undefined | Better HN

0 pointswpietri2mo ago0 comments

I think you have some good points, but you take it too far. The UN charter is the way it is not because it's the optimal approach, but because non-democratic countries had too much power for it to be otherwise.

As an example, the American Revolution had support from France, the Netherlands, and Spain. Britain saw this as shocking interference in an internal matter, as did loyalists in America.

Personally, I think it was a good thing, helping a people determine their own fate. Applying the same measure here, I simultaneously think it's great Maduro is out, but that the manner of it is terrible. As well as being foolishly shortsighted, both for the US and the world more broadly.

0 comments

cmurf2mo ago

The charter doesn't prohibit aiding people.

The charter limits the powerful nations. Rule #1 is nations cannot start wars. Starting a war is a crime.

The charter requires some consensus by the international community to authorize use of force against another country.

Article 51 acknowledges the right to self-defence. The only country that has a right to violence is the defending nation and those who aid it from aggression.

And this is, once again, American aggression. We aren't doing it because it's right. We're doing it because we can. In violation of international law.

vladms2mo ago

I doubt there is any other "optimal" approach, but do say what you would propose.

There will always be indirect interference anyhow (think social networks, books, press, people talking, tariffs, visas, etc.), so there is some possibility for states to push things in their direction.l

I think imagining there can be some "authority" that could decide when "direct interference" is allowed or not will be a disaster at some point, because even if at first is OK, as a society we don't seem to be at a point where we can have organizations that work well for hundreds of years.

wpietriOP2mo ago

I'm not proposing anything. I'm pointing out that in a complex world simple rules, however appealing they are cognitively, aren't sufficient.

joering22mo ago

> but you take it too far.

you do know who the president of the United States currently is RIGHT ?

wpietriOP2mo ago

I think the last part of my post makes it clear that I do. But if not, let me just make clear that we have to struggle through the Harding administration as best we can, but better days are ahead.

calf2mo ago

Countries are not like IID random variables which is the basis of this sort of center-liberal argument.

bawolff2mo ago

> As an example, the American Revolution had support from France, the Netherlands, and Spain

But to what extent did they do it to "free" america vs to take Britian down a peg because they worried Britian was getting too powerful?

I think most people here are doubtful of Trumps motives or that this coup will actually lead to a free Venezuela.

America worked out really well. There are many many examples in history where imperial powers interfering in a local power struggle worked out very poorly for the average person of the country.

jacquesm2mo ago

> America worked out really well.

That really depends on who you are asking.

wpietriOP2mo ago

Are these really separable? Even a an individual I generally have multiple motivations for an action. That has to be even more true for whole nations.

And I don't think there's any reason to be doubtful of Trump's motivations. He's a would-be tyrant and has made it clear that this is about world dominance, Venezuela's oil, and enriching American businessmen. He has no interest in a free, democratic Venezuela. If this does work out well for Venezuelans, it'll be more due to Trump's flaws (arrogance, laziness, increasing dementia, and the TACO phenomenon) than any intent on his part.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

cmurf2mo ago

The charter doesn't prohibit aiding people.

The charter limits the powerful nations. Rule #1 is nations cannot start wars. Starting a war is a crime.

The charter requires some consensus by the international community to authorize use of force against another country.

Article 51 acknowledges the right to self-defence. The only country that has a right to violence is the defending nation and those who aid it from aggression.

And this is, once again, American aggression. We aren't doing it because it's right. We're doing it because we can. In violation of international law.

vladms2mo ago

I doubt there is any other "optimal" approach, but do say what you would propose.

wpietriOP2mo ago

I'm not proposing anything. I'm pointing out that in a complex world simple rules, however appealing they are cognitively, aren't sufficient.

joering22mo ago

> but you take it too far.

you do know who the president of the United States currently is RIGHT ?

wpietriOP2mo ago

I think the last part of my post makes it clear that I do. But if not, let me just make clear that we have to struggle through the Harding administration as best we can, but better days are ahead.

calf2mo ago

Countries are not like IID random variables which is the basis of this sort of center-liberal argument.

bawolff2mo ago

> As an example, the American Revolution had support from France, the Netherlands, and Spain

But to what extent did they do it to "free" america vs to take Britian down a peg because they worried Britian was getting too powerful?

I think most people here are doubtful of Trumps motives or that this coup will actually lead to a free Venezuela.

America worked out really well. There are many many examples in history where imperial powers interfering in a local power struggle worked out very poorly for the average person of the country.

jacquesm2mo ago

> America worked out really well.

That really depends on who you are asking.

wpietriOP2mo ago

Are these really separable? Even a an individual I generally have multiple motivations for an action. That has to be even more true for whole nations.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse