|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On March 30 2015 07:51 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2015 07:01 zlefin wrote:
The principle in question is that if you harm people, you may have to compensate them. Which is a pretty reasonable principle. yeah, how about we start applying that to the cigarette companies lol. Oh no I forgot, when sovereign governments harm companies that's evil but when companies harm whole populations that's just good business.
I regard your comment as trolling. Cigarette companies can and have been sued for causing harm, when they concealed info. If they're not up to any shenanigans, and they're selling a lawful product, then assumption of risk applies. You can't sue people for being law-abiding. If they step out of that line by a tiny bit, by all means crush them of course.
Also, you're strawmanning my view.
|
On March 30 2015 07:57 Simberto wrote:
Yeah, the problem with that is that cigarette companies tend to have really good lawyer teams, because they know that they need them because what they are doing is so obviously evil and murderous. Probably a MUCH better legal team than a country like, for example, Uruguay. Especially considering the difference in money available between PM and the government of Uruguay. (PM has A LOT more)
Somehow cigarette companies have managed to not have to pay for the insane amount of damage they cause for a very long time. I personally have no idea how they do that. Everyone knows how much damage tobacco causes. It is a well-known scientific reality. And still tobacco companies have a business that basically consists of selling addictive poison to teenager to make them addicted to it for the rest of their lives, and not pay any damages for doing that. And now they have managed to get into a position where they can actually sue countries for trying to stop them. How is that not insane?
study the history of Prohibition. You're obviously against the legalization of marijuana as well, because that's what your words say.
Again, look up the issue of assumption of risk, which is a very well settled point of law recognized around the world.
|
No, it is rightful for a countries governments to make laws. That is kind of what a government is about. Western countries have a separation of powers into three distinct branches. If you dislike something, you can got to court in the country. If you think one of the laws harms one of your rights, there are constitutional courts for that.
If you just guessed that the way things are handled currently is the way they will always be, and you bet money onto that, and were wrong, sucks to be you. That is how investments work. You have to judge the risks of that investment, and the payoffs, and decide if it is worth it. You can not bet onto something, and then sue people for your loss if stuff doesn't go as you planned, while keeping the profits if it does.
There is no constitutional right of not having a government change it's laws because it might hurt you in any country that i know of.
edit: There is an edit button, no reason to quadruplepost. That is not very well liked in this forum.
|
There's a difference between things going or not going as planned; and a country randomly deciding to ban something.
And again, you misrepresent the effect of the treaty by saying it infringes on a governments' ability to make its laws. So stop lying.
And look up the history of international economic disputes, to see why having a framework, and having the ability to achieve justice, is better than the alternative of might makes right, which is what you are espousing, even if you don't realize it.
|
On March 30 2015 08:03 zlefin wrote:
so you believe its' right to take property from people and give them no compensation at all.
That is in fact what you're claiming, even if you don't realize it.
i dont think you know what you are talking about.
the permission to produce a certain product, given by the state, is not a property, and can be withdrawn at any time if the law is not followed.
and who makes the law? the government.
you make it sound like governments dont ban products every day. i never heard a company suing for their "property".
i mean i get it that companys would like to have it that way, that its their "human" right to produce everything they want, and sue everyone who forbids it. but come on you cant be serious. thats not the society we live in
|
Philipp, you continue to lie, and misrepresent my own position, since you obviously do not want to learn about the underlying issues, or understand them properly, I will not speak with you any further, as I do not have the tolerance to put up with trolling.
|
everyone lies, you are surrounded by lairs.
|
Can you stop shouting that everyone who does not agree with you is a liar? You sound like a 5 year old doing that.
And if someone can sue you and demand money from you for doing something, that infringes your ability to do that thing. Especially if the amount of money they can demand is so high that it significantly impacts your life.
Or, in this specific example, if a company can sue a country for damages when that country changes a law, that limits that countries ability to change its laws. Because it now has to calculate the costs of a lengthy legal battle (Which especially for smaller countries can be quite significant, they can easily be dwarfed by Multinational Companies regarding the amount of money they have available) and keep in mind the possible costs of paying out after losing that battle.
Countries do not have any responsibilities to foreign companies. They do have a responsibility to their citizens, and that should always be their highest priority. A country should not have to answer to a foreign company for changing their laws.
A country has the right to ban whatever it wants. If a company dislikes that, that is their problem. They are free to use that countries legal system to fight that decision. A country should never give this right away to some sort of corporate court.
Would you argue that the current PM lawsuit is good for Uruguay? If not, than it is probably not a good decision to give a company the power to sue your country in that way. Which is why one should be very careful when signing those kinds of treaties.
|
On March 30 2015 08:14 phil.ipp wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2015 08:03 zlefin wrote:
so you believe its' right to take property from people and give them no compensation at all.
That is in fact what you're claiming, even if you don't realize it. i dont think you know what you are talking about. the permission to produce a certain product, given by the state, is not a property, and can be withdrawn at any time if the law is not followed. and who makes the law? the government. you make it sound like governments dont ban products every day. i never heard a company suing for their "property". i mean i get it that companys would like to have it that way, that its their "human" right to produce everything they want, and sue everyone who forbids it. but come on you cant be serious. thats not the society we live in
I'd disagree with you in a fundamental way. The company has a preexisting right to make its product, and the state through social contract, or other theory has been given permission to regulate within its borders.
|
On March 30 2015 08:28 Simberto wrote:
Can you stop shouting that everyone who does not agree with you is a liar? You sound like a 5 year old doing that.
And if someone can sue you and demand money from you for doing something, that infringes your ability to do that thing. Especially if the amount of money they can demand is so high that it significantly impacts your life.
Or, in this specific example, if a company can sue a country for damages when that country changes a law, that limits that countries ability to change its laws. Because it now has to calculate the costs of a lengthy legal battle (Which especially for smaller countries can be quite significant, they can easily be dwarfed by Multinational Companies regarding the amount of money they have available) and keep in mind the possible costs of paying out after losing that battle.
Countries do not have any responsibilities to foreign companies. They do have a responsibility to their citizens, and that should always be their highest priority. A country should not have to answer to a foreign company for changing their laws.
A country has the right to ban whatever it wants. If a company dislikes that, that is their problem. They are free to use that countries legal system to fight that decision. A country should never give this right away to some sort of corporate court.
Would you argue that the current PM lawsuit is good for Uruguay? If not, than it is probably not a good decision to give a company the power to sue your country in that way. Which is why one should be very careful when signing those kinds of treaties.
I am not calling everyone who disagrees with me a liar. I am calling people liars when they say things that are untrue, and that has already been pointed to, so they should be aware of it being untrue.
First, the country has the option to choose not to sign the treaty if it is not to their advantage. The reason these treaties are used is it is to the advantage of both countries, generally speaking.
Companies do not like to invest in places where there property may be arbitrarily taken away (see the numerous instance of nationalization of industries for an example). By establishing some laws to respect property rights, you get more investment.
It's not a corporate court, it's an international arbitration court.
Having a court that isn't beholden to either country, but is independent of them both, has advantages when dealing with a dispute between parties of different countries. Otherwise you get the common problem wherein the local courts simply rule in favor of the local party. This issue tends to be more of a problem when one (or both) of the countries has a lousy court system.
Just because the current PM lawsuit is bad for Uruguay, does not mean the TREATY itself is bad for Uruguay. The treaty may have led to a great deal of investment that more than offset the costs it has incurred there. It is simply wrong to assert that because one lawsuit may be bad, that the entire system is bad. The whole point is to balance the benefits and costs of so doing.
Also, whether the government has to face a suit in this arbitration court, or in its own court system, the costs of contesting it would be similar either way.
|
That was kind of the whole point.
I am of the opinion that it would be a really bad decision for the EU countries to sign TTIP. Partially because of the whole arbitration court situation. Partially because i really don't want american-style lack of regulation in the EU.
Because i am of that opinion, i point out how bad that situation can turn out for countries. And why i do not think signing away part of our sovereignity is worth it in any way. I am of the opinion that multinational concerns already have much too large an amount of power considering how inherently immoral they tend to use that power. Giving them more power at the cost of the sovereignity of our countries is not a decision that should be taken on the faint hopes that that will increase our chances of them investing their money here as opposed to elsewhere.
And i think that any system that allows a company to sue a country over that country changing its laws is not a good idea for that country. Thus i think that TTIP should not be signed.
|
It's not a faint hope, it's more of a reliable hope, of modest effects.
For sources on that, there are a lot of them; I'm not sure which sources you would find trustworthy, and am unfamiliar with many of the orgs listed in my search, so it's hard to point to any in particular.
As to the rest, which is opinion, fine and noted.
|
On March 30 2015 08:03 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2015 07:47 phil.ipp wrote:On March 30 2015 07:42 zlefin wrote:On March 30 2015 07:16 phil.ipp wrote:On March 30 2015 07:01 zlefin wrote:
The principle in question is that if you harm people, you may have to compensate them. Which is a pretty reasonable principle. so how would you ban a product, without harming the company who sells it? obviously you can't. That's the point. If you ban a company's product, you may (note MAY) have to provide them compensation. It's quite similar to eminent domain really. see, and now there are many people who think that this is **** stupid. i think that it should be, like it ever was. that is that the company gets to make no claim at all. it worked like a charm for like forever, and i think it should stay that way  so you believe its' right to take property from people and give them no compensation at all. That is in fact what you're claiming, even if you don't realize it.
You didn't really reply to phil.ipp's point (understandably because he didn't express himself too well) so let me ask again because I think this is the crux of your disagreement:
Do you think regulating the design of the package of a product is the same (or the same in principle) as taking away property of the company? You seem to conflate property with profit margin or something.
[EDIT]: And just to be sure, applying your principle seems to lead to "if a new law affects the profitability of a product, the producer should be compensated".
|
On March 30 2015 06:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2015 04:11 WhiteDog wrote:
You nitpicked the contradiction because two different people made two different article taking two different point of view (american for the first and european for the second). Good job. I didn't ask for subjective points of view, I asked for facts.
Not all arguments made from a specific points of views are not factual. If you give me 50 €, I will win 50 € and you will lose 50 €. All those comments would be factual and objective, but the word win or acquire can only be used when talking from my point of view, while the word loss refer to yours.
Pretty simple.
|
On March 30 2015 07:42 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2015 07:16 phil.ipp wrote:On March 30 2015 07:01 zlefin wrote:
The principle in question is that if you harm people, you may have to compensate them. Which is a pretty reasonable principle. so how would you ban a product, without harming the company who sells it? obviously you can't. That's the point. If you ban a company's product, you may (note MAY) have to provide them compensation. It's quite similar to eminent domain really.
The state (i.e. government) decides what gets sold in a country and what does not. Companies and corporations have to abide by those laws, and sovereign nations are not responsible for a decrease in profits once a company's products become illegal for whatever reason.
By your logic, a cigarette company would be able to sue a country if it decided to increase the minimum smoking age for the benefits of its citizens. Does anyone really want to live in a world where governments and states are held accountable for corporate profits, actually enabling the latter to indirectly decide policy?
The democratic state is accountable to its people (consent of the governed), not to foreign profit-seeking entities.
|
On March 30 2015 08:37 cLutZ wrote:
I'd disagree with you in a fundamental way. The company has a preexisting right to make its product, and the state through social contract, or other theory has been given permission to regulate within its borders.
you disagree? this is not a matter of opinion.
if you say a company has a preexisting right to make every product they want, then i guess this has to be written in your constitution or at least in some other law.
if that would be the case, every discussion would end here, cause then in fact you would violate that right, every time a government bans a product.
of course i know that this "right" does not exist, i am even feeling really bold and say: it doesnt exist ANYWHERE in the world.
but if you think it does it should be really easy to prove for you, cause this must be a fucking famous law where it says: every company has the right to produce everything they want, and the government can only regulate.
its like the human rights, they are also written down, there is no preexisting right for a human to do anything that isn't written down. a "right" is a term we invented with the concept of law. so a right has to be always written down or derived from an other law.
what do mean with "pre existing"? pre existing before what? before law? you think there are rights before any law creates them? like who would decide what they are?!? i think you dont mean a "natural right" in the sense of not man-made, cause that would be really funny, cause companys are man-made so obiviously the rights that it has to follow, have to be also man-made.
the discussion is at that point a bit tiresome, cause one guy has his own definition of the word property, and the next invents preexisting rights.
i mean please what are we talking about, governments ban and regulate products EVERY DAY, so i guess i missed all the companys who get everyday compensated.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
whether you feel philip morris has a winning case is irrelevant. (i do not) the point is having a forum and structure to give force to the treaty.
having the arbitration court is not a significant issue if your problem is with trade liberalization. it's signing the treaties in the first place.
but this position would be more radical and less defensible than some imaginary conspiracy.
|
Well... If the whole liberalization is a good thing or not is, more or less, a matter of opinion. How being against a further liberalization should be seen as "radical" is beyond me, but thats not really the point. How can keeping the Status quo be radical? But nevermind.
Having said arbitration court SECRET is the issue. Can you give me one good reason for this? Except that this court would probably be wildely unpopular and having it "open" would therefore jeopardise the whole thing? Because thats not really a good argument...
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
arbitration is a dispute resolution process. it is always private
|
If the dispute is between a State and a Company it shouldn't be.
Companies are "private" entities and i see how its none of my Business how they deal with each other (if they don't break laws), but states aren't private entities and if "my" state is involved i feel i should have the right to know wtf is going on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
