Slashdot Mirror
Open Networks, Closed Regimes
kris writes "First Monday has an interesting article on Open Networks, Closed Regimes: The Impact of the Internet on Authoritarian Rule, presenting evidence that The Internet may not be automatic downfall of authoritan regimes as anecdotes commonly suggest.
In their words: The authors trace Internet use in eight authoritarian and semi-authoritarian countries: China, Cuba, Singapore, Vietnam, Burma, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. They discover that authoritarian governments, far from fearing the information age, have chosen to direct Internet development in ways that bolster the state. At the same time, many regimes are struggling to cope with the potent challenges posed by new technologies. The authors encourage policy makers in the U.S. and other industrialized democracies to promote specific Internet-based initiatives that foster political liberalization, rather than perpetuating the myth of the Internet as an unstoppable "virus of freedom.""
they forgot the US
Fleur de Sel
the vast majority of the users, authors, etc would like the internet to be an embodiement of freedom. Freedom of speech, freedom to post whatever you want, etc. While the internet was still becoming popular, before TV commercials posted website URL's in their ad's, corporate America (or the culture that embodies it) didn't have such a vicious stake in the ground. Yes, it allowed things like Napster, for a short while.
As technology is challenging old business models (the way mp3's have suposedly challenged traditional casette and CD purchasing), it is creating an increasing number of conflicts between the information eutopia and the ruling bodies (i.e. countries) it spans.
Does anyone have an idea on what the future will look like for the internet?
--------
Free your mind.
...the ultimate mechanism to bolster repressive regimes, soon to appear at a store near you.
If you can't see the difference between true authoritarianism and things like restricting music trading or software copying.
If the U.S. were an authoritarian country akin to Singapore, Egypt, or China, it would be illegal for me to say something like "I think George W. Bush is a poor leader and should be replaced as soon as possible." However, that is not the case.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
It was always a myth that the world would be contaminated with the virus of US thinking.
At the time everyone was thinking about the impact the internet would have in dictatorships also everyone was saying that internet was boasting discussion about every topic possible. Free speech was bad for oppressive regimes.
Interesting it is that noone thought at the time the internet could be a major way to challenge the western regimes. It's not a bad thing (tm) per se, actually it's quite good to the world that discussion about what kind of regime is best for the world. Maybe new ideas might come up... Afterall for all it's failings democracy is the best form of government that we can come up with (quote: Winston Churchill)
Hurray for the internet.
-- Would it be acceptable to just put my name on my sig?
I'm sure he likes them there as much as he liked the USSR troops there.
As reported earlier today on this very site, the US has been e-mailling Iraqi officials in an attempt to get them to defect.
Oh, please. ANY government is authoritarian. If a government does not enforce laws, it becomes anarchistic and ceases to be a government. However, the US is NOT totalitarian like Saudi Arabia, China, Pakistan, Sudan, etc.
Laws mean authority, yes, but they don't equal totalitarianism. Making it illegal to murder someone in cold blood does not mean that tomorrow you're gonna wake up with barcodes tattooed to your forehead, a computer chip in your head monitoring your thoughts, and a name like Equality 7-2521.
If not all sentients are human, couldn't it be possible that not all humans are sentient either?
There's a difference between making murder illegal and resisting arrest illegal. (as well as talking back to the judge and speeding and I don't know what else... oh public intoxication perhaps. The United States is more authoritarian than it needs to be to remain a government.
Another relevant link: "Jury Rights"
Nicely put.
:)
However, your chosen website being thought-control.org is a tad distracting....
So many of the comments here say that Internet leading to freedom is a myth because it hasn't worked yet. The problem is that there is no way it can work quickly. Does anyone really think that just giving someone the Internet is going to make the population of some country slap themselves on the collective forehead, and say "How dumb were we?" At best, it will take years before even relatively free desemination of information will undermine a totalitarian regime. The flow information must cause ideas to germinate, discussion to start, groups to form, and a movement to start. Just look at the Vietnam war protests. They didn't happen overnight. It took 10 years for them to develop into their full-blown power. Or even the American Revolution, that didn't happen overnight in 1776. There were years, arguably decades, of events leading up to it.
IMO, it is neither correct to say the US isn't or is authoritarian. Incidents occur, it's just a matter of scale and what the trends are. for example, here is an (randomly selected google reference) infamous example of obvious presidential abuse of power, ie "authoritarianism"
h tm l
http://www.dailyrepublican.com/clintoninsulted.
Granted, relatively minor-but not for the victims. Reality and POV change once it ceases being a theory or opinion and becomes a fact that affects someone. I am sure there are any number of millions of similar examples, the vast majority of which are relatively unknown to anyone except the victims and their immediate friends and family. Hmm, the recent story about the lost wallet and the overreaction by armed police and a family dog is an example of "authoritarianism" carried to a harmful degree. Another, ask any relative of a kent state student shot and killed or wounded, their opinion will be different perhaps. It's scale and relativity to any "incident" that would make or break an "absolute" statement.
I would say that it is more correct to say that the US right now isn't "as bad" as those other named countries, not that "they are" and "we aren't", and that "status" can change on a political whim. Right now, codified into law and challenged and upheld in a "court", all of your US alleged "born with" civil rights may be abbrogated if the executive branch classifies you as an "enemy combatant" or as a "terrorist", with no other anything required but their say-so. A "terrorist" by codified definition (one definition) is anyone who destroys governmental property or a contract. That's a rather broad brush, but it's "de law" now. And once identified as such-again, just because "they say so"-you are rather en-screwed. It used to take either a grand jury indictment to do that, with some still remaining "rights", or being caught in the immediate commission of a crime by a sworn officer. This is no longer the case. That's a pretty good example of the "trends" lately into authoritariansim. There's another one I recall, there's a doctor associated with the investigations into the waco case, he's been held without charge for over 5 years now (IIRC), and been under forced drugging. The story is, he was developing and was about to release some rather embarassing evidence. So he (Charles Thomas Sell, D.D.S, just googled for his name) got snatched up a la the gulag with their historical "psychiatric" abuses for "dissidents". The US "court" has ruled this is perfectly "lawful".
hmmmmm
I guess it just depends on where you are standing at any given point in time, and who you are, and what's going on, what "authoritarianism" really is, and whether or not some "state" can be classified as such.
I've lived in Saudi Arabia and Singapore, and anyone who mentions them both in one breath is insane. Saudi Arabia is a society where religious police patrol the streets looking for and beating people who don't go to prayers, who keep their stores open or use pay phones during the 5 daily prayer periods, or who are women and show their ankles or noses. It's a country where government agents hang around in the mosques listening for rabblerousers, who are summarily dragged off for interrogation.
Singapore, on the other hand, is basically what you get if you combine the social conservatism and corporate-centricity of the USA with the ridiculous libel laws of the UK. It's far closer to the USA than it is to Saudi Arabia.
And the big difference is, in Singapore, people want it that way. They have one of the world's highest income levels, they have safety, they have long life and good health, and they have enough freedom not to feel stifled. One of the greatest achievements is that there's basically no sectarian trouble despite significant Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, and Hindu populations all sharing a small and dense space. Any number of polls has turned up time and time again that the vast majority wouldn't change a thing.
Singapore is effectively a one-party state. In part that's because only a minority have wanted change. It's also because the PAP is aggressive in its use of libel action to silence non-member candidates who make too much noise.
Personally, coming from a tradition where freedom of expression is a cherished core social value, I find that uncomfortable. But it doesn't change the fact that it works for Singapore. And it's not the sort of country where people would feel like they couldn't complain to me because they'd get taken away by the secret police.
Anyway, by conflating these - though the material online was too thin to really be able to get to the bottom of their evidence - they seem to elide over the likely fact that the internet's open expression is a far greater threat to a regime like Saudi Arabia, which is unpopular anyway - than to one like Singapore's. Without relatively complacent countries like Singapore and UAE to soften the mix, I doubt their thesis would stand. Additionally, the inclusion of countries like Burma and to some extent Vietnam, where internet is a non-factor in general society, clouds their point further.
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
And again in terms of small countries which have embarrassed the US - Vietnam is another example. It's almost beyond belief that a US-funded study would call Vietnam's government authoritarian. What would they call the puppet government they tried to prop up from the 1950's on, where memoes and even Eisenhower's memoirs say the US leaders didn't want an election in Vietnam because they knew the anti-colonialist/imperialist candidates would win? And before that the Western leaders (US, France, England etc.) were trying to keep it a French colony.
I'm tired of having the faults of only the countries who US leadership feels is not to their liking at the moment pointed out. I am an American, but I often think leaders who are criticized in the corporate press (Chavez, Lula) are better people than the ones glossed over. I find more common cause with the working class people like me in these countries than I do with the owners of the press and elite of my own country frankly. As the Bible says, check out the log in your own eye before pointing out the speck in someone else's.
To maintain the living standards of a generation ago with lower pay
Nobody is trying to maintain the living standards of a generation ago. That is because they would be forgoing personal computers, DVD players, compact discs, microwave ovens, cellular telephones, contact lenses, modern automobiles, FM radios, VCRs, video games, cable television, and cheap long-distance phone calls. Everybody wants a higher standard of living than a generation ago.
Face it - the poor are getting richer. Less buys more. Consumer debt comes from the fact that expectations are growing faster than wages, not that purchasing power is lower.
The average inflation-adjusted wage is lower than it was thirty years ago, but the standard of living has risen, even for the poorest.
All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
That's right, there are several ways to do this. One the most obvious here is to choke it off. Two, regulate content. Three litigate - and yes litigation particularly international law is a weapon of warfare in the 21st century. Four pick your truth, this is the corporate option. Don't lie, just limit what you tell the truth about.
I'm not shocked that the mindless radicals here make obligatory statements about the US "wahtaboutda US !!!" But if you think there is oppression here then you faux Che wannabess really have to live in a poor country. I have and it deeply and truly sux, there is no comparison.
Political changes are generational things. In the United States, the civil rights act was passed in the mid-60's, and real change in the South is just happening now, as this comment is being read. In this particular case, it had to wait for the diehard bigots in congress and in the electorate to die off. Freedom in the Soviet Union took a similar change of leadership, over a similar length of time.
There are two general cases that need to be considered, those being "rich" countries and "poor" countries. In those countries where sizeable chunks of the population are starving, changes of politics are quite secondary to the average citizen (though perhaps they should not be, in the long run). Adlai Stevenson expressed it well when he said, "A Hungry Man is not a Free Man." These people have no time to be interested in the internet, though even here, the internet will make changes over the long haul.
In countries where hunger is not the primary motivating force, changes will come faster. One can see the ripples even now -- spend some time in Hong Kong and look around. In some of the most repressive theocracies on the planet, voices for change are being raised, and one of the primary ways we know about them is through the internet.
Have patience; revolutions that happen overnight tend to be accompanied by copious quantities of blood. With any luck, things in many of these places may happen as they did in the Soviet Union. One day, we may wake up and notice that tyrants are becoming yet another endangered species.
Don't take life too seriously; it isn't permanent.
Yes, I agree that the US government is too strict about plenty of things. However, getting authoritarian and totalitarian governments confused (or worse yet, assuming they are the same) is a mistake. The US, no matter how much you dislike their policy, is not Sudan or Saudi Arabia. We don't have legal state-sponsored slavery, we don't have state-sponsored gang-raping a woman as punishment for her brother's misdeeds, we don't have the death penalty for adultery, etc. While the US does indeed have plenty of flaws, I challenge you to find 5 states that lack similar legislation.
I'm not saying we should settle for American government. I'm saying that going off and saying that America is equivalent to Sudan is just plain ignorant and seems to follow this "might-makes-wrong" doctrine that is currently screwing over the world. Military, political, and economic power does not have anything to do with a nation's power. I'm sick of seeing constant criticism of the US (and Israel, and the UK, and a few other nations) becaue they aren't ashamed that they have a powerful military whereas ethical transgressions of poorer countries are excused or even supported (consider the Sudanese slave trade) because they're poor and weak. Last time I checked, power/wealth and ethics are entirely unrelated.
If not all sentients are human, couldn't it be possible that not all humans are sentient either?
While it's all too chic right now to bag on the US and the UK for their positions on the upcoming war on Iraq, the Patriot Act, and other debatable topics, I hope everyone takes a deep breath and realizes that the very fact that we are debating these topics proves the openness of these societies.
And I ask, what are we talking about, Openness, ala Glasnost, or Authoritarinaism? Let's all go to the article for a definition:
When elections and legal opposition parties are present but elections are rigged, rules are manipulated, or power is wielded so that there is no real competition for elected office, the political regime is best described as semi-authoritarian...
I suppose the competition in the US and the UK between two eternal and indistiguishable parties makes a choice. In theory an elected person can make a difference too. All you have to do is convince people that you are correct by presenting proper facts to back your opinions. Hmmm, how to get past the government/industry controled mass media that can twist anything anyone ever said or did Could it be that the internet can provide that alternate less controled route of truth in public debate? Or will the internet just get bowled over by established interests and become another outlet of bullshit?
Let's see, using the Clinton sex scandal as an example. Do you remember anything more than the name Monica Lewenski? The name you should remember but will have a hard time finding in print is Paula Jones, the real story sunk under a cartoon of an old man screwing a willing but mentally unstable intern. I take an excellent serries of articles from Vanity Fair and the New York Times as my baseline of, "the truth.": Jones was assulted in a hotel shortly after taking a job , repeatedly harrased, denied promotion and bothered. Later, the American Spectator published and article claiming she had consentual sex with her accoster. She appeared in public presuring him for an appology and a retraction, which were never recieved. Her cause was taken up by others who wished to damage Clinton's political credibility and punish a real wrong. A case was built up showing a patern of behavior of Clinton towards women who worked for under his authority. Clinton's efforts to quash the investigation included payoffs and perjury. The purgury was caught on tape and the whole thing led to impechement which failed to remove Clinton from office. A little google searching finds mostly BS, much like the stuff shoveled out by the AP and networks at the time: the Lewinski Cartoon.
First the searches
Now what you see:
While the details are there, it seems obvious that those details are still difficult to find, even for a relatively informed person. Despite the best efforts of Google and others to organize and present valid and useful information, it seems that the internet can be manipulated by simple flood. Other facts, which draw less public attention, are easier to obscure and burry.
The idea that internet will defeat tyrany is preffaced on the simple fact that tyranies support themselves with lies and lose all foundation and support when the truth is known and repeated. The internet may yet be able to provide the truth with a forum, but it can be discredited, drowned and otherwise removed even in relatively free situations. Here in the US, the internet is under attack and the attackers have the government's blessing. As you and my ability to connect to the internet as peers goes away, the likelyhood of impartial third party reporting goes. This is happening, despite the internet and few people care.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
The subject line says it all. Apparently the author, unable to think in spans of longer than ten years, concludes that the internet isn't a tool for freedom because every oppressive regime that doesn't have at least one internet-connected computer hasn't collapsed on itself already.
The internet isn't a violently intrusive tool. If it does contribute to the downfall to repression it'll do so slowly and insidiously, over the course of decades. Since most nations of the world had either no connection or a negligible connection to the internet back in '93, no conclusion can reasonably be reached as to its effect.
The book is bullshit, pure and simple. No one is in a position to say much of anything on the topic, and won't be for at least another 20 or 30 years.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
So you only have to be ethical if you are powerful/wealthy? Ah...so if I'm poor, I can commit murder, rape, sell people into slavery, etc as long as I don't make a whole lot of money off of it? Thanks for clearing that up.
Ethics are ends, not means. You should be ethical simply for the sake of being ethical. Regardless of economic or political status.
If not all sentients are human, couldn't it be possible that not all humans are sentient either?
Want some gum?
I can see the point your making, but it's important to remember that gum per se is not banned in Singapore. Only the sale of gum is and even that saw some last minute legal loopholes assigned to it during the recent US-Singapore trade talks. (Wasn't too bothered about the details; perhaps a Singaporean can fill in here)
But about the parent's point about Singaporeans wanting it that way. Actually in most multi-party democracies, the incumbent government is more likely to retain its power rather than lose it. (India is one notable exception of course, reason being its political diversity). So, I'd say it's more to do with, what I call as 'political inertia' and a lack of viable alternatives to the incumbent rather than Singaporeans "wanting it that way". The vast majority of any population, you'd have to remember, is usually politically neutral, preferring to get on with life rather than give in to ideology.
The rest of the parent's comment is spot-on of course. I've been to Iran (which presumably has the same, or more amount of authoritarianism as Saudi Arabia) and to Singapore, and yes, the two are not in the same league. Much of the Singaporean government's authority stems from a largely paternalistic attitude that both the government and the public at large seem to play along with. It's not quite written in stone although fear of the government is, arguably, perceptable.
Conformity in Saudi Arabia and Iran, OTOH, is largely through the Moral Police and its legal system.
More than mere navel gazing.
U.S. oil companies will get to drill only if the new government lets them, which would probably be decided years after the new government is established.
Furthermore, the U.S. DOESN'T NEED Iraqi oil, and it is fucking ridiculous to make these stupid claims like you have made. The U.S. gets less than half as much oil from the Middle East as any European country. I could make the claim that EU politicians that are against war in Iraq are against it because they get cheap oil from Iraq with the food for oil program, much moreso than the U.S. does. Perhaps they are affraid of that going away!
The U.S. has very little to gain from war with Iraq, except the extermination of a dictator who tried to assasinate a former U.S. president.
Do I support war with Iraq? You bet! Why? To give the people of Iraq freedom! No other reason is there that I care about.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
And I am saying this as someone who has spent a great deal of money fighting these things, and who believes the future of the American economy depends on fighting these things.
But comparing the U.S. to totalitarian regimes is absolutely ridiculous.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
The clever thing the USA Regime has done is to fool it's own citizens into thinking thats its not authoritarian like other evil authoritarians. You see, they have worked that letting you say anything you like doesn't really hurt them, in fact, it keeps you thinking that everything is cool, so you you dont RISE UP.
IIRC the USA is at the top of the list of "proportion of population held in jail".
The USA is the most powerful nation on earth economically and militarily. It is the support which the USA gives to other evil regimes that makes the USA the most authoritarian regime in the world.
With the vast bulk of the US population being in utter ignorance of what the US government tends to do with their power.
However, all countries are packed with people that do not even think about thinking about bigger pictures than their own backyards... and hence they just follow whatever their gov. says about anything further then their own backyard.
Especially if they get all their information from government/corporate media sources.
That would have made a tad more sense - even though it's still false. As it is, your statement is like saying "Ah, it would have been OK for Hitler to kill all the Jews if he had won World War Two, because someone only acts unethically if they cause bad consequences for themselves."
Female Prison Rape in NY
Uhh, I hate to break it this to you, but everyone dies eventually. Until scientists one day find the secret to immortality, saying "you will eventually die" is not informative, nor is it an argument against doing anything whatsoever.
Also, your principle seem to be flat out contradicted by examples of evil people like Adolf Hitler and Genghis Kahn. Hmmm, let's see now - are you going to argue that they were not in fact unethical, at all? Or are you going to try to argue that they had no power?
Female Prison Rape in NY
You contradict not only history, but also yourself. You claim that the people in power are making unjust (and therefore unethical) laws, and yet you also claim that you can't have power unless you're ethical. That's an example of cognitive dissonance if I've ever seen one.
Power and wealth generally come to people who are either lucky or clever. Lucky people stumble across it...like the lottery or someone who inherits a fortune (or a political position in dynastic governments). They had no part in generating that wealth or power...it just came to them. These people often lose it quickly because with things in as sort supply as money or power, everyone's trying to chisel some away from you and unless you know how to hold onto it, you lose it all. Clever people use their knowledge of others to generate power/wealth. For instance, Bill Gates used his knowledge of the market to eliminate competition and further his product and company. This has resulted in him becoming very, very wealthy. Similarly, Hitler used his knowledge of the way most Germans felt about Jews, their losses in WWI, and the military power and attitudes of Europe to rise in power in Germany, then take over most of Europe. Both these people are/were VERY clever and VERY intelligent.
Now please, tell me how any of these people (the lucky person, Bill Gates, or Hitler) is somehow exceptionally ethical? All the lottery winner did was buy a ticket for $1...he might very well go home every night, drink a six-pack of beer, and beat his wife and kids before alling asleep on the couch. He might also be a really great person who volunteers all his free time to work in a soup kitchen. We don't know, and frankly, it has nothing to do with the outcome. Is Bill Gates ethical? Monopolizing the market, frivolous lawsuits, and massive buyouts doesn't seem ethical to me. How about Hitler? I don't think murdering 11 million innocent men, women, and children due to ethinicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, or political beliefs is ethical in the least.
But you can't stereotype all people with wealth or power as being unethical, either. Plenty of people make their fortunes completely ethically or come to power with the pure intention of helping people or at least protecting them from the more malevolent forces in government.
If not all sentients are human, couldn't it be possible that not all humans are sentient either?
No, I am not. However, both are quite similar. They stem from the same things and are both very limited in quantity. Therefore for argument's sake, one can consider them equal, though they are not.
So you're blaming the people for whoever takes power over them. You're still caught in a contradiction, though not as obvious as the earlier one. If the people ruled by such a leader are unethical, then such severe laws are required to maintain a peaceful society. Therefore these severe laws are NOT unjust, regardless of how much you claim them to be.
You're stuck. The only way you can't contradict yourself is to agree that power and ethics are completely and entirely independent of each other.
If not all sentients are human, couldn't it be possible that not all humans are sentient either?
The U.S. has not acquired any land since Hawaii was added as a state almost half a century ago, and that was just a few volcanic islands in the middle of nowhere.
Now, let's tackle the second part of the definition. There are two kinds of influence that the U.S. has on the world: intentional and unintentional. I propose that the "imperialistic" actions you perceive are mostly the result of unintentional influence.
The U.S. never set out to be World Cop. This is the key to understanding that the U.S. is not imperialistic. Newsflash: Big things influence little things. That's the natural order of things. Big stars radiate more light and heat (in general) than small stars. Big planets have more gravity than small planets. The effects are not "intended" to be good or bad. The U.S. is simply the 20-pound catfish in a fish tank of minnows and can't help but affect and influence almost everything that goes on. You throw a boulder in a pond and it causes ripples over the whole pond. The boulder isn't trying to take over the pond; it just has natural, benevolent (yet big and possibly harmful) effects on its environment.
But besides the fact that the U.S. can't suppress its natural influence, the world has essentially told it that it has a responsibility to influence and shape the world for good, because it is the only superpower left. The U.S. tries to do what's best, but whenever it talks about doing something, it's dammed if it does and it's damned if it doesn't. There's no way it can satisfy all the hundreds of countries in the world. It would go crazy if it tried. Just look at the U.N., a bureaucratic monster paralyzed because it has 191 members and as many different agendas.
It's natural for some of the minnows to be spiteful of the Big Fish. It's like the people who hate Microsoft (richest software co.), Red Hat (biggest Linux co.), AOL (biggest ISP), Bill Gates (richest man), Israel (most prosperous Middle East country), NY (most prestigious state), and Time Warner et al (biggest media co.). Some of this disdain is well-founded IMHO. But why not sit down and consider the GOOD effects that some of these entities have had and are having? The U.S. has failed and stumbled many times, but I believe that it has positively influenced the world more times and in greater ways than any of us will ever know.
The U.S. has not acquired any land since Hawaii was added as a state almost half a century ago, and that was just a few volcanic islands in the middle of nowhere.
After first obliterating the islands' government. Following a model China (somewhat sucessfully) and Iraq (without sucess) attempted to emulate. The US has also tried several times to turn Puerto Rico into a US state, absolutly no chance of it becoming an independent country.
As I understand it (and I haven't really studied it so I could be wrong), this was mostly an unintentional consequence of the huge influx of American immigrants. Quite simply, the ratio of Americans to native Hawaiians was so huge, that it was just inevitable that it would become a U.S. state.
I'm curious. I'd like to ask an old Hawaiian: Are you better off now than you were 50 years ago? Hawaii has more and higher paying jobs, more technology, higher per capita, better roads, better transportation (airports, boats), better weather forecasting (important for such secluded islands), better seismography, and all the constitutional rights, freedoms, and privileges that go along with being a part of the free-est and most powerful nation on earth.
The US has also tried several times to turn Puerto Rico into a US state, absolutly no chance of it becoming an independent country.
I don't think Puerto Rico wants to become an indepedent country. You see, the U.S. is letting their citizens leech on itself. Puerto Ricans can get some of the benefits of U.S. citizenship (social security I think, among other things) without having to pay taxes. AFAIK, they have no incentive to become an independent country. Dependence is too comfy.
As I understand it (and I haven't really studied it so I could be wrong), this was mostly an unintentional consequence of the huge influx of American immigrants. Quite simply, the ratio of Americans to native Hawaiians was so huge, that it was just inevitable that it would become a U.S. state.
Very similar to the way in which China treats Tibet... Anyway had the US complied with it's treaty obligations this would have been irrelevent.
I'm curious. I'd like to ask an old Hawaiian: Are you better off now than you were 50 years ago? Hawaii has more and higher paying jobs, more technology, higher per capita, better roads, better transportation (airports, boats), better weather forecasting (important for such secluded islands), better seismography,
What makes you think they wouldn't have achived this on their own? The Hawaiian Kingdom was doing perfectly well as a modern country before the US decided to take over.
and all the constitutional rights, freedoms, and privileges that go along with being a part of the free-est and most powerful nation on earth.
Considering that the Hawaiian Contitution grants more or less the same rights and freedoms as the US Consitution there is hardly anything to gain. In the process Hawaiian citizens lost the ability to self govern and the international community lost a valued member.