3 ms·

If I were a country and another country imposed sanctions on me for not following their exceptional laws, I would take that as a sign of aggression; that is ess

If I were a country and another country imposed sanctions on me for not following their exceptional laws, I would take that as a sign of aggression; that is essentially what it is; Instrumental Aggression; Countries rely on different exportation of resources for their economy, the economy their people live off; stop it with this American Exceptionalism approach; be a leader by example not by aggression.

AnthonyMouse 10y ago
Continuing to burn coal when the global consequences are known is the act of aggression. The measured reaction is sanctions instead of missiles.
- slicktux 10y ago
  That is an interesting projection of your attitude. I hate to attribute a negative disposition to your comment, but you sound like an environmental extremist. Environmental extremist whom if given the opportunity would indirectly blow the world up, all in the name of the environment! Keep in mind that you have created this slippery slope, I reference to my initial comment; To give context to my reference (if it is not already obvious), I am for progressive laws for which people will adapt to hence given the choice not the forceful option, like sanctions; I am all for change just do not force it on me, and I you believe that a paternalistic government is needed for a positive change than you have already defined paternalist; paternalism through aggressive actions, like sanctions. Good day sir
  - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
    Climate change is classic tragedy of the commons. It's the quintessential example of it. There are two ways out of tragedy of the commons. The first is that everyone recognizes we're all better off not destroying the world with CO2 and everyone stops burning coal. That works perfectly fine if that's what everyone does. But if you'll notice the comment I was responding to was arguing that not everybody would. Which is possible. In which case only the second option works, which is for the victims of harm to exert power until the perpetrators submit. And that can lead to war -- which is why everyone should stop burning coal now.

AnthonyMouse 10y ago

Continuing to burn coal when the global consequences are known is the act of aggression. The measured reaction is sanctions instead of missiles.

slicktux 10y ago
That is an interesting projection of your attitude. I hate to attribute a negative disposition to your comment, but you sound like an environmental extremist. Environmental extremist whom if given the opportunity would indirectly blow the world up, all in the name of the environment! Keep in mind that you have created this slippery slope, I reference to my initial comment; To give context to my reference (if it is not already obvious), I am for progressive laws for which people will adapt to hence given the choice not the forceful option, like sanctions; I am all for change just do not force it on me, and I you believe that a paternalistic government is needed for a positive change than you have already defined paternalist; paternalism through aggressive actions, like sanctions. Good day sir
- AnthonyMouse 10y ago
  Climate change is classic tragedy of the commons. It's the quintessential example of it. There are two ways out of tragedy of the commons. The first is that everyone recognizes we're all better off not destroying the world with CO2 and everyone stops burning coal. That works perfectly fine if that's what everyone does. But if you'll notice the comment I was responding to was arguing that not everybody would. Which is possible. In which case only the second option works, which is for the victims of harm to exert power until the perpetrators submit. And that can lead to war -- which is why everyone should stop burning coal now.