The idea of 'escape' does not sit easily with me. It has too easily the aspect of ignominy in the sense of when one flees a battlefield. Better to beat a retreat than flee the fight.
And an 'escape' from imprisonment resounds with the echo of capture's indignity. Yet in some cases it can be honorable and the echo overshadowed by a glorious liberation.
If I make an 'escape' then it will be beating a retreat so that the fight can be resumed at a later juncture when better equipped and prepared to declare, "Here I stand, I can do no other." That is the only 'escape' I wish to take.
Our world has too much escapism: escaping to the moon and mars, escaping to virtual reality, escaping everything we can.
Look at the examples that I placed, East Germany and China, are very important. When the East Germans crossed the border they were not leaving their country, they were returning home, the same with the Chinese. North Korea would be a great example too. These people lived under a prison and under a sentence that they had not earned, they did not escape, they liberating themselves.
I am in favor of being responsible, because if we are responsible for something we must answer for that, but not for an unjustified punishment against humanity, those governments were not elected, nor were they any representation of the people they governed, were absurd and authoritarian impositions that emanated from an external element to them.
That is why I say in turn, vote with actions, vote with your feet is often an option, although not always the best, and many times it is even worse, voting with our actions is the best way to, not escape, and not even face a situation in which you must escape, but avoid in the first instance that these situations happen.
Yes, your examples are well chosen; my comment was inspired by them b/c it got me thinking of a different, related example. I asked myself,
With socialism and communism it is always a game of resistance, because they are self-destructive systems, and that by wanting to take charge of everything they collapse under their own weight. Sooner or later the system collapses, the question always is; How long are you willing to endure? and, Is it possible to advance his collapse by a coup de grace?
Usually the answer is reduced to resist, because if a country chose socialism by itself, it is possible that its population is too weak to carry out a rebellion, and if the country did not choose socialism on its own, then very probably the country that imposed it would take care of avoiding any problem.
In Hungary there was a revolution in 1956, and its success was great, managing to overthrow the government, however, after the Soviet intervention everything returned to the control of the handful of communist Hungarians who ruled the country. Thousands of Hungarians died.
So if, at one point, the simple fact of continuing to live in an apolitical way is resistance, because socialism is ephemeral. Sometimes voting with your feet is a good option, but as long as you have where to go, the Germans had it, the Chinese had it, the Koreans had it, not so with many other peoples. Otherwise, vote with your actions.
Then, you're talking about dissidents, correct? - dissidents who when in their country civilly fight their government but when disempowered at home 'escape' abroad in the knowledge they can continue to fight from there. 'Escape' is still an issue in my mind.
Firstly, an ordinary man isn't in the position to be capable of fighting from abroad or 'escaping' abroad.
More importantly, the man who can and does, should ask himself whether he 'escapes' abroad becoming a dissident b/c he cannot serve his cause best by remaining in his country and bearing the burden of the fight there, and so he ought to leave; or b/c he prefers to flee to the more pleasant life found abroad.
The fact of fleeing, requires first the fact of belonging somewhere, because you can't flee if you don't belong somewhere first. I will explain myself. If a house that is not yours begins to burn, and you leave, it is not flee, since you do not belong there, on the contrary, if your house is burned, and your family is there in the fire and you leave, then you are fleeing, because you are not doing anything to prevent your house from getting damaged.
So the answer is simple, if you leave the place you belong by external imposition, then you are fleeing, and it is unworthy, because you are leaving your family and your friends in pain. If on the contrary you go from a place to which you do not belong, then you are not fleeing, because you simply do not belong there. Having answered that, it should be noted that there is no honorable escape, that is, you can not leave the country and make an external struggle, the national problems must always resolve within the border of the nation, without foreign intervention.
In the examples I put, people never left their country, because North Korea and South Korea are not two countries; East Germany and West Germany are not two countries; and China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macao are not four countries. All these are one country, but they have two or more States, so the people who move from one place to another are not leaving their country at any time.
Help me understand you. You propose that if a person, say, with a Chinese passport feels so unhappy about the politics of his country as not to belong in his country though wants to belong, he may state this politically by becoming a resident of Hong Kong or Macao or a citizen of Taiwan?
Yes.