"There is nothing inherently evil about empires..." This is totally incorrect. The notion of an empire implies colonial possessions or client states, which implies some type of conquest/oppression of the native peoples of that possession. The notion of an empire implies a government sending out its citizens to fight endless wars of conquest. The notion of an empire implies a(n) (at least semi-) militaristic government allying with the war industry to form a military-industrial complex at the detriment of all taxpaying citizen. The notion of an empire implies support for dictatorial states in proxy wars. The notion of an empire implies an eventual collapse of the empire, as has happened to all empires throughout history. The notion of an empire implies elements of fascism, and a reduced freedom for everyone in that empire, both citizens and "subjects." The notion of an empire implies a view of morality which allows for the killing of others to allow for increased riches of imperial government, war profiteers, and corporations (oil, etc.) allied (in a mercantilist system) with the government.

"implies"

The above is an example of laconic phrase ;)

I actually mostly agree though, jpg. Most of the actions taken by empires were certainly evil in those times, but weirdly, and complicatingly, they have also given us much of the goodness of today's world. Without empires of the past humanity would have come almost nowhere.

Those who perpetrated the acts of empire in the past could not have known this surely enough to have justified their acts this way, but it has ended up that way. And it surely does not justify every act. But in a broad sense I stand by what I think is a commonly held sentiment of students of history which is that "The invention of empire was a good thing."

Empires are certainly much more interesting to study than decentralized herders lol. But that's a side issue I guess.

ckroberts, an empire is a political entity spanning several former states and including unrelated peoples. As such, Greek infighting was not an effort to create an empire but to consolidate a rather homogenous region. Yet, this state of infighting was much worse than peaceful coexistence under the Rome. Similarly, Franks were better off in a pre-Verdun empire than in the fragmented kingdoms. Southern Slavs were better off in Yugoslavia than in the civil war. To stretch it a little bit, the United States are better off in the current form than if there were 50 independent countries.

The choice between an empire and representation was moot for the most of human history. The alternative to empire was another illegitimate system (from our viewpoint), only on a smaller scale. The push for dissolving empires was either led by people distressed by the empire's fault to handle its responsibilities or by separatist elites who wanted to be first in Galia than second in Rome.

Thucy, to respond to your post about states: one way to think about libertarianism is that it's all about the non-aggression principle or the non-initiation of force. It's wrong to use force or aggression against another person unless you're defending yourself or others. A lot of people (myself included) would add fraudulent or deceptive behavior that harms or could harm another person into that definition. The ideal, then, would be for government to be strong enough to prevent aggressive behavior, and no stronger. Our current war-starting, hippie-bashing, drug-prohibiting, bank-bailing-out federal state is far beyond what is necessary for that.

Bringing up Africa as an argument for the benefits or advantages of empire is not a very good rhetorical technique, I think. Top to bottom, Africa has been dicked over for literally centuries by various imperial powers. There's a lot of reasons that things are bad in so much of Africa (including geographic and cultural factors), but it's also really difficult to come back from having much of your wealth and population destroyed/stolen so that some oligarch in London or New York or Brussels can have a slightly nicer house.

Not empire, strong government.

Some people think Africa is all authoritarian regimes, and there has been a lot of that, but actually, it's really mostly only in the cities that it is such a powerful government. Stray from the road, and there is no government. It's a deceptive appearance - in reality, it is a weak government.

Anyway yes in terms of strict morality it would be best if we adhered to the non-aggression principle, etc. A "Golden Rule" foreign policy as RP put it, would truly be a wonderful world.

But that's just not the real world, and sometimes "wrong" things are actually the "right" thing to do because they have a strong justification. In these cases it would actually be "wrong" to do the "right" thing because it would forfeit the better future that doing the "wrong" thing provides.

This is in essence political realism or if you like an "ends-justify-the-means" way of seeing it, and I think it's the only responsible way of approaching international relations, and indeed just politics in general.

Perhaps others disagree but I think adhering to idealism in a world where they are just that is an abdication of responsibility. You have to engage with the real world and try to change it, and you do have to play the game, even if it's dirty.

"Most of the actions taken by empires were certainly evil in those times, but weirdly, and complicatingly, they have also given us much of the goodness of today's world. Without empires of the past humanity would have come almost nowhere."

I'm curious why you think that is necessarily the case. It's like when people talk about how good the outcome of World War II was, with jet airplanes and rockets and radar. But wouldn't it have been better to develop those things peacefully, and not have to lose all those millions of lives and trillions of dollars of destruction? Maybe the USA today would be even better if we hadn't killed all those Indians and extirpated so much of their culture (one example: we still haven't figured out how to manage large natural areas as well as the natives of North America did).

Uly, you're right about that; I guess I should have more accurately said that it's a comparison of a monarchy or oligarchy vs. empire. But I disagree about this idea that things were so peaceful under Rome, or that it was desirable. Under Augustus, sure, things were generally peaceful. But revolts and civil wars were a nearly constant feature of imperial Roman history. We might also consider levels of representation: there's plenty of evidence that the Gauls, for example, preferred a Gallic king like Vercingetorix to a Roman proconsul, or the Jews preferred a Jewish king to a foreign one put into place by a distant empire.

I guess my root disagreement is this: if things are so much better in an empire, why do (generally speaking) they require such effort to create and maintain? To stick with Rome, all those legionaries weren't just to look out. To pick a different example, there's little reason to think that life in England and Normandy got a lot better after 1066 than it had been before. England was a kingdom, but it was a kingdom whose ruling apparatus was much closer to representative legitimacy (with whatever they called that council that helped with succession, and other checks upon royal authority) than it became under the Norman conquerors.

"Thucy, to respond to your post about states: one way to think about libertarianism is that it's all about the non-aggression principle or the non-initiation of force. It's wrong to use force or aggression against another person unless you're defending yourself or others."

I think that's what Thucy's main point was, and I agree with it as well. We simply don't trust human nature to be non-aggressive. That's why Thucy and I (Thucy correct me if I'm wrong) believe that there needs to be a strong government in place to protect society from those who wish to aggress against them, and make sure justice is done in an unbiased manner

"But wouldn't it have been better to develop those things peacefully,"

There would be no incentive to develop them without war! Not for a long long time later, anyways. Bill Gates originally dismissed the idea of the Internet as something not worth the money and effort necessary, but DARPA pushed forward. Government an ideal place to pursue risky endeavors to better humanity because they don't have a profit margin in mind that they need to adhere to when researching, building, and developing. It leads to some waste, yes, but its a high risk, high return system

"Perhaps others disagree but I think adhering to idealism in a world where they are just that is an abdication of responsibility. You have to engage with the real world and try to change it, and you do have to play the game, even if it's dirty."

I understand your point and I'm somewhat sympathetic to it, but I think the USA was a much stronger force for good in the world (which sounds cheesy) when it was a less aggressive member of the family of nations. I can think of very few situations in which unilateral aggressive action on America's part made things better. To put it another way, when people start doing "ends justify the means" type behavior, the end is rarely ending slavery or promoting civil rights or making people freer. Perhaps you've got something specific in mind.

"I think that's what Thucy's main point was, and I agree with it as well. We simply don't trust human nature to be non-aggressive. That's why Thucy and I (Thucy correct me if I'm wrong) believe that there needs to be a strong government in place to protect society from those who wish to aggress against them, and make sure justice is done in an unbiased manner"

Right right, and I believe that most libertarians would agree. When people initiative violence against one another, the government should stop it. Going beyond that (tinkering with the economy, building a military beyond that needed for self-defense, expanding criminal law to include victimless behavior that is not violent or fraudulent) is when we run into trouble.

jpgredsox, what you outlined is much more fitting for the US empire than any ancient empire. The standard of living in China was that high precisely because it was an empire and not a mosaic of petty states like during the Warring States Period. China was mostly at peace in times when it was a consolidated empire. The empire in itself is not worse than an oligarchy, monarchy... It is more difficult to maintain because it has much higher administrative needs due to its bigger size. But if pulled off well, it also allows its inhabitants to benefit from boosts to trade, mobility and peace with former hostile neighbours – an empire may end the endless bickering. German Empire worked better than HRE.

@Ckroberts - I agree with everything except the economy part. The Great Depression happened because the Federal Reserve and the government didn't step in to fix things. The reason that this most recent recession wasn't worse is that the Federal government and government stepped in. Who do you think brokered and subsidized the selling of Bear Stearns, Wachovia, WaMu, and all the other major financial institutions that failed. My god, if they had gone into bankruptcy as Lehman brothers did the effects would have been catastrophic. No business wanted to buy those companies. It took heavy assurances from the government to transfer those assets and keep everything relatively intact

"Going beyond that (tinkering with the economy, building a military beyond that needed for self-defense, expanding criminal law to include victimless behavior that is not violent or fraudulent) is when we run into trouble."

But it's all related. Our army has to be as large as it is not just to defend us, but to defend others, and to such a degree that no one would EVER want to attack us. Our huge army enforces peace all other things being equal, and THAT'S what I mean by realism - the reality is, if we cut our army down to size, a lot of bad shit would go down overseas. Some of it would hurt us, some wouldn't, nearly all of it would be bad and violent.

We tinker with the economy because when you *don't* do that, bad shit happens - people are exploited, people die alone and poor, and so on.

I can't believe anyone still thinks anything other than a mixed economy is a good idea lol. And there is also a place for public health law, even non-infectious health. The societal argument is the cost of health care we all bear for one another but the broader argument is just that we do not want people in our society to be sick, even if it was self-inflicted, so we try to prevent it. The laws these days on some of those are it is true too draconian - see the drug war. But the principle is sound.

You mentioned that the US was better for the world when it was smaller. This is undoubtedly true, but our status and the status of the world you are referring to was only possible because other countries had the status of hegemon - like the UK, whose role we now fill.

^^Hegemonic stability theory. We have a realist in the house, folks.

The reason American Empire enjoys lower and lower support even among the traditional allies like Europe is because it puts the emphasis more on the metropolis than on the periphery, thus putting its interest before the interest of other influential countries. The US of course is a hegemon because it is profitable for it to be one and because it wants to be one. But issues like Iraq and Afghanistan are clear examples of actions beneficial only to the metropolis, specifically pondering to the domestic audience. They were of zero use to maintaining the empire and the profits to the periphery were nil. A hegemonic empire has to take into account the wishes of the periphery as well if it wants to run smoothly and cheaply, without much need for actual agency and not just the threat of it. WTO, UN, NATO, START and such are the reasons why some countries are content with Pax Americana, not pointless invasions.

In reference to the Great Depression: eh, maybe. I don't pretend to be an economic historian, but I've never been convinced that the federal government successfully ended the Depression, even if you assume that the federal policymakers could have acted in ways consistent with a modern notion of the role of government. There's also evidence that government actions worsened the Depression (most notably the Smoot-Hawley tariff). It certainly did manage to reduce human suffering, and I would break with many libertarians by not being too upset about that kind of government spending. Even this reflects government's tendency to favor the powerful, though: look at social security, where the poorest group of workers, the young, pays taxes to support the (on average) wealthiest age group, the elderly.

One of the ways the New Deal tried to address the Depression was through the creation of new federal regulatory structures. Things like the NRA may have helped the Depression, but they also created obvious injustices. If you’re trying to, say, put together a code for the cotton textile industry in a very short period of time, who do you ask about it? The cotton textile companies. As a result, business leaders wrote the codes, and often they were the ones enforcing them. All these rules and regulations ended up favoring the people who understood them best, the business owners, at the expense of everyone else – smaller competitors and workers, especially.

So, the connection with the modern economy and maybe our empire discussion: I don't accept on either moral or pragmatic grounds that it is just or necessary to give benefits and favors to a small minority at the expense of the weak. Similarly with the bailout: sure, maybe that discouraged a larger economic problem (I disagree, but conceded for the moment). The government did that by taking trillions of dollars from everyone and giving it to the rich, connected cronies who caused the meltdown in the first place. (what I think would have actually happened, had the big guys gone down, we'd likely have had a year or so of sharp economic downturn but then recovered when other financial institutions picked up the pieces).

Talking about empire and military: ok, in 1955, maybe this is convincing. But who is the threat now, so dangerous that we have to spend more on the military than the rest of the world does? Cavemen terrorists who are far, far less of a threat to the average American than the daily commute to work? Russia, whose population and economy are dwarfed by that of western Europe (whose social programs we subsidize by our providing for their defense). China, who is surrounded by hostile neighbors and whose navy would have trouble with a single American supercarrier group?

"Even this reflects government's tendency to favor the powerful, though: look at social security, where the poorest group of workers, the young, pays taxes to support the (on average) wealthiest age group, the elderly."

The government does only the bidding of its citizens. The establishment of PAYGO is actually a rather easy game theory problem. The young cannot credibly promise to let their parents die of hunger so the parents won't save enough to maintain their standard of living since the young will bail them out. As a result, both parties want the pension system in place and the government delivers.

"whose navy would have trouble with a single American supercarrier group? "

See my comments in the South China Sea thread. They don't even need a navy anymore to deal with our carriers with the DF-21 anti-carrier ballistic missile they've developed and are upgrading. That and they have the second largest submarine fleet in the world, many of which are Russian Akula-class nuclear attack subs.

Anyways, back to the economics, I thank you for at least giving thought to my issues, which is more than what many other members would do. You're right in what the US government did during the Great Depression actually worsened it, but that is because we didn't have the understanding of economics we do today (not to say we have mastered economics by any means). But social security in the modern day is the government forcing you to save in your youth and you collect what you deposited once you retire. Everyone receives the same amount, and I would say the social safety net is a great thing and helps the free market. Savings rates in countries without social safety nets are extremely high - up to 30% - and this hinders economic growth by locking up a lot of money. By having a social safety net you can afford to decrease your savings rate and use your funds more productively.

And again I will concede to you on the fact that many business leaders wrote the economic codes in those times (I don't really have much opposition to what you said in the second paragraph, but didn't want you to think I overlooked it)

Now the bailout is fundamentally misunderstood, because in many cases - Citibank, GM, and AIG - the government is making money off of the bailout funds. I would ask you what economic institutions would be left to pick up the pieces? In the United States alone you were looking at losses to the tune of $300 billion, and that's only from the institutions that were acquired by others after they went into bankruptcy (So that doesn't take into account losses by Citigroup, Bank of America, JPMorgan, Goldman, etc)

"the DF-21 anti-carrier ballistic missile" !!!

It's faaaantaaaaassssstttiiiiccccccc!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

America might as well scuttle its navies now.

Lol.

@goldfinger - Social security is nothing of the sort. It is a tax on the young to pay for the old because the government spent the "savings" long ago. I retire in about 20 years and suspect it will be bankrupt or a pittance by then. If I had invested everything I have paid into social security in the last 10 years, and combined it with what pay in over the next 20, I would have a nice nest egg to retire on. Not the pittance I will get if I am lucky and it hasn't gone bankrupt.

The bailout of AIG, while distasteful, was an absolute necessity. Without that banks all over the world would have failed simultaneously. We all would have paid a far greater price than we have so far without it and yes the US Gov't is actually making money on those investments.

The problem is that we didn't put enough strings on the big investment banks that needed a taxpayer-subsidized bailout. We absolutely need to separate commercial and investment banking. We probably should have used antitrust law to break up those companies who had to be bailed out in order to stay solvent. We should also nationalize the ratings agencies as well, or at least regulate them to the degree that we used to regulate utilities.

"Savings rates in countries without social safety nets are extremely high - up to 30% - and this hinders economic growth by locking up a lot of money."

Really? I always thought saving was good for economic growth because saved money is investment money (provided you don't keep the money under your bed).

all true...put back into place the Glass-Steagall act. (And if you really want to bring down gas prices strengthen the CFTC and, quite off topic(sry), require higher capital requirements for commodity investments which should help reduce some of the rampant speculation.) AS for strings attached to the bailouts I think everyone was in a panic at the time and didn't trust the banks to take the medicine on time...so to speak

Spending and investing go hand in hand. If people are not buying then investing can only go so far. That's why the mantra "the rich are the job creators" is a half truth. Consumers are equally job creators (in capitalism, at least).