3 ms·
It's not difficult to explain. The American government acts in the interests of Americans (or attempts to do so). European governments act in the interests of E
by Veen 6y ago
It's not difficult to explain. The American government acts in the interests of Americans (or attempts to do so). European governments act in the interests of Europeans. The Chinese government likewise. Their rhetoric reflects those goals. What's the alternative: governments that act against the interests of their population in order to conform to notions of morality that only really apply to individuals?
Governments exist to serve a specific population, not humanity as a whole.
- jfengel 6y agoIn each case, you also have to consider the possibility that each government is acting in the best interest not of the governed, but of the individual or group doing the governing. Is this genuinely in the interest of America, or just in the interest of the person making the decision? That's a question you always have to ask, but it seems particularly pertinent in the case of a leader who has been issuing numerous baseless complaints about various opponents, whose actions have repeatedly been refused by courts, and who was denied a second term. So while it's true that the government doesn't need to act in the interests of anybody but its own citizens, it would be nice to know if this decision achieves even that much -- or if it's just spite.
- Veen 6y ago> In each case, you also have to consider the possibility that each government is acting in the best interest not of the governed, but of the individual or group doing the governin That's absolutely true, which is why we have courts, representative legislatures, and elections. Methods of mitigating the corruption of the governing class are built into the system. It doesn't work quickly or perfectly, but it's better than autocracy.