Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

>Countries don't have values

This is correct in an extremely narrow sense, in the same narrow sense that "there is no such thing as a country." This is because countries are political abstractions, and do not exist as a physical entity, like say, a chair, or a pomegranate.

If we understand "country" to instead refer to the group of people who organize under that system, then you are completely mistaken that "countries don't have values."

You can see this for yourself right now. If it's not too cold, you could strip naked and take a walk in your town for an hour or two.

As you are almost in a country where this is against the local values, you will very likely be asked to dress, or even arrested.

But why?

You said "countries don't have values, countries have interests." So whose "interests" is it for a man (or woman I guess) not to be naked? Well, right, the people living there.

This is just one example of how you can easily see that there are certainly values that are represented by the population, municipality, country, etc.

it's kind of silly to argue that there are no such values. I've just given one example, but I could easily list dozens if you don't find it convincing (just ask me to).



But there is no such thing as a country. We just make this stuff up. It's a convention.

I'll go you one further - people don't ACTUALLY have values. They make that stuff up too.

This being said, to the extent that they do exist, nation-states have interests, not values. When they try to have "values", things tend to go badly.


Values don't play any role in politics[1]. It's just the way it is. Whether this is good or bad is debatable and depends on the circumstance.

[1]Except in the rarest of occasions. edit: they also serve as a means to pretend and extort, too, but that's besides the point.


>Values don't play any role in politics

I'm at a complete loss as to why you would write that, to me this is like reading "Politicians don't have any role in defining laws" or something - like, we must be using some completely different definitions for you to write that, it's not even disagreement, I clearly have no idea what you have in mind.

Does your definition of value match this (second definition): https://www.google.com/search?q=define+value

like, I literally don't understand why you would write that unless we're just really misreading each other due to wildly different definitions of what you're talking about. If your definition of value doesn't match the above, then what definition are you using?


That's the "In politics, everyone is a sociopath" version of politics.

It's true a lot of people think and live like this, but it would be interesting to see politics join the 21st century, instead of pretending that an ethical base that can be traced back to the Stone Age is something to celebrate.


No, that's the real version of politics. It's realpolitik.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik

There is no other way in politics. Never has been, never will be.


Realpolitik is gone, when everyone got a nuke. Even sociopaths have survival instincts - that's why no world war III so far. Stalin, Mao, Hitler, and there democratic domesticated Versions (who never get to the big conquests, cause so many other snakes in that damned parliament want to be king instead of the king). Whats really interesting is the planning horizon a government has when dealing with one another. A government with a low hanging planning horizon is due to be gambled again and again by governments with long term planning horizons. Also unintended consequences, the Saudi government might end up in exile or with the heads on spikes, put there by the very own radical movement they inspired.


Oh, it's real, rather than fake? Whoever coined that word was trying too hard. It reminds one of "People's Republics" and fields of study the names of which include the word "science".




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: