God, I hope not.

The communist revolution has been brought to you by the bourgeois class and the following announcement has been paid for by the New World Order.

Would the next president be able to veto this?

The next president would still be backed by the same people who benefit from this, so probably not.

My study of international law and trade is a bit rusty, but I think the best you can hope for is a sunset clause. Not sure if they even bother with those any more. Then again, we're basically talking about laws being written by bankers and codified by money grubbing bureaucrats, so the concept of transparency or ethics is probably alien to them.

Or anarchy and government is abolished.

(Anarchy is not chaos)

BLOOD FOR THE BLOO...

Sorry. :/

It doesn't help Hollywood and everyone is doing their best to convince you that anarchy is all about destroying everything and effectively being The Joker: Destruction for destruction's sake.

I recall someone logically going over the argument of how without government we wouldn't have roads (or related stuff like that); However he pulled out the example from his pocket: A cell phone. A cell phone (engineered, sold and managed by companies unrelated to government) literally will let you with the push of a button instantly talk to someone on the other side of the world thousands of miles away, and people are worried we can't make 'a flat stretch of ground' in which to drive a cars or bikes. Although to be frankly honest, horses and donkeys and walking was the standard for tens of thousands of years, and it's only in the last 100 that we've had cars where we actually needed 'roads'.

Anarchy (like communism) aren't bad things; Often they are labeled in a negative light intentionally.

A cell phone isn't that simple too if you consider all the infrastructure required in place for the communication between thousands of miles to take place. I just think it helps to have a government going when it comes to large scale problems.

Shame on you for ignoring my joke. ;)

The problem I have with anarchy is that it rest on belief in humanity which I lack. Humans only act rational, logical and do the right things if they're forced to do so. Anyway that's my view on the matter.

Well crap. More internationalist/corrupt big business oligarchy forcing this garbage on the little people.

There's been plenty of talk regarding the TPP destroying the Internet, with tyrannical copyright regulations allowing megacorporations to hire "rent-a-raids" against accused (read: "politically unpopular" or "people with inconvenient views") "copyright infringers" (who would be considered "guilty until proven innocent").

It's at least as bad as SOPA or PIPA where being accused of "copyright infringement" is the Internet equivalent of being called a heretic in the medieval era - with the Internet access of the accused being shut off until innocence is proven.

No idea about the terms that other nations agreed to, but the TPP also screws over American jobs, allowing companies to undercut American citizens with a near open-borders influx of cheap foreign work.

The TPP also appears to be written similarly to the Eurozone, with a panel of appointed (read: put there by big government and big business interests instead of the will of the people) bureaucrats voting on treaty-wide regulations that would override local law. All the countries agreeing to this are selling out their own national sovereignty.

----------------
Actually both anarchy and communism are bad.

Communism was arguably the most destructive ideology in the 20th century - with the Communist revolutions causing the slaughter of an estimated 55 to 115 million people at the hands of their own governments in Soviet Russia and Communist China - and that isn't even counting 100,000's more deaths in the Korean and Vietnam wars, plus various other countries that were taken over by communists.

Anarchy means "no rule of law". While it means no regulations and ultimate personal freedom, it also means freedom for others to take away your property and rights (if you aren't able to defend them by force).

There's one particular term for what's going on with the TPP (and what everyone in this discussion actually hates): Oligarchy (the rule of the elite few over the many). Oligarchy can come in many forms. Sometimes, it's a thug-ocracy with private jackboots (sometimes masquerading as an army) enforcing their arbitrary whims. In other places (such as most of the West), oligarchy is more subtle, usually as a quiet unholy alliance between the biggest crooked corporations/billionaires/foreign front groups and politicians quietly subverting the rule of law - while the media covers their behinds, covering celebrity and tabloid news instead of the real issues.

Before you read the next section, a caveat: The term "republic" is often misused and misunderstood. It has little to do with the American Republican "GOP" political party (at least half of which actually answers to big business interests (a form of oligarchy). Also, there are a lot of Communist regimes that call themselves "republics" (such as the "People's Republic of China") while they are actually the exact opposite of a proper republic.
---------------------------
There's a very good mini-documentary available on YouTube about the fundamental forms of human government (can't remember the name of it, unfortunately). In short, they are:

-Republic: Constitutional law, where no one is above the law (including all the branches of government combined). A constitution provides for personal rights and protections no matter how unpopular a person may be. If 80% of the population wants to seize the remainder's property, that isn't going to happen if the common law includes the protection against unreasonable seizure. Constitutional law also protects people with politically unpopular views from being punished just for disagreeing with the establishment.

-Oligarchy: The rule of the elite few over the many. This can happen in many ways. (explained earlier)

-Monarchy: The rule of one absolute dictator or king. Contrary to popular belief, a monarchy doesn't need to be hereditary. In practice, even kings and dictators delegate various governing tasks to advisors or ministers - so in practice, true monarchies didn't exist and "monarchies" were actually oligarchies.

-Democracy: The absolute rule of the majority. Pure democracy is sometimes mocked as "mob-ocracy" because there are no limits. If 80% of the population votes to seize all the property of the remaining 20% for themselves, they can do that in a pure democracy.. If 80% of the population votes for the arbitrary imprisonment of the remaining 20%, the 20% will likely be spending a while behind bars. Democracy degenerates into oligarchy as political parties form around leaders (who almost certainly promised their constituents unlimited political power as part of a permanent majority) In Western nations, oligarchies that form around democracies tend to be the gentle "corrupt big business and billionaires" type instead of the brutal oppressive thug-ocracies that are more prevalent outside the West.

-Anarchy: Democracy with bullets instead of ballots. The same principle of people gathering around a leader applies... except that instead of party leaders gathering votes, anarchy degenerates into violent oligarchy - a region ruled by warlords (and thugs who swear fealty to them) constantly feuding over land, people, and resources. (a thug-ocracy by definition)

The documentary concludes that the only 2 stable forms of government are republic and oligarchy.

With greed every form of political government is bad, as few (if any) of them are implemented correctly, there's always those in the government who are in control and they want to keep control. If there's no over-ruling government then the people still have to live and that often means working together.

No rule of law is not a bad thing; Sorry to refer to fiction, but there were a lot of good lines in K-pax that are relevant, and also true.

Dr. Mark Powell: How do you know right from wrong?
Prot: Every being in the universe knows right from wrong, Mark.

That doesn't mean they will do something that's right...

If you are born into a household that is racist, prejudice, hateful, religious or any number of things, those quite likely carry over to the children.