Oppression, revolution, and safety valves.
So, I have noticed that it's never the REALLY oppressed that rebel. The slaves in the old south, the citizens of North Korea, Basically anyone in Africa, etcetera. When things are sufficiently bad, people can't get it together well enough to rebel. It's only when things actually improve a little that people have the free time, communication capability, physical resources, etcetera that they can actually get it together to rebel.
Which creates a perverse incentive for people like the Kim family. So long as they *maintain* their oppressive, impoverished people in *sufficient* misery, they will likely be able to remain god kings for ever.
Which caused me to wonder how any nation ever improved. I mean, if all you have to do is keep the squeeze on, and the people will literally *never* rise up, then how is it that we're not all living in shitholes like North Korea.
And then, it came to me. We've eliminated one of the most important "safety valves". Conquest.
Conquest is generally thought of very poorly these days, for reasons that are likely obvious to everyone reading this. However, I think it may be that the *benefits* to society of conquest are overlooked. I don't mean the benefits to the conquering, I mean the benefits to the *conquered*.
Essentially, a ruler sufficiently bad will have a nation that is weak. Regardless of how militaristic that leader is, a nation without a functioning economy cannot field an effective military. Take North Korea for instance, if we hadn't functionally abandoned conquest, would China or South Korea *not* have taken them over, put their natural resources to use, and (ultimately, probably after some abuses) assimilated their populace?
So, we get what we have, which is a large and growing group of *permanent* oppressed, impoverished nations. Because once they are down, the ONLY option for the leadership is to *keep* them down to prevent rebellion, and regardless of how easy they would be to take, the new world order forbids it.
Which creates a perverse incentive for people like the Kim family. So long as they *maintain* their oppressive, impoverished people in *sufficient* misery, they will likely be able to remain god kings for ever.
Which caused me to wonder how any nation ever improved. I mean, if all you have to do is keep the squeeze on, and the people will literally *never* rise up, then how is it that we're not all living in shitholes like North Korea.
And then, it came to me. We've eliminated one of the most important "safety valves". Conquest.
Conquest is generally thought of very poorly these days, for reasons that are likely obvious to everyone reading this. However, I think it may be that the *benefits* to society of conquest are overlooked. I don't mean the benefits to the conquering, I mean the benefits to the *conquered*.
Essentially, a ruler sufficiently bad will have a nation that is weak. Regardless of how militaristic that leader is, a nation without a functioning economy cannot field an effective military. Take North Korea for instance, if we hadn't functionally abandoned conquest, would China or South Korea *not* have taken them over, put their natural resources to use, and (ultimately, probably after some abuses) assimilated their populace?
So, we get what we have, which is a large and growing group of *permanent* oppressed, impoverished nations. Because once they are down, the ONLY option for the leadership is to *keep* them down to prevent rebellion, and regardless of how easy they would be to take, the new world order forbids it.