3 ms·

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

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.

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.