![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
On Empires and Imperialism
Sep. 9th, 2022 02:41 pmAt the lovely site Hugo Book Club, they had thoughts on why SF likes them some kings and queens. The Tsars Like Dust. I had a few thoughts.
One, republics can be expansionistic. The history of the US in the 19th century is a clear example, and I would argue that Britain in the same period, although technically a monarchy, exhibited the same phenomenon.
In a past life, I worked for a company which was buying small owner-operated IT service providers. I was amazed by the number of ways owners found to siphon money out of the company, from charging the company rent for their home office to company cars and country club memberships. Industrial-age empires are the same - the "owners" (in their own minds) of the country are using empire to siphon money from the country to their pockets.
Second, much of the US fascination with "good kings" comes from a quirk of our Constitution. Basically, the US has an elected king. The framers of the constitution took all the powers and tasks they thought a king should do, wrote them down, and did a find-and-replace of "king" with "president." But since a President is a mere politician, some people (not at all accidentally of a conservative bent) think that a real king would be above politics.
One, republics can be expansionistic. The history of the US in the 19th century is a clear example, and I would argue that Britain in the same period, although technically a monarchy, exhibited the same phenomenon.
In a past life, I worked for a company which was buying small owner-operated IT service providers. I was amazed by the number of ways owners found to siphon money out of the company, from charging the company rent for their home office to company cars and country club memberships. Industrial-age empires are the same - the "owners" (in their own minds) of the country are using empire to siphon money from the country to their pockets.
Second, much of the US fascination with "good kings" comes from a quirk of our Constitution. Basically, the US has an elected king. The framers of the constitution took all the powers and tasks they thought a king should do, wrote them down, and did a find-and-replace of "king" with "president." But since a President is a mere politician, some people (not at all accidentally of a conservative bent) think that a real king would be above politics.
