"Every country gets the government it deserves"?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Agree or no?

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

[Eriku]

Disagree... what of installed dictators?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Disagree... what of installed dictators?

The people allowed it to happen?

[FBM]

Also disagree. The NKoreans didn't do anything to deserve the twat they wound up with. That was a secret deal worked out by the elites in Pyongyang and Moscow.

[Eriku]

Disagree... what of installed dictators?

The people allowed it to happen?

Plenty of examples of them being in the minority... and what those who are in such a position as to be able to make a stand against it do surely doesn't define what the majority deserve?

What of those with such huge financial and military backing that resistance is more or less futile?

The answer to this thread is NO. No doot aboot it.

[Orwellian]

The Republicans are the US government?

[Eriku]

The Republicans are the US government?

Yes, and as if the distinction between them and the Democrats isn't mostly superficial anyway.

[Orwellian]

You mean, other than their differences on abortion, gay rights/marriage, tax policy, spending policy, economic policy in general, and foreign policy? Well, in any case the Democrats control the Executive Branch and the Senate.

Canadian royalists are looking to make Prince Harry King of Canada: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... hists.html

[Atheist-Lite]

If we could kick the French and Romans out of here we'd have the government we need, perhaps not the one we deserve but better than most.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So far, consensus is the OP is incorrect? Anybody at all agree with it?

[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.

[Atheist-Lite]

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 kids play murder simulators now rather than read books so I guess the next generation will be bloody rulers. Blame the games industry.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

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?

[Eriku]

You mean, other than their differences on abortion, gay rights/marriage, tax policy, spending policy, economic policy in general, and foreign policy? Well, in any case the Democrats control the Executive Branch and the Senate.

Canadian royalists are looking to make Prince Harry King of Canada: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... hists.html

I'd reply about what I meant by that, but I'd rather not de-rail this thread... which I reckon would be the outcome... Besides, I have a cold and I'd rather not sit here bashing at the keyboard and then worrying about whether or not someone'll get their panties in a bunch and I'll get chewed out... I've had enough of that this week already.

As for the thread: I do agree with Coito, for the most part... it's just that the word "every" means I don't entirely agree with the notion of the OP.

[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?

Perhaps, but that's not what de Maistre meant by the quote. He was a monarchist in France who loathed democracy and he made the comment in reference to Russia. It was a slur on the Russian people, suggesting they weren't fit for western European style of government.