Jim Hlavac
| Politics Home The Practicalist The Socialist Era Politics Re-Explained Fundamentals Domestic Affairs Economic Theory Foreign Affairs Libertarian Ideas Political Theory Philosophy Royalty & Theology |
Economic Theory
| Economic Theory |
It is true that different countries have different layers of repression.
However -- the repression all comes from the same source -- the
belief that the king and thus the government has the right to rule
everything and no one can question it. That different rulers were less
rapacious than others merely caused us to stop the worse offenders
first.
Let's look at just 100 years ago, when World War I was raging
every country on the planet was a dictatorship of one form or
another. Even the most vaunted parliaments, like Englands, was
very much the product of the king's favor. That English kings were
always the least repressive only made them better off in the long run.
The more repressive the king the worse off the people. However,
the net result of kingship, by any name, is always some level of
repression by those in power against those who the powerful believe
they had the right to rule under God's will. There can be no doubt
that the English aristocracy thought they had the divine right to rule
the country.
Since the United States started its wobbly way into world affairs
starting most forcefully with the League of Nations we have
attempted to bring about less repression and less government control.
I think that the first diplomats sent out by the United States were
somewhat amazed to find the level of government control and
repression.
We were unprepared for what we found -- we couldn't imagine
that it existed. And thus we were faced with the reality that we
couldn't change them and thus we either had to ignore them or deal
with them. We were ready to start to deal with them through
reason like the League of Nations and discussion. But these people
didn't want to talk. They wanted to figure out how to stay in power
longer, and pass it to their kids, like the Kings of Old.
I think the first few times we stepped into a country we were
actually thinking we were going to change it. I think that McKinley
and Roosevelt -- our most imperialistic presidents, genuinely thought
we were doing something good for the natives. But the also weren't
so positive that they could bring true democracy to these people.
The ugliness of racism surely was there. The white man's burden and
all that. But there was still, underlying it all, some fundamental belief
that we were taking democracy in some form to these people.
After World War II we basically started to simply step in and take
over if it was possible. We had to do it in Europe. And now we are
beginning to do it elsewhere because it is the only way to bring the
beginnings of democracy to these people. As long as they keep the
old ways they are destined to be repressed and broke.
However -- the repression all comes from the same source -- the
belief that the king and thus the government has the right to rule
everything and no one can question it. That different rulers were less
rapacious than others merely caused us to stop the worse offenders
first.
Let's look at just 100 years ago, when World War I was raging
every country on the planet was a dictatorship of one form or
another. Even the most vaunted parliaments, like Englands, was
very much the product of the king's favor. That English kings were
always the least repressive only made them better off in the long run.
The more repressive the king the worse off the people. However,
the net result of kingship, by any name, is always some level of
repression by those in power against those who the powerful believe
they had the right to rule under God's will. There can be no doubt
that the English aristocracy thought they had the divine right to rule
the country.
Since the United States started its wobbly way into world affairs
starting most forcefully with the League of Nations we have
attempted to bring about less repression and less government control.
I think that the first diplomats sent out by the United States were
somewhat amazed to find the level of government control and
repression.
We were unprepared for what we found -- we couldn't imagine
that it existed. And thus we were faced with the reality that we
couldn't change them and thus we either had to ignore them or deal
with them. We were ready to start to deal with them through
reason like the League of Nations and discussion. But these people
didn't want to talk. They wanted to figure out how to stay in power
longer, and pass it to their kids, like the Kings of Old.
I think the first few times we stepped into a country we were
actually thinking we were going to change it. I think that McKinley
and Roosevelt -- our most imperialistic presidents, genuinely thought
we were doing something good for the natives. But the also weren't
so positive that they could bring true democracy to these people.
The ugliness of racism surely was there. The white man's burden and
all that. But there was still, underlying it all, some fundamental belief
that we were taking democracy in some form to these people.
After World War II we basically started to simply step in and take
over if it was possible. We had to do it in Europe. And now we are
beginning to do it elsewhere because it is the only way to bring the
beginnings of democracy to these people. As long as they keep the
old ways they are destined to be repressed and broke.