EU parliament rejects ACTA (Anti-Counterfeit Trading Agreement)

[TheReasoner]

Which is wonderful news for everyone in the EU.
in the EU it was shot down by 478 votes to 39 (165 abstained)
In the US the vote was 633 yes votes to 13 no votes
Funny how the US - self-styled "Champions of Freedom" seems so eager to reduce it. And moreover, how common this desire is among conservatives. How can it be that the conservatives in the US who say they want less government and less governmental involvement are so eager to pass ACTA, SOPA, PIPA, The Patriot Act, utilize torture in interrogation, outlaw homosexuality, etc.?

Isn't that a pretty large gap between what they say they want - freedom and less governmental involvement - and what they then continue to promote and push through - governmental interference in the bedroom, governmental surveillance, governmental masochism applied in interrogation...

 

[DaisyDay]

The EU must have some copyright laws of their own. What in particular was the problem with ACTA?

 

[TheReasoner]

The EU must have some copyright laws of their own. What in particular was the problem with ACTA?

It is felt that ACTA will infringe severely on people's privacy. It would enable ISPs to legally monitor internet traffic and at the behest of rights holders be - as I understand it - "strongly encouraged" (read forced I suppose) to divulge any pertinent information to the rights holder and shut down the person in question's website, and other web-based communication forms. No court order, no nothing. So there is a total monitoring of all traffic over the internet (more than websites, it would include Skype, MSN, AOL, emails, everything.

But it goes further. It isn't just the monitoring that is an issue. It is also what's 'on the board' elsewise. If you acquire any information through legal channels you are forbidden by law to utilize that information in a non-licensed setting. An apt example I have seen is; Say you buy a cookbook… You learn one of the recipes and teach your spouse. Well, now you're both federal criminals in all countries that ratified ACTA. That's basically the gist of it. - as I understand it.

 

[Rion]

A) There aren't 633 Republicans in Congress, so your portayal is rather one sided. In fact, it's quite disengenouis when you consider that Harry Reid's been a big supporter of restricting the internet.
B) There are progressive/Statist-Republicans, unfortunately, that's true.
C) Ban homosexuality? What?

 

[TheReasoner]

A) There aren't 633 Republicans in Congress, so your portayal is rather one sided. In fact, it's quite disengenouis when you consider that Harry Reid's been a big supporter of restricting the internet.

I apologize. Where DID I see those numbers? Oh well, major mistake on my part. Indeed. Big and very embarassing. Thanks for noticing though.

Harry Reid may be a democrat and hence an ipso-facto liberal in the states, but:
A) No man is ONLY one way or ONLY another way. So you will in the vast majority of cases not have a true agreement within any one "camp" on major issues such as this. B) Harry Reid does not represent all liberals. C) The Democrats may be liberal as far as the states go, but the states is a rather... Different country than the rest of the west, shall we say.

B) There are progressive/Statist-Republicans, unfortunately, that's true.

Progressive/Statist? My. Paranoid much, Rion? You are aware that you can be left or right wing and being statist, right? Or do you ascribe to the opinion that any and all authoritarian and statist governments are "left wing"?
What's more though: Are these "statist" elements really the minority? Oh sure Republicans often love to SAY that they are for smaller govt. but by jove, which party wants to interfere the most with private matters? It's the Republicans, isn't it?
It would appear that the Republicans want the govt out of some areas and really micromanage others. Out of regulation of trade, into regulation of other things.But it seems rather inaccurate to claim they want 'smaller government'. They do not, do they?

C) Ban homosexuality? What?

Again, apologies, I should have specified homosexual marriage. Which has been a rather big issue in US politics, has it not? That and of course 'don't ask don't tell'. Homosexuality certainly appears to be a fairly big thing on the American political table. And quite a few on here and elsewhere have expressed rather strong feelings far exceeding the restrictions that come up in daylight as rather common opinions on the matter.

You're right, I should have been clearer on that issue.

 

[Rion]

I apologize. Where DID I see those numbers? Oh well, major mistake on my part. Indeed. Big and very embarassing. Thanks for noticing though.

Those voting results may be right, but my point is that for those numbers to be correct, a LOT of Dems voted for it too.

Harry Reid may be a democrat and hence an ipso-facto liberal in the states, but:

This'll be good.

A) No man is ONLY one way or ONLY another way. So you will in the vast majority of cases not have a true agreement within any one "camp" on major issues such as this.

Wait, what? ...but you just got done demonizing all conservatives for this. Is it some translation issue, or are you the only one who is allowed to make broad, sweeping generalizations?

B) Harry Reid does not represent all liberals.

Again, you just got making that assertion about conservatives in congress. Nevermind the fact that my point was that both sides have such people, you can't base your argument around blaming one entire side for something and then claim someone is being to broad when they point out that your side is also involved, so both sides should be criticized.

C) The Democrats may be liberal as far as the states go, but the states is a rather... Different country than the rest of the west, shall we say.

Oh trust me, I know.

Progressive/Statist? My. Paranoid much, Rion?

You felt the need to personally insult me... why?

You are aware that you can be left or right wing and being statist, right? Or do you ascribe to the opinion that any and all authoritarian and statist governments are "left wing"?

No, I wasn't, which is why I said the exact same thing in my post.

What's more though: Are these "statist" elements really the minority?

It's hard to say for sure, both sides are rather even, but the blue bloods were in the majority for quite a while. We Individualists have only recently began taking the party back.

Oh sure Republicans often love to SAY that they are for smaller govt. but by jove, which party wants to interfere the most with private matters? It's the Republicans, isn't it?

No, it's the Democrats. Neither side is "pure" but at the moment, the Dems are the biggest offenders.

It would appear that the Republicans want the govt out of some areas and really micromanage others. Out of regulation of trade, into regulation of other things.But it seems rather inaccurate to claim they want 'smaller government'. They do not, do they?

You do realize you just switched back to broad generalizations, yes? At the moment, there's a war going on for the soul of the party. The TEA party actually wants smaller government, while the blue bloods do not.

Again, apologies, I should have specified homosexual marriage. Which has been a rather big issue in US politics, has it not? That and of course 'don't ask don't tell'. Homosexuality certainly appears to be a fairly big thing on the American political table.

Yes, marriage is a big deal. Of course if we kept the government out of marriages in the first place, we wouldn't have this issue.

And quite a few on here and elsewhere have expressed rather strong feelings far exceeding the restrictions that come up in daylight as rather common opinions on the matter.

You're right, I should have been clearer on that issue.

...what does that even mean?