Posted on 09/15/2009 12:42:07 AM PDT by kingattax
We’re not a democracy
We are a representative republic.
Why should people who don’t own property be able to vote for increases in property taxes?
Your tag line reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw years ago:
I’m not a bitch. I’m THE bitch. And it’s Ms. Bitch to you!
I like it ;-)
Lots of countries can and do claim to be "the world's oldest democracy," but each puts its own modifiers on the phrase.
Surely the Greeks developed the world's oldest city-state democracy, 2,500 years ago -- though it did not last so long. But it's reasons for failure were neither apathy nor dependence, but defeat in war.
Rome (never a democracy) was a kingdom for about 240 years, then a Republic for about 480 years, then Empire for another 500 years. Rome's republic was not overthrown by apathy or dependence, but by Civil War and ambitions of its leading citizens. And the Roman Senate continued to function, with limited powers, until the very end.
The Republic of Venice lasted over 1,000 years and did not fall to apathy or dependence, but rather to Napoleon, in 1797.
The Icelandic parliament, The All-thing, is over 1,000 years old.
The Six Nation Iroquois say their system of consensus government is over 800 years old.
Neither Britain nor the US are democracies, but each can claim to be "older" than the other, depending on how you define the terms. The elected British parliament dates from 1265, but would meet no modern definition of "universal suffrage," much less "sovereign power." So the early US republic was "more democratic" than Britain.
And so on...
When you look at all the history of democratic institutions, what causes them to fail is not so much "indifference," "apathy" or "dependence," but rather more mundane causes like:
Righto.
However, I’d like to point out that the article referred to “great civilizations,” not “great democracies,” or even individual States.
Starting and ending dates of civilizations are inherently debatable, but Western Civ would seem to be at least 700 now and still chugging along, although getting a little ragged around the edges.
Funny how I missed that...
So his argument about "democracy" is bogus from the first word.
So, what does the author do?
He shifts the grounds from "democracy" to "the worlds greatest civilizations."
But to claim that "the worlds greatest civilizations" last only 200 years, on average, is just ludicrous.
Any number of "great civilizations" lasted far longer -- Ancient Egypt comes to mind.
So what are we to make of this argument?
I'd say, it's rubbish and nonsense, having nothing to do with historical fact, and everything to do with someone's fears for the future.
Indeed, I'm tempted to construct my own "sequence, from freedom to bondage," which might go something like this:
So where would this particular article fall? Maybe somewhere between "spin-meister" and "propagandist"?
Didn’t mean to get into a fight with you on this issue. I think we are in agreement.
The quotes in the article are from two different sources, as shown by the link in my post 16. The source of neither is clear, but unlikely to be much over 60 years old.
The first quote references “democracies,” and sets up the idea that democracies “always” fall due to loose fiscal policy.
The second quote refers to “civilizations,” and introduces the straw man 200 year average and sequence arguments.
We are indeed! Very sorry if it sounded like I suggested otherwise. Poor choice of words on my part. :-(
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.