Rand supports TPP?

Most libertarians are anti ip rights.

I suppose that depends on how you define libertarians.

If you think IP is anathema to libertarianism, then presto! ...all libertarians are by definition opposed to IP. ;)

So let me rephrase - the liberty movement, the paulites, and now the Randites, are split on the question.

Ron, for one, is certainly not opposed to IP.

I myself am, actually, but it's not a priority issue for me.
 
@presence

LOL, with what army? And who provides the lion's share of the UN budget? And who has a permanent seat on the security council? The UN is not a threat to the US. It is a big waste of money and a source of propaganda, but that's all.

The piece of paper may say that the UN has the right to invade the US to enforce the verdict in a UN-arbitrated trade dispute, but that's not a real possibility. They might as well claim to have the right to make square circles. Let them pound sand.

I have no problem delegating imaginary authorities to the UN in exchange for very real reductions in trade barriers.

P.S. All of these big multi-lateral treaties (whatever the topic) have included provisions for third party arbitration and enforcement - going all the way back to the earliest pre-WWI treaties establishing rules of war, rights of neutrals, etc. And this has always been a farce, as everyone knew when they signed them, since there's no one to enforce the thing. Pay it no mind. Of course, a lot of people would like to create an enforcement mechanism - they would like to give the UN their own army and revenue sources. Now that IS something to be afraid of and to resist at every turn. But that's not the issue here. This is mere paper power.
 
Last edited:
I have no problem delegating imaginary authorities to the UN in exchange for very real reductions in trade barriers.

I guess you and I will have to differ there. I deal straight and I demand sovereignty.

12f2f5c93f342362680178.jpg
 
Rand never actually said that he supported the TPP as it's currently written. He just said that we should prioritize negotiating the TPP. Perhaps a President Rand Paul would negotiate the TPP and make it two pages long, getting rid of all the bad stuff.
 
Ideally, you wouldn't have managed trade agreements but they are reality. I am stunned at how many people give Rand grief about about being insufficiently libertarian but will then take positions on trade and immigration that go totally against capitalism and libertarian ideals.
 
I think free-trade agreements aren't bad. Ron is probably just afraid of the illuminati
 
I'll wait to see how he votes on it when it goes before the Senate for ratification.
 
I am stunned at how many people give Rand grief about about being insufficiently libertarian but will then take positions on trade and immigration that go totally against capitalism and libertarian ideals.

Mercantilism is not capitalism or a free market phenomenon in any way. I'm stunned that some continue to try to sell it as such. As well, I fail to see where immigration is relevant to a so called free trade agreement aside from stimulating expansion of the H1-B in a way that allows for what we are seeing with the tech industry hiring people from India and whatnot to replace American workers in those fields at a dollar or two or so an hour. IT and that kind of thing at the moment. In fact, the H1-B expansion ("immigration" they're now generally calling it to avoid scrutiny) is dependent upon the logistics of such a so called trade deal at the pen of these industries. I had mentioned elsewhere that India's economic strategy is through development of IT tech while outsourcing to U.S. companies and government entities. And we're seeing this come to fruition.
 
Last edited:
Ideally, you wouldn't have managed trade agreements but they are reality.

That's basically my view. I think the ideal is just to have completely free trade between countries without any tariffs on imports and exports, and without any of these regulations. But realistically that's not going to happen, and you end up with a choice between regulated trade with high tariffs and regulated trade with low tariffs. It seems to me like regulated trade with low tariffs is better than regulated trade with high tariffs.
 
From the Electronic Frontier Foundation:

The TPP Will Rewrite Global Rules on Intellectual Property Enforcement

All signatory countries will be required to conform their domestic laws and policies to the provisions of the Agreement. In the US, this is likely to further entrench controversial aspects of US copyright law (such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act [DMCA]) and restrict the ability of Congress to engage in domestic law reform to meet the evolving IP needs of American citizens and the innovative technology sector. The recently leaked US-proposed IP chapter also includes provisions that appear to go beyond current US law.

The leaked US IP chapter includes many detailed requirements that are more restrictive than current international standards, and would require significant changes to other countries’ copyright laws. These include obligations for countries to:

Place Greater Liability on Internet Intermediaries: The TPP would force the adoption of the US DMCA Internet intermediaries copyright safe harbor regime in its entirety. For example, this would require Chile to rewrite its forward-looking 2010 copyright law that currently establishes a judicial notice-and-takedown regime, which provides greater protection to Internet users’ expression and privacy than the DMCA.

Regulate Temporary Copies: Treat temporary reproductions of copyrighted works without copyright holders' authorization as copyright infringement. The language reveals a profound disconnect with the reality of the modern computer, as all routine computer functions rely upon the regular creation of temporary copies of programs and files. As drafted, the related provision creates chilling effects not just on how we behave online, but also on the basic ability of people and companies to use and create on the Web.

Expand Copyright Terms: Create copyright terms well beyond the internationally agreed period in the 1994 Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). The TPP could extend copyright term protections from life of the author + 50 years, to Life + 70 years for works created by individuals, and either 95 years after publication or 120 years after creation for corporate owned works (such as Mickey Mouse).

Enact a "Three-Step Test" Language That Puts Restrictions on Fair Use: The United States Trade Representative (USTR) is putting fair use at risk with restrictive language in the TPP's IP chapter. US and Australia have proposed very restrictive text, while other countries such as Chile, New Zealand, and Malaysia, have proposed more flexible, user-friendly terms.

Escalate Protections for Digital Locks: It will compel signatory nations to enact laws banning circumvention of digital locks (technological protection measures or TPMs) [PDF] that mirror the DMCA and treat violation of the TPM provisions as a separate offense even when no copyright infringement is involved. This would require countries like New Zealand to completely rewrite its innovative 2008 copyright law, as well as override Australia’s carefully-crafted 2007 TPM regime exclusions for region-coding on movies on DVDs, videogames, and players, and for embedded software in devices that restrict access to goods and services for the device—a thoughtful effort by Australian policy makers to avoid the pitfalls experienced with the US digital locks provisions. In the US, business competitors have used the DMCA to try to block printer cartridge refill services, competing garage door openers, and to lock mobile phones to particular network providers.

Ban Parallel Importation: Ban parallel importation of genuine goods acquired from other countries without the authorization of copyright owners.

Adopt Criminal Sanctions: Adopt criminal sanctions for copyright infringement that is done without a commercial motivation, based on the provisions of the 1997 US No Electronic Theft Act.

https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp
 
Rand never actually said that he supported the TPP as it's currently written. He just said that we should prioritize negotiating the TPP. Perhaps a President Rand Paul would negotiate the TPP and make it two pages long, getting rid of all the bad stuff.

A president Ron Paul would make it 1 sentence long. There will be no tariffs imposed by the U.S. on countries X,Y and Z and no tariffs imposed by countries X,Y and Z on the U.S.
 
Has anyone actually looked heavily into this?

Yes. I have read the source text of most of the FTA's we're party to in the past two decades.

They all contain provisions for ISDS "Investor State Dispute Resolution"; this means disputes are settled by supranational arbitration panels (typically WTO, World Bank, or UN) and the decisions are BINDING under "International Law" and enforceable by UN actions. No other parties to the dispute have standing in court beside the Corporation making the claim and the infringing State.

US Taxpayers have been forced to pay at least $400,000,000 to international corporations under such settlements and there are 10's of billions currently in litigation against the US.

Prior to the rise of ISDS every trade pact we had with other nations was arbitrated simply between sovereign parties using direct diplomacy or tit for tat actions.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top