When the thirteen colonies were still part of England, Professor Alexander Tyler wrote about the fall of the Athenian Republic over a thousand years ago. He said:
quote: “ 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 results 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. The 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.”
Where are we?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
All of the above?
This is, of course, essentially Plato's argument against the democratic state. But, as I'm sure many will rush to point out, the United States is far from Athens. In theory, at least, the will of the majority is balanced against the tempered experience of the elected officials.
Perhaps more importantly, what good does such an observation do us? Are we to read this as an anarchic manifesto? (Power is evil!) Because surely what holds true for the democracy holds true for any concievable government. If we believe that the people in power will always pursue their own ends at the expense of those beneath them we might as well quit this whole civilization farce and go home.
I am going to tenetively suggest that the good professor is overlooking the subtleties of relationships between the governors and the governed.
Beyond that, this two hundred years stuff I find highly suspect. What constitutes a "great civilization"? China, which has existed in a recognizable form for four or five thousand years? Even what we might nebulously call England took a lot longer than two hundred years to run its course from feudal state to superpower.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Beyond that, this two hundred years stuff I find highly suspect. What constitutes a "great civilization"?
Why, one that last 200 years, of course. Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
We still have 55 years before we self-destruct.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Don't be so sure. "Liberty" was actually only the fourth stage in the cycle, so if Year Zero is set at the threshold between "Bondage" and "Spiritual Faith", the year of independence wouldn't be it... The 55 years are just an upper limit!
Umm, where are you from anyway, Grocka? Why did your cycle start in 1877?
Timo Saloniemi
[ April 09, 2002, 06:01: Message edited by: Timo ]
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Well, we have abundance, and plenty of selfishness, but are still lacking courage and liberty from the step before. That step, for true liberty, to me, would require that the state of mind be that all are equal. With the US's history, with everyone acheiving each of these steps at diferent times, ethnicly speaking, a certain date really can not be given. Plus that kind of attitude would be difficult to come by, voting ourselves money from the public treasury..... At what level of the public treasury would a group vote funds from? Plus getting people, at anytime, to agree on a way of dividing said funds wouldn't take a short time......
Posted by Tahna Los (Member # 33) on :
I think Grocka was talking about Canada, which attained Independance in 1867.
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
Well, Canada's certainly at the apathy stage. Not that I care. Oops, just proved my point.
China might have existed in a recognizable for for thousands of years, but it was hardly as a single entity. They recognized that they shared the same culture, but that didn't keep them from having different governments and wars between them.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Here's how I see it. I'm probably wrong. I hope so.
From bondage to spiritual faith, 1770's-1800 the struggle for independence and the growth of the nation, also; manifest destiny, on the darker side.
from spiritual faith to great courage, 1800-1862 the beginnings of the battle for true freedom.
from courage to liberty, 1863-1945 the war to end slavery, through several other wars to promote and preserve freedom worldwide
from liberty to abundance, 1945-1980's the general economic and social prosperity and growth of these times
from abundance to selfishness, 1980's actually started in the 60's -70's 'counterculture, but reached full fruition in the "Me" decade.
from selfishness to complacency, 1990's
from complacency to apathy, 2000's Generation "Why?" though there are a few hopeful signs that some folks might be pushing towards great courage again...
from apathy to dependency, - we're not here yet, but this is where 'socialism' can take you if you're not entirely careful
from dependency back to bondage. - necessary to keep the promises put forth in the previous 3 parts of the cycle.
[ April 09, 2002, 13:46: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
That's right! So vote Republican, and spare us from the freedom-chaining end times of socialism that are looming on the horizon!
And they said Marx was looney for attempting to oversimplify human history into a determinist pattern of transformations.
Posted by U//Magnus (Member # 239) on :
At the Flameboard, quite obviously.
Be a little more observant.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
I SAID "if you're not entirely careful." Now, perhaps my usage of the language is a little bit different than yours, (my having a degree in the usage of it, and you being whatever you are) but it's my understanding that a qualifying statement such as that implies that the author (perhaps grudgingly) admits that socialism, if used carefully, might not necessarily lead down that road.
And _I_ didn't write the original 'bunching,' I simply gave an interpretation of it. Hell, I even prefaced it with "I'm probably wrong"!
Do you have an actual re interpretation, or a reasoned denial of Tyler's original statement, (you can call him a Marx-level loony if you want, I don't mind that) or are you just having an antirepublican (or more accurately, anti Fo2) masturbatory fantasy?
Wash your hands.
Posted by Malnurtured Snayer (Member # 411) on :
I've never masturbated to you, Rob.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
I should hope not.
I can count the people who have on one hand.
*reads that over* Oh, that's just not right...
[ April 09, 2002, 16:18: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snayer (Member # 411) on :
I just hope you're only using that hand for counting. And if not, please remember to take your own advice.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Although this doesn't qualify as mature or clever...
quote: Now, perhaps my usage of the language is a little bit different than yours, (my having a degree in the usage of it...
Whoop de doo. All bow to Rob's superior knowledge, for he has a degree and is therefore obviously better than us mere non-degree having mortals. He makes us all feel awed by his sheer greatness.
[ April 09, 2002, 19:01: Message edited by: PsyLiam ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Now, perhaps my usage of the language is a little bit different than yours, (my having a degree in the usage of it, and you being whatever you are)..."
That first "you" should be "your". The first sentence of your second paragraph is a run-on. Your third paragraph has a misplaced comma, two missing hyphens, and another (parenthetical) run-on.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Nixpicking. A force both good and evil.
Posted by Malnurtured Snayer (Member # 411) on :
For great laughter.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
Move every 'you' You know what you doing.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Now, of course, I will point out that my degree was in English/Creative Writing, and that we authors are permitted to mangle the language at will, while the ordinary peon is not (See: Finnegan's Wake).
This, of course, is pure crapola, but it sounds good.
I @M 9R3@T!! Y0U @R3 $U< K!!
[ April 10, 2002, 15:03: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
Didn't l33t qualified as a language, but it's sure mangled.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I have a degree, but it isn't worth much.
Posted by Malnurtured Snayer (Member # 411) on :
You've been published, Rob?
quote: I @M 9R3@T!! Y0U @R3 $U< K!!
They don't teach that in any creative writing class I've been in.
Posted by U//Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Especially since 9 is not G, and < is not a c. Poser.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Back to the topic at hand.
The most intersting aspect of the American version of democracy in recent times as I see it is not the bugaboo of socialism, rather it is the failure of the WASP hegemony and the inclusion of diverse voices in the national debate.
What's the phrase? The center does not hold. Is there a center in American culture?
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
mmmmm, I seem to have opened this and now, after being away from the system for a few minutes can not, for the life of me figure out what I was going to say....
Something about not being balanced.... dang it....
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote: Especially since 9 is not G, and < is not a c. Poser.
You just don't speak our regional dialect.
Snay: Published, but not paid. Still counts, though. Working on my portfolio, which will soon include 2-4 entries in a .pdf supplement to the LUG Star Trek RPG.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)