3 ms·

> Humanity has shown very little capacity to agree on a global scale. The proliferation of nuclear arms and the persistence of human trafficking are two cases i

by sanxiyn 12y ago

> Humanity has shown very little capacity to agree on a global scale. The proliferation of nuclear arms and the persistence of human trafficking are two cases in point. This is very true. Therefore you think regulations on nuclear arms and human trafficking are worthless?

vonnik 12y ago
Worthless is a strong word. When you consider the number of unstable nation-states that have nuclear arms, I would say that non-proliferation has been very ineffective. Likewise human trafficking laws. I agree with their intent, but they are not working well. What I am arguing here is that the nation that regulates first is at a disadvantage. I do not want the US to be at a disadvantage, and I do not believe that this problem is one the law can solve.
- sanxiyn 12y ago
  As a non-US person, I think it would be laudable for US to put up with a little disadvantage for the safety of the world, just as US expends a lot of resource to keep world peace. I have no standing to demand anything, but "I do not want the US to be at a disadvantage" sounds very selfish to me.
  - vonnik 12y ago
    This is a very good point. And I understand why my argument might not appeal to a non-US person. I have lived outside the US for more than a decade, and experienced many other governments. While I can see that the US is a deeply imperfect country, I believe it is less corrupt and more functional than many other nations both domestically and internationally. Therefore, I do not wish to see it at a disadvantage. Many of the alternative hegemons are worse. In addition, the US has a special relationship to technology. We export innovation. If we stop innovating, then we have very little to export. This is very different from other countries. Asking the US government to regulate innovation is like asking the Saudi government to crack down on oil exports. It is the foundation of our economy. Without it, we fail. What I'm really saying though is that US regulations will not increase the safety of the world. They will merely shift the locus of research.

by sanxiyn 12y ago

vonnik 12y ago

Worthless is a strong word. When you consider the number of unstable nation-states that have nuclear arms, I would say that non-proliferation has been very ineffective. Likewise human trafficking laws. I agree with their intent, but they are not working well. What I am arguing here is that the nation that regulates first is at a disadvantage. I do not want the US to be at a disadvantage, and I do not believe that this problem is one the law can solve.

sanxiyn 12y ago
As a non-US person, I think it would be laudable for US to put up with a little disadvantage for the safety of the world, just as US expends a lot of resource to keep world peace. I have no standing to demand anything, but "I do not want the US to be at a disadvantage" sounds very selfish to me.
- vonnik 12y ago
  This is a very good point. And I understand why my argument might not appeal to a non-US person. I have lived outside the US for more than a decade, and experienced many other governments. While I can see that the US is a deeply imperfect country, I believe it is less corrupt and more functional than many other nations both domestically and internationally. Therefore, I do not wish to see it at a disadvantage. Many of the alternative hegemons are worse. In addition, the US has a special relationship to technology. We export innovation. If we stop innovating, then we have very little to export. This is very different from other countries. Asking the US government to regulate innovation is like asking the Saudi government to crack down on oil exports. It is the foundation of our economy. Without it, we fail. What I'm really saying though is that US regulations will not increase the safety of the world. They will merely shift the locus of research.