[scythe]

I'm not endorsing it, but it's roughly consistent with Trump's underlying philosophy that the international systems that USG manages are a subsidy from the US taxpayer to the rest of the world, and one which goes unappreciated. Under this premise, the USG would save money at little cost if they were replaced by industry consortiums or other countries' state initiatives. If my extrapolation is correct, even GPS might eventually be in the line of fire.

I need to be clear that I do not endorse this view. The role of the United States in facilitating global cybersecurity, not to mention navigation, trade among much else, almost surely pays dividends far beyond what it costs us. The amount of international goodwill that the United States enjoys is remarkable particularly in light of our various foreign policy "mistakes", and I think we have these systems to thank.

[nyeah]

Let's keep things simple. You endorsed it. Here's a famous example of that endorsement style: https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/56968/speech-friends-...

[ifyoubuildit]

> Let's keep things simple

It doesn't seem all that simple to dictate to someone what you think their actual opinion is and then point to Shakespeare as some kind of evidence.

Maybe let's keep things simple by taking people at their word.

[nyeah]

I didn't say anything about the commenter's opinion. "Endorsed" was the word I used.

[scythe]

I didn't endorse anything. In fact, I presented arguments opposing the administration's view. I think it's unreasonable to argue that trying to understand people's actions is tantamount to endorsing them. We should never be reluctant to understand others' perspectives.

[throwawaymaths]

id agree with cybersecurity, but maybe not navigation? Even accounting for secondary effects, Currently supporting free navigation, especially in the Indian ocean and red sea mostly benefits other country, as the us is ~energy independent.

[XorNot]

US oil and gas is not constrained to being sold solely within the US, nor is it publicly owned by the government.

It has never mattered that the US is technically energy independent, because it's not independent of a number of other resources, and it cannot sustain the sort of cost increases which reductions in global oil and gas supply would lead to: because again, threesome resources aren't publicly owned - the higher revenues flow to the oil companies, not the tax payer.

[oivey]

That’s not how economics works. Local energy price surges will also drive global prices up. The US is part of the global energy market. I guess you could ban export of energy and institute price controls, though.

[Braxton1980]

That's some non-endorsement.