“Environmental Influences on Democracy: Aridity, Warfare, and a Reversal of the Causal Arrow,” by Manus Midlarsky, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 39, No. 2. (Jun., 1995), pp. 224-262, http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-0027%28199506%2939…

I would suggest that the necessary difference between empire and republic is in the permanent maintenance of large territories under control of the empire without the right to participate in ruling the shared entity. This takes care of both Rome and Brittania. It does seem to leave the US out of the picture though.

The US, at its founding, discovered that republics are more stable than principalities but this was only true at larger scales, see Federalist #10 for the details. I would submit that it may very well be that republics may be more powerful than traditional empires at larger scales.

The case of the hyper-powerful republic is so far unique to the United States and is likely to remain so for some time. That doesn’t mean that things will stay that way forever.

“Fifth Generation Warfare?,” by William Lind, from Defense and the National Interest, 3 February 2004, http://www.d-n-i.net/lind/lind_2_03_04.htm (from Zen Pundit).

“A History of Empires,” by Chirol, Coming Anarchy, 28 July 2005, http://www.comi…

However the international regulation of national politics is unpopular.

Though we sometimes refer to multi-national companies as “empires”, real empires are based not on capitalism or peaceful cooperation, but on military adventures – and of course – overreach.

It’s an interesting, and needless to say ambitious ideology but I am warry as to it’s chance of success. If we see the past as a guide, empire may have brought prosperity but the seeds of their demise were also sown within that success. As the saying goes, prosperity brings complacency, and no matter how prolific the prophets of empire may have been their power and the order they established eventually collapsed under the weight of entropy and chaos only to be succeeded by a new order. Is it possible for America to actually uproot and change the structure the in which the world operates and replace an anarchic system? I have my doubts. All empires naturally tend to see their own as superior to all forcomers and project their futures as static continuations of their present. Their way of life as unalterable and absolute, unfortunately history as a guide shows that this is never the case. America’s global power reached it’s apex immediately after the second world war, it’s economy relative to the rest of the world has been in study and continuous decline. Call me a pessimist but I think that ultimately America’s attempt, whether by liberals or conservatives, to permanently change the uncertainty of the world into some type of order will only be temporar; a grand exercise in hubris and futility. I believe the phrase goes, the best laid plans of mice and men oft go awry, and leave us not but grief and pain for promised joy.

Moreover, the global economy depends on connectivity. A real challenge for the system now is energy.

Simply stating that a world order is more stable or more prosperous overall might seduce a Kantian or an Utilitarian, but there are other types of (moral) thinkers out there.

If you can identify the implications of your thesis for most individuals (with an unavoidable degree of generalization) and make a case for most of these classes, then your argument would be much more stronger than simply stating that global connectivity is a Good Thing™

Minimal rule-sets are very economical – fewer strictures to require enforcement ( which has costs) and fewer unintended consequences as the effects of Rule-sets interact. Maximal Rule-Sets sap strength and waste resources ( USSR).

Note when Great Britain turned from free trade to Imperial Preference and Diocletian fixed prices and bound people to their occupations both empires began to decline, absolutely as well as relatively.

I look forward to your 2GE thesis

The points are made: “empires are rather natural developments in a basic pattern of chaos to order. . . While empires have hardly been armies of angels, their smaller counterparts have hardly been better.”

However the case for scrapping ’status quo’ international organisations, such as the United Nations, probably needs to be more convincing. Why can’t they be improved? You’re being very provocative in suggesting the United States should become the ruler of the world. It’s a necessary debate, though.