The reason I used the example of a gambling website is precisely because the US has history of prosecuting the operators of non-US websites for allowing US residents to join. There's nothing in UK law that says they can't let Americans bet. Didn't stop US authorities arresting several bosses of EU gambling websites. If you do a bit more research you'll learn that the US uses extra-territorial jurisdiction more than anyone.
Sure, that's true. It's a different subject. If one's country allows a foreign system to operate outside of it's own legal system, it's about as strong of a sign as I can think of that the people do not actually control their government.
As a US citizen, I am strongly against our interference in other countries, but even if/when we fix that, it wont matter if the root problem is not fixed, since another outside power could do the same thing.
I'm sorry but no, it's the exact same subject. It's country A prosecuting a website in country B because they did something that's illegal in country A but legal in country B. The US does the same for copyright laws. Or is it OK if it's team America thats acting as world police?
I live in the US, _good luck_ enforcing foreign law on me.
It's a sign that the people here have the most fundamental control over their legal system. It's not my problem if country B cant do that, but I would REALLY like country B to have the same power over their legal system.
I could go into the real tests and what it means to have a legal system where the individual has so much power, and how to achieve that, but you are ignoring the distinction between enforcing foreign laws on a US citizen and a citizen of country B.
You are implicitly admitting the asymmetry, but instead of fixing country B, do you want country A to weaken it's system so that it has the same foreign influence bug as country B?
Like I said, your argument boils down to "we're American: we'll enforce our laws on everyone in the world, but if you think you can tell us to obey your laws when we sell to your country, you can F off." Which is fine: you're welcome to say that because a law is hard to enforce you won't obey it. Just don't pretend you're not breaking the same principle that your government relies upon: that if you're serving a country's residents, you must obey that country's laws.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/18/technology/18gamble.html