The Quest for an Empire - TQE

The quest for an empire – powerful enough to deter all potential enemies and thus secure peace and prosperity for its subjects!

How did humanity try (and keeps trying ) to achieve this dream, where did we succeed and when and why did we fail?

I an attempt to discover a pattern I noticed that:

It obviously starts with concentration of power to achieve security, followed by large development, defence and ideological projects. Soon concentrated power leads to abuse, abuse erodes support for the government and ultimately the empire fails. Therefore, better systems – those with a better chance of survival are those that have implemented better governance. Good accountability is essential for good governance. Therefore, in essence, accountability is indispensable for sovereignty.

The Essence of Politics

The main or perhaps only goal of government is to protect private property.
Private property is impossible without a government to protect it.
Even if you are the strongest in your neighborhood it will only take the collusion of two or three people to deprive you of it.
That ultimate power of government in regards to private property invites the temptation to use is as a tool to steal and reapropriate that property to those who hold or pull the strings of political power.
That struggle between those who need government to protect their property and those who want to use government to steal is the essence of politics.

Power, Democracy, Government and Sovereignty

If politics is about power and power is the use of resources controlled by others to achieve our goals. It can be achieved through cooperation or coercion. Cooperation takes longer, is more difficult to achieve and may require some modification to the original goals or agenda but is ultimately cheaper and more stable. Coercion is easier and faster but unstable and resource hungry to the extent that it may defeat the meaning of the original goal.
Sovereignty is the justification of power. Although routinely connected with territory is universally accepted that it stems from the people and is expressed in a explicit or implicit social contract which can be unilaterally revoked by the people if the government doesn't deliver the protection of the basic human rights of the citizens.
A state is a country with its people, government, political system and territory (not only the government). Of these the people posses sovereignty over a territory with the government responsible for the protection of human rights with security, law and order, private property and equal opportunity among them. The government can legitimately represent the people internationally but only as long as it defends the people’s interests in the best possible way. Almost always that means avoiding war.

Sovereignty means that the people have the supreme right to govern themselves and conduct their domestic and external affairs. The state includes the people and if the government is oppressive and disrespects the will of the people that government cannot claim legitimacy. Following this logic we cannot speak of the state of North Korea as the government doesn't represent the people. North Korea can be discussed only in terms of the oppressive, illegitimate government on one side and the people about whose opinion unfortunately we don't know much on the other. (Ironically the official name of the country has the people mentioned three times as in "people's" "democratic" and "republic" but that doesn't change the fact that the people are not represented by that government.)
Democratic governments where minority rules are not respected also cannot claim sovereignty because they are forfeiting the right of the minority. Therefore the Civil War in the US did not curtail South's sovereignty but helped defend it because there couldn't be a valid claim to sovereignty in the South if the slave's rights weren't taken into account. Legitimacy can be based on the sovereignty of each and every person.
Similarly it is odd to impose economic sanctions against a totalitarian state as they only punish the people and not the governing tyrants responsible for the crime in question. If we assume that the term state means political organisation of the society in a particular country then that certainly is not the case in a country where there is no liberal democracy (meaning a government which is popular, accountable and respects human rights including the rights of minorities. This excludes popular nationalistic governments like Hitler's or Mussolini's and popular non-secular governments. States that are corrupt and failed cannot legitimately claim sovereignty. Also it is cynical to demand payment of debts incurred by a tyrant the fault for such bad debts lies with those who gave credit to a corrupt individual not the people who had no choice or say.
Sovereignty is of the people and for the people. The state can only exist legitimately to defend their right to life, property, freedom and the pursuit of happiness.

Personal Political Philosophy

Political Philosophy can only be personal. To paraphrase the crook quotation Ask not what you can do for your country but ask what your country can do for you, because if your county doesn't do anything for you yet you are forced to do more and more for your country without getting anything in return then your country is probably called the Peopl'es Democratic Republic of North Korea or any other People's Democratic Republic which usually has nothing to do with the peoples or the demos or the public except trying to extract as much as possible and stash it away into foreign bank accounts away from harm. Also if you hear a politician asking you to sacrifice for society or the future they most probably equate society with themselves and have in mind the security of their future not yours. But if you live in a country which states that we the people ... and the people means you and me so let's paraphrase it more properly to: I have certain inalienable rights like life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and if the government is not up to its task of protecting and supporting my rights I have the right to denounce it. That's the basis of politics. It's not about power Its about finding a way to help each other protect and enhance our rights mostly by cooperation against those who think that politics is about power and exploitation. And if they succeed it's not their fault that they get their way its my fault that I let them encroach on my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
If knowledge is our most powerful and only tool to achieve happiness in fact knowledge and thinking as the only thing that distinguishes us from animals. (I know there are people who consider animals better than people and very often I can see why but still these people cling to our society instead of practicing what they preach and fade into the jungle to lead a life of Tarzan or Mowgli :-) So if knowledge is our most powerful weapon in the fight for freedom and good life and society is the most important amplifier of both our knowledge and efforts then politics should be the most important knowledge that we can ever have. Consequently as I proved that I am the most important subject and object of politics and politics is all about me then studying myself must be the starting point for studying politics.
Since philosophy is about creating good life then political philosophy should start and end with me: my needs, my desires, my aspirations and my plans to get there.
Ethics
Getting there must be moral. Because morality ensures the cooperation of society and society or simply said other people can be our greatest help or obstacle in achieving our goals following our dreams. That's why politics is important. You can always steal and get away with it but probably not for long and that's why it's not wise.
To finish.
You can't sign away your rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They are not yours because they the were in that well know declaration. It stated a fact, not a claim. You have them no matter what but to make them real you must fight for them, defend them enhance them. Without that they are like an empty bowl you have to work to put the soup in.

Social Theory

'Philosophy is written in this grand book, the Universe. But the book cannot be read unless one first learns to comprehend the language and read the alphabet in which it is composed' GALILEO GALILEI

Introduction
Beliefs
We can only act upon what we believe is true. It is inevitable that our knowledge is imperfects as we ourselves are imperfect. That doesn't mean that we can't be successful even when we base our actions on this imperfect knowledge .The difference is that the more our subjective knowledge corresponds to objective reality the less our successes will be subject to chance instead of plan. That perfect knowledge is impossible to attain shouldn't stop us from trying. (see Ferrari)
Truth
We can have simple truths as 2+2=4 but unfortunately such obvious truths rarely are of much use and even if they are their discovery is easy. The problem is that the more complicates a concept is the more difficult it is to define, justify and prove yet often it's the most important and critical for making crucial decisions.

Values
Values as most important in any political inquiry for the following reasons:
Any politico-sociological inquiry must have a goal.
That goal must be justified by a value system.

Values often are the basis of defining interests and guiding choices.

Interests
In pursuing our interests we have two choices in relation to other people to help us achieve our goals to cooperate or coerce.
Cooperation or Coercion?
Both have advantages and disadvantages. Cooperation generates goodwill and possibility for future cooperation but may take time to negotiate and will require trade off in effort, resources and/or possible adjustment on one’s goals. Coercion may bring concrete payoff faster and easier but will generate resentment which will lead to retaliation and eventually make it more expensive in the end.
Additionally cooperation may benefit from the intellectual, emotional and spiritual input of other that could greatly enhance achievement while coercion will employ all invention, passion and prayer of our counterpart against us.
Structures and Institutions
Structural/institutional approaches to cooperation like rules, laws or principles, associations (including states), and markets arte the cheapest ones. Cheap as they may be they require periodic maintenance if we aspect them to serve us as intended being human creation they are neither perfect nor natural.

Cheap as they are structures are imperfect and need to be constantly modified to smooth out their own imperfect adaptation to reality and to accommodate changes in that same reality. That jeopardizes both their efficiency as resources need to be spent on changes and raises the resistance not only of those who are accustomed to the old system or reluctant to invest in its improvement but by those who profit for the imperfections that are to be straightened up.

What would I want from my structures/institutions? I would certainly want them to be able to archive their goals and to do it cheaply. No question I would want them to set these goal according to my wishes or as compatible with my wishes as possible and I would like to have some safeguard that my organization won’t turning against me. So simply said I want them to be democratic, accountable and respecting my rights.
Coercion
Can be protective and aggressive (intentionally, de facto or perceived) It is always bound to provoke violent reaction of the stronger if the threats or actions are perceived as aggressive.
Power
Power is the ability to achieve one's goals.
Society is people cooperating or competing in pursuit of their goals.
Politics is people cooperating or competing in the acquisition of power.
Power is the ability to make an independent choice???

Goals
Goals stem from interests based on wants, which in turn are perceived needs.