Do people in your cunt know what happend yesterday?

Do people in your cunt know what happend yesterday?

The signing of CETA is a start of a new world order, a new era. It's like the discovery of America but instead of opportunity it presents only despair.

1)
For the first time in history Corporations will have the legal capacity of a country.

2)
Corporations will be able to sue even small family business to a international tribunal made out of corp rats and 4 politicans from the EU(bribed we can presume).

3)
Corporations will be able to use governments for laws that might restrict their sales or pressumed sales in that country resulting in billions of Euro tributes from countries to corps.

4)
It's a gateway for more corp world order where coporation buldings/areas are exterritorial enclaves with it's own police, where countries can't intervene. It gives the possibility for corps to conduct home searches without the permission of country's citizens or courts because soon a corp search warrants will be as important as state ones

5)
It's a return to monarch because corps are run by insanely rich families not democraticly elected groups of people.

6)
In the future(20-30 years from now?) corps will be a bigger guarantee of safety than being a citizen of a country. People won't need countries because corps can give you more safety.

7)
Augmentation of human bodies and new medicine might be distributed by corps only to their workers in the near future. Governments will be too weak to force anything on corporations and anyone who won't be a corp rat will have worst acces to new tech and medicine.

The future if dark. Canada and USA was run fully by corps that are makign changes there via corrupted and corp sponsored politicians - that was something some people know. Now we know EU is the same.

It's a sad sight to behold and a begining of a new era.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=7tMXKQdc5ZM
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

This sounds like a pretty awesome cyberpunk future to me desu.

Thankfully my family has tons of connections inside corporations and is pretty rich, so I can be above the law in this cool new future.

But I'm poor. I don't wanna live in a cyberpunk dystopian shithole.

what is ceta?

fuck greed 2bh

then again i'm not rich so i don't know what it's like to be corrupted by the power of the almighty dollar

You have to be top tier to survive in a world liek this otherwise you are prone to eat cancer food, breathe cancer air, have forced multi-kulti, home invasions to check if you paid your microsoft subscription for the system on which your pc/tablet/watch/whatever runs.

It's a future where you can't ask "what is this" when you eat something, or "I've been scamed this is not the item that was advertised" nor will you be able to demand equal access to health care, protection from police forces(corp forces will have more power) or decide your childrens future(your corp will evaluate this according to their own scale in which you won't be placed high).

But Ceta is good, only TTIP is bad.

t. Sigmar "Ich verkaufe mein Land gerne, für die Interessen der Großkonzerne" Gabriel

I'm 19 and I feel like in the last few years I've regressed mentally. I barely have any idea about any of this shit in the news while before I was all about it and into programming and math, and now I just feel dumb and ignorant. I'm forgetting everything from school too. Whenever news stuff like this is posted here I just feel bad because I don't understand it.

At least I know all the countries flags

>But I'm poor. I don't wanna live in a cyberpunk dystopian shithole.

I thought post-Abbott Australia was a cyberpunk dystopian shithole?

As a current wage-slave of a domineering conglomerate I welcome this change. I can't be part of a union that will make things better for people like me, but I can at least appreciate mandates that make life shittier for everyone else. Welcome to my world.

>Corporations will be able to use governments for laws that might restrict their sales or pressumed sales
>Governments will be too weak to force anything on corporations

Why do they have to participate in nigger and womyn quotas then? Shouldn't they do better and be richer if they didn't employ nigger women?

I'll just call my friend in microsoft HQ and remind them of those party pictures I have of him and that 14 year old.

I'm sure the microsoft police will back down.

It will be the END and I mean complete END of middle class.

You are either a corp rat(96-97% of population) forced to eat cancer food, to be recorded by the TV you bought to listed to commercials before using your toilet or fucking car or a super rich corp higher up who shits on human lives and as long as his a faithful servant to the family that runs the corp he is safe and his family will be rich.

>"I'm sorry you can't poo in the loo now, before doing so please liten to these commercials that sponsor the water you're using to flush".

No. They will poison you for a month with a substance that can't be traced and that will be it.

You have no idea how ruthless those people can be.

Time to get off Sup Forums

CETA is a backdoor for TTIP.

>American corp buys a Canadian company
>???
>Profit from CETA

Then my friends will avenge me? Just like I would for them?

That's how favors work.

Sounds like "Black Mirror" episode.

More like time to get drugged up and watch anime. Everything is going to shit and there's nothing a young naive youth of this generation can do to stop it, so you might as well have some fun before you're burned as fuel in the machine.

Sup Forums is popcorn, don't forget to read books and talk with people in real life

Most of us know, but it's not like we could have stopped it. Here in germany there was a lot of protest against it, people even went to the highest court to stop it. But the politicians know that they'll get reelected because germans are so fucking retarded when it comes to politics.

Your friend wil life in fear for his and his families life.

The more time passes the more opressive it will get to the point where you will be able to get dragged out of your house because your TV/Cellphone/PC/Console recorder you saying that you skipped your daily dose of commercials that you're obligated to watch before you start up your car/pc/tv/open your fridge.

>Corporations will be able to sue even small family business to a international tribunal made out of corp rats and 4 politicans from the EU
Oh im sorry
Did the free speech trigger you?
Well suck it up SJW

Are you retarded? What SJW?

If you start a small business and by some chance succeed you will get obliterated by corp lawyers. If you happen to invent something of worth - you will get oblitarated by corp lawyers. If you disobey your corp - you will get obliterated by corp lawyers.

This statement will be fully true in 15 to 20 years from now and there is no SJW factor in it.

Then I'll live on one of the gulf islands and grow potted indoor plants like my uncle did.

You can always opt out of society in Canada, it's a damn big country.

>being against free speech
>not a SJW
Wew

It depends.

Corps might accept outcasts but what if they enforce laws that obligate you to use your corp pass to leave the city or travel? Like in commie times.

I see no reason why they would not if they extert domminance over governments. They don't have to own countries, they can just own the roads or means of transport and require passes to travel with their use.

what has all of this to do with free speech?

Weak troll.

By the time the writing begins to be on the wall for that I'll grab my family gold reserves and fuck off north or south to the islands.

Lots of nutjobs in the north with military shit, even more south of the border.

The corps can enjoy entering compounds surrounded by anti-tank mines.

Well I wish you best of luck but gold needs to be sold somewhere preferably outisde corp control.

If corporations arent allowed to sue whoever they want they havent got free speech

Video related
youtube.com/watch?v=7tMXKQdc5ZM

Existence is overrated.

Feeedom of speech is a 1st generation HUMAN RIGHT you fucking retard.

Key word: Human. Corps are companies, and their memebers are subject to huma rights but not the company besides they could sue whoever they wanted but not on equal terms when in conflict with a country because thet would be just sick and it seems this future is right here and now.

You're not the sharpest tool in the shed.

Maybe if I post enough smug anime girls and work hard enough in my shitty job I will distract myself from the rapid collapse of my country from a world peacekeeper to a third world client state to corporate greed.

don't worry islam will dominate the world and all the retarded capitalist greed will be destroyed

What is Saudi Arabia for 200

I'll also add that the right to sue has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

It's totally different laws and one comes from capacity to act in law which we gain when we become 13 and 18(or 13 and 21, depends on cunt) and freedom of speech is something we have from birth due to it being a 1st gen human right.

Does this mean no more open source?

>saudi arabia's gov
>islam
lol, they're crypto americans and druggies

>not TRUE islam

Okay bud

>It's a return to monarch
Sounds good, where can I sign up for royal service?

>puppet government that is literally not following islam while implementing western capitalist garbage is not islamic
makes you ponder..

ah yes of course it's some polack who made the thread

Sounds like Elysium movie tbqh.

Corporations are, by definition, people. They're not natural people but the whole point of the corporation as a legal construct is to create a "person" out of the company, so that assets and liabilities can be assigned to it directly.

If a corporation has assets and liabilities then it needs to be able to sue. If a corporation is defrauded of its assets then no member of it has standing as a natural person to sue - the corporation sues because the assets are the corporation's.

And what has freedom of speech have to do with it? It's a human right and has nothing to do with the ability to sue anyone.

tfw u weren't born into a cyberpunk future and dont get to become a stylish, underground hacker fighting for liberty

same bro

The theory (in America at least) is that right to use the courts is a function of free speech - the right to speak up for yourself and your interests.

Personally I think it's a bit stupid but there is reasoning behind it. When dealing with the law it doesn't help to get hung up on the usual meanings of words.

It's inevitable and was predicted by Marx. In capitalist society capitals tend to become bigger and become more concentrated. It bring political power too. So called democracies has always been a tool of capitalists and it's more obvious now. Globalization of capitals leads to globalization of the planet.
Very soon all the peoples would be ruled by a small bunch of international capitalists who would continue to exploit and oppress peoples of the world. And as soon as world is globalised and capitalists take all the power world revolution would happen bringing socialism. As soon as extremely small bunch of people would own everything with overwhelming majority of globalized world without no national divisions would be exploited, that system wouldn't last long, especially with full automatisation of means of production. Everyone read at least Communist Manifesto, all that was predicted and explained.

>tfw not born in a cyberpunk future and don't get to work your way up the megacorp ladder to eventually wipe out the rebel proles with your private mechanised riot force

In 2050 the world will look like one big Africa, with no middle class, and the majority of people will be black. I'm happy I will be die by that time

Middle class was an accident. In post-war Europe economy was thriving and many wealth was distributed to ordinary people. Now you don't have such a growth and wealth is being redistributed naturally, to the rich. Look at most of the world: there is no middle class, because there was no post-war boom.
Read Thomas Piketti on this.

The right to sue someone comes from capacity to act in law which is gained with age.

Sure, some can digress that it comes from freedom of speech but it's too far fetched because in reality ic omes from rght to a fair trial which is a different human law and one that was partly extended to companies.

*different human right

co masz za pierwszą lekcję że pierdolisz od rana kucu

Skończone studia na dobry uniwerku synu, coś czego ty nigdy nie osiągniesz.

>You are either a corp rat(96-97% of population) forced to eat cancer food, to be recorded by the TV you bought to listed to commercials before using your toilet or fucking car or a super rich corp higher up who shits on human lives and as long as his a faithful servant to the family that runs the corp he is safe and his family will be rich.
It's a good thing I'm moving to rural Alaska in 2 months

Have fun with your dystopian shitholes citycucks

i skończyłeś na Sup Forums pierdoląc bzdury o złowrogich korporacjach >tfwnogf spierdonom z piwnic całego świata

zajebiste studia kucu

Again, I don't agree with the theory (I think it's daft), I'm just explaining what I understand to be the line of thinking.

In my view it's all empty nonsense. The "right to a fair trial" is no more "real" or less far-fetched than the "right to free speech".

Regarding companies, or rather corporations in particular, you need to understand the history of it. Look at the etymology of the word itself: "corporation". It's like "embodiment" or "incarnation" - the making of a company in to a body; the making of a non-person in to a person. They are defined as separate legal entities to their members; they have legal personhood/personality of their own.

But the thing is, whatever the background, we can arbitrarily assign rights as we wish. There are no natural or fundamental rights and there is no necessary restriction upon what laws the state can make.

Religion is the best tool of capitalist to stupidify and rule people. Look at Saudi Arabia, brilliant example.
As any rulling class everywhere. I bet Al Baghdadi does cocaine every evening.

Boli dupa studenciku?

No. Theory of law is as it stands and has nothing to do with opinions and lines of thinking.

Freedom of speech and right to fair trial are two different laws which is huge because they cannot be limited at once.

>There are no natural or fundamental rights
You are very wrong here.

The world is full of lesser or larger laws that govern it. Some may digress they come from nature, some that they some from God. Even a ant colony has laws that govern it and they are determined by genetics of those ants so once again by either God or nature.

I think secular values have proven even more effective at rotting the brains of the masses.

do both desu

>a country on the brick of civil war with massive internal feuds that is kept together not by religion but by tribalism and elders is a brilliant example
what did he mean by this?

>boli dupa

no nie napisał tego absolwent czegokolwiek choćby i technikum informatycznego

odezwij się jak będziesz miał wychowawczą

Nawet twoje posty nie mają sensu, nie ośmieszaj się bardziej chłopcze.

And filling the pocket os "psychologists".

co daliście pani na dzień nauczyciela

are you 16 years old perhaps?

Power to sue anyone stems from political power obtained through the money. There are no natural rights. The only right is power.
State is a tool of rulling class to oppress people. In a capitalist society the rulling class are capitalists and with the development of capitalism this rule is becoming more and more direct with corporations globalizing world and replacing nation states. This is what we see now.

>No. Theory of law is as it stands and has nothing to do with opinions and lines of thinking.
Legal theory doesn't create the law, it just legitimises it. It's propaganda, not fundamental truth. The state can make whatever law it has the power to enforce.

>You are very wrong here.
>The world is full of lesser or larger laws that govern it. Some may digress they come from nature, some that they some from God. Even a ant colony has laws that govern it and they are determined by genetics of those ants so once again by either God or nature.

You cannot derive "rights" (which are essentially indirect "oughts") from the fact that the world is an ordered place (which is an "is").

also: don't marry and reproduce, I think that is the best thing to do

> a russian commie

End yourself, my man ;^)

same here, Wallonia first refused to sign, i was hoping they would drop it completely, but they were pressured into signing it after all

Legal theory is the backbone of law and later on gets legislated.

I have no idea why you polemize with something that has few hundred years of scientific research backing it up.

>You cannot derive "rights" (which are essentially indirect "oughts") from the fact that the world is an ordered place (which is an "is").
Order is created by a string of actions or their lack which become unwritten laws of even the smallest of societies.


The power to sue is not obtained through money unless you see a dystopian society in every capitalist country on Earth.

There are multitudes of lawyers who will sue a company to get money for a victim of a work accident, for a % of the compensation.

are you high?

No. Secularism destroys the religious divisions which helps capitalists but in a less developed societies capitalitsts prefer to use religion because people there are more religious. Process of globalization starts slowly. First capitalists create nation state from different ethnicities to do not waste resources on ethnic conflicts, than they create secularism by the same reason. Than they remove nations states and become global elite. It's a natural process of development of capitalism that would end with a socialist revolution. Syria and Iraq become capitalist states nearly 50-70 years ago. They are like USA in a times of Great Awakening now.

The idea that written theories of words are really binding on action is fresh from cloudcuckooland. If the state decided to ban the word "blue", they could make that law right away (might not get it passed); and though they might have trouble enforcing it, you can bet that they could shuffle around interpretations to make the "blue"-ban appear theoretically consistent with the rest of the system. Legal theory is a legitimising tool, secondary to the real power of the law. Anyone who says otherwise has been successfully duped.

>The power to sue is not obtained through money unless you see a dystopian society in every capitalist country on Earth
Society has forms of class struggle to regulate conflicts without violence. When you have trade union and people suing corporations it's a form created by rulling class to ease the boiling pot of society. In a less developed capitalist countries you can't do it, because earlier capitalists are not clever enough for it. For example, you barely can sue anyone rich in Russia - as well as you barely could do it in 1920s in the West - and it's difficult thing to do even now.

What you're trying to highlight is what Roscoe Pound and his judge friends said back in the days and is a nihil novi in the world of law.

Sure law practice is often different from written law, but that's why we have practice, custom law and precedent(in aglo saxon law and the ET).

There so much more to law than you think my friend.

Yes it's hard to sue the rich and it all boils down to violations of law such as bribes, use of violence, intimidation etc.

Such things exist both in capitalism and socialism and are nearly impossible to get rid off due to human nature.

You can also just replace "capitalists" with "communists" in all of this.
Communists have actually done most of this stuff they are always warning capitalism will lead to over and over again.

I'm not talking about the law as it exists being different to the law as it is written. It's not American realism but a more classical sort of realism that I espouse - reminiscent of positivism, I suppose, but with broader political concerns tied in. The law is what it is, and will be what it will be; there is no constraint except the power of the state, and theories of "human rights" or "personhood" or whatever else are just made-up stories - fictions - used to make the law (or proposed reform) seem appealing in the minds of subjects.

The great example of the failures of communism is the St. Peterburg/Moscow metro.

In 70ties(early 80ties?) they stopped all ticket controls and told people to pay for ticket by themselves at cash machines because the working class is honest and fair and won't cheat the state.

It turned out no one paid and they had to go back to obligatory tickets and ticket control.

Socialism/Communism goes against human nature. And the nature of 50% of humans is evil.

>constrain
Of course there is.

It's called natural law or divine law and now it's expressed in three generations of human law.

Even positivists expressed that if the la is inhumane and brutal the citizens had no right to follow it.

The criticism of positivism came from the shock that was nazi germany and later on cummism. Law regulations can't completely bend nature as it is so to some extent a perfect positivist law system is impossible and very harmful. Even Hart went down the route of natural law in the end.

I didn't say all these thing are bad. It's just a natural course of history. In communist states (well, in fact most of them were basically state capitalism because there was no industrial and economical basis for socialism, not mentioning communism) same things were done too, yet most of it was done better - religiousity in USSR was destroyed that good that pretty everyone here are still secular or don't really care about religion.

>he believed the ceta is bad meme
tfwtit fall for memes

You're just engaging in wishful thinking. The scholars you talk about are either doing the same or pulling the wool over your eyes. Decrying a law of the state as "inhumane" or "brutal" is a complaint about the law, but it's not a constraint. Citizens are free to follow or not follow whatever law they choose; inhumanity and brutality are irrelevant. But there are typically consequences for breaking the law.

You're also mixing up two different kinds of law. The only natural laws are the laws of nature, things we discover about the world. There are also logical laws that we deal with in mathematics and philosophy. These are not laws in the same sense as the laws of the state. These natural laws are unbreakable; but the laws of the state are breakable and this is why there are penalties attached.

I'm not saying that the law can effect changes to natural phenomena; a law declaring gravity to not exist would not nullify gravity. But the state can still make such a law, and it would be law, no problem; it just wouldn't do what it claims. You're conflating the good sense of law with the state's power to legislate. Even so there might be a reason, such as social control, to implement such a law; the lawmakers don't have to believe that gravity doesn't exist.

Your examples re: the Nazis and the Communists don't do a thing to refute my argument. You're saying that some laws are "harmful" - sure, I don't see why not. But they're still laws. And what's more, the Nazis and Communists created legal-theoretical (and other) justifications for their laws, ideological propaganda, etc.. So they have little to do with my point, which is that theory is not binding upon the law.

so like shadowrun without the magical shenanigans. fuck

>hurr let me go through these page long convoluted explanations to tell you that suing isnt a form of free speech
lol, just admit, you dont like total, unrestrained free speech
Its ok, it doesnt necesarrily make you a SJW
There are also right wing people who oppose free speech
Reminds me of a friend of mine who went to demonstrate against a law that would allow corporations to sue goverments if they made enviromental laws
Wonder what you guys would think of that

Fuck no.

t. "extraction" target

You can either have capitalism and all its ills or literally anything else that doesn't end with corporations ruling you like feudal despots.

Sup Forums ->

If it can lead to make my country less socialist I'm all for it.

Sucks but you have to march on

>they fell for the "arbitration has power over sovereign countries" meme

No cyberpunk dystopia in the countryside.

I think you need to lay off the wikipedia because you sure as hell got al ot of things wrong.

I didn't answer because I'm at work but you need to understand that few pages of a wiki won't get you past a cerain amount of konwledge that is only obtainable thorugh books and education.

You don't even understand the fundamentals of natural law and discrediting the father of legal positivism.