Comment by KoolKat23 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by KoolKat23 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Think you need to update your worldview, I know it's resurged in popularity among MAGA but we intentionally left the imperial world behind post world war 2.

We moved to a rules based world order, there is no imperialism after that, unless we want to return to a world of war (people forget how frequent this was before this, this is the reason the nations of the world agreed to the move, they didn't want to live in this terrible uncertain type of world). This world was also unproductive as people are too scared to take risks. A war economy isn't productive in the true sense as it doesn't improve the human condition.

A rules based world order needs someone to enforce those rules, with the US as hegemon, they ended up being the largest enforcer (in addition to the UN security council which has been neutered by China and Russia's moves to ignore it).

The benefit for the US is a prosperous, stable world. A consumer base with plenty of money to spend on US goods (the world economy is demand based), and a stable supply chain.

This is such a US-biased view. This "rules based order" never existed, it was a convenient way for the US to say that they are the "world's government". Even after the cold war ended the US waged wars. No thanks. It's good that we have counter forces like Russia and China in the security council.

You may have read my comment wrong, but either way your take on my comment is completely wrong.

Of course it's good Russia and China are on the council. Them being there is an acknowledgement and example of rule based order.

The idea is that the "market makers" (the countries with the largest influence in the world) adhere to the security council's decisions. And then if smaller players ignore it, the bigger players on the council can bring them back in line to preserve world order.

And sorry you're delusional if you think rules based order never existed, you're welcome to take the US out of the equation, it still exists! There are a number of institutions including the WTO, the UN amongst others and various agreements in the bretton woods agreement, all created post WW2.

Seriously don't be dismissive and don't listen to propaganda, go read the history. This dismissive attitude, you've co-opted, are part of efforts to dismantle it as part of this imaginary "multipolar world" (which only means might is right, a return to war). It's only beneficial to the likes of those who know they have enough might and who wish to ignore the rules. The existing order is multipolar, if a country is influential enough they can be added to the council. Removing the councils influence is destroying order, creating chaos and war. It also may be ignorance, people aren't being taught the reasons in school anymore.

RBIO may have been an idea but the US and the west have routinely violated their own laws over the decades. They, as you said, used their might to ignore the rules.

The open US support for genocide has fully destroyed the concept.

Your perception is biased, just because the news hyperfocuses on certain instances where the the rules are flouted does not mean it is not there.

You take the world you live in for granted, look at a 80 year timescale and world scale, 7 billion people. What do you think WTO is and what is it doing? What do you think that passport you are carrying is doing? There are nearly 200 countries in the world and you're focusing on how many instances?

> We moved to a rules based world order

I hear that often but I still don't understand what these "rules" are exactly. It can't be international law which the hegemon broke over and over again. So what are these rules?

Treaties, International law and international institutions.

People occasionally break the law in countries too, doesn't mean it's a free for all when there is one crime committed.

We had all of those things before WW2.

Not to the same extent. You also had imperialism.

Just found a good write up. The economic integration was intentional post WWII.

https://jstribune.com/azar-gat-is-war-declining/

I know, I'm just saying those things listed can't be the basis of it since we had them already. Economic integration like with the steal and coal community is a fait point but it wasn't what was said when I responded. The claim was that it was a "rules based order" and that the rules were "treaties, International law and international institutions." No mention of economic integration.

We also have imperialism today and have done since the end of WW2.

The basis for the Bretons Woods agreements was intentionally to integrate economically and treaties post WW1 and WW2 were intentionally to stop imperialism. That was not the case before.

Perhaps it occasionally has happened since but not at the scale beforehand and with plenty of roadblocks. It's like saying crime is rampant when one person commits one, it's hyperbole to say so.

So... the theory is that without the US, Europe devolves into anarchy?

I mean, that's suitably US-narcissistic for me to believe that's a genuinely held position I guess.

I guess some may view it that way, but like you say narcissistic.

To me it's a mutually beneficial arrangement, de-risks the continent.

For the US ensures long term alignment and influence avoiding someone else filling the vacuum (EU militaries were weak and fragmented). For Europe common alignment and influence ensures some unity. Remember the continent was consistently fragmented and at war before this, it's hard to imagine in current times with the EU.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com