Senate Pax watever-ia World/Global domination, an epic waste of time?

Well, the source of that inanity is that ideological liberalism has achieved cultural hegemony. People aren't much given to questioning authority on average, and so Presidents and Prime Ministers frame their interventionism in moralistic/idealistic terms.

 

@Likewater, can you clarify what it is you're wanting this thread to discuss? I'm not sure I follow it, and it seems to be vague enough that we could do with something a bit clearer so we can keep the discussion a little bit more focused.

 

or you could just have it retagged "jcc" and make things much simpler/better, likewater

meantime, have some mao on liberalism:

 

The point is surely that this IS the jungle. We are in the jungle, it is just that our lions and tigers and bears pretend to be men of the people instead of openly luxuriating in their power as was their wont pre-Christianity.

 

We are animals, so many people forget this and assume the rules don't apply to us anymore.

It is arguably within our nature as a species of higher intelligence to have the awareness and understanding to know that we don't have to work for something when we have the means to take it from others if we are more powerful than they are.
I wouldn't go as far as to say it is in our nature to want power over others, because not everyone has such desires or acts on them if they do. Greed is a natural thing for our species, that doesn't mean we should give in to it if we are smart enough to resist.

It is somewhat ironic in many ways the West's desire to dominate other nations (or at the very least have access to their resources) has often backfired and resulted in a lot more conflict and hassle for them. Look at the Middle East & War on Terror, most of the people targeted by the west (Iran, Saddam, Bin Laden) all are the way they are essentially because of Western interference. Had the West left these nations alone rather than attempt to dominate them, maybe there would not be so much hostility now.

Ideally we should all live in a world like that of Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek where everything is shared by all and humanity works together to benefit and advance itself collectively rather than any one individual or group above others.

 

Doesn't sound to me like Mao's liberalism is the same liberalism most people are used to talking about. Actually, those eleven I think can be summed up as just "I want you to be a more fanatical Communist and do away with personal niceties".

Uhh...uhh...okay sure, let's just get rid of all our cars and trucks, and dismantle our economy, and go back to horse-drawn carriages as our primary means of transportation, that way we'll finally be free of oil and we can withdraw from the Middle East and leave them to their own devices. That's not too hard right? >_>

 

He is referring to liberalism as bourgeois society rather than liberalism as centre-left politics.

 

I'm beginning to like Mao.

 

In the End were they truly happy?

Caesar betrayed by his friend Brutus, Alexander died apperantly unhappy if the saying about his weeping that there was nothing left for him to conqure. Napoleon died on some barren rock exiled.

 

Sorry, Whats the reasoning behind man's and Cvilizations constant desire to dominate when there is little actual need to.

Is the desire to dominate inherant?

Is it something that is learned and just happens to be passed down throught the generations?

Why is it domination (usually in the form of empire) so glorified, when it always seems to lead to ruin, for emperors and empires.

 

Well it had to start somewhere, and you can see animals are always trying to dominate one another in other species too.

They might not view it that way. Fighting over scarce resources, fighting for your own protection, fighting to pursue an ideological agenda you fervently believe in, etc. probably have felt like necessary reasons.

Examples?

 

I am more thinking, if an area has the resources we want, we deal fairly for it.

If Da'bloods have a resource that Da'cryps want is it not preferable for all for Da'cryps to trade honestly or do without rather than force Da'bloods to sell under coersion or taking Da'bloods resorces by force?

 

A lot of things lead to ruin. Empire-building tends to be one of those high-risk, high-reward careers. Sure, plenty of examples of crash-and-burn in truly spectacular ways, but there have been plenty of (long-lasting) winners, too.

 

The Mongol empire, the biggest land empire in recorded history right?

It was pretty easy on religion, but the Mongols were brutal conquerors. The Mongols were good for trade, but besides that they had little postive lasting impact. Kublakan lost many men in a faild attack on Japan (A resource poor chain of islands), the Russians hated them despite the fact they unified underthem that the Ruuskies drove them bout a century later. Now what is left of the Mongol Empire?

But you can really inject any example for an expansionist agressive national force, How many times did a quest for imperial glory raze European countries to the ground?

WWII, WWI, The Nepolionic Wars, the Prussian Wars. And what of the men who led these wars? Some came away with glory, yes. But how many pulled their entire nation down around them?

One could make the case Mechantilism made the british very successful but pax britania cost the britsh in treasury, men, good will.

 

seems like very high risk in my observations, It seem like for Every Ottoman empire, or Roman Empire, there are manymany more flash in the pan fiasco's.

Seem's like cooperative trade could do the same, only slower.

 

Did people stop exulting in their power after Christianity?

 

I think the point was that they now hide their greed behind piety or their inhuman nature behind their faith. Pe-Christianity you had scumbags, sure, but they were at least open about it.

 

The current lack of "luxuriating in power" has nothing to do with Christianity.

It has everything to do with the fall of autocratic forms of government, the end of lifetime appointments, and the rise of democracy.

Edit: Let's not blame Christianity for everything. The world is more complicated than that.

 

So, the fact we supposedly need oil so much is justification for conquering other nations and/or messing with their goverments to get what we want? Did we never think of just asking nicely, or putting more effort into not being so Oil dependant?
Oil companies shouldn't have world governments in their pocket, I hope Fusion power comes soon so such businesses no longer have influence. They are why Crony Capitalism exists.

All the desire for oil has done to the west is cost lots of lives and money fighting regimes that exist because of their meddling.

 

There's not really a lack of luxuriating in power. It's still there. It's just been so thoroughly legitimized that we consider its new form normal, now.

 

An excellent point, seeing as the Age of Imperialism, when conquest and exploitation of other peoples was seen as a normative good and received its most robust philosophical defenses, was in the 19th century, long before Jesus was said to have walked the Earth, let alone had his teachings made into a major world religion.

Oh, wait.

Another outstanding point. It was only ever oil companies. Just this one single industry by itself. It's not as if these discussion originally emerged from seeing the undue influence of bankers and railroad magnates that earned themselves the label "robber barons." Or it would at least be a different situation if we had strong documentation that major points of the US's Latin American policy was driven at certain points by the interests of the United Fruit company.

Oh, wait.