I thought I’d like too share this with you all. I believe it is because I have a cosmopolitan view of life and I believe expansionism is a part of that.
Now, where are the anarchists and Libertarians?
Expansionism for your own collective nation state ? Does knowing that ‘your’ state is expanding bring you happiness/well being in itself ? Would you voluntarily put your own resources towards sending troops abroad for only the sake of expansion alone ?
I would think anarchy fits in best with a cosmopolitan view of life, as anarchism doesn’t involve any imaginary borders.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmopolitan ← read the “Internationalism” section right at the top to see what I mean.
What does cosmopolitan mean to you and why do you think Imperialism is compatible?
Expansion is a means to an end, Unity being that end.
If a world wide Empire were established there would be no “imaginary” (political) borders. I see modern globalism as a facade for economic powers to expand their power under the guise of world unity and from what I’ve seen Imperial goals have been the only movements which genuinely seek world unity. Of course I’m not blind to the greed motive that some imperialists have, but that shouldn’t overshadow it’s virtues.
Of course this is a controversial stance to have, just type in Imperialist or Imperialism and every result you see will be negative or it’ll only be supported by some ultranationalist fool.
I despise the coporate economic imperialism than runs rampant in our world as it does not work towards the bettermant of the world or even a nation but only to rob weaker countries of their wealth and give it to corporate plutocrats.
As it is by definiton, by seeing th cosmos(universe) as a single community. To take a stepback I see mankind as one community but in this age of nation states and recently the fracturing of many nation states, much of the world doesn’t seem too have this Idea at the forefront.
If that weren’t bad enough , often what inhabitants of nations being exploited by corporate powers do, is rally under the banner of nationlists who are willing (if givin the power) tp nationalize the nations resources by taking it from the corporations and giving it back to the people.
Because of people being stung by the harsh reality behind the globalist facade, now nations are repeating the patterns they did Leading up too the First world war.
Im opposed to anarchists because of what I see as their backwardsness and naïveté.
My Imperialist stance stems from me wishing to see humanity thrive and progress and though I am not opposed to War in itself I do see Wars between differant nations as largely unnecessary. If wars are to be fought I think they should be clearly defined wars between two sides either over Ideology or resources. The problem I see with wars between nations is that often you have men fighting each other when they have no real personal reason to be fighting in the first place.
I believe a world empire would largely put a stop to these wars and maintain a much greater peace. Would there still be wars? I believe so, but at the very least they would much more likely be defined between specific groups rather than whole national or ethnic identities.
For example?
For example in the time of Alexander the Great where many greeks viewed the Persians as cruel and inferior men (and just about every non-greek as a barbarian, Macedonians included) Alexander wished not to conquer and subjugate, but to unite the lands he conquered. He often allowed the local nobility to keep their power and encouraged his Generals and soldiers to take wives in the persian lands, promoting Miscegenation to unite his new empire. The spread of Hellenic culture, and though some might see this as assimalation there was in fact a large amount of cultural diffusion between th vast lands of the empire as their often is in well run Empires.
Care to go into detail ? Perhaps I can explain the position better as I don’t believe that I am too naive and backwards 
.
Of course I am talking about market-anarchy or voluntarism … not those other (scary 
) ones…
And you will have to explain what exactly you mean by ‘unity’ and why you believe it is a preferable end to attain.
Well Anarchists seem to Favor freedom over anything else (or so they claim) and though I believe freedom is very important I don’t think it is th most important of things or the begin all end all.
My ideal of an empire stands as a Guardian against tyranny and I believe Anarchy gives Tyranny many opprotunities to arise. I see Anarchy like Communism(and eternal world peace) as flawed because it is dependant on the Idea that you can get everybody to agree on a particular Idea, simply by spending time In this forum I don’t see how that could possibly happen.
Unity is Harmony and Harmony is the best kind of Peace.
He didn’t want to expand his power?
When did I say that? Again power is a means too an end.
Communism isnt really based around getting everybody to agree. Its based around the idea of more balanced distribution of material wealth and resources
Last summer there was an interesting exhibit in Philadelphia Constitution Center that had artifacts on display from ancient Rome, as well as from colonial America, in which one could see the similarities between the two styles.
I really don’t want to find your post and explain to you why I asked this question. It’s pretty obvious why I asked it.
Libertarianism isn’t necessarily always incompatible with imerpialism and Authoritarianism isn’t necessarily always compatible with imperialism, although, there probably is a slight deductive correlation, as both Authoritarianism and imperialism are more aggressive, violent ideologies.
In many ways, it is easier to organize and unify via Authoritarianism and imperialism.
Often economic imperialism coinicides with political imperialism, see America.
Now that I know for certain extraterrestrials are visiting our planet, it seems globalism is inevitable, I can’t imagine extraterrestrials having nation states on their homeworlds… please, the idea is preposterous. World Government is the next stage in humanities evolution, and look at all the benefits Greece, Rome, Britania and America have brought to the world.
“We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent.” -James Paul Warburg, whose family co-founded the Federal Reserve – while speaking before the United States Senate, February 17, 1950
I think their plan with come to fruition via consent. However, 1st they will have to manufacture that consent. The league of nations was spawned from WW1, the united nations was spawned from world war 2. The way to convince the people of all nations to relinquish their national sovereignty and individual autonomy is to covertly manufacture strife between individuals and nations. Of course, that is not to say strife doesn’t naturally occur, just not as often as we think it does. Then, after dozens or hundreds of millions (population reduction, two birds with one stone) have been killed in transnational conflicts, such as the rising rift between atheists and christians, and the rising rift between jews and muslims (the recipe for world war 3), the people will be primed for world government. Without nation states, there can be no war, they will tell us, and a totalitarian superstate will be established. I believe I may be in the process of drawing, the blueprints for this totalitarian superstate. Let us hope, let us pray the new Atlantis, the new Babylon will be founded on reason above power and not the other way 'round. We live in interesting times, friends. Pax Americana is approaching the end.
Yeah who the hell cares I’m a Spartan, we laugh at imperialists!
Tell that too the Romans who conquered all of Greece, Sparta included.