4 ms·

So are we not going to talk about how economic sanctions end up as a way to use the people of these countries as a way to pressure their governments for politic

So are we not going to talk about how economic sanctions end up as a way to use the people of these countries as a way to pressure their governments for political gains? How these sanctions directly and indirectly cause an increased poverty gap and negatively impact the living standards? How the governments of these sanctioned countries magnify this economic pressure to prevent people from revolting and to entrench their presence even more?

mc32 6y ago
You can make the same arguments against capricious Google and YouTube delisting, Facebook or Instagram bans, Twitter bans, App Store takedowns etc.
- beshrkayali 6y ago
  True, and I'd agree. But these companies are private entities. I can disagree with them but I can't force them to do anything, aside from not using them. Economic sanctions are introduced by governments, supposedly from and for the people.
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    > companies are private entities. Private entities chartered and regulated by the government, of course.
    - beshrkayali 6y ago
      Businesses have the right to refuse service.
      - mc32 6y ago
        By that logic, so do governments have the right to exercise their prerogatives...
        beshrkayali 6y ago
        Not really. They both may be immoral, but the government is chosen by the people, and I don't believe they "bestowed" on you your personal rights (in your private life or in how you run your business), they are there to protect you from others trying to prevent you from practicing your rights. Businesses/companies are regulated by the market. By you stopping to use them, you indirectly affect their decisions. If enough people think that what Google is doing is wrong, they can stop using them. Google will either shutter or change. This last bit also applies to governments in terms of actual vote power. If enough people thought that US gov policies are bad/wrong, they wouldn't vote for them. Obviously they still vote for the same people, so they still don't see it.
        whimsicalism 6y ago
        > your personal rights (in your private life or in how you run your business) What "personal"/natural right do you have to establish a limited liability corporation? That is a social construct, intended to facilitate business, but it is not some "private sphere" distinct from the society we live in. Your account of consumer choice "regulation" fails when confronted with even the most basic externality.
nolok 6y ago
Two kind of sanctions: - sanction the leaders responsible and their buddies, the most common (that's what we do with russia, turkey, ...), hurt their wallet but ultimately is a soft sanction, and also your populace sees it as ineffective / nothing is done - sanction the country directly, embargo, complete block, kick out of swift, that sort of stuff is what was done to Iran. Can only be done if you're part of the bigger/more powerful group. Massive effect, causes lots of poverty and pain for the populace but that's on purpose, so they are forcing their leaders to change some stuff. Doesn't always work, but both outcome are victories in a way: either the country is forced to change and stop the original abuse, or it doesn't change but is so crippled that it's not longer a problem. This is bound to something very, very, important: if the country does change and does what you asked, you start lifting. Part of the message that's more of an european rant: that's why Trump action on the Iran deal was a disaster, because, now the population doesn't believe it's their own leaders fault, and even if they did their leaders don't believe it would ease if they did what was asked. That's how you end up with a north korea. According to every report I've seen, Iran was fully respecting their part of the deal, and allowing all the inspection necessary, when the USA did a "AHAH ! it's a trap !" trick on them and screwed them. You're not convincing countries to behave, you're telling them that if they don't behave, they better go all the way to the other side.
- beshrkayali 6y ago
  > Massive effect, causes lots of poverty and pain for the populace but that's on purpose This is what I'm talking about. Even if I'm to agree with the purpose of the requested change, does it justify the means by which it's being procured? Trump may have screwed it up even more, but sanctions of the second kind have been introduced on countries like Iran or Syria since the mid-80s afaik. No major change happened, but the idea of knowingly use the population of another country to pressure their government which is known to not be chosen democratically is basically a form of hostage situation, and is immoral imho.
  - vorpalhex 6y ago
    The alternatives: 1. Bomb them back into the stone age. That would kill a whole bunch of people, who as you point out are basically held hostage by their government and don't get much choice in the matter. It'd also permanently wreck their economy and infrastructure, cost lives on both sides, and usually has follow on effects. 2. Do nothing and allow things like funding terrorism, selling arms, committing atrocities, etc. You would know these things are going on, and therefore be allowing them to happen, and these things would probably be happening to your own people and allies. Which one would you rather take?
whimsicalism 6y ago
> economic sanctions end up as a way to use the people of these countries as a way to pressure their governments for political gains? It's not as if this isn't commonly known. But when you view sanctions as a de-escalatory alternative to outright conflict, which also has huge negative impacts on the people of the countries in conflict.
- beshrkayali 6y ago
  This de-escalation is benefiting one group of people on the account of another. While both groups having nothing to do with the situation directly, the group that's benefiting is indirectly approving of it by continuing to vote for the same policies.

mc32 6y ago

You can make the same arguments against capricious Google and YouTube delisting, Facebook or Instagram bans, Twitter bans, App Store takedowns etc.

beshrkayali 6y ago
True, and I'd agree. But these companies are private entities. I can disagree with them but I can't force them to do anything, aside from not using them. Economic sanctions are introduced by governments, supposedly from and for the people.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  > companies are private entities. Private entities chartered and regulated by the government, of course.
  - beshrkayali 6y ago
    Businesses have the right to refuse service.
    - mc32 6y ago
      By that logic, so do governments have the right to exercise their prerogatives...
      - beshrkayali 6y ago
        Not really. They both may be immoral, but the government is chosen by the people, and I don't believe they "bestowed" on you your personal rights (in your private life or in how you run your business), they are there to protect you from others trying to prevent you from practicing your rights. Businesses/companies are regulated by the market. By you stopping to use them, you indirectly affect their decisions. If enough people think that what Google is doing is wrong, they can stop using them. Google will either shutter or change. This last bit also applies to governments in terms of actual vote power. If enough people thought that US gov policies are bad/wrong, they wouldn't vote for them. Obviously they still vote for the same people, so they still don't see it.
        whimsicalism 6y ago
        > your personal rights (in your private life or in how you run your business) What "personal"/natural right do you have to establish a limited liability corporation? That is a social construct, intended to facilitate business, but it is not some "private sphere" distinct from the society we live in. Your account of consumer choice "regulation" fails when confronted with even the most basic externality.

nolok 6y ago

Two kind of sanctions: - sanction the leaders responsible and their buddies, the most common (that's what we do with russia, turkey, ...), hurt their wallet but ultimately is a soft sanction, and also your populace sees it as ineffective / nothing is done - sanction the country directly, embargo, complete block, kick out of swift, that sort of stuff is what was done to Iran. Can only be done if you're part of the bigger/more powerful group. Massive effect, causes lots of poverty and pain for the populace but that's on purpose, so they are forcing their leaders to change some stuff. Doesn't always work, but both outcome are victories in a way: either the country is forced to change and stop the original abuse, or it doesn't change but is so crippled that it's not longer a problem. This is bound to something very, very, important: if the country does change and does what you asked, you start lifting. Part of the message that's more of an european rant: that's why Trump action on the Iran deal was a disaster, because, now the population doesn't believe it's their own leaders fault, and even if they did their leaders don't believe it would ease if they did what was asked. That's how you end up with a north korea. According to every report I've seen, Iran was fully respecting their part of the deal, and allowing all the inspection necessary, when the USA did a "AHAH ! it's a trap !" trick on them and screwed them. You're not convincing countries to behave, you're telling them that if they don't behave, they better go all the way to the other side.

beshrkayali 6y ago
> Massive effect, causes lots of poverty and pain for the populace but that's on purpose This is what I'm talking about. Even if I'm to agree with the purpose of the requested change, does it justify the means by which it's being procured? Trump may have screwed it up even more, but sanctions of the second kind have been introduced on countries like Iran or Syria since the mid-80s afaik. No major change happened, but the idea of knowingly use the population of another country to pressure their government which is known to not be chosen democratically is basically a form of hostage situation, and is immoral imho.
- vorpalhex 6y ago
  The alternatives: 1. Bomb them back into the stone age. That would kill a whole bunch of people, who as you point out are basically held hostage by their government and don't get much choice in the matter. It'd also permanently wreck their economy and infrastructure, cost lives on both sides, and usually has follow on effects. 2. Do nothing and allow things like funding terrorism, selling arms, committing atrocities, etc. You would know these things are going on, and therefore be allowing them to happen, and these things would probably be happening to your own people and allies. Which one would you rather take?

whimsicalism 6y ago

> economic sanctions end up as a way to use the people of these countries as a way to pressure their governments for political gains? It's not as if this isn't commonly known. But when you view sanctions as a de-escalatory alternative to outright conflict, which also has huge negative impacts on the people of the countries in conflict.

beshrkayali 6y ago
This de-escalation is benefiting one group of people on the account of another. While both groups having nothing to do with the situation directly, the group that's benefiting is indirectly approving of it by continuing to vote for the same policies.