>He already said/implied, an international committee or coalition, representative of the world, while possibly still headed by the US. Unless you're seriously arguing ISIS would be a potential alternative to US control of domain names, why even mention them?
I mention ISIS simply to demonstrate that power vacuums can lead to unintended consequences. ICANN has issues, but will pushing the power of domain management to an international coalition be good for the health and openness of the Internet? Hard to say.
>Even within the US, authorities regularly and routinely confiscate the property of American citizens, without charging them with anything. So the idea that the US is the greatest protector of liberty for people outside the US is not credible.
You do know civil asset forfeiture doesn't happen for no reason at all, right? That said, you're right that many local law enforcement agencies started stretching the law to excessively seize assets and thereby fund their departments. You may be interested to know the Supreme Court, two years ago, held state and local law enforcement are also subject to the Excessive Fines Clause, just like federal law enforcement [1]. While there's plenty of work to do to enact limits for each state [2], the foundation for future efforts to restrict civil asset forfeiture is now established.
Look, I get that hating on the USA is in vogue these days. All the cool kids talk about how much the USA sucks, and anyone expressing otherwise is not worth the cool kids' time. But consider that the US Consitution is the oldest governing document currently in force. It works damn well, and perhaps so because it protects liberty extraordinarily well, even though the costs of liberty are high.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbs_v._Indiana
[2] https://www.splcenter.org/news/2019/04/16/what-supreme-court...