[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.

[adriancr]

> No, those 70% weren't just some privileged elite

You just cherry picked one number of one country, I can do the same to reach opposite conclusion if you want to argue in bad faith.

> In a 2017 survey, 75% of Estonians said the dissolution of the USSR was a good thing, compared to only 15% who said it was a bad thing.[10]

Mirroring your argument, 75% of people say it was a good thing for what happened. (to quote you those 75% are people who simply think differently than you might.)

> People value different things in life. And there's no single system that can really embrace and fairly represent all views.

Are you actually arguing that dictatorship and oppression should be respected because some people like them?, I'm sure everyone in NK absolutely loves Kim and their system.

> 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.

So what do you do if all 10B people living everywhere want to move to the US tomorrow?