undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdragonwriter3y ago0 comments

> No intelligent person thinks that we got 250 years of relative peace and prosperity by randon luck

Yes, to the extent that the US had more peace and prosperity than, say, European states, most intelligent people with even modest knowledge attribute that not to random chance but to three major factors:

(1) The Pacific Ocean, (2) The Atlantic Ocean, (3) The extremely small number of remotely near-peer powers that have ever existed not separated from the US by (1) or (2).

0 comments

prottog3y ago

You're right that the geography of the US confers such an advantage that it seems as though it could have had literally any form of government since its founding and still come out ahead in the end, but I'm not sure if that's actually true. There are plenty of historical examples of resource-rich (in all senses of the word "resource") nations that have failed to prosper and resource-poor nations that thrived despite their challenges. A key difference between those nations is culture and governance.

cvwright3y ago

Which of course explains why the rest of the Americas have also been so peaceful and prosperous.

dragonwriterOP3y ago

> Which of course explains why the rest of the Americas have also been so peaceful and prosperous.

The rest of the Americas benefit from (1) and (2), but most other countries have done less well with (3), in large part due to the US, which has had its “peaceful” hands in much of the conflict in the hemisphere.

AnimalMuppet3y ago

The point was governmental stability, not protection against invasion. If you look at, say, France, in the same time they've had their revolution, then Napoleon, then back to monarchy, then back and forth with republics and emperors and such. They're now on the fifth version of their republic.

In the same time, the US has had the Civil War, and January 6. That's "relative peace and prosperity".

dragonwriterOP3y ago

> The point was governmental stability, not protection against invasion.

The two are related.

> If you look at, say, France, in the same time they've had their revolution

A major factor in which was allegations of the King conspiring with the governments of peer rivals against the interests of his subjects.

> then Napoleon

Who rose to power through (and as the Directory was bankrupted by) the Coalition Wars.

> then back to monarchy,

Imposed by the victors after Napoleon’s Empire was defeated in interstate war.

External security and domestic stability are not unrelated.

AnimalMuppet3y ago

Lack of external security can cause domestic government instability. Sure.

Does external security cause domestic government stability?

jessaustin3y ago

...the Civil War, and January 6.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

prottog3y ago

cvwright3y ago

Which of course explains why the rest of the Americas have also been so peaceful and prosperous.

dragonwriterOP3y ago

> Which of course explains why the rest of the Americas have also been so peaceful and prosperous.

AnimalMuppet3y ago

In the same time, the US has had the Civil War, and January 6. That's "relative peace and prosperity".

dragonwriterOP3y ago

> The point was governmental stability, not protection against invasion.

The two are related.

> If you look at, say, France, in the same time they've had their revolution

A major factor in which was allegations of the King conspiring with the governments of peer rivals against the interests of his subjects.

> then Napoleon

Who rose to power through (and as the Directory was bankrupted by) the Coalition Wars.

> then back to monarchy,

Imposed by the victors after Napoleon’s Empire was defeated in interstate war.

External security and domestic stability are not unrelated.

AnimalMuppet3y ago

Lack of external security can cause domestic government instability. Sure.

Does external security cause domestic government stability?

jessaustin3y ago

...the Civil War, and January 6.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse