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.