youtube/watch?v=TBpcvyVgIgA This debate requires a bit of concentration, something a FB session is probably not geared towards, especially on a Sunday morning. But this debate between Peter Chase of the US Chamber of Commerce and Phillipe Lamberts, a Green member of the European Parliament, is good for laying out the Two Lines between the transnational corporate vision and the democratic, social vision. The corporate, neo-liberal position advocates that the market, which supports the idea that decisions should be made by corporations, investors and their agents. They advocate decisions should be weighted by the principle of one dollar, one vote. The democratic principle upholds residents should be able to assert control over their society for the common protection of health, safety, protection of the environment, the elevation of general living standards and the promotion of equal rights. That is the principle of one person, one vote. In a capitalist society, the principles of one dollar, on vote is in conflict with the principle of democracy, one person, one vote. There is a model for decisionmaking which has become too popular in Hawaii. It is a kind of special interest consensus approach, which identifies stakeholders. Contrary to what I read online yesterday, this is NOT a democratic approach. It privileges wealth and makes them dominant in the process. The one percent have controlling interest over that process. BTW, the TTIP agreement is the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. It is the Atlantic equivalent of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement being negotiated at the same time. The partnership word is a buzzword used by neo-liberals attempting to frame the subordination of government as a handmaid to corporations as a good thing. So there is much in this debate which should resonate for Hawaii residents familiar with the Public Lands Development Corporation. And the debates over tourism, over development in Kakaako and over the partnership on display when our politicians bend over backwards to serve the needs of the Industrial Agriculture companies, like the GMO companies over the publics concern for health, safety and environmental protection. You will see this logic in the arguments of advocates for small farmers who argue that we should give tax breaks to investors in the huge Ag companies in the hope some small portion of the benefits will be captured by small famers, piggybacking on the projects of larger operations.
Posted on: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:55:43 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015