bruh!

What is detained?

muted

Isolation.

Dang

Anyhow, let me and Oboe continue our serious conversation please.

I also can't help to feel that some of your reasonings presuppose that killing is wrong which doesn't make sense to me sense you maintain that morality is subjective but I don't think you are very eager to concede that killing for my advantage is permissible within certain contexts either.

Okay, if you want to put morality aside, we can do that. But before I do so, I'll let you know that if you think that killing is moral, you have serious problems, and I don't say this to insult you, but I really worry about your mental state.

Now, when it comes to killing people because there are advantages with go with that action, I must remind you that there are also disadvantages, which, when it comes to killing a people, they always -and I mean always- overshadow the advantages. For example, if we go by the example of yours, you killed a number of people because you wanted to have full control of their resources. Why kill them? You can certainly keep them alive, and use them to your own advantage. By removing all value, you remove many advantages as well.

@Oboe

Ok but that poses the question of slavery

Is it better to enslave that people than kill them?

I don't see how that would be any less imperialistic

You don't need to enslave people to use them to your own advantage.

Their mere existence is one great advatange.

I gotta go, I'll be back in a couple of hours. Feel free to respond, I'll just respond to you later. @Oboe

Alright

My issue with that is you seem to assume that in *every* case that letting people be free and alive works to my advantage and I just don't see that as true. We can work up hypotheticals wherein a given group's destruction would work to my group's advantage and within this framework I am trying to figure out whether you think that working to my group's advantage is what defines morality or that there is some kind of over-arching sense of right and wrong which prevents you from seeing killing as a morally acceptable option. So I have to ask, which is it? Is killing supremely wrong or is working to my own advantage supremely right? I don't see how the two can both be true.

Isolationism only makes sense if you have obtained autarky

The possibility of obtaining autarky is a impossible for most countries in the modern world; so it should no means be taken into consideration.

Heres an idea

Also, Isolationism + Autarchy os practically a bullet througth the head. Most modern attempts of autarchy were not derived from isolationist policy, but the contrary, expansionist policies (Japan as an example).

America is already imperial

It holds factions of people in its borders who hate each other

@Lettow north korea

I said "most" for a reason. North Korea is a very special case.

The US is more an empire in its exportation of globohomo.
Pretty much all nations in NATO act like its subjects.

Globohomo

If we all return to agrarian society, then autarky is easy

You could probably do that, but that wouldn't be a good idea chief.

It would be a great idea

Nah.
Autarchy + Agrarian society = not the sufficient material conditions to survive as a political entity and probably gonna end up pretty backwards.

Ok

And?

Autarchy in our economy? Wew.

You don't even have all raw materials in every country. Even if you combine expansionism, that would mean Germany would have to conquer as far as Eastern Europe for a few measly silicone deposits.

Countries like China, Russia or the USA could get away with it, maybe. Even then, the question is if it's worth it. Autarchy in military and medical goods and foodstuffs (to a degree) is pretty much common sense and does not warrant an ideology, in everything else, it's simply a waste of resources. Look at the map above. Why are not all silicone deposits tapped? Because sometimes, buying that stuff is cheaper than building a factory from scratch and keeping it running. Also, comparative advantage something something.

Anyway, to the poll today: Nations aren't states. They were never taken to be states until around the French Revolution. National pride existed since forever, but I didn't see the nation get treated as the first principle of the state in any of my readings antique or medieval texts. The state was pretty much the king and his subjects, i.e. everyone residing in his domain or bound to him by contract, custom or conquest. That king could well be a foreigner, it may have pissed people off when that happened, but they didn't deem it an affront to nature.

Heresies were so often put in the service of a national cause precisely because you couldn't build a state on a nation. So instead, you demanded independence for your nation because you were the only Muslims, Cathars or Taborites around and thus obviously destined to rule yourselves. (Bit of a historical simplification but the principle holds)

With the Partition of Poland, the nation came to fulfill that role. The Poles were not that happy that their old and respectable nation was cut up, which it was because it did not fit into the times, having an elected monarch. A ruler by inheritance cannot do diplomacy with such a state, not the least because intermarriage is unfeasible.

But nationalism really gained ground with the French Revolution. The Revolution was based on universalist values, but once it took over the state, that begged the question of why exactly this particular territory should be ruled by these particular french guys. Nationalism offered the answer. Without it, any "global" revolution would have to remain "global", and could not settle in the state it is in. The same thing happened in China and Russia, they started out as internationalist (the USSR didn't even have Russia in its name), but when the revolution succeeded, they had to gain the particular loyalty of the people they ruled, which they did by switching to more nationalist propaganda.