Arnold in the statehouse? Liberal Republicans?

Well, it didnt really help your case that you didnt answer two quite immediately pertinent questions that came up regarding the underlying assumptions of the Tyler quote ...

Well, since you bring it up, one of the questions you mention was asked by someone to whom I do not reply. Period. The other question--how many societies have outlasted the 200 year mark--seems pointless to the discussion (to me anyway) and does not interest me, so I did not answer.

Just curious, but do you answer every question someone asks you in every discussion? If not, why?

I try to - as I'm showing now ;-). Its what gets me into trouble ... it costs so much time, and half the time they're not really interested in the answer anyway. But then I dont do it for them - I do it to doublecheck my own argument and info, and make sure that at least my effort was sound.

Your Tyler quote based an analysis - "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government", with added description of the suggested cycle of development - on quite some assumptions.

The description of the cycle rested on the assumption that "the world's great civilizations" do indeed have a lifespan of about "two hundred years".

The assertion that "a democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government" rests on the hypthesis "that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship" - which in turn rests on the assumption that when "the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure", the majority of them will "always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury".

If these assumptions are not right, the analysis about doomed democracies is no more than gratuitous opinion. So I thought it was very legitimate of Frank Apisa to ask about the historical record these hypotheses and assumptions are supposedly based on.

Whats a great civilisation? Whats the 200 years claim based on? How many historic examples can you mention of democracies collapsing and making way for dictatorship because of the electorate voting itself money from the public treasury? Enough examples to warrant the claim of it "always" happening? And, to add a question of my own, can one really validate the claim that voters will always end up voting for the candidates who promise them the most money? It seems not - "fiscal responsibility" has proven quite the vote-getter, as a slogan, these past decades after all.

You see - if all those questions remain unanswered, the quote is left looking like mere posturing - a theory based on random, un-validatable claims.

nimh - I like the quote. I really don't care whether it is hard scientific fact. You seem to wish to argue that if I can't prove every element of his claim is an absolute fact, we can find no value in the words. I disagree. I did not offer it as a fact, I offered it as a point of view.

Of course, it is perfectly valid for you (or anyone) to question the supporting assertions Tyler makes. Go for it. But I'm not interested in where you want to go. Want to discuss whether or not it is good for the people to be able to vote themselves the fruits of other men's labor? Want to discuss what makes a Constitutional Republic a far stronger beast that is less likely to tear itself apart than is a democracy? Groovy. Want to debate whether there is an agenda behind the modern move towards constantly referring to our government as a "democracy", when it is not one? Those are discussions I'd like to have, and for which I thought Tyler's quote provided decent starter fuel.

Thats fine, but if it was a mere point of view Tyler had wanted to propose he would have done better to do exactly that, instead of claiming to be articulating a series of well-established historical truths. Of course, I dont know where the quote's from or what else he wrote to underpin it. But as it stands, its not me who brought "absolute fact" into this, its Tyler, saying stuff like, "From that moment on the majority always votes for ..", "with the result that a democracy always collapses over ..", "The average age of the world's great civilizations has been ..", "These nations have progressed through the following sequence: ..". The entire quote is, in fact, one stringing together of claims to "absolute fact" - and you used it without the apparent willingness to back any of them up.

So no, I dont wish to argue that if we "can't prove every element of someone's claim is an absolute fact, we can find no value in his words", but yes, if not a single of the suggested claims in a hypothesis can be backed up with fact or concrete examples, its basically poppycock.

Also, if we're talking A2K discourse ... (and thats what I was doing here) ... way I see it, you want to discuss "what it means" if what Tyler wrote is true. Other posters, pointing out that none of Tyler's claims appear to be rooted in facts, argue that what he writes is not true. That doesnt mean that they "havent even stopped to consider its meaning", as you wrote - I'd say their criticism of the quote shows they've actually paid quite close attention - they just dont think it implies what you think it does.

And that should have been fine - you asked, after all, "Do you agree with Tyler's assessment, and if so, where would you put the US on his slippery slope?" - and they answered, "no, we dont agree, for this and that reason". No use to insist they discuss where on the slippery slope the US is - and then claim that if they dont, they apparently "havent stopped" to think about it - because they did, and decided there was no slippery slope.

The example kind of epitomises something I get pretty annoyed about (not just with you), which is probably why I go on about it so. I have the same problem with your submissions above. I mean, when you write:



That to me sounds like the only "discussions you'd like to have" are the ones where the participants a priori agree with you about the basic tenets of your hypotheses. For what if I dont think "a Constitutional Republic is a far stronger beast"? Or that, regardless of whether I want more or less taxes, its not a question of "people voting themselves the fruits of other men's labor"? Would that mean I "havent even stopped to consider" the meaning of your theses? Would you "not want to go there"?

So - thats my problem with that - just the way you phrase these questions alone already precludes an open discussion. Its like me saying (and I wouldnt, by the way), "Want to discuss the way the Iraq war was all about oil? The meaning of the usurpation of the people's democratic right to elect its leaders by the Supreme Court? Those are discussions I'd like to have." (If those examples make you bristle, I think you are right).

<thinks>

Actually ...

I guess that would be the rationale behind forums like PUP and the Roundtable, no? If you want to discuss a question within the parameters of collective agreement about its basic tenets, you should opt for some kind of forum of like-minded people. Its no use to bash liberal posters over the head about their refusal to discuss "the failure of liberalism" or the like. So ... yeh <nods> - if you ask such questions on the Roundtable henceforth, instead, youd save yourself needless annoyance and I'd have no right to bitch anymore, I guess. (Unless you get some kind of kick out of proving that "the liberals dont want to discuss the issues", of course.)

And then on the main board we can go back to discussing questions like, "Which is the stronger beast, a Constitutional Republic or a democracy?", or: "Taxes - confiscating the fruits of other men's labor or a question of community responsibility?" <grins>

<phew>

Sorry for going on so long about whats really quite a minor (or a meta-) point ..

nimh - No, I don't want to discuss what it means if it is true. Whether you think it is true would be an interesting discussion, and yes, you might choose to disprove him point-by-point if you believe it is not. Fine by me, but asking me to prove his points, point-by-point, as was done, is a non-starter. Again, this isn't a "I'm right and you're wrong" nuance for me, just a matter of what we wish to spend our time doing.

Oh, and the Tyler quote is over 100 years old, so it is possible that some of his claims were true then and are not today. (?)

As expected, the 9th Circus Court has just unanimously reversed itself, directing the election to proceed as scheduled. The whiners will no doubt run whining to The Supremes, but I imagine they'll find that door slammed in their faces. The Democrats are gonna have to learn to live with the decisions of the electorate, not run to the courts for redress of their own failure to engage the electorate.

Doubt it - he talked of how its "always" been in history, after all.

What is true is that people were, I think, more used (and more tolerant) to that style of sweeping statements of "fact" back then. People (voters, readers) seem to be less patient with that now, more likely to apply/require greater scrutiny, specification.

Wire Services are saying ACLU will not appeal.

They likely realize they've been beaten for now, but they're an indefatigable sort. They'll be back.

FYI: The word "history", when used 100 years ago, referred to events that had occured up until then; not beyond. The word "future" would have been used to reference events between then and now.

Yep. I'd gotten that. So?

Well you'd never know it from your comments.

This thread contains the first semblances of a lowering of the standards we will maintain at The Roundtable.

Members not recieving a personal message regarding this notice; please excuse this interruption.

Respectfully,

Sofia

Well, low, high, or wide, a few of the recent shots have missed the point. That usually happens when folks start talkin' AT one another as opposed to talking WITH one another. When that happens, the conversations generally go right on PAST one another.

Phoenix32890
Give them Hell Harry was not what one could consider great success in business however, in my opinion had a successful presidency. Bush was a failure in business and is a _______as president. You can fill in the blank. If you want to be a successful politician you must understand and know how to play the game.