Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 16th, 2025, 10:01 amI think a successful nation is one that provides welfare and wellbeing to its citizens.
Fried Egg wrote: ↑March 17th, 2025, 5:51 am That is a metric that is very biased towards a statist/socialist way of thinking.
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 17th, 2025, 6:05 am Perhaps it is. It is certainly not incompatible with "a statist/socialist way of thinking".
Fried Egg wrote: ↑March 17th, 2025, 9:53 am 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.All of this misunderstanding comes from your libertarian/American view of "the state" as a foreign invader. If you don't want a "state", then don't have one. But most societies of more than (say) 100 humans, find it convenient to appoint a few to act on their behalf.
You are your state; your state is you. [Plural "you" in both cases.]
If your "state" does not serve you as you (all) wish, change it. It's yours to change.
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.
It states no such thing. For a start, because I and my "state" are one and the same, the source of help isn't that important. It all comes from me/us anyway. It's the *destination* that matters, not the source. Also, in line with your words here, a state that provided something we don't or didn't need would be wasting its time and our money, so it should stop.
Why are you so keen to paint me red, like a Communist flag? I am not recommending a centralised and controlled economy. The old quote is simplest and clearest: "From each according to his means; to each according to his needs." As long as we don't take this as quasi-biblical dogma, it works well.
A state that merely facilitates the conditions that lead to these things being provided would be judged as a "failed" state by your definition.
Nonsense. If, in the end, all of us receive what we *need*, then all is well, and the "state" has done whatever it needs to do. The welfare and wellbeing of all citizens is provided for, so my original description is met.
"Who cares, wins"