Hmm. Which rules are you referring to? International? If so, I think most of this forum agree that realpolitik made those rules amount to 'might is right'. Local government? If so, parent is very much correct indicating local population's willingness and desire to bypass existing systems governed by international parties above.
I have no real stake in this, but the conversation seems very one sided.
Do you mean the rules that restrict the movement of people, capitals and goods across borders? These are typically national laws. I have no idea why you think this is important, though.
Interesting. Taking this approach to its logical conclusion, one would think national laws stop at the border of a given nation. Clearly, however, they do not, but rather extend based on a given influence sphere with SWIFT network being closest to what we would consider international movement of capital across the borders ( I am skipping people and goods, because that is a whole different animal ) and OFAC being a clear example of what happens when one nation can dictate terms of engagement in the world.
<< I have no idea why you think this is important, though.
It is important, because previous post seemed to indicate that Lebanese diaspora should not dream of being able to send payments ( if I misrepresent your position, please correct me as needed ). Separately, I have personal opinions grounded primarily in the officially espoused promise of the US ( freedom, liberty and all that jazz ). Whether US lives up to those promises varies lately.
I think you're misunderstanding how borders work. A border simply allows a country to control what goes in and out of its geographic boundaries. It doesn't allow a country to control what goes in and out of another country's geographic boundaries (that would be a blockade).
And I never said that the Lebanese diaspora shouldn't be able to send payments, I don't know where you get this idea from.
Parent 'jonathan-adly' indicated specific use case for 'Lebanese diaspora', which you then derided. We briefly discussed the 'boundaries' without any real specifics and here we are now.
<< I think you're misunderstanding how borders work.
It is possible.
<< A border simply allows a country to control what goes in and out of its geographic boundaries.
And yet countries manage to "control what goes in and out of another country's geographic boundaries" despite that. Asterisk may be needed with something akin to 'to an extent', but it is hard to argue with that simple reality.
