Global future in chains or more freedom at a high cost

[K. A. Pital]

This is not a news item. Instead, it is an offer to discuss the direction of contemporary politics and what would happen, as well as personal preferences towards what could happen, in the future.

First, there are good reasons to suspect that in the future, the right of individual free speech would be severely curtailed - even that of political free speech. Do not think that banning unsavory alt-right types is where it will end. Try wearing a t-shirt saying ACAB in a European country, and see how far it will get you. Speaking out against the system is already punishable via the maze of „libel“ laws that are cleverly interpreted to protect entire institutions from sharp criticism. Only anonymity so far offers some protection in that regard, but governments of the world are hard at work to destroy any possibility to remain anonymous. They are creating a Panopticon, where every citizen‘s life in the tinies detail is known to the government, its enforcers and a variety of private corporations.

Think about how accidental American citizens are hunted down by the IRS using FATCA. They cannot open bank accounts or escape from their own government, regardless of where they are, merely by fact of birth, accidental stay, ties and so on.

Then think about the global snooping by the NSA, CIA and a multutide of other horrible acronyms that are cozying up to each other and seek to root out anyone who resists. With total surveillance a practical reality, not in the future but right now, they actually can.

Local law is being subverted in favor of global arrangements, many of which are incompatible with originally provided free speech, privacy, social protection rights. This is ongoing and examples are many. Belgium’s Wallonia was strong-armed into acceding to CETA demands. The Eurocrats likewise are dismantling local protections against state and corporate abuse alike.

Now enter the second part of the dilemma. Anti-globalism on the left has waned. It is dominated by right-wingers like Trump and Boris „Rule Britannia“ Johnson.

Make no mistake, these people are horrible. Trump destroyed TTIP, but caused a wave of misery in other spheres. Brexiteers are a sad bunch of cryptofascists.

But can they work towards averting a globalist iron heel rule? Is it right to hope for the US to become so enraged and lunatic to break up the global „community“ of developed nations, but thereby also hinder or even prevent globalist worldwide dictatorship of unaccountable elites and corporations?

The choice is between two evils - nationalists breaking up the global order, with lots of casualties in all senses of this word, and a globalist dictatorship of unseen breadth which controls and knows everything about every human being in hitherto unimaginable ways. A society where even the classic bourgeois „freedoms“ are reduced to nothingness: total surveillance, no real political choice (only swapping clans of system-acceptable technocrats), no free speech on individual and political level.

Discuss.

[Ziggy Stardust]

The choice is between two evils - nationalists breaking up the global order, with lots of casualties in all senses of this word, and a globalist dictatorship of unseen breadth which controls and knows everything about every human being in hitherto unimaginable ways. A society where even the classic bourgeois „freedoms“ are reduced to nothingness: total surveillance, no real political choice (only swapping clans of system-acceptable technocrats), no free speech on individual and political level.

I think this is a false dilemma, to a certain extent. It's not that I think either of these scenarios is impossible (indeed, both are plausible enough to be worrisome), but rather I don't see that it follows that these are the ONLY choices. Really, these are just two possible extremes, between which range a plethora of other potential outcomes.

[K. A. Pital]

I did not mean to limit this just to the two possibilities. I just think these are likely developments and for me it seems like the situation is forced between two extremes, but I wanted to also know the opinion of others. Is it possible that the situation develops unexpectedly and produces a better outcome than either? I am all for it, though I feel the signs for such possibilities are lacking.

[Tvpnbb]

One question is that can we even rely on these right-wingers being consistently anti-globalization? After all it was Wallonia, not Poland or Hungary that held back the CETA deal. Hell, many of the Brexiteers are openly free marketers whose one objection to the EU, among others, was that it restricted British ability to trade freely with the world. Remember the stuff about turning Britain into a new Singapore? And while Trump has indeed been against free trade (if not as aggressively as he was during the campaign), he has continued to pursue a pretty active policy of military deployments overseas.

[Khaat]

Like any other power, they only oppose globalization if they aren't its masters.

[Juubi Karakuchi]

I tend to look at it like this.

States of any kind cannot function without resources. As technology has advanced and human needs and possibilities have increased, then the number and amount of resources - human and material - needed to keep an economy functioning, let alone growing or improving, have also increased. This has reached the point where few if any modern states have all the raw materials they require within their borders.

The Nation-State system, back to which the Alt-Right appears to be trying to drag humanity, cannot function under these conditions. It is neither equal, nor fair, nor stable. The vast majority of nation-states are small to medium sized, (and/or) have relatively small populations, and lack many raw materials and other resources which they need to function. A handful of mega-states - China, Russia, India, and the USA being the obvious candidates - have vast territories, enormous populations, and substantial material resources at their disposal.

Historically, there have been only two ways by which a state or other entity can acquire resources it does not possess within its own territory; either buy them via trade, or take them by force. In a world based on nation-states, mega-states such as those described above have an insurmountable advantage, and can take what they want by force, inflict unfair trade agreements on smaller states via the threat of force and the weight of relative economic power, and even bend international systems of law and cooperation to suit their own needs.

As I see it, globalization is merely a logical (and perhaps inevitable) outcome of a world based on nation-states attempting to use trade as a means of stabilization. It is also, unfortunately, a convenient way by which mega-states can force their culture and will on smaller states. Thus, the smaller states have responded in the only logical way; by forming regional economic and possibly military alliances capable of countering the mega-states. The EU is the first of these in modern times, and the most advanced.

Like it or not, if we want to maintain the technology and lifestyle the west currently possesses, let alone allow developing countries to attain it for themselves, then we cannot ditch globalisation. Without the free flow of ideas and people who have them, science and technology would not be developing half so quickly.

Unfortunately, this can be rough on the little guy. I understand the issue about local laws being overridden or forced to change, and how this can leave the peoples involved feeling disempowered and abused. Local cultures can be undermined, changed beyond recognition, or wiped out altogether; leaving the people to whom they belonged feeling rootless, adrift, and uncertain of who they are or what they want to be. To be a citizen of a member-state of a regional union, or the citizen of a mega-state, is to be one among hundreds of millions, perhaps billions. What then for localism, for community? Can he feel part of this vast, impersonal thing? Where does he belong? Who is he, and what does he want?

Even more unfortunately, there is no simple or dramatic answer to this problem. Globalisation can help or harm, but to turn away from it and follow the alt-right is to perpetuate and in some cases restore problems that humanity does need, and create a situation which human civilization might not be able to survive. We need each other, and each other's resources, too much to cower behind borders snarling at each-other, however much the alt-right might enjoy it.

But what then to do? If we are stuck with globalisation, how do we stop it hurting people? How do we avoid the problems Pital describes? And how do we tell when it is helping, and when it is harming?

To my mind, the ongoing process by which nation-states increasingly amalgamate into regional unions solves only one particular set of problems; namely involving the mistreatment of small nation-states by mega-states or regional unions (yes, they can be guilty of this). This is a necessary step, at least for containing the ambitions of mega-states. But if we are to avoid the abuses Pital implies, with governments and corporations trampling on Human Rights and democracy, then we must ensure that these unions are capable of protecting those rights.

There is no inherent reason why a union of states cannot be democratic. The EU has done a fairly good job of it all things considered, and provides more comprehensive and reliable protection of Human Rights than many of its member-governments. But to do so, a union must be able and willing to override the intentions of a member-government, or force it into line by some other means, if said member-government intends to imperil the Human Rights of its citizens, or those of outsiders. Unfortunately, this is contrary to national sovereignty, and difficult to justify in a democratic system. The only way this can be justified democratically is if the union is itself reasonably democratic; and the EU once again is at least trying to do this.

All-in-all, the least worst option for humanity seems to be amalgamation into regional unions of the kind I have described - ideally with a strong basis in democracy and Human Rights - allowing the member-states to share resources and capabilities, bargain collectively with other unions and mega-states, and defend each-other from mistreatment if necessary. The alternative is stagnation in the current unsustainable almost-but-not-quite system, or retreat into atavistic nationalism. Either could lead either to the long slow decline of human civilization, or its sudden and violent destruction.

[K. A. Pital]

I assumed that neither scenario leads to a sudden and violent destruction of human civilization.

Only a nuclear war could reasonably be said to have the potential to destroy it. A world of nation-states hasn't had a nuclear war in ages. Even a conflict on the scale of World War II did not destroy civilization.

I also wonder if it is mandatory to "keep the current lifestyle" (looks like an argument from entitlement) or to allow science and technology to develop at maximum speed, no matter the cost.

One question is that can we even rely on these right-wingers being consistently anti-globalization?

No, we can't. They are notorious and unreliable (like Trump), and may not at all execute their anti-globalist programs. After all, there is nothing easier than betraying a bunch of promises in the modern political environment.

On the other hand, the rest of the political forces - with the exception of disempowered radical left - offer nothing but complete and utter capitulation. They do not even seek to hide the intentions. They openly support the status quo and the developments which are subverting the democratic rights of individuals across the world.

[Juubi Karakuchi]

Time to flesh this out a little.

Yes, sudden collapse via nuclear war is comparatively unlikely. But a world where the alt-right runs countries is a world in which conflict in general is more likely than it would be otherwise, as one of their apparent goals is to dismantled a rule-based global system (such as it is) and drag the world back into an age of old-style force-backed mercantilism and kick-the-door-in foreign policy. This makes armed conflict more likely, and therefore the use of nuclear weapons more likely.

And don't underestimate nuclear weapons. A research project in 2006 found that even a small-scale nuclear war - an India-vs-Pakistan scale conflict involving around 100 Hiroshima-sized nukes - would kill 20 million people and cause urban superfires, releasing around 5 million tons of smoke into the atmosphere; covering the planet in two weeks and lasting around ten years. This in turn would reduce sunlight levels by 7-10%, resulting in global famine, and reduce the ozone layer by as much as 70% for five years in northern latitudes.

Here is one link. http://www.nucleardarkness.org/warconse ... uclearwar/

Getting to the lifestyle issue, I confess that can come across as an argument from entitlement; and it was not intended to be. Time to comb it out.

I suppose one of the problems is that we don't seem to have a model for modernity and progress other than the one western consumer capitalism puts forward. For the average person, the plan is go to work, make money, buy stuff, rinse and repeat until you die; while the purpose of science is to invent and develop more and better stuff, so that more money can be made, with which to invent and develop more and better stuff. It's created a lifestyle of easy abundance for those who have access to it, but it also leads to many of the problems I described in my earlier post; along with environmental issues as well. To get the resources they need in order to maintain their citizens' affluent lifestyles, governments are forced to compete and struggle for resources they generally don't have in their territories.

The obvious answer would be to stop doing this, and adopt a different approach to modernity, or maybe even dump modernity altogether. But this is easier said than done. People with access to this lifestyle tend to grow fond of it, and even those who can't access it often want a piece of the action; making it relatively easy to con them into voting against their interests. Any politician who wants to restrict this lifestyle, or even to alter it, faces an uphill battle.

A example is Jimmy Carter's attempts to wean America off its oil addiction. He was certainly not trying to deprive Americans of the prosperous, high-tech consumer lifestyle they regarded as normal, and his concerns with oil were not purely environmental, but also strategic; the need for foreign oil put significant demands on American foreign policy. His response was to encourage the use of green power such as solar panels; he even put some on the roof of the White House to set an example. But then Ronald Reagan came along and blamed high gasoline prices (among other things) on Carter's green policies, and basically promised Americans cheap gas on demand forever. The rest, as they say, is history.

This isn't the case universally, however. Europe seems much more accepting of green power and the idea of an oil-free economy; and some countries have actually made serious progress on that front. If this could actually be achieved, then we could see economies that are much less environmentally destructive, and states no longer interfering in oil-producing countries.

But even then, European social capitalism still operates on the same basic principles described above. It just happens to be more environmentally conscious and legally constrained than elsewhere; though not for lack of trying on the part of certain people.

When it comes to various institutions and groups undermining democratic rights, this is an issue because democracy has for the most part limited itself to the nation-state level; whether by preference of the voters or the deliberate intent of those designing and running the system. This puts nation-states in a quandry, as they are forced by economic and strategic necessity to form regional unions, but in so doing they may end up undermining their own democracies; if only because the dilution of sovereignty via treaties and agreements limits (if not completely restricts) the ability of a national electorate to change the union's policies, or to operate separate national policies. This can undermine national democracy by making it seem ineffectual.

The obvious answer, to me at least, is for regional unions to adopt their own democratic structures that allow member-state citizens to have the same kind of democratic control over the union's governance as they do over their own countries. The big issue is how to do this without undermining or sidelining the member-states to a degree that people find unacceptable.

[The Romulan Republic]

Time and time again, people have tried to tell us that there is a choice between "freedom" and "security". Usually because they're trying to sell you on despotism without admitting that that's what they're doing.

You cannot have one without the other. There is no real freedom without security in which to exercise that freedom, and their is no real security without freedom and the rights that accompany it, unless you're the man at the top (and even then, no dictatorship last forever, and when they fall, they tend to do so hard and bloody). "Freedom vs. security" is a false dichotomy, a con, and it always has been. Either you find a way for the two to compliment one another, or you have neither.

In any case, both of the options that the OP proposes: (xenophobic nationalism or a globalist dictatorship) are despotic. There's not much choice there, beyond under what flag the dissidents and minorities are being jailed/killed. I don't give a fucking shit weather its a foreign tyrant on a local tyrant doing the oppressing- I don't have team pride for Nazis. Although under the global government, at least there would be less risk of a global nuclear exchange, so I guess that I'd choose that one if absolutely forced to pick.

I also note the idiotic repetition of the idea that "politically correct" censorship by SJW-types is one of the more notable threats to freedom in our times. Sure, it can get carried away, but in terms of the legal and political power it wields, at least in America, it absolutely pales compare to the threat of the Alt. Right. Once again, K.A. Pital is echoing Alt. Reich narratives to suite his own agenda. Funny how often the supposed radical Left of various stripes ends up echoing the narratives of its Nazi counterparts.

Let's see this whole argument for what it is: an attempt to sell Neo-Nazism as the "lesser evil".

[The Romulan Republic]

I assumed that neither scenario leads to a sudden and violent destruction of human civilization.

Only a nuclear war could reasonably be said to have the potential to destroy it. A world of nation-states hasn't had a nuclear war in ages. Even a conflict on the scale of World War II did not destroy civilization.

To be blunt, I find that a very dubious and arrogant assumption.

We have come very, very close to nuclear war on several occasions, and it is not by any means out of the question that we will fight one with North Korea before another year is out.

We have gotten lucky, so far. It does not follow that we will remain lucky forever, especially if people start basing policy on the assumption that "It hasn't happened yet, so it never will."

You are a gambler on a lucky streak, counting on the fact that you will always continue to roll two sixes.

Edit: I also question the assumption that global government=dictatorship. As we have never had a global government, we have no prior test cases, and any speculation as to how such government would function is just that-speculative.

Personally, I suspect that any global government would (barring the institution of some sort of planet-wide mind-control) likely have to be at least partially democratic in order to function- the Earth is simply too big, and too diverse, to be governed by one viewpoint by fiat.

[K. A. Pital]

Time and time again, people have tried to tell us that there is a choice between "freedom" and "security". Usually because they're trying to sell you on despotism without admitting that that's what they're doing.

Really? Maybe that's because people had experience which led them to believe that total security and total freedom are poorly compatible; which means a combination of freedom and security usually means limits to both.

You cannot have one without the other. There is no real freedom without security in which to exercise that freedom, and their is no real security without freedom and the rights that accompany it, unless you're the man at the top (and even then, no dictatorship last forever, and when they fall, they tend to do so hard and bloody). "Freedom vs. security" is a false dichotomy, a con, and it always has been. Either you find a way for the two to compliment one another, or you have neither.

I am pretty sure that I still have freedom even if I don't have security. Sure, it is a freedom in danger, but life doesn't always consist of choices without danger, of risk-less decisions. It is not a false dichotomy; you can probably understand that while there was more security in Syria under Assad, there was certainly no freedom. Now there is probably neither, but it shows that both aren't exactly either inverse- or directly correlated; they are different parameters of the social system.

In any case, both of the options that the OP proposes: (xenophobic nationalism or a globalist dictatorship) are despotic. There's not much choice there, beyond under what flag the dissidents and minorities are being jailed/killed. I don't give a fucking shit weather its a foreign tyrant on a local tyrant doing the oppressing- I don't have team pride for Nazis. Although under the global government, at least there would be less risk of a global nuclear exchange, so I guess that I'd choose that one if absolutely forced to pick.

You must also factor in the very unpleasant possibility that there is nowhere to run and hide under a globalist autocratic regime. At least between nations you can choose with your feet; you could potentially run for your life. Now you'd be stripped of that possibility. Although, of course, we shall have peace.

You've probably never had to run for your life.

I also note the idiotic repetition of the idea that "politically correct" censorship by SJW-types is one of the more notable threats to freedom in our times. Sure, it can get carried away, but in terms of the legal and political power it wields, at least in America, it absolutely pales compare to the threat of the Alt. Right. Once again, K.A. Pital is echoing Alt. Reich narratives to suite his own agenda. Funny how often the supposed radical Left of various stripes ends up echoing the narratives of its Nazi counterparts. Let's see this whole argument for what it is: an attempt to sell Neo-Nazism as the "lesser evil".

Surely you are more smart than this pathetic ad-hominem attack. Notice how I didn't limit the attack on free speech to "politically correct censorship" but to a more broad and dangerous trend that also limits political speech. As someone who has direct experience with political speech limitation with the blunt force of a police batton, I'm quite sure I can appreciate the difference between harmless and non-harmless.

Wrap your god damn head about the fact that censorship is not harmless, it never has been and never will be. We can talk about justifications for it, but it is not harmless. I've specifically provided your with examples that have nothing to do with the alt-right. Censorship of political opinion.

Shoud people in ACAB t-shirts go do jail or pay fines? If yes, why?

I'm asking these questions because, unlike you, I'm confused and I don't have a certain stalwart vision of a better world. I'm at a loss. The future is bleak and in my book, it's both because of the passive status quo assholes who led it to this stage, just as much as it is because of the alt-right assholes using the opportunity. I'm asking to discuss, not to provide a pre-defined answer.

To be blunt, I find that a very dubious and arrogant assumption.

But you don't tell me what's next. What's your suggestion? Let us surrender the last freedoms because of a fear of nuclear war? Just as we did with the bullshit "GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR" which shitpieces from America pushed onto the rest of the world?

I also question the assumption that global government=dictatorship. As we have never had a global government, we have no prior test cases, and any speculation as to how such government would function is just that-speculative.

Personally, I suspect that any global government would (barring the institution of some sort of planet-wide mind-control) likely have to be at least partially democratic in order to function- the Earth is simply too big, and too diverse, to be governed by one viewpoint by fiat.

Do you realize that there's a multitude of undemocratic organizations that control enormous wealth and/or territories? Supranational entities like the UN and OECD, unaccountable financial power brokers like IMF, World Bank, which can bring bliss or ruin on a nation based on the tasks at hand?

The world is already in many ways ruled without a shred of democracy. One has to be blind to not see it. It is diverse, but global institutions (TNCs, supranational organizations) are undemocratic and oligarchic. They're no different than China ruled by a CCP oligarchy.

[The Romulan Republic]

Really? Maybe that's because people had experience which led them to believe that total security and total freedom are poorly compatible; which means a combination of freedom and security usually means limits to both.

Which I'd actually agree with, to a point, though that's not what your OP appeared to be arguing.

Note that I never said absolute freedom or absolute security. Absolute freedom is an oxymoron (while absolute security is a physical impossibility), because one person cannot have freedom to take actions that would infringe on others' freedoms. I advocate freedom tempered by equality-but to maximize freedom for all people to the greatest possible degree, one must also protect those peoples' security from those who would violate their freedom.

And, vice versa, to maximize their security to the greatest extent possible, one must protect their freedoms from those who would violate them.

Hence, I would argue that freedom and security, properly understood and approached, are more often complimentary than conflicting concerns, while those who try to portray them primarily as opposing goals are usually, in my experience, trying to frighten people into abandoning freedom for an illusory security.

You like to scoff at my lack of personal experience regarding despotism and oppression, but if we're going to argue from personal anectdotes and personal credibility rather than the merits of our respective arguments, I will remind you that I did grow up as a liberal American in the post-911 climate, and I have at least not forgotten the bill of goods the American people was sold in the name of "security".

I am pretty sure that I still have freedom even if I don't have security. Sure, it is a freedom in danger, but life doesn't always consist of choices without danger, of risk-less decisions. It is not a false dichotomy; you can probably understand that while there was more security in Syria under Assad, there was certainly no freedom. Now there is probably neither, but it shows that both aren't exactly either inverse- or directly correlated; they are different parameters of the social system.

They are not absolutely inverted, nor absolutely correlated, if you want to argue against a simplistic straw man of my position.

However, they are highly interconnected, and past a certain point, one cannot be compromised without compromising the other. You say you have "freedom in danger", but how free can you really be if you know that one misstep in how you exercise your freedom can get you killed? How free are you to choose your course in life if you are scratching for mere sustenance? take the Syrian example, how much "security" did one enjoy in pre-war Syria if one was a critic of the regime? Under Assad's unchallenged rule, Syria had little freedom and little security. Now, I daresay, it has less of both.

If you believe one must frequently come only at the expense of the other, I would contend that what you are actually arguing is that neither is ultimately sustainable. Which is a rather bleak view, but who knows? Perhaps the future will prove it correct.

You must also factor in the very unpleasant possibility that there is nowhere to run and hide under a globalist autocratic regime. At least between nations you can choose with your feet; you could potentially run for your life. Now you'd be stripped of that possibility. Although, of course, we shall have peace.

You posit a world of xenophobic nation states as the only alternative to globalized tyranny, and you actually believe that that is a world in which people would be free to "choose with their feet"?

Go on, ask some Trumpers what they think of refugees "choosing with their feet".

You've probably never had to run for your life.

Ah, should have known you'd get around to "TRR is privileged" argument. After all, you invariable trot it out when discussing political issues with me. Why argue the point when you can attack the credibility of the person making it instead?

Surely you are more smart than this pathetic ad-hominem attack. Notice how I didn't limit the attack on free speech to "politically correct censorship" but to a more broad and dangerous trend that also limits political speech. As someone who has direct experience with political speech limitation with the blunt force of a police batton, I'm quite sure I can appreciate the difference between harmless and non-harmless.

No, you didn't limit it to that, but you did choose to open your argument by citing that example as a major threat to freedom. Which does echo an exaggerated and malicious narrative about SJWs coming for your freedom that is key to much of the Alt. Reich's success. I do not consider it an ad hominem to point that out, or to criticize your choice of that as a key example to illustrate your point.

I know you're not a Nazi, or an Alt. Rightist. But one of the things that makes the Alt. Right so fucking dangerous is its skill at infiltrated and coopting or influencing the rhetoric of political movements that should be in opposition to it.

Wrap your god damn head about the fact that censorship is not harmless, it never has been and never will be. We can talk about justifications for it, but it is not harmless. I've specifically provided your with examples that have nothing to do with the alt-right. Censorship of political opinion.

Shoud people in ACAB t-shirts go do jail or pay fines? If yes, why?

When have I ever been a defender of political censorship? I didn't say it was harmless, but its a question of priorities. Its not the SJWs that I generally worry about when I imagine the possibility of someone coming to lock me up (or kill me) for my opinions. I'm not going to spare much thought for the yappy little dog next door when there's a rabid wolf pack coming up the street.

I'm asking these questions because, unlike you, I'm confused and I don't have a certain stalwart vision of a better world. I'm at a loss.

There are a great many things I am uncertain about. But "xenophobic nationalism is not the road to freedom" is not one of them. If you think that narrow-minded, so be it.

The future is bleak and in my book, it's both because of the passive status quo assholes who led it to this stage, just as much as it is because of the alt-right assholes using the opportunity. I'm asking to discuss, not to provide a pre-defined answer.

It'll be a hell of a lot bleaker if people stop believing that a better one is possible. That is also a major aspect of the Alt. Reich's success. They have capitalized horrifically on the apathy of much of the electorate, and the pat cynicism of "All the politicians are just as bad."

And if that bit about "passive status quo assholes" was directed at me, I am not and have never been an advocate of simply maintaining the status quo, as you know full well. I simply do not hold the view that change to the status quo must necessarily be violent, extremist, or catastrophic in nature in order to be effective.

But you don't tell me what's next. What's your suggestion? Let us surrender the last freedoms because of a fear of nuclear war? Just as we did with the bullshit "GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR" which shitpieces from America pushed onto the rest of the world?

Quite the opposite.

I want us to fight to preserve freedom, which means actually fighting for our freedom, not deciding which master to surrender it to. Or do you actually believe that anyone's freedoms will be preserved, to any degree, in a world dominated by Right wing xenophobic nationalist states?

I also disagree that the world is as close to absolute tyranny as you seem to believe. There are some freedoms and privacies that have been eroded, yes. But in other respects, we are living in one of the most liberated moments in human history, at least in most developed nations. At what other time would you have rather been, say, a woman, or a gay man, or a racial minority?

But even if we look at something more general than the treatment of specific groups, the internet, while offering new avenues to restrict privacy, has also opened up mass media to the public in unprecedented ways. Like most new technologies, its a double-edged sword. But like any double-edged sword, it can cut for liberty as effectively as for despotism.

Hell, the literacy level alone puts us far above most eras in terms of the potential for the populace to be politically educated.

God knows this world has its problems, but five minutes' look at the rest of history might lend some useful perspective.

Do you realize that there's a multitude of undemocratic organizations that control enormous wealth and/or territories? Supranational entities like the UN and OECD, unaccountable financial power brokers like IMF, World Bank, which can bring bliss or ruin on a nation based on the tasks at hand?

The world is already in many ways ruled without a shred of democracy. One has to be blind to not see it. It is diverse, but global institutions (TNCs, supranational organizations) are undemocratic and oligarchic. They're no different than China ruled by a CCP oligarchy.

None of those is really any kind of a global government, however, not yet at any rate.

We're dealing with a highly speculative topic, but I would personally advocate for a global alliance of democratic nations (perhaps using the EU or British Commonwealth as a starting point) which cooperates on certain specific issues of global concern (of which free trade would NOT be one), as a stepping stone to a global democratic government. Representation to be determined either by appointment by the elected member governments, or (ideally) directly voted on by the member states' populations.

Probably with two "houses" similar to the US Congress, one represented based on population and the other representing every member equally, and for the same reason- to prevent smaller member states from being utterly dominated by the larger ones.

This is, of course, a very preliminary thought. If you want a lengthy essay on how a global government should be constructed to preserve individual liberty, well- I freely acknowledge that I am not the best person to make that case, but if you want me to try, it probably should be in a different thread.

[K. A. Pital]

Note that I never said absolute freedom or absolute security. Absolute freedom is an oxymoron (while absolute security is a physical impossibility), because one person cannot have freedom to take actions that would infringe on others' freedoms. I advocate freedom tempered by equality-but to maximize freedom for all people to the greatest possible degree, one must also protect those peoples' security from those who would violate their freedom.

A well-designed prison can have almost absolute security (e.g. prisons in Scandinavia), but obviously there is no freedom, regardless of how secure one is inside such an institution. Likewise, freedom can be absolute on an unihnabited island or somewhere deep in no-mans-land, but security can be precarious, as man is subjected to threats from wildlife or failing to gather enough food to sustain oneself. So while extremes are possible, you are right in that they may be undesireable.

You like to scoff at my lack of personal experience regarding despotism and oppression, but if we're going to argue from personal anectdotes and personal credibility rather than the merits of our respective arguments, I will remind you that I did grow up as a liberal American in the post-911 climate, and I have at least not forgotten the bill of goods the American people was sold in the name of "security".

Actually, I was thinking that this creeping subversion could make you at least consider the possibility of further subversion down the line, which is done in a formally democratic system, but via undemocratic decision making. After all, the public wasn't offered to vote on a drastic curtailing of their rights and freedoms. Who is to say they'd be offered a say or a vote in the future? Democratic will of the people is under attack. It is being devalued and ridiculed by showing multiple examples of how the people "decide wrong" (Palestine electing Hamas, Britain voting for Brexit, the US electing Trump and so on). These events offer a great deal of ammunition to skeptics of democratic mechanisms as such.

You say you have "freedom in danger", but how free can you really be if you know that one misstep in how you exercise your freedom can get you killed? How free are you to choose your course in life if you are scratching for mere sustenance? take the Syrian example, how much "security" did one enjoy in pre-war Syria if one was a critic of the regime? Under Assad's unchallenged rule, Syria had little freedom and little security. Now, I daresay, it has less of both.

We agree in principle, but not in detail. For example, the average Syrian clearly had more security - cities weren't reduced to rubble and ISIS and other similar organizations weren't rampaging across the land taking entire territories full of either misguided passive supporters or body shields. Opponents of Assad had less security. But on the average, the security situation massively deteriorated. It ihappens often, that when autocracies fail, security of the average citizen is usually reduced. Sometimes it has to be accepted if you want to absolutely get rid of the autocracy, but in other instances - especially when the alternatives seem even worse - it doesn't have to be. That's at least how I see it.

You posit a world of xenophobic nation states as the only alternative to globalized tyranny, and you actually believe that that is a world in which people would be free to "choose with their feet"?

Go on, ask some Trumpers what they think of refugees "choosing with their feet".

I fully understand that in a world of xenophobic nation-states, the possibilities of running will likewise be limited. But what if some states choose to remain non-xenophobic? Or at least offer some options to run, and yet remain isolated enough so that they will not heed the calls for extradition, for example?

Take Snowden as an example; what is more beneficial for people like him, continued hostility between the US and Russia or a rapproachment that would see him shipped to the US and imprisoned?

No, you didn't limit it to that, but you did choose to open your argument by citing that example as a major threat to freedom. Which does echo an exaggerated and malicious narrative about SJWs coming for your freedom that is key to much of the Alt. Reich's success. I do not consider it an ad hominem to point that out, or to criticize your choice of that as a key example to illustrate your point. I know you're not a Nazi, or an Alt. Rightist. But one of the things that makes the Alt. Right so fucking dangerous is its skill at infiltrated and coopting or influencing the rhetoric of political movements that should be in opposition to it.

Maybe it's because the alt-right only uses a legitimate point here to bolster their own claims? I mean, even a broken clock can be right twice a day. It doesn't mean you have to condone or agree to what they say or do. But they try to piggyback on very legitimate concerns and very pressing issues. True, with extremely sinister and bad goals. But ignoring the problem won't help to defeat them. Acknowledging it in a way would be removing some stones from the foundation of their argument without looking to be in denial of reality.

When have I ever been a defender of political censorship? I didn't say it was harmless, but its a question of priorities. Its not the SJWs that I generally worry about when I imagine the possibility of someone coming to lock me up (or kill me) for my opinions. I'm not going to spare much thought for the yappy little dog next door when there's a rabid wolf pack coming up the street.

Very much true, but my question remained unanswered. Should the state punish people for expressing opinions that it or its agents find offensive to themselves? Because if it can punish people for being offensive to others, it sure as hell can find a way to punish them for offending the State and its agents as well.

I want us to fight to preserve freedom, which means actually fighting for our freedom, not deciding which master to surrender it to. Or do you actually believe that anyone's freedoms will be preserved, to any degree, in a world dominated by Right wing xenophobic nationalist states?

The question is, would these xenophobic nation-states represent the end state of all nations, or would they be a bad example which others can counteract with a good example? If nation-states that tend to overreach on security and curtailing of freedoms, e.g. the US and UK, would be excluded from the large organizations that have the power to dictate and spread such measures internationally, it would be a gain for the rest of the world, wouldn't it? Sure, sucks to be a US or UK citizens as they'd be left on their own to fend off against the agressive nonsense made by their government, but others would breathe with some relief. And it applies to many things, it was just one example.

I also disagree that the world is as close to absolute tyranny as you seem to believe. There are some freedoms and privacies that have been eroded, yes. But in other respects, we are living in one of the most liberated moments in human history, at least in most developed nations. At what other time would you have rather been, say, a woman, or a gay man, or a racial minority? But even if we look at something more general than the treatment of specific groups, the internet, while offering new avenues to restrict privacy, has also opened up mass media to the public in unprecedented ways. Like most new technologies, its a double-edged sword. But like any double-edged sword, it can cut for liberty as effectively as for despotism. Hell, the literacy level alone puts us far above most eras in terms of the potential for the populace to be politically educated. God knows this world has its problems, but five minutes' look at the rest of history might lend some useful perspective.

Exactly by looking at very recent history (the freedom of the internet in the pre-"War on Terror" and pre-megacorp times, for example) one can become a bit alarmed at the speed with which freedoms and rights are going under the bus. I agree that progress has been made in some areas of collective and individual rights. But it also seems that most of the progress is limited to an elite world population, confined to the limits of the First World.

None of those is really any kind of a global government, however, not yet at any rate.

We're dealing with a highly speculative topic, but I would personally advocate for a global alliance of democratic nations (perhaps using the EU or British Commonwealth as a starting point) which cooperates on certain specific issues of global concern (of which free trade would NOT be one), as a stepping stone to a global democratic government. Representation to be determined either by appointment by the elected member governments, or (ideally) directly voted on by the member states' populations.

The larger a structure gets, the more undemocratic it can become for the individual member. After all, it is not a coincidence that mega-states, "great powers" and "superpowers" have been behind the largest share of undemocratic decisions in history forced on the largest ever number of people alive. The greater the separation, the less accountability there is. Representatives may, acting on their own, take decisions to stripe certain people of their human rights (think "terrorists", that dirty word which has been abused to no end), and even stripe entire populations of certain rights. After this is done, there is usually no recourse for the affected, neither any possibility to roll back what has transpired. The erosion, once happened, becomes permanent and is normalized and enshrined in both law and public opinion as "acceptable sacrifice". Once it's done, there's no way back.

Even a representative world government would most likely in the end be a mega-oligarchy, with little to no options to remove politicians or impact political course. Changing the EU course has been hard enough, with the fundamentally undemocratic nature of the EU commission clashing with the European Parliament and national parliaments and their democratic obligations, however lax they are. In a world government, this problem would be magnified enormously.

A most likely case would be a democratic facade, "in name only". History of the world shows that large hierarchical systems suffer inevitably from a breakdown of feedback mechanisms.

So I guess I'll be a bit old-fashioned here and say that national self-determination and even regional self-determination and law must have absolute priority and politicians first and foremost have to be reachable, accountable to their subjects and territorially together with them, "in the same boat" so to say.