| Political Philosophy |
| 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 |
Political Philosophy
| Political Philosophy Sections |
There have been many empires over the past millennia. From Cyrus of
Persia, Chinese dynasties, Alexander, the Romans, the Mongols, Mayans,
Incas, Egyptians, The Ottomans, Russia, even smaller ones like Indian
princes, Cambodian princes and Indonesian kings - what they all had in
common was that all wealth went to the capital of the conquesting
Empire. And most of that was for the benefit of the Emperor. The new
lands were conquered through rapacious war with the spoils stolen.
Then standing armies were needed to keep control of territory.
As the Empires got bigger they began to rub up against each other.
They were at war when they contacted physically, and anyone in between
was pretty much crushed, like an overripe fruit on the ground.
Meanwhile, using one favored group to keep all the other groups in line,
not much different than Ancient Rome, or Victorian England.
There was some measure of freedom for the individual peoples
within the empire, mostly brought about by the lack of the technologies
of control and the remoteness of every place from another, combined
with lack of mobility. However, the freer the people and more legalistic
the system, with less arbitrary rule, the longer that empire lasted. As
technologies got better the empires actually became more brutally
efficient, with China today the last great brutal empire.
Even England and France, the most democratic (at least at home) of
empires were rapacious with conquest, with standing armies and sending
the wealth and heritage back to home.
All the European colonial nations, and there aren't more than 10 --
England, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Italy and
Germany. And for these last two their hearts weren't really into it. But
the others were merely trolling the planet to steal wealth. And of all of
them, only the English could be said to have left some good thing behind
-- namely some Common Law and the railroads. But the former colonies
of all the rest lived in poverty and fear at the entrenched colonial power.
Look at even the way England gave up its colonies versus France.
England, a land of common law, basically gave independence, and then
set up the commonwealth to continue relations. They kicked and
screamed a little, but then just gave into the pressure. And the
relationship between all the Commonwealth nations is pretty much one of
peace and respect. They are also among the more prosperous of former
colonies.
But the French went out in flames. In virtually every place they
fought with entrenched armies to keep their empire. Whether Algeria or
Vietnam, they clung to the last vestiges of power and were loath to give
up what they considered their divine right.
Hitler and Mussolini were engaged in trying to build Empires.
Soviet Russia was an empire -- it conquered lands, subjugated people
and worked at shifting the wealth to Moscow. But this was merely a name
change from Czarist Russia. There was no difference in the basic
philosophy behind it -- anything within grab belonged to the state -- and
in both cases it was Moscow.
Ancient Empires are now fabled legends of glory and history, and we
go to see their art in the museums of the world, pretending that this was
the glory of our past. In fact it was a brutal way of controlling people,
and slaughtering those who could not be controlled. About the only
good thing that came out of Empires, and mostly against the explicit
design and plan of the Emperors, was that people mixed together,
whether through force or voluntarily, and began to create more and
better things. There can be no doubt that the mixing that Empire
wrought brought about all of the things that we enjoy today.
There was of course no guarantee that we would be where we are
without the empires, but there is no doubt that the people of the world
would still have mixed together. It is actually entirely possible that
industry and technology could have been discovered and utilized so much
earlier.
Persia, Chinese dynasties, Alexander, the Romans, the Mongols, Mayans,
Incas, Egyptians, The Ottomans, Russia, even smaller ones like Indian
princes, Cambodian princes and Indonesian kings - what they all had in
common was that all wealth went to the capital of the conquesting
Empire. And most of that was for the benefit of the Emperor. The new
lands were conquered through rapacious war with the spoils stolen.
Then standing armies were needed to keep control of territory.
As the Empires got bigger they began to rub up against each other.
They were at war when they contacted physically, and anyone in between
was pretty much crushed, like an overripe fruit on the ground.
Meanwhile, using one favored group to keep all the other groups in line,
not much different than Ancient Rome, or Victorian England.
There was some measure of freedom for the individual peoples
within the empire, mostly brought about by the lack of the technologies
of control and the remoteness of every place from another, combined
with lack of mobility. However, the freer the people and more legalistic
the system, with less arbitrary rule, the longer that empire lasted. As
technologies got better the empires actually became more brutally
efficient, with China today the last great brutal empire.
Even England and France, the most democratic (at least at home) of
empires were rapacious with conquest, with standing armies and sending
the wealth and heritage back to home.
All the European colonial nations, and there aren't more than 10 --
England, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Italy and
Germany. And for these last two their hearts weren't really into it. But
the others were merely trolling the planet to steal wealth. And of all of
them, only the English could be said to have left some good thing behind
-- namely some Common Law and the railroads. But the former colonies
of all the rest lived in poverty and fear at the entrenched colonial power.
Look at even the way England gave up its colonies versus France.
England, a land of common law, basically gave independence, and then
set up the commonwealth to continue relations. They kicked and
screamed a little, but then just gave into the pressure. And the
relationship between all the Commonwealth nations is pretty much one of
peace and respect. They are also among the more prosperous of former
colonies.
But the French went out in flames. In virtually every place they
fought with entrenched armies to keep their empire. Whether Algeria or
Vietnam, they clung to the last vestiges of power and were loath to give
up what they considered their divine right.
Hitler and Mussolini were engaged in trying to build Empires.
Soviet Russia was an empire -- it conquered lands, subjugated people
and worked at shifting the wealth to Moscow. But this was merely a name
change from Czarist Russia. There was no difference in the basic
philosophy behind it -- anything within grab belonged to the state -- and
in both cases it was Moscow.
Ancient Empires are now fabled legends of glory and history, and we
go to see their art in the museums of the world, pretending that this was
the glory of our past. In fact it was a brutal way of controlling people,
and slaughtering those who could not be controlled. About the only
good thing that came out of Empires, and mostly against the explicit
design and plan of the Emperors, was that people mixed together,
whether through force or voluntarily, and began to create more and
better things. There can be no doubt that the mixing that Empire
wrought brought about all of the things that we enjoy today.
There was of course no guarantee that we would be where we are
without the empires, but there is no doubt that the people of the world
would still have mixed together. It is actually entirely possible that
industry and technology could have been discovered and utilized so much
earlier.