However, I was talking to a "conservative" statist (a redundancy, I know) who said he thought Ron Paul was the best candidate, except that the mainstream will never accept him enough to elect him because of his foreign policy. He says, in less honest words, that it is just too dangerous to not meddle. If I used such language I would have responded "WTF?"
How has the meddling in other countries' business worked out so far? Has it kept radical individuals from killing innocent Americans? Has it spread liberty around the globe?
No to both.
Intervention is more honestly called trespassing. Intervention led to the act of aggression known as "9-11". Intervention led to all the deaths, American and otherwise, in all the unconstitutional wars (which are actually terrorism) since then. Intervention led to the death of liberty in America. Intervention grows new generations of individuals, in America and around the world, who hate the US government and who are willing to kill and die to try to hurt it. Intervention (among other Crimes of State) led to the growing worthlessness of the money in your bank account and in your wallet.
Intervention leads to more intervention in a feedback loop. It's like beating your dog because he is whining and limping. The more you beat him, the more he will whine and limp. Until he either dies or rips your throat out for being such a cruel jerk. If he dies, an interventionist will get a new dog to kick around since he needs that feeling of being a big, tough guy.
And, intervention abroad leads to the justification for intervention in your private life.
The State has no business intervening anywhere for any reason. It has no justification to exist. I got over it; I wish everyone would.
.
