Learn to read.

gonna be honest, I didn't read anything past this part.

So in your scenario here, 4chan starts off by smuggling alcohol into the UK.

I didn't read any of it because you clearly didn't read what I said.

here's the part you conveniently forgot and it literally changes the entire argument.

some enterprising individuals have taken it upon themselves to buy, smuggle, and then sell those beverages inside the UK.

next time you want to argue your point don't employ the use of bad faith tactics and try to argue your point without manufacturing flaws.

long, horizontal scroll boxes of text that isn't code
proper blockquotes elsewhere

You clearly know how to blockquote: use it correctly.

Not who you replied to, but: there is no legal, ethical, or moral, requirement for a business of one country to comply with the laws of another. If there was, all business would be beholden to the most overbearing government on any one subject. And just to specifically state it before it’s brought up, being tied into the international banking system doesn’t change that; if a state doesn’t want its citizenry doing business with a particular entity, it’s on them to stop it on their side or come to an agreement with the other’s government. Which does happen, especially with the conglomerate hegemony of components of the international banking system, but naturally that means that the only time any entity of a state is forced to comply with the laws of another is when their home-state demands it, which ultimately isn’t the laws of the other.