USA the Most Successful Nation in Human History?

[An_Gadai]

@clairobscur

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.

Our government separates immigrants into different groups, EU15, Accession States and Non-EU for example. FWIW A total of 9,046 French nationals were living in
Ireland in April 2006 according to the link I posted above.

[Ravenman]

@Alessan

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 just sayin’ that we’re talking about “successful,” per the OP. I don’t think “success” and “greatness” are necessarily the same things, either.

[Alessan]

@Ravenman

I’m just sayin’ that we’re talking about “successful,” per the OP. I don’t think “success” and “greatness” are necessarily the same things, either.

I suppose that depends on what the nation is aiming for - if it yearns for greatness, achieving it could be seen as success.

[Captain_Amazing]

@don_t_ask

There is much to admire about the Swiss but their immigration policies don’t earn any plaudits.

They probably do from the perspective of the Swiss worker.

[Find_Friends]

@Petrobey_Mavromihalis

First I want to point out that I’m not having a dig, and I’m not an ‘America-hater’. But seriously, “the most successful nation in human history”? If he’d said the US was the most powerful nation on the planet, I’d have no objection. There are arguments against this, but it’s certainly a tenable position … .

Hmmm… interesting… I’ll have to do some hunting as to what one of my favorite authors said on the “pro-America” * side.

• “Jack”

• For lack of a better term, since neither position is all-or-nothing.

[XT]

One metric for ‘successful nation’ that hasn’t been discussed afaict is longevity. If by successful one means ‘how long has it lasted’, how does that figure into the equation? America wouldn’t really be in the running in this case (which seems to be what several posters WANT to be the case), so who would then be top dog? China? Rome? How would you measure longevity of an empire or ‘nation’? If culturally I’d have to go with China. If politically I suppose Rome (even with that little alteration in the first century BC).

-XT

[XT]

@Ravenman

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?

This would almost certainly invalidate every super power in history then, depending on what ‘continually at war’ means. It would skew things more toward small, peaceful nations. Not that I necessarily disagree…it gets back to what exactly is ones definition of ‘successful’ and what metrics are you using.

I’d have to say that if this metric is used, then the earlier example of Switzerland would be at the top of my list.

@Ravenman

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.

Freedom means different things to different people…and different things in the context of different cultures. What one individual or even society may call ‘freedom’ another may call oppression or simply not want to live under…and vice versa.

I’d have to say that the important thing is whether the majority of a nations population feel comfortable with their version of ‘freedom’ is the key…as well as their ability to change and move the bar when and as their societies change. By these metrics I’d say it’s a toss up as to ‘most successful’…unless we get into longevity of comfort and change, in which case I think the US would certainly be in the top 5 all time. The China’s and Romes would be right out by this metric though.

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.

I disagree. It’s not how large a group of poor people you have, but how the general population feels about that state. I think the whole ‘distribution of wealth’ thingy relates to how the majority of a society WANTS the bar set on said distribution…not on some arbitrary meter stick of what should or shouldn’t be the limit or the level. Myself, I think the bar should be set to benefit the greatest number, not bring an entire population down (or up) to an arbitrary level…but that’s just me. I think it’s a reasonable debate. But where the bar is set is really up to the individual nation…and how well it conforms to the expectations and desires of the majority should be the metric used.

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.

Agreed. And it gets into my previous point that the meter stick used should be the expectations and desires of the society in question…and how it is able to change and modify itself to changing societal norms.

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.

Again, agreed. Also, how well it integrates the maximum number of citizens into the fabric of the nation and of it’s society…or how well it adapts to changes by those citizens, while maintaining security and justice.

6. Education/Innovation: Government has an important role in promoting the progress of the human race.

Disagree. SOCIETY has an important role in promoting eduction. I don’t think this is the proper role of government…and I think they do such a shitty job of it (at least here in the US) that even if it was it should be changed. I also don’t think it’s the governments place to innovate…simply to provide the environment that allows for innovation.

However, that’s my own pet peeve, so I concede that others will find the point debatable.

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.

Agreed.

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)

Agreed…but attempting to quantify this wrt success may be difficult, as again different people are going to be looking at (and emphasizing) different things.

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.

I think you did a great job of trying to put some metrics out there to discuss ‘successful nation’ and what it may mean…and how we may be able to quantify an answer if we can agree on the terms. I was hoping more people would use what you wrote as a basis for furthering the debate (thus sparing everyone from having to slog through my thoughts on it)…I’m still hopeful they will.

-XT

[Westrogothia]

@WormTheRed

[nitpick] The Swedish military hasn’t fought a war since 1812 [/nitpick]

Indeed that was my point.

[Martini_Enfield]

@Westrogothia

Indeed that was my point.

But one that is technically incorrect.