>Bissell here: good point, but I think most of these examples are the
>exception, not the rule. For the most part globalization will increase
>competition, not decrease it. i.e. Microsoft and the govs refusal to let
>United Airlines buy (I forget now) that other airline.

I'm still not convinced that globalization will increase competition,
companies like Gap just morph into Gap/Old Navy/Banana Republic (oh, the
irony!).  And don't get me started on Microsoft - I'm a die-hard Mac user!
>

>Jennifer replied:
>But, if I want to stand on the street corner and use my right of free
>speech to tell other people why I don't eat at McDonald's, and why they
>shouldn't either, and I'm not technically slandering the company, should
>McDonald's have the right to silence me?
>
>Bissell here: No, MacDonald's doesn't have the right to silence you, but
>they do have the right to prosecute you if you throw rocks through the
>windows. Or are you saying "the media" made that up in Seattle?

I in no way suggested that "the media" made this up (although I have heard
first-hand reports about provocateurs in Seattle that I won't dismiss out
of hand).  My own method of protesting is non-violent, for me the most
important thing is to BE THERE to demonstrate that people are willing to
spend the time, energy, money etc to stand up and say what they want to say.

>Bissell here: Here we differ. I don't know about outside the US, but in most
>places the "neighborhood" already has this power through zoning ordinance
>(Huston is a big exception in the US). In most places it is very difficult
>to start any business without local consent. I'm not sure I follow you on
>"corporations have more rights than individuals. . .more rights than
>governments."I can't help but feel that you are seeing boogey men here. I
>think corporations have "different" rights than individuals, but I don't see
>this as "more" rights.

I think that what you call 'different rights' are fast outstripping the
rights of individuals in scale and scope; this is exactly what is going on
in Quatar.  It isn't just about zoning, its about SLAP suits which corps
are free to use against individuals who speak out.
>
>Bissell: Mind you I'm not much of a capitalist, my politics
>are free enterprise anarchist (not really libertarian either). I believe in
>as little government as possible and as much freedom for the individual as
>possible.

And what rights should groups have? Corporations, gov't and nongov't ,
charitable, coalitions....


>Jennifer writes: I'm not an anarchist but...what kind of anarchist stands
>quietly while they
>are told what to do and how to do it? What kind of person stands back and
>watches the dismantling of democracy?
>
>Bissell here: Very good point. One of the precepts of anarchy is that direct
>action is called for when there is an assault on freedoms. But, that is
>considerable different from forcing your opinions through violence. I don't
>object to the protests of the anti-globalization people, I do object to what
>seems to be meaningless violence (I don't object to violent protest if
>necessary).
This is a sticky point.  When is violence necessary?  What constitutes
violence and how is it different from direct action?  These are complex
things that are difficult to work through. I was up at the fence in Quebec
when it was taken down and I didn't think that that was a violent act. My
tax dollars built that fence, an inanimate object that was a symbol of the
undemocratic, exclusionary nature of the event. It was built to be taken
down and as long as it didn't involve hurting anyone I was fine with it,
although I didn't help dismantle it.  I was also at a peaceful sit-in that
was tear gased - this was a violent act against people doing nothing but
sitting (not even blocking traffic as there was none).  Is state
'sanctioned' violence okay and anything else not? These are complicated
questions that require thought and discussion and experience to answer.

>Bissell: And, I'm not sure what you see in the WTO or other organizations
>that is a "dismantling of democracy." So far the only real issue I've seen
>on this is that the decision making process is secretive.
Is that not enough?  And it isn't the only issue that people are concerned
about. Canada and France, for example, are very concerned about culture,
wanting to keep cultural production off the bargaining table. The US gov't
doesn't recognize culture as something that should be protected, this
worries us. Canadians are concerned that our healthcare system will be
opened up to private interests through trade agreements.  People are
worried about environmental issues, labour standards....you know there is
more to it than secrecy, but even that is enough in my view.  Democracy
runs on openness and accountability, both of which have gone out the window
here.

Ray said it well here:
>Ray here:
>For me it is  not only that the process is secretive.  For example, the
>decisions are made undemocratically, there is no open discussion of the
>distribution of gains & losses, the only values represented in the process
>are those of the "haves" and their clients, etc.  I think that the protests
>should continue even if there is open decision making.  Protesting is the
>only power leverage available who are outside the inner circle and I don't
>think the openess would continue without public protests.

Bissell: But, as I've
>stated before, if you think that an open decision making process will
>eliminate the protests, that is naive.
I don't think this, and I don't think what I said suggested that I think
this.  There will always be dissent, protest, questioning and this is, in
my opinion, a positive thing.

jen

ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ
Jennifer Cypher
Faculty of Environmental Studies
York University
[log in to unmask]