Is the USA a Developed Country?

[Free Missouri]

The Government can be the enemy because it is. Because in our society, development means we value freedom, imperfectly, but still we do. And the maxim has always been that the larger the government, and the more power it obtains, the more authoritarian it becomes, and the more willing to abuse that power it becomes (See: censorship of "right-wing propaganda" (whatever that means) in the UK and censorship of "Islamaphobia" in Germany). In a society such as the US, with a very high level of political development in the opposite direction of throne and altar (now replaced by simply voted-into-throne) Europe, the Government is understood to always be, and have always been, an obstacle to liberty. That is why we distrust it. Europeans look at the Holocaust and say "It was an evil man who did that." where Americans look at it and say "It was an evil government that allowed him to do that." Europeans say of the USSR, "It was evil men who disrupted Lenin's march to communism" while Americans say "It was the necessary government that he created that gave them the power to end it."

Americans understand that government is always opposite liberty, and those of us who study history wish to constrain it as much as we can.

I fail to see how the fact that we value liberty somehow makes us fucking less developed than european countries who can't get their heads out of their asses enough to realize that their governments plus some in Asia and parts of South America killed 170,000,000 of their own citizens in the past century, and then don't have the wherewithal to actually thank us for our place in stopping it rather than deriding us for maybe not trusting the same societal institution that killed their grandparents, parents, cousins, and extended family.

The government can be the enemy and can be perceived as the enemy. In extreme cases, they can be perceived as a suspicious enemy to the point where large segments of non-government individuals acquire weapons to defend themselves and from each other.

Just not in a developed country with enough social capital and political and social development.

Yeah, sorry, but that sentence is the stupidest thing I've ever read, It might even beat an earlier sentence of yours.

So the country with the strongest military, largest economy, most innovative tech sector, strongest defense sector (which provides the defensive capabilities of pretty much all of the noneuropean developed world) (unless you want to count China as developed which would be stupid if gun culture is a disqualifier in your count), the country which won WWII (Idgaf what you say, lend-lease alone won WWII for the allies. Without the US, it would not have turned out well.), and that is the absolute center of world pop culture is somehow not a developed country...



... because we don't trust our government to honor our constitution and don't let the government walk over us like Europe allows their governments to walk over them.

fucking. hell.

[Infected Mushroom]

The government can be the enemy and can be perceived as the enemy. In extreme cases, they can be perceived as a suspicious enemy to the point where large segments of non-government individuals acquire weapons to defend themselves and from each other.

Just not in a developed country with enough social capital and political and social development.

Yeah, sorry, but that sentence is the stupidest thing I've ever read, It might even beat an earlier sentence of yours.

So the country with the strongest military, largest economy, most innovative tech sector, strongest defense sector (which provides the defensive capabilities of pretty much all of the noneuropean developed world) (unless you want to count China as developed which would be stupid if gun culture is a disqualifier in your count), the country which won WWII (Idgaf what you say, lend-lease alone won WWII for the allies. Without the US, it would not have turned out well.), and that is the absolute center of world pop culture is somehow not a developed country...



... because we don't trust our government to honor our constitution and don't let the government walk over us like Europe allows their governments to walk over them.

fucking. hell.

The government walks all over your rights in Europe?

I thought it was the opposite. See in Europe people can trust the government to protect the people. This is why there is high social capital and trust and the government has taken on the functions of defense and policing so that the people can specialise in other trades.

Whereas in the USA, there is a lot of duplication of functions with the people not trusting the government and each other. A side effect of this is the relatively high incidence of gun violence incidents like Las Vegas, gun ownership, and street gun crimes. As a result, it is less safe and stable.

Having a big military doesn't count for much. At one point the USSR had the largest military in the world but it was never really Developed.

[Plzen]

Having a big military doesn't count for much. At one point the USSR had the largest military in the world but it was never really Developed.

*USSR*

*Not developed*



Okay, yeah. This argument is going nowhere. You keep making unsupported statements about which countries are or are not developed based on this or that factor. Let's ground the discussion a bit. Define "developed country." Your own words, please. We can argue in circles all year unless we know what exactly it is that we are talking about.

[United States of Red Dawn]

Having a big military doesn't count for much. At one point the USSR had the largest military in the world but it was never really Developed.

*USSR*

*Not developed*



Okay, yeah. This argument is going nowhere. You keep making unsupported statements about which countries are or are not developed based on this or that factor. Let's ground the discussion a bit. Define "developed country." Your own words, please. We can argue in circles all year unless we know what exactly it is that we are talking about.

It bankrupted itself and had a lower standard of living compared to the West. Most of it's money went to the military and government. Actually, it was already, practically, an oligarchy even while Communist.

[Plzen]

It bankrupted itself and had a lower standard of living compared to the West. Most of it's money went to the military and government. Actually, it was already, practically, an oligarchy even while Communist.

A lower standard of living compared to the West. Of course if you compare a country to the most prosperous segment of global population, they're unlikely to compare favourably.

Even after the severe economic trials and the social downturns of the 1980s, in 1990 the Soviet Union boasted a life expectancy four years above the global average, an infant mortality rate under half the global average, and a literacy of 99% at a time when a quarter of the world population was illiterate.

By any reasonable metric the quality of life in the Soviet Union was definitely in the better half of the world, and this was in 1990.

[Xelsis]

Yeah, sorry, but that sentence is the stupidest thing I've ever read, It might even beat an earlier sentence of yours.

So the country with the strongest military, largest economy, most innovative tech sector, strongest defense sector (which provides the defensive capabilities of pretty much all of the noneuropean developed world) (unless you want to count China as developed which would be stupid if gun culture is a disqualifier in your count), the country which won WWII (Idgaf what you say, lend-lease alone won WWII for the allies. Without the US, it would not have turned out well.), and that is the absolute center of world pop culture is somehow not a developed country...



... because we don't trust our government to honor our constitution and don't let the government walk over us like Europe allows their governments to walk over them.

fucking. hell.

The government walks all over your rights in Europe?

I thought it was the opposite. See in Europe people can trust the government to protect the people. This is why there is high social capital and trust and the government has taken on the functions of defense and policing so that the people can specialise in other trades.

Whereas in the USA, there is a lot of duplication of functions with the people not trusting the government and each other. A side effect of this is the relatively high incidence of gun violence incidents like Las Vegas, gun ownership, and street gun crimes. As a result, it is less safe and stable.

Having a big military doesn't count for much. At one point the USSR had the largest military in the world but it was never really Developed.

And their trust has truly been rewarded, as no European country has ever turned tyrannical against its own people in any way.

Right? That's what history proves, isn't it?

[Truemerica]

A Developed country looks like Japan, Norway, Germany etc where most of the people don't own guns and you don't have gun incidents where dozens to hundreds are killed/injured. The USA is in need of massive reforms.[/spoiler]

Your joking, right?

[Plzen]

I was going to post my findings about whether high rates of civilian gun ownership in 20th century history tended to correlate with democratic governance to see if this whole "an armed militia protecting free citizens" trope has a historical basis, but apparently historical firearms ownership rate data are surprisingly difficult to find.

So using Wikipedia's data on firearms ownership (mainly based on 2007) and Polity IV scores for the corresponding year, I did some digging into whether firearms ownership tend to correlate with democratic governance in the 21st century instead.

The top ten countries by firearms owned per capita, according to Wikipedia, ranked as follows on the 2007 Polity IV scale:

United States: 10 (democracy)
Serbia: 8 (democracy)
Yemen: -2 (anocracy)
Cyprus: 10 (democracy)
Saudi Arabia: -10 (autocracy)
Finland: 10 (democracy)
Iraq: government interrupted
Uruguay: 10 (democracy)
Sweden: 10 (democracy)
Norway: 10 (democracy)

There are a few notable exceptions, such as Iraq still reeling from the aftereffects of the US invasion and Saudi Arabia that is quite clearly an autocracy, but otherwise the list of ten countries with the highest rates of firearms ownership seems to be quite heavily dominated by democratic regimes: United States, Serbia, Cyprus, Finland, Uruguay, Sweden, and Norway. There are a lot of "10"s on that list.

A few caveats:

1. Something like 50%~60% of the world's countries were democratic in 2007, as Polity IV counts it (score of +6 or higher), so the fact that 7 of our 10 countries are democratic is statistically insignificant.

2. Even if one accepts that there is a statistically significant correlation, with the exception of Iraq and Yemen, all of these countries are reasonably wealthy. The obvious suggestion is that perhaps firearms ownership and democracy are related because countries that are rich tend to be both.

3. Even if one accepts a casual relationship between firearms and democracy, is that relationship because, as many anarcho-liberals claim, an armed populace tends to more successfully demand democratic governance, or is it simply that democratic governments tolerate an armed citizenry more?

[The Xiang Union]

The USA is a developed country and crime is not a factor in this at all.

[United States of Red Dawn]

The USA is a developed country and crime is not a factor in this at all.

It's mostly based on economics and standards of living. By the SOL criteria maybe you could include crime rates, sort of.

[Infected Mushroom]

The government walks all over your rights in Europe?

I thought it was the opposite. See in Europe people can trust the government to protect the people. This is why there is high social capital and trust and the government has taken on the functions of defense and policing so that the people can specialise in other trades.

Whereas in the USA, there is a lot of duplication of functions with the people not trusting the government and each other. A side effect of this is the relatively high incidence of gun violence incidents like Las Vegas, gun ownership, and street gun crimes. As a result, it is less safe and stable.

Having a big military doesn't count for much. At one point the USSR had the largest military in the world but it was never really Developed.

And their trust has truly been rewarded, as no European country has ever turned tyrannical against its own people in any way.

Right? That's what history proves, isn't it?

Indeed. Europe has much lower crime rates and no school shootings, gun crimes, and Las Vegas style incidents by comparison.

[Infected Mushroom]

The USA is a developed country and crime is not a factor in this at all.

so if you have a hypothetical country where the economy is in the developed range but crime is through the roof... it's still developed?

[Galloism]

The USA is a developed country and crime is not a factor in this at all.

so if you have a hypothetical country where the economy is in the developed range but crime is through the roof... it's still developed?

Yes.

[Infected Mushroom]

so if you have a hypothetical country where the economy is in the developed range but crime is through the roof... it's still developed?

Yes.

i think that takes away from the true meaning of development, which ought to include social and political metrics too

if your country is not safe then how can it be truly developed?

[Galloism]

Yes.

i think that takes away from the true meaning of development, which ought to include social and political metrics too

if your country is not safe then how can it be truly developed?

Basically because we have advanced industry, high gdp per capita, high standard of living.

You know, all metrics used to determine what is a developed country.

Crime rate isn't a metric for who is "developed" or not, because it has nothing to do with development. It's like asking "can it truly be a nuclear submarine if it doesn't have a sushi bar?"

[Infected Mushroom]

i think that takes away from the true meaning of development, which ought to include social and political metrics too

if your country is not safe then how can it be truly developed?

Basically because we have advanced industry, high gdp per capita, high standard of living.

You know, all metrics used to determine what is a developed country.

Crime rate isn't a metric for who is "developed" or not, because it has nothing to do with development. It's like asking "can it truly be a nuclear submarine if it doesn't have a sushi bar?"

then I would say you are an economically powerful country, but not a developed one (because you are lacking in certain safety, crime, and social factors that other truly developed countries have met satisfactorily)

[Galloism]

Basically because we have advanced industry, high gdp per capita, high standard of living.

You know, all metrics used to determine what is a developed country.

Crime rate isn't a metric for who is "developed" or not, because it has nothing to do with development. It's like asking "can it truly be a nuclear submarine if it doesn't have a sushi bar?"

then I would say you are an economically powerful country, but not a developed one (because you are lacking in certain safety, crime, and social factors that other truly developed countries have met satisfactorily)

Then you have a definition of development that is at odds with the entire English speaking world's definition of development.

And if we're going to do that, redefine words to suit an agenda, then I'm going to define "safe" as "having the most guns", and insist that you use safe to mean having the most guns.

[Barbaziun]

Great... a shooting happens and people think they can now classify one of the most (if not the most) powerful nation on the planet. Having a 'gun problem' does not make a county un-developed.

[Infected Mushroom]

then I would say you are an economically powerful country, but not a developed one (because you are lacking in certain safety, crime, and social factors that other truly developed countries have met satisfactorily)

Then you have a definition of development that is at odds with the entire English speaking world's definition of development.

And if we're going to do that, redefine words to suit an agenda, then I'm going to define "safe" as "having the most guns", and insist that you use safe to mean having the most guns.

if the people need to have guns, then it suggests that the society hasn't progressed to the point (like it has in Europe and other developed parts of the world) where the people trust the government (i.e. there is enough social capital) and where there can be efficient and safe allocation of defence functions; having a population that thinks "the government is corrupt and could be my enemy so I need guns" and/or "the government can't protect me (through education or policing) so I need guns to protect myself from others who might have guns"... is at odds with the mentality of the citizenry of a truly developed country

A truly developed country would have trust with the government and with each other and subsequently enjoy higher standards of safety and stability. The USA by contrast, seems to be tracked in this loop where everyone owns guns, the government is considered the enemy (at least some of the time), and there are high frequencies of gun crimes and gun incidents

[Galloism]

Then you have a definition of development that is at odds with the entire English speaking world's definition of development.

And if we're going to do that, redefine words to suit an agenda, then I'm going to define "safe" as "having the most guns", and insist that you use safe to mean having the most guns.

if the people need to have guns, then it suggests that the society hasn't progressed to the point (like it has in Europe and other developed parts of the world) where the people trust the government (i.e. there is enough social capital) and where there can be efficient and safe allocation of defence functions; having a population that thinks "the government is corrupt and could be my enemy so I need guns" and/or "the government can't protect me (through education or policing) so I need guns to protect myself from others who might have guns"... is at odds with the mentality of the citizenry of a truly developed country

Why? That doesn't seem to be at odds with the mentality of the citizenry of a truly developed country. What part of high standard of living, GDP per capita, and industrialization implies a certain mental state of the populace?

A truly developed country would have trust with the government and with each other and subsequently enjoy higher standards of safety and stability.

Ok, so now you're saying a developed country would have more guns. Remember - safe means "having the most guns", so "safety" would be a state or condition of having the most guns.

If you get to just make up definitions, so do I.

[Infected Mushroom]

if the people need to have guns, then it suggests that the society hasn't progressed to the point (like it has in Europe and other developed parts of the world) where the people trust the government (i.e. there is enough social capital) and where there can be efficient and safe allocation of defence functions; having a population that thinks "the government is corrupt and could be my enemy so I need guns" and/or "the government can't protect me (through education or policing) so I need guns to protect myself from others who might have guns"... is at odds with the mentality of the citizenry of a truly developed country

Why? That doesn't seem to be at odds with the mentality of the citizenry of a truly developed country. What part of high standard of living, GDP per capita, and industrialization implies a certain mental state of the populace?

A truly developed country would have trust with the government and with each other and subsequently enjoy higher standards of safety and stability.

Ok, so now you're saying a developed country would have more guns. Remember - safe means "having the most guns", so "safety" would be a state or condition of having the most guns.

If you get to just make up definitions, so do I.

the more guns the people have, the less safe the country is, as has been shown with the USA and its high frequency of school shootings and gun crimes (in relation to the rest of the Western world)

the private ownership of guns has contributed to a dangerous environment, rather than a safe one

its a sub-optimal state of affairs that the society has not evolved past because there hasn't been enough development to create the conditions necessary for the citizenry to trust the government and each other (ex advances in healthcare, education, policing etc); its a phenomenon known as social capital. There's not enough of it in spite of the high economy.

[Galloism]

the more guns the people have, the less safe the country is,

Well that's just an oxymoron.

as has been shown with the USA and its high frequency of school shootings and gun crimes (in relation to the rest of the Western world)

the private ownership of guns has contributed to a dangerous environment, rather than a safe one

You will have severe difficulty in proving this. Finland and Iraq have about the same number of guns per capita (34.2 per 100). In fact, Finland is number 6 in the world for number of guns.

Is Finland a dangerous hellhole undeveloped country? How about Sweden, coming in at #9, with 31.6 guns per 100 citizens? Undeveloped?

[Infected Mushroom]

the more guns the people have, the less safe the country is,

Well that's just an oxymoron.

as has been shown with the USA and its high frequency of school shootings and gun crimes (in relation to the rest of the Western world)

the private ownership of guns has contributed to a dangerous environment, rather than a safe one

You will have severe difficulty in proving this. Finland and Iraq have about the same number of guns per capita (34.2 per 100). In fact, Finland is number 6 in the world for number of guns.

Is Finland a dangerous hellhole undeveloped country? How about Sweden, coming in at #9, with 31.6 guns per 100 citizens? Undeveloped?

Finland is nowhere close to the level of gun ownership in the USA though even if its at number 6. The thing is, there is a huge gap between the USA and every other high economy nation on the list.

It is not an oxymoron, gun ownership in the hands of large numbers of citizens increases the odds of something like Las Vegas to happen (and enables it).

[The Two Jerseys]

Then you have a definition of development that is at odds with the entire English speaking world's definition of development.

And if we're going to do that, redefine words to suit an agenda, then I'm going to define "safe" as "having the most guns", and insist that you use safe to mean having the most guns.

if the people need to have guns, then it suggests that the society hasn't progressed to the point (like it has in Europe and other developed parts of the world) where the people trust the government (i.e. there is enough social capital) and where there can be efficient and safe allocation of defence functions; having a population that thinks "the government is corrupt and could be my enemy so I need guns" and/or "the government can't protect me (through education or policing) so I need guns to protect myself from others who might have guns"... is at odds with the mentality of the citizenry of a truly developed country

A truly developed country would have trust with the government and with each other and subsequently enjoy higher standards of safety and stability. The USA by contrast, seems to be tracked in this loop where everyone owns guns, the government is considered the enemy (at least some of the time), and there are high frequencies of gun crimes and gun incidents

We've been over this before with you.

There are parts of the country where it would literally take the police a half hour or more to get to a location after they're called.

Why is it "undeveloped" for people who live there to think that they need a gun to protect themselves from armed intruders?

[Infected Mushroom]

if the people need to have guns, then it suggests that the society hasn't progressed to the point (like it has in Europe and other developed parts of the world) where the people trust the government (i.e. there is enough social capital) and where there can be efficient and safe allocation of defence functions; having a population that thinks "the government is corrupt and could be my enemy so I need guns" and/or "the government can't protect me (through education or policing) so I need guns to protect myself from others who might have guns"... is at odds with the mentality of the citizenry of a truly developed country

A truly developed country would have trust with the government and with each other and subsequently enjoy higher standards of safety and stability. The USA by contrast, seems to be tracked in this loop where everyone owns guns, the government is considered the enemy (at least some of the time), and there are high frequencies of gun crimes and gun incidents

We've been over this before with you.

There are parts of the country where it would literally take the police a half hour or more to get to a location after they're called.

Why is it "undeveloped" for people who live there to think that they need a gun to protect themselves from armed intruders?

Because in a truly developed country (like in many places in Europe and Canada for instance), there's enough social trust in the government and in each other (through conditions that have been created like high education, widespread healthcare, reasonably effective police) that its not a concern that the nearest police station is many many miles away.

The fact that the USA cannot do that shows that its citizenry has the mindset of a country in a different stage. In a truly developed country, there would be no actual or perceived need to own guns.

Sweden and Germany also have places where police stations are many many miles away. Yet the mentality of the developed country persists... high social capital and trust is exemplified, the citizens have faith and trust in their government, in the police (even if far away), in the robustness of their social infrastructures to protect them and in each other.