Live-Wire Posted October 25, 2003 Report Posted October 25, 2003 Lord Thomas Babington Macaulay, 1857 A democracy cannot survive as a permanent form of government. It can last only until its citizens discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority (who vote) will vote for the candidates promising the greatest benefits from the public purse, with the result that a democracy will always collapse from loose fiscal policies, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest democratic nations has been 200 years. Each has been through the following sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith. From faith to great courage. From courage to liberty. From liberty to abundance. From abundance to complacency. From complacency to selfishness. From selfishness to apathy. From apathy to dependency. And from dependency back again into bondage.
Yupa Posted October 25, 2003 Report Posted October 25, 2003 way likely, but not necessarily ensured where'd you get that btw, live?
Bacchus Posted October 25, 2003 Report Posted October 25, 2003 I think this is outdated. Even if we wanted to, we couldn't vote ourselves say a high speed train, free cabled internet, and so on...we voted ouselves laws to prevent that and our form of government being representative, our politicians are supposedly acting on their own in our best interests. That sounded naive but there's also a set of laws and instances that have been put in place to minimize the effect of corruption, incompetence, initiate crime, etc. That's how it works here btw, i'm not sure about US. But if i got it right, US power house is divided in executive and legislative powers so even if the president wanted to give free cookies to every americans and beyond, the congress could vetoed, etc. Lord Babington speaks as if the human nature had been revealed to him in all its intricacies. His ideas on how human morality evolves in a democracy is poetry at best. his views are speculations based on salvaged small time ethics. from bondage to spiritual faith...where the heck does this comes from? from faith to great courage...courage is an effect of but is not restricted to faith...it could be from bondage to great courage, etc...
Yupa Posted October 25, 2003 Report Posted October 25, 2003 personally it seems obvious the US is at least in the second half of this process, but whatever
PoLiX Posted October 25, 2003 Report Posted October 25, 2003 From complacency to selfishness. this is where the US stands. People become more and more selfish everyday. Greedy little -*BAD WORD*-s who hold all the power because of their money and won't spare any. There is those who do, such as Bill Gates (if you live in washington, you'd know he gives a -*BAD WORD*- large amount to schools) and those who don't such as huge coorporate CEOs who think they are above the people.
madhaha Posted October 25, 2003 Report Posted October 25, 2003 Actually we're in the apathy stage. The the selfish stage has passed although we're picking up the debris after all the worldcom/enron style problems. The dotcom bubble has burst and slowly but surely the greedies have become more low key. We're now at the stage when we quite frankly don't give a -*BAD WORD*- about the government and how the country works. Next according to the list we'll become dependant on the government (were we ever independant from it?) and soon we'll all be enslaved. How postmodern
Fluffy White Bunny Posted October 25, 2003 Report Posted October 25, 2003 The United States has a system of checks and balances between the three branches of government. The executive branch (the president) has the power to veto whatever gets passed by the legislative branch (Congress-the democracy) while the judicial branch (the Supreme Court) also has the power to declare laws as uncons!@#$%^&*utional, and throw them out. As you can see, it would be nearly impossible for the citizens to simply "vote themselves largesse from the public treasury." This form of government has been in place for 222 years, and I doubt it will fall anytime in the near future.
Bacchus Posted October 25, 2003 Report Posted October 25, 2003 Anyway, moral complacency, greed, selfishness, individualism, etc. are a product of human behavior not of political systems. I agree with all that'S being said about nowaday people's "moral stance", but the same things could probabbly be said were we to live in a monarchy...
Live-Wire Posted October 26, 2003 Author Report Posted October 26, 2003 From that moment on, the majority (who vote) will vote for the candidates promising the greatest benefits from the public purse, with the result that a democracy will always collapse from loose fiscal policies, always followed by a dictatorship. You could argue that George W. won because he promised tax cuts, largest to the people who voted the most. It certainly promoted loose fiscal policy - the budget is a mess. You guys are being a little naive about the checks and balances system. If 51% of americans want free cookies, and are willing to vote for the candidate that promises them free cookies, Congress and the Presidency will fill up with politicians trying to capture the cookie-vote. No one is going to veto it. But you're right in a sense, that the Cons!@#$%^&*ution has stood the test of time. It seems odd, when you think about it, that we place more faith in a do-*BAD WORD*-ent written by people over 200 years ago than we do in the politicians that lead us. But I attribute this to the brilliance of the country's founders - we had some incredibly intelligent men set up our system of government, and regardless of how much your highschool history teacher might want you to abstract things, it certainly played a role. Anyway, I'm straying from my point. Much like a poverty trap, I think the U.S. has reached a prosperity trap. Realists suggest that the most stable form of international power is one megapower, who knocks the other powers down when they try to p!@#$%^&* them in power. But by Macauley's democracy-o-meter, we're somewhere in the complacency-selfishness-apathy-dependency stage. Certainly the U.S. has become complacent since the end of the Cold War -- nothing threatens us. Occasional problems arise, but they are temporary. The warmongering at!@#$%^&*ude following 9/11 has largely subsided. Selfishness we may or may not have reached ... because we're most likely both selfish and apathetic, and I'm sure these steps can all mix themselves up. Mmm... I'm starting to babble because I'm tired.
Fluffy White Bunny Posted October 26, 2003 Report Posted October 26, 2003 You guys are being a little naive about the checks and balances system. If 51% of americans want free cookies, and are willing to vote for the candidate that promises them free cookies, Congress and the Presidency will fill up with politicians trying to capture the cookie-vote. No one is going to veto it. Whether he promises it or not, the president cannot just simply say "free cookies for everyone" and poof, its done....keep in mind that there are 538 congressmen that would have to agree with the president by at least a 2/3 vote. It is already difficult enough for relatively legit bills to be passed, so something that would clearly hurt the country wouldn't have a chance of passing at all. And if someone were to run for congress or president and promise "free cookies", then if their opponent wasn't an idiot he would ask them where those free cookies would come from and how are they not going to hurt the economy, and he better have a good response to that or people aren't going to go for it.
Live-Wire Posted October 26, 2003 Author Report Posted October 26, 2003 Uh.... no.... you're just blatantly wrong. Bush said "free cookies" and there were free cookies. Thats the whole point.
Fluffy White Bunny Posted October 26, 2003 Report Posted October 26, 2003 He said tax cuts in hope of stimulating the economy. There was arguably good reason behind it. Congress agreed with him. If the economy gets even worse than it was before, and he tries to have tax cuts again, I doubt Congress would let it pass
MonteZuma Posted October 26, 2003 Report Posted October 26, 2003 From complacency to selfishness. this is where the US stands.Well, I don't agree with the 'steps' but if I did I would have to agree. The US is at this point and most of the rest of the western world is quickly catching up.
MonteZuma Posted October 26, 2003 Report Posted October 26, 2003 Lord Thomas Babington Macaulay, 1857 A democracy cannot survive as a permanent form of government. It can last only until its citizens discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. This smacks of Commons Theory. Fortunately we don't live in a perfect democracy. Educated people are sensible enough to at least consider issues in the long-term and don't insist that their governments raid the treasury. Indicators like inflation and unemployment quickly highlight bad fiscal policy. Monte.
»nintendo64 Posted October 27, 2003 Report Posted October 27, 2003 Democracy in its purest form becomes anarchy and Democracy in it's impurest form becomes Dictatorship, we can't have total democracy or lack of it, but moderate enough so that the citizens can say what they think and want, and have a vote so at least most of the citizens will be satisfied. I believe representative democracy it's the best, but i've heard Australia has the best use of democracy, maybe monte wants to explain how the goverment in his country deals with democracy. -nintendo64
MonteZuma Posted October 27, 2003 Report Posted October 27, 2003 Basically we have 2 houses, a lower house that makes laws and an upper house that approves them. This is similar to US and UK systems of government. We have a parliamentary system, which basically means that the nation is run by the party with the most support in the lower house- rather than an individual (ie no president). Theoretically the Queen of Australia (who is also the British Monarch) is the head of state and her approval must be given before any law can come into effect. Her representative in Australia is the Governor General. By convention, the queen always takes the advice of the GG, and the GG always takes the advice of the government (except in very exceptional cir-*BAD WORD*-stances). So in effect, the parliament is the head of state. The Prime Minister has power only because his party allows him too - he is a party representative. The PM is not even mention in the Australian cons!@#$%^&*ution. Because of the different ways the two houses are elected, the government can only have free reign to make laws if it has a substantial majority amongst a big cross section of Australians (The upper house is skewed such that smaller states have the same representation in the upper house as bigger states - and also such that minor parties or 'independents' have a greater chance of entering office). This wide spread of power is a great !@#$%^&*et IMO. An important feature of the Australian system is complusory voting. About 95% of enrolled voters turn up on any given election day. This means that our government is more representative than in other nations and this has had a big impact IMHO in making the government work harder to appeal to the ordinary citizen. The system has flaws - but in effect works very well and equitably. It is the mostest elitest system. So neener - my government is better than yours Monte.
madhaha Posted October 27, 2003 Report Posted October 27, 2003 Elitist systems aren't bad so long as you're one of the elite.
MonteZuma Posted October 28, 2003 Report Posted October 28, 2003 Elitist systems aren't bad so long as you're one of the elite.Nice. No-one up for a 'my country is better than yours' pissing contest? SIGH.
Fluffy White Bunny Posted October 28, 2003 Report Posted October 28, 2003 lol. Maybe try posting something in trash talk?
MonteZuma Posted October 28, 2003 Report Posted October 28, 2003 lol. Maybe try posting something in trash talk?Good idea!
Silk Posted October 28, 2003 Report Posted October 28, 2003 Democracy in its purest form becomes anarchy There is no such thing as anarchy.
Aileron Posted October 28, 2003 Report Posted October 28, 2003 First off, let me point out that this guy was a noble in the ninetenth century. He had a very vested interest in bashing democracy, even if it was a little late. Secondly, note that democracy doesn't exist, republics exist. That creates slight differences that increase the life span. Third, I would like to point out that not all Americans are Bill Gates, and Bill Gates didn't do nothing to nobody except his compe!@#$%^&*ors. Even that was in a fair manner except were he has violated anti-trust laws, which he has already been punished for btw. Basically, Enron was greedy, Microsoft was merely successful. That said, I think that his statements were based on historic examples where they did not exist. How many democracies were there before 1857? Not many. However, the reason that republics work so well has nothing to do with the citizens putting people into power. What makes them good is that the citizens (or at least somebody) has a legal means to take people out of power. Prior to 1857, most democracies were positions in which a person was elected and he then ruled for life. This didn't work well because when someone was put in office, you couldn't get rid of him. This doesn't refute Macaulay's point though. His arguement is that democracy is no good because groups will try to get the government to serve their good before the common good. First off, in most cir-*BAD WORD*-stances a government should cater to its people. What he is referring to in reality is when the interests of the country conflict with what is popular. Yes, in this cir-*BAD WORD*-stances, any other system works better. However, first off note that this type of cir-*BAD WORD*-stance is rare. Secondly, note that a republic is not cripled. The leader, knowing what is in the best interest of his country, can try to persuade the citizens. He could also simply go against their wishes at the cost of his career. Overall, my point is that there are options open to republics, which democracies do not have, that can prevent this situation from happening.
»nintendo64 Posted October 28, 2003 Report Posted October 28, 2003 Silk, explain why not. -nintendo64
Silk Posted October 28, 2003 Report Posted October 28, 2003 You can never have absence of government. It will always be there in some form, someone taking charge.
»nintendo64 Posted October 28, 2003 Report Posted October 28, 2003 In Anarchy everyone is their own goverment, you rule yourself, you make your own laws. -nintendo64
Recommended Posts