America should be a good republic, and not try to be an empire.

Reasons to Agree:

1. We just want to create a good place for our people to live. America should focus on internal prosperity rather than expanding its global influence.
2. Empires historically collapse due to overreach. Rome, Britain, and the Soviet Union all fell when they stretched too far.
3. Military expansion is financially unsustainable. Global military bases and interventions cost trillions of dollars, money that could be used for healthcare, education, and infrastructure.
4. Republican values oppose imperialism. The U.S. was founded on self-governance and democracy, not ruling over other nations.
5. Empire-building creates unnecessary enemies. Intervening in other countries often leads to backlash and long-term instability.

---

Reasons to Disagree:

1. A strong global presence ensures national security. The U.S. deters threats by maintaining military bases and alliances worldwide.
2. Economic dominance benefits Americans. U.S. influence in global trade and financial systems helps maintain a strong economy.
3. Vacuum of power would be filled by rivals. If the U.S. withdraws, China or Russia could take its place as the dominant global power.
4. Soft power requires global leadership. The U.S. spreads democratic values through its influence, diplomacy, and strategic presence.

---

Most Probable Interest of Those Who Agree:

• Prioritizing domestic well-being over foreign intervention.
• Limiting military spending to reinvest in infrastructure, education, and healthcare.
• Supporting non-interventionist foreign policy.

---

Most Probable Interest of Those Who Disagree:

• Protecting national security through global military presence.
• Maintaining economic and political influence worldwide.
• Ensuring the U.S. remains the dominant global power.

---

Books That Agree:

• The Costs of Empire by Andrew Bacevich
• Republic, Not an Empire by Patrick Buchanan
• The Tragedy of Great Power Politics by John Mearsheimer

---

Books That Disagree:

• The Case for American Empire by Max Boot
• The Grand Chessboard by Zbigniew Brzezinski

---

Most Likely Benefits:

• Reduced military spending, allowing investment in domestic programs.
• Less global conflict involving the U.S.
• Stronger economic stability with focus on national industries.

---

Local, Federal, and International Laws That Agree:

• U.S. Constitution emphasizes limited government and non-aggression.
• International sovereignty laws support non-interventionism.

---

Evidence Scores:

• High evidence linking overreach to collapse in past empires.
• Economic studies on the cost of maintaining global military presence.

---

Songs That Agree:

• Born in the U.S.A. – Bruce Springsteen
• Fortunate Son – Creedence Clearwater Revival

---

People Who Agree:

• Ron Paul – Advocate of non-interventionism.
• Tulsi Gabbard – Critic of American military overreach.

---

People Who Disagree:

• John Bolton – Former National Security Advisor, supports interventionist policies.
• Henry Kissinger – Advocate of U.S. global leadership.

---

Images That Can Be Said to Agree:

• Image of the Founding Fathers drafting the Constitution.
• Political cartoons showing the dangers of imperial overreach.

---

Videos That Agree:

• YouTube video: The Fall of Empires
• Lecture by John Mearsheimer on great power politics.

---

Objective Criteria for Assessing This Belief:

• Economic cost-benefit analysis of empire vs. republic.
• Historical case studies of successful vs. failed superpowers.

---

Media That Supports This Belief:

• Documentaries on the decline of empires.
• News articles on the cost of U.S. foreign policy.

---

Interests & Motivations Template:

• Template for analyzing why people support or oppose this belief.

Value Validity: Equality

The numbering system below describes a system that scores groups of people within a range of 1 to 10 by how much they value equality.

1. These people undervalue equality. People who value equality at a 1, do not value equality very much. These people are willing to accept inhuman, or even unnatural cruelty to others, or specific groups of people. They do not value all life equally. People from their group (family, race, nationality) are acceptable, however they give little or no concern to those from other groups, or actively seek to harm those from other groups. 


2.  


3.  


4.  


5.  


6.  


7.   


8.  


9.  


10. These people over value equality. Someone who overvalues an otherwise positive value like equality would be willing to sacrifice other good values in order to satisfy equality. These people not only are willing to steel from Peter to give to Paul, but are willing to trample all over such concepts as "freedom of choice", the "law of the harvest", justice, or reasonable application of mercy in order to ensure that Peter does not have anything more than Paul. An example of someone who is overly concerned with equality hate the strong, powerful, or beautiful. These people are not just concerned about equality of opportunity, but also equality of outcome. They are willing to sacrifice freedom, and require massive amounts of power in order to guarantee the outcome that they see fit. They don't care if anyone is happy, just that no one is more happy than others. They are so concerned with equality, that they can not accept that truly evil might be sad, or noble people to experience any happiness. They feel bad for Hitler. These people would say that no tradition, no norm, no action is wrong, or worse than other actions. It is wrong to say that someone is bad, and another person is good. We are all equal, and therefore everyone can be whatever they want as long as it is not better than someone else.