Hmmm . . . Ponderous Quotation

D. Rearic ^ | 1776 | Alexander Fraser Tytler

[Xenalyte]

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this 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 apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage."

~Alexander Fraser Tytler (later Lord Alexander Fraser Woodhouslee), in The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic, published 1776.

[Xenalyte]

(I know it's already been posted, but the thread is locked and I couldn't bump it.)

My lawyer brought this to my attention this morning, and it strikes me as all too prescient. Thoughts, comments, flames, ideas?

[<1/1,000,000th%]

That's why Republics are better. I haven't heard any expiration date on Republics yet. Rome lasted almost 700 years. Lets shoot for that.

[rellimpank]

--the end is near--

[StriperSniper]

From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence;

I think we're in this fuzzy region.

[SteamshipTime]

$6 trillion in debt and counting....

[Lee'sGhost]

Yes, I've seen this before as well and had posed questions that, as far as I know, were never addressed. For one, I don't know of Alexander Fraser Tytler and wondered what bias (perspectives) he brought with such commentary.

I also wondered about the accuracy of his statements, e.g., the average of 200 years. Considering the length of Rome's dominance you could add in a great number of much shorter "reigns" and come up with 200. And then there is the issue of our "republic" vs. the democracy he speaks of. (Or, "of which he speaks," if you're a grammarian.) :-)

But, perhaps more to the point, I often wonder what the saturation point is for the "haves" providing for the "have-nots." In other words, at what point do those not paying taxes outnumber those who pay, setting up a situation where the non-payers can, through political base (sheer numbers) demand anything they want from the payers.

Man, did I come up with all that on a Monday morning? I must be sick.

By the way, I hope that you are having discussions with your lawyer for pleasant/positive reasons.

[billbears]

That's why Republics are better. I haven't heard any expiration date on Republics yet. Rome lasted almost 700 years. Lets shoot for that

But we're no longer a Republic, haven't been one for years. This nation is at best a National Democracy

[Xenalyte]

Yes, I've seen this before as well and had posed questions that, as far as I know, were never addressed. For one, I don't know of Alexander Fraser Tytler and wondered what bias (perspectives) he brought with such commentary.

I'm gonna do some research on ole Sir Alex and see what I can dig up. I know he was a Scot (which is why you're flagged, HG, you Scotch-soaked reprobate), but not much beyond that.

I also wondered about the accuracy of his statements, e.g., the average of 200 years. Considering the length of Rome's dominance you could add in a great number of much shorter "reigns" and come up with 200. And then there is the issue of our "republic" vs. the democracy he speaks of. (Or, "of which he speaks," if you're a grammarian.) :-)

It would depend on when exactly you mark the fall of Rome. I'm a little fuzzier on ancient history than I'd like. And yes, I am a grammarian, so you get the gold star today!

But, perhaps more to the point, I often wonder what the saturation point is for the "haves" providing for the "have-nots." In other words, at what point do those not paying taxes outnumber those who pay, setting up a situation where the non-payers can, through political base (sheer numbers) demand anything they want from the payers.

I'm afraid we're approaching parity now, given the 2000 election results.

Man, did I come up with all that on a Monday morning? I must be sick.

Stipulated to, and entered into the record. Perhaps you need caffeine.

By the way, I hope that you are having discussions with your lawyer for pleasant/positive reasons.

I am indeed - my lawyer is one of my best friends. He actually called me this morning to read me the quotation, which got me started.

[Xenalyte]

I also need to do some context research, to find out if "representative republic" is included in Tytler's concept.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

I think we're more like a Republic than the European Democracies. Our government doesn't crash every time the Green party wants a holiday.

[r9etb]

That's why Republics are better. I haven't heard any expiration date on Republics yet. Rome lasted almost 700 years. Lets shoot for that.

Actually, the Roman Republic lasted no more than about 300 years, followed by 400+ years of empire and despotism.

From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage."

While these delineations are far too neat -- they don't happen in such clear-cut phases -- we've seen enough selfishness, apathy, and dependence over the past 35+ years to surmise that republics are not immune.

[Lee'sGhost]

Yes! Yes! A gold star! Alright! Finally. Thank you! Now, if I can just find my sixth-grade teacher to let her know.

"I'm afraid we're approaching parity now, given the 2000 election results."

Exactly my thoughts as well, which is why I find this discussion so compelling.

[Tauzero]

I think we're solidly in the dependence stage. The non-monetary dependence is much greater though than the monetary, and is much more insidious.

[Xenalyte]

Our government doesn't crash every time the Green party wants a holiday.

No, but now that you mention it, my home computer does. I may have been infiltrated.

[Xenalyte]

So I guess the question is what we do about it. I can't possibly advocate anything revolutionary on JimRob's bandwidth, but there must be more we can do than bugging our elected officials, who seem not to care about such niceties as constitutional government.

[StriperSniper]

But we're no longer a Republic, haven't been one for years. This nation is at best a National Democracy

While I look at it as more of some sort of hybrid that nature would abhor like a jackalope. There is a direct conflict between the two forms of governance that gives us this explosion of laws and regulations to try to return to the supposed ideals of this country.

Which leads me to wonder what we look like to people in other parts of the world. When we go about touting our Constitutional form of government, when for all practical purposes, the United States itself has not been living up to the promise of that founding document for a long time. What our government in practice is evolving into is some sort of neo-fascist monstrosity.

[Maelstrom]

The form of government is practically irrelevant. The sole importance, longetivity, and prosperity that any government can be attributed lay within the completeness of it's restrictions and how well those limitations are maintained.

[ancient_geezer]

"I'm afraid we're approaching parity now, given the 2000 election results."

Walter Williams, World Net Daily, 10-25-2000

According to the most recent U.S. Treasury Department figures, in 1997 the top 1 percent of income-earners (those with income of $250,000 and higher) paid 33 percent of all federal income taxes. The top 5 percent of income-earners ($108,000 and over) paid 52 percent, and the top 50 percent ($36,000 and over) paid 96 percent of income taxes. Guess what the bottom 50 percent of income earners paid?

If you're among those who pay little or no federal income taxes, what do you care about tax cuts? Moreover, if you think tax cuts pose a threat to government handout programs, you might be openly hostile and support Al Gore's silly "risky scheme" talk. So many Americans paying little or no federal taxes makes for a natural spending constituency. It's like me in the restaurant: What do I care about extravagance if you're footing the bill?

70% of the public clamors for more from government looking for the top 40% of income earners to foot the bill.

I'd say that unless we manage to change from the income tax on production with exemption's scheme of taxing that we have today, we are already in the soup and keeping any form of an income tax perpetuates the problem.

Thomas Hobbes(1588-1679) had it called it in Leviathan

• "It is fairer to tax people on what they extract from the economy, as roughly measured by their consumption, than to tax them on what they produce for the economy, as roughly measured by their income."

[Lee'sGhost]

So, are you saying the best way to go is to support a consumption tax? I have long thought that a consumption tax would be a good thing and this gives it more impetus. But is there a down side? I'm not an expert on the subject but it seems to make sense. (This doesn't mean I have to become a libertarian, does it?)

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Are you counting from the end of the Etruscan kingdom to the first triumvirate? Or do you know Roman history better than I do? I haven't looked at Roman history in a while, but I have some nice coins.