3 ms·

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 MORAL

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.
    - msandford 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". I don't believe I did side-step it, so let me try a little harder. When it comes to the affairs between two countries, there are probably a bunch of things that are morally right and wrong. And there are other things which the countries agree to do or not do by treaty, convention, and the like. But just because a thing is immoral or against convention or what have you, that in no way precludes a country from doing it. Similarly, just because a country is supposed to do a thing as per a convention or because of entirely upright moral reasons, again, nothing forces them to. So while I agree with you that nothing really gives a country the "right" to do anything, that has little to no bearing on what countries ACTUALLY DO. Which is why I continue to insist that what SHOULD happen and what WILL happen may have no bearing on one another at all. Further, in order to have a "legal framework" in the affairs between two countries, you have to have a superseding authority. Which doesn't exist. So the idea that any kind of legal framework does exist which governs their affairs is a fiction. There are some institutions which have the appearance of a superseding authority like the EU or the UN. But the EU has never really been tested by violence so we have no idea if the other member countries will enforce EU decisions with force. And the UN has already proven itself toothless many times over. So again, I'm not saying that it would be RIGHT for Greece's creditors to invade to force repayment, I am saying that it MIGHT happen. And that it MIGHT be illegal, or it might not. It depends on who wins since the victors write the history.

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.
  - msandford 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". I don't believe I did side-step it, so let me try a little harder. When it comes to the affairs between two countries, there are probably a bunch of things that are morally right and wrong. And there are other things which the countries agree to do or not do by treaty, convention, and the like. But just because a thing is immoral or against convention or what have you, that in no way precludes a country from doing it. Similarly, just because a country is supposed to do a thing as per a convention or because of entirely upright moral reasons, again, nothing forces them to. So while I agree with you that nothing really gives a country the "right" to do anything, that has little to no bearing on what countries ACTUALLY DO. Which is why I continue to insist that what SHOULD happen and what WILL happen may have no bearing on one another at all. Further, in order to have a "legal framework" in the affairs between two countries, you have to have a superseding authority. Which doesn't exist. So the idea that any kind of legal framework does exist which governs their affairs is a fiction. There are some institutions which have the appearance of a superseding authority like the EU or the UN. But the EU has never really been tested by violence so we have no idea if the other member countries will enforce EU decisions with force. And the UN has already proven itself toothless many times over. So again, I'm not saying that it would be RIGHT for Greece's creditors to invade to force repayment, I am saying that it MIGHT happen. And that it MIGHT be illegal, or it might not. It depends on who wins since the victors write the history.