4 ms·

When people or companies go bankrupt, creditors often get little to nothing back. That's the the risk part of risk/reward. Invasions are illegal.

msandford 11y ago
Invasions are illegal per EU law, or international law, or what? Because I think there have been some big wars in the last 100 years. Remember that you're talking about institutions that have the MONOPOLY ON VIOLENCE in their respective lands. Those are the kinds of institutions that tend not to take "no" for an answer; they're used to being the final word on something. That's what a war is, two institutions that have respective monopolies on violence figuring out through violence which one is going to be in charge.
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  There's a difference between having a local monopoly on violence, and using violence outside your local monopoly.
  - msandford 11y ago
    Which the US has been doing for many decades now. WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq War 1, Iraq War 2, Afghanistan, Somalia, etc. I'm not saying that it's MORALLY right in any or all cases. But I am saying that talking about something which is illegal -- in the context of international relations -- is really silly. Governments answer only to power, and maybe not even to that. In order to talk about something being illegal you really need to have an institution with authority over both sides of the dispute. The UN is SUPPOSED to have that, but the UN doesn't have its own standing army so it can't really impose its will on the various countries that make it up. So while it might be TECHNICALLY illegal to start a war, in practice it's not. Especially if you're the victor.
    - afterburner 11y ago
      Parent commenter asked "What recourse do the creditors have". If you aren't constraining yourself withing legal frameworks, then the answer can be "whatever you want". But I doubt that's what they meant. Unless they were asking for permission to invade Greece? But I wanted to head off the implication that somehow debtors deserve this kind of treatment. Being in debt is not a violent act against the creditors. It's not a crime. So people should stop themselves from thinking that almost anything is justified in recovering debts. That thinking is what led to debtor jails, the practice of which was outlawed for a reason.
      - msandford 11y ago
        Right, but the idea that there is a useful, workable legal framework that's used to resolve disputes between countries is laughable. I know the UN exists and I know that's what it's SUPPOSED to be. But given the lack of any entity to enforce the UN's resolutions or findings or declarations, it's a toothless entity. And that means whatever judgements the UN makes aren't really binding. And that makes them EFFECTIVELY useless. I'm not saying the people there are useless, or that what they're doing isn't noble. Just that without the guns to make people accept it, countries can and do, do whatever they want. There isn't much law between nations, really. There are conventions and agreements that countries generally tend to adhere to, but only out of mutual benefit, like policies regarding ambassadors or consulates or the conduct of soldiers in war. And those routinely get violated if people think they can get away with it and usually they can. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law#Supranational_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law#Supranationa...
        afterburner 11y ago
        You're side-stepping my main point: when a country defaults, you don't "get" to screw over its inhabitants just because you want to squeeze a little more money out. You can try, but it's not "right". Re: UN, the UN is not a government, it's a negotiating table. It has value to local politicians when something is agreed to at the negotiating table. It has value as a table everyone is always at, disagreement or no.
- tormeh 11y ago
  I, uh, am pretty sure that no one in Brussels are used to having the last word on anything. That's why everyone moans about the place.
  - msandford 11y ago
    Right, because they're not a real government. If you can't MAKE people do something they don't want to, you're not the final word. And if you're not the final word, you're not the government. This is why the UN is a nice idea in theory, but utterly useless in practice.

msandford 11y ago

Invasions are illegal per EU law, or international law, or what? Because I think there have been some big wars in the last 100 years. Remember that you're talking about institutions that have the MONOPOLY ON VIOLENCE in their respective lands. Those are the kinds of institutions that tend not to take "no" for an answer; they're used to being the final word on something. That's what a war is, two institutions that have respective monopolies on violence figuring out through violence which one is going to be in charge.

AnimalMuppet 11y ago
There's a difference between having a local monopoly on violence, and using violence outside your local monopoly.
- msandford 11y ago
  Which the US has been doing for many decades now. WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq War 1, Iraq War 2, Afghanistan, Somalia, etc. I'm not saying that it's MORALLY right in any or all cases. But I am saying that talking about something which is illegal -- in the context of international relations -- is really silly. Governments answer only to power, and maybe not even to that. In order to talk about something being illegal you really need to have an institution with authority over both sides of the dispute. The UN is SUPPOSED to have that, but the UN doesn't have its own standing army so it can't really impose its will on the various countries that make it up. So while it might be TECHNICALLY illegal to start a war, in practice it's not. Especially if you're the victor.
  - afterburner 11y ago
    Parent commenter asked "What recourse do the creditors have". If you aren't constraining yourself withing legal frameworks, then the answer can be "whatever you want". But I doubt that's what they meant. Unless they were asking for permission to invade Greece? But I wanted to head off the implication that somehow debtors deserve this kind of treatment. Being in debt is not a violent act against the creditors. It's not a crime. So people should stop themselves from thinking that almost anything is justified in recovering debts. That thinking is what led to debtor jails, the practice of which was outlawed for a reason.
    - msandford 11y ago
      Right, but the idea that there is a useful, workable legal framework that's used to resolve disputes between countries is laughable. I know the UN exists and I know that's what it's SUPPOSED to be. But given the lack of any entity to enforce the UN's resolutions or findings or declarations, it's a toothless entity. And that means whatever judgements the UN makes aren't really binding. And that makes them EFFECTIVELY useless. I'm not saying the people there are useless, or that what they're doing isn't noble. Just that without the guns to make people accept it, countries can and do, do whatever they want. There isn't much law between nations, really. There are conventions and agreements that countries generally tend to adhere to, but only out of mutual benefit, like policies regarding ambassadors or consulates or the conduct of soldiers in war. And those routinely get violated if people think they can get away with it and usually they can. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law#Supranational_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law#Supranationa...
      - afterburner 11y ago
        You're side-stepping my main point: when a country defaults, you don't "get" to screw over its inhabitants just because you want to squeeze a little more money out. You can try, but it's not "right". Re: UN, the UN is not a government, it's a negotiating table. It has value to local politicians when something is agreed to at the negotiating table. It has value as a table everyone is always at, disagreement or no.
tormeh 11y ago
I, uh, am pretty sure that no one in Brussels are used to having the last word on anything. That's why everyone moans about the place.
- msandford 11y ago
  Right, because they're not a real government. If you can't MAKE people do something they don't want to, you're not the final word. And if you're not the final word, you're not the government. This is why the UN is a nice idea in theory, but utterly useless in practice.