3 ms·

You better hope the laws (and those who make them) in the strongest economic coalition agree with your moral judgement. The idea that one culture can decide th

by toufka 10y ago

You better hope the laws (and those who make them) in the strongest economic coalition agree with your moral judgement. The idea that one culture can decide the laws of another or else the weaker capitulates its economic will is a very tricky concept. It works when the one doing the deciding is 'right'. It's tough to have 'wrong' laws be imposed on you by a foreign power. The idea your proposing is very clearly economic cultural imperialism. Just as in moral philosophy it's very difficult to extract just and good laws from their cultural context. 'Doing business' in another country, as the US currently interprets it, includes the entire supply chain. If you make widget X, that's used in Y, that's used in Z, that's used in a gadget in a car sold in the US, you are 'doing business' in the US and are liable to spend time in US federal prison if the cultural business practices of your nation are not compatible with current US law, even if you have never set foot in the US nor sold any product to US customers. That's scary. One country's 'anti-competitive behavior' is another's 'human sociability'. Or one country's 'artistic right to profit' is another's 'crime against society'. Could not those acts which could be justified as being a 'fiduciary duty to profit above all else' be otherwise seen as 'immoral business practices' in a different cultural context? Is tracking foreign users a violation of legal privacy? Which of the above behaviors would land you in federal prison in your country? And which would get you charged and extradited to another country's federal prison? Does economic might make cultural right?

tomp 10y ago
What you're describing now is essentially ISDS, not what I'm proposing. First, the only way the US (or any other country) can "imprison" foreign individuals is if other countries agree to enforce its laws - something I don't support, but accept that it will inevitably happen because of military or economic alliances - and is in any case completely democratic. The US can directly only enforce its laws against companies that do business in the US - and the worse possible penalties are either confiscation of the company's assets, or prohibition of doing business in the country - so companies can individually decide whether to abide by US laws and do business in the US, or neither. Second, "economic imperialism" is exactly what ISDS/trade agreements are - a countries' laws can be overruled by arbitrary international courts that have no relationship with the people of said countries. Instead, I'm proposing that countries would freely choose whether to collaborate with other countries or not, and there are many different choices - e.g. UK could choose not to do business with SA, because they discriminate against women, or they could choose to do business with SA, because they have common military goals, or they could say "we don't care" because they decide that they support international trade despite different value systems.
- toufka 10y ago
  Interesting. It's unclear to me if it's even possible outside of very rare circumstances that a country would want to cease trade with another country because their laws didn't align well. What would the incentive be to stop illicit or otherwise mutually beneficial trade when one party was conducting part of their trade unfairly? It does seem that the previously mentioned economic imperialism is what the ISDS/trade agreements are, but it's not entirely clear how a more voluntary system would, in the end, be much different. Maybe that kind of homogenization is inevitable if you have well-ruled trade between sovereign entities.

by toufka 10y ago

tomp 10y ago

What you're describing now is essentially ISDS, not what I'm proposing. First, the only way the US (or any other country) can "imprison" foreign individuals is if other countries agree to enforce its laws - something I don't support, but accept that it will inevitably happen because of military or economic alliances - and is in any case completely democratic. The US can directly only enforce its laws against companies that do business in the US - and the worse possible penalties are either confiscation of the company's assets, or prohibition of doing business in the country - so companies can individually decide whether to abide by US laws and do business in the US, or neither. Second, "economic imperialism" is exactly what ISDS/trade agreements are - a countries' laws can be overruled by arbitrary international courts that have no relationship with the people of said countries. Instead, I'm proposing that countries would freely choose whether to collaborate with other countries or not, and there are many different choices - e.g. UK could choose not to do business with SA, because they discriminate against women, or they could choose to do business with SA, because they have common military goals, or they could say "we don't care" because they decide that they support international trade despite different value systems.

toufka 10y ago
Interesting. It's unclear to me if it's even possible outside of very rare circumstances that a country would want to cease trade with another country because their laws didn't align well. What would the incentive be to stop illicit or otherwise mutually beneficial trade when one party was conducting part of their trade unfairly? It does seem that the previously mentioned economic imperialism is what the ISDS/trade agreements are, but it's not entirely clear how a more voluntary system would, in the end, be much different. Maybe that kind of homogenization is inevitable if you have well-ruled trade between sovereign entities.