Real Freedom and Security
If the USA were not dependent on foreign oil, but had their own wells within the county, and employed their citizens to produce that oil, would they be more secure or less secure? Producing more within would reduce transport costs. It would reduce unemployment. Since people who are unemployed tend to received doled out tax money from their previous earnings, but minus administrative costs, then it doesn't create wealth. The only way that we can be safer and more secure is through prducing those goods and services within our own countries.
Why then are we building military items to protect foreign oil? That military expenditure doesn't create wealth either? The military can employ people and create ancillary jobs and the production of tanks and bombers can employ people, but it doesn't generate wealth. Empty tanks don't do anything. In fact the military as an offensive tool is a drain on the economic system. It's paid for by deficit spending.
The only reason we are protecting the flow of foreign oil is to protect the multinationals who have elected to locate jobs from that source and not our own. It's become strategically important for production, but foolishly important since it's not within our borders. It's a very ridiculous strategy.
Still since oil is not a sustainable technology, not permaculture then it must like any aging technology eventually be shelved. If we developed new energy sources that employed Americans in that new technology, then we could probably export that technology since people wish to get away from using oil.
Still ultimately for the security of that other country, they should produce that technology themselves. Since all countries cannot replicate unique goods and services some trade will always emerge. Some countries live so densely that they can't produce certain goods and services.
Usually what happens to an organism in nature in such tight proximity is death. The competition to live so compactly produces other behaviour which will damage the community. Crime, infanticide, suicide, ethunasia, etc are adaptations that reduce the population through human behaviour. That or balancing factors like disease or famine or war tend to reduce the population of the community.
In permaculture, since local materials employ locally from small operations, local owners and workers tend to benefit. They spend their money largely in a local pattern. If multinational corporations develop alternative energy then they tend to be a branch of the multinational corp. and relocate the business where they can pay the least wages and maximize profits.
Since new technology can be very expensive as the demand is very low due to the uncertainty of sustaining it, then in the interim governments usually offer incentives to give it more stability. As it becomes more accepted, demand increases. Consider calculators. Once they were extremely rare and prohibitively expensive. Now they are ubiquitous and cheap. Realize though that they are cheap at an expense since they're not made in the USA.
Many small companies developing permaculture technology creates healthy competition to find niche markets and improve products. Since many alternative energy processes are known to work as stand alone installations, but simply are not mass produced since people don't understand and accept them, it's largely a communication issue.
For example, wind power by corporations place massive turbines in one location, but that expense is so high that might be very expensive to route power from it to the consumer. The location may be subject to wind, but cold temperatures and ice may seize up the blades. On the other hand, local companies installing local wind generators can be seasonally used for power generation, especially when combined with inexpensive passive and some active solar, and energy can be produced to decentralize it. If people generate their power, then they're more likely to control their energy expenses based upon how much they can produce. Making a technology very novel and complex will make it only available for the very wealthy. Making it easier to maintain and simpler to operate will make it more accepted and increase the potential market. The greater the acceptance and demand, and as sales increase then more competition makes them cheaper.
We've know forever that it's far cheaper to build into the ground than above it. That's largely been an issue of sunlight. In smaller cities, we could build below ground to reduce heating costs and channel light with special lighting mirrors and greatly cut down on expenditures of building material too. Because some Americans will always prefer to build a traditional way, we can of course build those homes, but for smaller communities it may be better to do this for single family dwellings that will be built for low income assisted housing.
Any permaculture idea that is inexpensive, and enables people with low skills to practically save money, and reduces their need on others to provide those goods and services, creates wealth for them and gives them stability.
Taking the wealth of others and reassigning it the poor doesn't create wealth. In a normal world it's called charity, and there is nothing wrong with people altruistically giving wealth to others, but sustainable charitable organizations like the Heifer Project or Microloan programs have learned that the best way is to give the poor tools so they can create their own wealth.
The only way to add stability in a post-SHTF scenario is to do this for poor homeless Americans and to create goods and services locally. If goods and services are in foreign countries and we have no surplus money to pay for them, and no unique trade items to pay for them, then the only answer is to make them ourselves. It's not rocket science.
Making military items and more soldiers that have no value other than to defend our nation or attack others doesn't generate wealth. The only possible way it can, is by seizing the wealth of other nations and taking it, just like criminals or sociopaths steal from others rather than generating wealth. If we use our military to support the multinationals rather than to their mission to defend us or to give aid to our allies who need liberty or justice, then we have deployed them in a horrific twist of our most sacred documents of Freedom.
Other nations have the right to self-determinism. It's not the job of our country to impose our values on them anymore than it's their role to impose their values on us. The only time that we should defend our allies is when it's in the interest of our country, and even then based upon repelling those nations who seek to enslave others and take away their justice.
Since defending other nations is despised, and generates no wealth, it is unsustainable. It is in fact foolish if our own people cannot house, cloth, or feed themselves.