Quote:
Originally Posted by oleg
I understand that recent adventures of the federal government force many to bias in direction of the radical isolationism. Your considerations stroke to the naturally simplest way to solve the problem - merely to cut the necessary potential for Washigton (because you probably want to mathematically neglect the factor of oligarchy, which is the core of impossibility of your model). But you shouldn't think the nullification will stop on that. Once balance is hurt, the process will go on untill there will be 50 small exact copies of the today USA instead of one solid body. With the nullification option you can scale the USA but you can not change their nature. You will set the framework of foreign policy for each souvereign state in regard to one another. With the run of the time they will merge into the few geopolitical clusters and plunge into the rivalry.
|
I think that not writing a nullification amendment was simply an oversight by the Founding Fathers.
How much, exorbitantly expensive superpower, does the US need in an 'ever shrinking' world, to avoid foreign entanglements?
How much better off would our oligarchs be if we had avoided the Civil War, the Vietnam police action, and our current foreign entanglement in Iraq?
It is not like they couldn't be making money promoting the general welfare. What if lack of support from the various states would have been more conducive to working with the Iraqi government and building 'state of the art" infrastructure in Iraq. The fossil fuel sector could have continued making profit on that investment, without having to resort to the chaos form of anarchy for simple demolition work, that will cost the US taxpayer; not just the oligarchs, more than the amount we would have spent by simply promoting the general welfare.