5 ms·

> Okay, right now, remove the USA from their global role. Who do you want to fill the void? Remember that sudden power vacuums allow bad actors to fill in (ISIS

> Okay, right now, remove the USA from their global role. Who do you want to fill the void? Remember that sudden power vacuums allow bad actors to fill in (ISIS being the most modern example of such). He already said/implied, an international committee or coalition, representative of the world, while possibly still headed by the US. Unless you're seriously arguing ISIS would be a potential alternative to US control of domain names, why even mention them? > As controversial as it may sound, the USA still allows for the greatest expressions of liberty of any country, period. Even within the US, authorities regularly and routinely confiscate the property of American citizens, without charging them with anything. So the idea that the US is the greatest protector of liberty for people outside the US is not credible.

waterheater 6y ago
>He already said/implied, an international committee or coalition, representative of the world, while possibly still headed by the US. Unless you're seriously arguing ISIS would be a potential alternative to US control of domain names, why even mention them? I mention ISIS simply to demonstrate that power vacuums can lead to unintended consequences. ICANN has issues, but will pushing the power of domain management to an international coalition be good for the health and openness of the Internet? Hard to say. >Even within the US, authorities regularly and routinely confiscate the property of American citizens, without charging them with anything. So the idea that the US is the greatest protector of liberty for people outside the US is not credible. You do know civil asset forfeiture doesn't happen for no reason at all, right? That said, you're right that many local law enforcement agencies started stretching the law to excessively seize assets and thereby fund their departments. You may be interested to know the Supreme Court, two years ago, held state and local law enforcement are also subject to the Excessive Fines Clause, just like federal law enforcement [1]. While there's plenty of work to do to enact limits for each state [2], the foundation for future efforts to restrict civil asset forfeiture is now established. Look, I get that hating on the USA is in vogue these days. All the cool kids talk about how much the USA sucks, and anyone expressing otherwise is not worth the cool kids' time. But consider that the US Consitution is the oldest governing document currently in force. It works damn well, and perhaps so because it protects liberty extraordinarily well, even though the costs of liberty are high. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbs_v._Indiana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbs_v._Indiana [2] https://www.splcenter.org/news/2019/04/16/what-supreme-court-ruling-could-mean-civil-asset-forfeiture https://www.splcenter.org/news/2019/04/16/what-supreme-court...
- pmachinery 6y ago
  It has nothing to do with "hating on the USA", it has to do with knowing the US acts in its own interests only, not those of other countries. (Why wouldn't it?) The US Constitution means as much to people in other countries as the constitution of Russia or China or anywhere else means to Americans. It doesn't apply, regardless of how old it is. The point about civil asset forfeiture is that if the US Constitution can't protect Americans against the US government or law enforcement, what hope does the rest of the world have?
  - waterheater 6y ago
    The US Constitution does protect Americans from the federal government, though, far more than almost any Western nation. States' rights are still very real. In fact, states' rights are the whole reason why that case went to the Supreme Court in the first place. What hope does the world have? Give it a few months yet.
    - sofixa 6y ago
      > The US Constitution does protect Americans from the federal government, though, far more than almost any Western nation Citation needed. ( And don't forget, there aren't that many federal Western nations, so the entire argument is close to nonsensical)
      - waterheater 6y ago
        The difference between the USA and other Western nations is explainable by understanding the difference between a federation and a confederation. All confederations are federations, but not all federations are confederations. The difference comes from the federal government's power. Both constitute a union of regions under a federal government. However, the confederation is distinguished by a union of sovereign regions under a federal government. Independence of the state was so important at the founding of the USA that the first governing document of the country is names the "Articles of Confederation". However, the Articles of Confederation were too weak and did not allow the federal government to levy taxes, so they were scrapped for the present-day Constitution to grant the federal government a bit more power. The USA isn't an ideal confederation, but the confederal elements pop up from time to time (e.g. any person talking about "state's rights") Canada is also close to being a confederation, but the executive power is still vested in the British monarchy. I don't believe any European nation can be considered a confederation. So, to your point: the most free nations in the world are those espousing confederal values. Even among Western nations, only a handful qualify, and the USA is one of those.

waterheater 6y ago

>He already said/implied, an international committee or coalition, representative of the world, while possibly still headed by the US. Unless you're seriously arguing ISIS would be a potential alternative to US control of domain names, why even mention them? I mention ISIS simply to demonstrate that power vacuums can lead to unintended consequences. ICANN has issues, but will pushing the power of domain management to an international coalition be good for the health and openness of the Internet? Hard to say. >Even within the US, authorities regularly and routinely confiscate the property of American citizens, without charging them with anything. So the idea that the US is the greatest protector of liberty for people outside the US is not credible. You do know civil asset forfeiture doesn't happen for no reason at all, right? That said, you're right that many local law enforcement agencies started stretching the law to excessively seize assets and thereby fund their departments. You may be interested to know the Supreme Court, two years ago, held state and local law enforcement are also subject to the Excessive Fines Clause, just like federal law enforcement [1]. While there's plenty of work to do to enact limits for each state [2], the foundation for future efforts to restrict civil asset forfeiture is now established. Look, I get that hating on the USA is in vogue these days. All the cool kids talk about how much the USA sucks, and anyone expressing otherwise is not worth the cool kids' time. But consider that the US Consitution is the oldest governing document currently in force. It works damn well, and perhaps so because it protects liberty extraordinarily well, even though the costs of liberty are high. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbs_v._Indiana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbs_v._Indiana [2] https://www.splcenter.org/news/2019/04/16/what-supreme-court-ruling-could-mean-civil-asset-forfeiture https://www.splcenter.org/news/2019/04/16/what-supreme-court...

pmachinery 6y ago
It has nothing to do with "hating on the USA", it has to do with knowing the US acts in its own interests only, not those of other countries. (Why wouldn't it?) The US Constitution means as much to people in other countries as the constitution of Russia or China or anywhere else means to Americans. It doesn't apply, regardless of how old it is. The point about civil asset forfeiture is that if the US Constitution can't protect Americans against the US government or law enforcement, what hope does the rest of the world have?
- waterheater 6y ago
  The US Constitution does protect Americans from the federal government, though, far more than almost any Western nation. States' rights are still very real. In fact, states' rights are the whole reason why that case went to the Supreme Court in the first place. What hope does the world have? Give it a few months yet.
  - sofixa 6y ago
    > The US Constitution does protect Americans from the federal government, though, far more than almost any Western nation Citation needed. ( And don't forget, there aren't that many federal Western nations, so the entire argument is close to nonsensical)
    - waterheater 6y ago
      The difference between the USA and other Western nations is explainable by understanding the difference between a federation and a confederation. All confederations are federations, but not all federations are confederations. The difference comes from the federal government's power. Both constitute a union of regions under a federal government. However, the confederation is distinguished by a union of sovereign regions under a federal government. Independence of the state was so important at the founding of the USA that the first governing document of the country is names the "Articles of Confederation". However, the Articles of Confederation were too weak and did not allow the federal government to levy taxes, so they were scrapped for the present-day Constitution to grant the federal government a bit more power. The USA isn't an ideal confederation, but the confederal elements pop up from time to time (e.g. any person talking about "state's rights") Canada is also close to being a confederation, but the executive power is still vested in the British monarchy. I don't believe any European nation can be considered a confederation. So, to your point: the most free nations in the world are those espousing confederal values. Even among Western nations, only a handful qualify, and the USA is one of those.