am taking sole credit for his change of position). I don't know what else one can expect, but for many of us, we just live here now. We are outnumbered and outgunned. Short of leaving our entire life and more importantly family to move away from it, there is not much we can do other than rage against the machine. Part of that rage is to say I don't support it and it is the governments position and not mine. I am not going to hold a position just because a group of people think it is valid nor should we be held accountable for the action of the collective. I believe in sovereignty all the way down.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com