Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sy Borg]

The countries that Mo supports send their children into war. How well do these nations care for families, nations where women are treated as chattel and children are either raped or recruited to war? She doesn't care.

The entire west is failing, that much is true, but at least the US is trying to stop the decline. The rest of the west seems to accept that the west is failing tries to manage it - "managed decline", "de-growth" and "deindustrialisation" are terms describing current western governance. Basically, most of the west is marking time and waiting for a more ruthless state to take over the country. I'd rather it be US than China. Would Mo?

[Mo_reese]

It's inappropriate for you to try to characterize me. None of what you claim about me is true and it has nothing to do with the topic.
If you disagree with what I post, then give your best argument and don't make it personal.

[Sy Borg]

It's inappropriate for you to try to blatantly lie and misrepresent my post, which says nothing about you. Do you deny that Palestine sends children to war?

None of what you claim above is true and it has nothing to do with the topic. You clearly did not even read my post.

If you have anything even vaguely philosophical to say, then say it instead of whining and ranting about Israel. Will you have the maturity and depth to respond like an adult, or will you continue complaining and slavishly following media trends without bothering trying to understand context?

The fact is that America is no longer failing - or at least it's trying to shift from manage decline to tech-fuelled growth. Unfortunately, Europe and other western nations are actually failing. It's a shame, but it's also self-inflicted. Nations cannot survive when so many of its own denizens despise it and actively work towards its demise.

[Pattern-chaser]

Let's ask the philosophical question here. What is the best measure of the success or failure of a nation ?


[...]

So what statistic is a good indicator of a successful nation ?

Maybe the difference between the people who want to move in and the people who want to move out ?

Yes, as Mo commented, this is a great question. Like all questions, it prompts other new questions too. Does a nation judge its own success, or is this judged by other nations, or even by history? And what is "success"? Is it financial success, or maybe how many other countries one can annex, in an Imperial fashion? And so on.

To me, a vague answer seems best. I think a successful nation is one that provides welfare and wellbeing to its citizens.

[Pattern-chaser]

It's inappropriate for you to try to blatantly lie and misrepresent my post, which says nothing about you. Do you deny that Palestine sends children to war?

This topic concerns America. Does America send its children to war? Not that I know of. So this looks like a distraction...?

[Sy Borg]

It's inappropriate for you to try to blatantly lie and misrepresent my post, which says nothing about you. Do you deny that Palestine sends children to war?

This topic concerns America. Does America send its children to war? Not that I know of. So this looks like a distraction...?

It was in response to another member's claims. It's none of your business, and your attempted policing of me every single day is tiresome.

Fact is, that the thread is absurd. The US is on the path to recovery while Europe, Canada, Australia and NZ fail.

[Mo_reese]

I think a successful nation is one that provides welfare and wellbeing to its citizens.

I very much agree. I've listed a number of categories of well-being and there are a lot I haven't listed but in every single category of well-being of the people, the US are worse off than the all of the other modern Western nations.
And yet the US spends more on war, genocide, weapons, defense, than all other nations.
And to top it all off, we have Donald Trump the narcissistic, egoist, and pathological liar, that is firing predominately women and people of color. These firing do not provide a net savings but a net loss. The Parks Dept creates revenue about 5 times it's cost. Important to know that any savings the DOGE gets will be lost to the trillions in tax breaks for the wealthy.
Trump has turned all our allies against us. He has chosen instead to woo communist Russia.

[Sy Borg]

Mo once again shows an uncanny ability to be constantly wrong.

The EU, and the rest of the west, has relied on US military power to reduce their own defence spending. They use the savings to implement unsustainable welfare systems and then judge the US for not having them. Just watch those welfare reforms disappear once Europe has to pay for its own defence.

Trump is the only leader in the Anglosphere to care about his own people, despite the insane slander spread about him by those with Trump Derangement Syndrome.

The waste that DOGE has found has been extraordinary, especially in relation to USAID.

The idea that he's wooing Russia is simply unintelligent. If you are to broker a peacefire, if you antagonise the one person who can stop the fighting, you are making it impossible. Maybe those people don't want the war to end, deluding themselves that Russia can be driven the bankruptcy like Reagan did with the USSR? They are in denial about China propping Russia up. Russia is growing more quickly than Europe.

In terms of strategy, imagine having someone repeatedly insult you and then asking to negotiate. Is that an intelligent approach or dim? Also, many people are too dim to realise that Trump's minerals deal with Ukraine was an offer of defence. Once US interests are there, Russia dare not attack. However, Zelenskyy's ego and wish to have good optics scuppered that possibility.

There are no optimal solutions to Ukraine. All that can be done is find least worst options.

[Fried Egg]

The EU, and the rest of the west, has relied on US military power to reduce their own defence spending. They use the savings to implement unsustainable welfare systems and then judge the US for not having them. Just watch those welfare reforms disappear once Europe has to pay for its own defence.

I agree with your analysis but I disagree with your conclusion. I think it is more likely that most European countries will simply accept Russian (and Chinese) hegemony in order to keep their social programmes. We can see in this clearly in France, Germany, Belgium, etc. where any attempt to curb their generous benefits is met with fierce resistance. Poland and the Baltic states are a different matter, perhaps because they feel the threat from Russia more keenly, but also because their populations haven't gotten accustomed to generous welfare programmes.

[Fried Egg]

I think a successful nation is one that provides welfare and wellbeing to its citizens.

That is a metric that is very biased towards a statist/socialist way of thinking.

I would modify it to something like this: A successful nation is one that provides the best environment that allows it's people's welfare and wellbeing to flourish. At least this is a more politically neutral and doesn't pre-suppose that it has to be the state that directly provides these things.

And ultimately we see the people's expressed preference in those countries that make it difficult to leave and those that make it difficult to enter.

[Pattern-chaser]

I think a successful nation is one that provides welfare and wellbeing to its citizens.

That is a metric that is very biased towards a statist/socialist way of thinking.

Perhaps it is. It is certainly not incompatible with "a statist/socialist way of thinking".

I would modify it to something like this: A successful nation is one that provides the best environment that allows it's people's welfare and wellbeing to flourish. At least this is a more politically neutral and doesn't pre-suppose that it has to be the state that directly provides these things.

That is a metric that is very biased towards a Libertarian/Individualist way of thinking.


The balance between the state and the individual is basic to any human society. If the state provides nothing to its citizens, it has no raison d'etre, no reason to exist. If the state goes too far, then it has betrayed those it serves. Balance. Middle Path.

[Fried Egg]

I think a successful nation is one that provides welfare and wellbeing to its citizens.

That is a metric that is very biased towards a statist/socialist way of thinking.

Perhaps it is. It is certainly not incompatible with "a statist/socialist way of thinking".

It is not merely compatible with statist/socialist ways of thinking, it is a direct offshoot of it. It suggests that a state cannot be deemed successful unless it is the state itself that directly provides the welfare and wellbeing to it's citizens. A state that merely facilitates the conditions that lead to these things being provided would be judged as a "failed" state by your definition.

I would modify it to something like this: A successful nation is one that provides the best environment that allows it's people's welfare and wellbeing to flourish. At least this is a more politically neutral and doesn't pre-suppose that it has to be the state that directly provides these things.

That is a metric that is very biased towards a Libertarian/Individualist way of thinking.

Not at all because nowhere in my definition does it stipulate exactly what the limits of the state should be. It creates the conditions necessary for welfare and wellbeing to flourish but it does not necessarily provide those things directly.

The balance between the state and the individual is basic to any human society. If the state provides nothing to its citizens, it has no raison d'etre, no reason to exist. If the state goes too far, then it has betrayed those it serves. Balance. Middle Path.

Well, indeed. I'm not an anarchist so I agree that the state needs to do something for it's people. Of course, the devil is in the details and we would no doubt argue exactly where to draw the line. But surely, you would agree that the state should only be a provider of welfare as a last resort? If some form of government managed to create such ideal conditions that it didn't need to provide welfare to it's people, that would be better?

One thing I do want to add though is that I think individualism is often mischaracterised as being opposed to society or collective action. For instance, one might be opposed to state sponsored welfare programmes for helping the poor, while not opposed to voluntarily funded organisations helping the poor. In other words, just because one might be opposed to the state directly providing something, does not mean that one is opposed to that thing being provided at all.

[Mo_reese]

The balance between the state and the individual is basic to any human society. If the state provides nothing to its citizens, it has no raison d'etre, no reason to exist. If the state goes too far, then it has betrayed those it serves. Balance. Middle Path.

i agree. I have provided a few of the items that I believe are measurements of how well the state is treating the people in the US. All of these items are negative. Most of them reveal that the US rates the worst of all Western countries. For example why would the US arguably the richest country allow more infants to die before they reach 1 year old (infant mortality) than all other Western nations?
While the US trails all Western nations in the indicators of personal well-being, they lead the world in defense spending. That's why the country has gone to a dictator.

[Fried Egg]

While the US trails all Western nations in the indicators of personal well-being, they lead the world in defense spending.

Since the rest of the western world depends on the US for protection, and have depended on that protection while they dismantle their own military capabilities in order to fund more generous welfare programmes, that criticism seems misplaced.

And I see that Sy Borg has pointed that out to you already.

[Sy Borg]

The EU, and the rest of the west, has relied on US military power to reduce their own defence spending. They use the savings to implement unsustainable welfare systems and then judge the US for not having them. Just watch those welfare reforms disappear once Europe has to pay for its own defence.

I agree with your analysis but I disagree with your conclusion. I think it is more likely that most European countries will simply accept Russian (and Chinese) hegemony in order to keep their social programmes. We can see in this clearly in France, Germany, Belgium, etc. where any attempt to curb their generous benefits is met with fierce resistance. Poland and the Baltic states are a different matter, perhaps because they feel the threat from Russia more keenly, but also because their populations haven't gotten accustomed to generous welfare programmes.

Fair points. When Macron tried to push pensions back, it was not pretty. Still, if some Euro nations do not wind back their social welfare, they will go into so much debt to China that they will become vassal states, at which point their freedoms will be wound back. Their Chinese overlords then won't be so tolerant about street protests.

If a nation doesn't take care of itself, stronger nations will take over.

With an ageing population and an inability to increase power due to net zero and anti-nuke sentiment, nations like Germany will go ever more into debt. They had nuke power and they shut it down, which is almost as irrational as the notion that they could allow millions of potentially hostile and poorly skilled refugees into the nation without major consequences for its people.

For Poland and Hungary, it's more business as usual.