The US government throws its weight around by ordering sanctions against countries that have policies it does not agree with. I have no doubt that, where sanctions would be politically unpopular, there are back-room blackmailings of some type.

That said, instituting similar sanctions against the US should absolutely be the number one thing the rest of the world responds with! It might not be every US citizen that is culpable, but they are your representative government, and your responsibility. (I assume you're from the US, but I use "your" as a collective for anyone from the US that may be reading this).

Do you think the people might take a legitimate stand if business dealings, travel, and exports were banned to the United States? Do you think US citizens would go absolutely fucking crazy?

> As for fixing things, the government has become literally unmanageable, and things are a mess right now

Well untangle yourselves and then we'll talk.

Unfortunately, the US has so much power around the world that most countries are literally unable to respond. They are the new Rome, using political and economic power rather than pure force (but use force where necessary) to control the world. It's disgusting.

>using political and economic power rather than pure force

Inconceivable!

> to control the world.

you left out a big part of the statement quoted. The tactics you listed would be commendable in comparison to pure force if the end goal wasn't world domination.

Since the end goal IS world domination, however, then no means is suitable from a humanity perspective.

Unfortunately, not only do a lot of US citizens still support such practices (I think around 40 percent - as long as they mention "to protect you from terrorists"), but most of the rest who don't agree with the practices, can't be bothered to do much about it, like even calling their representative, let alone going out and protesting.

I do believe this is very true:

> All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing - Burke, Edmund

So, yes, I'd say most Americans are responsible for this yes, by doing nothing to stop it. So don't blame the rest of the world if they start "hating Americans" or "hating America". You are part of it, you are responsible to change the America you want the world to love, too.

Blaming only the government, that you probably voted in, too, does not cut it.

People are not going to start hating Americans. They have already been hating Americans for hundreds of years. It started with the "degeneracy thesis" in the 18th century, where it had been suggested by European intellectuals that the American climate led to physically inferior animals and humans. The reasons for hating Americans change everyday.

Hating a group of people is a completely irrational, unconstructive approach to solving a problem. If one has anger about something, they shouldn't lash out at group of people.

If people want Americans to change something on their behalf, for their benefit, it needs to be from a standpoint of respect. They can start by asking nicely.

Respect, sure. But "asking nicely"? How has that not been done already, over and over and over?

"Nobody in the world, nobody in history, has ever gotten their freedom by appealing to the moral sense of the people that were oppressing them." -- Assata Shakur

Even though we could argue about wether this stuff consititutes "oppression", I think the point still applies, sadly.

> "Nobody in the world, nobody in history, has ever gotten their freedom by appealing to the moral sense of the people that were oppressing them." -- Assata Shakur

I think there are one or two examples in recent history. The LGBT movement has made a great deal of ground recently by appealing to peoples' sensibilities.

Now, in more extreme cases you aren't going to talk the oppressors out of anything. I doubt anybody has ever stopped a genocide with rational argument and appeal to the murderers' sensibilities.

I'm not sure what we are talking about here. The US government is oppressing everyone... both Americans and non-Americans.

In theory, the American people are the only ones with the power to solve this problem. This responsibility is a burden. Before going to bat, I would rather encounter friendly encouragement than smug contempt.

For what it's worth, you have mine. Encouragament that is, not contempt. Although I'm not convinced all Americans are yet aware of the fact that they themselves also are at the wrong end of this gun, I'm sure the number increases daily. And generally I don't think excluding people for what others force on them, or even for their ignorance, or even for their hybris, really leads anywhere. So many Americans have my support and even admiration, and even the ones I do resent (not in a smug way though, I'm under no such delusions I would hope), I would rather argue with, or, at worst, bitch at (but never, ever, "ask nicely" :P), than outright shun. Letting someone simmer in their own sauce can work with individuals, but in nations I think it always strengthens the autocratic and warmongering elements.

Yes, you're right, it's racist to oppose NSA spycraft.

> They can start by asking nicely.

"Can you please kindly, stop perpetuating your morally bankrupt spy-state?"

Gosh. That achieved a lot.

Did I say anything about opposing NSA spycraft? Did I say anything about racism, for that matter?

I'm talking about hating Americans. It's irrational, unconstructive, and not a novel thing to do. It's certainly not going to accomplish anything against NSA spycraft.

If anything is going to change about NSA spycraft, especially on behalf of the rights of foreign nationals, having the rest of the world consider all Americans enemies is going to be counterproductive.

> but most of the rest who don't agree with the practices, can't be bothered to do much about it, like even calling their representative, let alone going out and protesting.

That's b/c most Americans are caught up in an endless cycle of work-aholism to either support their consumer-addiction and/or to climb out of debt and just pay the bills.

Related to that, I know this is somewhat menial, but I have found the site http://popvox.com to be fairly useful in this regard. Create an account, and you can track all current legislation -- a couple clicks will fire a stock letter to your rep either supporting or protesting a bill -- or you can edit the letter with a custom message (better). It is certainly a step above doing nothing and makes the task much easier.

With this argument, you're implicitly assuming responsibility for the misdeeds of your own government. It's easy to cast blame en masse, but it is not a constructive response.

>not all US citizens

The vast majority of citizens support these initiatives. Given the winner-take-all approach we employ, it is not a stretch to say that yes, we all share blame.

Where did you get the idea the "vast majority of citizens support these initiatives"?

From the very start the polls have generally been against mass NSA surveillance except when the wording of the poll was misleading[1]. As more and more information has come out the polls have become more and more clearly against it[2].

Try to keep the facts straight.

Not sure why you refer to winner-take-all and how that concept could make everyone responsible. Keep in mind almost know one knew about this until very recently and we learned more even today.

[1] http://www.policymic.com/articles/53767/nsa-surveillance-sca...

[2] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/10/polls-continue-show-ma...

Now try mentioning terrorism as the tradeoff for granting civil liberties and see what people think.

That's how they view it, for better or worse.

Part of Obama's campaign was an end to warrentless wiretaps. Now, if people were paying closer attention, then maybe they would have known better than to trust him (or indeed, any American politician), but I think it is quite a stretch to say that the people are to blame when a politician is less than honest.

Furthermore, the people who are to blame for our current political system are long dead. Everyone alive today was born into this framework and told to work within the framework to modify the framework. They have not had the opportunity to shape the framework free from the constraints of the framework. The facilities the framework provides to modify itself are clumsy, inadequate, and ineffective when everything is working smoothly.

This isn't a system we chose, this is a situation that we were born into, and find ourselves unable to change.

Exactly, Obama in 2007:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAQlsS9diBs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6fnfVJzZT4

"This Administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand." (...) "That means no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists."

This should be quoted much more often.

Regarding "work within the framework to modify the framework" Snowden decided not to work within it and we still don't know what will happen to him.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130726/01200123954/obama-...

> Regarding "work within the framework to modify the framework" Snowden decided not to work within it and we still don't know what will happen to him.

What we do know is that he got shit done. His voice has been heard, people are talking now, he has had an impact.

Opting to work outside the framework is often not safe, particularly when the framework includes provisions for harming those who opt to work outside of it, but sometimes that is the only effective option.

Well, let's look at the policies of the US against rogue states: sanctions. What GP is describing is connectivity sanctions rather than trade or economic ones.

That's why I mentioned »innocent US citizens«. ;)

Yeah, but US citizens vote for their government, so are therefore accountable. I don't see you out in the streets with pitchforks, so you're as culpable as the primary perpetrators.