Remember how our ancestors fought the American Revolution over, among other things and

[JDPriestly]

maybe first and foremost, taxation without representation.

Well. Taxation without representation is precisely what our many multi-national trade agreements including our membership in the WTO and the TPP and NAFTA and others are about.

These agreements allow corporations to sue our government in courts that are not under the jurisdiction of American voters -- us.

With their lawsuits in those courts, corporations can obtain hefty settlements or even verdicts that require our country to pay them "damages" for losses that have not occurred but that they claim will occur in the future due to laws enacted in our country by our democratically elected, constitutionally established legislatures and other agencies and governments.

When our governments are in this way "fined" or forced to pay damages or settlements to these corporations, guess who ends up and will end up paying the bills: US, US taxpayers whose taxes will be raised to pay the damages awards.

That is unacceptable. If corporations want to do business in the US, they need to abide by the laws that are passed by the legislatures, and other democratically constituted law-making and regulation-making bodies in the US.

If corporations want to do business in other countries, they need to obey the laws of those countries.

We have no obligation to pay taxes in order to satisfy damage awards or settlements with international corporations unless we decide as members of juries serving with the US that we will do so.

We fought one revolution over taxation without representation. I hate to think what might happen if we are required to pay taxes to satisfy some claim by some international corporation like Halliburton or Apple or Chevron or Exxon or General Electric.

Nothing wrong with those corporations, but we taxpayers should not allow ourselves to be placed in a position in which we either have no sovereign ability to determine what laws should govern us or we have to pay taxes to pay the companies off. It's like a sort of blackmail.

I know this will sound over the top to many who do not understand what I am talking about. But if you understand how laws work, how litigation works, if you can imagine how you would feel if your tax bill went up to satisfy a judgment against the US or your city or state because of an environmental or labor law that was passed with broad support among the voters, then you will understand what I am writing about.

This is not over the top.

I read recently that taxpayers will be required to pay a large judgment to a family whose child was killed by a police officer in an American city should that family win in court.

That is the way justice should work. If an employee of an American city kills your son or daughter brutally and using excessive force, you should be entitled to damages. And the taxpayers have to pay those damages.

But corporations should not be able to sue cities or our country for damages they believe they will suffer or even have suffered because of our laws. We are a sovereign nation. We should not submit ourselves to what equates to taxation without representation. We have been here before.

No to these multinational trade deals that set up courts in which corporations have standing to sue countries. No. No. No. Been there before. Not doing it again.

Don't lose the spirit of 1776.

We can vote to tax ourselves. But we should never, never allow a foreign court to impose damages awards and thus taxes on us.

Don't lose the spirit of 1776.

[Exilednight]

1. I guess we know who is being represented.

[JDPriestly]

2. Yes. And we need to change that. We need Bernie Sanders. He understands this.

[Cali_Democrat]

3. "These agreements allow corporations to sue our government in courts that are not under the...

jurisdiction of American voters"

Do you believe in the International Criminal Court?

[JDPriestly]

4. The International Criminal Court considers violations of international criminal law, laws to which

we have agreed.

The trade courts are very different because they theoretically and we will see increasingly in practice allow corporations to challenge NATIONAL, not international laws passed by countries that are members of the trade groups established by the agreements.

We have already seen that an international court determined that our laws that labelled meat according to the country of origin violate the WTO agreement.

That is a terrible attack on a US law that was established by our democratically elected legislature.

It's wrong.

And damages awards are coming.

The trade courts do not deal with human rights issues. They deal with questions of invvestment and the marketplace.

I support international courts that attempt to enforce human rights and make peace.
I do not support international trade courts that allow corporations to petition them as plaintiffs.

Corporations, if they want to sue a country, should sue in the country they wish to sue. I know that is limiting on the corporations, but so be it.

A corporation is the creation of civil (not criminal) law and not a human being. A corporation is created only by law and should answer to the law, not circumvent it through a system of supranational international courts.

Taxation without representation. That's what these trade courts will impose on us. It's just a matter of time. Think it through. Eventually, you will figure it out.

[Art_from_Ark]

8. In 1996, Metalclad sued the Mexican government

for the "right" to dispose of toxic waste in a Mexican town, even though a geological study showed that the toxic waste dump would contaminate local groundwater. The Mexican government lost and had to shell out $16 million dollars in compensation.

Canada has been sued by various corporations because its environmental laws are a "violation" of NAFTA. One such case is that of Ethyl Corporation, which was unhappy because Canada had banned the importation of a neurotoxic additive for gasoline. Canada lost the suit.

Australia was sued by an American tobacco company because of its health warnings on cigarette package.

South Korea was threatened with a lawsuit by a corporation over the government's plan to provide information about the country of origin of school lunches. The government withdrew the plan.

[pampango]

5. FDR wanted to engage with the world and was willing to accept arbitration as a fair

way that nations could resolve their disputes. Agreeing to arbitration to resolve disputes is not taxation without representation.

The makeup of arbitration panels is critical as is the laws and rules they are charged to enforce. Of course courts in many countries as not fair either hence a preference at times for independent arbitration.

[Gregorian]

6. You might like this Max Keiser report.

He even uses the same Revolutionary War metphor. He cites Keynes among others to show just how much we have been lulled into fear and apathy.

[JDPriestly]

7. Great. I hadn't seen that when I posted. It goes into a lot of historic detail that I left out and

added facts I did not know. Really excellent.

Thanks. Reminds me I should watch Keiser more often.