Imperialism/Colonialism: Not a Bad Thing

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

Exactly! Using this mindset the interventions in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria were all justified. In fact the U.S. should invade and overthrow not only every dictatorship, but every inefficient, "uncivilized" or even "less civilized" country on the planet. I'm seriously missing the point of this entire thread.

I disagree. We opened up no trade. We didn't flood the area with our business. We didn't set up our own colony. We didn't assimilate the locals to our own laws and culture, ect.

And I don't think we shouldve..as I said in either my first or second post. This is about whether historical imperialism, specifically with the British Empire, was a good thing or a bad thing.

[r3volution 3.0]

There were kingdoms in pre-colonial Africa that had periods of peace longer than the U.S. republic has even been in existence. Look at Ethiopia for example. That monarchy lasted from before the time of Solomon until after World War II. And the European colonists didn't go country by country and say "Hmmmmm.....this country has an established well ordered society. We won't mess with this one."

Prior to colonization, the vast majority of black Africa was inhabited by tribal peoples living near subsistence.

And, despite the romantic vision of the noble savage, tribal societies were not so peaceful.

[jmdrake]

Prior to colonization, the vast majority of black Africa was inhabited by tribal peoples living near subsistence.

And, despite the romantic vision of the noble savage, tribal societies were not so peaceful.

Straw man argument. I never claimed any claims about the majority of this or that. Nor did I say the tribal societies were peaceful. I did point out the fact that there were civilized nations just as advanced as anything in the west that lasted as long as the U.S. has been existence and were nonetheless overrun. Or look at what happened in China. That country was once much more advanced than anything in the west and they got overrun by colonial powers. It's an Ayn Rand myth that somehow colonial powers went around finding backwards nomads to graciously bring civilization to. All the colonial powers cared about was how to make a quick buck. If that meant forcing China to allow Britain to sell them narcotics, sobeit.

[ArrestPoliticians]

I disagree. We opened up no trade. We didn't flood the area with our business. We didn't set up our own colony. We didn't assimilate the locals to our own laws and culture, ect.

And I don't think we shouldve..as I said in either my first or second post. This is about whether historical imperialism, specifically with the British Empire, was a good thing or a bad thing.

Human history is the history of imperialism. Some of the results have been "good" and some of the results have been bad. Of course, imperialism can be good for the survivors, but never those killed and enslaved in the initial and subsequent waves. The Founders were not very big fans of British imperialism, while the Tories were.

You can't cherry pick, your thread title claims that Imperialism/Colonialism is "good". Then you cherry pick one example to cover your a$$. British Imperialism had some positive effects in a few places because British common law evolved in a positive, pro freedom way. Its incidental that it was spread at the barrel of the gun in some instances, but usually primarily by those FLEEING the tyrannical imperialist state!

I don't think Arab imperialism was good. I don't think US imperialism is good. I don't think Roman imperialism was good. I don't think Hun imperialism was good.

[r3volution 3.0]

Straw man argument. I never claimed any claims about the majority of this or that. Nor did I say the tribal societies were peaceful. I did point out the fact that there were civilized nations just as advanced as anything in the west that lasted as long as the U.S. has been existence and were nonetheless overrun.

Since I wasn't claiming that every native group colonized by Europeans was tribal, I'm not sure what your point is.

Or look at what happened in China. That country was once much more advanced than anything in the west and they got overrun by colonial powers.

Emphasis on "once."

By the late 19th century, China was in a state of near anarchy.

...which is precisely why a relative handful of European soldiers/sailors were sufficient to extract major concessions from the emperor.

European colonization of China didn't amount to much in terms of territory, but it did bring an improvement in law and order in those areas.

It's an Ayn Rand myth that somehow colonial powers went around finding backwards nomads to graciously bring civilization to. All the colonial powers cared about was how to make a quick buck. If that meant forcing China to allow Britain to sell them narcotics, sobeit.

I never said the Europeans were well-intended.

Some were, genuinely believing in the civilizing mission; many, probably most, had more cynical motives.

The net effect of their actions was nonetheless beneficial in most cases.

[r3volution 3.0]

Human history is the history of imperialism. Some of the results have been "good" and some of the results have been bad. Of course, imperialism can be good for the survivors, but never those killed and enslaved in the initial and subsequent waves. The Founders were not very big fans of British imperialism, while the Tories were.

You can't cherry pick, your thread title claims that Imperialism/Colonialism is "good". Then you cherry pick one example to cover your a$$. British Imperialism had some positive effects in a few places because British common law evolved in a positive, pro freedom way. Its incidental that it was spread at the barrel of the gun in some instances, but usually primarily by those FLEEING the tyrannical imperialist state!

I don't think Arab imperialism was good. I don't think US imperialism is good. I don't think Roman imperialism was good. I don't think Hun imperialism was good.

Do you think that it is inherently bad for a people to be ruled by foreigners, as opposed to being ruled by members of their own ethnic group?

Because, to my mind, it makes no difference whatsoever.

I don't care at all about "national self-determination," I care about liberty.

I'm after the most liberal government possible, whatever the race/language/etc of the rulers.

If Chinamen could have ruled Dark Age France better than the French, I'd have had no objection to a Chinese governor-general in Paris.

[jmdrake]

Since I wasn't claiming that every native group colonized by Europeans was tribal, I'm not sure what your point is.



Emphasis on "once."

By the late 19th century, China was in a state of near anarchy.

...which is precisely why a relative handful of European soldiers/sailors were sufficient to extract major concessions from the emperor.

European colonization of China didn't amount to much in terms of territory, but it did bring an improvement in law and order in those areas.



I never said the Europeans were well-intended.

Some were, genuinely believing in the civilizing mission; many, probably most, had more cynical motives.

The net effect of their actions was nonetheless beneficial in most cases.

The net effect of the black plague was beneficial so I'm not sure what your point is. And sure, Viking pillagers helped establish trade routes throughout Europe and Ghengis Khan helped spread his genetic markers. Again, not sure what your point is.

[ArrestPoliticians]

Do you think that it is inherently bad for a people to be ruled by foreigners, as opposed to being ruled by members of their own ethnic group?

Because, to my mind, it makes no difference whatsoever.

I don't care at all about "national self-determination," I care about liberty.

I'm after the most liberal government possible, whatever the race/language/etc of the rulers.

If Chinamen could have ruled Dark Age France better than the French, I'd have had no objection to a Chinese governor-general in Paris.

Liberty for what and for who. You define liberty in a way totally contrary to federalist principles. At least a democracy has the consent of 51%, your system has no consent at all.

Furthermore you're totally ignoring how we get to that stage, via wars of conquest and mass murder.

[r3volution 3.0]

The net effect of the black plague was beneficial so I'm not sure what your point is. And sure, Viking pillagers helped establish trade routes throughout Europe and Ghengis Khan helped spread his genetic markers. Again, not sure what your point is.

My point is exactly what I said.

Europeans colonization had good effects and bad effects.

On balance, the result was good, in most cases.

[r3volution 3.0]

Liberty for what and for who.

Liberty means freedom from aggression (aggression means property rights violations).

My position is that I want to maximize liberty (i.e. minimize aggression).

...aka libertarianism.

At least a democracy has the consent of 51%, your system has no consent at all.

Being allowed to write a name on a piece of paper every few years does not make one more free.

And, as a matter of fact, democratic governments tend to be less liberal than non-democratic governments.

Throw a dart at a map of Africa, and odds are that country's colonial government was more liberal than its present one.

Furthermore you're totally ignoring how we get to that stage, via wars of conquest and mass murder.

I'm well aware of the various crimes committed by the colonialists (though they're often exaggerated).

But they also did a lot of good, in terms of maintaining law and order (i.e. preventing aggression), which IMO outweighed the bad in most cases.

Did you see the chart I posted earlier about the outrageously high murder rate in tribal societies, as compared to the West?

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

Human history is the history of imperialism. Some of the results have been "good" and some of the results have been bad. Of course, imperialism can be good for the survivors, but never those killed and enslaved in the initial and subsequent waves. The Founders were not very big fans of British imperialism, while the Tories were.

You can't cherry pick, your thread title claims that Imperialism/Colonialism is "good". Then you cherry pick one example to cover your a$$. British Imperialism had some positive effects in a few places because British common law evolved in a positive, pro freedom way. Its incidental that it was spread at the barrel of the gun in some instances, but usually primarily by those FLEEING the tyrannical imperialist state!

I don't think Arab imperialism was good. I don't think US imperialism is good. I don't think Roman imperialism was good. I don't think Hun imperialism was good.

Human History is full of Imperialism; correct. But the majority of it has been similar to that of the Romans or the Huns, or the Americans.....I specifically pointed to the British, and I specifically stated in post number two that no European Power should have any sort of legitimacy to imperialize today....not because Imperialism is bad. It is just a means....it is because the ends would be unjust. Europe and America no longer stand for Liberty, for Property Rights, for Western Civilization, for Natural Law. We've seen how well imperialism has worked since civilization fell in ww1/ww2. We are in a Dark Age (even if we think we are not).

Now, the Founders were quite HUGE fans of British Imperialism. Naturally, they had to have been, otherwise they wouldn't of had the chance to do anything that they did...as they wouldn't been born in England *which was also imperialized by the Romans...we all started from somewhere...imperialism is as natural as the free movement of people*

. Were the Pilgrims imperialist maniacs who decided to steal the land of the indians...damn imperialists! I don't think so. They went out, in search of liberty. And they found it. It doesn't matter that they weren't born there. It doesn't matter that some tribe of indians may have been there. Liberty is the only end that matters.

And in that, the American Founding Fathers, very much so wanted to be apart of the British System. It was based on Free Trade!!! We petitioned the King over and over asking for him to respect our property rights, and he refused...it doesn't matter that they were unrepresented. They were deprived of their natural rights. And they had just cause for revolt (just as any other ruled people would have, if their life, liberty, or property were being trampled upon...now the success of that revolt is another matter of pragmatism).

Now, for American Foreign Policy, we were completely self-sutainable. Why would we want to imperialize? Britian did it for economic benefit, and the side effect was Liberty. We would only be doing it for power...it wouldn't be worth the cost...as Adam Smith points out.

See, that is the true argument against imperialism; is the value to the imperialist. Yet another reason that America doesn't really have anything other than perhaps a moral imperative to even desire imperialism.

I didn't cherry pick anything to cover my ass. I stated that only western culture was just in their imperialism. And western civilization is fallen. So I'm using the most liberal example to show that imperialism itself isn't inheriently bad...though it can be....it can also be a powerful tool for liberty.

Liberty at the barrel of a gun....hmmmm....could the other individual be the Indian from the Gen. Napier example? Liberty is liberty....and when Liberty battles Tyranny...sometimes Tyranny sheds some blood. And that is a good thing.

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

Liberty for what and for who. You define liberty in a way totally contrary to federalist principles. At least a democracy has the consent of 51%, your system has no consent at all.

Furthermore you're totally ignoring how we get to that stage, via wars of conquest and mass murder.

Let me try this. Liberty for what and for who? Natural Law is universal. That was a key point of western civilization, as philosophized by Aquinas. You dont define Liberty based on Federalist Principles...you define Federalist Principles based on liberty!!! Democracy has consent of 51% (while that is only half true...i'll work with it as to not complicate the basic premise)....What if 51% of people vote in tyranny? Is that liberty due to popular support?

Yet another benefit of a King. You only need one Philospher King, managing his own private property (the state), and expecting him to take care of his property for his own benefit and for the self-interest in handing it off to posterity. He will avoid war, tax, debt, and he will try to build the economy long term, take care of his people, secure property rights (as his rule depends on the legitimacy of property rights) ect.

Or you can have a system which requires 51% of the entire population to be philosopher kings, managing publically owned property, not falling into the tragedy of the commons, not voting for themselves out of self-interest (the welfare-warfare state)....basically everything that is wrong with our current government (including perpetual industrial warfare).

Wars of Conquest and Mass Murder. That isn't imperialism....but even so....if it is Wars of Conquest and Mass Murder.....of tyrants, murderers, thieves, rapists, ect...well, I have sworn upon the alter of God, hostility towards every form of tyranny. Let it die at my sword.

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

Ah. That explains your worldview then. Nevermind.

Care to explain your distaste? I essentially said that I believe in Good and Evil, and i believe that we as individuals have the free will to make that choice. I've said that like all men, i've been evil...but i always try to better myself, and walk as a good man.

Unless you are talking about the anarcho monarchy link...in which, what did you think?

[jmdrake]

My point is exactly what I said.

Europeans colonization had good effects and bad effects.

On balance, the result was good, in most cases.

In most cases the same "good effects" would have happened had European colonization not occurred. If the Vikings had not pillaged Europe eventually trade would have grown some other way. If Europeans hadn't invaded Africa, at some point the stronger civilizations would have overcome the weaker ones anyway. Your point is pointless.

[jmdrake]

Care to explain your distaste? I essentially said that I believe in Good and Evil, and i believe that we as individuals have the free will to make that choice. I've said that like all men, i've been evil...but i always try to better myself, and walk as a good man.

Unless you are talking about the anarcho monarchy link...in which, what did you think?

Did I said I had a distaste for your worldview? I just said that explains it. Your worldview is your worldview. I don't agree with it but it's not mine.

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

Did I said I had a distaste for your worldview? I just said that explains it. Your worldview is your worldview. I don't agree with it but it's not mine.

That is fair.

And by the way, your link in your signature about the us should've stayed out of ww1, totally correct from this standpoint (of democracy being bad). It turned the war into an ideological, "high minded" war, which led to the destruction of the Old World Order, to European Empires and Monarchy, and to the rise of the 'isms of Europe. Democracy enabled WW2. We shouldve stayed the hell out (as should've the Brits...in accordance with Slendid Isolationism)

[ArrestPoliticians]

What an incredible amount of confusion and bad history! Philosopher-Kings and maximizing Liberty through dictatorship! Zero-consent and taxation without representation is liberty!

Sorry, but you two don't know the difference between capitalism and mercantilism much less Liberty vs slavery.

And we've already pointed out this is just the Bush Doctrine neocon agenda.

[Natural Citizen]

...the difference between capitalism and mercantilism..

There is certainly an important distinction between the two. Unfortunately, those who do understand the difference are quite content to leave the confusion unchecked. Generally speaking. I'm not insinuating anyone individually. Just generally. Frequently, mercantantilist policy is made applicable in the name of capitalism. Of course, then, capitalism gets a bad rap because of the inability to recognize and make the distinction between it and mercantilist policy. Funny thing is that once people start blaming capitalism for the problem, even though the real issue is one that comes as a result of mercantilist policy, the trustees in mercantilist policy come in and help out with the "capitalist" (useful idiots in this case) point of view. Even though all the trustees in mercantilist policy are really doing is pulling the okie doke with the old stalking horse gag in order that, by its name, mercantilist policy shall not be entered into the discussion. I see it quite a bit. Although not during the election cycle since all that comes with that has been trumping discussion. Of course, the misunderstanding exists everywhere on the web where political discussion is present and in discussion out in the general public. Not limited to our small little hole in the web. Similar scenario is calling protectionism crony capitalism in order to avoid the larger discussion of protectionism itself.

Additionally, something like the TPP is a mercantilist policy. Which happens to be imperialistic, too. Sovereignty of foreign nations (and applicable to our own, I'd add) would essentially be tossed out the window if a nation's laws were deemed to be a threat to a private entity's projected profit. And, of course, the entity would sue in a private court on top of that. A court of said entity's own construct and oversight in the case of TPP.

Some may certainly disagree with my thoughts here. I'm open to any correction.

[jmdrake]

That is fair.

And by the way, your link in your signature about the us should've stayed out of ww1, totally correct from this standpoint (of democracy being bad). It turned the war into an ideological, "high minded" war, which led to the destruction of the Old World Order, to European Empires and Monarchy, and to the rise of the 'isms of Europe. Democracy enabled WW2. We shouldve stayed the hell out (as should've the Brits...in accordance with Slendid Isolationism)

The irony of all of this is that World War 1 itself shows why imperialism is actually a bad thing. The only reason for the war itself was competition between empires. The British, French, Austria-Hungarian, Ottoman and Russian empires were all jockeying for supremacy. Britain didn't stay out of it because the nature of empire is they couldn't stay out of it. It's like asking a hungry binge eater to just "cool it" at a smorgageboard. Empires are maintained not only through the leading country's force of arms, but also through a system of "entangling alliances." That's simply the nature of the beast. By definition you cannot be an empire and mind your own business.

My worldview is a decidedly Christian worldview. I reject the Freemason / Machiavellian idea that the "ends justify the means." (Ironically, by the time Machiavelli came on the scene, the Christian church that opposed him had long been Machiavellian.) Christianity was well on its way to complete transformation of the Roman empire by stealth in the first few centuries of its existence. It conquered through kindness and steadfast adherence to virtue. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and "Love your enemies. Be kind to them that persecute you." were first and foremost among Christian ideals. It's these principles that Ghandi used to end the "Raj" that you seem so fond of. The "Raj" was so free market that it didn't allow people to make their own salt. And India was a jewell before Britain took it over. The Queen of England did not build the Taj Mahal for example. Did exposure to British culture cause some improvement in India? Of course. Cultural exchanges generally do that everywhere they happen. But was a British style empire required for that exchange? Of course not. You brought up how the British treated the Native Americans versus how the U.S. did? Well how about the French? They respected Native American culture and lands. They worked through actual trade, not mercantilism. You keep your hunting grounds and give us beaver pelts for our shiny beads. That is freedom of association. Here is a good essay that explains this further. http://www.studymode.com/essays/Fren...-64941742.html

[Tywysog Cymru]

With a few exceptions (e.g. Gibraltar), the colonies were of little/no military value, and weakened the colonial nations economically.

From: "The Profitability of Imperialism: The British Experience in the West Indies 1768 -1772"

That's just one example. Spain greatly profited from colonization of the New World.

[r3volution 3.0]

That's just one example.

But a very telling example...

As the study explains, the sugar-producing islands of the Caribbean were among the richest anywhere.

If they were a loser, so surely was most everything else (certainly everything in Africa, which were the poorest of the colonies).

Spain greatly profited from colonization of the New World.

Those colonies generated revenue, but also entailed costs; are you sure there was a profit?

Within a century of establishing those colonies, Spain itself was bankrupt and degenerating into a second rate power, if that's any indication.

[r3volution 3.0]

In most cases the same "good effects" would have happened had European colonization not occurred. If the Vikings had not pillaged Europe eventually trade would have grown some other way. If Europeans hadn't invaded Africa, at some point the stronger civilizations would have overcome the weaker ones anyway. Your point is pointless.

"at some point"

No doubt, but when?

10 years?

100 years?

500 years?

Certainly, in the ~50 years since the end of colonial rule, the natives have in most cases been unable to build stable states.

One doesn't go from tribe to modern state overnight (it took W. Europe ~1200 years after the collapse of the W. Roman Empire).

The Europeans unquestionably accelerated the development of these areas.

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

What an incredible amount of confusion and bad history! Philosopher-Kings and maximizing Liberty through dictatorship! Zero-consent and taxation without representation is liberty!

Sorry, but you two don't know the difference between capitalism and mercantilism much less Liberty vs slavery.

And we've already pointed out this is just the Bush Doctrine neocon agenda.

Indeed, what an incredible amount of confusion and bad history! You have allowed the French Revolution to pervert Freedom! You substitute Freedom and Liberty for Egalitarian Equality. You believe that Freedom and Liberty include Hedonism. You reject Natural Law as the basis of government, decoupling Liberty from Morality and Virtue. You speak against a single Philosopher-King who possesses little true power, not in favor of a Natural Order of individual private government (ancap), but in hopes that 51% of a voting population will become Philosopher-Kings. You reject privately owned government, with all of the benefits of far-sightedness and the self-interest of the long term health and wealth of your economy…. (Read Austrian Economics) because your neighbor didn’t get to vote on how you spend your money. You believe in Publically Owned Government, yet you ignore the Tragedy of the Commons. That somehow 51% of voters will not be attempting to rob the other 49% of voters blind. That somehow, the 49% of people who have received nothing for their vote are “consenting” or are “represented”. Bastiat speaks of “legal plunder”. You do not see the problem with Tyranny of the Majority; because somehow popular tyranny is now liberty. Remember; the 1^st Amendment can be repealed at any point. They just need the votes to do so. You believe that consent is a precondition of liberty.

Remember that seemingly every single one of the Founding Fathers spoke out against Democracy in favor of Republic. They created the Articles of Confederation, a decent government. That was abandoned for Hamilton’s Tyrannical Democracy. I suggest a reading of the Anti-Federalist Papers.

One final point on consent. Have you ever been given the option to opt-out of your “consent”, or was it hereditarily bestowed upon you? You were born in chains, but since the chains are forged out of the rhetoric of democracy, you revere them. And instead of overthrowing your despotic government, you simply change its face via pseudo-elections. The government, the tyranny, still exists. Liberty, once lost, can never be recovered.

Adam Smith and the British Empire were the biggest proponents of Free Trade and Free Enterprise in the entire world! Mercantilism? How about the Mercantilism of Democracy? The idea of State Capitalism or Protectionism? Those ideas crushed Empires who failed to cast them away (see Spain). Those who embraced Free Enterprise, like the British, quite literally wrote the book on why mercantilism was destructive. Democracy gave power to Communism, to Fascism, to Progressivism, to Populism, to every other tyrannical ‘ism. Why? Because, now the majority gets to decide right from wrong. Liberty from Tyranny.

Liberty versus Slavery. Ha! You sir advocate for Slavery in principle! As long as the majority is consenting of course.

The neo-con agenda of preventative war is nothing at all like British Imperialism. Nothing. You are a fool if you have not seen the blaring differences in both means, and ends. Imperialism is not the same as “making the world safe for Democracy”. In fact, that phrase originated from Woodrow Wilson, a man wholly committed to the destruction of Imperialism and of Monarchy and Empire. Tell me how Mr. Wilson, the champion of "self-determination" and "globalism" would advocate for this...

Take up the White Man's burden, Send forth the best ye breed
Go bind your sons to exile, to serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness, On fluttered folk and wild—
Your new-caught, sullen peoples, Half-devil and half-child.

Take up the White Man's burden, In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple, An hundred times made plain
To seek another's profit, And work another's gain.

Take up the White Man's burden, The savage wars of peace—
Fill full the mouth of Famine And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly Bring all your hopes to nought.

Take up the White Man's burden, No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper, The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter, The roads ye shall not tread,
Go mark them with your living, And mark them with your dead.

Take up the White Man's burden And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better, The hate of those ye guard—
The cry of hosts ye humour (Ah, slowly!) toward the light:—
"Why brought he us from bondage, Our loved Egyptian night?"

Take up the White Man's burden, Ye dare not stoop to less—
Nor call too loud on Freedom To cloak your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper, By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples Shall weigh your gods and you.

Take up the White Man's burden, Have done with childish days—
The lightly proferred laurel, The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood, through all the thankless years
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom, The judgment of your peers!

I do not claim that the British were perfect. I don’t. I do not apologize for any infringement upon Natural Law that they have certainly carried out. But, to pretend that they were not overwhelmingly a force for Liberty is not just silly. It is dangerous.


You ignore History. Or at least; you have heavily bought into the propagandized version of history. Here is a more balanced one.

“In 1765 Parliament passed the Stamp Act…The projected revenue was not immense: 110,000 pounds. Nearly half of it coming from the West Indies. But the tax was so unpopular that the minister who introduced it George Grenville, was forced to resign, and by March of the flowing year it had been scrapped. From now on, it was accepted, the Empire would tax only external trade not internal transactions. Two years later, a new Chancellor of the Exchequer, Charles Townshend, tried again, this time with a range of new customs duties. In the hope of sweetening the pill, the duty on one of the most popular articles of colonial consumption, tea, was actually cut from one shilling to three pence per pound. It was no good. Samuel Adams drafted a circular for the Massachusetts Assembly calling for resistance even to these taxes. In January 1770 a new government in Britain, under the famously unprepossessing Lord North, lifted all the new duties except the one on tea. Still the protests in Boston continued.

Everyone has heard of the Boston Tea Party…but most people assume it was a protest against a hike in the tax on tea. In fact, the price of tea in question was exceptionally low, since the British government had just given the East India Company a rebate of the much higher duty the tea had incurred on entering Britain. In effect, the tea left Britain duty free and had to pay only the much lower American duty on arriving in Boston. Tea had never been cheaper in New England. The “party” was organized not be irate consumers but by Boston’s wealthy smugglers, who stood to lose out. Contemporaries were well aware of the absurdity of the ostensible reason for the protest. ‘Will not posterity be amazed’, wrote one sceptic, ‘when they are told that the present distraction took its rise from the parliaments taking off a shilling duty on a pound of tea, and imposing three pence, and call it more unaccountable phrenzy, and more disgraceful to the annals of America, than that of the witch craft?” On close inspection, then, the taxes that caused so much fuss were not just trifling; by 1773 they had all but gone. In any case, these disputes about taxation were trivial compared with the basic economic reality that membership of the British Empire was good – very good- for the American colonial economy…It was the constitutional principle – the right of the British Parliament to levy taxes on the American colonists without their consent – that was the true bone of contention.”


“No taxation without representation” was not a rejection of Britishness, but rather an emphatic assertion of Britishness. What the colonists said they were doing was demanding the same liberty enjoyed by their fellow subjects on the other side of the Atlantic”.


“The Hollywood version of the War of Independence is a straightforward fight between heroic Patriots and the wicked, Nazi-like Redcoats. The reality was quite different. This was indeed a civil war which divided social classes and even families. And the worst of the violence did not involve regular British Troops, but was perpetuated by rebel colonists against their countrymen who remained loyal to the crown….The irony is that having won their independence in the name of liberty, the American colonists went on to perpetuate slavery in the southern states. As Samuel Johnson acidly asked in his anti-American pamphlet Taxation No Tyranny: ‘ How is it that the loudest YELPS for liberty come from the drivers of Negroes?”. By contrast within a few decades of having lost the American colonies, the British abolished first the slave trade and then slavery itself throughout their Empire.”

Perhaps the greatest error of the British Empire is her embrace of Democracy. Her equating "Liberty" to "Representation". Liberty is independent of Institution. I stand for whichever maximizes Liberty; even if it is at the dismay of the 51%.

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

The irony of all of this is that World War 1 itself shows why imperialism is actually a bad thing. The only reason for the war itself was competition between empires. The British, French, Austria-Hungarian, Ottoman and Russian empires were all jockeying for supremacy. Britain didn't stay out of it because the nature of empire is they couldn't stay out of it. It's like asking a hungry binge eater to just "cool it" at a smorgageboard. Empires are maintained not only through the leading country's force of arms, but also through a system of "entangling alliances." That's simply the nature of the beast. By definition you cannot be an empire and mind your own business.

My worldview is a decidedly Christian worldview. I reject the Freemason / Machiavellian idea that the "ends justify the means." (Ironically, by the time Machiavelli came on the scene, the Christian church that opposed him had long been Machiavellian.) Christianity was well on its way to complete transformation of the Roman empire by stealth in the first few centuries of its existence. It conquered through kindness and steadfast adherence to virtue. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and "Love your enemies. Be kind to them that persecute you." were first and foremost among Christian ideals. It's these principles that Ghandi used to end the "Raj" that you seem so fond of. The "Raj" was so free market that it didn't allow people to make their own salt. And India was a jewell before Britain took it over. The Queen of England did not build the Taj Mahal for example. Did exposure to British culture cause some improvement in India? Of course. Cultural exchanges generally do that everywhere they happen. But was a British style empire required for that exchange? Of course not. You brought up how the British treated the Native Americans versus how the U.S. did? Well how about the French? They respected Native American culture and lands. They worked through actual trade, not mercantilism. You keep your hunting grounds and give us beaver pelts for our shiny beads. That is freedom of association. Here is a good essay that explains this further. http://www.studymode.com/essays/Fren...-64941742.html

I just cannot comprehend how Libertarians are to be so blatantly Marxist....and not even know it!

"Socialism and communism of the West are based on certain conception which are fundamentally different from ours. One such conception is their belief in essential selfishness of human nature. I do not subscribe to it for I know that the former can respond to the call of the spirit in him, can rise superior to the passions that he owns in common with the brute and, therefore, superior to selfishness and violence, which belong to the brute nature and not to the immortal spirit of man ... Our socialism or communism should, therefore, be based on nonviolence and on harmonious co-operation of labour and capital, landlord and tenant." – Ghandi

“Democracy is the road to Socialism” – Marx

“In China, Persia, India and other dependent countries,. . . we have seen during the past decades a policy of rousing tens and hundreds of millions of people to a national life, of their liberation from the reactionary ‘Great’ Powers’ oppression. A war waged on such a historical basis can even today be a bourgeois-progressive war of national liberation.” – Lenin

From Lenin's
Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism

It is proved in the pamphlet that the war of 1914-18 was imperialist (that is, an annexationist, predatory, war of plunder) on the part of both sides; it was a war for the division of the world, for the partition and repartition of colonies and spheres of influence of finance capital, etc.

Proof of what was the true social, or rather, the true class character of the war is naturally to be found, not in the diplomatic history of the war, but in an analysis of the objective position of the ruling classes in all the belligerent countries. In order to depict this objective position one must not take examples or isolated data (in view of the extreme complexity of the phenomena of social life it is always possible to select any number of examples or separate data to prove any proposition), but all the data on the basis of economic life in all the belligerent countries and the whole world.

It is precisely irrefutable summarised data of this kind that I quoted in describing the partition of the world in 1876 and 1914 (in Chapter VI) and the division of the world’s railways in 1890 and 1913 (in Chapter VII). Railways are a summation of the basic capitalist industries, coal, iron and steel; a summation and the most striking index of the development of world trade and bourgeois-democratic civilisation. How the railways are linked up with large-scale industry, with monopolies, syndicates, cartels, trusts, banks and the financial oligarchy is shown in the preceding chapters of the book. The uneven distribution of the railways, their uneven development—sums up, as it were, modern monopolist capitalism on a world-wide scale. And this summary proves that imperialist wars are absolutely inevitable under such an economic system, as long as private property in the means of production exists.

The building of railways seems to be a simple, natural, democratic, cultural and civilising enterprise; that is what it is in the opinion of the bourgeois professors who are paid to depict capitalist slavery in bright colours, and in the opinion of petty-bourgeois philistines. But as a matter of fact the capitalist threads, which in thousands of different intercrossings bind these enterprises with private property in the means of production in general, have converted this railway construction into an instrument for oppressing a thousand million people (in the colonies and semicolonies), that is, more than half the population of the globe that inhabits the dependent countries, as well as the wage-slaves of capital in the “civilised” countries.

Private property based on the labour of the small proprietor, free competition, democracy, all the catchwords with which the capitalists and their press deceive the workers and the peasants are things of the distant past. Capitalism has grown into a world system of colonial oppression and of the financial strangulation of the overwhelming majority of the population of the world by a handful of “advanced” countries. And this “booty” is shared between two or three powerful world plunderers armed to the teeth (America, Great Britain, Japan), who are drawing the whole world into their war over the division of their booty.

III
The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk dictated by monarchist Germany, and the subsequent much more brutal and despicable Treaty of Versailles dictated by the “democratic” republics of America and France and also by “free” Britain, have rendered a most useful service to humanity by exposing both imperialism’s hired coolies of the pen and petty-bourgeois reactionaries who, although they call themselves pacifists and socialists, sang praises to “Wilsonism”, and insisted that peace and reforms were possible under imperialism.
The tens of millions of dead and maimed left by the war—a war to decide whether the British or German group of financial plunderers is to receive the most booty—and those two “peace treaties”, are with unprecedented rapidity opening the eyes of the millions and tens of millions of people who are downtrodden, oppressed, deceived and duped by the bourgeoisie. Thus, out of the universal ruin caused by the war a world-wide revolutionary crisis is arising which, however prolonged and arduous its stages may be, cannot end otherwise than in a proletarian revolution and in its victory.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/len...hsc/pref02.htm

Anti-Imperialism in political science and international relations is a term used in a variety of contexts, usually by nationalist movements, who want to secede from a larger polity (usually in the form of an empire, but also in a multi-ethnic sovereign state) or as a specific theory opposed to capitalism in Marxist–Leninist discourse, derived from Vladimir Lenin's work Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism.” - Wikipedia

The war was a confirmation of the wisdom of the earlier British “Splendid Isolationism”…as in, avoiding entangling alliances. Which the Brits turned away from, as they rejected Kaiser Wilhelm, and embraced their former enemies, the French. Their desire to continue to marginalize the Germans led to the war with the Germans. But perhaps the greatest tragedy, is the ensuing breakup of the Empires, the first major blow to civilization. Just a few years later stable, moderate Empires would be under the heel of Nazism, Communism, or American led Globalist Democracy; millions dead in its wake.

I would like to share your Christian Worldview. My private faith aside, I believe in Christian/Western Civilization…which has been long exterminated by the forces of democracy, secularism, and egalitarian ethics that so many on here seem to advocate for. I’m not a Mason, nor am I a Machiavellian…but it is interesting to note that Machiavelli was an agent of a Republic, not of a Monarchy.
The ends justifying the means. Well, it would be fantastic to “turn the other cheek” to the invading Muslims seeking to conquer all of Europe; but luckily the Christians of the time drew the sword and repelled the invaders.

Here is a pretty decent documentary on India. https://youtu.be/wPz_k0TuPXw

Here is a good quote from another Anarcho-Monarchist, J.R.R Tolkien; who was also an officer in the British Army in WW1.

I have just heard the news. Russians 60 miles from Berlin. It does look as if something decisive might happen soon. The appalling destruction and misery of this war mount hourly : destruction of what should be (indeed is) the common wealth of Europe, and the world, if mankind were not so besotted, wealth the loss of which will affect us all, victors or not. Yet people gloat to hear of the endless lines, 40 miles long, of miserable refugees, women and children pouring West, dying on the way. There seem no bowels of mercy or compassion, no imagination, left in this dark diabolic hour. By which I do not mean that it may not all, in the present situation, mainly (not solely) created by Germany, be necessary and inevitable. But why gloat! We were supposed to have reached a stage of civilization in which it might still be necessary to execute a criminal, but not to gloat, or to hang his wife and child by him while the orc-crowd hooted. The destruction of Germany, be it 100 times merited, is one of the most appalling world-catastrophes. Well, well – you and I can do nothing about it. And that shd. be a measure of the amount of guilt that can justly be assumed to attach to any member of a country who is not a member of its actual Government. Well the first War of the Machines seems to be drawing to its final inconclusive chapter – leaving, alas, everyone the poorer, many bereaved or maimed and millions dead, and only one thing triumphant: the Machines. As the servants of the Machines are becoming a privileged class, the Machines are going to be enormously more powerful. What's their next move?

Below is the summary of the "Portland Declaration" by a well known student of Mises; Erik von Kuehnelt=Leddihn. He is a Anarcho-Monarchist as well. Check out his book https://mises.org/library/liberty-or...lenge-our-time

The book is a free pdf download through the link. (Immediately below is the teaser from mises on the book)

Sometime in the 18th century, the word equality gained ground as a political ideal, but the idea was always vague. In this treatise, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn argues that it reduced to one simple and very dangerous idea: equality of political power as embodied in democracy.
He marshals the strongest possible case that democratic equality is the very basis not of liberty, as is commonly believed, but the total state. He uses national socialism as his prime example. He further argues the old notion of government by law is upheld in old monarchies, restrained by a noble elite. Aristocracy, not democracy, gave us liberty. On his side in this argument, he includes the whole of the old liberal tradition, and offers overwhelming evidence for his case. In our times, war and totalitarianism do indeed sail under the democratic flag.
This book, capable of overturning most of what you thought you knew about political systems, was first published in 1952.

The Portland Declaration: A Summary. By: Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn.

In the Free World it has become imperative to formulate a vision based on a coherent outlook which can be shared by most of us. These, then, are the main points of such a creed in a short version:
1. Our immensely complex universe can only be the result of either mere chance or a conscious design. We believe that it has an Originator as well as a Designer — God.
2. Only to man can this world be meaningful in every respect: spiritually, morally, aesthetically, economically.
3. Only man is a transcendent creature. He realizes that, if there is a personal God, everything is possible, if there is no God, everything is permissible.
4. Every man or woman is truly a person and unique. No two persons are identical or equal, least of all in the eyes of God.
5. With the beasts we share a craving for sameness, but the delight in the variations of creation distinguishes man from beast as much as religion and reason do.
6. Sameness and with it the dislike of otherness is the hallmark of leftism: it is an evil totalitarian instinct which fashioned the French, Russian and German revolutions with their gaols, guillotines, gallows, gas chambers and Gulags.
7. In all languages, whether dead or modern, “Left” stands for negative, “Right” for positive principles.
8. Men and women are equally important, but their innate characteristics favor (and sometimes rationally preclude) certain occupations and vocations.
9. The family is the living cell of every society. (Man is the creature who knows his grandfather.) It is based on sex, eros. friendship, affection and charity, friendship being the most important factor because loyalty pertains to it rather than to sexuality or Eros.
10. A healthy society is not a monolith, but consists of various well correlated lasers and groups with different qualities and functions. However, neither society nor state should be permitted to become absolutes.
11. The state is the result of man’s frailty and incompleteness, Its legitimacy rests not only on authority but, due to Man’s fallen nature, also on exterior power. Authority rests on love, or respect, or rational insight, it is an interior force.
12. The state has an “annexationist” character tending toward centralization and the development of a Provider State. We must uphold the principle of subsidiarity. Action should always be taken by the smallest possible unit. starting with the person.
13. What we now have is maximal government of the lowest quality; what we need is minimal government of the highest order.
14. There is no escape from “technocracy.” Reason, knowledge and experience must reenter government at the expense of popularity and passions. Parliaments should faithfully mirror public opinion and might have purely legislative powers, but they must not become policy-forming bodies. Government should rest on first-rate expertise and respect for personal freedom.
15. Freedom is inseparable from personal property, socialism produces only equality in poverty.
16. The family can delegate its educational tasks to other bodies. Nobody should be taxed for educational facilities not used by them. It is, however, in the interest of the community that real talent (and diligence) should be fostered.
17. The identification of state and religion is pagan. Their separation, however, should not preclude cooperation because they have common interests and overlapping fields of action.
18. Ethnicity, race and citizenship are separate concepts, the first being cultural, the second biological, the third legal. They should not be confused. Legal discriminations or automatic preferences on account of ethnicity or race in the public-sector are plainly immoral.
19. Only a person with convictions has a genuine possibility to be tolerant. He who accepts no absolute values but clings to polite doubt cannot be tolerant but merely indifferent. He is morally defenseless in the face of evil.
20. Tradition, i.e., loyalty toward inherited convictions and institutions, which includes discarding obsolete or false ones, has a positive value.
21. The good man is a patriot and not a “nationalist,” he delights in the human varieties within his country.
22. Foreign relations require an enormous amount of knowledge and experience. They are intrinsically connected with our survival. International institutions can be of great value, but the United Nations in their present form and in the present state of our globe has often produced more harm than good.
23. Professional armies are, for various reasons, preferable to armies based on conscription, but if the latter system is adopted by certain world powers, others might have to follow suit — at least temporarily.
24. Legal positivism has no moral moorings. Justice is not equality but is based on Ulpian’s “to everyone his due.”
25. Man has rights as well as duties and these must be distinguished from acts of charity which might become moral, but not legal obligations.
26. Freedom is not an end in itself but a condition to live and to act in. “As much freedom as possible, as much coercion as necessary.” The common good marks the limits of freedom.

Only Adam Smiths critique of Imperialism...that it is economically bad for the Imperialist, (though disproportionately good for the Imperialized), is one that is consistent with the Free Market.

Our "Isolationism" is fully compatible with Imperialism. Especially, if we are also for the Free Market. And doubly so if we subscribe to Natural Law, and we are a civilization capable of exporting Liberty to those living under oppression....none of which describes the western world today.

[erowe1]

"at some point"

No doubt, but when?

10 years?

100 years?

500 years?

Certainly, in the ~50 years since the end of colonial rule, the natives have in most cases been unable to build stable states.

One doesn't go from tribe to modern state overnight (it took W. Europe ~1200 years after the collapse of the W. Roman Empire).

The Europeans unquestionably accelerated the development of these areas.

I maintain that the advancements would have been greater if brought about by free market means than by violent ones. And on top of those advancements, we wouldn't see the post-colonial problems you allude to.

[jmdrake]

I just cannot comprehend how Libertarians are to be so blatantly Marxist....and not even know it!

So know failing to put forward a logical coherent argument you are going to resort to personal attacks and cheap name calling? Whatever dude.

From Lenin's
Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism

And Lenin created an empire so I guess you are the real marxist here. Jesus predated Marx by over a thousand years. And His principles are timeless and cannot be undermined by you quoting Lenin for whatever silly reason you are quoting him.

The war was a confirmation of the wisdom of the earlier British “Splendid Isolationism”…as in, avoiding entangling alliances. Which the Brits turned away from, as they rejected Kaiser Wilhelm, and embraced their former enemies, the French. Their desire to continue to marginalize the Germans led to the war with the Germans. But perhaps the greatest tragedy, is the ensuing breakup of the Empires, the first major blow to civilization. Just a few years later stable, moderate Empires would be under the heel of Nazism, Communism, or American led Globalist Democracy; millions dead in its wake.

Empire does not allow for isolationism. At some point you need some other empire to come to your aid to defend your empire. Or you have your eye set on expanding your empire into the empire of someone else. Britain wanted to take over the middle east. The Ottoman empire was in the way. World War 1 got them out of the way. Empire is a big part of the problem. It is certainly not the solution.

I would like to share your Christian Worldview. My private faith aside, I believe in Christian/Western Civilization…which has been long exterminated by the forces of democracy, secularism, and egalitarian ethics that so many on here seem to advocate for. I’m not a Mason, nor am I a Machiavellian…but it is interesting to note that Machiavelli was an agent of a Republic, not of a Monarchy.

I didn't know this discussion about empire was supposed to be limited to monarchy. That said, Machiavelli's seminal work, The Prince was written to...well...a prince.

The ends justifying the means. Well, it would be fantastic to “turn the other cheek” to the invading Muslims seeking to conquer all of Europe; but luckily the Christians of the time drew the sword and repelled the invaders.

And then they turned their swords on each other. Orthodox massacred Latins. Latins sacked Constantinople and massacred Orthodox. Latins "freed" the Holy Land and massacred Jews. "Heretics" (Christians with their own belief systems) were massacred by everybody. Ultimately when the Ottoman's pushed the crusaders out of the Holy Land, the Christians who had been living there before were left to fend for themselves. Guess what? For centuries they did just fine living by non-violent principles, staying mostly to themselves and even participating in local government. Saddam Hussein even had a Christian in his cabinet. And then what happened? Western idiot Christianity decided to "democratize" the middle east. Now Christian in the region, who had lived their peacefully for centuries are running for their lives. Thanks Machiavellian Christianity!

Here is a pretty decent documentary on India. https://youtu.be/wPz_k0TuPXw

Here is a good quote from another Anarcho-Monarchist, J.R.R Tolkien; who was also an officer in the British Army in WW1.



This is a summation of the "Portland Declaration" by a student of Mises; you can find more of his works at the Mises Institute, or by just doing a search. He is a Anarcho-Monarchist as well.

Thanks but no thanks. If you think I'm "marxist" then you probably don't have any information worth sharing.

[jmdrake]

"at some point"

No doubt, but when?

10 years?

100 years?

500 years?

Certainly, in the ~50 years since the end of colonial rule, the natives have in most cases been unable to build stable states.

One doesn't go from tribe to modern state overnight (it took W. Europe ~1200 years after the collapse of the W. Roman Empire).

The Europeans unquestionably accelerated the development of these areas.

Colonialism redivided regions that had been stable artificially putting groups that were natural enemies in endless conflict with each other. Look at the long unbroken reign of stability in Ethiopia versus the past 50 years and get back with me.

[Tywysog Cymru]

But a very telling example...

As the study explains, the sugar-producing islands of the Caribbean were among the richest anywhere.

If they were a loser, so surely was most everything else (certainly everything in Africa, which were the poorest of the colonies).

The sugar planters sure made a lot of profits off of the Caribbean. And they had disproportionate influence in Parliament.

Those colonies generated revenue, but also entailed costs; are you sure there was a profit?

Within a century of establishing those colonies, Spain itself was bankrupt and degenerating into a second rate power, if that's any indication.

The profit was short-term, it helped the Spanish fund it's armies back in Europe.

Also, Spain took a mostly hands off approach to the New World colonies until the mid to late 18th century. I doubt the Spanish crown was spending a huge amount of money on the New World in the 1600s.

[jmdrake]

Human history is the history of imperialism. Some of the results have been "good" and some of the results have been bad. Of course, imperialism can be good for the survivors, but never those killed and enslaved in the initial and subsequent waves. The Founders were not very big fans of British imperialism, while the Tories were.

You can't cherry pick, your thread title claims that Imperialism/Colonialism is "good". Then you cherry pick one example to cover your a$$. British Imperialism had some positive effects in a few places because British common law evolved in a positive, pro freedom way. Its incidental that it was spread at the barrel of the gun in some instances, but usually primarily by those FLEEING the tyrannical imperialist state!

I don't think Arab imperialism was good. I don't think US imperialism is good. I don't think Roman imperialism was good. I don't think Hun imperialism was good.

Exactly! And that's why I gave the analogy of the black plague. Sure there were some positive effects. Maybe more positive effects than negative. It's still not "good." I'm still trying to understand the point of this thread and so far I haven't seen it. The OP claims he doesn't want to see more empire but that empire is/was "good." Education is good. I want to see more of it. Trade is good. I want to see more of it. Empire may sometimes have some good effects, but it's not good.

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

So know failing to put forward a logical coherent argument you are going to resort to personal attacks and cheap name calling? Whatever dude.



And Lenin created an empire so I guess you are the real marxist here. Jesus predated Marx by over a thousand years. And His principles are timeless and cannot be undermined by you quoting Lenin for whatever silly reason you are quoting him.




Empire does not allow for isolationism. At some point you need to some other empire to come to your aid to defend your empire. Or you have your eye set on expanding your empire into the empire of someone else. Britain wanted to take over the middle east. The Ottoman empire was in the way. World War 1 got them out of the way. Empire is a big part of the problem. It is certainly not the solution.



I didn't know this discussion about empire was supposed to be limited to monarchy. That said, Machiavelli's seminal work, The Prince was written to...well...a prince.



And then they turned their swords on each other. Orthodox massacred Latins. Latins sacked Constantinople and massacred Orthodox. Latins "freed" the Holy Land and massacred Jews. "Heretics" (Christians with their own belief systems) were massacred by everybody.



Thanks but no thanks. If you're ignorant enough to think I'm "marxist" then you probably don't have any information worth sharing.

I don't think you are a Marxist. I think that Marxist Propaganda is influencing your world view. I shared the quotes, to hopefully, jolt you awake to that realization. You are doing Lenin work for him...even if you don't intend to be doing so. Once you realized that, I was hoping that you would be more willing to engage with me, I see that is not the case. You will continue to rally around Marxist anti-imperialists....but it's not because you're a Marxist...it's because they've literally squandered out all traces of opposition amd set the argument up as to be hyper focused on the the occasional humanitarian issues, while turning a blind eye to everything that was good and just about, specifically British Imperialism.

Tell me how supporting Marxist revolutions...it's helping marxists? I'd love to know.

Jesus predated Marx, and yet Marx is winning today, isn't he. You look out at the world and tell me who the victor is. Wake up.

Empire DOES allow for isolationism. Why? Because abstaining from involvement in other states domestic affairs, and setting up a colony where no state, or a failed state is (or was) is different. Our presence on Puerto Rico is totally different than our overthrow of the Shah. Imperialism can be used for bad or good. I'm for using it for good. I'm against using it for bad. I'm not saying the British were always good. I've said that repeatedly. And I also have said that my praise of their empire is specific to the Splendid Isolationist phase, in which they had no desire to overthrow the ottomans.. but even so. The short time the british did rule in the M.E; it was comparatively good. It's so easy to quantify the bad while ignoring the good.

The Prince was written for the Medichis, who were the appointed heads of a Republic. I have a copy in my desk. It's a good read, and an honest read of how the world works.

Ah, yes! Now you understand. Wars of religion, ideology, ect are terribly bad, brutal, barbaric, murderous. Evil. Thus is why I am against the French Revolution and the Wilsonian/Bush Doctrine of self determination and democracy. Imperialism is about economics. Neocon is about ideology. When the economics aren't favorable, you don't do it. Under ideology, the meat grinder is always on.

If you dont believe that I have any information worth sharing, then just stop having a pseudo discussion with me. I'm here to advocate that Democracy is bad, Monarchy is less bad, and that Imperialism can be "a good thing". If you are unwilling to engage in that topic, why troll?

It's a blatant fact. Anti-Imperialism is Marxist. I pass no judgment, I only wonder how a Empire, full of different people from different backgrounds and Continents, all were tricked into believing that Free Trade was good for them...so much so, that locals signed up for and fought for the British Empire to keep global peace and commerce flowing. It's curious how the Marxists brought that down, and today either rule, or have considerable influence.