Super Power Super State
May 1, 2009 – 10:33 amContrary to the most excellent previous post by our dear friend Sally, many, if not most, libertarians (note the small l) do not have any horror or regret at the economic and military might of the United States of America. I am proud of it as an illustration of the inherent qualities of a representative Republic and free market system. I can’t speak for liberals beyond the fact that equating them with libertarians is fallacious and unsupportable in ANY context. Modern “liberalism” (collectivist socialist fascism) is antithetical and anthema to any true libertarian. Particularly classical liberal, originalist libertarians such as myself.
What libertarians object to is the improper and unconstitutional use of American power and the neo-conservative *Imperialism of Freedom* that our former fine First Shrub elaborated. Such have been the dreams since the time of Wilson. However such has never been the ideal, intent or purpose of our founding fathers or our national government prior to 1916. American expansionism throughout the continental U.S. under “Manifest Destiny” was commonly accepted by the citizenry of the time including the founders. Further expansion however was NEVER supported by a demonstrable majority and was militantly opposed by millions. Large minorities (at least) opposed the war with Mexico, “Seward’s Folly” and the imperialist land grabs of the McKinley administration.
The question is asked (paraphrase) what would be wrong or so bad about a “world empire” led by the United States. Any answer is speculative. Any positive outcome forecast is secondary to an unsupportable and parochially assumed worldview. The fact isn’t the good or bad of it, rather the right or wrong of it. Such “empire” led or owned by the United States would be completely in opposition to the ideals upon which this country was founded. The foundations of this country are what are being degraded by an overlarge, largely unconstitutionally functioning Federal Government. Aspirations to world political dominance would and will do nothing but reinforce that unconstitutional growth. From onerous controls upon the citizenry, violating the bill of rights, to unconstitutional foreign military actions not tied DIRECTLY to the safety of the country and its citizens, the government can suck the blood of individual liberty.
However altruistic and well intentioned the purpose and reasoning, it is an insult to human dignity and to our founders’ memories to foster, seek or propose world political control by the U.S. We libertarian originalists (true conservatives and classical liberals) find joy in American economic strength and military strength. We want Americans to be prosperous and our country to be protected. Unfortunately, due to globalists (neo-con and collectivist alike) our borders are not secure and our prosperity is threatened. These in turn cause direct assaults upon our collective freedoms and individual liberties. Fight for American Freedom, leave others in the world the freedom to fight for theirs.
Our friend writes excellent material, more of which can be enjoyed on her ScribD Essays.
2 Responses to “Super Power Super State”
1. You admitted that Americans disagreed over our very avid 19th century expansionist policy. Nothing was written in stone back then that we would indeed achieve a nation “from sea to shining sea.”
After the Treaty of Paris in 1783, our nation had definite border from the St. Lawrence to the northern Florida border, out to the Mississippi. But Americans expanded beyond those borders. Not only was such expansionism not unconstitutional, it was provided for by the Constitution and the Northwest Ordinance.
2. Nation-states as we’ve known them for the past three and a half centuries were established as such by Westphalia in response to the destructiveness of the Thirty Years War. There is nothing “forever” about them.
As we’ve seen in the past century, nation-states have broken up, and they’ve consolidated, sometimes with less than happy results. Sometimes voluntarily, sometimes as “unfriendly takeovers.” There is nothing inherently “right” or “true” about nations or their borders, only what the “sovereign” wants (here, read the people with the guns and bullets).
If this sounds Machiavellian to you, well, I’d suggest you read “The Prince” and learn what hard-headed political realism really is. Feel free to disagree with that political philosopher, but do so with thought, instead of wishful thinking.
We Americans desire to protect our nation from all enemies, foreign and domestic, but we’ve never stopped at the border while doing so, just as no other great power has ever stopped at the border.
To ask us to do so in a time of terrorism is to ask us to give terrorists and other enemies a running start against us.
As I’ve said, I’m not sure we’ll ever achieve a full-fledge American world empire, but I am absolutely certain we have the beginnings of “informal empire,” (Check out that map I mentioned that sections off the world for the convenience of the American military.
3. One other point I should have brought up earlier is another very Machiavellian one: If we Americans don’t establish a free and democratic, American run empire, that’s no guarantee that some other great power won’t come along and establish your ordinary, everyday, historical-style tyrannical type world empire. It has been tried in the past, but just because the evildoers failed, doesn’t mean they’ll fail again in the future.
There’s something to be said about pre-emption. Whether we will be forced to pre-empt, or simply decide it’s a good idea, or decide it isn’t, will be answered sometime in the future, but the anarchic nature of the world today (read Somali pirates here) demands that we start seriously considering the question now, no matter how politically incorrect it may appear (to libertarians and statists alike, for very different reasons).
My core argument is that American history simply cannot be used as an argument against American empire. My ancillary argument is that constitutional law cannot be used as an argument against it either.
The idea must stand or fall on its own merits or lack of same.
By Sally Morem on May 1, 2009
American History is the ONLY argument against emprie. It makes secondary our national sovereignty. The guarantee against some other state establishing hegemony or empire is to reject the globalism you seem to endorse. Focus on America and American Freedom via strong defense of the country, free market capitalism and maximizing individual liberty. No one argues that our defense may need to be projected external to the country only that it should done constitutionally and for ACTUAL threats to the United States. Iraq wasn’t.
By Nik on May 2, 2009