This is a rather common retort from non-thinkers. The premise is that way back when America was founded the world was such a different place and tht whatever may have been an appropriate foreign policy then is ludicris now.
What are some good counters to this line of bs?
"Principles don't"
Government Explained 2: The Special Piece of Paper
Law without Government
Probably the best (but longest) way would be to argue based on the fact that human action has not changed. Two ideas worth unpacking: incentives matter, and perfect liberty is an unmoving ideal target.
Why don't you challenge these thinkers to prove their position? That may give you some original arguments against what they have to say.
You can mention that what has definitely changed since the founding of America are the obstacles facing liberty - they are more numerous. Ask these people if what they support is, in reality, preventing a fall from grace - i.e. that America must sustain her attacks on freedom in order to secure her power. It must be agreed that liberty is a greater and more practical goal than the current system - this is the tough part because most people don't want to admit that they are in fact arguing for violence.
If you can agree that liberty (freedom from coercion) is the ideal, then the rest should be a cinch. In fact, I would use 'liberty' as a Trojan Horse; get them to agree that liberty is a great ideal to strive for, and then show them the implications of this argument (freedom from coercion on an international scale).
TANSTAAFL: This is a rather common retort from non-thinkers. The premise is that way back when America was founded the world was such a different place and tht whatever may have been an appropriate foreign policy then is ludicris now. What are some good counters to this line of bs?
As with most bs the least taxing way to go about it is simply challenge them on their assertion. They're the one who made the claim ("the world is different so what was good then isn't good now")...so make them support it.
Ask for examples and specifics. And explanations. "Like what? What policy?" "Why is that not good now?"
Just see how that goes. I would be willing to bet the majority of these people will exit the conversation before you even get a complete argument out of them.