You may believe what you wish, but even to the great extent multinationals and corporations are in the drivers seat they're still forced to implement policy through and within the constraints of government. That's certainly changing, and I'm definitely alarmed I by the WTO et al. eroding popular sovereignty, but for the moment the REAL "special interests" (which aren't unions and unwed mothers) simply have more government ACCESS than the common man. Government still could and will rein them in if so inclined, and I'm not sure it can be otherwise, if a nation would still go to war just to enforce terms of a "free" trade treaty. Ultimately, social contracts hold because, failing all else, the unwashed masses can MAKE them hold. Of course, if one questions, let alone rejects, social contracts then subverting the ruling system is just treason; the only way it can be legitimate and patriotic is in terms of a social contract. Without a social contract the difference between "subversion" and "treason" really is semantic.

And, yes, the term "Western" is fairly Western oriented (much easier to say that than to try straddling the Atlantic with "Euro/Anglo-centric" and what do you have against Central and South America? ) I wasn't aware you lived in the East; may you survive your subversion, because social contracts can be a hard sell in Beijing and Moscow, and even the most harmless subversion usually means a prison labor camp. Yes, I was speaking about Europe and the Americas, where the concept of social contracts and representative government developed, where I live and areas I know far better than the East, hence I feel far more qualified to speak on them. That's not to say I won't comment on the rest of the world, only that I tend to be less emphatic when I do and don't consider the comments relevant here regardless.

Perhaps you're looking forward to some sort of global state though, in which case you and the WTO have much in common. If so, I suspect only one of you has considered your recourse when a global government is corrupted and bought as inevitably as all the others. That's just speculation on my part though, so you're welcome to disregard it.

I try to be thorough, and sometimes it's not immediately obvious how a given tangent is relevant, but it USUALLY is. People tend to forget that tangent lines must touch a circle at one point or they aren't tangents.

Again, I recognize and concede that "subversion" can have both the broad meaning you seem to be arguing as well as the more narrow one I keep discussing. My issue is not one of provincialism or conservatism, however, my issue is how the word is GENERALLY understood, because that's how your statements will be GENERALLY understood. If you want to join with others interested in reform, best to say something like that, because if you say, "subversion" instead you may end up in a room full of anarchists. As I've said, normally I'd be on your side linguistically, but I think the stakes are too high to be strictly academic here. If you insist on using that particular word, be VERY careful to explicitly state HOW you're using it. Especially if you're talking to anyone from any government agency (and I suspect you will be soon if you haven't yet.... )