Hacker News Reader

Comment by apienx | Hacker News Reader

Over time, global values are becoming more aligned, particularly around ideals like free thought, free speech, and the open exchange of ideas and goods. Yet, this trend towards universal values is clashing with certain cultures that feel threatened. These cultures respond to perceived existential threats by rallying around authoritarian leaders, implementing stricter regulations.

Frustratingly, the study focuses too heavily on GDP per capita and largely overlooks the devastating effects of nationalism and religion. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-46581-5

View on HN

> Over time, global values are becoming more aligned, particularly around ideals like free thought, free speech, and the open exchange of ideas and goods. Yet, this trend towards universal values...

Kind of just sounds like a romanticized justification for modern western imperialism.

It's funny how some people scream "imperialism" against anything. Just because "the west" is the poster child for human rights, medicine, industrialization, etc, doesn't mean it's bad. This meme of "western == bad" has got people very confused.

I would argue "imperialism == bad" is some novel confusion too.

I think American imperialism (were it an actual thing, like America annexing regions and making them into states) would be good. What's not to like about some corrupt autocracy somewhere becoming part of the freest and most prosperous country in the world?

On the other hand, imagine a free democracy getting annexed by a dictatorship. That imperialism would be bad to me.

To say imperialism itself is bad is some kind of anarchist delusion. If you don't assert yourself on the world, others will assert themselves onto you. This is has always been true.

if the people in the place being annexed don't want to be part of the freest country in the world, who are we to say they're wrong

> If you don't assert yourself on the world, others will assert themselves onto you. This is has always been true.

I very much agree with this.

> What's not to like about some corrupt autocracy somewhere becoming part of the freest and most prosperous country in the world?

This not so much. The success of the United States has been, in part, due to avoiding overannexation. Culture and politics can change, but geography cannot. Mexico, for example, has terrible unproductive geography. Economics drives a lot of politics. Annexing countries like that would be a net burden. Their trafficking and other crime problems are not a matter of culture. The tail does not wag the dog. You can't politic the earth into submission but many will try.

It can be argued the United States already has this problem with some of its states, but their proximity and lack of natural borders requires them to be assimilated. Manifest destiny was a carefully considered thing and not as stupid and reckless as some people want you to believe.

Well.. maybe. The US would certainly have a MUCH smaller southern border to protect if Mexico was brought into the union! 40 years ago it didn't make sense, but today it might just.

I think you'd gain a lot by reading the wikipedia article on American imperialism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_imperialism

There are dozens of illiberal dictators installed by/allied to the US to gain access to natural resources and cheap labor: https://www.rrojasdatabank.info/dictatrs.htm

Frankly, I'm a little disturbed by your comment.

The problem there was never imperialism per se. It was that evil was supported.

On the other hand, look at what happened to North Korea after the US abandoned it. Not a pretty picture. South Korea is the victim of US imperialism, while the North is not.

I don't think its at all clear that North Korea's problems are from a lack of imperialism.

"Almost every substantial building in North Korea was destroyed as a result.[369][370] The war's highest-ranking U.S. POW, Major General William F. Dean,[371] reported that the majority of North Korean cities and villages he saw were either rubble or snow-covered wasteland.[372][373] North Korean factories, schools, hospitals, and government offices were forced to move underground, and air defenses were "non-existent".[374] North Korea ranks as among the most heavily bombed countries in history,[375] and the U.S. dropped a total of 635,000 tons of bombs (including 32,557 tons of napalm) on Korea, more than during the entire Pacific War."

I cannot imagine how a functional democracy was ever expected to emerge from this

> I don't think its at all clear that North Korea's problems are from a lack of imperialism.

It's certainly a result of communism/Juche, and the war saved half the country from it. South Koreas massive growth and success since then is easily seen from satellite images.

Couldn't Korea have benefited from not being split up? Not being invaded by Japan? Wouldn't the North be in a better place if it hadn't been taken over by the Soviets? And bombed by the US to smithereens?

The first ruler of South Korea after the war, Syngman Rhee, was not known for his respect of democratic processes, and had the approval of the US. He maintained an authoritarian regime and didn't contribute much to the country's economic growth.

South Korea's economic success happened in spite of American imperialism, not because of it.

Imperialism as an ideology is evil, no matter who is the oppressor.

> South Korea's economic success happened in spite of American imperialism, not because of it.

Tails I win, heads you lose. Classic.

America installed dictatorships in Cuba, Chile, Brazil and many others... People don't mindlessly scream against "the west" for no reason, and to many in the South, "the west" is the poster child of years of oppression and poverty as they saw their countries natural resources get exported and had to sell their labor for next to nothing, under the guise of a leader made very rich by "free" trade.

Note that I am not saying that Chinese or Soviet leadership would have been any better, but at least please acknowledge that it's not as simple as "us good, them bad", and that people denouncing imperialsim do not do it out of self-hate for the west or whatever.

Like muscling around countries isn’t good, but like it seems rather a rather myopic reason to criticize the “west” given how it seems literally every country and culture of note does the same - Russia, China, Japan, India all do or recently did similar to varying degrees.

It’s kind of a pointless metric on that superficial level. Judging by the expected modern consequence of continued influence seem more usefulness rather than based on historical grudges.

Like wow out of the frying pan into the fire, way to go!

Yes, other large imperial countries are doing imperialism.

Nobody complaining about western imperialism supports those things either, and the focus is on western ones because they presumably live in a western country and have more influence there than elsewhere. Its also a fair critism that the west is more hypocritical given its big talk about freedoms and liberties just for it to install dictators whenever it's politically profitable.

I don’t think it’s possible to have a nuanced debate on this topic.

I’m just saying as someone against strong armed empire building, arguments that ignore the increasing imperialism of certain countries in order to decry the historical and waning imperialism of others feels not like an argument with imperialism but more like picking sides in a team sport.

as someone against imperialistic takeovers that does anger me.

Yeah totally, that viewpoint (the US/west is uniquely bad, we should not try to prevent imperialism elsewhere) is not one I've personally encountered much but if you have I can totally see why it would be super irritating.

It’s basically the general opinion I counter online.

it’s pretty much always focused on western imperialism in vague terms. Chinese and Russian are on an imperialistic rise of late, but those that decry western imperialism seem to ignore those. But yes there are posts that overly index on the Chinese or Russian imperialism as well.

conversely The ones that actually do decry Chinese or Russian imperialism usually give western actions more of a pass.

Sure there’s some exceptions, but the typical posts are always overly fixated on one flavor, and it really gives the impression that it’s not imperialism that’s being object to, but rather the team doing it.

What is rare is any post that seems to be honestly against all of that type of behavior, not tied to their team.

I think you're totally right in your parent comment that it's not possible to have nuanced debate on imperialism, at least online with strangers on a forum.

Because so much of what we're saying is relative to what seems like the status quo. I assume at least a good bit of the Anti-Western-Imperialism group see the status quo as being anti china and anti russia and see it as unfair that the US gets a pass. This seems (to me) like a fairly common take in democrat spaces, so hearing such a big deal (correctly imo) made out of Ukraine but then nothing about our own support of colonialism elsewhere is frustrating and seems like it needs the record corrected. This is the take I see the most, personally. Or maybe its equally common but I notice it more because the takes of 'America should stop doing colonialism' feel inoffensive and 'America is fine, focus on what Russia is doing' are more annoying to me personally, coming in with the assumption that we all already agree that Russia sucks so it feels like a distraction.

And I assume conservative spaces which I know less about take it for granted that the other side hates America and wants to hammer home that other countries suck as well. So I can imagine if that was your assumption then the other type of comment would be more annoying and stick out more.

Which seems to be the general way arguments with strangers all suck- nobody knows nearly enough of the context to actually figure out what anyone is trying to say with any nuance. Like, if I call radiohead overrated that means wildly different things based on how much you assume other people like radiohead etc.

Anyways, it's pretty rare for a comment to come out and say "I support imperialism" which shrimp_emoji was doing here and that's why I jumped in to comment, because what an awful take that is. Totally agreed that people supporting only one side as a 'team' thing is awful too. In this specific instance, I don't think that's what thrance was saying and tbh it was what I originally thought your first comment in the thread was going for, actually.

“Western” imperialism vs “american” imperialism even has a bit of a different ring to it. The former feels more like a nebulous boogeyman in group signal, the latter not so much.

That could just be my impression, but western imperialism so like Ireland? Iceland? Greece?

I don’t think I’ve ever heard “eastern imperialism” to talk about China or Russia.

I think you might be reading into into it too much, or else I'm not reading into it enough.

To me, "western" imperialism includes older stuff like the British and Spanish colonies etc. and is a nice one word phrase rather than listing each specific country. In modern times it is really mostly just America so that would be the better term for talking about it, you're right. I think me and maybe others tend to kinda lump all of the NATO countries together as one unit since usually there's not usually big disagreements and other countries do participate some, like the other NATO counties that sent troops for the Global War on Terror.

You're right, I haven't heard the term eastern imperialism, but I have heard the term "evil empire" to describe Russia specifically.

I want to reiterate that I believe that while there is certainly some, I find the group that is anti-US conquest and ambivalent to Russian conquest somewhat relevant and awful, and the group that is anti-US conquest and pro-Russia conquest tiny enough in America to be basically non-existent. The pro-US conquest group is big enough that there are still lots of people (in my experience) that support Kissenger, the global war on terror, etc. especially in government. I totally agree that this is not a productive debate angle though because I don't think either of us will be able to convince the other what the 'general opinion' is. And frankly I don't really care because we already agree on all the important parts

Just because others did it does not mean we're justified in us doing it. And I am obviously not supporting any other kind of imperialism.

Also I don't think colonialism/imperialism has ever lead to anything particularly good for the subjugated people. If anything, it's emancipation from the oppressor rather than its influence that allowed for better living condition for the common man.

Historical grudges can be justified in the sense that oftentimes the scars of exploitation may last for decades, and the west refusing to even acknowledge their wrong doing is damning for its image in the eyes of the South.

It's a sad situation if those considerations would lead to conclusion that since everybody is not perfect, then all approaches are equally valid.

For example, references to historical events gradually lose sense, as in a distant past human behavior was different - i.e., Roman republic or China kingdoms were even ideologically very different from modern countries, or e.g. Denmark was very different from today's state. Times change in a sense that some people's values change, behaviors change and it makes less and less sense to construct intersocietal relationships on the events of the distant past. What's more justifiable is to consider the current state of affairs.

For example, in 2001 Russia was helping USA to put a pressure on Afghan bases of jihadists, and today such a behavior is probably impossible, given that Taliban is welcomed in the Kremlin - so it's reasonable for US to change the stance toward Russia in relation to this state.

As for e.g. South America, the Western approach gradually changed from "colonial" - where various resources were extracted and the society was pushed towards leaders convenient the West - towards "collaborational", where West has laws and habits regulating relations with foreign countries, which, for example, have penalties for bribes.

The society changed enough so that after the war started in Ukraine a lot of Western companies left Russia - just because the population in markets more important to those companies, and that population doesn't in general approve the Russian actions.

So, yes, the West isn't perfect, and efforts should continue to improve it. At the same time West provides a compelling demonstration of success in important areas of life, which could be useful to other countries.

I'm not sure I really get your point tbh.

The argument is that the west ought not to do colonialism or imperialism. This has nothing to do with other countries being better or relative correctness of values etc.

My point is the societies - and West in particular - become better with time and it's not very useful to remember past clashes to justify the avoidance of collaboration today.

It's actually every country, not only West, which ought not to do colonialism or imperialism. And West does a fair share of efforts here.

Yea totally, i agree for the most part. I don't really get how that take relates to the grandparent comment, which I didn't read as implying that the US is unique or that we should not oppose other countries colonialism.

It would also improve collaboration if we were to formally acknowledge and apologize for our past actions and maybe even try to make up for them. And while we do less of it now the US still does support have some colonialist tendencies that make us look less credible and huts both the people we're oppressing and our reputation elsewhere.

Yes, US has a lot of obvious things to do too right now. And it should be done, yes, while also paying full attention to quite large problems outside of US.

And British Imperialism stopped the Atlantic slave trade. You win some, you lose some. Looking at the ethnic cleansing of India very shortly after British rule ended, and the continued progress of the cleansing today plus the horrors of the caste system, it sounds more like "What did the Romans ever do for us?"...

Have you considered that maybe the instability in those regions is due to their prolonged subjugation? Maybe progress towards ending the caste system would have been faster had the British not brutalized the country.

On wikipedia:

> Although the varnas and jatis have pre-modern origins, the caste system as it exists today is the result of developments during the post-Mughal period and the British colonial period, which made caste organisation a central mechanism of administration.

Section "History", subsection "During British rule" of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_in_India

Also I think you'll have to review your understanding of the history of slavery.

Your rationalization of imperialism is kind of weird.

> Have you considered that maybe the instability in those regions is due to their prolonged subjugation?

The central tenet of anti-imperialism is that everything good was despite imperialism, and all bad things because of it. This is a classic "heads I win, tails you lose" argument.

> which made caste organisation a central mechanism of administration.

Hmmm.. that article goes against everything I've read before. Yea, the British adapted to the caste system that was in place, but to blame it on the British rule seems very strange.

> Also I think you'll have to review your understanding of the history of slavery.

I was only talking about one specific thing, namely the destruction of the atlantic slave trade by the British Empire (at great cost to them btw). You just ignoring that and then hand waving isn't even close to an argument or even coherent.

> Your rationalization of imperialism is kind of weird.

I'm not rationalizing it. I'm saying the blanket "Imperialism is to blame for everything bad" is overly simplistic at best. The Monty Python sketch exemplified by "what did the romans ever do for us?" shows the madness quite clearly.

The Roman Empire was corrupt, stupid, and culturally imperialist. Sure. But the collapse brought the Dark Ages.

I think also that ethnic cleansings of nations is a bad thing. You might disagree. That's fine. But the ethnic cleansing of muslims from India into the division of India into (eventually) India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, that's a historical fact. As are the dark ages mentioned above.

We have to see the good of empires as well as the bad. Only by seeing clearly the problems and advantages can we make improvements to the world.

To me, the central tenet of anti-imperialism is more "it brings more harm than good", which is backed by the outcomes of many historical instances and I think is a pretty reasonable stance.

It should be possible to intervene to prevent genocides without then grabbing the region's natural resources and putting in place a despotic leadership.

Also, just on a side-note, if I'm not mistaken, Rome did not simply occupy conquered territories, it assimilated them and gave citizenship to the conquered people (those who were free at least). Imperialism is often described as beginning around the 18th century.

> Imperialism is often described as beginning around the 18th century.

Yea, because otherwise it might include the Roman Empire ;)

It's just a cynical war on the language we use, to dilute the value of certain words and terms. If everything is imperialism, colonialism, genocide, etc... then nothing is. It's no shock when you find out which powers are invested in that project.

This dis-alignment of global values is happening within the West where the fortunes of world-class "winner" cities like New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, London, and the like have diverged from the fortunes of second- and third-tier cities and rural areas within the same countries. The past three or four decades of economic policy has benefitted the middle class and wealthy in many "winner" cities. If somebody bought a home roughly 20 years ago in a metro area with many high-paying job opportunities, that person is likely to have enjoyed massive gains in equity provided that person weathered the 2008 crash. Many people living in these areas also take advantage of a wide range of well-paying job opportunities. But what about the urban poor in these metro areas who can't get a high-paying job due to a lack of credentials? Closer to the point of the article, what about those living in areas far away from booming metro areas?

A significant cause of the rise of the populist right in the West (e.g., Donald Trump/MAGA in the United States, Brexit in Britain, various European right-wingers such as Marine Le Pen and Viktor Orban) is the economic woes faced by people who have been left behind. Think of the hollowing out of industrial and rural America, for example, and how this has reduced economic opportunities for the people living in these areas. Unfortunately, these economic concerns have been eclipsed by "culture war" matters, with a strong belief that the values of prosperous urban areas in the West are at odds with the values of less-urban parts of the West. If urban areas are becoming more internationalist, then rural areas are becoming more nationalist. Some of these populist right-wingers have an authoritarian bent; to quote the OP, the rise of the populist right definitely consists of examples of "cultures respond[ing] to perceived existential threats by rallying around authoritarian leaders, implementing stricter regulations."

"Culture war" matters are pushed by the ultra-wealthy (and the politicians they own) in order to distract us all from our real enemy: the ultra-wealthy. If we're too busy arguing over trans kids or abortion or whatever we can't fix the fundamental problems that are letting these greedy people extract our wealth and take advantage of our labor.

I think that's part of it for sure, but another part is that 'culture war' stuff is Very Important for the people it affects and seems relatively winnable. Like, we got Gay Rights!!! That's maybe one of like 2-3 good things that's happened in the last 50 years.

> "Culture war" matters are pushed by the ultra-wealthy (and the politicians they own) in order to distract us all from our real enemy: the ultra-wealthy.

Even if that's the case, it's important to note: those matters are not manufactured by the ultra-wealthy.

> If we're too busy arguing over trans kids or abortion or whatever we can't fix the fundamental problems that are letting these greedy people extract our wealth and take advantage of our labor.

But personally, I think the "culture war" is mainly the result of the self-undermining tendencies of urban liberalism. It can't do anything about the ultra-wealthy because, while it can identify them as a problem, it simultaneously pushes dis-unifying cultural changes that prevent action on it.

And I'm not even sure how long it will keep identifying the ultra-wealthy as a problem, given how its losing the working classes (e.g. working class whites swung to Trump in 2016, and now working class minorities are starting to swing the same way).

> Unfortunately, these economic concerns have been eclipsed by "culture war" matters, with a strong belief that the values of prosperous urban areas in the West are at odds with the values of less-urban parts of the West. If urban areas are becoming more internationalist, then rural areas are becoming more nationalist.

I'm not sure you can say that nationalism isn't an economic concern. If the jobs went overseas, then nationalism (putting your own country first), or at least economic nationalism, makes perfect sense as a response.

When I said "nationalism," I was thinking in the context of the cultural aspects, such as immigration policy, assimilation vs. multiculturalism, how history is taught in public schools (especially when it comes to conflicts between different groups, whether internally or internationally), etc.

West has really not much of a choice here. The US Declaration of Independence states:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

I understand it as the West believes it's the objective truth that the people want freedom among other things, and no references to the contrary are truthful. So when China says the West pushes their values down the throat, West shrugs and notes that 1) liberty is needed 2) there's no (enough) liberty in China - and that's enough to continue to push the values. Or, in other words - China, accept that the freedom is important, change the behavior accordingly - and West will stop insisting on deficiencies in this area.

So, ideas. They are hard to resist, other than by the other ideas. So far those other ideas are national traditions, which are doubtful on the surface, as it seems all nations reaching democracy mostly don't want to come back. Here the West receives the confirmation of its point of view, and the approach remains.

>there's no (enough) liberty in China

Coming from the county with the highest incarceration rate, that's rich.

No principal disagreement, I see.

> Coming from the county with the highest incarceration rate, that's rich.

No it isn’t. The US has serious problems but if I had to choose between being in the most vulnerable group in the worst part of the USA or a Uyghur in Xinjiang I would choose the USA. What the CCP is doing in Xinjiang to the Uyghur people is genocide of the most evil degree and without equivocation.

I don't disagree at all, what the CCP is doing in Xinjiang is some of the most evil stuff as a direct action to a group of people.

What I'd like to bring into discussion is: in the USA there's a visible cohort of people being marginalised and sent into a life of despair because of policies, ideologies, cultural aspects that really shouldn't be happening in the richest country on Earth. Homelessness to the level some rich cities in the USA experience, coupled with drug addiction which is then treated as a criminal issue resulting often in imprisonment, further marginalising people into a spiral of despair.

Those are also evil actions, due to inaction, policy, cultural aspects, it's layered evil to not look so evil but not fixing some social issues that put people into misery and despair, letting them slowly die on their own because of an ideology where those are seen as being useless to society is also quite evil, in a very different way than the CCP, it's indirect, it's not the State directly harming those people but through inaction letting them to wilt and slowly die.

I'm not saying, at all, that those are equivalent, at the same time is befuddling that the wealthiest nation on Earth is, in its majority, ok with allowing it to happen to the unfortunate ones. It's a different kind of evil but evil nonetheless.

> in the USA there's a visible cohort of people being marginalised and sent into a life of despair

This is important but not in this context. When the global stakes are cultural oblivion, genocide, and the destruction of entire nations, focusing on American homelessness or incarceration is at best cultural narcissism but more often than not it’s also equivocation and sometimes even apologetics for genocidal regimes.

Where the hell did you read that I was crating apologetics for china's genocide by pointing out flaws with the US?

Just because China is doing terrible things doesn't somehow make US problems any less severe.

Cite on ‘global values being aligned’?

People interacting with the same systems we do tend to be more aligned, but as you’re calling out a large portion of the populations feel insecure and are lashing out - and going even harder in the other direction.

I was recently hanging out in VRChat and it hit me that the people I was talking to were speaking back to me using an almost American accent despite being native nordic Europeans. Culture is homogonizing at an incredible pace.

I have a similar American accent despite being Malaysian. Missionary schools do a lot of good there but a side effect is the gradual phasing out of the local culture/language. The older folks (30+) tend to complain about the fact that “kids these days” don’t speak Chinese or Malay and don’t respect whatever semi-religious practices they carry out anymore. I do think making English a sort of universal language is pretty good though. Now that I’m in the UK, it’s extremely refreshing to be able to talk to anyone of any age and be able to communicate

Selection bias, no?

What percent of the population do you think you would be running across in the particular VR chat area you were in, and how would those people have decided to be there?

It certainly is selection bias however if 20 years ago the native English speaking population was 0% now it's 20% (made up number). That's not nothing and will likely accelerate.

N=1, but as someone who used to think of himself as being quite progressive and would now see myself as being in the "insecure" population (just using your terminology) -

From my perspective it seems as if organised progressivism ends up "going too far", because once you've got the win, you either stop and lose your reason to exist, or invent another cause and go for that.

It's like a treadmill and most people I know hopped off at some point because it got a bit too.. crazy? unstable? I kind of want to be able to plan my life long term, not have the rules change every 5 years.

Yup, though same with conservatism - as the idealized past never really existed, and is more false nostalgia/taking past marketing as real.

It’s why these things go in cycles IMO - and also why older folks are almost always conservative.

They really do need to plan long term or they are deeply screwed (sometimes even then), and have seen enough back and forth they really don’t (or flat out can’t afford) a lot of change.

And have figured out how to adapt to whatever prior set of rules there was, roughly, or already died or became irrelevant.

An Australian mate of mine told a humorous anecdote about some people in Australia talking about their Right To Privacy.

Australia does not have the constitutional right to privacy like the US does...

The US doesn’t either. Whatever federal privacy protections that exist in the US are the result of Supreme Court interpretation, the most famous of which (Roe v Wade) was just overturned (Dobbs).

>The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

- The 4th amendment of the US Constitution

Yeah, that paragraph isn't worth the paper its written on if congress and the courts conspire to ignore it. We de facto do not have privacy in the USA.

I'm not sure what your point here is, really. Do you interpret this to guarantee a right to privacy? Because if so, you should head to a law school and talk to the constitutional lawyers who have been arguing about this for ages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_laws_of_the_United_Sta...

Looks like the page you linked agrees with me in the second paragraph.

In addition to the 4th amendment, don't forget also the Privacy implications of the 1st amendment (free speech/establishment of religion are in part privacy concerns), 3rd amendment (it was a violation of privacy as much as home ownership), 5th amendment (avoidance of self-incrimination is a privacy issue), the 9th amendment (which tried to make sure that Congress and the Courts knew that the Bill of Rights wasn't the "Bill of All Rights", but the "Bill of Some Rights relevant to right this moment").

Half of the "Bill of Rights" amendments touch on Privacy in some way. Privacy can be construed as the main right defining the "Bill of Rights". I cannot understand the hypocrisy of the "originalists" (many of whom have been placed into Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, as a deliberate fraud against the voter majority under the "McConnell Plan") that believe the one single 2nd Amendment is a "right to unregulated gun ownership" when there's a "regulation clause" in the original language (!) but refuse to believe there is a "Right to Privacy" in the Bill of Rights when half of it seems so clearly about Privacy. It just doesn't use that word, perhaps because it seemed obvious at the time.

It’s true the 4th amendment protects against ‘unreasonable’ search from (only) state actors, and that this can be construed as a right to a specific, and, it turns out, a very conditional type of privacy. Other amendments, like the 1st and 5th, touch on other aspects of privacy as well.

However, specific acts not mentioned in the Constitution, like the use of contraceptives between married couples or same sex marriage, have also been ruled to be protected under rights to privacy inferred from the 14th amendment, and these rights are now in legal limbo after Dobbs.

It’s worth pointing out that the word ‘privacy’ never appears in the US Constitution, and there certainly is nothing resembling an explicit ‘Right to Privacy’ as I think was claimed by the original poster.

I've heard a few stories of African folks, in Africa, ask for their Miranda rights. Which literally is an American court case, and only works here. "Aren't you going to read me my rights?" "No, that's doesn't exist here!"

Europe has become pretty bad on free speech recently, and I don't think it can be explained that way. If anything, it gets justified by the fight against nationalism.

Weird that you think so highly of free thought, when your goal is to replace all cultures with one thought.

Globalization is a misnomer. There are no universal values. The west is trying to push its value system on others, through means fair or foul. It's the new colonialism. And other cultures "feel threatened" by these "perceived existential threats". How dare they resist our benevolence?

Is there anyone, anywhere, who doesn't want to be able to say what they want, without fear?

What there are, though, are lots of people who don't want other people to be able to speak freely.

> Is there anyone, anywhere, who doesn't want to be able to say what they want, without fear?

Again, you're speaking for yourself. Many people care nothing for self-expression. But it's interesting to note how easily you universalize your personal preferences.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com