-
I believe Merlin is focusing on one answer to two completely different things: reasons for colonialism and consequences of colonialism! I may agree with his assessment of the consequences of Empires (with subsequent ‘canals’ of trade that were the embryo of globalisation); however, opening markets was not the reason behind colonialism (although
-
This is the perspective on colonialism from someone who lives in a country that was one of the last colonialists - Portugal! We started it in the XIV century and the reasons were simple, but multiple: military dominance, strategic control of maritime trade, also raw material (particularly gold), religious motives (catholic expansion), and we must say
-
Another thing: claiming a monopoly over a particular territory is not sufficient to constitute a state, merely saying that one has similar abilities to use coercion. This is the difference: in the 'state version' no one can claim the use of those abilities, except the state; in the 'private owner' version - in market conditions - the
-
Must add the fact that markets do not create monopolies. If your hypothetical situation occurred - in a free market economy - it could lead to the territory changing hands quite often. This sets another difference from the monarchy or oligarchy.
-
Thanks for the clarification!
-
CRUSOE Inc = Members are real owners / Government = Members are temporary administrators... It makes a huge difference!
-
Besides the mandatory vs. voluntary difference between the two hypothetical situations, one must remind the fact that having a government as the only owner of a particular territory raises other relevant issues. The state is not “one individual capable of intentional action”. Its unpredictability is dangerous; for instance, being under the