I did not say that. Nowhere in my post did i say that it is 'best to deal with the bastard in place and look the other way ala France and Europe.' What i did say was that private citizens financing coup de tats is one of the best examples of stupidity run amok one can find.
And since in your prior post you had used the analogy of an oil rich nation and Saddam let me use those as well. Saddam was a monster, and Iraq had oil. Does that mean that you, Kipita, a private citizen, should have sought to organize a coup to overthrow Saddam? After all, he was a monster that killed hundreds of thousands (if not millions once you include the war with Iran) and subjugated thousands to boundless oppression. And if not (by the way the government, US govt, would have locked you away forever if you tried such a thing) why is it 'nice' for this guy to do it?
Privately funded coups only lead to misery. And again, if this guy and his cronies were not even able to keep the coup secret before it even got started how in goodness name would they have managed to instill leadership if the coup had succeeded? If they were so inept as not to be able to even start there little endeavor how would they have managed to run a freaking country?
France and old Europe are senile nations (to a large extent), but trying to link their senility to my assertion that private coups are STUPID is grabbing at straws.
Typos!!!!
I don't think I can agree. I think this is simply an extension of the current post-nation-state historical trend and globalization movement that we are witnessing (and some of us are taking a part in).
Think of it this way: A company is simply a collection of people that produce goods and/or services for a profit (or else they go out of business). So what is the difference between a company and a country, which is also a collection of people that produce goods and/or services for a profit, which we refer to with the separate terms 'gross domestic product' and 'national debt.' Subtract the latter from the former, and you have your bottom line.
If a country can no longer afford to provide services for its citizens ("customers") and to maintain an army that is strong enough to ward of its enemies ("hostile takeover"), voila, in comes a businessman ("Sir Mark Thatcher") with a plan for a leveraged buy-out ("coup d'etat"). If the citizens do not like the new management ("government"), they are free to seek better conditions elsewhere ("flee").
Privately-financed coup d'etats are simply an undeniable historical trend due to their efficiency in running organizations, plus they represent a democratizaton of the governance process by allowing any person who strives for success to own and run their own country. If everyone truly understood this system they would be on their knees begging for it, to paraphrase the noted capitalist Jane Fonda.