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.
[1] Not just religion, but things like "natural rights" are really supernatural conceptually.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5533155
Edit: looks like someone is sinking these articles off the front page. Good call!
Borders are pretty arbitrary things in a lot of cases. There are probably still a few very elderly people alive in the Sud Tirol region of Italy who, as infants, found themselves to be Italian citizens despite not having moved a mile, because Italy managed to beat Austria in WWI. Linguistically, and culturally, they are Austrians in that region (or, in some of the high valleys, Ladin speakers, if we want to start getting into details), and many of them don't really identify with Italy to this day.
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?
I don't agree with the premise, but that's a separate point.
I am asking if you understand the difference between point A and B?
That makes intuitive sense. But in practice I'd argue it's much more nuanced than that. What we all legally and sovereignly call "The United States of America" are many distinct (and I don't just mean by State borders) populations with vastly different needs and are affected differently by global undertakings.
As a thought experiments, let's say bringing immigrants from Country Z lowers the wages of workers in Trade X in Alaska-America by 50%. However, this decreases the amount of production for Product H in Country Z by 25% due to migrating workers. This increases the wages of workers in Trade B in Florida-America by 200% due to the shortage of Product H. The net-gain here is Zero for The United States of America (assuming workers in Trade B and X are same in numbers, thereby cancelling each other's net loss/gains out).
Ought not the American government allow the immigrants on the basis that, overall, it is increasing the wealth of the world economy; the world of which the United States of America is very much a part of?
I suppose the argument can be made that fundamentally the government only cares about its own Prosperity even in this case, and that a "rising tide lifts all boats" scenario outlined above merely falls into that category.
It's not hard to make that case at all. Indians and Chinese prospective immigrants are not part of the American body politic. The American government has no duty to benefit them at the expense of Americans, and indeed I'd argue that it's morally wrong for the American government, instituted to protect American interests and American prosperity, to make that trade off regardless of the relative wealth of the people involved.