[soperj]

> The job of a country is to do what is best for it.

Countries aren't defined like corporations in the US. Why would countries have funds to help places like Haiti otherwise?

Lots of different reasons for countries to do all sorts of things? Why would France have armed the US during their independence movement? Why is the rest of the world supporting Ukraine during this war started by Russia?

[shsjidhs]

You mean to say that without France’s help the “revolutionary war” would just be an embarrassing string of failures and a footnote in Britain’s history?

Oh no, you heretic, The People freed themselves and it was ordained by God, you see. It is through the righteous might of The Greatest Experiment in The History of the World that they showed The World what Freedom really meant.

[altmanaltman]

Having the British lose the US was a good thing for France, simillarly preventing Russia from just taking over another country is for the best of other countries.

While there is no "job" of a country, it is natural that each one will work for its own best interest and any moves it makes in the global world is due to their own vested interests in some way including helping Haiti, France helpong Us and the world supporting Ukraine.

Why would a country act against its interest or just randomly? Alliances and corporation are a part of politics

[soperj]

> Why would a country act against its interest or just randomly?

So why is the US supporting Russia again?

> Having the British lose the US was a good thing for France

This seems a bit reductionist. Why would they give the Statue Liberty to the US if they were only in it for the British loss?

[flaburgan]

The US independency war and the statue of liberty are two centuries apart.

[soperj]

Ah yes, I remember when they towed it into the New York Harbour in the early 70s, Richard Nixon was there to dedicate it.

[oneshtein]

Because Trump blackmailed with Epstein files by Russians.

[psychoslave]

>Why would a country act against its interest or just randomly?

Because country as an entity is a mental construction for which "interest" is a categorical error. It’s certainly a useful concept, but pretending it has interests like some human individual can have have interests. Sure it can serve as rhetorical facility to sell some arguments.

Countries don’t have interests. Some people willing to take control of other people encompassed in that "country" groups have interests, and they don’t necessarily align with best interests of everyone or even majority in each of these groups.

[dgellow]

I mostly agree, but there is some limit to that line of argument: a corporation is also a human, social concept, and we do accept that they act in their own interests (meaning they do have interests, sort of like humans do)

[psychoslave]

Well, you might agree with that, but on my side corporation are pure legal fictions, they don’t have have any intrinsics will and interest. That doesn’t mean they don’t have any existence, just that that there are have a different ontological status from a human person. Just like novel fictional characters, the fact they don’t map to any actual entity doesn’t mean they can’t entice affects they are supposed to convey between narrators and readers.

[testaccount28]

> Why would countries have funds to help places like Haiti otherwise?

because that's what they think is best. what point are you trying to make? that countries don't pursue 'profit' at the expense of all other concerns?

[vincnetas]

I think that that "best" is not always measured in money. And it should not be. Countries are made of people, and people wellbeing should be the main priority of country. And when stepping a bit back, all countries are made of people, so why differentiate? Ideally make life good for all people.