Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (95303)	4/21/2003 1:16:19 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Rome and Britain were willing to commit resources to keeping peace because they were sustaining their empires through plunder No, they were not sustaining their empires through "plunder". They took much in trade and taxes, but they also gave much: law and order, courts, roads, aquaducts, trains, general infrastructure. The locals wanted to sign on, generally. You could argue that when the barbarians swamped the Western Empire, it wasn't so much conquered as loved to death by those who wanted the benefits, but did not know how to maintain the system. An American empire would not be a straight empired since we do not desire provinces, it would be more like a sphere of influence and trade. That is still very advantageous to the hegemon and more flexible than straight empire. A hegemonic system inevitably creates conditions to which it cannot respond. A multi-party system does not have to do that, though it can. 'Scuse me? Say what? A multi-party system does not create changing conditions, or have to respond to them? By what miracle is this permanent stasis to be achieved?