"The true principle of isolationism is that the government should be isolated and people who trade, interchange, and engage in voluntary travel, migration, and so forth should be allowed to peacefully do so."
The threat of “nuclear proliferation” remains one of the great catch-all reasons—the other being “humanitarian” intervention—given for why the US regime and its allies ought to be given unlimited power to invade foreign states and impose sanctions at any given time.
How did the federal government acquire this omnipotent power? Certainly not by constitutional amendment. It acquired it by converting the federal government after World War II from a limited-government republic to a national security state.
A divided America remains a wealthy America, and a postsecession America would be wealthy enough to retain a defensive military. Moreover, it's even cheaper to maintain an effective nuclear arsenal than to keep up a large conventional military.
The Biden administration has threatened to intervene in Burma to defend "democracy" which really just means putting back into power a woman who is known to support ethnic cleansing. But she said nice things about "democracy," so she'll get the US's nod.
Yes, Senator Paul is right. "Regime change" doesn't work. Buckle up, as incoming Senate majority leader Schumer advised, there's a whole lot of interventionism in the queue.
Given that so much of the world is in the grip of false ideologies, what can we do? Mises says that the answer does not lie in international organizations or treaties. “It is futile to place confidence in treaties, conferences, and…bureaucratic outfits"
If the United States breaks up into smaller pieces, how will the new nations be able to defend themselves from the likes of China? Thanks to geography and wealth, even smaller American states would be well protected from Asian and European powers.
