The Condition of Free Society

A society without public criticism is not worth anything.

Public criticism means ability to evaluate independently the thought repeated by majority. Repeating means "only one choice open".


                            One can be liberated but is not free from the liberator

                          (Liberty Leading the People by Delacroix; 1830; Louvre)

The embraced is not free to choose. He or she is programmed to repeat. It is: repeating single truth. Thus the brainwashed can't criticize publicly. 
                                                                                      
If the masses have embraced one doctrine, then ...                                
                                                                                                                                                               

HUMAN'S SECURITY NOT STATE'S SECURITY

Hey come on! A state's most important goal is not to guarantee its military security by armed forces in the system of sovereign powers. So, in the present global world, the balance of Great Powers is not the essence of international relations of nations. 

                  Negotiation is the main institution between leaders, not

                    states (UN Climat Summit in 2009; David Karp/AP).

More exactly, says the libertarian, there are only individuals and societies, not states, nations and fatherlands which are ideas within Russian, Chinese and American nationalists' minds. 

Yes but that doesn't prove the claim that states' main goal is not the military security.


I'm sorry. Very sorry. I mean... I mean that now the economical well-fare is the main goal for most political leaders. The central problem for them is not war and the use of force, like it or not Mrs. Realism. Pure anarchy doesn't prevail in the global society because people do have peaceful contacts across borders and because global context, like international law and United Nations, sets moral judgments for states' behavior in which the use of force is not the automatic reaction. For example, nuclear weapons affect every humans when using. So, any national leader doesn't really want to use them in real conflicts. They are too costly. It follows from that nuclear weapons entail negotiations and peaceful interactions between the societies rather than very dangerous interventions.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2010/03/201039185911248940.html

To my mind, humanitarian issues and individual humans' security have become more important from the cold war to the post cold war era than the security of some state. The picture of pure anarchy is insufficient for evaluating the present international global society. 


That is, everybody in the globe are affected by nuclear weapons, transnational terrorism, the climate change and the organized crime. From that follows that nobody can protect against these phenomena by armed forces. Not even Great Powers! For instance, the transnational terrorism forces Great Powers to cooperate. 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8592968.stm         Mr. Chavez: People 

                                                                                              consists of individuals!

Only if every individuals, including artists, writers and philosophers, have protection in a society, people's security exists. There are many societies in which a man and a woman are not in safe. Therefore, some governments doesn't protect the people's security when claiming that they secure states' security by the use of violence towards some citizens and minorities.


The goal of the domestic politics is people's security not state's existence in the system of the sovereign nations. By means of the use of force the governments don't solve the problems of human's life but create more problems. War and violence against individuals and states are nowadays more morally unthinkable than in the past. 


So is the world moving beyond the anarchy of the sovereign state system?