Pro-Imperialism (Sort Of)

[Nguyen]

I really don't like the government. Any government. But I have to say, I think I would have preferred that the United States remain part of the British Empire. I simply can not imagine the French Revolution, the American Civil War, WW1, WW2 or the various wars in east-asia happening without the American revolution. I can't imagine the Soviet Union without the impetus and support of the American Revolution, both in a classic (inspirational) and 20th century material sense.

I also think east-asia should have remained part of the British empire. And I'd prefer Vietnam was part of the British empire, but all things considered I think even French colonialism is better than Communism.

Now some of these places are doing alright today. Vietnam has improved a ton in the last twenty years. But I really don't think all this chaos was 'worth it' just so a few Enlightenment cranks could play Civilization 3 with a continent and spread their lunatic government (democracy) around the planet.

Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.

 

[porterjack]

i think empire leads to bloodshed and we end up destroying each other

democracy may not be ideal but ther is mores sex than slaughter

 

[Kyle B]

There would have been bloodshed, turmoil, and chaos regardless. If the enlightenment 'cranks' didn't catalyze it, somebody else would have.

 

[Nguyen]

i think empire leads to bloodshed and we end up destroying each other

democracy may not be ideal but ther is mores sex than slaughter

To the first, sure, but all government does. Decentralized empires are actually one of the better forms, from the perspective of the inhabitant's material well being and autonomy.

In regards to the second, I totally disagree. Democracy means conscription, mass taxation and ideologically charged wars. Hans Hoppe has some lectures and a book on why democratic systems tend to be inherently more totalitarian and prone to total warfare than classical or feudal governments (not that I am recommending these).

The most violent wars in the history of this planet have involved democratic nations, I would argue at their instigation and at least one of them (the American Civil War) was amongst the democracy many people would like to use as an example of a half-decent democracy.

The French Revolution was a pretty gruesome affair.

I really see no redeeming traits to democracy. Almost everything people say in favor of it has basically been exploded for 50-2000 years by political economy and historical experience. It only avoids descending into Balkanization by dint of luck and circumstance, or as Bismarck said, "God has a special providence for fools, drunkards and the United States." But even a country like the US, which hasn't descended to full blown socialist police statism and has only had one internal shooting war has murdered, oh, elevendy godzillian people around the world. Certainly more than the monarchs of Europe ever hoped to, and they also destroyed massive amounts of capital and wealth that monarchs actually would have liked to keep around.

 

[porterjack]

To the first, sure, but all government does. Decentralized empires are actually one of the better forms, from the perspective of the inhabitant's material well being and autonomy.

In regards to the second, I totally disagree. Democracy means conscription, mass taxation and ideologically charged wars. Hans Hoppe has some lectures and a book on why democratic systems tend to be inherently more totalitarian and prone to total warfare than classical or feudal governments (not that I am recommending these).

The most violent wars in the history of this planet have involved democratic nations, I would argue at their instigation and at least one of them (the American Civil War) was amongst the democracy many people would like to use as an example of a half-decent democracy.

The French Revolution was a pretty gruesome affair.

I really see no redeeming traits to democracy. Almost everything people say in favor of it has basically been exploded for 50-2000 years by political economy and historical experience. It only avoids descending into Balkanization by dint of luck and circumstance, or as Bismarck said, "God has a special providence for fools, drunkards and the United States." But even a country like the US, which hasn't descended to full blown socialist police statism and has only had one internal shooting war has murdered, oh, elevendy godzillian people around the world. Certainly more than the monarchs of Europe ever hoped to, and they also destroyed massive amounts of capital and wealth that monarchs actually would have liked to keep around.

funny that i still think of the french revolution as one big cheap porno flick, but that is just me

 

[Nguyen]

funny that i still think of the french revolution as one big cheap porno flick, but that is just me

Life is mainly a porn flick, with way to many unecessary plot scenes that go nowhere.

 

[Meirionnydd]

To the first, sure, but all government does. Decentralized empires are actually one of the better forms, from the perspective of the inhabitant's material well being and autonomy.

An empire cannot ensure an individuals personal well-being an autonomy. In human history, there has never been an empire that has promoted autonomy and personal well-being. Much rather, they have thrived on uniformity and repression of those who deviate from the norm.

A 'decentralized empire' is very difficult to find, because they are by their very nature, quite impractical. Most Empires have some sort of deep centralized function.

In regards to the second, I totally disagree. Democracy means conscription, mass taxation and ideologically charged wars. Hans Hoppe has some lectures and a book on why democratic systems tend to be inherently more totalitarian and prone to total warfare than classical or feudal governments (not that I am recommending these).

Oh, and autocratic systems of government don't utilize conscription, mass taxation and ideologically charged wars?

World War II was almost entirely waged as an ideological struggle between two forms of totalitarian rule, Bolshevism and Nazism.

The most violent wars in the history of this planet have involved democratic nations, I would argue at their instigation and at least one of them (the American Civil War) was amongst the democracy many people would like to use as an example of a half-decent democracy.

And the most violent wars in history have also involved autocratic and monarchical nations. Just because democratic societies happen to get involved in conflict, doesn't mean the whole concept should be shelved entirely. I think a modern world dominated by autocratic states would be more war-like, considering they don't need a mandate from the populace to start a war.

Finally, the United States is not a democracy, nor was it ever intended to be one. It is a Republic, the founding fathers were quite fearful of the whole concept of a democratic society.

 

[Accountable]

To the first, sure, but all government does. Decentralized empires are actually one of the better forms, from the perspective of the inhabitant's material well being and autonomy.

By 'decentralized' do you mean separate empires competing with each other? It's misusing the word, and the other way is an oxymoron. But looking at, say, the USSR, the more remote the average citizen was from Moscow the more autonomy he had. I assume it was the same under the British Empire at its largest. Arguably, the more sheer landmass a government has under its control the less micromanagement it can accomplish, which is virtually the same as no gov't at all. So I guess I agree, sorta.

In regards to the second, I totally disagree. Democracy means conscription, mass taxation and ideologically charged wars.

We haven't had conscription in decades; all governments have mass taxation; and you can't think of any non-democratic ideologically charged wars -- say, The Crusades?

The most violent wars in the history of this planet have involved democratic nations, I would argue at their instigation and at least one of them (the American Civil War) was amongst the democracy many people would like to use as an example of a half-decent democracy.

Correlation is not causation. WWI was mostly non-democratic nations.

I really see no redeeming traits to democracy. Almost everything people say in favor of it has basically been exploded for 50-2000 years by political economy and historical experience. It only avoids descending into Balkanization by dint of luck and circumstance, or as Bismarck said, "God has a special providence for fools, drunkards and the United States." But even a country like the US, which hasn't descended to full blown socialist police statism and has only had one internal shooting war has murdered, oh, elevendy godzillian people around the world. Certainly more than the monarchs of Europe ever hoped to, and they also destroyed massive amounts of capital and wealth that monarchs actually would have liked to keep around.

Like Meirion said, the US is a republic. I believe it was Wilson that first started calling us a democracy as a marketing tool to bring in the start of big government. And your claim that the US killed more that all the monarchs of Europe is just silly. The capital that was built in the US could never be realized under an autocratic gov't, so monarchs would never have a chance to keep it.

 

[Nguyen]

A 'decentralized empire' is very difficult to find, because they are by their very nature, quite impractical. Most Empires have some sort of deep centralized function.

The roman governers had great autonomy, provinces often had multiple local rulers and people had laws that applied to them based on tribal or geographic distinction. The same was generally true of the British empire, where local companies and governers indirectly regulated the nations to make them commercially safe, but generally utilized existing institutions.

We haven't had conscription in decades; all governments have mass taxation; and you can't think of any non-democratic ideologically charged wars -- say, The Crusades?

The crusades were a drop in the bucket compared to the mass democratic wars, both per capita and in total. Just because other stupid ideologies have stupid wars does not except democracy from this, nor does it compared to the political economy of democratic states.

Like Meirion said, the US is a republic

No, it is a democracy. Anyways, the distinction is essentially irrelevant for political economy.

 

[DayOldHuman]

IMO If the American Revolution wouldn't have happened, there would have been more bloodshed during "uprisings" that happen with any empire.

Sometimes the resistance is peaceful, ie Gandhi, other times, not so much.

 

[Nguyen]

IMO If the American Revolution wouldn't have happened, there would have been more bloodshed during "uprisings" that happen with any empire.

Sometimes the resistance is peaceful, ie Gandhi, other times, not so much.

Revolution is always a mistake. Insurrection is the path to true liberty. Disobey, disregard, treat 'authority' with irreverance and they will become irrelevant (unless they vastly overpower you). 'Revolution' just means a few high-n-mighty intellectual types deciding what 'teh people' (meaning, their arbitrary value judgements) need and giving it to them nice and hard.

There's no government like no government.

 

[Kyle B]

No, it is a democracy. Anyways, the distinction is essentially irrelevant for political economy.

You can't arbitrarily claim that the United States is a democracy, in order to fit your argument when technically, it isn't.

If the United States was a democracy, the people themselves would decide on every public policy matter.

The United States is hence a republic, we elect officials to decide public policy.

 

[Meirionnydd]

The roman governers had great autonomy, provinces often had multiple local rulers and people had laws that applied to them based on tribal or geographic distinction. The same was generally true of the British empire, where local companies and governers indirectly regulated the nations to make them commercially safe, but generally utilized existing institutions.

And how does that contribute to individual well-being? For the most part, the British Empire wasn't a harmonious institution. The British Empire plundered, raped and pillaged entire continents, without any regard for the local population, in many cases, slaughtering them en masse.

The Dominions of the British Empire did not have great autonomy either. In early-colonial Australia, governors did have some autonomy, but by and large, were puppets of their masters back in Britain. They were not allowed to pass any laws that would seem contrary or repugnant to existing Westminster legislation. The same rule applied to every other dominion of the British Empire, so no, different laws could not be applied regarding different geographical distinction.

So, as someone who lives in a former dominion of the British Empire, I really don't see any redeeming qualities of having our laws and structure of government decided by a unaccountable political body thousands of kilometers away.

 

[Nguyen]

If the United States was a democracy, the people themselves would decide on every public policy matter.

The United States is hence a republic, we elect officials to decide public policy.

No, the United States is a mixed technocracy, where intellectuals, bureaucrats and media generated 'public opinion' control the democratic machinery to manage their world empire.

The US started as a strongly democratic republic (and the difference between a democracy and a republic are not really important, they simply shift the size of the effective electorate). It became this leviathan idiot monster because of that. And I am glad to the extent that the US is not a democracy, though technocratic ochlacracy (like democratic centralism, ala Soviet and Maoist regimes) is really just a subspecies of the democratic movement.
True democracies don't exist because they're so chaotic and unstable that they even scare the left-wing loons that erect them. Thus Soviet Democratic Centralism (all power to the soviets!) quickly becomes a right-wing Czardom.

What most people think of when they say 'anarchy' - that is democracy. And a right-wing dictatorship I will take any day.

But, as I've said, there's no government like no government.

 

[edgray]

I think we should all be quite thankful that the British Empire collapsed, Imperialism really can't be defended, the brutality indigenous populations faced at the hands of the British was often quite horrific.

What Meirrionnydd summed it up perfectly:

I really don't see any redeeming qualities of having our laws and structure of government decided by a unaccountable political body thousands of kilometers away.

Its just not a great nor fair way to run countries.

 

[Accountable]

... the United States is not a democracy, nor was it ever intended to be one.

No, it is a democracy. Anyways, the distinction is essentially irrelevant for political economy.

No, the United States is a mixed technocracy, where intellectuals, bureaucrats and media generated 'public opinion' control the democratic machinery to manage their world empire.

from dictionary.com:

tech·noc·ra·cy
a theory and movement, prominent about 1932, advocating control of industrial resources, reform of financial institutions, and reorganization of the social system, based on the findings of technologists and engineers.

A government or social system controlled by technicians, especially scientists and technical experts.

I don't see it. How do you figure?

 

[Nguyen]

I don't see it. How do you figure?

If you've got to ask, you'll never know.
Look into the ideological, mass media, government and academic propaganda/literature/activities of the Progressive era all the way until present. It's obviously a technocratic bureaucracy.

 

[edgray]

the US is definitely not a technocracy. The best definition is a polyarchy.

 

[Nguyen]

the US is definitely not a technocracy. The best definition is a polyarchy.

Lol. Real power in the U.S. is in the main branches of the (real) government: Universities, Journalists and the Bureaucracy. They advocate a scientistic world outlook of 'expert management'. Do you people not watch TV? Or do you just believe so much of it that it's transparent to you?

Anyways, here's a post I made on WW2: Stating the Obvious.

 

[edgray]

Lol. Real power in the U.S. is in the main branches of the (real) government: Universities, Journalists and the Bureaucracy. They advocate a scientistic world outlook of 'expert management'. Do you people not watch TV? Or do you just believe so much of it that it's transparent to you?

Anyways, here's a post I made on WW2: Stating the Obvious.

no, the real power in the US lies in the corporations and the ruling elite, much like Britain and other western societies. The journalists have an influence but themselves are under corporate rule. Universities have their part but probably more to do with the fraternities and those bizarre cults Bush and his cronies were supposedly members of

Is there something wrong with advocating a scientistic world view? that doesn't necessarily imply a technocracy.

I don't watch TV. I prefer to get the news from a variety of online sources.

Interesting post on WW2 - I'd say that one deserves a thread all of it's own!