Autarchy in our economy? Wew.

You don't even have all raw materials in every country. Even if you combine expansionism, that would mean Germany would have to conquer as far as Eastern Europe for a few measly silicone deposits.

Countries like China, Russia or the USA could get away with it, maybe. Even then, the question is if it's worth it. Autarchy in military and medical goods and foodstuffs (to a degree) is pretty much common sense and does not warrant an ideology, in everything else, it's simply a waste of resources. Look at the map above. Why are not all silicone deposits tapped? Because sometimes, buying that stuff is cheaper than building a factory from scratch and keeping it running. Also, comparative advantage something something.

Anyway, to the poll today: Nations aren't states. They were never taken to be states until around the French Revolution. National pride existed since forever, but I didn't see the nation get treated as the first principle of the state in any of my readings antique or medieval texts. The state was pretty much the king and his subjects, i.e. everyone residing in his domain or bound to him by contract, custom or conquest. That king could well be a foreigner, it may have pissed people off when that happened, but they didn't deem it an affront to nature.

Heresies were so often put in the service of a national cause precisely because you couldn't build a state on a nation. So instead, you demanded independence for your nation because you were the only Muslims, Cathars or Taborites around and thus obviously destined to rule yourselves. (Bit of a historical simplification but the principle holds)

With the Partition of Poland, the nation came to fulfill that role. The Poles were not that happy that their old and respectable nation was cut up, which it was because it did not fit into the times, having an elected monarch. A ruler by inheritance cannot do diplomacy with such a state, not the least because intermarriage is unfeasible.

But nationalism really gained ground with the French Revolution. The Revolution was based on universalist values, but once it took over the state, that begged the question of why exactly this particular territory should be ruled by these particular french guys. Nationalism offered the answer. Without it, any "global" revolution would have to remain "global", and could not settle in the state it is in. The same thing happened in China and Russia, they started out as internationalist (the USSR didn't even have Russia in its name), but when the revolution succeeded, they had to gain the particular loyalty of the people they ruled, which they did by switching to more nationalist propaganda.

Long story short, this is how we have come to see state and nation as synonymous.

If you don't want to go with morality, you can go with what action has more advantages and disadvantages. As I said, when it comes to killing a certain number of people, the disadvantages overshadow the very few advantages of that action.

In the example you provided, you killed a number of people in order to control the resources which were under -or at the same level as- their land. That seriously doesn't make any sense, since the people pose no threat to you, and won't just grab the resources you want and leave. That's just impossible. There are so many things that you could use them for, but then there comes another question. Are these things moral? Well, your nation has its own morality, but there generally is a more "accepted" form of morality, which is a form that labels certain actions as immoral, like killing and enslaving people. Your nation should stick to these moral values, in order to not trigger reactions coming from other states or the people. So apparently, it should do the most moral action possible.

Now, about your question. Killing isn't always wrong, but killing the people of your example, or killing people in the name of Imperialism is always wrong. Yes, always. No exceptions. Working to your own advantage isn't always right either. It shouldn't violate the common form of the moral code. And also, you should always consider the reactions of your actions.

So basically Imperialism is never justified and a very bad foreign affairs policy.

@Oboe

"If you don't want to go with morality, you can go with what action has more advantages and disadvantages. As I said, when it comes to killing a certain number of people, the disadvantages overshadow the very few advantages of that action. "

Ok you again say that I should act within my advantage but then make a blanket statement assuming that all actions that would be within my advantage would be within the limits of what you view as moral. You tell me I should adhere to your view of morality because it offers certain advantages to me. However, you don't really seem to engage with the fact that at some point there will be a situation where killing imperialsitically works to my advantage. Using my example of the people group with resources, it is as simple as removing a middle man which exists between my people and a resource I need.

You also insist that killing in the "name of imperialism is *always wrong* but you don't seem to provide any reasoning as to why aside from the idea that it lacks any advantages because in every case, imperialism has no advantages. This system of morality seems reliant on one big assumption that can't possibly remain true.

If of course must ask then if your code of morality doesn't clearly hold up in all circumstances why should I adhere to it at all? Why wouldn't I just adhere whatever system of morality has the most utility and gives me the most advantage and dispense with it once I find something superior?

@Koninos

I started with listing the advantages and disadvantages of Imperialism earlier in the conversation, and explained that, putting morality aside, the countless disadvantages of killing a certain number of people, overshadows the few advantages that this action might have. Then, I explained why my moral code sees it as wrong.

In your example, what bothers you, personally, is the existence of the people. But the existence of the people is literally no obstacle, and does not stop you from claiming the resources you want. So basically, killing them is unnecessary. But let's, for one second, suppose that killing people for no reason is good, ignoring all the disadvantages that go with it. You can even suppose that there are no disadvantages at all. These advantages, are temporary. Some may be permanent, like the resource - which could be temporary as well. This action of Imperialism, can trigger reactions from other nations, other people, who are located both outside and inside your land. Therefore, it's very likely that these nations/people condemn you for your action, and this reaction could hurt your state and your people.

Hence, imperialism is a circle. As I said, every action has a reaction. You invade a country, you might invade another, and another and another, and these reactions finally bring you to the breaking point, which will come, sooner or later. This breaking point, will be (a) state(s) invading you, or a people opposing you by revolting or rebelling. You might defeat these threats, but new ones, in their very form, will return. And you will collapse to them if you keep being an Imperialist.

I also never said that Imperialism has no advantages at all. I said that killing in the name of Imperialism has no advantages. But Imperialism's advantages are temporary, and therefore Imperialism is a bad foreign affairs policy.

@Oboe

I mean I see your point that imperialism as a long term policy isn't sustainable and I agree. However I still don't see how you can insist that in every instance that killing a people group would always bring more disadvantages than advantages, there's just no way you can reasonably assert this in my opinion. I think I mostly understand what your moral standard is and I would say it is generally reasonable but I'd have to disagree on what kind of exceptions could be made in certain circumstances.

Could you give me an example of such exception?

Well it would circle back to the resource example, you believe firmly that there would never be a situation where imperialistic killing works to your ultimate advantage and I disagree.

Could you tell me why you disagree? And how is killing these people in your example beneficial?

Because it would remove a potential obstacle to my groups acquisition of a resource. If at some point my people desperately needed the resource for one reason or another, the opposing group could potentially exploit that desperate need and raise whatever price they ask for it in trade. Or perhaps they enter into an alliance of sorts with an enemy group and remove my group's access all together.

Hi

Henlo

And why kill them, when you can literally take many other prohibitive measures to stop that? You can't make absolute decisions on a mere hypothesis.

Because why wouldn't I kill them? Unless killing is inherently wrong the only reason I wouldn't is because it wouldn't work to my advantage but in this case, it would.

Control of resources ensures that my position is strong relative to other groups

Because killing them would be unnecessary. Your hypothesis can be reversed very easily, and their existence not only shouldn't inhibit you from claiming the resource, but they could actually work to your advantage if you take the right measures.

Ok but what if they don't want to cooperate?

What if, as I said, a third group is pushing them to oppose my group?

Your standard relies on the idea that there is *always* an alternative.

There is always an alternative indeed, but the thing is that this alternative might actually be hard to achieve. And that's the case here. It's pretty easy to kill them, but there is an alternative, no matter how hard it is. I believe that there are ways to both make them cooperate and cut them from the third group. And killing them in the modern world, but in the older one as well, would trigger the reaction of third groups, which could be fatal for the nation and its people.

Ok but you again assuming that the alternative would work and that the imperialistic killing couldn't ensure safety.

You surely can't believe that dominating an opposing group has never brought safety through out all of history.

I can believe that very well, but I can also believe even better the fact that there was always a better alternative, but it was invisible due to the old "trend" also known as Imperialism.

And Imperialistic killing could ensure temporary safety. It would trigger third party reactions, which could be fatal for the Imperialists.

And again, there could be a better alternative.

Well yeah, presently war is more costly than manipulation but that wasn't always the case and that could (however unlikely) change in the future. I would agree that imperialism isn't ideal today but that doesn't mean it is inherently immoral.

And manipulating other nations can cause a negative reaction as well whether that reaction is counter-manipulation or a conventional war, which one is ideal is a situational issue.

That's true. Manipulating other nations doesn't exactly equate to Imperialism though. Anyhow, today's QOTD will happen in a few hours, so we could end the conversation here, since I see that we have reached a conclusion, and since I have to go to class now. It was a very interesting conversation mate. Cya around (if you want to continue it, we could do it in <#587028275918929925>, but you'll have to wait a little bit for my response).

Alright, I don't think we'll get much further and I'm pretty satisfied, nice talk.

👍

<:dynoSuccess:314691591484866560> ***Scarface#4323 has been warned., Rule 7.***