> Why, still, do you exclusively penalise the other party for unfamiliarity, which is a bilateral function?
Because social relations aren't symmetric. Successful societies are built on: families, local communities, and national unity (in that order). This is nearly universal. Certainly, someone in Chengdu cares far more about his neighbors than he cares about me!
> Why are intranational and international wealth inequality seen as diametrically opposed subjects?
I view things that way because poor people in America are part of the same body politic as myself, while poor people in China are not. The well-being of people on the south side of Chicago or in the Bronx affects me directly. The well-being of people in China does not.
The ironic thing is that the Chinese wouldn't find my viewpoint curious. Of course your own community is more important than other peoples' communities, and your nation more important than other peoples' nations. It's a self-evident truth in Asian culture.
> poor people in America are part of the same body politic as myself, while poor people in China are not.
...and you don't see that as the problem worth fixing?
I live in Canada, where we get copies of all the social-policy laws from the US forced upon us as treaties [to ensure Americans don't just drive up here for their marijuanas or what-have-you] with no ability to actually vote in the US elections that control these laws. This is just a mild case of a power imbalance that's much more pronounced in countries that rely on the US for much of their GDP (usually based entirely around exports.)
There's only one world economy, and it affects all of us, but only some of us are living in countries that get to affect it with each swing of local political sentiment. It would probably be beneficial to all of us--even you all in the US--for that to change.
Treaties aren't forced on Canada; they're bought from Canada, and Canada sells them. Complain to your own government.
I like how quickly the framing of discussions jumps around in political arguments on HN; we start by talking about a government so authoritarian that individual police officers can arrest, try, and sentence you for up to a year in a labor camp on the spot, and we end up talking about how repressive the US is because we still criminalize marijuana.
China, by the way, publicly executes drug prisoners.
As I said, it's a power imbalance, with "force" being in the economic-coercive sense, not the threat-of-physical-violence sense: "do this, or we won't let you sell anything to us, so no entrepreneur or investor who cares about 'size of market' will want anything to do with you, so you'll run out of GDP-growth and your economy will stagnate." See: Cuba. Alternatively, "we'll take away the sweet deal [usually a tariff on a more productive country] that you've built your entire economy upon." See: Cambodia.
Don't see China in either case, though--they're in a very special position; they have enough population to sell to on their own, but they're also heavily invested in American credit markets. America has economic-coercive power over them in the same way a bad debtor has economic-coercive power over their credit card company: if you default, they get screwed, so they want to make sure they don't do anything that screws up your ability to pay them back, even if it would be good for their profit otherwise.
---
Also, as a note on framing: by thinking of the conversation as "jumping around," you're committing the Fallacy Of Linear Discourse In A Threaded Comment System (which I obviously just made up the name for, though I've heard it described before.)
Posts organized into a tree-structure are by default tangents from, not replies to, their parent. Only one subthread of each thread needs to actually "continue the conversation" -- the rest can have whatever other purpose their authors wish. Soapboxing for their personal issues, pedantry and pointing out typos, wordplay on the parent's speech, &c.
It's a self-perpetuating fallacy, since people who think threaded conversations are linear actually cause this jumping-around in the first place, by trying to force "the" conversation "back to the topic at hand."
This confuses enough people that I'm trying to work out a threaded-commenting UI where replies move down--like a message board--and only tangents move to the right (and default to closed.)
Notice that this post is actually two posts: one is a reply, and then the other, after the line, is a tangent. Don't they seem like they should be treated separately by the UI? :)
I'm not sure how you can look around the world and decide that what would make people in the U.S. better off is to make our body politic even more heterogenous and schizophrenic. We have enough trouble with Texas and California in the same union.
I look around the world and what I see is that the countries people generally admire from the point of view of quality of life: the Scandinavian countries, Japan, etc, have a high degree of cultural and political homogeneity and unity. Meanwhile, I see a European Union in meltdown because of the difficulty of forming a political union between people in countries with very different economies and cultures.
I also see international organizations like the United Nations that are deeply dysfunctional, and fundamentally compromised by the influence of a number of Asian, Middle Eastern, and African countries who bring to it their basically corrupt political systems. Don't get me wrong, I think the U.N. is great for things like coordinating disaster relief and whatnot, but I can't imagine a world where something like the U.N. exercising political influence in the U.S. would in any way be good for Americans.
Oh, I'm definitely not suggesting that American's own body politic should grow, by any means. If anything America could do with being split into about four different countries. (Not on any usefully-simple geographical lines, though; something more like "charter cities"/"special economic zones" might do better. An ideal division might be "The United Farmlands of America" and "The United Metropolises of America", since each group has pretty homogeneous opinions on how "their country" should be run.)
It would certainly be nice, though, if countries of people who do have homogeneous bodies politic, where country A is interested in the political decisions country B make because they affect A, could somehow trade something of their own for the right to have their own people get some control over A's affairs. They might, perhaps... buy stock in A? :)
(There's actually a lot of things putting governmental-policy "stocks" on a global market would solve, when you think about it. Certainly problems too, of course, but consider, for one thing, that it offers a workable alternative to "takeover by war" and "eternal austerity" that some Eurozone countries have been looking for for years now: "takeover by transfer of controlling equity as a liquidated asset during default.")
Because social relations aren't symmetric. Successful societies are built on: families, local communities, and national unity (in that order). This is nearly universal. Certainly, someone in Chengdu cares far more about his neighbors than he cares about me!
> Why are intranational and international wealth inequality seen as diametrically opposed subjects?
I view things that way because poor people in America are part of the same body politic as myself, while poor people in China are not. The well-being of people on the south side of Chicago or in the Bronx affects me directly. The well-being of people in China does not.
The ironic thing is that the Chinese wouldn't find my viewpoint curious. Of course your own community is more important than other peoples' communities, and your nation more important than other peoples' nations. It's a self-evident truth in Asian culture.