Hacker News Reader

Comment by cscurmudgeon | Hacker News Reader

> can we not have targeted-by-nationality bans and instead have .. rules?

Let's have reciprocal rules. If country X bans US social media then why shouldn't the US do the same?

Because USA supposedly values freedom of conscience and actions (within a framework) of its citizens, something it says distinguishes it from China. If they're distinguished in this way then them acting differently is expected.

The rule is that if you arbitrarily block American companies then your country gets blocked too. It's called fair competition. If you open your country for American companies that are treated the same as your companies then we will do the same. Otherwise, no. The Chinese government and it's companies should not be treated as American citizens.

To be tolerant, you have to be intolerant of intolerance.

Because, ceteris paribus, unilateral free trade benefits an entity regardless of whether its counterparty taxes or restricts its trade.

Because comparative advantage.

Because you don't jump off a bridge because Johnny jumped off a bridge.

> Because, ceteris paribus, unilateral free trade benefits an entity regardless of whether its counterparty taxes or restricts its trade.

Tell that to the Qing dynasty.

> Because you don't jump off a bridge because Johnny jumped off a bridge.

Sorry, no, that analogy doesn't apply.

Here is a better one:

You invite Johnny to your home and he keeps hitting you and stealing from you (and you are banned from his house), you need to respond at some point.

> Because you don't jump off a bridge because Johnny jumped off a bridge.

Why not? Is 'below the bridge' a place we need to get to, and do we have a parachute?

I've never understood either. This should be de facto for any market...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com