andrel wrote:
>>> [1] The argument being how you measure "continuous". One can measure 
>>> it in a way that very few governments are older.

> As I understood it that phrase was for some definition of 'continuous' 
> with a footnote that other definitions are possible. 

Well, yes. See the footnote. :-)

 > IMHO you have to
> carefully select that definition *knowing* that the US has to come up on 
> top. For any reasonable definition that won't happen.


> Let me try at a minimal and sufficient set:
> - still in charge in 2009 (to exclude China, Japan and a host of other 
> countries)

Well, yes, I had thought of that. The right phrase is it's the "oldest" 
country, not the "longest surviving" country. :-)

> - a written constitution (to exclude e.g. the UK and the Vatican and to 
> narrow it down to countries. Otherwise almost any European city would be 
> longer)

Nah. I don't think you can say Venice has the same government it had before 
Italy was founded.  Certainly the Medici aren't the supreme lawmakers any more.

And for countries without constitutions, having the government replaced by 
force is sufficient. So, for example, going from one monarchy to a different 
family running the monarchy thru conquest would count as a "new country."

> - no major changes to the constitution (to exclude e.g. the Netherlands)
> - major changes to the area of the country are explicitly allowed.

I would think as long as it's just expansion that makes sense. Even 
voluntarily selling off territory would count. Having it taken away wouldn't.

But yeah, I wasn't arguing it was the case. I was arguing you could 
*consider* it to be the case, which is pretty good right there.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message