3 ms·

You have everything backwards. We dont have economic dominance because we have a strong military. We can afford a strong military because we had economic domi

You have everything backwards. We dont have economic dominance because we have a strong military. We can afford a strong military because we had economic dominance. This economic dominance was predicated in strong freedom of association principles , and a policy of neutrality that kept us largely out of expensive disputes early in the republic. This is how things have really come to be. I will tell directly you reality refutes your adventurism: the roman state collapsed despite having the strongest military in the world. That state collapsed not because of army defeats, but because of a hollow economic core caused by permanent deficits. This is where the US today. And pushing more freedom to associate to illegal status is just piling on the US to italy-style irrelevance

yowlingcat 6y ago
> the roman state collapsed Collapse is a strong word, my friend. While we're on the subject of "adventurism" perhaps we ought to consider what you've proposed. I think the word you are looking when you say "collapse" is "decline" -- the Byzantine empire lasted for a millennium and a half, hardly a collapse, no? And I think the concepts you are looking for when you say "strong freedom of association principles" are "colonization" and "manifest destiny." We can talk about freedom of association until we are blue in the face, and there is nothing wrong with the principle itself -- in fact, as you point out, it remains the brightest part of what enables American prosperity and something that is a lot closer to true egalitarian existence than many other versions of civilization in history. While I can agree with you about that, the fact remains that the frontier spirit was enabled not just by simple expansion of an enterprising band of pioneers into a virgin unspoiled terrain, but rather the forceful pushing out and often wholesale eradication (and trails of tears) of a people who were already present. For all of our sake, I wish that history was more wholly in accord with your very "enlightened" idea of iconoclastic individualism. Sadly, whether you like it or not, the history of at least the past ten millennia of human civilization has been largely built on the back of war, property and empire -- including the Roman empire you cite as an example. I don't know if it does your argument any favors to torture the truth through deliberate omission to serve the way you wish the world worked. You might run the risk of getting "everything backwards" to borrow your feisty phrase.

yowlingcat 6y ago

> the roman state collapsed Collapse is a strong word, my friend. While we're on the subject of "adventurism" perhaps we ought to consider what you've proposed. I think the word you are looking when you say "collapse" is "decline" -- the Byzantine empire lasted for a millennium and a half, hardly a collapse, no? And I think the concepts you are looking for when you say "strong freedom of association principles" are "colonization" and "manifest destiny." We can talk about freedom of association until we are blue in the face, and there is nothing wrong with the principle itself -- in fact, as you point out, it remains the brightest part of what enables American prosperity and something that is a lot closer to true egalitarian existence than many other versions of civilization in history. While I can agree with you about that, the fact remains that the frontier spirit was enabled not just by simple expansion of an enterprising band of pioneers into a virgin unspoiled terrain, but rather the forceful pushing out and often wholesale eradication (and trails of tears) of a people who were already present. For all of our sake, I wish that history was more wholly in accord with your very "enlightened" idea of iconoclastic individualism. Sadly, whether you like it or not, the history of at least the past ten millennia of human civilization has been largely built on the back of war, property and empire -- including the Roman empire you cite as an example. I don't know if it does your argument any favors to torture the truth through deliberate omission to serve the way you wish the world worked. You might run the risk of getting "everything backwards" to borrow your feisty phrase.