Dennis,
I think I did try to clarify the very point you made by alluding to "huge challenges" in certain countries within my earlier post. Also, with the death camps, I don't think any sane person would say that they were great countries to be in at the time of Nazi rule. My point rather, was that life is mostly what we make of the cards we are dealt. Some of the happiest and most content people I know are in, or have lived in, countries in Africa that are full of violence and poverty. I am always astounded at their joy and resilience compared to others that I know that live in relative luxury.
Narcissism and self-absorption is a prison of our own making. Also, the health care and jobs provided by communist Russia did not create much joy and happiness because people gave up so many other things for the good of the State. I am speaking culturally now not politically. It is really a nation's culture that creates a platform for joy and peace and not the physical attributes. Again, I agree with you that the physical attributes in society make it harder, but they are not the major factor. I have seen this in traveling to different parts of the U.S.A., some towns have a close and caring culture while others are very cold.
Hope that helps you understand my intent and meaning,
Bud
The best country in the world is...
Man this is so subjective, a point no one has mentioned is the 'Sovereignty' of a country. This can affect your feelings towards a place.
"No de jure sovereignty without de facto sovereignty." In other words, neither claiming/being proclaimed Sovereign, nor merely exercising the power of a Sovereign is sufficient; sovereignty requires both elements.
Simple terms a country makes the rules and the people are happy to obey them. I once had to write a paper on this during my time in the RNZAF so my few comments are barely a scratch on the surface in this post. Most western military's will cover this in senior Staff Officer training and it is a vast and interesting topic, why do they do that, maybe to convince the protectors/enforcers of that countries Sovereignty that what they do is justifiable.
Some people talk of culture as being a separate entity to the five areas used to determine the list, in my view culture is overarching all of those five points and more including Sovereignty. To be in a position to claim a country as best, you really need to live the culture of that country for a reasonable time. I've visited many countries in my life but to date only two would I rank as best and then I can't decide which, NZ & Scotland. Why? because I have extensive experience of both countries culture. Patriotism is based around this in my opinion.
I have huge problems when the NZ All Blacks play Scotland at Murrayfield, that's when I need a two-sided supporters scarf....
"No de jure sovereignty without de facto sovereignty." In other words, neither claiming/being proclaimed Sovereign, nor merely exercising the power of a Sovereign is sufficient; sovereignty requires both elements.
Simple terms a country makes the rules and the people are happy to obey them. I once had to write a paper on this during my time in the RNZAF so my few comments are barely a scratch on the surface in this post. Most western military's will cover this in senior Staff Officer training and it is a vast and interesting topic, why do they do that, maybe to convince the protectors/enforcers of that countries Sovereignty that what they do is justifiable.
Some people talk of culture as being a separate entity to the five areas used to determine the list, in my view culture is overarching all of those five points and more including Sovereignty. To be in a position to claim a country as best, you really need to live the culture of that country for a reasonable time. I've visited many countries in my life but to date only two would I rank as best and then I can't decide which, NZ & Scotland. Why? because I have extensive experience of both countries culture. Patriotism is based around this in my opinion.
I have huge problems when the NZ All Blacks play Scotland at Murrayfield, that's when I need a two-sided supporters scarf....
Chasplaya wrote:
Although Patriotism itself is no factor that I personally dial in to my own thought process...and I suspect a lot of Australians feel the same way, when I arrived here in the States the first time, I was overwhelemed with flags on the lawn, on the back of trucks etc etc ..It is a marketing tool here..as much as an identity..
In France where I lived long enough to experience the beuracracy and other such nuances I developed an "immunity" to it...and after a while what "outsiders" would call a fault of France I would look upon as merely an inconvenience worth dealing with in exchange for some of the other values and benefits.. When I went to Germany I loved that everything was on time, and efficient and clean, but that also felt somewhat constricting for me, in Fiji no-one had much of anything, everything was Bula Bula, and very few folk besides lawyers , politicians and military folk really put much thought into the idea of patriotism, it was all live for the moment..
I am rambling somewhat but the idea of sovereignty is a little strange to me in a historical context, not something to rely on beyond a lifetime or less ...
Culture is itself a debatable subject...some would argue that the current "culture" in the US has merit..some would argue not..what the hell is it anyway..a great word to describe a giant algorithm that can never be measured ever other than by the judgement of individuals with one perspective..
Agree in general..Man this is so subjective, a point no one has mentioned is the 'Sovereignty' of a country. This can affect your feelings towards a place.
"No de jure sovereignty without de facto sovereignty." In other words, neither claiming/being proclaimed Sovereign, nor merely exercising the power of a Sovereign is sufficient; sovereignty requires both elements.
Simple terms a country makes the rules and the people are happy to obey them. I once had to write a paper on this during my time in the RNZAF so my few comments are barely a scratch on the surface in this post. Most western military's will cover this in senior Staff Officer training and it is a vast and interesting topic, why do they do that, maybe to convince the protectors/enforcers of that countries Sovereignty that what they do is justifiable.
Some people talk of culture as being a separate entity to the five areas used to determine the list, in my view culture is overarching all of those five points and more including Sovereignty. To be in a position to claim a country as best, you really need to live the culture of that country for a reasonable time. I've visited many countries in my life but to date only two would I rank as best and then I can't decide which, NZ & Scotland. Why? because I have extensive experience of both countries culture. Patriotism is based around this in my opinion.
I have huge problems when the NZ All Blacks play Sc
otland at Murrayfield, that's when I need a two-sided supporters scarf....
Although Patriotism itself is no factor that I personally dial in to my own thought process...and I suspect a lot of Australians feel the same way, when I arrived here in the States the first time, I was overwhelemed with flags on the lawn, on the back of trucks etc etc ..It is a marketing tool here..as much as an identity..
In France where I lived long enough to experience the beuracracy and other such nuances I developed an "immunity" to it...and after a while what "outsiders" would call a fault of France I would look upon as merely an inconvenience worth dealing with in exchange for some of the other values and benefits.. When I went to Germany I loved that everything was on time, and efficient and clean, but that also felt somewhat constricting for me, in Fiji no-one had much of anything, everything was Bula Bula, and very few folk besides lawyers , politicians and military folk really put much thought into the idea of patriotism, it was all live for the moment..
I am rambling somewhat but the idea of sovereignty is a little strange to me in a historical context, not something to rely on beyond a lifetime or less ...
Culture is itself a debatable subject...some would argue that the current "culture" in the US has merit..some would argue not..what the hell is it anyway..a great word to describe a giant algorithm that can never be measured ever other than by the judgement of individuals with one perspective..
I think the whole point of the article was to eliminate subjectivity from the equation. Yes, there are always personal, local, and specific reasons people are happy and unhappy. We can all agree that some of the happiest people in the world live in areas where we might not expect to find much happiness. Conversely, we can find a lot of misery in the richest countries. And that would be relevant if the article listed the countries in which people are the happiest. But it doesn't.
The article just seeks to answer a fairly simple question: if you were born today, in which country would you stand the best chance of getting a good education, a healthy life, relative comfort, the opportunity to better yourself financially, and a stable political environment. Nowhere in this question is the word happiness used. Why? Because it's impossible to quantify happiness objectively. So Newsweek sought to quantify opportunity instead, a concept which is measurable.
If a person is able to be happy without an education, battling malaria, living in squalor, with no opportunity to suitably provide for his or her family, all in an environment where the government changes hands every three weeks from one repressive regime to another, that's wonderful. I mean that. I'm truly envious of the strength and resilience that some people are able to display. But that isn't what this article is about.
The article just seeks to answer a fairly simple question: if you were born today, in which country would you stand the best chance of getting a good education, a healthy life, relative comfort, the opportunity to better yourself financially, and a stable political environment. Nowhere in this question is the word happiness used. Why? Because it's impossible to quantify happiness objectively. So Newsweek sought to quantify opportunity instead, a concept which is measurable.
If a person is able to be happy without an education, battling malaria, living in squalor, with no opportunity to suitably provide for his or her family, all in an environment where the government changes hands every three weeks from one repressive regime to another, that's wonderful. I mean that. I'm truly envious of the strength and resilience that some people are able to display. But that isn't what this article is about.
Given that all the Scandinavian countries are listed in the top ten highest Tax to GDP ratio this is a surprising list. So that says a lot, best country has nothing to do with 'Happy about paying high tax'. We frequently hear that in NZ , we pay too much and that life would be better in Australia who have slightly better PAYE rates and Corporate tax than here.
The majority of Kiwis who move to Aussie are generally from low income jobs/trade, and from the lower end of the education spectrum thus raising the IQ of both countries... jk folks...
The majority of Kiwis who move to Aussie are generally from low income jobs/trade, and from the lower end of the education spectrum thus raising the IQ of both countries... jk folks...
haoli25 wrote:
On a more serious note..the reality is that (at least for me )...that you can make it anywhere with any of the criteria..
So to reflect on the OP context...if I was born again ??...probably pick the place I was from in the first place..OZ has its issues from Race to Politics, to some backwards thinking on Women's place in the world..but they are my opinions, overall it truly is a paradise..low crime, guns, weather to die for except Melbourne Cough cough..opportunity, health system, decent education, space, air..natural resources..it truly is the lucky country..
I have come to truly love some of my offshore homes..including the USA..
I love Arizona love parts of California , love a little of Florida, Georgia, Carolinas, Colorado, Idaho, Utah...at least parts..and further afield many many European countries I would live permanently in a heart beat...
So for me I just appreciate where I am, and find a way to love where I am ...
If you flip this to a question on where could you live now ...ie a retirement option or something similar like a lifestyle move..then the game changes..I think I got lost a little on the original premise ..sorry Dennis..
Nah...all the smart ones moved overseas..oh Tony ..forgot you were still thereUh, oh, I feel an Aussie counter-strike coming, Chas.
On a more serious note..the reality is that (at least for me )...that you can make it anywhere with any of the criteria..
So to reflect on the OP context...if I was born again ??...probably pick the place I was from in the first place..OZ has its issues from Race to Politics, to some backwards thinking on Women's place in the world..but they are my opinions, overall it truly is a paradise..low crime, guns, weather to die for except Melbourne Cough cough..opportunity, health system, decent education, space, air..natural resources..it truly is the lucky country..
I have come to truly love some of my offshore homes..including the USA..
I love Arizona love parts of California , love a little of Florida, Georgia, Carolinas, Colorado, Idaho, Utah...at least parts..and further afield many many European countries I would live permanently in a heart beat...
So for me I just appreciate where I am, and find a way to love where I am ...
If you flip this to a question on where could you live now ...ie a retirement option or something similar like a lifestyle move..then the game changes..I think I got lost a little on the original premise ..sorry Dennis..
TGMatt wrote:
Anyway, I think the standard of living in Australia would justify it's high ranking. Same for Sweden where I lived for 3 years. Finland and Switzerland do not surprise me based on the criteria.
But I struggle to understand why the standard of living in the USA would be below that of the countries above it. Space is something that springs to mind, with more people in some US cities than in the whole of Australia, but that's about it.
Yep. We export all our dodgey characters to the USA so they can walk the streets of New York saying things like "crikey!" and "That's not a knife..THIS is a knife!".
Nah...all the smart ones moved overseas..oh Tony ..forgot you were still there
Anyway, I think the standard of living in Australia would justify it's high ranking. Same for Sweden where I lived for 3 years. Finland and Switzerland do not surprise me based on the criteria.
But I struggle to understand why the standard of living in the USA would be below that of the countries above it. Space is something that springs to mind, with more people in some US cities than in the whole of Australia, but that's about it.
Dennis,
I must disagree with you on one point. As with any article, the authors very selection of the rankings makes it a subjective article. The author chose to rank more highly the things that they value when in fact the citizens of the countries they are trying to rank may not value those factors as highly as the author does nor may the reader value them in the same alignment.
No article or ranking system can be objective because it is written by a person with unique values and opinions.
Bud
I must disagree with you on one point. As with any article, the authors very selection of the rankings makes it a subjective article. The author chose to rank more highly the things that they value when in fact the citizens of the countries they are trying to rank may not value those factors as highly as the author does nor may the reader value them in the same alignment.
No article or ranking system can be objective because it is written by a person with unique values and opinions.
Bud