Hacker News Reader

Comment by azinman2 | Hacker News Reader

Apples and oranges not only between the situation, but each point you listed.

America can do whatever it wants tax-wise to its own citizens. Copyright and bank integration has to do with existing trade agreements that are peer-shared and mutually respected. Russia is free to keep its assets within its own country if it doesn't want to participate in a larger system with shared rules.

The issue here is that France is trying to apply a local law that is not mutually agreed upon with any other country, to other countries. And in doing so is creating bad precedent regarding censorship extended across borders with no recourse. I can't challenge France's law in court as a US citizen, so why should I be denied access to information at their discretion?

View on HN

Your perspective is too narrow. The wider point is that not everyone agrees with America, yet by virtue of the dollar's dominance, and America's military dominance, America can force anyone to accept its point of view. Clearly no country can survive without access to the dollar-based global payments system. To pretend that Russia can merrily go on without access to it is to sit behind a convenient lie.

That is what is happening in all of my points, including (the relatively minor) point a). Recall that it is not obvious that revenue earned in a country that is not America should be taxed by America.

More generally, someone democratic needs to challenge America once in a while, arguably for America's own health.

Your argument is too broad for the issue under discussion. What you say may be true, but the fact remains that (regardless of the underlying reason) these other countries agreed to the terms set by the US with respect to copyright, and agreed to enforce the sanctions.

The argument that France appears to be making in this case is that it doesn't need other countries to agree to its demands, its courts have jurisdiction everywhere.

I feel the difference is straightforward. The US has an interest in its world view and values being shared by the rest of the world and uses its economic power to get other countries to agree, at least in part, to enforcing that world view and values. They are not however (in general), asserting that decisions made in the US apply in other countries (except to our own citizens, wherein enforcement of the local US law is still at the discretion of the foreign nations while our citizens are within their borders).

If the US were to assert global jurisdiction for a decision made in a local (i.e., state or federal) court it would be equally unfounded. If, however, they were to negotiate with another country and use our economic advantage to get them to agree to enforcement of a particular policy, then the country has presumably weighed the pros and cons of that decision and decided it was worth the compromise. You don't have to like it, but if you skip the middle step sovereignty as a nation becomes meaningless.

> What you say may be true, but the fact remains that (regardless of the underlying reason) these other countries agreed to the terms set by the US with respect to copyright, and agreed to enforce the sanctions.

Just like people agree to pay the mob protection money.

I mean, countries could refuse to go along with things like FATCA. It would be an enconomic disaster for them when the US freezes them out, but they could do it.

So they point out what is wrong with your example, and you make even vaguer arguments in favor of it?

Here, your argument is even weaker because it is essentially "we give america power, and they use it".

The dollar's dominance is not america's fault, it's literally everyone else's :)

America has not militarily imposed it's will on france or any other european nation that i'm aware of in the recent past so i'm not sure you can really claim america forcing y'all to their point of view on that one.

If you think for a second that any country that has power will not use it against other countries in trade negotiations, that just seems ultra-naive to me.

"Recall that it is not obvious that revenue earned in a country that is not America should be taxed by America."

Hey, remember that time when france tried to tax all the Google revenue not earned in france by claiming google ireland has a permanent establishment in france (and then claims google owes it a billion in tax when the max google possibly earned was a total of 237 million in google france?)?

No worries though, i'm sure, unlike every other country, france wouldn't try to use it's power to force any other country or multi-national corporation to do anything. They'll only do the right thing.

France would almost certainly do exactly the same, as indeed it did once upon a time when it was briefly dominant in Europe (late 17th/18th centuries). Yet it would have been correct to speak truth to might then, just as it is now.

"Truth to might"

I think this is a bit of hyperbole.

Past that, can you point to a time in history when a utopic state of happiness and rightness ruled (IE you got what you wanted) and the world still functioned?

Two wrongs don't make a right. France is at fault and so is the US in many of the examples you cited here, so why do you keep defending the indefensible and morally questionable policies of the French state?

The US is a bully that enforces its will worldwide via military and economic might. I don't hate the US, but I consider that statement to be fact at this point. They have an absurd tax system and use threats to get other governments to agree to enforce it.

Europe can pass whatever laws they like, and Google can ditch whatever countries they feel are not worth the hassle.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com