Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: D. Long who wrote (211976)	7/13/2007 6:19:15 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793994

I just received an excellent PM that offered some good thoughts on this- and supports what you are saying (I think it does- don't mean to presume). It comes down to Paul's wanting the benefits of internationalism without actually compromising or conceding anything to achieve them. I will quote from the PM: "It has emotional and theoretical appeal but lacks practicality." We don't exist in an international vacuum and opting out of any agreements or concessions doesn't mean everyone else won't go merrily on without us by forming alternate alliances that exclude us, or even punish us. My husband was captain of the International Moot Court team in law school back in the Stone Age, and I remember him explaining that you had to have these agreements in order to have any kind of global order, and while it didn't always work to your advantage, you understood the necessity. Of course, countries were always claiming the law didn't apply to them and creating messes, but without this structure, there would be complete chaos. I imagine global trade is the same as international law, requiring a certain amount of structure to be effective.