Superpowers and rising states.

From an ethical standpoint, to me, this is the primary function of the US Government, past the military or health care or any of that other nonsense. It is not the government's job to make everyone equal (communism) or allow the strongest to win all the time (anarchy). It's the government's job to make it so that anyone can be on top if they have the talent to achieve it. Life is a race, and the government is the judge and referee...

Although I see no reason why we can't do that and everything else, too...

edited 9th Aug '11 6:29:05 PM by USAF713

I am going to go out on the limp and say I watch Fox News.Hey,don't give me those looks.

I think half my generation is more informed than the previous.When I mean half I don't mean everyone.

I also think government is there to establish order and make laws to guide and protect us.I think people as a community need to find ways to make others feel welcomed and happy.

I also watch Fox News.

I might sort of hate them.

But they are great entertainment.

Hey that sort of rhymes!

edited 9th Aug '11 6:58:32 PM by Baff

Well I read through the thread... mostly anyway, and I feel like the whole I want to be a super power is the wrong angle to look at it.

But I'll try to tackle everything I've seen....

History's focus depends on the current society and the values they hold... which depends on history. Tom for instance, obviously comes from an area that values learning about military achievements above all else. I came from an area that valued political achievements and social achievements, hence why that when I went to study history on my own and wanted to learn about different forms of democracy, the United States was just a slight improvement over previous forms of democracy (the one just before, I would say, is Golden Liberty of the Commonwealth). I also like military history as well but to say things like "x years from now, no one will remember Britain's NHS"... yes they will. Focus on what you'd like about Chinese history, for instance, but one of the things that is touted at times was the banking system and paper money that is over a thousand years old. So you could have the most random things being remembered.

Nations become super powers because the people, as a whole, achieve great things and the people themselves live healthy, happy and wealthy. Countries do not become super powers because they gain super powers. So when your nation has significant problems holding it back, solving those problems restores your super power status. That is, you don't strive to become a super power, you strive to ensure that your country's economics is sound, your people are wealthy and happy and that your government is efficient. Then, as a byproduct, you become a super power.

Also, the primary reason you rarely hear of grand achievements from socialist Scandinavian states is because their populations are just super tiny. The chance of them developing something, like a world-recognised new technology, is low.

edited 9th Aug '11 8:10:25 PM by breadloaf

-ignore-

edited 24th May '12 1:36:41 AM by JosefBugman

Oh, is the flame war over? Cool.

I don't think "being a superpower" is anything that a particular nation strives to be, at least not as an end result. Every nation is founded on a purpose (an ethnic homeland, a division of territory for a tyrant, a bid for independence, etc.) and that purpose colors the culture. It is culture that propels the future of that nation, because even if a nation is hundreds or thousands of years old, the average human lifespan is only 50-80 years. Each generation thus makes of their nation what they will. Becoming a superpower is a consequence of a particularly powerful, influential, and prosperous nation continually doing what's in its best interest such that superpower status becomes one of the possible options for it. Not becoming a superpower is an equally valid option, as it also avoids much of the turmoil and unfortunate attention that is drawn to said powers.

Personally I am of the non-imperative school of egoism, whereby individuals do strive for personal excellence and self-interest; as opposed to the school of thought that says they ought to do such things. The same is true for nations; you can't tell a nation what to do, only urge them to do what is best for them. And what counts for greatness in one nation may be impractical or even infeasible for another, smaller nation with a fraction of the resources. Surely we can't expect Denmark alone to rise to superpower status, for example.

I suppose the EU itself could become a superpower (assuming that's what works best for them), if they had greater unity; even the US went through the failed experiment of the "Confederacy of States" whereby the Federal government didn't even have the power to levi taxes. Even nowadays the Federal government suddenly vanishing would doom multiple states to bankruptcy and chaos.

-ignore-

edited 24th May '12 1:37:12 AM by JosefBugman

I'm sorry I was going to contribute to the bonfire

Also