Just something else our rotten politcians have kept from us, as they beaver away behind our backs, selling off our sovereignt, our culture, beliefs and way of life, while we drift along in apathetic hedonism.

This article is very welcome, but one rather fears that it is a case of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. A number of commentators, including myself, have tried to point out the dangers of the Dispute Resolution procedures in the TPP negotiations. For the most part the corporate media have ignored the warnings. The Labor opposition has been conspicuously silent. After all, the negotiations began long before Mr Robb was Minister. They have acquiesced in the appalling level of secrecy that has surrounded these negotiations, and have been silent on their stance about the legislation that will be needed to give effect to the treaty.
In short, we have been sold out by both major political parties.

Dear James,

Yes, we have been sold out by the major political parties.

You say that the horse has bolted:
I wonder what will happen if a combination of different parties is voted in next time and declare this treaty null and void?
Would the other countries that are party to this agreement send in their navies, drones and rockets to punish Australia?

There's an even better way to get rid of this treaty: let each state secede from the commonwealth, then say: "What do you want from me - I haven't signed it!"

i have been saying that all members of the major mistakes political parties are devil worshippers for a while now & that Mao-colm Rudd is the Manchurian candidate. now we see the proof. anybody who votes for any of the 4 major mistakes parties is insane.

The author completely fails to make his case, and in the process demonstrates that he has completely failed to understand what he's talking about, for the following reasons.

At issue is whether investment decisions should be made by the private parties to them, or by governments. The author contends that governments should make them.

At no stage does he give any reason whatsoever for this contention, and that is why he fails to make his case. All he does is repeat the assumption, over and over again, that investment is a somehow anti-social and undesirable activity, and that governments presumptively know better what investments should be made.

This demonstrates that he has failed to understand what he's talking about, otherwise he would not have obliviously exhibited an intellectual technique that consists of nothing but repating the same erroneous assumption over and over again from different angles.

Notice also that, while his whole article is nothing but an open-ended plea for arbitrary power to forcibly override freedom and private property, he neither defines the State or government, nor gives any explanation for his *assumption* that its decisions are better able to satisfy the wants of the people, as decided by themselves?

Notice how he provides no rational or objective criterion for knowing whether or how a governmental investment can be known to be better or worse, than would otherwise obtain?

Notice how he *assumes* that government should make all decisions, or fails to give any criterion for deciding what it should not decide?

He also performs a self-contradiction by writing the article, since according to him, the issues should be decided by brute force, not by reason or argument.

James O'Neill also contradicts himself since, according to his theory, rights are whatever the government says they are, so you have no right whatsoever to expect anything other than the arbitrary power that you worship and advocate.

Note to Statists: people are not just herds of chattels owned by government.

Jardine K Jardine, your projecting, he said that if a majority of people vote to protect themselves from pollution, the investor can force us to accept pollution, even if it kills us.

imacentristmoderate

"Your projecting"

Notice how the statist, when challenged, descends immediately into ad hominem, and mind-reading - i.e. personal abuse?

"he said that if a majority of people vote to protect themselves from pollution, the investor can force us to accept pollution, even if it kills us."

Notice how the statist just *emotes*, rather than engaging in any dialogue of reason?

Tell you what, I'll use the same argument method you are using, imacentristmoderate, and see how you like it. The government can force us to be caged and raped, even if it kills us, and that's what the author is advocating.

There. How do you like it? Does that satisfy your intellectual standards? Because that's the level you're operating at.

You have in no way advanced the discussion beyond my original, devastating, critique:
" All he does is repeat the assumption, over and over again, that investment is a somehow anti-social and undesirable activity, and that governments presumptively know better what investments should be made."

That's all you've done.

You and the author have made no attempt to come to terms with the issues, and show no signs of even recognising what they are.

There is no need for my to re-state my argument, since you and the author have completely failed to answer is, and this invalidates everything the author says.

Until you actually answer the points I make with reason - not just squarking emotions and running evasions about how we're all going to die unless you get your way - you have completely failed to make your case or answer mine

Jardine K Jardine, takes one to know one, libertarianism is the new ism. i am a conservative, we invented freedom. Please show me where i said it is compulsory for Chinese or American investors to invest in the land of OZ. Please provide the video of me holding guns to the heads of investors forcing them to buy into strategic Australian assets. There are quarrying companies digging up rocks all over the world. Take the Adani proposal in central Queensland, they could just as easily be digging up coal in Mongolia.

ima

My argument is not ad hominem.

You are the one arguing, or rather assuming, that investment in productive activity is somehow anti-social and needs to be forcibly suppressed.

No-one has suggested that overseas investors are being forced to invest here, so that's a straw man.

But both you and the author agree with the forcibly suppression of investment activities that would otherwise take place, and at no stage have you or he provided any reason for your anti-social, destructive, bullying behaviour