3 ms·
I like this thought experiment. Let's try some speculative fiction to reflect the power dynamics a little better. In my alternate universe, the Soviet Union
by panarky 16y ago
I like this thought experiment. Let's try some speculative fiction to reflect the power dynamics a little better.
In my alternate universe, the Soviet Union won the cold war and the United States collapsed. The former USA splintered into several regional nations.
The European Union has been absorbed into the Soviet bloc, which now includes all of Western Europe and the Mediterranean.
The Eastern Seaboard of North America from Newfoundland to Florida joined the Soviet bloc and the leaders of these nations are loyal to the Kremlin.
The West Coast of North America from British Columbia through Baja California has deep military and economic integration with China, and is now subject to censorship and social controls dictated from Beijing.
Saskatchewan through Texas and Mexico is now a loose federation of independent nations that is not aligned with either of the two great powers, and is trying to be like Switzerland used to be -- they don't take sides, and they don't stir up trouble. They mind their own business and avoid international disputes.
A free citizen of Kansaslahoma finds a cache of documents showing that the Kremlin and Soviet oligarchs are using their military and financial might to lock up energy resources and systematically transfer wealth from nonaligned nations to the Soviet Union.
1. Giving the documents to the leaders of Kansaslahoma won't help, because they won't stir up disputes with a hyperpower.
2. Reviewing hundreds of thousands of documents by yourself isn't viable, and time is of the essence.
3. You can expose the docs for millions of people in nonaligned states to read and analyze. Maybe Moscow's data controls will be porous enough that some Soviet citizens will learn what their leaders are doing in their names.
Even if your actions don't precipitate a revolution by themselves, you know that you're imposing a lot of security overhead every time they try to communicate among themselves.
So the Soviet military-industrial-financial complex will become slower and less effective in their efforts at world domination.
- DanielBMarkham 16y ago"1. Giving the documents to the leaders of Kansaslahoma won't help, because they won't stir up disputes with a hyperpower." It is my decision what nation to be a part of. If I am not happy with the nation I am in, my first obligation is to leave and find one that better suits me. It is not my job to conduct foreign relations or participate in espionage, even against the mighty Soviet military industrial complex. I thought I was pretty clear on that.
- panarky 16y agoYour thought experiment is powerful because it forces the reader to see the situation from a new perspective. But it fails to model the power dynamics, and this is critical. If you found sensitive documents from Saudia Arabia, your conclusions make sense. Saudi Arabia isn't a global power, so you have good choices. You can give the documents to your government. And if your government isn't responsive, you lobby your government, or you become a citizen of another nation. But in my speculative version, as in the real-life situation, you don't have good choices. Your adversary isn't just a regional player, it's the primary global power. If you're a citizen of Kansaslahoma (or Sweden, Switzerland, Australia, the UK, Argentina, etc.), your government will not act against the global hegemon due to the power imbalance. So you can't just go citizenship shopping. If you believe there's a great injustice that must be resolved, your only real options are to do nothing, or to make a direct appeal to the people.
- DanielBMarkham 16y agoI'm not sure, but I believe instead of replying to my point, you just tossed it out without consideration. There's a long history in western civilization of what to do in just the situation you suppose. Where would you like to begin? John Locke? Hobbes? Confucius? Jefferson? MLK? Mandela? No matter where we start this journey we end up with individuals making their own choices and taking responsibility for their own actions. There is a fundamental difference between working to change a system by selectively exposing injustices and attacking the system itself. Now you might effectively come up with some sort of scenario where the only recourse is for the individual to choose war, but all you're doing then is picking option 3 from my list, and we haven't gotten anywhere that we weren't before.
- panarky 16y agoI hear you arguing that it's better to selectively expose injustices rather than attack the system itself. What I'm saying is that if you believe the system itself is the problem, then nonviolent resistance all by yourself may not be effective. And if those injustices are perpetrated by a global power, appealing to your small nation's leadership may not be effective. Many times real change only happens when an individual attacks the system, and usually that individual pays the ultimate price for their convictions. Take Guy Fawkes for example. He found the situation in 1605 England so dire and intolerable that he tried to blow up the House of Lords and assassinate King James. I'm not saying it's moral or ethical, but it's how things change. Guy Fawkes was drawn and quartered, but every year there's a holiday and fireworks for him in the UK. Only history will tell if Julian Assange is a hero or a villian.