2 typo
source | link

This touches on a foundational question of political philosophy and international relations: peace & trade versus war & plunder.

It's not clear it has an answer, just a host of competing theories and interpretations. The realist theory is that it doesn't make sense to attack your friends or treat them harshly when you might need their help serving other goals. The liberalist theory is that free trade and peace are the natural and highest state of mankind, and warfare is itself a negative. The Marxist theory, to the extent it's even worth repeating, is that both countries are controlled by a cabal of rich and powerful plutocrats in collusion to strip the "Global South" of its resources and vitality.

In a deeper sense, you might simply ask why any individual human engages in trade rather than robbery and conquest.

First, there are a host of moral reasons why one might not want to steal and kill - including the close bonds of society, language, culture, family, and friendship between the US and Canada.

Second, trade is the normal way that humans interact and makes intuitive sense to most people, so naturally it tends to be the default mode (all human societies engage in exchange and barter).

Third, Canadians are not just pushovers and warfare may be costly, particularly as it encourages warfare and militarization of others who witness the cost of being unarmed, eventually resulting in spending more resources on implements of warfare than one can easily reap by conquest.

Fourth, those with a reputation of failing to honor contracts or engage in honest trade may find it difficult to undertake contracts to extract, transport, or dispose of the plundered resources.

Fifth, and perhaps most importantly, is that the US government doesn't engage in most of the trade with Canada, American companies and individuals do. So the costs are not directly bornborne by the US government, just by companies that some US politicians may wish to favor.

Of course, the decision would be made by politicians accountable to constituencies in the US. War with Canada to steal their resources would be deeply unpopular. The simplest answer is that nobody is invading Canada and taking their stuff because nobody really wants to.

This touches on a foundational question of political philosophy and international relations: peace & trade versus war & plunder.

It's not clear it has an answer, just a host of competing theories and interpretations. The realist theory is that it doesn't make sense to attack your friends or treat them harshly when you might need their help serving other goals. The liberalist theory is that free trade and peace are the natural and highest state of mankind, and warfare is itself a negative. The Marxist theory, to the extent it's even worth repeating, is that both countries are controlled by a cabal of rich and powerful plutocrats in collusion to strip the "Global South" of its resources and vitality.

In a deeper sense, you might simply ask why any individual human engages in trade rather than robbery and conquest.

First, there are a host of moral reasons why one might not want to steal and kill - including the close bonds of society, language, culture, family, and friendship between the US and Canada.

Second, trade is the normal way that humans interact and makes intuitive sense to most people, so naturally it tends to be the default mode (all human societies engage in exchange and barter).

Third, Canadians are not just pushovers and warfare may be costly, particularly as it encourages warfare and militarization of others who witness the cost of being unarmed, eventually resulting in spending more resources on implements of warfare than one can easily reap by conquest.

Fourth, those with a reputation of failing to honor contracts or engage in honest trade may find it difficult to undertake contracts to extract, transport, or dispose of the plundered resources.

Fifth, and perhaps most importantly, is that the US government doesn't engage in most of the trade with Canada, American companies and individuals do. So the costs are not directly born by the US government, just by companies that some US politicians may wish to favor.

Of course, the decision would be made by politicians accountable to constituencies in the US. War with Canada to steal their resources would be deeply unpopular. The simplest answer is that nobody is invading Canada and taking their stuff because nobody really wants to.

This touches on a foundational question of political philosophy and international relations: peace & trade versus war & plunder.

It's not clear it has an answer, just a host of competing theories and interpretations. The realist theory is that it doesn't make sense to attack your friends or treat them harshly when you might need their help serving other goals. The liberalist theory is that free trade and peace are the natural and highest state of mankind, and warfare is itself a negative. The Marxist theory, to the extent it's even worth repeating, is that both countries are controlled by a cabal of rich and powerful plutocrats in collusion to strip the "Global South" of its resources and vitality.

In a deeper sense, you might simply ask why any individual human engages in trade rather than robbery and conquest.

First, there are a host of moral reasons why one might not want to steal and kill - including the close bonds of society, language, culture, family, and friendship between the US and Canada.

Second, trade is the normal way that humans interact and makes intuitive sense to most people, so naturally it tends to be the default mode (all human societies engage in exchange and barter).

Third, Canadians are not just pushovers and warfare may be costly, particularly as it encourages warfare and militarization of others who witness the cost of being unarmed, eventually resulting in spending more resources on implements of warfare than one can easily reap by conquest.

Fourth, those with a reputation of failing to honor contracts or engage in honest trade may find it difficult to undertake contracts to extract, transport, or dispose of the plundered resources.

Fifth, and perhaps most importantly, is that the US government doesn't engage in most of the trade with Canada, American companies and individuals do. So the costs are not directly borne by the US government, just by companies that some US politicians may wish to favor.

Of course, the decision would be made by politicians accountable to constituencies in the US. War with Canada to steal their resources would be deeply unpopular. The simplest answer is that nobody is invading Canada and taking their stuff because nobody really wants to.

1
source | link

This touches on a foundational question of political philosophy and international relations: peace & trade versus war & plunder.

It's not clear it has an answer, just a host of competing theories and interpretations. The realist theory is that it doesn't make sense to attack your friends or treat them harshly when you might need their help serving other goals. The liberalist theory is that free trade and peace are the natural and highest state of mankind, and warfare is itself a negative. The Marxist theory, to the extent it's even worth repeating, is that both countries are controlled by a cabal of rich and powerful plutocrats in collusion to strip the "Global South" of its resources and vitality.

In a deeper sense, you might simply ask why any individual human engages in trade rather than robbery and conquest.

First, there are a host of moral reasons why one might not want to steal and kill - including the close bonds of society, language, culture, family, and friendship between the US and Canada.

Second, trade is the normal way that humans interact and makes intuitive sense to most people, so naturally it tends to be the default mode (all human societies engage in exchange and barter).

Third, Canadians are not just pushovers and warfare may be costly, particularly as it encourages warfare and militarization of others who witness the cost of being unarmed, eventually resulting in spending more resources on implements of warfare than one can easily reap by conquest.

Fourth, those with a reputation of failing to honor contracts or engage in honest trade may find it difficult to undertake contracts to extract, transport, or dispose of the plundered resources.

Fifth, and perhaps most importantly, is that the US government doesn't engage in most of the trade with Canada, American companies and individuals do. So the costs are not directly born by the US government, just by companies that some US politicians may wish to favor.

Of course, the decision would be made by politicians accountable to constituencies in the US. War with Canada to steal their resources would be deeply unpopular. The simplest answer is that nobody is invading Canada and taking their stuff because nobody really wants to.