Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    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.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    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.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    That's taking the argument to the anal extreme. It would have been a loss relative to todays world.
    A loss as it exists today, if it didn't exist then today it wouldn't be a loss. That's all I'm saying.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    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).
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by felamaslen)
    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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    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.).
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by felamaslen)
    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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    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.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Wealth, or standard of living, is created by technological progress.

    Britain was at the forefront of the greatest technological revolution in human history, and is still at the forefront of technological progress to this day, and so this is why Britain has 'wealth'.

    The poorest nations in the world are the most technologically backward.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by felamaslen)
    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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    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?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by felamaslen)
    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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    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).
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    Britain is a rich country historically because it was the first nation to achieve near global hegemony over international trade - yes, this was imperialistic by nature due to the trade routes created with its colonies (not to mention the slaves). However, I think that this is only one part of the explanation, Britain's historical wealth can be derived from these things:

    1) Hegemony over international trade.
    2) Access to extremely flexible labour (via slaves, and wage slavery at home in industry in the Victorian era).
    3) Access to technology plus Britain's many coal fields.

    Britain was the first country to truly embrace the capitalist mode of production, and therefore had almost complete control over the flows of capital the early defining systems of international markets. This was, as you can imagine, a huge gain over the previous inefficiencies involved with the feudalism.

    However, the transition from feudalism from capitalism was far from ethical - it involved the mass migration of people from peaceful country-farming lifestyles into dense terraced housing under the fumes of industrial England. With this, came increasing demand by the upper classes and aristocracy - hence the development of the slave trade.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by felamaslen)
    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).
    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.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CryptoidAlien)
    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.
    Africa's situation:

    Selfish man comes who wants the seat of power.

    Western corporations want resources.

    Western corporations say we'll put you in power to govern the people and let us exploit your country's resources for massive profits.

    Selfish man's in power.

    Western corporations makes profits.

    Everybody wins.

    (Apart from the country).


    The Middle East was divided by the Western powers by the Sykes-Pickot agreement with selfish man in power as above.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    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.
    I think that vetoes should require two member states. I find it comical that a government like that of China is deemed to have a legitimate voice over critical international politics.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    I guess the industrialisation laid the foundation why Britain became a rich country in the next hundred years. Without industrialisation no country is able to prosper by technologies, without technologies no high living standard is possible.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    We're not really, we just pretend to be. In the Bank of England there's only a few tiny chunks of gold and one of the goblins from Harry potter sobbing silently into a 5 pound note.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by felamaslen)
    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.
    Concerning the "use" of "imperialistic force", why do you believe that democracies should increase both violence against its citizens, the extraction of taxes (vertical violence), as well as violence against the citizens of other states (horizontal violence), simply in order to enforce your "type" of "freedom"? Do you not understand how these violations of the non-aggression principle are completely averse to individual freedom? Or how free trade is systematically reduced by the very principles you're advocating?

    See War, Peace, and the State
 
 
 
Poll
Do you have a role model?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.