On Democracy

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

This is one of my favorite quotes. It was written by Alexander Tyler, who was writing about the fall of the Athenian Republic...

"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 treasure. 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."

Thoughts? Comments? Do you agree with Tyler's assessment, and if so, where would you put the US on his slippery slope?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,060 • Replies: 34

No top replies

Well, my knowledge of classical Greek history is very small.

Does your question mean, you want to compare a republic, which existed about 2.500 years ago, with the USA?

0 Replies

Re: On Democracy

Scrat wrote:

This is one of my favorite quotes. It was written by Alexander Tyler, who was writing about the fall of the Athenian Republic...

I'd like to offer a more contemporary version (let's call it the "Enron version"):

Capitalism cannot exist as a permanent form of economic system. It can only exist until the capitalists discover that they can steal for themselves what others choose to earn. From that moment on the majority always maintains the appearance of capitalism while practicing a form of kleptocracy, with the result that capitalism always collapses due to graft, avarice, and a rapacious plundering of the suckers who still desperately cling to the false hope that capitalism somehow "works."

0 Replies

Heeheeheeheeheeheehee . . .

Great paraphrase, there, Joe . . . i don't know if you've met our Scrat yet or not, he's our version of Eris.

0 Replies

Re: On Democracy

Scrat wrote:

This is one of my favorite quotes. It was written by Alexander Tyler, who was writing about the fall of the Athenian Republic...

"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 treasure. 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."

If Tyler were here, I would ask:

Name three fallen democracies where it can be conclusively shown that they became dictatorships as a result of people in the democracy voting themselves money from the public treasury.

I would also ask: Are you sure that ALWAYS happens?

Quote:

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."

Well, it seems to me that the average age of the world's great civilizations really cannot be determined unless the phrase "great civilizations" has been defined.

If Tyler were here, I would ask:

Did you include the great civilizations of Egypt, China, India, the Incan and Myans and other the indiginous civilizations of the New World -- or did you simply make up this statistic.

It is, after all, a well known fact that 87.6% of all statistics are made up right on the spot.

Unfortuantely, Tyler is not here. But since Scat considers this one of her favorite quotes, I guess I am left to pose my questions to her.

What say Scrat, any answers?

0 Replies

Re: On Democracy
Joe - I suspect you've got your terms crossed; it isn't capitalism wherein the fruits of one man's labor are confiscated for others, that's socialism. Enron is no more a gauge of the relative value of capitalism as a system than is John Geoghan representative of the value of Catholicism.

All systems can be corrupted. All it takes is corrupt individuals.

I'll leave you with another favorite quote of mine (feel free to miss the point on this one too):

Ayn Rand wrote:

America's abundance was created not by public sacrifices to 'the common good,' but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes. They did not starve the people to pay for America's industrialization. They gave the people better jobs, higher wages and cheaper goods with every new machine they invented, with every scientific discovery or technological advance -- and thus the whole country was moving forward and profiting, not suffering, every step of the way.

0 Replies

Re: On Democracy

Scrat wrote:

Joe - I suspect you've got your terms crossed; it isn't capitalism wherein the fruits of one man's labor are confiscated for others, that's socialism.

I quite agree that capitalism cannot work as a system if everyone were a thief. It only works if some capitalists are thieves. It's actually a classic free rider dilemma: illegal music downloading, for instance, can only exist if most people are not engaged in illegally downloading music. Similarly, large-scale theft can only exist if most people are not large-scale thieves.

Scrat wrote:

Enron is no more a gauge of the relative value of capitalism as a system than is John Geoghan representative of the value of Catholicism.

No comparison. Geoghan was acting directly contrary to the tenets of the organization of which he was a part. Enron, in contrast, did exactly what any other enterprise in a capitalist system is expected to do -- and was richly rewarded for doing it. It just carried things a bit too far.

Scrat wrote:

All systems can be corrupted. All it takes is corrupt individuals.

But certainly you'd agree that certain types of corruption are specific to certain types of systems. After all, that's the whole point of the Tyler piece, isn't it?

Scrat wrote:

I'll leave you with another favorite quote of mine (feel free to miss the point on this one too):

I will do my best.

Ayn Rand wrote:

America's abundance was created not by public sacrifices to 'the common good,' but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes. They did not starve the people to pay for America's industrialization. They gave the people better jobs, higher wages and cheaper goods with every new machine they invented, with every scientific discovery or technological advance -- and thus the whole country was moving forward and profiting, not suffering, every step of the way.

Yay, America!!! We're number one! We're number one!

Poppycock.

0 Replies

I rather suspected Scrat would not respond to my questions.

She doesn't speak to me.

When others have brought this particular quote to threads, I asked them the same questions -- and never got an answer there either.

QUESTION 1:

Can anyone name three fallen democracies where it can be conclusively shown that they became dictatorships as a result of people in the democracy voting themselves money from the public treasury?

(Something else weird about this is that Scrat constantly beats the conservative drum -- but the people who put the heaviest touch on the public treasury are the darlings of the conservatives. The people liberals concern themselves with are usually pikers at raiding the treasury when compared with them. And the former are more dependable voters than the latter. Could Scrat be accusing the conservatives of subverting democracy. Nah! She wouldn't do that.)

QUESTION 2:

Well, it seems to me that the average age of the world's great civilizations really cannot be determined unless the phrase "great civilizations" has been defined.

If Tyler were here, I would ask:

Did you include the great civilizations of Egypt, China, India, the Incan and Myans and other the indiginous civilizations of the New World -- or did you simply make up this statistic?

How about it? Anyone?

Seems to me these questions are important to a discussion of this topic.

0 Replies

Is there a democracy that has lasted over two hundred years? Hmm, let me think? Actually, maybe it should be bemoaned that the Spartan republic did not last because that is the one our "democracy" is patterned after. And what is Sparta's claim to fame?

0 Replies

Re: On Democracy
Joe - I've finally come back to read your comments, and have a few follow-ons of my own...

First, the notion that capitalism at its core is theft is hogwash. Capitalism is not the confiscation of wealth, but the creation thereof. Socialists love to pretend that capitalism is a system where a few robber barons confiscated the wealth of "the people", as if wealth preexists human effort. Men create wealth, and those who do it well, enrich themselves and others. The Ayn Rand quote is dead on.

If the folks at Enron had been just doing the same as everyone, there would not have been a scandal. They were breaking laws, defrauding people. That's not capitalism, it's crimes against capitalism. That's why the Geoghan comparison is valid; Geoghan wasn't playing by the Catholic rulebook, and Enron wasn't playing by the capitalist rulebook. You seem to assume that capitalism is amoral. It is not. Socialism is amoral. Socialism tells you what you can have and can not. Capitalism gives you the power to make that decision for yourself.

The Tyler quote is not indicating a type of corruption to which democracies are prone, it is pointing out that a democracy is a flawed system. It is not corruption that leads to its downfall, but the democracy itself. It isn't a corruption of a bomb that makes it blow up. Bombs blow up; democracies fall apart.

Societies must have a cohesive set of laws that are above damage by the will of the people--a constitution. Democracies lack these. While I am disappointed at the willingness of our government and our people to ignore the Constitution--and believe that we do so to our peril--at least we have one. Hopefully our country won't have to fall apart before people realize we have one for a reason, and force our government to obey that document in all ways. Otherwise, I think we are slowly but surely slipping towards a more democratic--and more flawed--system of government.

0 Replies

There is a great deal of solemn cant about the common interests of capital and labor. As matters stand, their only common interest is that of cutting each other's throat.

0 Replies

None of this really matters unless the basic premises of the initial contention can be shown to actually exist.

I say this is a classic strawman situation -- and I think Scrat realizes that. Once again I ask the questions pertinent to determining whether it is or not.

Tyler alleges:

Quote:

...with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship...

Can anyone name three fallen democracies where it can be conclusively shown that they became dictatorships as a result of people in the democracy voting themselves money from the public treasury?

Tyler alleges

Quote:

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.

Were the great civilizations of Egypt, China, India, the Incan and Mayans and other the indigenous civilizations of the New World included here -- or was this statistic simply made up?

0 Replies

all information included which fits the premise.

0 Replies

Marx was one of those that made "Capitalism" a dirty word------can't we call it "Private Enerprize" instead?

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

There is a great deal of solemn cant about the common interests of capital and labor. As matters stand, their only common interest is that of cutting each other's throat.

If you mean to suggest that capitalism requires striking a balance between these interests, then I agree; and would amplify your comment by stating that finding this balance is precisely the interest that capital and labor share.

0 Replies

Re: On Democracy

Scrat wrote:

First, the notion that capitalism at its core is theft is hogwash.

I never said that it was.

Scrat wrote:

Capitalism is not the confiscation of wealth, but the creation thereof.

No it isn't. Capitalism is a system whereby wealth may be created. The system itself, however, neither creates nor destroys wealth.

Scrat wrote:

Socialists love to pretend that capitalism is a system where a few robber barons confiscated the wealth of "the people", as if wealth preexists human effort. Men create wealth, and those who do it well, enrich themselves and others. The Ayn Rand quote is dead on.

This is a bigger topic than the one you started with, so I'll leave it alone. If you want to discuss the whole issue of socialism vs. capitalism, I suggest you start a thread in the philosophy forum.

Scrat wrote:

If the folks at Enron had been just doing the same as everyone, there would not have been a scandal. They were breaking laws, defrauding people.

Well, that's pretty much what everyone else was doing.

Scrat wrote:

That's not capitalism, it's crimes against capitalism. That's why the Geoghan comparison is valid; Geoghan wasn't playing by the Catholic rulebook, and Enron wasn't playing by the capitalist rulebook.

Quite the contrary. Capitalism, pur et simple, follows only its own internal logic. On that basis, Enron was merely doing what any capitalist would do. If there is an overlay of laws on top of a capitalist structure, it simply means that Enron was violating the laws -- it wasn't, on the other hand, violating the rules of capitalism.

Scrat wrote:

You seem to assume that capitalism is amoral.

I don't assume that. I know that. But if you believe that there is a "capitalist morality" out there somewhere, Scrat, perhaps you could point out one or two of its fundamental tenets.

Scrat wrote:

Socialism is amoral. Socialism tells you what you can have and can not. Capitalism gives you the power to make that decision for yourself.

I believe socialism is as amoral as capitalism.

Scrat wrote:

The Tyler quote is not indicating a type of corruption to which democracies are prone, it is pointing out that a democracy is a flawed system.

This is simply unbelievable. Tyler held (if the quotation can accurately reflect his position) that democracies alone are prone to instability due to the nature of the democratic process. He didn't say "all governments fall when the people learn they can vote themselves money out of the public treasury." He specifically pointed to democracies as subject to this particular evil because only democracies permitted the people to vote at all.

Scrat wrote:

It is not corruption that leads to its downfall, but the democracy itself. It isn't a corruption of a bomb that makes it blow up. Bombs blow up; democracies fall apart.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. However, if Tyler is right, then you should have no trouble in responding to Frank's request by identifying even one democracy that fell victim to the type of process that Tyler described.

Scrat wrote:

Societies must have a cohesive set of laws that are above damage by the will of the people--a constitution. Democracies lack these.

Really? Are you talking about "pure" democracies, in an Aristotelian sense? Or would you include "mixed" democracies in that statement?

Scrat wrote:

While I am disappointed at the willingness of our government and our people to ignore the Constitution--and believe that we do so to our peril--at least we have one. Hopefully our country won't have to fall apart before people realize we have one for a reason, and force our government to obey that document in all ways. Otherwise, I think we are slowly but surely slipping towards a more democratic--and more flawed--system of government.

Oh well, just one more thing to worry about.

0 Replies

You know, Tyler's silliness and this thread are interesting in juxtaposition to the thread which alleges that the Democrats are a threat to democracy. I wonder, does the true conservative (such as Scrat) opposed real democracy, or does the the true conservative (such as McGentrix) idealize real democracy. Interesting dichotomy in action by viewing both threads.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

You know, Tyler's silliness and this thread are interesting in juxtaposition to the thread which alleges that the Democrats are a threat to democracy. I wonder, does the true conservative (such as Scrat) opposed real democracy, or does the the true conservative (such as McGentrix) idealize real democracy. Interesting dichotomy in action by viewing both threads.

1) I am not a "true conservative". (I've certainly never claimed to be.) I consider myself a libertarian/constitutionalist.

2) I do not consider Democrats a threat to democracy, I consider any effort to make our nation more democratic and less guided by its Constitution a threat to our nation.

3) I doubt that you have accurately represented McGentrix's position. My suspicion is that he (like most people today) is using the term "democracy" to refer to our intended system of government. This misuse of the term is so prevalent that its really only sticklers like me that even make the point anymore. The term "democracy" has come to be used to describe a form of government where citizens elect their representatives and where the limits of government and rights of citizens are delineated in a constitution or other document or documents. This is why you here Bush talking about seeking a democratic government for Iraq. He does not mean a true democracy; neither does McGentrix mean (I suspect) that Democrats are a threat to true democracy in America. (Perhaps he will join us and settle the question.)

0 Replies

I believe that it was Aristotle that said a democracy is a government in the hands of men of low birth, no property, and vulgar employments while H.L. Mencken remarked that under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule-both commonly succeed and are right.

0 Replies

"The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods."[H. L. Mencken]

0 Replies

On Democracy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know