5 ms·

I'm no fan of imperialism or the military, but I think it is possible for a self-interested nation to treat its own citizens well while acting immorally abroad.

by jal278 12y ago

I'm no fan of imperialism or the military, but I think it is possible for a self-interested nation to treat its own citizens well while acting immorally abroad. However, I don't think such differential treatment is desirable, and it increasingly makes little sense as technology more deeply interconnects us over the trivial lines we draw in the sand to create discrete countries. I think we think along the same lines in terms of power, although I'd phrase it more in that power is self-perpetuating -- something that (like bureaucracy) ratchets up but is hard to prune. For example, even if most citizens of the world wanted more cooperation between their respective countries, and to dial back military developments such as drone warfare, the self-interested power accumulated in the government institutions of countries would likely resist.

PavlovsCat 12y ago
> I'm no fan of imperialism or the military, but I think it is possible for a self-interested nation to treat its own citizens well while acting immorally abroad. Is there a historical example of it though? I am not exactly a history buff, but so far I am drawing blanks. And I have trouble imagining it in theory, even; I mean sure, a person could theoretically be very dishonest to one group of people, and very honest to another; but at least with people, such stuff generally leaks all over.
- PavlovsCat 12y ago
  It was a genuine question. I would like a genuine answer.
- pjc50 12y ago
  Roman Empire? Civis Romanis sum and all that. You have to not use modern standards of "treated well" and note that not every resident was a citizen and some were slaves.
  - PavlovsCat 12y ago
    Yeah, that may have started out with somewhat noble intentions. But still: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_the_Western_Roman_Empire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_the_Western_Roman_Empir... The legal fiction of the early Empire (in which the emperor was but the first among equals) was disposed of; the emperors, beginning with Aurelian, openly styled themselves as dominus et deus, lord and god, titles appropriate for a slave towards his master. An elaborate court ceremonial was developed, and obsequious flattery became the order of the day. Under Diocletian, the flow of direct requests to the emperor was rapidly reduced and soon ceased altogether. No other form of direct access replaced them, and the emperor received only information that was filtered through his courtiers. Official cruelty, supporting extortion and corruption, may also have become more commonplace. While the scale, complexity, and violence of government were unmatched, the emperors lost control over their whole realm insofar as that control came increasingly to be wielded by anyone who paid for it. Meanwhile the richest senatorial families, immune from most taxation, engrossed more and more of the available wealth and income, while also becoming divorced from any tradition of military excellence.

by jal278 12y ago

PavlovsCat 12y ago

> I'm no fan of imperialism or the military, but I think it is possible for a self-interested nation to treat its own citizens well while acting immorally abroad. Is there a historical example of it though? I am not exactly a history buff, but so far I am drawing blanks. And I have trouble imagining it in theory, even; I mean sure, a person could theoretically be very dishonest to one group of people, and very honest to another; but at least with people, such stuff generally leaks all over.

PavlovsCat 12y ago
It was a genuine question. I would like a genuine answer.
pjc50 12y ago
Roman Empire? Civis Romanis sum and all that. You have to not use modern standards of "treated well" and note that not every resident was a citizen and some were slaves.
- PavlovsCat 12y ago
  Yeah, that may have started out with somewhat noble intentions. But still: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_the_Western_Roman_Empire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_the_Western_Roman_Empir... The legal fiction of the early Empire (in which the emperor was but the first among equals) was disposed of; the emperors, beginning with Aurelian, openly styled themselves as dominus et deus, lord and god, titles appropriate for a slave towards his master. An elaborate court ceremonial was developed, and obsequious flattery became the order of the day. Under Diocletian, the flow of direct requests to the emperor was rapidly reduced and soon ceased altogether. No other form of direct access replaced them, and the emperor received only information that was filtered through his courtiers. Official cruelty, supporting extortion and corruption, may also have become more commonplace. While the scale, complexity, and violence of government were unmatched, the emperors lost control over their whole realm insofar as that control came increasingly to be wielded by anyone who paid for it. Meanwhile the richest senatorial families, immune from most taxation, engrossed more and more of the available wealth and income, while also becoming divorced from any tradition of military excellence.