A utilitarian argument for the American Empire.Submitted by egoless on Sat, 10/06/2012 - 14:12
Assuming it is natural for men to seek to seek power, glory, and wealth by whatever means leads to their greatest reward while taking the least amount of risk.
Assuming by extension nations behave similarly as nations are generally driven by the same fundamental desires.
It would be morally wrong to disintegrate the US empire.
The disintegration would cause a power vacuum whereby other nations would fight amongst themselves over current US territories and spheres of influence. This would cause untold human suffering and possibly cause the deaths of hundreds of millions of people.
In addition, who is to say the outcome of this would be any better than the current state of affairs? The outcome would most certainly be worse for a great many people. Not to mention the American people, whose standard of living would decline drastically without the luxury of being the sole superpower and issuing the reserve currency.
A security risk would also emerge supposing some other nation builds an empire in our absence on the global scene. They would then have the power to control trade and isolate the US economically, further diminishing our standard of living.
So how does Ron Paul's foreign policy stance make sense again?