Reply to Thread

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Message: <blockquote data-quote="henschman" data-source="post: 2452153" data-attributes="member: 4235">I suppose we need to define our terminology a little better if we're going to throw around these loaded terms like "isolationism."  What I am advocating is no military intervention in foreign affairs, but complete economic freedom of association. So whether you want to call it non-interventionism, isolationism, or what have you, that is what I am referring to.  That being the case, I can hardly see how you can criticize it as an unworkable strategy for national policy, since it has only rarely been tried by our nation, and the time period in which it was the most prevalent was actually a quite peaceful and prosperous time.  By contrast, the results of military interventionism need no introduction.  As difficult as it is to prove a negative, it is personally hard for me to imagine how a worse result could have occurred without our country's 20th Century military interventions.  As far as an integrated world economy goes, that is a better protection against war than any military deterrent could provide.  If enough people could understand the simple economic principle of comparative advantage <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage</a>, and had enough of a capacity for reason to draw even the most obvious conclusions from it, war would quickly start to become a thing of the past.  Alas, while the human race has made great strides with its knowledge of math, science, and language, the vast majority of the planet's population remains completely economically illiterate.</blockquote>

Verification