Empire

Duck of Minerva points to this discussion of Empire over at Coming Anarchy. Chirol at CA believes:

1) Empires are always founded by successful countries/cultures
2) Thus, they spread technology, development and stability (often through overwhelming force)
3) They began globalization periods and are always at the core.

I read these statements as:

1) [Militarily] Successful countries/cultures (empires) are always [militarily] successful. They are therefore assigned the normative value “good”.
2) They spread their goodness by conquest.
3) This spread of goodness leads to greater global trade.

An alternate theory:

1) Shitty states need to become belligerent in order to distract the masses from the corruption and incompetence of the elites.
2) Shit spreads through violence.
3) Eventually the inefficient system that lead the original country to vent its pressures outwards runs out of outwards. The societal turmoil covered up by conquest reemerges and destroys the society.

Exempli gratia: Russian Revolution, French Revolution (if Napoleon stayed out of Russia), Athens, Hitler, Rome (arguably), Persia, Egypt, Spain, and the Aztecs.