World Police Discussion

[ATP]

I don't believe there is such a middle ground, actually. I'm not a huge fan of Bayesian logic but I think it's suitable here. There's only three possibilities:

You are the world's policeman.
Somebody else is.
Nobody is.

Nobody being the world's policeman will lead to whoever can filling the gap and taking that power, quite possibly after a bloody war with other would-be policemen for the position. China's trying to establish their dominance over the South China Sea right now but if they could instead dominate and regulate trade across all the oceans of the world do you think they wouldn't? Of course they would.

Being the world's policeman puts you in an inherently superior position. Regardless of good intentions, you have a certain amount of advantage and in things like negotiations you're going to come out ahead compared to nations that rely on you for protection. There's no way around that and it's a perk of the job.

Now it's possible the cost of being the policeman is higher than it's benefits. The US is in a weird position that due to constantly swapping leadership, it can rarely stay aimed at a single target more than 8 years before tearing whatever it built down out of spite for the previous ruler. Another country that was more willing to squeeze and that had a more stable government could abuse policeman status far more. But it wouldn't be to the US's benefit to let somebody else, and by that I mean China because they're the main contender, control world trade.

Till 1945 there were no such thing like world policeman.Not even Europe policeman - becouse England from 18th century was making coalition to defeat any country which try that.
And you knew - world not ended.In many regards,people -even occupied - lived better then after 1945.

So,why not come back to that natural state ?

 

[Bear Ribs]

Till 1945 there were no such thing like world policeman.Not even Europe policeman - becouse England from 18th century was making coalition to defeat any country which try that.
And you knew - world not ended.In many regards,people -even occupied - lived better then after 1945.

So,why not come back to that natural state ?

You mean when the Royal Navy was the world's policeman? Because the Royal Navy was serving that role, they just weren't called that. Coincidentally it provided the same kind of hegemon benefits though, allowing the British Empire to spread across the world and protecting it's trade, while incidentally granting advantages to British shipping and operations overseas.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

You mean when the Royal Navy was the world's policeman? Because the Royal Navy was serving that role, they just weren't called that. Coincidentally it provided the same kind of hegemon benefits though, allowing the British Empire to spread across the world and protecting it's trade, while incidentally granting advantages to British shipping and operations overseas.

In addition to the Royal Navy, the British permitted their trading corporations to have full-scale private militaries of their own. Not to the extent of the fiction in Pirates of the Caribbean, of course, but to a very great degree.

 

[ATP]

You mean when the Royal Navy was the world's policeman? Because the Royal Navy was serving that role, they just weren't called that. Coincidentally it provided the same kind of hegemon benefits though, allowing the British Empire to spread across the world and protecting it's trade, while incidentally granting advantages to British shipping and operations overseas.

Nope,they were just state pirates,and state pirates are not world policeman.

 

[Bear Ribs]

Nope,they were just state pirates,and state pirates are not world policeman.

You're making a distinction that doesn't exist in real life.

 

[ATP]

You're making a distinction that doesn't exist in real life.

It exist.Soviets and USA after 1945 made /or tried to/ other nations as their own was.And attacked those who disobey.
They choose their own order,and made themselves policeman of that order.

England from 18th century? their only politics was to attack stronger european country using others european countries.
And Royal Navy was fighting to ensure that british merchants could made business unoposed,not change other countries.
Practically it acted as City privateers,not state Navy.

 

[Bear Ribs]

It exist.Soviets and USA after 1945 made /or tried to/ other nations as their own was.And attacked those who disobey.
They choose their own order,and made themselves policeman of that order.

England from 18th century? their only politics was to attack stronger european country using others european countries.
And Royal Navy was fighting to ensure that british merchants could made business unoposed,not change other countries.
Practically it acted as City privateers,not state Navy.

Again, you're just making a distinction that doesn't exist. Here's the thing, the difference between pirates and legitimate navy action is essentially whether or not the government sanctions it. That's how it works because government is the highest authority. Similarly the difference between "murder" and "legitimate military operation" is if the government says so. There's relatively little actual difference between a large, organized gang demanding protection money and a small, organized government demanding taxes in exchange for military protection, the difference in practice is that the gang has a higher level of government above it to say it's illegal. If the gang actually takes over the nation it becomes the new government, renames it's protection money "taxes," and becomes legit.

Any claims based on legality are going to be dubious because governments are the ones who make the laws and legal is whatever they say it is, especially in the 18th century when there was no League of Nations nor UN to at least make toothless claims of international law. The Royal Navy was a more corrupt world policeman (and more competent due to the aforementioned US political bipolar disorder) but that didn't mean they weren't acting in the capacity of controlling world trade on behalf of a hegemony. A policeman on the take is still a policeman. And if you think the British Empire didn't use their military power to change other countries I suggest you read a bit of India's history, and maybe check up the opium wars, and... actually just read any history from that era.

 

[ATP]

Again, you're just making a distinction that doesn't exist. Here's the thing, the difference between pirates and legitimate navy action is essentially whether or not the government sanctions it. That's how it works because government is the highest authority. Similarly the difference between "murder" and "legitimate military operation" is if the government says so. There's relatively little actual difference between a large, organized gang demanding protection money and a small, organized government demanding taxes in exchange for military protection, the difference in practice is that the gang has a higher level of government above it to say it's illegal. If the gang actually takes over the nation it becomes the new government, renames it's protection money "taxes," and becomes legit.

Any claims based on legality are going to be dubious because governments are the ones who make the laws and legal is whatever they say it is, especially in the 18th century when there was no League of Nations nor UN to at least make toothless claims of international law. The Royal Navy was a more corrupt world policeman (and more competent due to the aforementioned US political bipolar disorder) but that didn't mean they weren't acting in the capacity of controlling world trade on behalf of a hegemony. A policeman on the take is still a policeman. And if you think the British Empire didn't use their military power to change other countries I suggest you read a bit of India's history, and maybe check up the opium wars, and... actually just read any history from that era.

My opinion was not about legality but about ambitions and goals.Both soviets and USA try to remade world and become policeman to ensure that.

British? they only cared about interest of their merchants.So,RN was not world policeman,only british merchants bodyguards.
They never tried impose anything on world,like USA or soviets.

 

[Captain X]

Part of me really has no problem with the US being the world police, though that would be with the caveat that we aren't a communist country ourselves, and that seems to be the direction we're heading in. Part of me also likes the idea of going back to isolationism, provided we kept up our military strength so as to deal with anyone looking for trouble, and just kind of extending a middle finger to all the countries that accuse us of being imperialists because McDonalds is in their country and shit. I know it would be untenable, but part of me likes the idea of basically going, "oh, you want us gone, huh? Okay, have fun!"

 

[Bear Ribs]

My opinion was not about legality but about ambitions and goals.Both soviets and USA try to remade world and become policeman to ensure that.

British? they only cared about interest of their merchants.So,RN was not world policeman,only british merchants bodyguards.
They never tried impose anything on world,like USA or soviets.

So your opinion is dependent on the British Empire having some sort of hivemind-like singular will, wanting only one thing for about three and a half centuries? That's what you're choosing to go with?

As is your opinion falls apart completely the second you look at what the Empire did. Reforms in India include introducing elections to the local governments, instituting racial equality, and free education for Indian children. Those are not acts of merchant bodyguards, but of an empire exporting it's culture to the rest of the world, much as the US does today.

On the all evil side the US did things like overthrow stable governments in order to create Banana Republics and ensure the profits of the United Fruit Company. So by your moral standard of working as merchant bodyguards, the US also isn't the world policeman. Of course the US exported it's culture and did much good as well, just as the British did, because they filled the same role of being hegemons and thus world policemen.

Ultimately you're going to find a huge heaping pile of skeletons in the closet of any government, world policeman or no. You can't judge your "policeman" status on legality and you can't judge it on vague morality like "merchant bodyguards" because the country that has no merchants and never tries to protect it's mercantile interests doesn't exist.

 

[Doomsought]

The problem with being world police is that it is fundamentally incompatible with anti-colonialism. Being the world police is a political act somewhere between imperialism and colonialism, anti-colonialism will sabotage any efforts to make things stick.

If you invade some one, you better damn well conquer them or all of that blood spilled is to waste.

 

[ATP]

So your opinion is dependent on the British Empire having some sort of hivemind-like singular will, wanting only one thing for about three and a half centuries? That's what you're choosing to go with?

As is your opinion falls apart completely the second you look at what the Empire did. Reforms in India include introducing elections to the local governments, instituting racial equality, and free education for Indian children. Those are not acts of merchant bodyguards, but of an empire exporting it's culture to the rest of the world, much as the US does today.

On the all evil side the US did things like overthrow stable governments in order to create Banana Republics and ensure the profits of the United Fruit Company. So by your moral standard of working as merchant bodyguards, the US also isn't the world policeman. Of course the US exported it's culture and did much good as well, just as the British did, because they filled the same role of being hegemons and thus world policemen.

Ultimately you're going to find a huge heaping pile of skeletons in the closet of any government, world policeman or no. You can't judge your "policeman" status on legality and you can't judge it on vague morality like "merchant bodyguards" because the country that has no merchants and never tries to protect it's mercantile interests doesn't exist.

Entire time i am taking about ambitions,not morality.If you do not force your ideals on entire world,like soviets and USA tried,you are not world policeman.

And India was part of British empire,they made reforms becouse they ruled there.
I am talking about enforcing your ideas - good or bad,does not matter - on other independent countries,not part of your empire.

 

[Bear Ribs]

Entire time i am taking about ambitions,not morality.If you do not force your ideals on entire world,like soviets and USA tried,you are not world policeman.

And India was part of British empire,they made reforms becouse they ruled there.
I am talking about enforcing your ideas - good or bad,does not matter - on other independent countries,not part of your empire.

The Opium Wars say hello. Try again, maybe read a little history first.

 

[ATP]

The Opium Wars say hello. Try again, maybe read a little history first.

so,when exactly England during opium wars tried to change China into another England? where you read about it?
Opium wars was destroing China so british merchant could profits,and Royal Navy acted as their bodyguards.

They would be world policeman,if they invade China to turn it into copy of England,just like soviets or american did after 1945.

 

[Bear Ribs]

so,when exactly England during opium wars tried to change China into another England? where you read about it?
Opium wars was destroing China so british merchant could profits,and Royal Navy acted as their bodyguards.

They would be world policeman,if they invade China to turn it into copy of England,just like soviets or american did after 1945.

So now we're entering that weird area where your come up with increasingly narrow definitions to try to salvage your position, and claim this doesn't count because X and that doesn't count because Y? India doesn't count because the British exported British culture to it and made it British, and China doesn't count because the British didn't?

And are you honestly hinging your argument on the idea that I can't find historical events where the British exported Christianity, Parlimentary Procedure, and the like to other nations? Because I can prove they did, really, really easily.

 

[JagerIV]

I mean, claiming the British were world policemen in a manner to what we are does seem a bit silly. Unless your just saying colonialism is world policing. In which case, Britian never reached that level of dominance. The French, Americans, and others were other rival naval powers.

What point do you consider England to have been world policeman? Are you only really considering it so post Nepoleonic War? In that case then, who was the world policeman before then?

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Part of me really has no problem with the US being the world police, though that would be with the caveat that we aren't a communist country ourselves, and that seems to be the direction we're heading in. Part of me also likes the idea of going back to isolationism, provided we kept up our military strength so as to deal with anyone looking for trouble, and just kind of extending a middle finger to all the countries that accuse us of being imperialists because McDonalds is in their country and shit. I know it would be untenable, but part of me likes the idea of basically going, "oh, you want us gone, huh? Okay, have fun!"

Ironically given some of his views, but as teddy would say "Speak softly and care a BFS (Big Freaking Stick)

 

[Terthna]

I mean, claiming the British were world policemen in a manner to what we are does seem a bit silly. Unless your just saying colonialism is world policing. In which case, Britian never reached that level of dominance. The French, Americans, and others were other rival naval powers.

What point do you consider England to have been world policeman? Are you only really considering it so post Nepoleonic War? In that case then, who was the world policeman before then?

I think the issue here is one of scale; how much of the world does one have to police before it counts as world policing? America right now basically polices the entire world; but Britain did at one point dominate much of the world, and had many other nations that relied on it:

Is that enough to count? I think it is; but it pales in comparison to America's reach.

 

[Free-Stater 101]

Their has to be moderation in everything. In the case of being the world police it's a job by which all benefit, but only we pay for, in both political criticism and monetary loss.

Being the world police is suppose to be a team effort amongst America and it's allies, but with our allies footing all the work and cost to us we eventually will get worn down to the point somebody will have to take our place and that 'somebody' won't keep trade conductive in a manner which will benefit the established order.

In other words if the European's want a America centric world trading order to continue being maintained they will have to do their part, and help on their own end. If they want a Chinese one however they need to tell us and get it over with.

 

[Captain X]

Is it weird that I kind of wished that the British Empire was still a thing? I mean, excepting the US, of course.