A fellow I used to work with, and who was persuing his master's in sociology at the time, told me that all human conflict arises because of a scarcity of resources. I haven't in my mind been able to decide whether I agree or disagree with his assesement, but it has a logical ring to it.

A master in sociology would, of course, come to that conclusion. It's more comforting than the alternative: that it's easier to loot than to produce, and the mindset that produces looters is the same mindset that produces conquerors.

Ask yourself why Imperial Japan found it necessary to conquer Asia, while capitalist Japan, with no more domestic resources than Imperial Japan, does just fine without militarism.

Is Hong Kong rich or poor? Why?

The Soviet Union sat on one of the largest resource-rich regions on the planet. Before they instituted collectivism, they exported food. Their regime was poverty-stricken. Why?

Hitler's Germany claimed to need "liebensraum." Oddly, modern Germany manages to fit all its Germans in without much trouble. What were Hitler's real motivations?

The whole picture is, of course, more complicated, particularly if you lump "gold and treasure" in as "resources," but examining those nations that have tried to conquer other nations, one finds that many of them are not really short of anything important, unless it's due to their own mismanagement of their countries.

The socialist/collectivist believes that resources are a zero-sum game. One person or nation cannot accumulate wealth without someone else losing out. A capitalist realizes that wealth is created, not just distributed. This is a relatively recent idea in human history.