"Every country gets the government it deserves"?

[Cormac]

Agree or no?

1930s Germany => Nazis
Russia => Bolsheviks
US => Republicans
Columbia => Cali Cartel

Nope: Some people get governments foisted on them by foreign and interfering mercantilist states. (For example - the United Fruit Company corporate government).

Most of the countries of the Middle East.

East Timor

Apartheid South Africa.

Palestine

Chile

etc.

[Cormac]

In a sense, I do. What it means to me is that certain populations are capable or fit for certain governments and in that sense they get what they deserve. The colonists in 18th century America were among the best educated people in the world, with literacy rates higher than in England. So, they got a government that embodied much of the Enlightenment and represented a giant leap forward from those that preceded it. On the other hand, in 1917 Russia, the people were by and large illiterate and abject slaves/serfs, and as a result, they got what they got.

I don't view it as "deserving" in the sense of being punished, or having good people deserving good governments and bad people deserving bad governments. But, then I don't think that's what de Maistre meant anyway.

The word "deserving" doesn't work at all in this context.

Better to say, where the people are incapable through their own ignorance, lack of political or physical power, or through their trusting nature, or through their apathy, will have a government imposed on them by people who may not have the best interests of the people at heart.

In some cases, particularly in cases of the apathetic or deliberately ignorant, a government is received that is the government deserved.

[Cormac]

In a sense, I do. What it means to me is that certain populations are capable or fit for certain governments and in that sense they get what they deserve. The colonists in 18th century America were among the best educated people in the world, with literacy rates higher than in England. So, they got a government that embodied much of the Enlightenment and represented a giant leap forward from those that preceded it. On the other hand, in 1917 Russia, the people were by and large illiterate and abject slaves/serfs, and as a result, they got what they got.

I don't view it as "deserving" in the sense of being punished, or having good people deserving good governments and bad people deserving bad governments. But, then I don't think that's what de Maistre meant anyway.

So, if the masses, or some significant portion of them, have effective input into the process, then the results are what they should have expected given who made the choices?

So, for example, my people spent 800 years attempting to assert self-government. At ever single generation this was attempted both within the existing regime (even though that regime was opposed), and by military insurgency. For 800 years.

Did we get the government we deserved during that 800 years?

That statement is a pithy attempt by apologists for despotic and oppressive regimes, or those who prop such regimes up, to dismiss legitimate grievance and political argument.

[Coito ergo sum]

In a sense, I do. What it means to me is that certain populations are capable or fit for certain governments and in that sense they get what they deserve. The colonists in 18th century America were among the best educated people in the world, with literacy rates higher than in England. So, they got a government that embodied much of the Enlightenment and represented a giant leap forward from those that preceded it. On the other hand, in 1917 Russia, the people were by and large illiterate and abject slaves/serfs, and as a result, they got what they got.

I don't view it as "deserving" in the sense of being punished, or having good people deserving good governments and bad people deserving bad governments. But, then I don't think that's what de Maistre meant anyway.

So, if the masses, or some significant portion of them, have effective input into the process, then the results are what they should have expected given who made the choices?

So, for example, my people spent 800 years attempting to assert self-government. At ever single generation this was attempted both within the existing regime (even though that regime was opposed), and by military insurgency. For 800 years.

Did we get the government we deserved during that 800 years?

In a way, yes. De Maistre's quote is basically a misquote and he was referring to every nation getting the government they are "fit for." Your people may have tried to get a good government, but you only got the government you were "fit" for....

[Cormac]

In a sense, I do. What it means to me is that certain populations are capable or fit for certain governments and in that sense they get what they deserve. The colonists in 18th century America were among the best educated people in the world, with literacy rates higher than in England. So, they got a government that embodied much of the Enlightenment and represented a giant leap forward from those that preceded it. On the other hand, in 1917 Russia, the people were by and large illiterate and abject slaves/serfs, and as a result, they got what they got.

I don't view it as "deserving" in the sense of being punished, or having good people deserving good governments and bad people deserving bad governments. But, then I don't think that's what de Maistre meant anyway.

So, if the masses, or some significant portion of them, have effective input into the process, then the results are what they should have expected given who made the choices?

So, for example, my people spent 800 years attempting to assert self-government. At ever single generation this was attempted both within the existing regime (even though that regime was opposed), and by military insurgency. For 800 years.

Did we get the government we deserved during that 800 years?

In a way, yes. De Maistre's quote is basically a misquote and he was referring to every nation getting the government they are "fit for." Your people may have tried to get a good government, but you only got the government you were "fit" for....

Let us make some distinctions.

There is De Maistre, and his comment, based on his Royalist outlook, and to make a specific political point.

Then there is the use to which it is put in the OP. They are distinctly different.

BUT, the "fit for" comment is a completely different statement from "deserve". (Not to mention complete bollox besides).

[Cormac]

In a sense, I do. What it means to me is that certain populations are capable or fit for certain governments and in that sense they get what they deserve. The colonists in 18th century America were among the best educated people in the world, with literacy rates higher than in England. So, they got a government that embodied much of the Enlightenment and represented a giant leap forward from those that preceded it. On the other hand, in 1917 Russia, the people were by and large illiterate and abject slaves/serfs, and as a result, they got what they got.

I don't view it as "deserving" in the sense of being punished, or having good people deserving good governments and bad people deserving bad governments. But, then I don't think that's what de Maistre meant anyway.

So, if the masses, or some significant portion of them, have effective input into the process, then the results are what they should have expected given who made the choices?

So, for example, my people spent 800 years attempting to assert self-government. At ever single generation this was attempted both within the existing regime (even though that regime was opposed), and by military insurgency. For 800 years.

Did we get the government we deserved during that 800 years?

In a way, yes. De Maistre's quote is basically a misquote and he was referring to every nation getting the government they are "fit for." Your people may have tried to get a good government, but you only got the government you were "fit" for....

You seem in need of education, please watch the public interest videos here:

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 24&t=28788

[Coito ergo sum]

In a sense, I do. What it means to me is that certain populations are capable or fit for certain governments and in that sense they get what they deserve. The colonists in 18th century America were among the best educated people in the world, with literacy rates higher than in England. So, they got a government that embodied much of the Enlightenment and represented a giant leap forward from those that preceded it. On the other hand, in 1917 Russia, the people were by and large illiterate and abject slaves/serfs, and as a result, they got what they got.

I don't view it as "deserving" in the sense of being punished, or having good people deserving good governments and bad people deserving bad governments. But, then I don't think that's what de Maistre meant anyway.

So, if the masses, or some significant portion of them, have effective input into the process, then the results are what they should have expected given who made the choices?

So, for example, my people spent 800 years attempting to assert self-government. At ever single generation this was attempted both within the existing regime (even though that regime was opposed), and by military insurgency. For 800 years.

Did we get the government we deserved during that 800 years?

In a way, yes. De Maistre's quote is basically a misquote and he was referring to every nation getting the government they are "fit for." Your people may have tried to get a good government, but you only got the government you were "fit" for....

You seem in need of education, please watch the public interest videos here:

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 24&t=28788

You missed my facetiousness. I was speaking ironically when I suggested that the Irish were not "fit" for good government.

However, I think that my interpretation of de Maistre is the correct one. He really did impune the fitness of the Russians to have a non-oppressive government. That is what he was saying with that quote. Not that people are morally deficient, but rather that they are substandard, unfit for good government, so they get bad government. that's what they are "fit" for.

[Cormac]

You seem in need of education, please watch the public interest videos here:

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 24&t=28788

You missed my facetiousness. I was speaking ironically when I suggested that the Irish were not "fit" for good government.

However, I think that my interpretation of de Maistre is the correct one. He really did impune the fitness of the Russians to have a non-oppressive government. That is what he was saying with that quote. Not that people are morally deficient, but rather that they are substandard, unfit for good government, so they get bad government. that's what they are "fit" for.

Yes, but of course, he was a cunt.

[Cormac]

... did you watch the videos?

[Coito ergo sum]

It's just part of that all encompassing Irish curse. How can a small-willie'd people who are drunk all the time be expected to manage their affairs in any responsible manner?

[Cormac]

It's just part of that all encompassing Irish curse. How can a small-willie'd people who are drunk all the time be expected to manage their affairs in any responsible manner?

Ah, the old "White man's burden argument..."

[Coito ergo sum]

[Cormac]

And your point is? Yes, we do like to have a bit of a party now and again, and we do it better than most. Is that a crime?

[Orwellian]

If growing gin blossoms and falling down whiskey-dick drunk on a daily basis is "better" then ... have at it!

[Cormac]

If growing gin blossoms and falling down whiskey-dick drunk on a daily basis is "better" then ... have at it!

Gin blossoms?

What are they?