-10 votes

A utilitarian argument for the American Empire.

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.

Why?

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?



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

naw

This argument assumes a narcissistic notion that it's 'our' empire. It is not.

-quiet engineer

reedr3v's picture

You begin in your first sentence with a false assumption

and go careening off into your ego trip from there egoless.

Natural Rights/God given Rights

Either of those two will work for me. Not utilitarianism. I rejected the argument before I read it due to flaws in utilitarian thinking that encourage mob mentality and totalitarian lines of thinking.

"A security risk would also

"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."

The world will be reverting to competing trading blocs. We are no longer powerful enough to organize the global economy to serve American (Western)Interests. All our efforts to prop up the current status quo will merely make us weaker when the next hand is dealt.

And I quote:

" America has been seduced by the fast and easy looting won through military dominance.

Eventually the cost of looting becomes higher than the worth of the goods looted. I believe the American empire has reached that point."

- Submitted by egoless on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 17:10. Permalink

Your own words. On a topic re: Israel.

Pardon me for glancing at your post history to check, your post is pretty unusual for this board and I wanted to make sure you weren't a shill before taking the time to seriously answer your post.

Actually I'm still not sure. (about your shill status)

When I gain more

When I gain more knowledge/facts about a subject, I am liable to change my opinion on the said subject. How about you, sir?

The global balance of power is a more intricate subject than I fully appreciated at the time.

Your argument is

on par with most neo-con arguments. The fact of the matter is empires rise and fall, ALL THE TIME throughout history. We live in the 21st century, no country can possibly close off trade to the USA, that is a straw-man argument. Also, 25 years ago, about 80% of the world used our "Reserve currency," and there was another superpower, ussr. Since ussr's fall (you see, they went from EMPIRE to COLLAPSE in less than 80 years, after they made a foolish mistake of invading Afghanistan,) today, less than 60% of the world use the FRN as a "reserve currency." So that argument is HOGWASH. Now, for the "power vacuum," so the USA is supposed to send our men and women to die for other countries' safety and protection? Are we were being paid to do such? Does Germany, Japan, S Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Africa, Australia and about 125+ other countries pay us to protect them? Nope, they get a free ride, we subsidize them, spending more than half of the world's military budget, so those 135 countries can continue to prosper while our country continues to go into decline. So in other words, what you are calling for is that in which the USA continues to spend itself into oblivion which will sooner or later result in the USA's collapse just as it did with the ussr, which will result in exactly what you don't want, a power vacuum. LOL Our foreign policy is short sighted. More can be achieved through peace, trade, travel than that of FORCE. Countries that trade with each other have more to lose with war. Cool heads prevail, hot heads fail.

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” – Dresden James

They do not get a free ride.

They do not get a free ride. If they accept dollars and hold them as reserve currency and use that to buy treasuries, which are devalued by the Fed, then they are paying for it indirectly.

I presume they agree to this because they enjoy the global stability the US provides. Also it is likely the potential risks associated with another power assuming this role is greater than any reward gained from changing it.

So in otherwords,

you are saying they are paying for it by "accepting FRN's" while knowing that the frb is devaluing the dollar. TO clarify your absurd statement, WE ARE ALL PAYING FOR IT. When the FRB devalues the dollar, it is not just other countries that feel the squeeze, but every single person who holds FRN's. Your views are just as out of wack as liberal arguments calling for affirmative action. "Lets end discrimination by forcing employers to hire minorities, which will result in discrimination of non-minorities." <== no logic in that liberal argument, and no logic in your argument either. TO tell you the truth, I feel like you are in favor of central economic planning which is worse than our imperialism. Of course you are in support of central economic planning, otherwise we wouldn't be able to afford our imperialism.LOL My question is, what makes you different than a liberal? They are beholden to the FRB for domestic spending, sounds like you are dependent on the FRB for foreign spending. <== Same coin, just heads and tails. Together, the GOP and DNC make up 1 big party, 1 for domestic, the other for foreign, both having the same goals, spend, spend, spend, at the expense of everyone else.

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” – Dresden James

Was any other empire in

Was any other empire in history any different? My argument stands, that life is better to be a citizen of a dominant empire than to be subjugated by a foreign one. If the US is out of the picture globally, do you really think we would not be harassed or coerced by some other power? I'd rather have it the other way around.

Your handle is

"egoless," but your argument is largely based off ego. Ahh the Irony. Also, history does show that life is better for a citizen who lives in the "mighty empire," although history also shows that those citizens who were living under that empire ultimately suffered when that empire fell. With a $16.5 trillion dollar debt that is getting bigger faster every year it seems like ours is going to fall in due time as well.

I also believe that if you read the US Constitution, you will find that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. It does not say that just Americans are equal, but all men. SO how one can justify our force on others for total subjugation so we can live better than them is outstanding, well done.

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” – Dresden James

All empires are the same

They all begin by "subjugating" the home population. Don't forget it took hundreds of years of violence to get people to accept the state system.

The fact that we cannot even conceive of living without empire it is a triumph of the propaganda system. The fact is that we the people are paying a huge cost of the empire while receiving very few of the benefits.

Well first off...we can never

Well first off...we can never be economically isolated...did you forget we provide the majority of the world's food? People have to trade with us...and food is a need, we will always hold that particular upper hand. As to the power vacuum...that may or may not be so...but who cares? Its not our problem. Ideally those countries we pull out of will fill their own vacuum, especially since no one else can truly afford to fill our shoes so to say...we cant afford it..how can anyone else? Russia already learned this lesson the hard way and is unlikely to repeat it. China seems smarter than that...they see what it did to Russia and now to us...no one else has the resources needed yet...its doubtful they ever will..with the possible unknown of India...seems like fhey have other things to worry about though and with Pakistan as a nuke armed enemy its not smart for them to interfere in the middle east.

The Agri Industrial Complex

The Agro Industrial Complex is a massive waste of resources and destabalizes free markets. Huge subsidies were the reasons for the failure of the DOHA round of trade talks.

http://www.economist.com/node/21562196