If a nation cannot support itself, should it exist? TANSTAAFL?

Answer 1

It depends for what reason the country can’t support itself. If you are talking about countries that DON’T WANT to display any effort to support themselves (we all know that these countries do exist and I won’t give any specific examples; it’s better not to), then those countries should not (and needless to say must not) exist if they just rely on the other countries’ aid and resources.

You probably had the Soviet Union in mind when you asked this question. I partially disagree with what the user nicknamed rhutson wrote about USSR: I don’t think that the military lead entirely to the destruction of the USSR (it also contributed, but not 100%). I think that it’s the weak leadership (starting from 1950's) and poor morale of the citizens. Even if I’m NOT from the USSR & NOT a Communist, I still believe that the Soviet Union should exist because the Soviets could support themselves and are strongly devoted to their education and work. They displayed every effort to modernize from the dark age (Czarist times) and to become one of the two superpowers (and succeeded in doing so). I disagree with those who think that the Soviet Union and America can’t exist at the same time; I think they can if they mind their own business and don’t compete with each other. So what if these are opposite systems of belief & government?

Answer 2

In a Hobbesian world, no. In the world as it existed until 1946, no. With the creation of the UN the world powers started to create nation-states where none had ever been. These nations exist because of the world order which is hoped to be better than what went before.

When I was in the 7th grade, 1958, there were about 67 countries in the UN, now there are over 150. A lot of that growth is from the "creation" of nations. If the world order breaks down nations that cannot defend themselves will be de-facto swallowed up if they have resources of interest to the powerful, although they will probably continue to exist in name.

Asking if they should exist is really asking if the UN should exist. I think it should even though it doesn't work very well as it stands.

Answer 3

A nation that can't support itself will eventually fall. That is essentially what happened to the old Soviet Union. They put their money into their military rather than the infrastructure of their country. Therefore their economy did not and could not grow. As the size of the military became larger and larger it became untenable for the USSR to hold itself together. It then fell into the separate nation-states you see today. So if a country cannot develop itself economically then eventually it will collapse.

Of course There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch - Unless you're buying!!!!!

Answer 4

there is a big whole in the way this question is being read. We can not simply "erase" countries for whatever reason, therefore "free riders" exist and we have to deal with them.
(call me up when you find a way to kill all the people from the 3rd would countries OK)

now, countries that cannot support themselves have been paying their meal for quite a while now. Yes, the interest and capital payments on their external debts are the way in which the world has priced their "meals".

You see my friend,
1.) countries have been paying their meals, therefore they don't qualify as free riders.
2.) you (nor anyone) could delete from the face of the earth all those countries.

So i see no point in arguing about their existence. They do exist, will exist, and we have to deal with them

Answer 5

according to the developed countries definition of what a nation is. A nation that cannot support itself would not be a nation.

Answer 6

That's sort of a moot question. If a regime spends itself into oblivion, there should be an effort to replace or reform it. But a nation is made up of its people, and you can't really eliminate it. I guess you could divide up the land and resources and those who lived on it would become 'owned' by the creditors, but that is tantamount to chattel slavery.

If a nation falls, another will arise.

Answer 7

Of course The Answer is No . That nation must disappear from the World map and memories .

Answer 8

al fantast
There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
its not up to the nation.. i mean.. the people did not CHOOSE to be poor. Its just that they dont have enough resources.

maybe it shouldnt exist.. i dont know..its seems really demeaning

Answer 9

Depends on why it can't support itself. (Internal or external influences) Read "The Moon is a harsh Mistress".

Answer 10

It makes sense.