Why is Britain richer than other countries?

Bad wording but yeah, exactly my point.

In what way would it have been a loss had it not existed? Had the empire not existed, the angloshpere wouldn't have been created which means there's not an angloshpere to morn the loss of thus there's no loss.

That's taking the argument to the anal extreme. It would have been a loss relative to todays world.

Humans by virtue of imagination will always have people who dream of utopia (granted my utopia is very different to a communists) but it's hard to judge what might have been. I personally value the Anglosphere and power highly (indeed if i vote to leave the EU it will be to further ties with the Anglosphere) so i would say that the genocide of a few primitives was worth it considering that Australia, Canada, the UK and the USA account for a GDP of ~$21tn and per capita wealth around 4 times the global average. In that sense we spread prosperity.

You are attempting to justify something which to a rational mind should seem (because it is) obscene and horrific. I don't think that no expansion of the West should have been carried out, but to apologise for the crimes which were committed in doing so in this way does make you look lacking in humanity and therefore ill-equipped to make future political decisions. I value liberty over power, and only view power as a good thing when it is being used to enforce civilised law. Or are you saying that the genocides were entirely unavoidable? In which case I would not have advocated for any expansion, had I been around at the time. (However I do not think the genocides were unavoidable in every case).

I'm saying that i think like a realist. In the age that these events happened it was a strong rule, weak follow world. Genocide of primatives was in hindsight always going to occur given that imperialism is what it is is. I'm simply saying that in hindsight the world is a better place for it. Hell, Europe's a better place for world war 2. From despair can spring happiness.

Of course i don't advocate us committing genocide today (infact we should stop it) but neither should we apply moral relativism to historical events, they are what they are.

Power on a global scale is liberty. For an example look at the USA and ask yourself what would happen if it invaded Cuba tomorrow.. nothing, because true power grants you freedom from the law whether your an individual or country.

I see where you're coming from now and as you know, I share your sentiment regarding the good that came out of it. I do still think we should remember the bad things of history too though (just not in a self-flagellating or excessive manner).

Liberty to control others is not really the kind of liberty I'm talking about. Although with your example, I should think that Cuba would actually become more free than it is currently if the US occupied it, because right now it is being governed illegitimately anyway (no political organisations allowed, no free speech, etc.).

I think that one should learn lessons from history, but i;ve never been keen on applying todays cultural norms and somewhat obsess. That type of thinking has held Germany back in terms of global affairs (indeed theyd make a powerful ally).

Liberty in the sense of liberal policy is not really exclusive to powerful or non-powerful nations, China could just as easily allow gay marriage as could Norway. The type of power i'm talking about is not controlling people per say but linking power with freedom. If you killed somebody tomorrow you'd have a quick court case and be down. If a billionaire kills somebody he can have the case tied up in court for years. That's real power. Just like Russia being largely free of impunity over Crimea. Power is freedom.

We're arguing over different types of freedom then. When I said that I value liberty over power, what I meant was that I would prefer a world full of independent liberal democracies to a world ruled by one supreme liberal democracy, administered from some insignificant capital city. Although I don't mind if democracies use imperialistic force to turn tyrannies into more democracies. The end goal should always be independence and free trade though, not federation or empire. Obviously I would rather live in a country ruled by an imperialistic liberal democracy though, than one ruled by a despotic domestic regime.

Ah. See i'd be quite happy for a global federation (eventually) though for the moment it's not practical.

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. If a colony of a liberal democracy wishes to become independent, and the people in that country believe in human rights, free speech and the like, then to not grant them independence is to sacrifice the original principles purportedly being upheld.

Why not aim for worldwide cooperation between democratic governments?

I agree but we're approaching a time when we're going to be mining asteroids and potentially looking beyond our solar system, i find nationalism to be limiting.

Because i want a powerful Britain and that's best served as part of another powerful federation. Frankly i'd be perfectly happy to join the US or Anglosphere.

I think imperialism for its own sake is the most blatant form of nationalism that there is. What I'm arguing for is a world in which we are free to move around where we like and share our ideas with whomsoever we like. I think that a worldwide empire or federation would stifle this kind of thing. Perhaps a kind of union would work, which is to say, a better version of the UN which only accepted liberal democracies as member states (right now it gives voice to North Korea and Saudi Arabia, two moral cess pits of this universe).

How does Colonization make a country 1st world. If that's right then Africa should be first world as it has all the resources and had billions poured into it over years. That's a piss poor excuse.

Britain is rich because of hard work. End of discussion.

The middle east has a history of colonialism yet it's poor as hell.

Well as an idea global free trade and movement sounds nice but given how different we are in terms of development i can't see it. What we're actually seeing is a slow expansion of the USA (increased integration with Mexico, Peurto Rico voted to become the 52nd state), the EU has states queing up to join it and even North African states have historically applied for membership. Various unions are developing in Africa and South America. I'm not sure a complete global union will ever emerge but right now the trend is to go big.

Very much agree with your UN proposal albeit i'd scrap VETO power in the new UNSC.

We're arguing over different types of freedom then. When I said that I value liberty over power, what I meant was that I would prefer a world full of independent liberal democracies to a world ruled by one supreme liberal democracy, administered from some insignificant capital city. Although I don't mind if democracies use imperialistic force to turn tyrannies into more democracies. The end goal should always be independence and free trade though, not federation or empire. Obviously I would rather live in a country ruled by an imperialistic liberal democracy though, than one ruled by a despotic domestic regime.