Take your pick. Poverty rate, child poverty in particular, child poverty skyrocketing, child slavery skyrocketing too, life expectancy plummeting... etc. failed state.
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.
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.
I honestly thought you had both these things? Well not outcompeteing the military no, but aren't there confederate secessionists?
Although there are many Americans who are in poverty, the vast majority of Americans are not starving.
In the richest country in the world, not everyone is starving. Good job.
What do you mean by collapse? You could argue it already has.
How?
First it started falling over, then it fell over.
Take your pick. Poverty rate, child poverty in particular, child poverty skyrocketing, child slavery skyrocketing too, life expectancy plummeting... etc. failed state.
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.