My particular metrics are things like amount of LGBT rights, percentage of population that identifies as non-religious, proportion of female legislators/politicians, length of paid maternity leave, degree to which medicine is socialized, military spending and % of energy production from renewables.
There’s nothing objective about such a metric - it’s a measure of how many people buy into a country’s propaganda, not how well that country delivers on the propaganda.
I don’t believe that those things are true. I don’t think there is a correlation between police brutality and lower crime rates, I think that is a political meme that is not based on reality. If there is a correlation it’s inverse, because as far as I can tell the nations with a lot of police brutality also have high crime rates. The US would be an example of this, with the largest prison population in the world together with what at least seems like a culture of police brutality, and still a much higher crime rate than the rest of the western world. To be it makes more sense to look at the root causes of crime and address those, like income inequality, social mobility and access to education. Countries who have succeeded in those areas seem to have a much lower crime rate.
Same goes with your depiction of social security and the welfare state. Sweden is often held up as an example of a country where those are in effect (which is true) and at the same time Sweden has been somewhat world leading when it comes to innovation, and has one of the strongest economies in the EU. I know this does not fit well with certain political views, but I am a pragmatist and not attached to any specific political ideology, I look at the results instead and see which method that seems to work.
Yes I’ve been to the US, though the only place I’ve stayed in is Florida. I agree that it is both unfair and impossible to paint the US with such a broad brush, and maybe it would be more intelligent to divide it into states. But my impression was honestly that there was a general lack of education with people, as well as a lack of interest in intellectual pursuit or art.
This is definitely true, yet at the same time there is the tendency to speak about the US as a single country rather than a federation of states. If I had to live in the US it would definitely be on one of the coasts if I had any choice. California seems to have amazing climate, and the older cities on the east coast (such as Boston and New York) has appealing city planning. Since I am not a fan of rural areas (other than for recreation) and I a bit picky about city planning (having a strong preference for grids, density and diversity) my options are limited.
Yeah that is correct. I assume that when people say ”it is a great country” they mean that it is very good, not that it is large or simply has a big impact. Thanks for clarifying the difference.
Well in THAT case I would have to say: ”Welcome to Sweden”. By those metrics you might even argue that Sweden IS the best in the world.
LGBT rights are pretty much at 100%.
Most secular country in the world together with France and Japan.
Amount of female legislators is down to 44%, mainly due to a reactionary party getting into the parliament, but that is obviously still great by international standards.
Maternity/paternity leave is the longest in the world, 480 days total, and several parties would like to extend it further.
Medicine is still mostly socialized, though it used to be fully, some of it has been privatized.
50% of the energy comes from hydro (renewable) and the rest from nuclear (not so much).
In all fairness though those metrics do happen to hit the most successful parts of Sweden, and some might say that an extremely high rate of atheism is a bad rather than a good thing.
Are we talking only about political/social factors, or does physical geography enter in, too? Because while I can name places that are politically/socially better than the US, I’m hard-pressed to think of any place with more beautiful geography (and most of those that come close, aren’t nearly as politically/socially good as the US). Any nation that has Yellowstone, and the Grand Canyon, and Carlesbad Caverns and Mammoth Cave, and Glacier National Park, and Niagara Falls, is pretty great by that standard.
It’s kind of odd. It’s certainly seems entirely subjective since it’s all based on people’s opinion. But, crowd sourcing has proven to be a pretty effective way of solving problems and democracy (just another form of crowd sourcing) speaks for itself.
We are talking about whatever you want to talk about. Basically I am just curious to what constitutes a “good” country in peoples minds. That’s obviously entirely subjective and up to individual preferences. Personally I’m very fond of Holland (more specifically Amsterdam) because it fits very well with my preferences, as does Costa Rica in many aspects.
So do lynch mobs and pogroms…
Eh, it’s OK, but it’s no Finland 
Are we allowed to say “fuck you!” in this forum?
Finland is basically a cooler version of Sweden, with more drinking, where men are real men and most women are real men too. Sweden is rightfully considered Finlands’ effeminate neighbor. The language however is impossible to learn, their culture is impenetrable and they think everyone else in the world are pussies (and they are right). It’s also the home of the worlds perhaps greatest soldier of all time, Simo Häyhä. There is no question that they are incredibly badass and great at almost everything, but the weather REALLY sucks and all the women will think you’re a pussy compared to the Finnish men.
For me personally – Friendly and happy people.
Now, how you measure that is a little hard to say. According to one study, Guatamala is tied for second on happiness. But since it is also high on crime, with lots of its citizens wanting to emigrate, I found that study hard to swallow.
Googling friendliness, all I’m seeing is friendliness as rated by foreign tourists, and the methodologies aren’t well explained. See for example:
http://www.peanutsdaily.com/taiwan-3rd-worlds-friendliest-country/
However, if you could measure happiness and friendliness, it would be hard for me to argue against that as a criteria.
What if 70 percent are unusually happy, but 20 percent are in complete misery? That would be a problem.
You seem to be assuming that refugees, given a free choice, would choose a country you don’t like. But do we really know that?
To make it more objective, my suggested polling of refugees could limit to those in communication with countrymen who already immigrated to the preferred country. I doubt that would change results much.
Some people on this board value political liberalism rather more than I do. I, as I’ve said, would put happiness and friendliness a bit higher.
I’m guessing that the largest number of people on the planet would value economic opportunity most. But I could be wrong.
But I don’t think most people would vote for countries that fostered lynch mobs and pogroms, so I think we’re OK on that.
I evaluate based on how Canada-like a country is.
Canada gets a 98. I can’t give it a perfect score - that might seem immodest.
As others have said one needs to measure quality for determining a “best country” and quantity for determining a “great country”. So for the former I’d say the biggest measures are life expectancy, infant mortality, income inequality, GDP per capita, crime rates, and the guarantee of human rights while for the latter they’d be raw GDP, population, size of military, and so forth. Usually they tend to intersect and the United States combines a relatively high standard of living (including on several of these measures) with a country’s size. Certainly, it is the strongest country in the world.
That being said, I see no reason to reject patriotism anymore than reject familial bonds. Its perfectly natural for husbands to say their wives are the “most beautiful woman in the world” although unless your wife is my former French teacher or perhaps Elle Fanning, that is probably an inaccurate statement factually speaking.
Yes. This is the way I interpret Greatest Country in the World. Except you also need to be an upper income country, otherwise it sounds faintly ridiculous.
There’s also the John Mace sense, but in that case I would probably say, A Great Country. I mean Ancient Rome was great, but in a way that I wouldn’t want to emulate. And there’s no longer an upper income restriction: China is a Great Country, a Great Civilization and will be a Great Power very soon. Even if it’s not yet a middle income country.
Really? Because some people seem to think America is the bee’s knees, and that certainly fostered the former.
But that wasn’t the point - you can’t point to the alleged wisdom of crowds without noting crowds also do incredibly shitty things.
No. I’m saying refugees don’t get much opportunity to do actual research.
Just a few comments for now on this interesting issue …
I really quite strongly disagree. To draw an analogy with families and households, it’s like saying the best family to be born into, or be adopted into, is the one with the highest household income. It’s certainly a plus if all else is equal, but all else is rarely equal. If wealth is the only criterion, you could end up in a very bad situation. You might luck out and get big bucks, but you might be abused, unfairly treated, disinherited, forced into the unhappy state of having to live a life that isn’t really you, etc.
What a bizarre article. First of all it completely omits any mention of Canada, which according to Wikipedia is currently ranked 2nd in terms of travel freedom in the world (tied with Denmark), and holders of a Canadian passport can visit 173 countries and territories visa-free or with visa on arrival, which is more countries than any of those quoted. Not sure what criteria they’re using.
It’s a little like the family analogy above, a little like valuing a family most because they have the most guns. Such is US foreign policy that in a lot of those countries that a US passport will get you into, it may be wise not to acknowledge being American.
That’s an excellent point, and sums up what many regard as the paradox of America. And I’m a very big admirer of northern California where I believe you are. Especially places like Stanford, Palo Alto, and the former Xeroc PARC, where I remember standing watching the sun set on Coyote Hill Road back in the days when they were developing the concepts for the first personal computer, and thinking that I never want to leave.
And it’s even true when painted with a broad brush, like those who say – and I am among them – that Americans have been among the nicest, friendliest, most generous people they’ve ever met. Yet so many of your politicians are lunatics and your government is basically a shill for the plutocracy. All those things are simultaneously true.
When I think of living in America I think of exceptional opportunity on one hand, because that’s true. I also think of the above dysfunctions, of racism, and of how the right to shoot and be shot is fundamentally protected, but basic health care is not.
Yes, that. Those kinds of metrics – happiness, security, safety, social justice. Economic opportunity has to be there to sustain everything else, but it cannot alone be the sole determinant of the best place to live.
Agreed. There are a number of lists, one from the Economist that looks at 30 factors for the most livable cities where you have Vancouver, Toronto and Calgary in the top 10.
Or the most Peaceful countries in the world - Canada ranks 7th
Or the Happiest countries in the world - Canada ranks 5th
For me, these are the kinds of metrics that mean a lot to me and my sense of well-being. Frankly, I’d never leave home for something “better” south of the border if money was the only enticement. Of course I do like to escape Canadian winters, so to be healthy enough to travel for a month or two to the Caribbean significantly helps my happy quotient.
How many carriers.
These can be used to acquire that which you need to bolster your lacking metrics.
By those metrics Brave New World was top notch. By my measurement, a nation has to produce or do something wild and extraordinary beyond merely existing in comfortable platitude.
I like this quote by Orson Welles: “After all it’s not that awful. You know what the fellow said – in Italy, for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, they had five hundred years of democracy and peace – and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.” The Italian Renaissance republics were some of the greatest accomplishments of mankind throughout history, Switzerland – meh. The US may be stupid as hell but they sent a man to walk on the fucking moon, what did Sweden do?
A nation also has to be able to stand up for itself and walk unbowed in the company of other nations. Relying on others for your own protection or livelihood makes you a nation of servants or slaves.