Political leaders and critics admit that neo-liberal and neo-realist debate left out many important questions concerning inequality in the international relations and war issues. Also, they do not address such problems as political games and isolationist policies of some global political leaders. Within it conflicts of interest are neither eliminated nor stilled. They are rather transferred to a different battleground and the contenders are supplied with different weapons (Sniegocki, 2008). Where, in modern states, the arena is restricted to a select group that commands the instruments of coercion in sufficient degree to forestall effective opposition to the promotion of its interests, neo-realists suppose that global political cooperation will not be a part of politics unless the state leaders introduce it into practice (Huysmans, 2006). In contrast to this view, neo-liberal underline that global political cooperation exists and is used by global state. A necessary and important qualification must be entered here, for what makes such conflicts of interest possible, what sustains the state under whose aegis they occur, is clearly a broad and underlying consensus on the fundamentals of the social order. No state, least of all a democratic state, can hope to survive where the masses of the people are not united on and attached to those essential principles, and in this respect there is a common interest at the heart of, and that is furthered by, democratic governments. In the service of such a philosophy and hostile power, its adherents are prepared not only to battle in the arena of ideas but to resort at times to methods outside the constitutionally recognized rules as well (Conrad, 2008). The challenges of the neo-neo debates are that they employ ideological and theoretical means in which a democratic state may legitimately restrict them in its own self-defense; for no state, whatever its character, can be expected to stand idly by and permit itself to be destroyed through treasonable or revolutionary acts. In this respect, freedom for the dissenter ends when he takes that overt step which--whether of violence or of criminal conspiracy or of espionage--endangers the life of the state; for he is then more than a dissenter, he is an active rebel.