[somenameforme]

I'm not sure American democracy is in place to be a system we might want to see in the rest of the world. If we're speaking idealistically, I think there's a far more reasonable idea than hegemony. Imagine a multi-polar world, with certain limited global rights.

For instance we could have a guarantee of free emigration: If a person, of no real criminality, wants to leave their country (perhaps because they feel oppressed or whatever) then their government cannot prevent them, if another country is willing to accept them. Alongside this there should also be a global agreement for countries to not interfere, directly or covertly, in the matters of other countries. That would include things like funding or otherwise providing support to various groups within other countries.

It seems this would be a zillion times more viable, effective, harmonious, and productive - than trying to Americanize the rest of the world, which seems more likely to lead to the end of the world than anything else.

[jl6]

> of no real criminality

Just be sure not to let the true Scotsmen migrate!

> a global agreement for countries to not interfere, directly or covertly, in the matters of other countries

Such as interfering with their CO2 emissions?

[somenameforme]

Of course "real" would need to be defined, because the typical behavior of tyrannical governments is to charge their political opponents with "real" crimes, roughshod them through kangaroo courts run by cronies of the political establishment, and then imprison them. The general idea is to ensure you don't allow something like genuine murderous terrorists from being able to emigrate to a hostile country.

I don't know what you are implying with the CO2 stuff.

[jl6]

CO2 is the obvious example of where it is probably a good thing that countries attempt to interfere in what other countries do.

[somenameforme]

This agreement would not prevent countries from agreeing to cooperate on whatever issues that matter to them. What it would prevent is other countries from trying to covertly overthrow, manipulate the elections (in countries with them), etc in other countries in an attempt to put a new government in power that would agree with them on issues.

[adriancr]

> For instance we could have a guarantee of free emigration: If a person, of no real criminality, wants to leave their country

One should be a be able to live a fulfulling life anywhere, not be forced to emigrate just to be able to live...

> than trying to Americanize the rest of the world, which seems more likely to lead to the end of the world than anything else.

When you see injustice somewhere else, a good answer is action, better is pre-emptive. Autocracies are fundamentally bad for humanity (otherwise we're going to repeat the past with countries like russia and china repeating ww2 germany)

[somenameforme]

Don't you have the empathy to see how your comment would look to people in the overwhelming majority of the world? Think about what's happening in Gaza and how people see that? Or for that matter consider our decades of absolute brutality all throughout the Mideast including backing terrorists when convenient, overthrowing governments all around the world (including democracies that voted the 'wrong' way) often to replace them with the brutal and unpopular autocracies, centuries of exploitation in Africa - which is still ongoing if you were not aware, and so on endlessly.

So if you think the proper response to "injustice" is action, then you largely just explained endless war and violence because one person's just and righteous nation is another's den of tyranny and villainy. This is why a mutually respectful multipolar, where countries stop screwing around in the matters of others', is likely the only way we can ever create anything even remotely like a stable and peaceful world order. The right of emigration ensures the worst possible scenarios are largely limited.

[adriancr]

> Don't you have the empathy to see how your comment would look to people in the overwhelming majority of the world?

Oh but I do.

I was born in a country behind USSR iron curtain. I am very grateful for whatever help was provided to destroy USSR and topple russian placed dictators. (even if indirect)

A multi-polar world that you suggest was the case before 1989, and for the countries within russia's control it was hell.

[somenameforme]

Perhaps for your parents, but many people who lived through such times still look with fondness at the USSR. Wiki oddly enough has an article on this exact topic. [1] 79% of Armenians believe that life was better under the Soviet Union, 69% of Azeris, 54% of Belarussians, 61% of Kyrgyz, 70% of Moldovans, and so on.

This is precisely why the right of emigration must also be a part of this system. Like the old joke goes, 'What do you call a Soviet musical duet? It's a musical quartet that went abroad.' Countries should never be able to trap "their" citizens within their borders, for any reason, at any time.

On top of all of this I would add that this era obviously was also directly contrary to the entire spirit of the idea I'm proposing here as well. That wasn't a multipolar world. It was a world with two hegemons seeing how many countries they could make completely subservient, using any means possible. And in the end it caused nothing but self harm for both powers. Myopia.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nostalgia_for_the_Soviet_Union

[adriancr]

> Perhaps for your parents, but many people who lived through such times still look with fondness at the USSR.

Because for most, that was their youth, of course you're going to have nostalgia for that, even if you and everyone you knew were starving, you had your life assigned to you by the party, women were treated like cattle, any sign of discontent you got secret service torturing you, you got killed for protesting... that second part you forget or were part of privileged classes and actively profited from it and it was indeed better.

Another factor is the active propaganda: https://www.reddit.com/r/Romania/comments/1bncqt4/aveam_de_t...

Picture is funny and it actively translates to

"Childhood memories department, at work on the internet, circa 2024"

"Do you remember how we put white animal fat on bread and how good that tasted?, we had it all..."

> 70% of Moldovans, and so on.

That's funny, there, after 1989 Russia started a war to keep them locked in their influence and constantly meddles with them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnistria_War

Were they actually able to unite with Romania like east germany they would be much better, but they were dragged back into misery...

I am not knowledgeable enough about the rest to comment.

> This is precisely why the right of emigration must also be a part of this system.

Why are you saying emigration is a solution?

It won't work since there won't be anybody to enforce it. (good luck emigrating from NK right now)

It's not moral, why should someone leave everything they've ever known behind. Economic reasons?, help their region be more productive. Social reasons, help their region be better. Persecution?, destroy the mechanisms for that. Getting rid of those factors would remove the need for emigration and everyone would be better off.

It's not sustainable, what would 10B people just in EU/USA look like?, what would be left of bad places?, just the dictators?

It's not good for the future when we'll likely reach for the stars and earth just consolidates in a single political entity (hopefully democratic).

Did you actually think through implications of your idea?, or is it born out of your personal experience and just think that since it worked for you it would work for everyone else?

> That wasn't a multipolar world.

It was if you had considered China as a separate entity, which you should have, it wasn't just USSR vs USA. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict )

[somenameforme]

The problem here is that you're simply assuming near global agreement with your personal values. That is very much not the case. No, those 70% weren't just some privileged elite, it's people who simply think differently than you, or your parents, might. And this is true for the overwhelming majority of the world. People value different things in life. And there's no single system that can really embrace and fairly represent all views.

Emigration, as a component, works out of simple self interest. In this proposed system the cost of emigration would be relatively low, yet the benefits would not.

[nradov]

So if one country's government decides to, let's say, kill all the Jews then no other country should interfere? Is that what you're proposing?

The level of strategic illiteracy on HN is breathtaking sometimes.

[somenameforme]

The right of emigration would generally preclude such possibilities. But I want to expand on this more generally, because I think appealing to the past is generally just a disingenuous rhetorical tool. The reason is that the "right" answer is commonly shared. We all know the exact context of how something went down, who ultimately won, history's perception of such, and all of the major details. But in the present things lack such clarity and tend to look very different because of such.

Take, for instance Israel. We know that they have directly killed about 2% (~40,000) of all Gazans, mostly civilians, alongside an unknowably large number of indirect (famine/disease/etc) deaths also being caused, with some evidence of intent - all in just 9 months! And we also know they have senior officials making lovely comments like 'Palestinian residents of Gaza should leave the besieged enclave to make way for Israelis who could make the desert bloom.' [1]

And so now what, would you say, is the right way to respond to this? Suddenly things are not so clear, and many people expressing this value or that will tend to directly contradict it after some fanciful mental gymnastics. This is why I largely think self interest, realpolitik, should be the prevailing guidance in political relations - not virtue. Because the former is very real, while the latter only generally exists up to the point that it becomes inconvenient. It leads to an unstable, unbelievable, and hypocritical world order.

[1] - https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-minister-r...

[RcouF1uZ4gsC]

>Imagine a multi-polar world, with certain limited global rights.

Who backs those limited global rights?

[somenameforme]

Well we did say idealistically didn't we? But in general I don't really think this idea is so radical. This seems to be one of the very few topics countries of widely different ideological values could see eye to eye on. It's not because of some sort of grander ideological values or whatever, but good old fashioned self interest.

The cost of participation would be less than zero in one case - don't screw around in other people's countries, and negligible in the case of allowing emigration, which near to all countries excepting a handful of places like North Korea, already do. While the benefits of not having others screw around in your country would generally be significantly greater. So violating the agreement would generally not be in one's self interest.

[AlbertCory]

Wasn't that the idea of the Fourteen Points?

[somenameforme]

In spirit perhaps, but most certainly not in the implementation. For instance Wilson apparently intended and meant for one of his points to suggest that Danzig (a strategically vital 90%+ German city) should go to Poland. And that, among other absurd ideas, did happen in the Treaty of Versailles. It's difficult to claim you're about respecting the interests of others when making decisions like that.

And again this isn't about ideology or ethics, but simple self interest. Danzig (And other dubious decisions from the Treaty of Versailles) all but guaranteed WW2. In general it's quite interesting to consider how many major conflicts since WW1 can, in one way or another, be tied directly back to WW1. The War to End All Wars was really more like the War to Start All Wars.

[AlbertCory]

> In spirit

yes. Good intentions, maybe, but they induced Germany to surrender but then feel betrayed by the ultimate Treaty. It would have been better to just continue, let everyone in Germany realize they were beaten, and bring the troops home. The Europeans have a lot of experience in diplomacy and they could hardly have done any worse.