Trending

Newsletter

Businesses in Texas Team Up to Protect Economic Relations with Mexico

By: Elena Toledo - @NenaToledo - Jun 15, 2017, 1:32 pm
México
The coalition was officially launched this Thursday, with the participation of the Texas Business Association, the Texas Business Leadership Council and the Borderplex Alliance.(University of Texas)

EspañolBusinesses in Texas have formed a coalition to protect and foster trade opportunities between the United States and Mexico should the renegotiations of the North American Free Trade Agreement hurt the economic relationship of the two countries.

The coalition was officially launched this Thursday, with the participation of the Texas Business Association, the Texas Business Leadership Council and the Borderplex Alliance.

 

“It is designed to inform Texas policymakers about how important bilateral trade with Mexico is to the state’s economy and to urge political leaders in the Lone Star State to actively engage in the process of the renegotiation and modernizing and strengthening of NAFTA,” said CEO of the Borderplex Alliance Jon Barela.

Members of the Texas-Mexico Trade Coalition are encouraging Congress to protect the “deep economic ties” between the Lone Star State and Mexico, as well as modernizing the agreement to include new industry and technologies.

“This is unique in the sense that this coalition represents large and small businesses statewide that recognize the value of this bilateral economic relationship and see it as an opportunity to create even more jobs in Texas and throughout our region,” Barela said.

President of the Texas Business Association Jeff Moseley said the relationship between the US and Mexico benefits both countries economically.

“Our goal is to make sure our voices are heard in any conversation that can affect that relationship and provide real data from Texas and Mexico businesses to guide discussions at all levels of government,” he said.

Source: Times Record News

Elena Toledo Elena Toledo

Educator by trade, social-media apprentice, activist for a democratic Honduras, and free thinker. Follow her on Twitter @NenaToledo.

Is Democracy Enough to Make a Government Legitimate?

By: José Azel - Jun 15, 2017, 12:13 pm
IS democracy enough

This is a trick question: What makes a government legitimate? Most of us will immediately reach out to the democratic answer that the legitimacy of a government is granted by the consent of the people in some form of majority rule. But, if a mechanical voting procedure is the answer, then most governments are illegitimate. According to the 2016 Democracy Index of The Economist Intelligence Unit, only 19 countries, out of the 167 studied, can be considered as fully democratic. It is also important to remember that Adolf Hitler and other despots have received vote majorities. Moreover, if the consent of the people is the determinant of a government’s legitimacy, this begs policy questions such as: Should we be doing business, or having diplomatic relations with illegitimate governments? Or more philosophically fundamental: Is democracy required for a government to be legitimate? Read More: Cuba’s Very First Libertarian Party is Born Here I will tackle only the core normative question: What makes a government legitimate? To be clear, the question is not about a government’s authority. Despotic governments exercise authority without being legitimate. The modern “consent of the governed” theory for the legitimacy of government begins with British philosopher John Locke (1632-1704) who argued in his Second Treatise that no government is legitimate unless it is carried out with the consent of the governed, and that consent can only be rendered through majority rule. Therefore, if a government violates fundamental rights, Locke was particularly concerned with the rights to property, the people are entitled to replace the government. Less than a century later, Locke’s views were reiterated in the U.S. Declaration of Independence. googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1459522593195-0'); }); A much older source of government legitimacy is the divine right of kings; a mandate where heaven grants a ruler the right to rule, as in dynasties or monarchies. The monarchy of the House of Saud, which has ruled Saudi Arabia since the 18th century, is a contemporary example. The utilitarian concept of “beneficial consequences” is another philosophy used to legitimize a government; in this case, on the basis of utility.  In the “beneficial consequences”   view, the legitimacy of a government hinges on whether it foments the happiness of the citizenry. The undemocratic rule of Chilean General Augusto Pinochet is often offered as an example of the “beneficial consequences” argument. Pinochet assumed power in a coup d’état that overthrew the democratically elected socialist government of Salvador Allende. Pinochet’s military government implemented economic liberalization policies that produced what has been described as the "Miracle of Chile" where the country was, for most of the 1990s, the best-performing economy in Latin America. Under this theory, a good outcome, however defined, forms the basis of legitimacy, and democracy is not required for political legitimacy. Read More: Socialism Has Been Tried Without Success, But What About Libertarianism? Another proposed source of a government’s legitimacy is rule by virtue or charisma.  In Confucianism’s system of moral hierarchy, the emperor is supposed to be the most virtuous man on earth.  In Plato’s account, reason and knowledge constitute the basis for claims to political legitimacy, and only philosophers should govern due to their capacity for reasoned understanding. Communist states, unable to legitimize their rule on “consent of the governed,” have creatively insisted that their governments’ legitimacy flows from the logic of Marxist ideology. Doctrine is the communist source of legitimacy, making consent of the governed unnecessary. It is a mode of circular thinking where the government legitimizes the government. Legitimacy is vital to justify a government’s use of coercive powers, and to create our agreement to obey.  Without legitimacy, government exercises power unjustifiably and there is no duty to obey. Only legitimate authority creates an obligation to obey. Legitimacy should be independent of political doctrine, divine right, charisma, virtue, or consequences. The question of regime legitimacy turns, not necessarily on any of the above, but on whether the regime protects our natural rights. A government’s role is to create and maintain a rights-respecting society. A government that does not protect our rights is illegitimate.  The only legitimate government is one that protects our individual rights; including our right to give consent to be governed.

Weekly E-Newsletter

Get the latest from PanAm Post direct to your inbox!

We will never share your email with anyone.