Comment by panarky

Comment by panarky a day ago

48 replies

The international "rules-based order" is a good idea when most nations play by the rules most of the time, and when the most powerful at least pretend to follow the same rules as everyone else.

A world order based on rules makes it possible to live at a much higher level of abstraction.

Abstractions like rule of law, democracy, government currencies and stock exchanges are intangible and imaginary. They're mostly just figments of collective belief. But these wispy and unreal ideas that everyone believes in make it possible for most people to live longer, healthier and less difficult lives.

The "rules-based order" was always partly mythical, but as long as everyone kept pretending, it mostly continued to function.

But when we devolve from the rules-based order to the old order of pure power and might-makes-right, kings and dictators, when there's no more collective belief that the rules apply to the rich and powerful, then the tower of abstractions collapses, and we're back to the cold, hard, brutal and difficult real world.

People will find out that life in the real world is a lot poorer and more miserable than life at the top of the tower of abstractions, even if your brokerage account appears to double.

jmward01 a day ago

I generally agree with your comment except the 'back to the real world' part. This is just the difference between a world with the gains that cooperation give verses a world with just the maximized minimum return that distrust leads to. A trusting world is the real world we have seen for decades. It is a real world we can choose to keep pushing for.

  • nradov 20 hours ago

    Who is the "we" who can choose? People training this from places like the USA and India have at least some modicum of choice. In China not so much.

Lutger a day ago

Neither is 'real'. The power of might depends on belief just as much as the power of rules. You need a whole lot of compliance, even when forced by fear and terror, to just keep up a police state. The belief consists of where people think other people assign authority to, at large. But that can be just as brittle as a meme stock if the time is right.

Social reality is always constructed. No single construction is more real than any other.

  • panarky 19 hours ago

    A system that is closer to physical, tangible reality is more "real" than one built on many layers of concepts, beliefs and ideas.

    Just as "real assets" like buildings, machinery and metals are more "real" than abstract assets.

    Abstract assets like shares of a corporation, intellectual property, cash in a bank account, promises to deliver a commodity in the future, and other intangible concepts only exist because we collectively believe they exist and trust each other to follow rules.

    There are real weapons and prisons at the bottom of this stack of abstractions to force people to comply, but it's mostly collective belief, trust, culture and tradition.

    When we devolve from a rules-based order to might-makes-right, those layers of abstraction between us and the weapons evaporate, and ordinary people like moms and ER nurses get gunned down in broad daylight by agents of the state asserting raw power.

    Abstractions like law and due process evaporate, and the "real world" underneath is nasty, brutish and short.

    • hunterpayne 9 hours ago

      "rules-based order to might-makes-right"

      These are the same. They are the same because someone has to enforce the rules. The reason why this entire discussion is so obtuse is because you refuse to accept this. If I was wrong and they were different, you wouldn't treat the US and others (say China) by the different moral standards. To bring this back to an individual level, this is the same as saying police don't deter crime. You wish these two concepts were different so you let your political bias blind you to reality. That doesn't effect reality though. Police do deter crime and whoever (the US) enforces the rules based order has to do so (from time to time) kinetically.

      • panarky 6 hours ago

        > you refuse ... you wouldn't ... you wish ... you let your political bias blind you ...

        You don't know anything about me, but the strawman you're describing sounds like a real dipshit.

mmooss a day ago

> Abstractions like rule of law, democracy, government currencies and stock exchanges are intangible and imaginary. They're mostly just figments of collective belief.

> But when we devolve from the rules-based order to the old order of pure power and might-makes-right, kings and dictators, when there's no more collective belief that the rules apply to the rich and powerful, then the tower of abstractions collapses, and we're back to the cold, hard, brutal and difficult real world.

Many have absorbed and believe the argument of the might-makes-right crowd that their vision is 'real' and their enemies' vision is 'imaginary'. Unless people believe in what they seek, they are lost.

There's nothing imaginary about it; that theory is paper thin and doesn't survive simple examination. Obviously, humans are social animals that live in groups, have powerful intellects, and therefore have tremendous ability to cooperate and work together toward greater good; we've done it many, many times. Freedom and democracy have appealed powerfully to people worldwide, in a tremendously wide variety of cultures. That model was created by people who had experienced WWI and WWII; they knew more of your 'reality' than probably you or I ever will, and with that knowledge and experience they created this order.

And the greater good long predates that; religions and similar ethical codes based on the greater good long predate modern democracy and the rules-based order. Rules-based orders predate it. The Gospels in the New Testament are an easy, very familiar example, from 2,000 years ago (and a significant basis of modern freedom and democracy). Similar is true for abstractions like law, government, justice, etc.

We all are biologically the same, essentially, as the best of humanity and the worst - both are in all of us. It's our choice, our moral choice, what we do. That is also a fundamental that long predates the post-war order, democracy, the Englightenment, etc. Inevitability is a cheap tactic long used by those whose ideas are undesireable and don't withstand scrutiny.

Our choice is easier than those who survived WWII, and their predecessors. Our ancestors gave us the tools, the institutions, etc. They had to build them from nothing for a skeptical world.

  • throwthrowuknow 18 hours ago

    Religion isn’t based on “the greater good”, it’s always explicitly about the will of the god or gods involved and obeying or appeasing them.

    • mmooss 14 hours ago

      About religion, I don't think we can say "always" or anything near to that.

      I agree that religions commonly use the god/god's will as the reason, but I don't think we should take that at face value. It's the argument to trump all others - rulers often claim to be chosen by the will of the supernatural - but not the reason the rule was made, which is a product of the cultures involved.

      And humans often come to the same ethical conclusions: The rules against murder and rape, the priority on justice and fairness, as examples, are universal across cultures regardless of religion (look up 'cultural univerals').

  • Lutger a day ago

    The source of truth in fascism is not popular support or inquiry, thus they always need to channel some privileged connection to reality, or claim to voice the true will of the people and authentically represents the pure will of the nation.

    Its a farce, of course, but one that can sometimes muster enough support to keep the signs in the shop with just a bit of intimidation and violence to back it up.

majormajor a day ago

The US has played by different rules, might makes right, in the western hemisphere for a long time.

Screwing around with Greenland shit, on the other hand, seems riskier.

  • [removed] a day ago
    [deleted]
  • mjanx123 a day ago

    In practice the US could already do whatever it wanted in Greenland/Canada etc. The options for the motivation behind the theatrics I see. 1. Instill fear in the vassals->support for militarization rises there->they become more useable as proxies against RF/China 2. Just another Trump silliness

dwoldrich a day ago

[flagged]

  • mlsu a day ago

    Buddy if you think financial crashes were bad today, you should see what happens when banking is not regulated (great depression). Or, if you think war is bad today, you should see what happens when the world becomes multipolar and countries start carving up the world for territory (WWII).

    Like please, read a history book.

    I'm sure I agree with you that there are many problems with this system but life without it can get so much worse. The green agenda? 4G? That's the worst thing you can imagine?

  • RGamma a day ago

    What do you propose instead? Why don't the things that you condemn in "liberal democracy" happen there?

    • dwoldrich 20 hours ago

      Why do they happen now and why are you fine with them?

  • pegasus a day ago

    Actually, what you're listing above is just another set of beautiful (to you) abstractions. No, "banksters" are not "100% parasitical". The percent is definitely less than 100. But, you know, as they say: the devil is in the details.

    • dwoldrich 20 hours ago

      Definitely less than 100? What do you know about it? How is what they've accomplished not monstrous crime so total, and we haven't even properly named it? It's systematized, bureaucratized, anti-human. "Clown World" is the meme, but that is not sufficient.

      • direwolf20 20 hours ago

        Even Hitler wasn't 100 evil, because he planted flowers.

YZF a day ago

The rules based order is mostly a fabrication of recent history. Perhaps between the fall of the Soviet Union, China becoming more open, and the general peace and prosperity it seemed like it existed.

Politics between countries has always been around interests. Countries have no interest in giving up their sovereignty. They may pretend to respect these "rules" when it suits them and then ignore them when it doesn't. Everyone is focused on how "bad" the US is but a) the US has always more or less done whatever it wants b) Russia and China (and many others) have never even pretended to play or accept these "rules".

Canada's Carney whines about "international order" when just a few years ago China simply abducted Canadians in response to the supposed "orderly" arrest of the Huawei CFO to be extradited to the US. So Canada basically abducts the CFO of a major Chinese company and China abducts Canadians in retaliation and that's a rules based order to who exactly? And we can put together an endless list of an endless number of countries. So when exactly was there ever a rules based order except as a tool for countries to bully each other and for the poorer dictator led countries to try and get a seat at the table because they can vote in the UN general assembly.

  • tpm a day ago

    > Russia and China (and many others) have never even pretended to play or accept these "rules".

    This false. They have pretended to play by the rules, and when breaking them, to at least manufacture some pretext, or to deny it was a state activity at all.

    One example I can give you is that when invading Czechoslovakia in 1968, the Soviet Union convinced a few Czechoslovak politicians to write a letter inviting the forces for "brotherly help", thus manufacturing a case that it's not really an invasion. They didn't have to do it, the force differential was overwhelming, but they did it because they could point at the letter on international stage.

    All this may seem a bit pointless but binding them in international structures brought interesting fruit in the wake of Helsinki conference on human rights. After that they were forced to at least somewhat follow the signed documents which lead to significantly better conditions to dissidents behind the Iron Curtain. And there are many examples like this, when pointing at international rules actually made things better. So let's not throw that away.

    • direwolf20 20 hours ago

      Russia fabricated an attack on Russia by Ukraine before invading Ukraine. So this is still occurring.

      • tpm 18 hours ago

        Possibly, though that was perhaps more for internal reasons, as at the time it was afaik illegal to start an attacking war per Russian law.

    • panarky 18 hours ago

      >> Canada's Carney whines about "international order" when just a few years ago ...

      > They have pretended to play by the rules

      @YZF is unwittingly agreeing with Carney. The rules-based order is partially a fiction. Relevant snips from Carney's Davos speech.

      "The system's power comes not from its truth, but from everyone's willingness to perform as if it were true, and its fragility comes from the same source."

      "For decades, countries like Canada prospered under what we called the rules-based international order. We joined its institutions, we praised its principles, we benefited from its predictability. And because of that, we could pursue values-based foreign policies under its protection."

      "We knew the story of the international rules-based order was partially false ..."

      "This fiction was useful, and American hegemony, in particular, helped provide public goods, open sea lanes, a stable financial system, collective security and support for frameworks for resolving disputes."

      When the US invaded Iraq, it at least pretended it was following the rules. It appealed to the UN for approval, it justified the invasion in the name of freedom and democracy.

      It was all bullshit, but at least the US sustained the myth of a system of rules and a moral order.

      But the US no longer pretends. It invades Venezuela and publicly states it was all about oil.

      So even the pretense is gone now, and the benefits that came from pretending are gone. That's the "rupture" Carney is talking about, that sustaining the myths is not longer useful, so it's time to stop pretending.

      • YZF 18 hours ago

        I'm well aware Carney also says it never really existed. So I don't think there's an "unwittingly" here. My issue with Carney is that he's whining about it.

  • cjfd a day ago

    Incorrect. The rules based order was first attempted after the first world war and then created after the second one. These are lessen that have been bought with blood. Lots of blood. Megaliters of it. The incredible stupidity of throwing that away is absolutely disgusting.

    • farss a day ago

      The "rules-based international order" was a fiction popularized by US policy makers who wanted to quietly substitute it for international law, so they could violate said laws, while still vaguely gesturing at moral authority.

      • YZF a day ago

        International law was and is also a fiction. We have various conventions and agreements.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law

        "In the 1940s through the 1970s, the dissolution of the Soviet bloc and decolonisation across the world resulted in the establishment of scores of newly independent states.[67] As these former colonies became their own states, they adopted European views of international law.[68] A flurry of institutions, ranging from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank) to the World Health Organization furthered the development of a multilateralist approach as states chose to compromise on sovereignty to benefit from international cooperation.[69] Since the 1980s, there has been an increasing focus on the phenomenon of globalisation and on protecting human rights on the global scale, particularly when minorities or indigenous communities are involved, as concerns are raised that globalisation may be increasing inequality in the international legal system.[70]"

    • JPLeRouzic a day ago

      I acknowledge that the 20th century was marked by much bloodshed, but this wasn't limited to the world wars and it continues violently into the 21st century.

      If the world is governed by rules, why does the United States maintain a considerable number of military bases around the world, far exceeding the total number of military bases of all other countries combined?

      Why is the American military budget so much higher than the combined military budgets of all other countries?

      • Propelloni 19 hours ago

        > If the world is governed by rules, why does the United States maintain a considerable number of military bases around the world, far exceeding the total number of military bases of all other countries combined?

        It's the other way around. Rules are tools of peace. No peace, no rules. But if you want peace then you have to be ready to wage war. It's called deterrence and the EU is learning this just now, again. That's also one reason why the USA has been called the world police... because it was true.*

        If nobody enforces the rules any more, things break down and we close in on violence. It is plain to see on the global scale, e.g. Russia's war against Ukraine, and also the domestic scale, e.g. ICE's violence against their own citizens in the USA.

        > Why is the American military budget so much higher than the combined military budgets of all other countries?

        The US military budget is about three times that of the EU or China's, or about a third of all military spending on the globe. Obviously, this is much higher than any single entity, but not all other countries combined.

        * Frankly, being the world police has had a lot of benefits for the USA. Why they are abdicating this position to run a protection racket instead is for wiser people than me to answer.

        • YZF 18 hours ago

          You're confusing rules with treaties, agreements, and balance of power.

          Yes- When there is one super power in the world and it says if you don't behave a certain way we're gonna bomb the heck out of you, or boycott you, you get a certain behavior. Even then you might get some actors (like North Korea, or Iran, Yemen, Russia, China and more) that have no problem openly defying and challenging the super power to some extent.

          When the balance shifts and you have other blocks with more power that feel comfortable in defying that super power (like China or Russia today) then you see that changing.

          There are no "absolute" rules. There are power dynamics, countries, interests, politics. Rules can exist only within a structure that can enforce them, like a country.

    • YZF a day ago

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_international_order

      "The nature of the LIO, as well as its very existence, has been debated by scholars."

      Nobody is throwing anything away and that thing you think they're throwing away didn't really exist.

      • cjfd a day ago

        Whether or not a 'LIO' exists is not that interesting to me. What is interesting is what actually exists and what has happened in history. What actually exists is an enormous shock after, for instance, world war one where the question arose how it is possible that basically an entire generation of young men was slaughtered. E.g., every small village in France has a memorial of the fallen soldiers during world war one. For many decades after the war commemoration were/are still being held. It used to be that competing for territory was just the normal thing countries did. Then, it became clear that this has a potentially enormous cost in human lives. The obvious conclusion for people who are not sleepwalking through life and through history, is that any political leader who advocates for a change in country borders and does so much as hint to violent means of doing so is totally deranged and immoral. A similar shock has gone through the world after world war two, which, for instance, lead to the creation of the declaration of universal human rights. Among the decent public, it is also concluded that a violation of human rights is deranged in immoral.

        • YZF 18 hours ago

          I'm not sure how this relates to the discussion.

          I agree most countries, certainly western countries, have realized that waging the kind of wars like WW-I and WW-II is not a good idea. But there have been a lot of war and killing anyways since the world wars and there have been a lot of new borders redrawn and countries formed. In more recent times we have Putin invading Ukraine and the general instability of the post cold war Eastern Europe.

          So the calculus has changed for many reasons. But "new order" is not one of them. The so called new order was a result of the calculus changing, not the other way around. Countries fight for power in other ways and other societal changes also influence their decisions. I.e. you are confusing cause and effect. Now we have different dynamics, not a collapse of world order, things have shifted very slightly. "The end of the world as we know it" gets a lot of clicks on social media but it's not like we're suddenly having WW-I all over again and it's not like that order you thought was absolute really was. It's just that's how the alignment of interests landed.