8 ms·

It also endangers the basic principle of a rules-based, open world. If you think that's a good idea, imagine what happens to an economy when civil law and cont

It also endangers the basic principle of a rules-based, open world. If you think that's a good idea, imagine what happens to an economy when civil law and contracts are not enforced, even without any threat of violence. To pick just one example: if you're trying to get a loan to build a factory or buy a house, it's good for you that there are laws and trusted courts that would cause you a whole lot of pain if you failed to repay. It's no different in international politics, only that treaties between states are backed not by some external force, but by each country having a strong interest in remaining within that system that outweighs any short-term benefits from skirting its responsibility. I guess some of this is mildly counter-intuitive. But really there is game theory far more complex than this regularly understood on primary school schoolyards.

philwelch 7y ago
There's no such thing as a rules-based, open world. International relations is a state of anarchy and perpetual conflict that only fleetingly resembles peace during those periods where there's a global hegemon that can enforce those "rules". Within a country, those courts are the hegemon. "Each country having a strong interest in remaining within that system that outweighs any short-term benefits from skirting its responsibility" was the theory prior to 1914 as to why the Great War would never actually happen.
- corporate_shi11 7y ago
  Exactly. Rules must always be enforced by some higher authority. Because the highest functional units of governance are nations, this means that there will always have to be some "most powerful" nation enforcing order.
- zozbot234 7y ago
  > There's no such thing as a rules-based, open world. You're living in one right now. Anarchy need not be synonymous with chaos, especially if disputes and conflicts are relatively unimportant (due to easy defense making 'rights' self-enforcing). The point of courts is then to arbitrate disputes in a publicly-visible way, enforcement is relatively less important.
  - corporate_shi11 7y ago
    The only reason courts have authority to arbitrate disputes is because they are backed up by the will and authority of the government, which in turn has a monopoly on the use of force in society.
    - geggam 7y ago
      Now you are bumping on the reason I think the founders put the 2nd amendment in the bill of rights. Govts have to be balanced at some point by the will of the people
      - philwelch 7y ago
        The Founders also raised an army to put down a tax revolt in Appalachia—though to their credit they ultimately resolved the dispute through negotiation rather than bloodshed.
        geggam 7y ago
        Of course, ultimately politics is controlled violence
      - rayiner 7y ago
        Of course that’s the reason. Different people use different euphemisms, for the same reason we do now. (“Defend against tyranny.”) But we’re talking about an amendment the founders wrote shortly after they took up arms to overthrow their government. It’s clear what they were talking about: https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/04/second-amendment-history-lesson-times-ted-cruz/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/04/second-amendment-hist... > Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. That was Noah Webster, dictionary guy. He’s clear that the second amendment embodies a personal right to bear arms (so the citizens aren’t disarmed, like in Europe) so they can overthrow the government.
- empath75 7y ago
  Doesn’t have to be, just have to disarm the world powers and create a one world government. I’m sure everyone will be fine with that.
rayiner 7y ago
> It also endangers the basic principle of a rules-based, open world. You can’t endanger something that doesn’t exist. Sovereign countries exist amongst themselves in the state of nature.

philwelch 7y ago

There's no such thing as a rules-based, open world. International relations is a state of anarchy and perpetual conflict that only fleetingly resembles peace during those periods where there's a global hegemon that can enforce those "rules". Within a country, those courts are the hegemon. "Each country having a strong interest in remaining within that system that outweighs any short-term benefits from skirting its responsibility" was the theory prior to 1914 as to why the Great War would never actually happen.

corporate_shi11 7y ago
Exactly. Rules must always be enforced by some higher authority. Because the highest functional units of governance are nations, this means that there will always have to be some "most powerful" nation enforcing order.
zozbot234 7y ago
> There's no such thing as a rules-based, open world. You're living in one right now. Anarchy need not be synonymous with chaos, especially if disputes and conflicts are relatively unimportant (due to easy defense making 'rights' self-enforcing). The point of courts is then to arbitrate disputes in a publicly-visible way, enforcement is relatively less important.
- corporate_shi11 7y ago
  The only reason courts have authority to arbitrate disputes is because they are backed up by the will and authority of the government, which in turn has a monopoly on the use of force in society.
  - geggam 7y ago
    Now you are bumping on the reason I think the founders put the 2nd amendment in the bill of rights. Govts have to be balanced at some point by the will of the people
    - philwelch 7y ago
      The Founders also raised an army to put down a tax revolt in Appalachia—though to their credit they ultimately resolved the dispute through negotiation rather than bloodshed.
      - geggam 7y ago
        Of course, ultimately politics is controlled violence
    - rayiner 7y ago
      Of course that’s the reason. Different people use different euphemisms, for the same reason we do now. (“Defend against tyranny.”) But we’re talking about an amendment the founders wrote shortly after they took up arms to overthrow their government. It’s clear what they were talking about: https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/04/second-amendment-history-lesson-times-ted-cruz/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/04/second-amendment-hist... > Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. That was Noah Webster, dictionary guy. He’s clear that the second amendment embodies a personal right to bear arms (so the citizens aren’t disarmed, like in Europe) so they can overthrow the government.
empath75 7y ago
Doesn’t have to be, just have to disarm the world powers and create a one world government. I’m sure everyone will be fine with that.

rayiner 7y ago

> It also endangers the basic principle of a rules-based, open world. You can’t endanger something that doesn’t exist. Sovereign countries exist amongst themselves in the state of nature.