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.

So, just to be perfectly clear: you don't believe that people have any moral obligation not to murder each other. But they do have a moral obligation to follow contracts (the government's contract to do what the people want).

I don't believe in any super natural bases for morality,[1] so I believe that morality arises out of the social contract. Given that, it makes sense to talk about the moral obligations of individuals within a society to each other, but not to talk about one society's obligation to another.

[1] Not just religion, but things like "natural rights" are really supernatural conceptually.

This is a repeat of the other day's conversation (and about 1343243243232 other similar conversations on the internet, which is why we ought to get rid of political articles), but like hell will I "not talk about my obligations" to other human beings that happen to be born with some other passport.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5533155

Edit: looks like someone is sinking these articles off the front page. Good call!

What do you think is the basis for your obligations to humans that you don't share a government with?

I'm not much for philosophy, so something simple along the lines of believing that I should leave the world a better place than I found it, and there's no reason that should be limited by borders, ethnicity or much else. Also, the idea that I have no obligations to people who are just like me but don't have the same passport is chilling and disturbing in its implications.

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.

What's the basis for following the social contract being an obligation?

Biologically? The various chemical signals (shame, fear, regret, etc) that enforce behavioral expectations within groups of humans.

Did you mean contRact? Or did you actually mean "contact"? You did type it twice, but I'm just making sure... The word "contact" in this context doesn't make sense to me, so please elaborate, if that's the case.

Thanks, yeah, I meant contracts. I'm on my phone.

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?

Starting from the premise that "it's morally wrong for the American government, instituted to protect American interests and American prosperity, to make that trade off", I don't see any reason to oppose imperialism.

I don't agree with the premise, but that's a separate point.

Right - but I am not asking whether you personally find imperialism as logical conclusion.

I am asking if you understand the difference between point A and B?

[insert communism comparison rebuttal here]