this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2023
33 points (81.1% liked)
Ask Lemmygrad
670 readers
31 users here now
A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't think "failed state" applies. The US government still has full sovereignty over its territories and there is no competing force that has any political or military claim that could realistically contend with the existing state apparatus. Is it a brutal and exploitative state with a fully frayed safety net? Yes. But a failed state? No.
Do you think its starving citizens consider it to be successful?
By what measure do you see it as successful? Because it has "no competing force that has any political or military claim that could realistically contend with the existing state apparatus"? Is that the metric?
"Failed state" has a specific definition. We don't have roving bands of militia outcompeting the US military, nor do we have separatist political groups forming competing governing structures within US territory. Although there are many Americans who are in poverty, the vast majority of Americans are not starving.
I honestly thought you had both these things? Well not outcompeteing the military no, but aren't there confederate secessionists?
In the richest country in the world, not everyone is starving. Good job.
I feel like I am detecting a level of snark here that is unnecessary and unproductive. I will not argue with you. Be well, comrade.