Anyone who has ever worked for a medium-large corporation will have done the inevitable employee training that, among many other things, tells you that "no, you cannot pay bribes or facilitation payments in another country even if it's normal and expected there, and yes you and us can still be prosecuted at home for that".

One could make the argument that if the corporation is required by law in all the non-legal countries to abide by those laws and not bribe officials that the practice will necessarily have to die out among the few countries you would be arguing for, simply because the risk is too great to the corporation. Maybe it would be maintained among local businesses, but it would be an understood fact that a politician could not expect a broad multi-national to participate in it, irrespective of their desire or willingness, if they stood to face prosecution from... however many countries they operate in, all of whom would demand a penalty be served. Even if they're slap-on-the-wrist penalties, that's going to add up real fast.

IANAL, but I believe that under US law you are allowed to pay bribes to get someone to do their job in places where that is customary. You just aren't allowed to pay bribes to get someone to do something that they aren't supposed to do.

> absolutely an expected and required part of doing business

You just don't do business in such countries? Why do you want to work with corrupt regimes so much?

idk, I see it the other way around actually. if you kill someone in another country, that's still bad, but it's not clear why the US government should be the entity that holds you accountable for it. seems more appropriate to turn you over to that country's government upon request.

whereas if you bribe public officials in other countries as normal business practice, that might give you an advantage over other companies that also operate in the US. if they have to also engage in bribery to compete with you, that seems like a much more direct harm to another US entity.

America is not enforcing its laws on some random people outside its borders, its regulating the behavior of people who are very much subject to our legal system. I am quite surprised to see there's a contingent of folks who think that leaving our borders means you can do whatever you want and expect to be welcomed back

I want to say something and I promise I say it not as a dig on you... as someone who's followed you for more than 10 years, I am fascinated that despite the many, many changes and revisions in your belief systems over the years, something that never changes is the certainty and conviction and confidence in your tone.

I guess it's a good thing, wish I had it. Makes for persuasive and effective writing, that's for sure.

> Why should the US get to make law for the whole world, and then enforce that law in US courts?

A longish response would be: "The United States is generally a force for good, and it's the main provider of the very-costly Pax Americana that supports so much of global commerce and a rules-based international order. If we decide you need to follow our standards everywhere if you want to enjoy access to our country, you're always free to refuse — and to accept the consequences."

The short, brutalist response would be: "Because we can."

A footnote: You seem to think that "sovereignty" is some kind of magical concept that causes everyone to honor the wishes of another people. It's not; history amply proves that "sovereignty" is simply shorthand for "we think we shouldn't have to do what you want us to do, because reasons, and we're willing to gamble that our economic power and military might (alone and/or with allies) are enough to enforce our preference over yours."

Other countries are free to levy such fines for offenses they deem worthy and have done so in the past certainly. The US does not have exclusive right to this.