A Nation's Duty to Contain Bad Guys

[jmm99]

Guess I need to clarify design and intent on what I mean by reciprocity. For the moment, leave on the shelf what the other Mike (Chertoff) means (might mean) by reciprocity. To further clarify, I am not a theorist; I deal with legal practice - how does it work ?

Starting here:

from Entropy
The theory of reciprocity is all well and good, but as I noted in my first comment, the reality is different.

There is no reciprocity unless it is practiced - that is the test for the existence of reciprocity. In short, unless there is reciprocity in reality, there is no reciprocity.

Now, if you are arguing that reciprocity can only be a theory and that reciprocity cannot exist in reality, that would be a logically consistent argument - and also contrary to the reality of our human existence. We reciprocate every day.

Example 1: You keep "your" young chimps in your back yard; I keep "my" young chimps in my back yard - no young chimp trespasses over the hedgeline. Could do this by a written agreement, a handshake or just do it (implicit understanding). Thus, reciprocity in practice - no young chimp trespasses. Golden Rule applicable: Do unto others what you would have them do unto you.

Change the facts: "Your" young chimps keep jumping over the hedgeline; "my" young chimps have not been jumping over the hedgeline. Don't mean nuttin to me whether you own them, whether they are squatters, or whether they are invaders - the threat and damage to me is the same. Thus, no reciprocity in practice - young chimp trespasses by yours; none by mine.

My remedy (since no court can enforce orders concerning young chimp trespasses). Forgot to tell you - I have a 600 lb. gorilla who lives in my backyard, who dislikes trespassing young chimps; and, though old and grizzled, is still very quick - and is adept at killing young chimps. Yup, grossly unfair to you, but it's my hypothetical. Golden Rule applicable: Do unto others what is needed to prevent them from doing what they are doing to you.

So, there will be a real penalty for not being reciprocal in reality - I leave the preventive actions which might be taken by the 600 lb. gorilla to your imagination.

If you do not like my I Law rule in practice, tell me what I Law rule you want to put into practice to control young chimp trespasses. Something from a old German about no critique being complete until a better alternative is offered.

You might also think Cambodia & Laos from ancient days; and Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon & Gaza in current events.

I can answer this:

from Entropy
Edit: As a final point, nations will act in response to serious threats no matter what legality, as they have always done. So is this plan even necessary?

Because a lot of meatheads in the I Law field, including the ICJ, are non-reality based - as the other Mike points out in his article at several places.

------------------------------------
PS: I used "libertarianism" (a concept of human relations in practice). You used "Libertarianism", which is a non-monolitic set of political theorists who disagree with each other as much as they agree. Don't care what the Libertarian Party has to say about this - even though I often vote that line - truth in lending statement.