Any comment on this quote?

[Bartok]

It is from the 18th century Scottish historian Alexander Tyler, who was discussing ancient Athenian history but in the context of his day was widely understood to be predicting a sticky end about now for the infant American state:

"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."

[Brian]

Originally Posted by Dixie Chicken

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."

So the US is probably at selfish moving to complacent and we're at apathy moving to dependency.

Sounds depressingly correct
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[hibadelic]

The first part of the quote was a pretty bold statement to make in the eighteenth century.

[egb_hibs]

C - that is quite spooky, given what i changed my sig to last night. Which in turn was lifted from a site that was talking about the site you quoted on the neocon thread. I shall have a think about your question and reply in a bit.

[HenryLB]

The selfishness-complacency-apathy-dependency bit describes Europe much more effectively than the US I'd have thought.

Also, the concepts of democracy in fifth century Athens and twenty-first century America are massively removed from one another. In fact don't a lot of people describe the US as a 'republic' in order to highlight the differences between 'pure' democracy and the American system?

He does have a point though, what with all the pork-barrelling that seems to go on in the States.

[gun ainm]

agree with that Brian chap - his predictions seem to be pretty accurate - depressing on one hand but hey at least we've proved that psychics do exist and that fukuyama was wrong
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


so what now? (seeing as liberal democracy is DOOMED)?

[HenryLB]

Originally Posted by theselkie

agree with that Brian chap - his predictions seem to be pretty accurate - depressing on one hand but hey at least we've proved that psychics do exist and that fukuyama was wrong
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


so what now? (seeing as liberal democracy is DOOMED)?

Anarchy, obviously. Or...

































To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by theselkie

fukuyama was wrong
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

the inevitable fate of all old trots it appears, no matter what kind of clothes they have on.

[egb_hibs]

OK. I broadly agree with the quote, hence my oft-repeated view that democracy needs to be prized, and the threat posed by complacency and decadence.

That said, I think democracy and a free market, has prooved more robust than most systems. Possibly, because at the heart of this quote is a strong argument for small government.

[Bartok]

Originally Posted by HenryLB

The selfishness-complacency-apathy-dependency bit describes Europe much more effectively than the US I'd have thought.

Also, the concepts of democracy in fifth century Athens and twenty-first century America are massively removed from one another. In fact don't a lot of people describe the US as a 'republic' in order to highlight the differences between 'pure' democracy and the American system?

He does have a point though, what with all the pork-barrelling that seems to go on in the States.

Some people claim that Tyler was referring only to 'pure' democracy and not modern democratic republics. But if you look at the history of those republics, you have to say that his analysis was pretty damn good.

Today the words democracy and freedom are often seen as inseparable, but if Tyler was right this is patent nonsense.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by Dixie Chicken

Today the words democracy and freedom are often seen as inseparable, but if Tyler was right this is patent nonsense.

Under what other model have the rank and file ever tasted freedom?

[Bartok]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

Under what other model have the rank and file ever tasted freedom?

Depends what you mean by freedom I suppose. And who you mean by the rank and file. Democracy is usually justified mainly by its supposed affiliation correlation with freedom though. All I'm saying is that if Tyler was right it is a false premise.

I take it you agree with Churchill's endorsement of democracy as the least worst of tried systems?

[Wolfetone Hibee]

Originally Posted by Dixie Chicken

It is from the 18th century Scottish historian Alexander Tyler, who was discussing ancient Athenian history but in the context of his day was widely understood to be predicting a sticky end about now for the infant American state:

"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."

That's a fairly justified quote.

Rome was more powerful as a dictatorship than it ever was as a republic, Indeed, many European states in the late seventeeth and early eighteeth centuries reverted to absolutism (britain being the exception) as it invariably made the state stronger. The united provinces at this time are a prime example of how greater control from assembly/parliament/the people can subvert a great powers strength and make them weak and insular.

[Bartok]

No one seems very keen to defend the old democracy=freedom idea.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by Dixie Chicken

Depends what you mean by freedom I suppose. And who you mean by the rank and file. Democracy is usually justified mainly by its supposed affiliation correlation with freedom though. All I'm saying is that if Tyler was right it is a false premise.

Only if you ascribe to utopian nonsense like anarchism.

Democracy facilitates the closest approximation to freedom, for as many people, as I think will ever be achievable. After all, with no limits on my personal freedom I might decide to round up everybody I dislike and put them in an extermination camp. Which would kinda limit their personal freedom.

In short, you cannot have a society where everyone is free without any limits. The trick is to achieve the balance between the individual and the collective. I think capitalism and liberal democracy achieves this better than any other system.

that doesn't mean the geezer isn't right about the decay of civilisations. it's entirely possible, in fact quite likely, that free societies gone decadent will destroy themselves. human nature you see. c'est la vie.

they won't do so as quickly as totalitarian ones though.

I take it you agree with Churchill's endorsement of democracy as the least worst of tried systems?

Yes.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by DaddyK

How can you broadly agree with a quote, which uses the past models of Athens and other attempts at Republics and extrapolates into the future. Like I said, a guy with a monarchist agenda. It's hardly in his interest to write anything other than synchophantic thoughts as a sop to the establishment. Anyone endorsing Republicanism, tended to get sent to the colonies or Australia as it's now called
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Like Thomas Paine.

People's agenda does not permanently preclude them from any kind of valuable insight.

I don;t think he's been prooved right re taxation as the mechanism, but the cycle of civilisation is about right i think.

In my own view the death of western europe will come from post modernism. over-comfort leads to disconnected navel-gazing, ennui, failing of all conviction and demographic collapse. A very post modern end. As someone once said, civilisations aren't murdered. they commit suicide.

what puts a slight spanner in the works as a potential disruptor of the cycle, is nuclear weapons. We can ultimately toast anyone who would displace us, and that changes things, in a way that is historically without precedent.

The western marie-antoinette can now incinerate the breadless, cakeless hordes, no matter what their number or their conviction.

[Bartok]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

Only if you ascribe to utopian nonsense like anarchism.

No, what I'm saying is that if Tyler was right then democracies are unsustainable in the long term and in fact lead inevitable to dictatorship.

Democracy facilitates the closest approximation to freedom, for as many people, as I think will ever be achievable. After all, with no limits on my personal freedom I might decide to round up everybody I dislike and put them in an extermination camp. Which would kinda limit their personal freedom.

IMO there is no intrinsic link between democracy and personal freedom. Western democracies are relatively free, compared to (say) totalitarian regimes, but that is not because they are democracies. It is because western democracies are societies and governments that value a high level of personal freedom. From time to time, as circumstances change, democracies can and do place very severe retraints on personal freedom. One thinks of Britain's war socialism in the 1940s, or on a lesser scale the measures against terorism today.

In short, you cannot have a society where everyone is free without any limits. The trick is to achieve the balance between the individual and the collective. I think capitalism and liberal democracy achieves this better than any other system.

I think it often does, but not always and never for everyone. I tend to agree with you and WC that it is the best of tried systems.

that doesn't mean the geezer isn't right about the decay of civilisations. it's entirely possible, in fact quite likely, that free societies gone decadent will destroy themselves. human nature you see. c'est la vie.

Like you, I think there is a lot of truth in his analysis.

they won't do so as quickly as totalitarian ones though.

Well I can think of totalitarian regimes that persisted pretty well. But I would never advocate such a thing in any case.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by Dixie Chicken

No, what I'm saying is that if Tyler was right then democracies are unsustainable in the long term and in fact lead inevitable to dictatorship.

Well he's probably right if we allow complacency to take over, which is why i keep banging on about that.

IMO there is no intrinsic link between democracy and personal freedom.

But what system provides a better compromise of most freedom for most people?

You simply cannot have freedom for all. It's a contradiction in terms, because the exercise of some people's freedom's will impinge on other people's freedoms.

Well I can think of totalitarian regimes that persisted pretty well. But I would never advocate such a thing in any case.

I can't. But I should qualify that by saying that - within the scope of my very limited knowledge - there has not been a totalitarian regime prior to the 20th century.

for example, I wouldn't call things like imperial rome totalitarian - it was quite the opposite if i understand correctly, which i probably don't.

Anyway, in terms of the thrust of the point - I have many times, in fact far too many i'm sure, trumpeted on about liberalism containing the seeds of it's own demise. i think this is basically a very similar point to yer man's.

doesn't mean it's not worth fighting for, but
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Bartok]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

But what system provides a better compromise of most freedom for most people?

But you insist on linking the personal freedoms enjoyed in the west with capitalist democracies. Freedom is a shared cultural tendency in the west but it is not the result of democratic government.The association of one with the other is really an historical accident, a coincidence. They are two horns on the one goat, but they do not depend on each other.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by Dixie Chicken

But you insist on linking the personal freedoms enjoyed in the west with capitalist democracies. Freedom is a shared cultural tendency in the west but it is not the result of democratic government.The association of one with the other is really an historical accident, a coincidence. They are two horns on the one goat, but they do not depend on each other.

from where then does western freedom emerge, and under what other form of govt has it found expression?