Why does the US suck so much?

[WISD0MTREE]

I have a couple of American friends who wish the South had seceded, because they think the South drags the rest of the country down with them and that they'd better be better off without. I'm sure things aren't actually that simple, but I'm inclined to agree with them.

And most Southerners think that the South would be better off than the North if we did secede. It is all about perspective. 

[Jose Rodriguez III]

Then I don't know what's going on in your town, because I've been told hundreds of times that the US should take over different countries.

 

Yes, so? I've heard my fair share of "Stop nosing into other people's business" crowd in the south too. What is your point exactly?

[Darkusius]

And most Southerners think that the South would be better off than the North if we did secede. It is all about perspective. 

 

I suppose.

 

Yes, so? I've heard my fair share of "Stop nosing into other people's business" crowd in the south too. What is your point exactly?

 

Refer to first quote.

[----]

Perhaps America's biggest problem is not purely the obvious 'imperialism' of nation-building and the superiority-complex. Those may be signs of another, more causative trait.

 

As someone who has spent considerable time in the United States and who has some familiarity with its political system, I can say that the system has a few fundamental and unique problems. I wish to clarify that my mere observation of an entire system might unjustly condemn numerous good persons. There are always exceptions to any bad systems.

I will begin by offering this first statement:

 

The United States do not know where their borders end.

 

Some have asserted that the United States enjoy too much freedom. Too much freedom in what area? Certainly some areas of life are quite regulated by the laws passed throughout the history of this nation. I will address this question of excess freedom.

 

In a system of (ostensibly) absolute economic freedom, private citizens can literally assume control of unimaginable amounts of power, wealth and influence. Furthermore, any attempt to limit this freedom incurs significant litigation on the basis of the promised freedoms in the founding documents.

In other words, in the name of freedom, society becomes a darwinistic and chaotic area. Greed is the only means to survive. Only profit and material bear the most lasting relevance in such an environment. This freedom is problematic not merely because it permits exploitation of workers, huge inequalities of wealth and other societal problems. Furthermore, it is true that this system has generated more wealth than any other period in human history. Thus, the worst fault of such an arrangement is the undue influence over political processes waged by financial interests, which I will later elaborate upon. 

This dynamic stems from a disdain of traditional state authority. An excessive fear of the state was perhaps justified by the English non-aristocratic landowners who fought their aristocratic rivals and eventually founded the United States. However, their desire to curb the traditional power of the state has resulted in a polity that does not effectively control its own affairs. 

 

The political system likewise has been limited to prevent a potential tyranny by the state. Frequent elections, constant slogans related to freedom have dominated American politics. This is not assert that the United States were founded to behave in this way. However, once the precedent for freedom was established, any 'perversions' that seemed to further this freedom or democratisation could not be effectively challenged without challenging the founding principles of the nation itself.

Politicians face the constant need for reelection to remain in power, in the absence of traditional power structures. Furthermore, the elections are dominated by earlier mentioned financial interests, since the effort toward a successful campaign become the prime imperative. Therefore, a transient political system and (theoretically) absolute economic freedom give undue influence to the financial interests without offering any significant check to this structure.

 

As mentioned earlier, financial interests are driven the desire for an increase in profit. That is the basic premise of the capitalistic economy. Through the influence over the political process, firms, companies, financial institutions, etc. have been able to prevent the establishment of an effective border of their activity. Therefore, they seek to ever expand their markets. In the twentieth century following the Second World War, there was a tremendous power and economic void created by the various circumstances of the war. Therefore, where they could, American financial interests established their markets in the territories it had access to. Furthermore, the United States created most of the international institutions that still maintain their presence. Postwar trade agreements and treaties of economic co-operation between American firms and their international counterparts negated the need for direct American control in these matters. What emerged is a global economic system supported by the American-founded institutions. Even if ostensibly or directly separate from the United States, the global financial system effectively acts as a homogeniser of economic and political 'standards' to meet criteria generally following American principles. 

 

To summarise, the United States failed to create its own economic borders. This is not the visible 'imperialism' of invasion, but rather of economic standardisation that results in the effective disappearance of national sovereignty. This dynamic is fed by the fact that the United States supports (at least implicitly) the expansion of its 'market' as seen with the various outsourcing agreements in the second half of the twentieth century. It is this dynamic and its complete cultural and may I even say, spiritual, emptiness that arouses the natural contempt of those affected by the system.

Edited October 20, 2015 by Klemens Hawicki

[Darkusius]

Perhaps America's biggest problem is not purely the obvious 'imperialism' of nation-building and the superiority-complex. Those may be signs of another, more causative trait.

 

As someone who has spent considerable time in the United States and who has some familiarity with its political system, I can say that the system has a few fundamental and unique problems. I wish to clarify that my mere observation of an entire system might unjustly condemn numerous good persons. There are always exceptions to any bad systems.

I will begin by offering this first statement:

 

The United States do not know where their borders end.

 

Some have asserted that the United States enjoy too much freedom. Too much freedom in what area? Certainly some areas of life are quite regulated by the laws passed throughout the history of this nation. I will address this question of excess freedom.

 

In a system of (ostensibly) absolute economic freedom, private citizens can literally assume control of unimaginable amounts of power, wealth and influence. Furthermore, any attempt to limit this freedom incurs significant litigation on the basis of the promised freedoms in the founding documents.

In other words, in the name of freedom, society becomes a darwinistic and chaotic area. Greed is the only means to survive. Only profit and material bear the most lasting relevance in such an environment. This freedom is problematic not merely because it permits exploitation of workers, huge inequalities of wealth and other societal problems. Furthermore, it is true that this system has generated more wealth than any other period in human history. Thus, the worst fault of such an arrangement is the undue influence over political processes waged by financial interests, which I will later elaborate upon. 

This dynamic stems from a disdain of traditional state authority. An excessive fear of the state was perhaps justified by the English non-aristocratic landowners who fought their aristocratic rivals and eventually founded the United States. However, their desire to curb the traditional power of the state has resulted in a polity that does not effectively control its own affairs. 

 

The political system likewise has been limited to prevent a potential tyranny by the state. Frequent elections, constant slogans related to freedom have dominated American politics. This is not assert that the United States were founded to behave in this way. However, once the precedent for freedom was established, any 'perversions' that seemed to further this freedom or democratisation could not be effectively challenged without challenging the founding principles of the nation itself.

Politicians face the constant need for reelection to remain in power, in the absence of traditional power structures. Furthermore, the elections are dominated by earlier mentioned financial interests, since the effort toward a successful campaign become the prime imperative. Therefore, a transient political system and (theoretically) absolute economic freedom give undue influence to the financial interests without offering any significant check to this structure.

 

As mentioned earlier, financial interests are driven the desire for an increase in profit. That is the basic premise of the capitalistic economy. Through the influence over the political process, firms, companies, financial institutions, etc. have been able to prevent the establishment of an effective border of their activity. Therefore, they seek to ever expand their markets. In the twentieth century following the Second World War, there was a tremendous power and economic void created by the various circumstances of the war. Therefore, where they could, American financial interests established their markets in the territories it had access to. Furthermore, the United States created most of the international institutions that still maintain their presence. Postwar trade agreements and treaties of economic co-operation between American firms and their international counterparts negated the need for direct American control in these matters. What emerged is a global economic system supported by the American-founded institutions. Even if ostensibly or directly separate from the United States, the global financial system effectively acts as a homogeniser of economic and political 'standards' to meet criteria generally following American principles. 

 

To summarise, the United States failed to create its own economic borders. This is not the visible 'imperialism' of invasion, but rather of economic standardisation that results in the effective disappearance of national sovereignty. This dynamic is fed by the fact that the United States supports (at least implicitly) the expansion of its 'market' as seen with the various outsourcing agreements in the second half of the twentieth century. It is this dynamic and its complete cultural and may I even say, spiritual, emptiness that arouses the natural contempt of those affected by the system.

 

The last thing I expected was for someone to write me a short essay on the American economic system. I see what you are saying in this, and I do agree with every single thing that you pointed out and showed me. Thank you for taking the time to write this.

[Fox Fire]

Can I ask what country you're from, Darkusius? America? 

[Darkusius]

Can I ask what country you're from, Darkusius? America? 

 

The United States, yes.

[Fox Fire]

The United States, yes.

So do you truly believe your own nation sucks? Or do you simply disagree with it's foreign policy?

[Buorhann]

And most Southerners think that the South would be better off than the North if we did secede. It is all about perspective. 

 

 

Only if to stop being used as a scapegoat for other American's issues.

 

I have a lot of friends up north and when they finally came down to visit, they all want to come back down ( They've been doing so once a year for the past 3 years, and they are now considering moving down south ).

 

If you haven't been south, get your nose out of the media and come down to visit.  It's not nearly as bad as you think it is.  Sure, there's some issues, mostly revolving around politics ( Seeing as how the new generation of young is pushing the country to a more liberal stance, which naturally conflicts with the conservatism of the south ).

 

My friends all agreed that the south isn't as bad as they believed.  It's much more relaxed than the fast pace nature of the north.  Especially in business culture.

 

 

We also don't have to deal with 100000000000ft snow falls.

[Buorhann]

Of course.

 

Nobody wants the south. Your friends however also probably think the US would still be the same US it is today, economically dominant and influential. which....is very...very wishful thinking, considering a large portion of that is the work of our Geopolitics, of which the south provides most of the muscle, manpower wise.

 

Some of my peers aren't perfect in this regard of helping that notion, most of them still try to justify Iraq to me.

 

Other than that, yea the south does tend to hold the country back on a lot of issues, mostly social.

 

 

You also have to clarify that a lot of the early economic success of the United States was from the south as well.  Plus a lot of the creative artistic nature too.

 

In fact, a lot of music and art that influenced America came from the South.

 

Is the South holding back progress?  I would argue against that.  The United States wouldn't be what it is today without a lot of the contributions from the south.  People merely want to use the South as a scapegoat for blaming all the nation's issues on without doing any proper research.

[Fox Fire]

Only if to stop being used as a scapegoat for other American's issues.

 

I have a lot of friends up north and when they finally came down to visit, they all want to come back down ( They've been doing so once a year for the past 3 years, and they are now considering moving down south ).

 

If you haven't been south, get your nose out of the media and come down to visit.  It's not nearly as bad as you think it is.  Sure, there's some issues, mostly revolving around politics ( Seeing as how the new generation of young is pushing the country to a more liberal stance, which naturally conflicts with the conservatism of the south ).

 

My friends all agreed that the south isn't as bad as they believed.  It's much more relaxed than the fast pace nature of the north.  Especially in business culture.

 

 

We also don't have to deal with 100000000000ft snow falls.

My northern state is already too conservative for my taste. I highly doubt I would enjoy the south, where people think a flag from a non-existent nation being removed from a government building is somehow bad.

[Crust]

You also have to clarify that a lot of the early economic success of the United States was from the south as well.  Plus a lot of the creative artistic nature too.

 

In fact, a lot of music and art that influenced America came from the South.

 

Is the South holding back progress?  I would argue against that.  The United States wouldn't be what it is today without a lot of the contributions from the south.  People merely want to use the South as a scapegoat for blaming all the nation's issues on without doing any proper research.

 

Now I don't wanna offend but how much of that can the south take credit for? Much of the things I think about when I think about influential southern music and art were from black folks, from slaves to second grade citizens during the civil right movement up until today when afro-americans get shot to death by the police. Plus the early economic success of the United States and the south were because of slavery, just like in Rome. Can you take credit for something that is was created and in a way belongs to one group of people that have been shunned, at least legally, for centuries in the region? 

 

Just fyi, I don't think every single person in the South are racist. My cousin, who's a muslim and an arab, seems to be doing alright in Texas. Nor do I think the northern region is guilt-free either. 

 

Edit: fixing some tiny errors in my grammar 

Edited October 21, 2015 by Satisfriend

[Fox Fire]

You also have to clarify that a lot of the early economic success of the United States was from the south as well.  Plus a lot of the creative artistic nature too.

 

In fact, a lot of music and art that influenced America came from the South.

 

Is the South holding back progress?  I would argue against that.  The United States wouldn't be what it is today without a lot of the contributions from the south.  People merely want to use the South as a scapegoat for blaming all the nation's issues on without doing any proper research.

 

Was in the middle of typing a response but....

 

 

Now I don't wanna offend but how much of that can the south take credit for? Much of the things I think about when I think about influential southern music and art were from black folks, from slaves to second grade citizens during the civil right movement up until today when afro-americans get shot to death by police. Plus the early economic success of the United States and the south was because of slavery, just like in Rome. Can you take credit for something that is was created and in a way belongs to one group of people that have been shunned, at least legally, for centuries in the region? 

 

Just fyi, I don't think every single person in the South is a racist. My cousin, who's a muslim and an arab, seems to be doing alright in Texas. Nor do I think the northern region is guilt-free either. 

^This pretty much sums up my comment and more. 

 

Other than that, I can respect some of the values of the confederacy. Such as the sovereignty of the state and many other conservative, libertarian values. However, slavery was contradictory to their own ideals of freedom and liberty. I'm a libertarian socialist, so I can agree with liberal and conservative values alike. 

In modern times however, I find it hard to agree with anything done in government anymore, be it at the state or federal level. 

 

EDIT: I want to place more emphasis on the fact that the entire southern economy was reliant on slavery. Their success came from the blood and sweat of slaves. Not hard working, honest white folk.  

Edited October 21, 2015 by Fox Fire

[Darkusius]

So do you truly believe your own nation sucks? Or do you simply disagree with it's foreign policy?

 

Foreign policy, political divides. The country itself is quite nice if you put away human nature for a moment and look at all the glorious landscapes that surround you. Maybe it's just because I don't agree with the people from where I live, I get this blown up perception of how much I hate anyone who opposes my thoughts.

 

Was in the middle of typing a response but....

 

 

^This pretty much sums up my comment and more. 

 

Other than that, I can respect some of the values of the confederacy. Such as the sovereignty of the state and many other conservative, libertarian values. However, slavery was contradictory to their own ideals of freedom and liberty. I'm a libertarian socialist, so I can agree with liberal and conservative values alike. 

In modern times however, I find it hard to agree with anything done in government anymore, be it at the state or federal level. 

 

EDIT: I want to place more emphasis on the fact that the entire southern economy was reliant on slavery. Their success came from the blood and sweat of slaves. Not hard working, honest white folk.  

 

State sovereignty may have worked in a Utopian confederacy. I really believe that the US was too divided from the get go, and there was no changing how things were going to go. The people of the South lived different from the people of the North, and vice versa. It's just how it was meant to be. 

 

I just wanted to mention your signature scares me, as well.

Edited October 21, 2015 by Darkusius

[Fox Fire]

Foreign policy, political divides. The country itself is quite nice if you put away human nature for a moment and look at all the glorious landscapes that surround you. Maybe it's just because I don't agree with the people from where I live, I get this blown up perception of how much I hate anyone who opposes my thoughts.

Well I can sympathize with that. Half the reason I have political debates on forums like this is because everyone in my town is the same exact over religious conservative with no desire to indulge in thought provoking conversation, because questioning conservative LDS values is almost like worshiping Satan to them. It does get irritating.

 

 

State sovereignty may have worked in a Utopian confederacy. I really believe that the US was too divided from the get go, and there was no changing how things were going to go. The people of the South lived different from the people of the North, and vice versa. It's just how it was meant to be. 

 

I just wanted to mention your signature scares me, as well.

But that's part of why I think the US is so great. Granted, representation has always been bias, but the population itself has always been extremely diverse, yet mostly united, regardless of the social issues we have had. It's also the best example of why Nazism is entirely wrong. Our nation has it's bad sides, but it has just as many good sides, if not more. We've created some of the worlds greatest things, along side some of the worlds worst things. 

Overall, I think our nation and our constitution is wonderful. We just need leaders who actually represent the people.

 

And my signature is glorious!

(I would change it, as it's old, except I enjoy the constant butthurt expressed about how it's "too sexual" and "inappropriate". Welcome to my world of inappropriateness). 

[Darkusius]

But that's part of why I think the US is so great. Granted, representation has always been bias, but the population itself has always been extremely diverse, yet mostly united, regardless of the social issues we have had. It's also the best example of why Nazism is entirely wrong. Our nation has it's bad sides, but it has just as many good sides, if not more. We've created some of the worlds greatest things, along side some of the worlds worst things. 

Overall, I think our nation and our constitution is wonderful. We just need leaders who actually represent the people.

 

This. I can agree to this. Although, I still think that the country could have progressed more if it were split into two or three.It just seems too politically and culturally divided now to work altogether anymore.

[Doktor Avalanche]

EDIT: I want to place more emphasis on the fact that the entire southern economy was reliant on slavery. Their success came from the blood and sweat of slaves. Not hard working, honest white folk.  

No it was not enitrely. However it was a major factor to their economy. The failure of the Southern economy was the lack of population and due to the Slave state functionality to their society there was not a large community population in the cities. Much of this was due to a lack of education(literacy in the South was around 20% for white adults in 1850), a virtully nonexistent infrastructure for railroads, bridges and basic road maintenance.

Here is a decent small article going into it: http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3558

[Greatnate]

We also don't have to deal with 100000000000ft snow falls.

 

Dat snow is the only reason to live up north. I would literally melt south of the Mason-Dixon line.

[Fox Fire]

No it was not enitrely. However it was a major factor to their economy. The failure of the Southern economy was the lack of population and due to the Slave state functionality to their society there was not a large community population in the cities. Much of this was due to a lack of education(literacy in the South was around 20% for white adults in 1850), a virtully nonexistent infrastructure for railroads, bridges and basic road maintenance.

Here is a decent small article going into it: http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3558

So basically the north was more industrialized and urban. I know that. 

The southern economy was based on slavery. 

Edited October 21, 2015 by Fox Fire

[Doktor Avalanche]

This. I can agree to this. Although, I still think that the country could have progressed more if it were split into two or three.It just seems too politically and culturally divided now to work altogether anymore.

I have to ask as I am an inquisitive !@#$:

 

Where do you get the idea we are not functioning politically or culturally at this moment in time?

People disagree- whether politically, economically, culturally, socially, religiously, ethically, etc. but the one factor that has separated us from the rest of the World and in time is the fact that we can disagree without having the State persecute and punish us. We have struggled to maintain this at times, even from our onset with Slavery, but as time has progressed we have developed into a nation of personal freedom. Sadly, many who claim to represent freedom are actually limiting others of their freedoms, via politics.

[Jose Rodriguez III]

You also have to clarify that a lot of the early economic success of the United States was from the south as well.  Plus a lot of the creative artistic nature too.

 

In fact, a lot of music and art that influenced America came from the South.

 

Is the South holding back progress?  I would argue against that.  The United States wouldn't be what it is today without a lot of the contributions from the south.  People merely want to use the South as a scapegoat for blaming all the nation's issues on without doing any proper research.

Yes this is poor wording on my part.

 

I didn't mean to imply that "The south is good for nothing", I only meant to sarcastically remark that people have this magical expectation where they are able to keep their standard of living as it is while removing a part of the nation that has contributed a fair amount to the myriad of reasons the US is sort of the way it is.

 

The south holding back progress depends on the nature of progress we're describing. A lot of great scientific centers and technology hubs are in the south(Texas Cancer center, St Judes), but the states themselves have also been fiercely anti scientific and spend considerable resources in battling some scientific bodies through the legal system. Socially speaking, a few rights issues here and there particularly with the LGBT crowd come to mind.

 

The south does have legitimate progressive points though, such as trying to take away power from an increasingly hungry post 9/11 government.

[Dimitri Valko]

 And my signature is glorious!

(I would change it, as it's old, except I enjoy the constant butthurt expressed about how it's "too sexual" and "inappropriate". Welcome to my world of inappropriateness). 

 

I disabled your signature long ago, it was rather disturbing.

 

My northern state is already too conservative for my taste. I highly doubt I would enjoy the south, where people think a flag from a non-existent nation being removed from a government building is somehow bad.

 

The reason people are upset about that is because their ancestors died fighting for the South. I'm not southern myself, but I completely agree with these people.

Edited October 21, 2015 by Dimitri Valko

[Fox Fire]

I disabled your signature long ago, it was rather disturbing.

 

 

I can't say I find any disappointment in offending people with love.

 

 The reason people are upset about that is because their ancestors died fighting for the South. I'm not southern myself, but I completely agree with these people.

 

 

I have no idea what your point in any of that comment was, but can we please use normal text to have this disagreement? 

[Buorhann]

My northern state is already too conservative for my taste. I highly doubt I would enjoy the south, where people think a flag from a non-existent nation being removed from a government building is somehow bad.

 

If you understood the least bit of culture, you'd understand the situation.

 

You are aware that you're talking about cultural differences and their beliefs here right?  You know, the very thing you hate Americans for when they travel to foreign lands ( Disrespecting culture )?

[Buorhann]

Now I don't wanna offend but how much of that can the south take credit for? Much of the things I think about when I think about influential southern music and art were from black folks, from slaves to second grade citizens during the civil right movement up until today when afro-americans get shot to death by the police. Plus the early economic success of the United States and the south were because of slavery, just like in Rome. Can you take credit for something that is was created and in a way belongs to one group of people that have been shunned, at least legally, for centuries in the region? 

 

Just fyi, I don't think every single person in the South are racist. My cousin, who's a muslim and an arab, seems to be doing alright in Texas. Nor do I think the northern region is guilt-free either. 

 

Edit: fixing some tiny errors in my grammar 

 

 

First and foremost, I can say the South can take a lot of credit for the economic growth of the United States.  Without the early agriculture and trades of the South, the manufacture dominate North wouldn't have grown as fast as it did throughout the years.  Yes this involved some moral and ethical issues in regards to manpower, but even after that was eliminated and the South rebuilt after the Civil War, the money from the South continued to help boost up the North ( And likewise ).  ( This isn't to imply that the North wouldn't function without the South.  It would, but wouldn't have grown as fast unless a big war occurred to encourage such growth...  Hmm... )

 

You're right that the music was pre-dominated by Blacks in various genres ( Blues, Jazz, etc ) and they did bring the birth of them, in the South ( You're also forgetting other areas such as Rock and Roll and several artist styles that came from the south ).  Can the South take credit for it?  Sure.  Back then it was a norm, today it is shunned.  Life's cultures changes and continues to evolve as it goes on.  During the slavery era, they were put into a direction with which was needed for the businesses of the nation.  A lot of people don't understand that the North benefited A LOT from the Southern slavery ( Or rather, just slavery in general considering they had slaves up there too ).

 

We're changing topic here though, so to end this current reply - I feel you're trying to bring sensationalism into this topic with the mentioning of Blue/Black lives into the topic.  That's for something entirely different.  It's a shame that is happening, but both sides are making their mistakes and the media certainly isn't helping the situation.

 

As for the racism tidbit, there's racism everywhere.  The South isn't any more racist than the North.  Don't kid yourself thinking that.  The racism shows itself in different ways, but it's there.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

As for the United States being divided, well - it is a cultural melting pot.  Of course there's going to be a lot of conflicts with one another, but we still all recognize each other as Americans when a big travesty affects the nation.

Edited October 21, 2015 by Buorhann