[Baron Morte]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Well, there was a revolution in 1789 (obviously), then Napolean became Emperor, was defeated and replaced by a king, who was then overthrown and replaced by another monarch. There was another revolution in 1830 and another monarchy of sorts until 1848 then the other Napolean became President (and shortly after Emperor). Then you had the whole business with the Prussians invading in 1870 (and of course, the Paris Commune) which led to the Third Republic. Then there was the business where the country was engaged in one of the worst wars in human history and large swathes of the country were a battlefield. After that was over there was a half-time rest and in the second half the whole country was invaded leading to yet another regime change. After that was over with there was more strife involving some troublesome North African types which led to the constitution being ammended in the 50's which brought the French to their Fifth Republic (and counting). Apart from that, it's all been steady as a rock...

you still havent grasp the idea, have you? Israelis havent had a country in thousands of years, still no one denies they are a nation, as they have been in the past millenia. French will be french with or without a soil too.

Brazil is not a nation. Its a state. We got every kind of ethnic and political group of the world. We have no commom culture, we dont have any identity, folklore, whatever. We are not the US. All we got is our state. As I said earlier, A change of ruler meant a change of culture, identity, and the rebirth of the nation. We got a president that banned bikinis, public displays of affection and what not. And it was 1961! Many today think these are the very heart of our culture

Think of our central government as Tito and the civils as a peaceful Yoguslavia. Still our differences are staggering. Most of our latin american counterparts still suffer from this issue. Can you single out a Cost rican from a Belizan?

With that issue settled, I think now you can understand that if a change of government is able to change the face its subordinates, what to say about long term projects? They never happen. They never flourish. Real growth and distribution of wealth can only occur in a stable nation.


Of course nothing is explained as simply as that, but it is one of the prerequisites.

Umm....no. A nations religious background will of course influence the politics of a nation, but to say that the unbalanced "wealth generation" (as you call it) is mainly down to people not being interested in "mundane things" is nonsense. Somewhere like Brazil has a gini co-efficient much more in line with South Africa (majority protestant) than it does with Croatia, Spain or Ireland (majority catholic). These things are much more down to the political history of these countries and the way that struggles have manifested in political structures, etc. Overall, I doubt it has much to do with people "taking pleasure from poorness".

as i said there is no one single reason for everything. Comparing Brazil´s 90% catholics with a minor white elite protestant in South Africa is unhelpfull. Also comparing a south american country with european countries...

And I wish you had more to say when you challanged one of the greatest thinkers in ~recent~ history.

This logic is rather simple minded since it implies no-one should ever challenge the status quo. Following what you've said, I presume you want Chavez to stay in power for as long as possible?


Not every government (or system of government) is worth keeping, some (e.g. apartheid South Africa) need to be abolished or overthrown. Change shouldn't happen for change's sake but when governments stand in the way of human progress then they should be dispensed with.

A Lasting central government is a prerequisite for growth, not the cause of it.

Besides, your military dictatorship lasted twenty years. Wasn't that enough?
Well, Saudi Arabia may be better than Iran (even that's arguable) but that's daming with faint praise. By most indictators, Saudi Arabia scores badly - even compared to some other countries in the same region. I'm still mystified how you can hold it up as an example of civilised behaviour.

Ok, I take it back. Saudi arabia sucks I still state that the Emirates are nice, though