3 ms·

People commit crimes despite it being illegal. That doesn't make laws "BS". And yes, this is not something new. It is something old. It is something that we ha

by vaylian 10mo ago

People commit crimes despite it being illegal. That doesn't make laws "BS". And yes, this is not something new. It is something old. It is something that we have left behind us and Donald Trump should therefore be condemned.

mytailorisrich 10mo ago
You and I are subject to the law. This is not voluntary and it will be enforced against us by the state. On the other hand, countries are sovereign. They are not subject to "laws", and if they do it is on a voluntary basis. Ultimately it boils down to military and economic strength for a country to be able to stand its ground and do what it wants. We never left this behind, this has always been the case. From the replies it seems that commenters believe that countries are subject to "laws" the same way that they are...
- nemomarx 10mo ago
  The goal of the rules based international order was to subject countries to laws, yes. Those laws could have been (and were various times in the past) enforced by larger organizations in the same way the state acts on citizens. Westphalian Sovereignty is not any more real than the rules based international order - clearly Venezuela's sovereignty did nothing for them here.
  - mytailorisrich 10mo ago
    There was never any "larger organizations", only the larger, more powerful countries that enforced the "international order" that suited them.
    - jacquesm 10mo ago
      There was a time when Germany thought just like that. In the aftermath we decided that maybe it's not such a good idea, this might-makes-right thing and we strove for a world where transitions are peaceful because we realized that our power to kill had grown to proportions unseen in our history and because some of us - rightly, in my view - felt that the human race itself was now in the balance. If you toss that out you have to at least acknowledge all possible outcomes. People - even powerful people, and powerful countries too - should be subject to the law because no single person and no single country stands above all the others.
      - mytailorisrich 10mo ago
        Actually, what has happened to Germany is exactly an expression of what I described in my previous comments. > powerful countries too - should be subject to the law Perhaps so but that is idealistic. Again, countries are sovereign, there is no such things as "laws" in the sense that applies to individuals that apply to them, only voluntary agreements. Practically you would also need a level above countries with its own overwhelming force to enforce it, and that simply does not exist. I am trying to discuss the world as it is, including indeed in the legal sense, not as it might be in dreams because that's pie in the sky and totally unbounded in scope.
        jacquesm 10mo ago
        Yes, you're pretending to be a 'realist' who is wise because of your grounded worldview, but you totally miss the forest for the trees: if we don't want to end with blowing ourselves up then we have to depart from the might is right and 'how the world is' mentality because that stops us from changing into a future where we will not blow ourselves up. Your worldview is essentially a pessimistic one, mine an optimistic one: I think we are capable of change. We just make the stupid mistake of putting egomaniacs in positions of power all the time and then we are surprised by the outcomes. Some of the most powerful words ever spoken in American history were 'I have a dream'. Dreams are good, especially if they are dreams of a better world and we all should strive to create that world, not to declare it a pipe dream and get on with the business of raping each other.
        mytailorisrich 10mo ago
        I am not "pretending" anything. That's quite a personally aggressive term and I don't know what your beef against me is. I don't have anything against what you wrote but I think that it has no discussion value in context and probably in general.
        snowbantrobus 10mo ago
        I would suggest that you take a look at the "Politics and the English Language" essay by Orwell. The person you are responding to is making a fair point that this is well trodden ground, albeit not in the most diplomatic terms. It would be helpful to engage with the arguments presented, otherwise we are just spinning our wheels here unconsciously relitigating issues from the 1930s.

by vaylian 10mo ago

mytailorisrich 10mo ago

You and I are subject to the law. This is not voluntary and it will be enforced against us by the state. On the other hand, countries are sovereign. They are not subject to "laws", and if they do it is on a voluntary basis. Ultimately it boils down to military and economic strength for a country to be able to stand its ground and do what it wants. We never left this behind, this has always been the case. From the replies it seems that commenters believe that countries are subject to "laws" the same way that they are...

nemomarx 10mo ago
The goal of the rules based international order was to subject countries to laws, yes. Those laws could have been (and were various times in the past) enforced by larger organizations in the same way the state acts on citizens. Westphalian Sovereignty is not any more real than the rules based international order - clearly Venezuela's sovereignty did nothing for them here.
- mytailorisrich 10mo ago
  There was never any "larger organizations", only the larger, more powerful countries that enforced the "international order" that suited them.
  - jacquesm 10mo ago
    There was a time when Germany thought just like that. In the aftermath we decided that maybe it's not such a good idea, this might-makes-right thing and we strove for a world where transitions are peaceful because we realized that our power to kill had grown to proportions unseen in our history and because some of us - rightly, in my view - felt that the human race itself was now in the balance. If you toss that out you have to at least acknowledge all possible outcomes. People - even powerful people, and powerful countries too - should be subject to the law because no single person and no single country stands above all the others.
    - mytailorisrich 10mo ago
      Actually, what has happened to Germany is exactly an expression of what I described in my previous comments. > powerful countries too - should be subject to the law Perhaps so but that is idealistic. Again, countries are sovereign, there is no such things as "laws" in the sense that applies to individuals that apply to them, only voluntary agreements. Practically you would also need a level above countries with its own overwhelming force to enforce it, and that simply does not exist. I am trying to discuss the world as it is, including indeed in the legal sense, not as it might be in dreams because that's pie in the sky and totally unbounded in scope.
      - jacquesm 10mo ago
        Yes, you're pretending to be a 'realist' who is wise because of your grounded worldview, but you totally miss the forest for the trees: if we don't want to end with blowing ourselves up then we have to depart from the might is right and 'how the world is' mentality because that stops us from changing into a future where we will not blow ourselves up. Your worldview is essentially a pessimistic one, mine an optimistic one: I think we are capable of change. We just make the stupid mistake of putting egomaniacs in positions of power all the time and then we are surprised by the outcomes. Some of the most powerful words ever spoken in American history were 'I have a dream'. Dreams are good, especially if they are dreams of a better world and we all should strive to create that world, not to declare it a pipe dream and get on with the business of raping each other.
        mytailorisrich 10mo ago
        I am not "pretending" anything. That's quite a personally aggressive term and I don't know what your beef against me is. I don't have anything against what you wrote but I think that it has no discussion value in context and probably in general.
        snowbantrobus 10mo ago
        I would suggest that you take a look at the "Politics and the English Language" essay by Orwell. The person you are responding to is making a fair point that this is well trodden ground, albeit not in the most diplomatic terms. It would be helpful to engage with the arguments presented, otherwise we are just spinning our wheels here unconsciously relitigating issues from the 1930s.