Hacker News Reader

Comment by spindritf | Hacker News Reader

I cannot think of a situation in which extradition of own national or citizen is justifiable. If a Ruritarian citizen sends a bomb from Ruritania to Poronia, Ruritarian authorities should jail him in a Ruritarian prison after a trial in Ruritarian court. Poronian authorities should at most assist the Ruritarian prosecutor.

When it comes to citizens of other countries just temporary residing in Ruritania, it may be more appropriate (cheaper, "not our problem") to just send them back, guilty or not, to be decided by a justice system in their own country. Preferably, after evaluating if there is a reasonable expectation of a fair trial.

Releasing them to some third party (in this case, a German citizen to US authorities) sounds absolutely awful to me. Barbaric from the perspective of the person being sent away, and servile from the perspective of sovereign people.

View on HN

So you're implying that Ruritarian law includes explicitly laws against bombing foreign lands? How else do they try and lock him up? For the act of abusing the mail or the act of creating the bomb? I don't see how they can try him for the bombing itself -- it's not their country, not their jurisdiction.

I believe that jurisdiction matters, and where a crime is committed is jurisdiction.

I don't understand the jurisdiction grounds that Ruritaria would have on crimes committed in other countries.

If I were Poronian and a Ruritarian bombed my country and his government shielded him from Poronian justice -- I would call on my government to get his head. He gets tried in Poronian courts or he gets tried by Poronian missiles. But you don't get to commit a crime in Poronia and avoid the legal repercussions...

the assumption is that the Ruritarian law includes laws against murder.

wherever it happened, committing an act of murder is illegal.

Yes, encouraging your country to invade another country because one of their citizens committed a crime is always an option.

I agree, but in American culture the sentiment is different:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism#Double...

That's not "American" sentiment as much as it is a "Top Player" sentiment...

You're blaming a state for doing something you're own state would gladly do itself if it were able to (if it had the same platform).

If America lost the war of independence, then that wiki article would be called "British exceptionalism". And in another history, "Russian exceptionalism", or "Chineese exceptionalism", etc.

The country level game has always been about competition rather than sharing... Where the benefits are imported, and pain is exported. It all comes down to human nature.

The people don't need to buy into it though. I definitely don't and wouldn't. I expect fairness and don't abuse others in weaker positions than mine, not so hard on the individual scale.

So basically "it's all right because they'd do the same" simply doesn't cut it.

On an individual scale, you have to ask were your goodness is really coming from / what is it that allows it.

Do you like the big house you live in, electricity 24h/day, the plethora of food you can buy, the nice cars you drive, the crime-free white areas you can live in (or move into), having access and freedom to discuss issues such as this?

It all came out from competition, not personal niceness.

Not only that, but your "fairness" attitude is a product of all this. Without which you're life, and ideas about who you are, would be drastically different.

The rest of the world is a bad place (http://www.vice.com/the-vice-guide-to-travel/the-vice-guide-...), and everyone is in competition... Some people compete by being nice, others by accumulating wealth, some choose to impose their wills on others, etc. It's all the same, ego.

If you're interested, you don't have to go far in Buddhism to discover that all action is egotistical.

If you want to be truly fair, then drop out of this game called society; stop doing, and start being with silence and compassion.

It doesn't matter. Means and ends are different things.

Darwinism made us reach here as a species, it doesn't mean we have to consciously apply it.

Thing is, we can afford to be fair. The argument that you have to make your ends and means coincide is simplistic.

If you love fairness, you should look into Marxist Communism.

Though it never quite works out the way you want it to...

Something about one bad (corrupt, not fair) apple spoiling the rest!

It's just an example, but the point is, human nature seems to always mess it up in the end for the fairness crowds. They just don't seem to be the right product/market fit for humans and their societies.

> Thing is, we can afford to be fair.

Yes you can! All thanks to the competition system that allows you to do so.

> It doesn't matter.

You can't separate the lives and actions of an individual and the society he/she is part of... They are related and integrated (for the most part). For the well-adjusted individuals, to the contrarians, the corrupt, the fair, and even for the rejects.

More nonsense and more taking things out of context.

Ron Paul also supports lesser intervention abroad, and he's far from a marxist.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com