A “strong national government” is the antithesis of liberty. The Founders clearly understood that which is why they attempted to limit the powers granted to the national gov’t to those enumerated in the Constitution. No, you can’t have liberty in a vacuum; it must be preserved at the state and local level from encroachment by the national gov’t. To the extent that you have an agressive foreign policy, you always compromise liberty at home. History clearly demonstrates an inverse relationship between agressive foreign intervention and liberty enjoyed at home.
Wrong. They tried having liberty without a stong national government with the Articles of Confedertion, and it was a dismal failure. So they adopted the Constitution. I didn't say or mean to imply a national government with unlimited powers, but one with carefully enumerated powers that is still strong enough to keep order at home and defend us from an often hostile world. That's where the I part with the libertarians and Paulpods. They seem to share the belief with liberals that if we just leave the world stage and are nice to everybody they will leave us alone, several thousand years of human history notwithstanding.