Ofcom could do it too if they had like 25 aircraft carriers and 2 of the 3 largest air forces on the planet, the best intel network, the most advanced tools, the backing of a $25T economy, the…
Ideologically maybe not, but practically speaking, of course. Your government can only enforce its laws against you because if you resist you get put in a cage forever or they kill you. At the end of the day, that's the reason.
Social ostracism, loss of voting rights, loss of licensing, loss of ability to volunteer for some of your children's activities, loss of job opportunities because your name is on a docket or list of sexual offenders, higher insurance rates, loss of rental options, possible difficulty obtaining a passport or getting a visa, potentially being dropped from certain bank activities during due diligence, etc
Being jailed with some books and lots of time to work out sounds nice sometime, especially during times when home life is toddlers or baby screaming at you and waking you 24/7 and all your time is spent tending to others' needs so you have no personal agency anyway, the rest does not.
All of those other things (except maybe social ostracism), are also backed up by the force of the state and it's honestly kind of concerning you don't see that.
Even debanking only happens because the banks themselves face fines from the state, which if unpaid leads to loss of licensure, after which continued operation leads to... jail. You only need a passport because if you try to push through security without one, you're going to jail. I'm sure if I wanted to waste my time I could follow the thread on all the other ones too.
Social ostracism is a good point. Perhaps the exception that proves the rule?
I absolutely agree with you in substance. My main point is I think jailing is way overused and of usually of dubious value. It's extremely expensive, harms the victims (they literally have to pay taxes to pay for the aggressors), of dubious value in most cases, functions as criminal university, does little rehabilitation.
Of course it needn't be a centralized state per se. Somalis for example use 'xeer' law which is a scalable legal system that starts peer to peer and appealable upwards, mostly based on restitution/fines and ostracizing those who do not pay (eventually to the point, they could become 'outlaws' that have no protection from crime themselves).
I think restitution based legal system is ideal, but of course that would flip on its head the current system where the state ousts the victim and becomes the victim themselves and deprives the victim of restitution instead turning it into a big cronyism money making machine for themselves at the expense of everyone else. It would also mean the end of most 'victimless' crime, and god knows the wailing and nashing of teeth that would come when you couldn't prosecute someone for smoking a left handed cigarette because there is no victim to prosecute the case [or on behalf of].
The cooperation of allies is more powerful than all of that, and the US is woodchipping their allies as fast as possible. Their power will disappear astonishingly quickly.
Maybe, but being close to the US is very valuable. Can't imagine every leader out there is going to hamstring their own economy to poopoo on whoever becomes president after Trump.
Good news/bad news, our current leaders are far too incompetent to successfully plan and execute a regime change operation. Bad news is they're stupid enough to try anyway and have a lot of weapons.
Which regime is trying to be changed though? The backlash to starting a war for no credible reason and tanking the world economy along with increased fuel prices could conceivably force a regime change in the USA.
The US regime is changing with the next presidential election regardless of the outcome (or lack thereof) of this war. Short of a nuclear exchange or China invading Taiwan or San Francisco, nothing is changing that.
Trump's private army taking guard outside the white house with the new military-grade defensive ballroom might change matters. Who exactly is going to force him to leave?
I sure hope I'll see you back here on 1/20/29 saying over and over again how wrong you were and how stupid this comment was but I'm sure you'll have some excuse, or pretend you never said it.
There are quite explicit constitutional limits to his ability to be elected to a third term. Short of a mitary-style takeover, there is nothing he can do to change that (discounting the scenario of constitutional amendment).
It's just a possibility given the co-opting of ICE agents into performing like Trump's private army. I'd much rather never see that happen and have to live with making a dumb comment.
The Iran war was one of the biggest economic boons Russia could hope for; the disruption of oil and gas exports from Middle East with the associated spike in global prices brought Russian economy back from the dead, as now their exports are so much more valuable.
It's not the first time I see comments similar to this and I honestly can't even begin to grasp how anyone can think that the US is in any way shape or form at risk from Iran.
If it spends enough to trigger the debt bomb literally pounding sand, that could do it. It isn't Iran that is the danger though. The US could just walk away any time and be fine.
I'm sure people said the same about the USSR invading Afghanistan.
The US right now cannot keep its bridges from collapsing. It cannot keep its children safe from men with guns. It cannot keep its citizens fed or housed. It is failing to provide adequate healthcare for a majority of its population, it cannot even keep its children vaccinated against measles. Our science agencies are being run by crackpots. Our mass media is being combined under one single owner.
This doesn't even consider the impending existential challenges of climate change.
And this nation, instead of fixing its crumbling domestic infrastructure - educational systems, health care systems, or anything that would benefit the citizens of the US - has chosen to launch an attack against a foreign nation that has already cost 10s of billions of dollars and will likely cost vastly more.
All the political and economic capitol that is required to maintain and improve stable conditions is instead being poured into murder in a desert thousands of miles from home.
I'd argue that Vietnam and Al-Qaida/Afghanistan/Iraq where much lesser "risks" than Iran, and those still left lasting scars on US society, self-image and standing.
Well, why don't you open Bloomberg or the Financial Times to understand why. The damage being caused is potentially civilization-ending. At the very least, this is already going to be very expensive for everyone for many years.
Well, I already don't travel to countries where police are regularly not paid... not to mention countries where people are jailed for memes and what I consider free speech issues... so UK has been out for a few years as far as I'm concerned.
How silly of them. Obviously, only the US jurisdiction can do that.