4 ms·

> Why should the US get to make law for the whole world, and then enforce that law in US courts? A longish response would be: "The United States is generally a

> Why should the US get to make law for the whole world, and then enforce that law in US courts? A longish response would be: "The United States is generally a force for good, and it's the main provider of the very-costly Pax Americana that supports so much of global commerce and a rules-based international order. If we decide you need to follow our standards everywhere if you want to enjoy access to our country, you're always free to refuse — and to accept the consequences." The short, brutalist response would be: "Because we can." A footnote: You seem to think that "sovereignty" is some kind of magical concept that causes everyone to honor the wishes of another people. It's not; history amply proves that "sovereignty" is simply shorthand for "we think we shouldn't have to do what you want us to do, because reasons, and we're willing to gamble that our economic power and military might (alone and/or with allies) are enough to enforce our preference over yours."

rayiner 2y ago
I agree with the short version, but that doesn’t answer the question of why. It’s one thing to invade other countries’ sovereignty to materially benefit your own citizens. But to do so without such benefits is irrational. It’s religious nutjobbery, like the crusades.
- dctoedt 2y ago
  > It’s one thing to invade other countries’ sovereignty to materially benefit your own citizens. But to do so without such benefits is irrational. It’s religious nutjobbery, like the crusades. Short-term vs. long-term analysis. Analogously, if I understand your argument correctly: It's entirely rational for citizens to support costly- and occasionally-violent enforcement of the law against others — e.g., arrest and (upon conviction) imprisonment of murderers, robbers, tax cheaters, etc., and then publicizing that action — even though few if any citizens get any near-term material benefit from doing so. Likewise with the rules-based international order supported by Pax Americana. Taking (what I think is) your argument to an extreme: The U.S. didn't get involved in WWII to stop Germany from exterminating European Jewry; nor did we invade Rwanda to try to stop the Hutu slaughter of Tutsis and others. But in either case, had we done so, I don't think it would have been "religious nut[-]jobbery." (You and I are in agreement about the Crusades.)
  - rayiner 2y ago
    The U.S. is an entity that has duly enacted laws and some of them require paying taxes. But nobody made the “laws” that the U.S. pretends to enforce on the international stage. That’s my beef: if the U.S. wants to meddle in other country’s affairs “because it can” nobody can stop it. But it’s insulting to disguise what is an exercise of power as the enforcement of “law.” And if Americans really do believe there is law that binds the whole world that’s where the religious nutjobbery comes in. Law is something that only exists within a state that has the monopoly on violence to enforce it. (Intervening in World War II can be justified as an exercise is protecting U.S. security. Intervening in Rwanda cannot, and is an example of Americans believing it’s their job to enforce God’s law everywhere in the world.)
    - dctoedt 2y ago
      > But nobody made the “laws” that the U.S. pretends to enforce on the international stage. You're setting the bar pretty high. Some "law" simply evolves, by custom and practice, without any formal enactment by anyone. One example that comes to mind is (maritime) anti-piracy law. Keep in mind that, unless I'm very much mistaken, American extraterritorial law is fundamentally grounded on, "if you want access to our country, financial system, etc., then you gotta follow our rules — and not necessarily just while you're within our geographic borders. You pays your money and you takes your choice." BTW, the U.S. didn't invade Rwanda at all, to save the Tutsis or otherwise.
    - dctoedt 2y ago
      > Intervening in Rwanda [to stop genocide] cannot [be justified], and is an example of Americans believing it’s their job to enforce God’s law everywhere in the world. Many of us would assert that trying to stop mass murder is a good thing in its own right and doesn't need to be justified by reference to "God's law," whatever that might mean.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

rayiner 2y ago

I agree with the short version, but that doesn’t answer the question of why. It’s one thing to invade other countries’ sovereignty to materially benefit your own citizens. But to do so without such benefits is irrational. It’s religious nutjobbery, like the crusades.

dctoedt 2y ago
> It’s one thing to invade other countries’ sovereignty to materially benefit your own citizens. But to do so without such benefits is irrational. It’s religious nutjobbery, like the crusades. Short-term vs. long-term analysis. Analogously, if I understand your argument correctly: It's entirely rational for citizens to support costly- and occasionally-violent enforcement of the law against others — e.g., arrest and (upon conviction) imprisonment of murderers, robbers, tax cheaters, etc., and then publicizing that action — even though few if any citizens get any near-term material benefit from doing so. Likewise with the rules-based international order supported by Pax Americana. Taking (what I think is) your argument to an extreme: The U.S. didn't get involved in WWII to stop Germany from exterminating European Jewry; nor did we invade Rwanda to try to stop the Hutu slaughter of Tutsis and others. But in either case, had we done so, I don't think it would have been "religious nut[-]jobbery." (You and I are in agreement about the Crusades.)
- rayiner 2y ago
  The U.S. is an entity that has duly enacted laws and some of them require paying taxes. But nobody made the “laws” that the U.S. pretends to enforce on the international stage. That’s my beef: if the U.S. wants to meddle in other country’s affairs “because it can” nobody can stop it. But it’s insulting to disguise what is an exercise of power as the enforcement of “law.” And if Americans really do believe there is law that binds the whole world that’s where the religious nutjobbery comes in. Law is something that only exists within a state that has the monopoly on violence to enforce it. (Intervening in World War II can be justified as an exercise is protecting U.S. security. Intervening in Rwanda cannot, and is an example of Americans believing it’s their job to enforce God’s law everywhere in the world.)
  - dctoedt 2y ago
    > But nobody made the “laws” that the U.S. pretends to enforce on the international stage. You're setting the bar pretty high. Some "law" simply evolves, by custom and practice, without any formal enactment by anyone. One example that comes to mind is (maritime) anti-piracy law. Keep in mind that, unless I'm very much mistaken, American extraterritorial law is fundamentally grounded on, "if you want access to our country, financial system, etc., then you gotta follow our rules — and not necessarily just while you're within our geographic borders. You pays your money and you takes your choice." BTW, the U.S. didn't invade Rwanda at all, to save the Tutsis or otherwise.
  - dctoedt 2y ago
    > Intervening in Rwanda [to stop genocide] cannot [be justified], and is an example of Americans believing it’s their job to enforce God’s law everywhere in the world. Many of us would assert that trying to stop mass murder is a good thing in its own right and doesn't need to be justified by reference to "God's law," whatever that might mean.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]