[kelseyfrog]

No, we judge the rules based on merit. If the other person kicks you out, you don't usually follow suit blindly by applying their rules to them. That is following other people's rules rather than your own and lacks integrity.

[esperent]

I think the characterizion of this as tit for tat lacks nuance. If you look at China's actions over the last while, in the South China sea, in regards to Taiwan, banning western apps, "accidentally" damaging subsea cables, industrial espionage at huge scale, and probably a thousand other small and large things I don't know about: if we put this into human terms, it's like a child who is constantly testing you and pushing the boundaries to see what they can get away with.

The correct thing to do in this case, as an adult, is to have firm boundaries and push back strongly but fairly whenever they are crossed.

However, while it's an interesting thought experiment, anthropomorphasizing nation states in this way will only get you so far. China is not a child, nor is the USA, and they're not adults either. While it does sometimes seem apt, the concept of maturity, in human development terms, cannot be applied here.

[kelseyfrog]

The concept of maturity is for us. We have the freedom to choose what we believe about the actions of nations. Besides a nation cannot do anything without the actions of people.

We conveniently describe people's actions as being of a nation, but we should be careful in not taking this too literally. It's a convenient linguistic device that doesn't reflect the reality that underlying all national action is the action of people.