> Why should a country's laws end at its own borders, if they don't have to? If the country views its laws as right, it seems to me it ought to attempt to see those laws enforced as widely as possible.

I really don't want to be extradited to Thailand from Australia because I mocked their King online, or extradited to China for commenting on a Falun Gong forum, or extradited to Saudi Arabia for posting a comment supporting gay rights.

You have probably already broken 100 laws from various countries before you got out of bed

Then it is well those countries lack the power or will to use their power to enforce those laws on you. I mean, I prefer what you prefer in this case as well, although I prefer it because I think those laws are wrong, not because I believe something about national borders by moral right ought to render me immune to prosecution from the next nation over.

Why should they? Because different countries can have laws directly in conflict with each other. Jurisdiction specifies which one actually applies.

Eg. The US says "it is illegal to do business with Iran" while the EU says "it is illegal to stop doing business with Iran"

Mask mandates vs mask mandate bans make another example.

> If the country views its laws as right, it seems to me it ought to attempt to see those laws enforced as widely as possible.

Suppose I view my diet and exercise regimen as right - should I try to impose (not just suggest) it on others? A country can view both its own laws, and the sovereignty of other countries, as just.

Or look at it this way: Democratic countries tend to think highly of democracy. Higher than any single law resulting from democracy. By imposing your laws on the people of a different country, you are robbing them of that same democracy you so cherish. Would you give up democratic control of your government, if it resulted in passing a couple of laws you liked?

(For certain extreme examples, such as when that country is engaging in genocide or extreme human rights abuses, I would answer yes. But nothing in this case even approaches such severity.)

> By imposing your laws on the people of a different country, you are robbing them of that same democracy you so cherish.

That would be true only if the US were handling this process extrajudicially. I'm still not sure that would be morally bad, per se, but it would certainly require the exercise of much more power and will.

But in this case, the process is being handled judicially. The people of the United Kingdom elected representatives, who through various means constructed the judicial system and entered into agreements with other countries, including the United States, concerning many things, including extradition. The process they set up to handle that is what is being followed today. This is why I don't really agree that the current situation is undemocratic. It may be that the UK's representatives didn't do exactly what the people would prefer in aggregate, but that is always a danger in representative democracy.

> The people of the United Kingdom elected representatives, who through various means constructed the judicial system and entered into agreements with other countries, including the United States, concerning many things, including extradition.

That's ignoring a lot of behind-the-scenes pressure tactics. In fact, your analysis would cast every one-sided deal or law that is the result of foreign pressure (or corruption, or lobbying) as "democratic", unless it's the result of full-on war.

I see what you're saying. But all countries deal with external pressures and constraints to some degree or another. I don't think we can declare their choices under these constraints undemocratic without rendering the word "democracy" into a purely theoretical concept.

>I guess I don't really see the moral angle here, in one direction or the other.

You're only looking from one angle though. Try looking at it from Assange's perspective as GP suggested:

>Whereas I believe the GP was making a _moral_ argument, that Assange deserves it because he leaked US secrets.

The person who prefers a process that has the chance to land them in prison is rare indeed. But I'm not sure that's a moral argument, at least not as people think of it normally. Admittedly, there is a school, which I sometimes flirt with, that claims that moral statements are simply a specially coded statement of preference. But outside that context, I'm not sure exactly what aspect of Assange's perspective I'm meant to consider in this context.

> I guess I don't really see the moral angle here, in one direction or the other. Why shouldn't an entity try to impose its understanding of law and ethics where it can afford to?

You’ll have a hell of a good time exercising this conviction when China starts doing the same.

They’re already doing it to immediate neighbouring countries and have started doing so in the US through basic means of capitalistic influence.

I mean. They think they’re right. Why shouldn’t they? Who cares about nations having so called “sovereign” laws? What does your 1st amendment rights mean when China thinks you shouldn’t have it?

> You’ll have a hell of a good time exercising this conviction when China starts doing the same.

It would be truly upsetting if that ever happened, but mainly because so many of China's laws are bad, not because of something inherent about national borders. Fortunately I doubt China will ever have the will to use its power to bother me.