3 ms·

Arguably, the rest of the "free world" can be seen as provinces of an American Empire with their independence. From that perspective, the Assange extradition ma

Arguably, the rest of the "free world" can be seen as provinces of an American Empire with their independence. From that perspective, the Assange extradition makes perfect sense. This isn't as crazy as it sounds because the Roman Empire had provinces which were technically "independent" monarchies aligned with Rome. Most famously, Egypt under Cleopatra and Judea under Herod.

williamdclt 3y ago
> Arguably You're going to have to write a book or two of argumentation, because you seem like you're drawing parallels between intersecting lines
api 3y ago
If you believe “free world” should be in quotes you need to travel more or talk to more expats. Maybe we really do need a little dance with authoritarianism here to remind people what that is.
- devsda 3y ago
  I think the "free world" here is not a reference to the people's freedom but a reference to the sovereignty & freedom of national governments themselves w.r.t to certain policies on the global stage.
- PickledHotdog 3y ago
  Traveller and expat here - "free world" is absolutely correct. Even its allies aren't free of government interference from the US.
  - api 3y ago
    I meant at the individual level. I don't care nearly as much about what governments can do.
    - bdw5204 3y ago
      From the individual level, obviously the US and its allies are the freest countries in the world. US adversaries are basically all obvious tyrannies of one form or another. But US allies are not "free" in the sense that they can't do something that the US really doesn't like. Japan's government, for example, would not be trying to repeal its pacifist constitution unless they had the US's blessing to re-militarize. Basically, there are 2 different senses in which a country can be called "free". But even in the individual liberty sense, a libertarian (either of the Ron Paul or Noam Chomsky variants) would not consider the US or any of its allies to be free and acting like they are libertarian countries is a good way to become a martyr.
sofixa 3y ago
> Arguably, the rest of the "free world" can be seen as provinces of an American Empire with their independence Arguably, this is bullshit. The UK might be dangerously friendly with the US on multiple fronts, but e.g. France has refused to extradite Polanski forever, refuses to hand over control of their nukes to NATO, and pursues an independent but aligned foreign policy to the US.
- manquer 3y ago
  Polanski is French citizen though and key figure in the French cultural circles, also he was well connected enough to be let go in the US in the first place multiple times . While US would prosecute him if they could , they have not tried anywhere as hard to extradite him like they are doing with Assange . Assange is not a UK citizen , UK has some of the weirdest privacy and human rights laws they are not fully part of EHCR anymore and actively trying to deport refugees to Rwanda , France is hardly in the same category as UK . I wouldn’t characterize UK as country with strong human rights they are pretty exploitative (see how they treated windrush generation or the Gurkhas )
  - bdw5204 3y ago
    Polanski is very different from Assange. Assange exposed US government secrets which directly threatens the US government's power. From the perspective of a government, that's far more serious a crime than (allegedly) raping a child because it directly harmed the US government's interests. Crimes that directly threaten the sovereign are always the most serious crimes especially if they involve waging war against it or undermining its war effort. This is a constant throughout all societies. The next most serious class of crimes would be those that undermine the state's control of the financial system which is critical to its power. That's also why the US government has thrown the book at those who trespassed in the Capitol as part of a comically incompetent attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election. Likewise, intentional tax evasion is going to get the book thrown at you. When the state feels genuinely threatened, "human rights" and "constitutional rights" are irrelevant and will be "interpreted" to allow whatever the state wishes to do.

williamdclt 3y ago

> Arguably You're going to have to write a book or two of argumentation, because you seem like you're drawing parallels between intersecting lines

api 3y ago

If you believe “free world” should be in quotes you need to travel more or talk to more expats. Maybe we really do need a little dance with authoritarianism here to remind people what that is.

devsda 3y ago
I think the "free world" here is not a reference to the people's freedom but a reference to the sovereignty & freedom of national governments themselves w.r.t to certain policies on the global stage.
PickledHotdog 3y ago
Traveller and expat here - "free world" is absolutely correct. Even its allies aren't free of government interference from the US.
- api 3y ago
  I meant at the individual level. I don't care nearly as much about what governments can do.
  - bdw5204 3y ago
    From the individual level, obviously the US and its allies are the freest countries in the world. US adversaries are basically all obvious tyrannies of one form or another. But US allies are not "free" in the sense that they can't do something that the US really doesn't like. Japan's government, for example, would not be trying to repeal its pacifist constitution unless they had the US's blessing to re-militarize. Basically, there are 2 different senses in which a country can be called "free". But even in the individual liberty sense, a libertarian (either of the Ron Paul or Noam Chomsky variants) would not consider the US or any of its allies to be free and acting like they are libertarian countries is a good way to become a martyr.

sofixa 3y ago

> Arguably, the rest of the "free world" can be seen as provinces of an American Empire with their independence Arguably, this is bullshit. The UK might be dangerously friendly with the US on multiple fronts, but e.g. France has refused to extradite Polanski forever, refuses to hand over control of their nukes to NATO, and pursues an independent but aligned foreign policy to the US.

manquer 3y ago
Polanski is French citizen though and key figure in the French cultural circles, also he was well connected enough to be let go in the US in the first place multiple times . While US would prosecute him if they could , they have not tried anywhere as hard to extradite him like they are doing with Assange . Assange is not a UK citizen , UK has some of the weirdest privacy and human rights laws they are not fully part of EHCR anymore and actively trying to deport refugees to Rwanda , France is hardly in the same category as UK . I wouldn’t characterize UK as country with strong human rights they are pretty exploitative (see how they treated windrush generation or the Gurkhas )
- bdw5204 3y ago
  Polanski is very different from Assange. Assange exposed US government secrets which directly threatens the US government's power. From the perspective of a government, that's far more serious a crime than (allegedly) raping a child because it directly harmed the US government's interests. Crimes that directly threaten the sovereign are always the most serious crimes especially if they involve waging war against it or undermining its war effort. This is a constant throughout all societies. The next most serious class of crimes would be those that undermine the state's control of the financial system which is critical to its power. That's also why the US government has thrown the book at those who trespassed in the Capitol as part of a comically incompetent attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election. Likewise, intentional tax evasion is going to get the book thrown at you. When the state feels genuinely threatened, "human rights" and "constitutional rights" are irrelevant and will be "interpreted" to allow whatever the state wishes to do.