How long does America have?

[windoor]

How Long Does America Have?

"About the time our 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"



If true, where would you say we are now?

Regards,

Windoor

[LottaKash]

.

= 7=

.

[Shemp Howard]

6.5

[sammy the sage]

12/21/12

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by LottaKash

.

= 7=

.

You know...I was thinking the same thing! I was waffling between 6 and 7, but after some reflection decided on 7! Great minds think alike.

Boxcar

[menifee]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You know...I was thinking the same thing! I was waffling between 6 and 7, but after some reflection decided on 7! Great minds think alike.

Boxcar

I don't accept this premise, but if we are going to play the game we're at a 4. People need to have some perspective. Please look at this chart.

http://visualizingeconomics.com/2011...ita-1871-2009/

[Tom]

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by menifee

I don't accept this premise, but if we are going to play the game we're at a 4. People need to have some perspective. Please look at this chart.

http://visualizingeconomics.com/2011...ita-1871-2009/

And your perspective is very one-dimensional. For starters, are you aware that the GDP is not a measurement of the standard of living in an economy?

Boxcar

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by windoor

How Long Does America Have?

"About the time our 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"



If true, where would you say we are now?

Regards,

Windoor

To start off the Scottish professor of history was Alexander Tytler not Alexander TYler. Second, there is no record that Tytler wrote "The Fall of the Athenian Republic" or "The Decline and Fall of The Athenian Republic," which were the supposed source of the above quote.

The origins of the above are in dispute, but they are unlikely to be from Professor Tytler. In fact they most likely originate in the twentieth century rather than the eighteenth.
http://www.lorencollins.net/tytler.html

Whoever made the statement, their premise is faulty. In a democracy people vote for their leaders. Every one votes for the leaders they think will best serve their interests. The guy that works at the Seven-Eleven does it. The guy who runs GM does it. The Senior Citizen does it. The College graduate does it. But most people also vote based on what is best for the country as a whole. Most people do not vote based on what the government is going to give them personally. They vote based on what policies will best help them to help themselves.

Every form of government is temporary. Why is it deemed correct to say that a democracy has within it the seeds of its own destruction and not say the same about a dictatorship. Should we cease to strive for democracy because some time in the future it may fail. Can we not also say that a dictatorship must ultimately fail because it does not have the backing of its citizens.

The American democracy has lasted 225 years. The Soviet dictatorship lasted seventy years. The Nazi dictatorship lasted less than twenty years. Democracy in Great Britain predates ours by centuries.
The Soviet dictatorship was not preceded by a democracy which had grown soft and self indulgent. It was preceded by monarchy which had become oppressive and tyrannical. The Nazi dictatorship followed a democracy, but one which was very weak and not capable of governing.

Both forms came to power not through democratic means, but through a combination of deceit and violence.

[LottaKash]

Originally Posted by mostpost

ToBoth forms came to power not through democratic means, but through a combination of deceit and violence.

Well "rationalizer boy", we've got the first part out of the way.....Gee, I wonder what comes next...?

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by mostpost

Should we cease to strive for democracy because some time in the future it may fail.

Since you picked on the poster for omitting a letter from the alleged author's name, I'm going to be a prick and ask if this sentence is missing a swirly thing over the period to label it a question. (?)

Come on. Is that really what you got out of this? That the author (whoever it is and from whatever century is comes from) and/or poster think that democracy is a poor idea?

Maybe I'm the dummy, but the point I see made here is that democracy exposes the stubbornness of man's shortsightedness in governing and in being governed. The problem lay not with the system itself, but in man's unwillingness to learn from history and recognize the symptoms of inevitable failure regardless of how clearly the "disease" can be staged.

[menifee]

Originally Posted by boxcar

And your perspective is very one-dimensional. For starters, are you aware that the GDP is not a measurement of the standard of living in an economy?

Boxcar

Choose whatever metric you want. The average standard of living for an American in 2012 is far higher than it was in 1912 and much higher than in 1812. Do you believe it is not?

[LottaKash]

Originally Posted by menifee

Choose whatever metric you want. The average standard of living for an American in 2012 is far higher than it was in 1912 and much higher than in 1812. Do you believe it is not?

So, pick a number..... Just for the fun of it....

best,

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by johnhannibalsmith

Since you picked on the poster for omitting a letter from the alleged author's name, I'm going to be a prick and ask if this sentence is missing a swirly thing over the period to label it a question. (?)

Come on. Is that really what you got out of this? That the author (whoever it is and from whatever century is comes from) and/or poster think that democracy is a poor idea?

Maybe I'm the dummy, but the point I see made here is that democracy exposes the stubbornness of man's shortsightedness in governing and in being governed. The problem lay not with the system itself, but in man's unwillingness to learn from history and recognize the symptoms of inevitable failure regardless of how clearly the "disease" can be staged.

I didn't pick on anybody. The letter was missing from the original attribution, but the important thing is that Professor Tytler did not write the manuscript attributed to him and most likely did not make the statement.

I think that the willingness of conservatives on this board to embrace this idea gives proof of their innate pessimism and distrust of their fellow human beings. Your pal Boxcar rails on the evil and corruption of his fellow human beings almost daily. I have rarely heard a conservative on this board consider that a person might do the right thing rather than the profitable thing.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by mostpost

I didn't pick on anybody. The letter was missing from the original attribution, but the important thing is that Professor Tytler did not write the manuscript attributed to him and most likely did not make the statement.

I think that the willingness of conservatives on this board to embrace this idea gives proof of their innate pessimism and distrust of their fellow human beings. Your pal Boxcar rails on the evil and corruption of his fellow human beings almost daily. I have rarely heard a conservative on this board consider that a person might do the right thing rather than the profitable thing.

I was just teasing you about the question mark. You're such a pessimist.