I was perusing my E-mails and I came across one that I thought might make for an interesting discussion.

-----

How Long Do We Have ?


About the time our (America's) original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh , had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:

'A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a
permanent form of government.'

'A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters
discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public
treasury.'

'From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who
promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result
that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which
is always followed by a dictatorship.'
'The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning
of history, has been about 200 years'

'During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the
following sequence:

1. from bondage to spiritual faith;

2. from spiritual faith to great courage;

3. from courage to liberty;

4. from liberty to abundance;

5. from abundance to complacency;

6. from complacency to apathy;

7. from apathy to dependence;

8. From dependence back into bondage'


Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul,

Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000

Presidential election:

Number of States won by: Gore: 19 Bush: 29

Square miles of land won by: Gore: 580,000 Bush: 2,427,000

Population of counties won by: Gore: 127 million Bush: 143 million

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Gore: 13.2 Bush: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: 'In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won

was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country.

Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in

government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government

welfare...' Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the

'complacency and apathy' phase of Professor Tyler's definition of

democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having

reached the 'governmental dependency' phase.

-----

Debate.

 

Interesting.

I always found it fascinating that so many people believe our society to be the pinnacle of civilization, the ultimate, unchangeable stage of its evolution. To me, it's pretty clear that current world order has some 50 years max before its collapse; lack of oil and water alone, along with worldwide population boom, will make sure of that. And now, judging by this article, it seems even political theory has predicted the downward trend of the modern society.

Heh, the Romans of the 400's must have also looked at their orderly cities and well-organized armies and believed them to (still) be eternal and unbeatable. 50 years later, their world was in ruins. I guess you never see the fall of civilization until it hits you in the face.

 

It started off interesting, and degenerated into an Anti-liberal smear brain-fart. Those numbers are meaningless.

Know how I know?

Splitting it by counties? Counties don't all vote one way. And sorry but the South has much more land, and receives MUCH more tax benefits than the North. Guess who they voted for?

How about the rural urban land split? Cities voted for Gore, that's all these numbers tell me.

Have we become apathetic? Yes. Why? We aren't asked to sacrifice material goods, only freedom. That is why this administration is ruining this country.

Those people living in government provided housing, do you think they're ALL cheating the system? Some people have to face the fucking facts. Luck plays an INCREDIBLY large role in one's lot in life. Hard work can only go so far if bad shit just keeps happening. And one more thing, do you really think all those tenement dwellers bothered to vote? And yet, Gore still won the popular vote.

I am not a socialist. I am a libertarian; a socially-hyper-left economically-mid-right asshole who believes in a minor social safety net.


A ridiculous attempt at smearing the left.

 

The world has cycles. I don't see how this is big news.

Perhaps it'll be good that America collapses and the world follows. Perhaps, what we need is a few hundred years of dark so a new renaissance can begin.

 

I guess that's true. I hope it happens while I'm still alive. I can't wait to be old and complain to everyone how it was better in the old days...

I'd say I myself am somewhere between complacency and apathy. I'd say that means I'm a step ahead of the rest

But yeah, numbers are fun, until someone gets serious. Who can make this statistic look most anti-capitalistic?

 

Cycles in political development are inevitable.

At any one time, there is one school of thought, one system that dominates. In our time and country, that system is democracy/republicanism.

However, no system can prevail forever. The very existance of the system guarantees that there will be problems. If those problems cannot be resolved, then the very foundation of the system will be shaken. People will begin to speculate upon whether or not the current system is the best system.

Factions will form, and the political world will polarize. There will be a power struggle between factions, and the emerging victor determines the next system, be it socialism, dictatorship, or anarchy.

It is no surprise that people are predicting an imminent end to the United States. We have many problems today that certainly weren't present in such an extent decades ago: uneven distribution of wealth, a mess of a healthcare/wellfare system, a failing public education system, etc.

If the current system of democracy cannot resolve such issues, then the populace will become fed up at a certain point, and a shift to a new system will occur.

The only question now is when will it happen? 50 years? 100? More? Less?

Government policy in the coming decade or so will likely determine the expiration date of U.S. democracy.

 

This data ignores that rural states are more dependent on Federal money than cities are.

I can has bullshit call nao plees?!?!

Democracy is a terrible form of Government anyway. We need to return to being a Republic.

 

It seems that for the last 20ish years, America has already started a shift in who it has to represent it. Bush (4 year), Clinton (4 years), Clinton (re-elect 4 years), Bush (4 years), Bush (re-elect 4 years), ????.

This post got me thinking about the Pledge of Allegiance. "...and to the Republic for which it stands", when was the last time America was a Republic? Just curious about it. I will be the first to say that I am ignorant when it comes to Politics and all that comes with it. Though I am trying to rectify this ignorance.

*edit*
Shouldn't this thread be in the Politics forum?

 

Well, Republic in the more classical sense. You know, with no direct election of Senators, an electoral college where electors are encouraged to be unfaithful, etc.

It's been a good long while since then.

EDIT: As for quoting the pledge of alleigence, it also says we have "liberty and justice for all".

 

That's rule by the elite, which the Constitution was designed to be, and which I'm against.

 

All hail to the chimp!

 

Well of course you're against it. You and most ignorant Americans who clearly do not deserve the right to vote.

Without Google name:

The 9 SCOTUS Justices (and how they vote)

The President/Vicre President

Their respective Chiefs of Staff

Five major cabinet officers and what they do.

Both of your Senators

Your Representative (in the House)

Your State Represenative

Your State Senator

Your Governor (and his/her Lt. Governor)

Your States other Constitutional Officers.

* * *

And give me a rundown of every right enumerated within the US Constitution. If you can't do that bare minimum, you don't deserve the right to vote.

 

NIMBY!...err, Time.

Win, but I think that 'civilizations' as they are are too artificial and against human nature to be maintained forever. No form of government is flawless simply because humanity is flawed, and thus anything that involves it can never be perfect.

That said, I often believe we should all just be living in small towns or villages rather than cumbersome nation-states. People are too different to be clumped into groups of millions. No matter which way you look at it, someone gets shafted.

 

Rule by one class ---> Corruption + Oppression ---> Revolution

Clearly all an American has to do to "get rid of his ignorance" is to spend a minute googling your information.

 

And how many of them do? Or how many remember it? Or how many follow contemporary policy debates at a level where they actually understand the issues?

Answer: not too many.

Fewer than 20% can name a Supreme Court Justice, never mind all 9. And forget about their ideological affiliations.

As for your assertion that "rule by one class" will lead to corruption and oppression which will lead to revolution, I am afraid that I must laugh.

The natural extent of your argument is to make all equal. To do so means not just equal in opportunity, but equal in property, for those with more property an exert more will on the political process leading to corruption/oppression which will lead to revolution. I didn't have you pegged for a Communist, Belly, but I guess wonders never cease.

And as for ossification of the ruling sphere leading to revolution, Hegel would agree, however it is possible to put off that revolution indefinately by merely adding a tier or two or three or four (just keep going to total population minus 1) to the class structure.

The bottom line is this: if you can't recite from memory the information listed in my previous post and have a decent conversation about Government then you have no fucking business participating in it. If you don't like that then tough shit. I'm not sacrificing my liberties for your sake.

 

What is this? An oligarchy for intellectuals?

Sorry, but it's been tried (and failed) in the U.S.S.R. and the P.R.C.

I don't know about your opinion, but I don't think that the rights of some can be crushed and denied for the improvement of the whole. That contradicts the inherent defintion of "rights" and a "republic".


Sure, it'd be nice to have an informed, educated, and intelligent voting population. However, that's entirely implausible, especially in a large country. Unless we completely restructure the country to ensure that every voter is competent, it's not going to happen naturally.

Since that's impossible, I'd rather have a mediocre voting population than a twisted, repressed meritocracy (one that's much too capitalist for my tastes) that inevitably leads to corruption.

 

Beep. WRONG!

The USSR and the PRC were anti-Intellectual oligarchies. The USSR allowed intellectuals to speak -- but only if they agreed with it, the PRC had a little thing where they sent all of the intellectuals to "learn" from farmers.

And you call yourself a Communist? What the hell do you think Communism is? The forced redistribution of wealth infringing on the rights of some for the theoretical improvement of the whole.

No, it contradicts your assumed definition of "rights" and "republic". Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, and Schmitt (who despite being a Nazi was a damned good philosopher) would all disagree.

But what, pray tell, is your "definition" of those terms which we all supposedly have intuitive knowledge of.

Then that just sucks for the people who aren't currently fit to vote, doesn't it.

You have officially lost the right to complain about (and actually implicitly support) any Democratically elected leader and, as a default, support George Bush.

Congratulations.

 

But that doesn't refute the fact that initially, the society was structured to elevate intellectuals to an eminent position. Its failure shows that evidently, a pure meritocacy isn't viable because human nature dictates inevitable corruption.

Unless you argue that you have a group of people that's free from the constraints of human nature, a system like the one you advocate will end up badly, just like the USSR.

I admire the theory of Communism, but realize that it's realistically impossible.
And your version of Communism isn't exactly accurate either. Marx's original vision had a socialist goal. The necessary infringement of rights are property rights (i.e. those that are defined by a capitalist system), not human rights. What you're proposing in your absolute meritocracy is shutting out 99% of the populace from governing processes. If that isn't a total repression of natural rights, I don't know what it. Tyranny by a few is no better than tyranny by an individual (Conservative, anyone?)...



If fact, do you even realize what you're advocating? A government supporting survival of the fittest, where if you're intelligent enough, you can flourish, and if you aren't, then tough.

Hmm... what does that sound like? Perhaps capitalism, where it's every person for him/herself, regardless of the situation? Perhaps Conservatism, where the people at the top don't give a shit about the masses? Perhaps Bush?

Boohoo. Big loss, considering I can't vote anyways...

You're one to speak, aren't you?

 

That's the thing sweetie, it wasn't.

No failure (except of your straw man) therefore not a valid argument.

*sigh*

Question: What do you think Socialism is?

Answer: The forced redistribution of wealth for the benefit of the whole.

Again, your test does not work.

No, I'm giving them the possibility to get involved in the political process. If they choose not to get informed then they choose not to involve themselves. You claim to have faith in human beings to act rationally (see: your quoted segment below), let them demonstrate it.

Natural Rights are contigent on the ability to give consent. In order to give consent you must possess the faculties of reason and the ability to use it. Thus, we do not allow six year old children to vote for President. Similarly, we should not allow people to vote if they do not possess the necessary information to make an informed rational choice. If a football player chooses not to maintain his body and comes to camp weighing 600 pounds when he should instead weigh 240 (at most), do you put him in the starting line up? Hell no. You cut him.

I am well aware of what I am advocating Lyndon. Do not ever condescend to me in this way again. You, however, do not appear to be aware of what you are advocating, as evidenced by your numerous contradictions on the subject of what should be done for the "good of the whole".

I fail to see how my proposed system could do any worse then yours.

George Bush is neither a Conservative nor a Capitalist in the Smithian sense of the term. He has rejected the idea of a merit-based Government and is
anti-Intellectual in a way that would make Chairman Mao proud.

As for your description of Capitalism, it is an interesting one. However, a libertarian (civil) authoritarian (economic) system encounters the same problem: the war of "each against all" as Hobbes once put it. So again, I fail to see how my proposed system is any worse then yours.

Next please.

If you view it that way then you don't deserve the right in the first place.

Absolutely I'm one to speak. In my system a leader like our Dear Leader would never be elected.

EDIT: And on a separate note, I notice the term 'meritocracy' popping up a lot. This system isn't so much a meritocracy (as meritocracies imply a naturally significant division in ability from birth) as it is a punishment of those who make the conscious (or unconscious) choice to lack merit. Were it a meritocracy, we would not worry about the conflict of each against all, because the power differentials would make such a war impossible.

 

Yeah this phrase... don't use it ever again. It's like saying, "Because people are people, we do things this way" or "Because humans do things sometimes naturally, they will continue to do them". And if that isn't what you're meaning, then you're saying "Because humans are innately evil, they do these things", then I will ask you to define "evil" and then I will ask you how a newborn can do these "evil" things.

If what you mean is, "the society of my country produces people who behave this way" then you're on the right track. America does produce some shitty individuals.

To say communism or anarchy or any form of government doesn't work because of "human nature" is totally inane, because human nature really doesn't have any meaning. It's a flimsy word, so don't use it anymore, please.

If you HAVE to say human nature in your post, change it to, "the behavior of people born into shitty lives (this can mean a life where they are spoiled, coddled, or too free – not just one where they are abused or underprivileged) with shitty genes and a closed-mind" or, don't post at all.