An interesting thought on democracy

[Lohman446]

This thread is not meant to get political, it is meant to bring up thought provoking discussion. I don't want to hear how one party vs the other party stuff. If this gets too directly poltical, I will kill it, asuming the mods do not first.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage." Sir Alexander Fraser Tyler, 1742-1813 ( The Decline and Fall of the Anthenian Republic ) Scottish Jurist and Historian

[CaptaiN_JacK]

It's true, and I foresee the same thing happening to the US within the next 50 years. Oh well.

[Destructo6]

Polybius came to a similar conclusion in about 100BC.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/polybius6.html

He concluded that the republican form of government combined the best aspects of monarchy (presidency), oligarchy (senate), and pure democracy (voting citizens).

[kosmo]

That is untrue in that in the way our political system is set up, one party gives the poor people the money, and one party gives the less poor people money. So it is a constant seesaw of people trying to get themselves all the money with no definitive winner.

[Miscue]

Another term for democracy is mob-rule... although this isn't an accurate account of how our government runs.

[Kevmaster]

and thats because the united states of america is NOT a democracy...not matter how often people tell you it is.

[Steelrat]

We're a constitutional republic. But that quote is very true. How else can you explain the incredible stupidity of tax cuts during a war?

[MrWallen]

Also, as far as the rest of the world is concerned, the US has only been truly powerful for about 50 years (World War II)...so according to that we have at least 150 years left, though I'd be happy with 50 more on top.

[ej_y4]

It's true, and I foresee the same thing happening to the US within the next 50 years. Oh well.
Well the US isnt a true democracy, its more of a republic. I dont see it happening

[Jeffy-CanCon]

Also, as far as the rest of the world is concerned, the US has only been truly powerful for about 50 years (World War II)...so according to that we have at least 150 years left, though I'd be happy with 50 more on top.


The USA was founded a little over two hundred years ago, and has been a world power for half that time. But as Steelrat pointed out, the USA is not a true democracy, but a constitutional republic. Your system of government is designed with powerful checks and balances to prevent any one branch of government from doing too much. That said, it would be fair to say that all Western countries are somewhere between the "abundance" and "selfishness" stages, if not already at "complacency".

[SCpoloRicker]

Rome wasn't built in a day, and it didn't fall in one. I wouldn't be surprised if, in the future, people place the arbitrary "fall date" of the American Empire sometime in our lives.

Interesting quote.

[Stix]

The USA was founded a little over two hundred years ago, and has been a world power for half that time. But as Steelrat pointed out, the USA is not a true democracy, but a constitutional republic. Your system of government is designed with powerful checks and balances to prevent any one branch of government from doing too much. That said, it would be fair to say that all Western countries are somewhere between the "abundance" and "selfishness" stages, if not already at "complacency".

Really? I see America at the stage of complacency/apathy, and western europe in the stage of dependancy.

[CaptaiN_JacK]

Well the US isnt a true democracy, its more of a republic. I dont see it happening

It doesn't really matter if it is a democracy of republic, because the idea of voting ourselves money is the same. In a democracy, people can directly vote for money. In a republic, people vote for the person that promises more money, which is already happening (for both parties). It's only a matter of time before the so-called seesaw of the 2-party system permanently teeters one way, and I believe it is the way of the republicans. The way the campaign system works right now, the candidate with the most financial backing will almost always win (I suggest you read "The Brethren" by John Grisham). I can almost garauntee that if there are 2 candidates for president, a guy with $200 million and a guy with $30 million, the guy with 200 will win hands down.

Humans in general are greedy. Our instincts tell us to survive in any way possible, and to survive today you need money. Deductive reasoning suggests that people will vote for the candidate that promises them more moeny, for the sake of survival. It's like this, if someone offered you $200 of free money, while another person asked you for $50 to help others in need, which choice would you pick? I'm not going to lie, I would take the $200, as would 99% of the population of the US. If you run a candidate for president with a single issue campaign, the issue being massive tax cuts, he will win.* You can argue with this all you want, but it's true. People don't care about what it's actually doing to the economy, or what implications it has on the future of the country, all they care about is getting free money. People jsut don't care about what the US will be like in 30 years, because most people won't be around then.

*This is not meant to be a blow to Bush or Republicans, I'm just trying to prove a point. Before you call me a flaming liberal, remember that I am on the fence of being a Democrat and Republican. I am just highly against massive government spending.

[Steelrat]

Its not a slam against Democrats or Republicans. Both parties rely upon giving away money to get voted into office. Its just pathetic that it happens. We ought to be grown-up enough to realize that we either need to pay more in taxes, or drastically reduce the benefits and services the govenment provides.

And again (because it really bugs me) a tax cut during wartime? What kind of stupidity is that?

[Hasty8]

If we down size the government we will accomplish both of your points Steel.

By reducing the government we will effectivly lower taxes becuase less government employees means less salary.

Also, by reducing the government we reduce the useless handout programs that go no where in getting people off their keisters and on their feet.

As my sig said before it was destroyed: "FREE MARKET IS BEST! REMOVE GOVERNMENTAL CONTROL AND THINGS WILL RUN BETTER

The list of areas where government regulatory control has been removed and marked improvement has then occured is legion.

[Jeffy-CanCon]

Really? I see America at the stage of complacency/apathy, and western europe in the stage of dependancy.

Complacency requires that there is no desire to improve, and that might be true. Apathy means that the population doesn't care that things are getting worse. I don't think that any Western country is at that stage, yet. Maybe in another generation, or two. We are all pretty shortsighted in our political thinking.

IMO, my country is farther along the track than yours, though we are technically younger.

[Steelrat]

If we down size the government we will accomplish both of your points Steel.

By reducing the government we will effectivly lower taxes becuase less government employees means less salary.

Also, by reducing the government we reduce the useless handout programs that go no where in getting people off their keisters and on their feet.

As my sig said before it was destroyed: "FREE MARKET IS BEST! REMOVE GOVERNMENTAL CONTROL AND THINGS WILL RUN BETTER

The list of areas where government regulatory control has been removed and marked improvement has then occured is legion.

Free market is NOT best. There has to be some government oversight of labor laws and environmental concerns. If left to their own devices, most companies will sacrifice anything to improve their profit, which is not always a good thing.

Most of the money this country spends goes to the entitlement programs. Everyone can squabble about pork-barrel, government regulation, and such, but if you really want to impact the budget, you need to deal with medicare and social security, and most politicians are too worried about their careers to touch them. Even worse, everyone wants to cut taxes, even though the current tax rates do not cover government expenditures. Its total insanity.

[xXHavokXx]

Forget about democracy submit to my coming rule.

[MrWallen]

If we down size the government we will accomplish both of your points Steel.

By reducing the government we will effectivly lower taxes becuase less government employees means less salary.

Also, by reducing the government we reduce the useless handout programs that go no where in getting people off their keisters and on their feet.

As my sig said before it was destroyed: "FREE MARKET IS BEST! REMOVE GOVERNMENTAL CONTROL AND THINGS WILL RUN BETTER

The list of areas where government regulatory control has been removed and marked improvement has then occured is legion.


Also, free market would lead to monopolies so fast it wouldn't be funny. Government needs to be present to both stop monopolies and make sure competition stays stimulated.

[maxama10]

Well its sad that its getting to the point where gays lesbian transgenders etc... are almost excepted. i mean i have nothing against them but to me thats just plain wrong and morally incorect. doesnt have much to do with this topic but yeah........

[personman]

Well its sad that its getting to the point where gays lesbian transgenders etc... are almost excepted. i mean i have nothing against them but to me thats just plain wrong and morally incorect. doesnt have much to do with this topic but yeah........
Do you mean accepted? Or excepted?

[Duzzy]

Don't want it to happen?

Get people to care.

Here is the tricky part...

Get people to care about others at near the same level they care about themselves. Democracy/Republics cannot exist in a selfish society, some dead French dude said that hundreds of years ago when he visited the US. He said that the only reason we were surviving as a nation was because people cared about the common good. We have lost that vision. This country will eventually fall, unless people want it to be fixed. And unless you are out there trying to fix things, then you don't want it badly enough.

[CaptaiN_JacK]

Here are some more of my views:
-Free market would be perfect....only in a utopian society, which we are far from
-The US will fall because of the youth going through the school systems today. 50 years ago we were ahead of the world in education, and now we are almost at rock bottom (at least in civilized countries, Europe, Japan, etc.) The US, in many decades, will beome the place that other countries out-source jobs too. It will be full of high-school educated idiots that are only good at manual labor.
-Tax cuts in war time? It proves the point that if you promise money, no matter what kind of fiscal crisis your country is in, people will be happy (and elect you, as we have already seen)
-maxama10-ask some gay people in your school/work if they chose to be how they are. Most will reply no (I interviewed about 6 gay/lesbian people in our school for a story for our school news-magazine. 6/6 said they never chose to be gay, it just happened, and they couldn't really prevent it). Tell me how you would feel if a transformation took place in you that you couldn't prevent, and then people discriminated aginst you for it. It's the same as blacks during the civil rights movement, they didn't choose to be black, and yet people discriminated against them for it.

[matt-o]

this dosnt happen because our politicians realise that they would be getting rid of their own jobs by doing this. also people know that the government simply havding out cash isnt good for them in the long haul

[Lohman446]

this dosnt happen because our politicians realise that they would be getting rid of their own jobs by doing this. also people know that the government simply havding out cash isnt good for them in the long haul

you don't think the $300 per child that was given out in the summer effected the last election? This was an effort by both the executive and legistlative branch.. but only one person took credit for him. Was the effect great? Maybe not, but I would have to argue in an election so close that anything that had any effect mattered.

[Lohman446]

-maxama10-ask some gay people in your school/work if they chose to be how they are. Most will reply no (I interviewed about 6 gay/lesbian people in our school for a story for our school news-magazine. 6/6 said they never chose to be gay, it just happened, and they couldn't really prevent it). Tell me how you would feel if a transformation took place in you that you couldn't prevent, and then people discriminated aginst you for it. It's the same as blacks during the civil rights movement, they didn't choose to be black, and yet people discriminated against them for it.

I don't mean to argue with you on this, or bring it to a front of a discussion. Frankly I don't care - but comparing gay to being black.. while you MAY be right on the genetics of it it is not proven. Even if I give you genetics (jury is still out) its not like being black. Right or wrong, like it or not, you can mask being gay - you cannot mask (there were exceptions) being black.


I don't agree with discriminating against anyone. Its simply wrong based on the human right to exist and my own beleif in ethical hedonism (basically as long as it doesn't hurt any non-participant or anyone disadvanted (children)) then I don't care what you do. However, I think this statement (comparing it to race) is so much of a stretch that it hurts your argument. Genetic... predisposed - it MAY be... like I said scientifically the jury is still out on that. I would argue that who one chooses to sleep with is a lot of choice and sometimes as much about image as anything else. Thats as close as I'm going to get to the subject though.

[frntplayer]

Also, free market would lead to monopolies so fast it wouldn't be funny. Government needs to be present to both stop monopolies and make sure competition stays stimulated.


Thats simply not true, in a free market, which we should have, but we have more of a merchantilism economy, monopolies don't jsut start up over night, and government interevention in the past to stop "monopolies" are just foundless, and we persued by political entrepeneurs that wanted to hurt the competition in any way possible. Take standard oil for instance, they cut down prices lower then all the competition, by mergers and vertical integrations, and new devolpments, the other oil companies, instead of making their oil cheaper, they went to the govt. and cried monopolie, and then the govt. forced a break up, breaking up a good company and costing them money.

Government does not belong in the economy, in every instance of government control, it has failed and had the opposite effect. The new deal, while thinking it helped, it didn't, it made the great depression worse, and made it last longer, the only reason we got out of it was that WW2 hit and those presidents cut down regulations.The increase of taxes and regualtions on buisness's only hampered there efforts to emply people, the wages minimums also hindered, the wpa, nra, etc etc, all took money away from the citizens to pay other people, and they accomplished no work. The energy crisis of the 1970's, those were a direct reaction of oil price controls, and all attemps at central planning failed. The cali energy crisis was also caused directly by regulations, the energy companies were forced not build any new plants, and the prices were capped, the demand grew and the supply couldn't, so crisis.

Central government planning of the economy doesn't work, look at all the communistic and socialistic countries, they all failed, theres a reason for that. Government can not plan something as complex as an economy, it doesn't work. Let people do whats in the best intrests of their company, and the best intrest of money making, and if people don't like what they are doing, they won't buy their products, simple as that. All government interferance with the economy has failed and accomplished only the opposite, take for instance minimum wage laws, they hurt companies by making them pay someone more for actions that dont require that pay, taxes same thing, more taxes there are the mroe the people hurt. If you want to see a great economy, get rid of the govt. regs and taxes, and you will see.


Ed

[Lohman446]

Ed... well I agree, to some degree with a lot of what you say - you have overly simplified something that you acknowledge as a very complex system. There are times for governmental regulations - and there are times when it is useful. Is it over used - yeh, its used about 90% more of the time than it should be, but there are times when its useful and good

[frntplayer]

Well there are very few, but those few are very nessacary, but are more laws then regulations, such as property rights and contractual enforcement, but they over use them so much, the places that govenment control is contradicitory is in price ceilings and floors, butting themelves into management, taking taxes that are overburndening, giving money to failing companies, "stimulating" economy with new money (inflation), minimum wage laws, etc. etc. the list goes on.


Ed

[spantol]

i mean i have nothing against them but to me thats just plain wrong and morally incorect.

Care to back that statement up at all, or was it just a drive-by?

If the former, bonus points will be awarded for doing so without invoking the will of an imaginary friend. It's one thing to be put off by such activity--I find it a bit icky, myself--but to simply assert that it's "just plain wrong and morally incorect" seems to paint with too broad a brush.

[ascetic1]

:hail:
Forget about democracy submit to my coming rule. :hail:


lol...



ask some gay people in your school/work if they chose to be how they are. Most will reply no (I interviewed about 6 gay/lesbian people in our school for a story for our school news-magazine. 6/6 said they never chose to be gay, it just happened, and they couldn't really prevent it). Tell me how you would feel if a transformation took place in you that you couldn't prevent, and then people discriminated aginst you for it. It's the same as blacks during the civil rights movement, they didn't choose to be black, and yet people discriminated against them for it.

this has nothing to do with government :p but, as a side topic,ill comment.. how do you all of a sudden "transform" into being gay? and, on the other hand think that you are a member of the different sex?(another story.) men were born with a willy, girls were not....get the picture? lol im trying to keep it PG haha, but how do you go from(guys you know this) the BUILT IN attraction to girls, towards an oncoming of feelings to be with a guy..doesnt make ANY sense...

Back to the topic of the governemt, those of you who have said they have too much control over taxes etc are IMO correct....the only reason we have taxes are to pay for what the government cant...remember the boston tea party?? no taxation without representation yada yada yada....they were being charged money by the government, in order to pay for things in GB.. then war ensues. we pay so much money on the land our houses sit on, for buying items needed for survival, and for anything else we will ever need in regards to neccessity, yet what do we see in return? soldiers dont get paid much for serving their country, so dont say it is for defensive purposes..the president doesnt put his *** on the line for any of us, so dont say it is for our own good...SS and medicare are being borrowed from, thus resulting in their major deficits, coming from our paychecks, and it isnt for survival, because then the cost would only be minimum being we only need so many items to live comfortably in life...so in short, where is all the money going? the government is a strong system based on regulations, that is it! there is no substance, and the people have been taken over by it, and wind up paying for it in the end

[spantol]

this has nothing to do with government :p but, as a side topic,ill comment.. how do you all of a sudden "transform" into being gay? and, on the other hand think that you are a member of the different sex?(another story.) men were born with a willy, girls were not....get the picture? lol im trying to keep it PG haha, but how do you go from(guys you know this) the BUILT IN attraction to girls, towards an oncoming of feelings to be with a guy..doesnt make ANY sense.

Severe head trauma might do it. Mental illness could, too.

In most cases, though, it's not a matter of transformation, it's matter of wiring. Where you and I have a "Built-in" attraction to women, gay men do not. One of the current theories, for which there has been some experimental support, points to a chemical difference, the root cause of which may or may not be genetic. We all start life as a female. Generally, if you have a Y chromosome, a certain chemical will be released which will trigger the development of male sex characteristics, and presumably preferences. Too much or too little of this chemical, though, and you're off-kilter. You may "feel" male while being attracted to other males (homosexuality), or you may "feel" female, despite the penis (MTF transgendered). Same idea with lesbians or FTM trannies--somehow, something triggers this chemical even in the absense of a Y chromosome.

Under this theory, you could reasonably call it a birth defect, if you were so inclined. You could also call it a normal variation in human behavior. Six of one, half dozen of the other.

[spantol]

Time for an on-topic post, I think. My apologies for the diversion.

This is indeed a problem with democracy. A democratic republic insulates against this risk somewhat though, as the voters cannot directly vote themselves money from the public treasury. They can vote for proxies who may promise to deliver said money, but doing so is not in those proxies' best interests, particularly when the fate of the system is at stake. Representatives stand to gain more by preserving the status quote while maintaining the appearance of serving their consituents' interests. This way, there's always more work to be done, justifying further terms of service. Any perceived failure to deliever can be shifted to an outside party, one that doesn't understand the needs of the constituency, or certainly not to the degree that the incumbant does. A little sophism goes a long way.




"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage." Sir Alexander Fraser Tyler, 1742-1813 ( The Decline and Fall of the Anthenian Republic ) Scottish Jurist and Historian

[Rooster]

"If left to their own devices, most companies will sacrifice anything to improve their profit, which is not always a good thing. "

It is always a good thing. It keeps the mob in line.

[CaptaiN_JacK]

frntplayer - Your explanations of monopolies in a free market aren't very realistic. What you explained is one of the first phases of a monopoly, when companies create low prices and drive the competition out of business. What happens next is the new larger company that has almost no competition starts jacking up the prices, and soon an enormous monopoly can be seen. It's happened many times before (on smaller scales than Standard Oil), and that was in a market that was watched and regulated by the government. Think of what would happen if there were next to no government control?



also, ascetic1, I pm'd you so we can keep our off-topic discussion out of this thread.

[CrimsonTurkey]

Neither a pure socialist or free market system would truly work. What the most sucessful countries in the world are currently under is what is known as a "free market socialism."

Before you start screaming and calling me a commie, realize that without socialist programs we would be on our own, we would probably have paychecks of around 10 cents an hour, no unions, we would have started working for "omni-corp" at the age of six. I would have happily gone off to work at 8 years old only to have my hand caught in a machine of some sort and ripped off. I would gain no compensation. Due to the greater class gap the power would be more consolidated in the owners of the big companies, thus making corruption easier. It's a lot easier to conspire with 10 people then 1,000.

Basically Bill Gates, Martha Stewart, the Bush family, the Kennedy family, the Bin Laden family, and Donald Trump would rule the world. That's scary.

[Restola]

The US is trending to pass the point where more than half the population receives money directly from the government in the next 20-30 years.

Who here believes spending will decrease after that? Its completely out of control now (no matter which party is in charge).

I personally believe we'll reach a state of financial "crisis" at some point, and our policies will change.

[frntplayer]

frntplayer - Your explanations of monopolies in a free market aren't very realistic. What you explained is one of the first phases of a monopoly, when companies create low prices and drive the competition out of business. What happens next is the new larger company that has almost no competition starts jacking up the prices, and soon an enormous monopoly can be seen. It's happened many times before (on smaller scales than Standard Oil), and that was in a market that was watched and regulated by the government. Think of what would happen if there were next to no government control?


Thats a fallicy, that is not the way a monoply works. Please tell me why a companie would cut all its profits and even go in the hole, so that "one day" they MIGHT be able to jack up prices becuase they have a large market share, ya thats going to pan out real good. What other monoplies?...Microsoft, give me a break.

(If there would be next to no government control. we would have one HELL of an economy, we would be 10 times the superpower we are now, capitalism works.)


Free Market socialism, in other words, merchatilism, or political entrupenenuerships, is bad, and your assumptions are WAY off.

[ShadowNife]

Thats a fallicy, that is not the way a monoply works. Please tell me why a companie would cut all its profits and even go in the hole, so that "one day" they MIGHT be able to jack up prices becuase they have a large market share, ya thats going to pan out real good. What other monoplies?...Microsoft, give me a break.

(If there would be next to no government control. we would have one HELL of an economy, we would be 10 times the superpower we are now, capitalism works.)


Free Market socialism, in other words, merchatilism, or political entrupenenuerships, is bad, and your assumptions are WAY off.

Actuallly what he said was basically true. The common two ways of driving out your competition is #1) Buy the competitor or #2) Lower your prices to the point where you're actually losing money. This forces the competitor to either lose customers or lower their prices to start losing money also. Granted only large companies can take the financial strain to do this, but this happens all the time (no, I'm sorry I don't have examples while writing this at 2:30 am) when small start-up companies produce better products or somehow otherwise compete with a big timer.

Since this thread is addressing two topics seemingly, I'll touch upon the other one as well.

Being gay or lesbian often has many misconceptions around it. Granted I know some people who say they are gay or lesbian just to recieve attention since the fail at life otherwise. However, I also know genuinely gay guys, one of which was my best friends for a long time (til he switched schools). He was no different around me than he was before he realized he was gay. According to him, it was around the 8th grade when he found out he rather talk about more intimate and personal matters with guys than girls, etc. but seriously, it's not like he consciencely decided "oh i shall be gay."

Third note: :spit_take <-- weirdest smiley evar.

[Rooster]

"#2) Lower your prices to the point where you're actually losing money."

This is incorrect. No creditor will let a business opperate at a loss if they can help it. However, lowering prices to the point where your competion is losing money is a ery real possibility. You have to remember, virtually no business is self-funding, and creditors are in business to make money as well.

[Jeffy-CanCon]

...remember the boston tea party?? no taxation without representation yada yada yada....they were being charged money by the government, in order to pay for things in GB.. then war ensues.
...


I feel I have to correct two common misconceptions in that statement.

(1) The taxes levied by Britain on the American colonies were not to pay for stuff in Britain. They were to cover the costs of defending and expanding the American colonies in the recently ended war with France.

(2) The tea thrown into Boston harbour in the Tea Party was actually duty-free, brought in by the East India Company with special permission, since the colonists preference for smuggled (untaxed) tea was costing them a fortune in lost sales.

[Albinonewt]

Everyone can squabble about pork-barrel, government regulation, and such, but if you really want to impact the budget

Pork Spending (http://www.cagw.org/site/DocServer/Pork_per_capita_2003.pdf?docID=321)


But we all know $10 billion a year is just squabbeling, and not important.

[Albinonewt]

And again (because it really bugs me) a tax cut during wartime? What kind of stupidity is that?

Since the cut GDP is rising at better then 3% and the stock market came within 50 points of 11,000.

But other than that the tax cut has been a bust. I can't believe the nerve of the President, giving Americans back their money and stimulating the economy. How dare he?

[SCpoloRicker]

uh-oh, newts here :)

/runsandhides

[Rooster]

"a tax cut during wartime? What kind of stupidity is that?"

Economic growth, job creation, and a re-election. Its too bad for you the king of flops couldn't think of such a good plan.