One bit of conventional wisdom that I find interesting is the belief that what was responsible for American prosperity post-WWII was the fact that Europe was devastated and the U.S. was the undisputed industrial superpower. To the extent that theory is true (and I'm not saying it is or not, I don't have enough of a grounding in economics to say)--doesn't that suggest that the rational course of American policy should be to bomb India and China instead of trading with them? People trot out this idea all the time, but nobody really thinks through the implication...

My point isn't that the U.S. should be imperialist. I don't think it should be. There are lots of good, practical reasons to not just go around bombing everyone, namely that it's an expensive game of "king of the hill" in the long run. But in my mind the idea that we have some greater moral obligation to humanity is not one of those reasons. The American government is instituted to secure the prosperity of Americans. That is the beginning and end of the purpose of its existence. The only moral obligations binding upon it are those that reflect the will of its constituency. If the U.S. refrains from imperialism the only reason it should do so is because Americans want to be peaceful, not out of concern for the well being of non-Americans.

It should be noted that, China doesn't subscribe to any such silly notions. If they thought they could get away with bombing us to cripple our infrastructure and that doing so would increase their own prosperity, the Chinese government would do it in a heartbeat.

There are no resources left that you could "steal" for less than you could buy on the open market.

Do you really fail to appreciate the difference between:

A) Not sharing your family/country resources with strangers (who might well be below your level of economic development).

B) Going over to invade another country/family and take away their resources?

[insert communism comparison rebuttal here]