Let me explain why I concentrated on military power and general dominance to state that the USA is the “most successful nation”.
I agree that the USA has many flaws. I wouldn’t want to live there, I generally doesn’t like its policies (both external and internal), I’m sure plenty of American people would be happier over here than in the USA (like working poor, people going without a heath insurance, etc…), life expectancy is lower over there, and so on…
But the question was about “successful nations in history”, not general happiness of the populace. And when we assess national success in an historical perspective, we judge it on the base of a limited number of traits, basically : dominance (in particular military dominance), wealth and cultural influence/legacy.
For all I know the Gauls, the Etruscans and the Carthaginians might have been happier, in better health, freer, etc… than the Romans. However, nobody mentioned Carthago, Veii or Gergovia in this thread, but Rome was mentioned several times. That would be because Rome kicked their asses. That would be because Rome imposed its language and culture, and 2000 years later, I still speak a Romance language, remember the name of Roman writers, etc… That would be because Rome wealth was such that it build monuments that we still admire to this day. That would be because Roman ensigns spread over a huge territory and stayed there firmly planted in the ground for a long time.
It’s certainly not because the numerous Roman slaves were happy with their lot, or because the Romans were remarkably peaceful and enlightened.
That’s why I assessed the success of the USA with the same yardsticks we use for past civilizations or nations : dominance, wealth and cultural influence.
Nor do I but I honestly don’t know what the situation is with illegals in Switzerland is. I know they have at least one virulently anti-immigration mainstream party but as I cited above a huge percentage of people living in Switzerland are immigrants. Neighbouring countries tend to have a work agreement with Switzerland FWIW.
I imagine that’s usually the case when there are many small countries all of which are more or less equally prosperous–if indeed there has ever been an example of that in world history prior to that of millennial Europe today. Aside from Switzerland, IIRC the EU countries have mutual work agreements and citizens can freely move and work among all the countries. For the purposes of this thread, is an Irishman living and working in Paris or Madrid considered an immigrant?
Here’s my problem with that line of thinking: I don’t think it really reflects the fundamental purpose of a country, or more specifically, a government. It is an easy thing to measure, but in the end, I think it is about as useful in measuring a successful government as is measuring the amount of territory a country has, or its population.
Pleonast comes much closer to proposing some measurements that I think are useful. I think we ought to go back and think about why people institute governments in the first place, and I’ve been trying to think of some measurements based on those concepts. I’ve been working on this list:
1. Security: Governments are probably primarily responsible with providing security. A country continually at war, either because of invasion or ambition, is not really secure, is it? 2. Freedom: A harder measure, but I think we can agree in general terms that a country that insures freedom is better than one that relies on oppression. 3. Wealth: A country with large numbers of poor people isn’t really successful. Also relates to distribution of wealth, and can be compared to other countries easily. 4. Justice/Rule of law/Civil society: Related to individual freedom, but I mean this more in terms of how the government relates to its people, and how able it is to cope with the question of the legitimacy of the government. In other words, a government responsive to the people is better than a benign dictatorship. 5. Domestic tranquility: Somewhat related to security and justice, a government that deals effectively with crime, and holds civil strife or revolutions to a minimum. 6. Education/Innovation: Government has an important role in promoting the progress of the human race. 7. Conduct of foreign affairs: A country which has a voice that is widely respected by its peers certainly is more successful, and recognizes that some countries have greater “soft power” than its competitors. 8. Right side of history: Now this is pretty far afield from the fundamental purposes of government, but I mean this to encompass less measurable factors, such as how a country may fundamentally effect the course of human history by its achievements. This could be things like prevailing in a just cause (e.g., defeating injustice in World War II, developing widely recognized principles of human rights as in inventing democracy, etc)
There may be other valid measures that I haven’t thought of – I actually hoped I’d come up with fewer than 8 – but if I were to analyze the success of various countries, I think I’d start with these measures, rather than examining the size of an empire, the number of wars it has won, or the size of its GDP.
Much of the globe see lttle difference between British and American hegemony. They just know that Anglophone nations have dominated the world for three centuries and their only consolation is that nothing lasts for ever.
As to the most powerful, I’d say Persia, Rome, the Mongol Empire, the British Empire and the US are the main contenders, but there’s no way to sort them out unless the terms of the question are more precisely defined.
I’m sure of one thing though. Given the resources, Alexander the Great would have mopped the floor with the bunch of them!
Easily disproved by a quick glance at Jack London’s People of the Abyss, compared to , say, watching City of God. I’d say they were on a par with each other.
I think that those are excellent criteria in determining how *good *a country is. However, what **clairobscur **was trying to define what a *great * country is. Goodness and greatness are completely different things.
I’m not sure if an Irishman in Paris or Madrid is considered an “immigrant”. You might want to ask a French or Spanish person! I will say that the EU represents a wide variety of people in different economic circumstances and although the free movement of its citizens is a medium term goal there are some restrictions on the movement of citizens from the most recent 12 accession states. Not all EU citizens are rich, and some are desperately poor. Many of the poor from the east have migrated to western EU states for better opportunities. There is also a large amount of inward migration from outside the EU. To take the example of Ireland, according to the 2006 Census (Warning PDF) a little over 10% of the population of Ireland were immigrants (This is the official figure, some estimates are far higher). Although a significant chunk of these were from other EU states there is also a large Nigerian, Chinese, and American contigent in Ireland. Apparently people from 188 countries are resident here.
Luxembourg, the tiny economic powerhouse of the EU also has significant immigration, although most immigrants are from EU states they also have people from beyond the EU comprising a little over 5% of their population (Cite).
This is probably all somewhat of a hijack but it’s further evidence that** Lakai’s** post above was incorrect.
Interesting question generally speaking : I looked around quickly, and it seems that the official definition of immigrant in France does include citizens of the EU. However, it seems also that published figures might or might not include them (the national offices in charge of statistics publish figures sorted out by nationality, general geographical origin, EU/non-EU, etc… but what figure you’re going to find in your newspaper, for instance, is quite random). It seems that EU nationals make up something like 30% of the immigrants in France. I wouldn’t know if the percentage is similar in other European countries.
For the purpose of this thread, I’m not sure it casts any light on the issue discussed.
Well the answer is pretty simple. It is not only illegal immigrants that have problems in Switzerland, the government has long maintained a system of different length visas so that annual permit holders and seasonal workers can do all the shit work in Switzerland while the economy is going well. As soon as unemployment begins to rise they kick out all the foreign workers and locals perform the less well paid work. When the economy picks up they welcome back the foreigners to clean the toilets.
There is much to admire about the Swiss but their immigration policies don’t earn any plaudits.
[/nitpick]