Imperialism

[Noachian]

This may seem like a bit of a 'point of view' thing....however in Christian ethics mainly....is it right to have an Imperial government. If no then state its negatives....if yes tell me some possitives.

I like the sound of it from what I know...

[McCulloch]

The New Testament specifically endorses the imperial form of government and none other.

Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.

It is plainly obvious that the American revolutionaries of the late 1700's were in direct violation of this commandment.

Humanists on the other hand support democratic forms of government, where everyone has the right to participate and the power of the majority to pursue its interests against the wishes of minorities is limited by respect for human rights and individual freedom.

[Noachian]

I see......I think that most people in 'westernised culture' would agree that Democratic forms of Diplomacy are litterly the right way to go.....however Democratic Monachy (where the Monarch's decisions are put before the puplic) I would agree is also a good form of diplomacy.

You make a good point.....however I highly disagree with many of Humanisms policies; securalism for example.

[McCulloch]

I highly disagree with many of Humanisms policies; secularism for example.

Secularism is the view that all religious considerations should be excluded from all civil affairs and public education. The repudiation of secularism is religion established by the government. By virtue of the first amendment to the US Constitution, the Supreme court's interpretation of that amendment and the Treaty of Tripoli, the USA is a secular state. There are no religious tests for holding office. No one holds any government position due to their religious affiliation. No one can dictate which religion gets taught in the schools because no religion is taught. On the other hand, the UK has established the Anglican religion. The monarch is constitutionally the nominal head of the Church and defender of the faith. Bishops are given seats in the House of Lords by virtue of their religion.
Which form of government relationship with religion do you favour? Secularism or Establishment?

[Confused]

The New Testament specifically endorses the imperial form of government and none other.

Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.

It is plainly obvious that the American revolutionaries of the late 1700's were in direct violation of this commandment.

Humanists on the other hand support democratic forms of government, where everyone has the right to participate and the power of the majority to pursue its interests against the wishes of minorities is limited by respect for human rights and individual freedom.

Hey, I object. How can we violate a commandment if we don't ascribe to it?

Ok, serious now. Imperialism is nothing more than another word for dictatorship. You want positives:
1) Less political strife
2) You never have to think for yourself, so you are never responsible for your actions

Negatives:
1) Less political strife: you have no say in anything
2) You never get to think for yourself and if you do, then you will be shot.

[Noachian]

I disagree although I do see your point Confused.....Imperialism is rather similar to a dictatorship.....however; Imperialism can be Democratic (Democratic Imperialism) and Imperialism can also be more of a trade thing like Britain and India......or it can be a colonisation thing...where 'civilized countries colonise lesser 'civilized' places........I thank you for your view however Confused......

[Confused]

I disagree although I do see your point Confused.....Imperialism is rather similar to a dictatorship.....however; Imperialism can be Democratic (Democratic Imperialism) and Imperialism can also be more of a trade thing like Britain and India......or it can be a colonisation thing...where 'civilized countries colonise lesser 'civilized' places........I thank you for your view however Confused......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism
Imperialism is a policy of extending control or authority over foreign entities as a means of acquisition and/or maintenance of empires. This is either through direct territorial conquest or settlement, or through indirect methods of exerting control on the politics and/or economy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship
A dictatorship is an autocratic form of government in which the government is ruled by a dictator. It has two possible meanings:
Roman dictator was a political office of the Roman Republic. Roman dictators were allocated absolute power during times of emergency. Their power was neither arbitrary or unaccountable, however, being subject to law and requiring retrospective justification. There were no such dictatorships after the beginning of the 2nd century BC, and later dictators such as Sulla and the Roman Emperors exercised power much more personally and arbitrarily.
In contemporary usage, dictatorship refers to an autocratic form of absolute rule by leadership unrestricted by law, constitutions, or other social and political factors within the state.

[Confused]

I disagree although I do see your point Confused.....Imperialism is rather similar to a dictatorship.....however; Imperialism can be Democratic (Democratic Imperialism) and Imperialism can also be more of a trade thing like Britain and India......or it can be a colonisation thing...where 'civilized countries colonise lesser 'civilized' places........I thank you for your view however Confused......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship
A dictatorship is an autocratic form of government in which the government is ruled by a dictator. It has two possible meanings:

Roman dictator was a political office of the Roman Republic. Roman dictators were allocated absolute power during times of emergency. Their power was neither arbitrary or unaccountable, however, being subject to law and requiring retrospective justification. There were no such dictatorships after the beginning of the 2nd century BC, and later dictators such as Sulla and the Roman Emperors exercised power much more personally and arbitrarily.
In contemporary usage, dictatorship refers to an autocratic form of absolute rule by leadership unrestricted by law, constitutions, or other social and political factors within the state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism
Imperialism is a policy of extending control or authority over foreign entities as a means of acquisition and/or maintenance of empires. This is either through direct territorial conquest or settlement, or through indirect methods of exerting control on the politics and/or economy. The term is used to describe the policy of a nation's dominance over distant lands, regardless of whether the nation considers itself part of the empire. Imperialism draws heavy criticism on the grounds that historically it has been frequently employed for economic exploitation in which the imperialist power makes use of other countries as sources of raw materials and cheap labor, shaping their economies to suit its own interests, and keeping their people in poverty. When imperialism is accompanied by overt military conquest of non-human rights abusing nations, it is also seen as a violation of freedom and human rights. Many instances of this have been recorded throughout Asia, Africa, and Europe, notbably among the poor countries that contain many of the much needed resources for the colonizer

You can fancy them up any way you want, but in their rawest forms, they are still ruled by control. If you are referring to some of the newer evolved forms, then state which ones, otherwise noone can give you postives or negatives.

[McCulloch]

Ok, serious now. Imperialism is nothing more than another word for dictatorship. You want positives:
1) Less political strife
2) You never have to think for yourself, so you are never responsible for your actions

Negatives:
1) Less political strife: you have no say in anything
2) You never get to think for yourself and if you do, then you will be shot.

dic·ta·tor·ship [dik-tey-ter-ship, dik-tey-]
–noun

1. a country, government, or the form of government in which absolute power is exercised by a dictator.

im·pe·ri·al·ism [im-peer-ee-uh-liz-uhm]
–noun

1. the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.

Imperialism does not imply dictatorship.

Is there less political strife in American Samoa, Midway Islands, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands than if they were not American dependencies? Do the people in these areas think for themselves and if they do, are they shot?

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Imperialism does not imply dictatorship.

But it always ends up that way

Imperialism is parasitism. It is a bigger, stronger society sucking all the aquirable assets from a weaker society.

Obviously the weaker, less developed populations never agree to this sort of economic pact. Therefore, dictatorship and compulsion always ensue.

Imperialism is the West European powers dividing up Africa, enslaving the natives, and sucking it dry. Imperialism is the English/Spanish explorers marching into North America, slaughtering the Native Americans, and gleaning every exploitable natural resource.

Is this the Imperialism that you are touting, Noachian, or is there another sort of "imperialism" that I should know about?