A democracy is always temporary in nature

silverharp

in the year 1787, Alexander Tyler (a Scottish history professor at The University of Edinborough) had this to say about "The Fall of The Athenian Republic" some 2,000 years prior:

"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 that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes 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 worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always 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 complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage."

Edit – I happen to agree with this statement in broad terms, from an overview of history, be it the Roman empire, or even looking at the US today for instance there appears to be a reduction in freedoms, combined with a growing welfare underclass, a political class that promises more then it can deliver with the upshot that gov gets bigger and eats more of the national cake which eventually leads to bankruptcy, the combines liabilities of the US is now in excess of 60 trillion dollars if GAAP accounting was used. A funny quote I heard in relation to the US is that a democracy is a situation where there are 2 wolves and a sheep and wolves get to vote what to eat for dinner, in a republic, eating sheep is outlawed and the sheep is armed!


Discuss!

oscarBravo

Per the rules, please add your own thoughts first.

silverharp

done, see above

Sand

Polybius said much the same thing about 2000 years before that - monarchies became obligarchies, then democracies, that democracies degenerated to mob rule, and that mob rule returned to monarchy and restarted the cycle.

The essential point is fairly strong - voters consistently reward the the party with the best "freebies", apparently unaware that they are paying for them. Democracies can tend to make hideously bad decisions that threaten their very survival - Athens intervention in Ionia, or its escalation of a minor intervention in Sicily into a crushing defeat of practically its entire military. However, I dont entirely agree with it.

Firstly the Athenian democracy was a direct democracy in which all citizens discussed and debated issues. There was no career politicians though many individuals were extremely successful in arguing for and achieving their aims. The Athenian style of democracy stood in contrast with the aristocratic obligarchies that ruled other Greeks and led to tensions and eventually decades of war with Sparta that Athens lost. Most modern democracies take elements of Athenian democracy and "rule by the best" that Sparta favoured - The people have ultimate power but it is restrained and stabilised by layers of representation [A powerful, undemocratic civil service and elected politicians] and consitutional checks and individual liberties. The Athenians voted democratically to put Socrates to death because a majority detested his ideas, but freedom of speech and right to life are enshrined and defended in all modern democracies worthy of the name.

So whilst people may reward the most irresponsible electoral campaigns the civil service, individual rights like the right to private property and a representitive democracy do tend to limit that impulse and its effects. Irish governments ran the economy into the ground in the 1980s but the parties did recognise and carry out unpopular reforms and cutbacks that were needed to revive the economy and the country. It wouldnt have been possible in a direct democracy - or would have been far, far more difficult - but the system did curb its excess, eventually. France may be undergoing a similar process currently - people there are starting to recognise that something is wrong and failed to make the socialist candidate president despite her promising the sun, moon and stars.

And even in direct democracies, people can make the "right" decision even over benefitting themselves directly - Athenians did vote to build a fleet with the income from their silver mines rather than giving every citizen a payout with the proceeds instead. Of course, they had to be lied to and deceived as to why they should build a fleet but thats politics.

So long as the obligarchic principles in modern democracies arent tampered with, the democratic impulse to raid the cookie jar should be controllable. Especially as socialism has been discredited since the 1980s and even the Labour party has been converted to a tax cutting agenda.

banaman

Sand wrote:

So long as the obligarchic principles in modern democracies arent tampered with, the democratic impulse to raid the cookie jar should be controllable. Especially as socialism has been discredited since the 1980s and even the Labour party has been converted to a tax cutting agenda.

What proof have you that socialism has been discredited?

Lets see?
The US? Neo-Liberals = more inequality, top 10% steadily richer bottom 30% steadily poorer. See any film by Michael Moore who is biased and pulls some rather tasteless stunts BUT his facts and the people he uses are valid. Also "Wal-Mart the High cost of low price", etc. But socialism doesn't work?!!
Why are they even talking about Medicare then? Doh!!!

The UK? Socialism doesn't work but how many alternatives have been seriously put forward to the British Welfare State? The NHS is envied far and wide, except by the Neo-libs and Neo-cons BUT those advocating its demise are being disingenuous cos they know they can afford private medical insurance, something that doesn't work in the US.
Education we had private education here until the 1960's do you think it worked?
Pensions, so if a government (take the UK) taking mandatory contributions can't make pensions work a private, for profit company whose first duty is to its shareholders (NOT its POLICYHODERS) will fare better?
How about the toothfairy or father christmas.

Socialism has flaws notably dependency and poverty traps. BUT free-market/ and/or small government are worse.

After all if the free market and small government worked so well before why did we have to invent the welfare state in the first place?

Even Joseph Stiglitz doesn't believe that the free market provides economic security, equality or stability, socialism and the welfare state does.

The history of the 20th century in Western Europe proves it. The welfare state was developed to stave off social unrest and revolution. That it undeniably has done.

Socialism is discredited my A... the reason we didn't see more bloodshed and war was precisely because socialism provided wealth and security for 99.9% of us here in Western Europe.

The fact that we are all now comfortably off and have by and large exported our working class jobs or got non-citizens to do them is a testament to the aforementioned stability.

However the growing inequalities are a warning sign that all is NOT well.

And if we forget what got us here then, to paraphrase Churchill, "those who forget there history are doomed to repeat it"

Poverty and despair breed unrest, Unrest if suppressed breeds fanaticism and violence.

We abandon the welfare state at our peril,

karen3212

I've been watching Ron Paul in the US. He is a congressman and is running for President.

Before I heard him, I would have been totally against getting rid of a bloated public service, but he basically points out that sometimes the laws are in favour of things like oil, therefore the law skews the market force, which f**ks up everything. Have a listen to him. I can't explain what he says very well, but I'm reading some books just now to help me understand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeefPvm-MAM&mode=related&search=

the first part of the video is irrelevant, but the second part is about government inefficiency.

silverharp

Sand - I am actually curious now to read more about the decline of the Ahenian society. What I found interesting about the society was that Geography had a large influence in their developments. Given the long coastline it meant that smallholders weren’t tied to a central administration dependent on irrigation etc. Also the “citizen” was a restricted to male property holder so that Athens had about 30 or 40 thousand citizens out of a population of a quarter of a million.


Karen3212 – I have come across Ron Paul. He basically is a Libertarian backed up with an Austrian School line of thinking wrt economics. One of his main ideas is to get rid of the FED in the US as it is unconstitutional and replace it with “sound“ money ie a gold backed money system. Given the excesses of US Gov over the last 100 years or so it is appealing to go back to the ideas of the “Founding Fathers” in the US but I don’t see him getting anywhere as he is such an outsider.


Banaman – my view is that the more socialist a system is the more of a Ponzi scheme it is. The seeds of it’s own destruction are baked into the pie as it were. Take a country like Sweden, it’s national debt is nearly 70% of GDP. That means that the country has been living the good life for the past 50 years dependant on borrowing from future generations or else lying about honouring it’s future obligations or else robbing it’s population though inflation, take your pick.

Offalycool

Hi all,

My guess is Alexander Tyler is right up to a point. This very basic model of social development reflects the general weakness in all human made systems. Once the consequences of an upcoming system create fresh circumstances, the system is ineffective at regulating the new situation.

Dependence on the status quo undermines the current system, opening the opportunity for an natural system evolution. A revolution or a return to the beginning seems to be the only effective and natural way to assure a healthy balance, and freedom for us individuals. This cycle seems to me to be very natural, just as life gives way to fertilise the next generation, or the passing of a year. The weakness lies in the human ideal.

Perhaps any system that manages to brake this cycle, no matter how well intended; is the bond that ultimately enables us to enslave ourselves. Democracy like any other system is a tool, an agreement that acknowledges a time when there is a relatively stable equality among men. Powerful people at times must compromise and it is a great time for some of us to live. For many more it would seem to be harsher than any legend their ancestors left behind.

We overestimate ourselves in this age, we balk our ancestors and there primitive backward ways. We’ve turned their superstitious wheel of fortune into a game show. Sure we marvel at their ingenuity, and condemn there barbarism with little comprehension for their circumstance. We proudly display our mostly acquired knowledge; we talk of ruling the stars and living forever.

We talk of heaven on earth. This ordered society where everybody gets there say, and it’s great because we’re all saying the same thing! This material heaven may well turn out to be hell, but it doesn’t matter. Why? Nature rules all, and she doesn’t care if we’re sorry. We can if we’re lucky replant the trees and clean up the oceans some day, but when our numbers up its up and nature is the only true tyrant.

A democracy is always temporary in nature. I mean Alexander Tyler has made a compelling observation; social development seems to go on and on, endlessly cycling throughout recorded history. But it doesn’t, just ask the Dinosaurs. By the way I think we should clean the place up, no sense in living in our own filth unless we really deserve it.

banaman

Silverharp-

I take your point but according to these figures
http://www.scb.se/templates/tableOrChart____75467.asp

Sweden's gdp/national debt is 51% ish
US is low 60s% and Germany is higher. 65+%
According to www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=277 the UK's figure is 43.5%.
So I don't see how your point stacks up as a criticism of socialism per se.

The point about saddling our children (and worse the children of the third world) with our debts to fund our selfish lifestyles is a twentieth and twentyfirst century phenomenon that has grown out of global capitalism and consumerism.

There is a bbc documentary "the century of self" which documents the rise of consumerism and why it was promoted.

I don't believe that a socialist/ business compromise cannot be achieved Keynes seemed to work until vested interests, both "big business" and left wing radicals took over.

What has to change if we are to avoid a crash is the expectation that we have a right to an ever increasing material prosperity.
We as people need to grow up and collectively accept that we have enough .
The situation of those who have less needs to be addressed, likewise those who have vastly more than they need.
There is no such thing as a "self-made man", or woman and wealth came from somewhere. Exploiting systemic avenues designed to favour the "haves and the have mores" as Dubya called them is no reason for pride or adulation. Greed is greed and means someone suffers to produce the excess.

However to get back to the theme if a democracy is always temporary, does it not follow that it must be constantly adaptive and adapting?
And, therefore those who seek to carry forward pre-democratic structures of wealth, inheritance and access to power are actually inimical to its growth and development?
Thus wealth, influence and concentrated personal power are anti-democratic.
What has this to do with socialism?

silverharp

Quote - I take your point but according to these figures
http://www.scb.se/templates/tableOrChart____75467.asp

Sweden's gdp/national debt is 51% ish
US is low 60s% and Germany is higher. 65+%
According to www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=277 the UK's figure is 43.5%.
So I don't see how your point stacks up as a criticism of socialism per se.


Fair point , my point is a more generic criticism of big government which can be labelled socialistic. So as you mentioned the US and UK I would say that they are both guilty of having big governments and thus have headed down the slippery path as outlined in my original post



Quote - The point about saddling our children (and worse the children of the third world) with our debts to fund our selfish lifestyles is a twentieth and twentyfirst century phenomenon that has grown out of global capitalism and consumerism.

If I was to take a libertarian standpoint I would say that a non gov. controlled money system ie gold backed system would have averted the excesses of the 20th C, Gov. would be limited in printing / borrowing to fight wars etc. and people would tend to only borrow for investment and not consumption as the real value of their debts would not be inflated away. The global capitalism we are witnessing now is more an unholy alliance between big business and gov.

karen3212

silverharp wrote:

Banaman – my view is that the more socialist a system is the more of a Ponzi scheme it is. The seeds of it’s own destruction are baked into the pie as it were. Take a country like Sweden, it’s national debt is nearly 70% of GDP. That means that the country has been living the good life for the past 50 years dependant on borrowing from future generations or else lying about honouring it’s future obligations or else robbing it’s population though inflation, take your pick.

I am not that well versed in economics. So please could you explain to me, is 70% of GDP bad.

And do you have a comparison with a few other countries, like maybe Ireland and the USA. I would really appreciate it. Thanks

silverharp

Quote - I am not that well versed in economics. So please could you explain to me, is 70% of GDP bad.
And do you have a comparison with a few other countries, like maybe Ireland and the USA. I would really appreciate it. Thanks


Off the top of my head, Japan>120% , US 60-70% (but I think this excludes State Debts, also unfunded liabilities like Heathcare and social security), Ireland 30ish%

It doesn’t mean imminent collapse of society but the downside is that the debt is not self liquidating as it is not tied to any production, so basically it’s Gov. way of passing he buck to the next administration/generation by appeasing the masses in the here and now, this is where the dependency element is society increase over time as voters or special interest groups expect the goodies in bad times as well as good.

Sand

What proof have you that socialism has been discredited?

Well, the Office of Credible Political ideas has withdrawn Socialisms licence back in 1989.

"Proof" isnt what youre looking for. You have one opinion of socialism, I have another. Socialism has been discredited- Labour has become a tax cutting party. Any successful western "scocialist" party has to accept the market driven economy, competion and capitalism. All it can propse whilst remaining electable is minor modifications to help the least well off - state charity tacked onto free market capitalism. Maybe Bertie wasnt so laughable when he claimed to be a socialist by that definition.

Socialism itself is dead as a dodo. After soviet russia, china, cambodia, vietnam, the warsaw block, north korea and whole host of of other nightmarish police states socialism has been utterly discredited. Che Guerva is now just a cool brand icon capitalists use to sell their stuff, not a martyr for the cause.

You may not agree, but seeing as this is a liberal and relatively free market democracy you have that right. Under any historical socialist regime I would not have the right to disagree. Thats how definitly free market liberalism has won the "idea" race - it doesnt have to worry about "counter - revolutionaries", whilst socialism lives in constant paranoia.

What has to change if we are to avoid a crash is the expectation that we have a right to an ever increasing material prosperity.

Where should we have stopped? The middle ages? The industrial revoltion? What exactly is wrong with material prosperity? Is socialism selling a heavenly afterlife as reward for self-denial in the material realm?

f I was to take a libertarian standpoint I would say that a non gov. controlled money system ie gold backed system would have averted the excesses of the 20th C, Gov. would be limited in printing / borrowing to fight wars etc. and people would tend to only borrow for investment and not consumption as the real value of their debts would not be inflated away.

Id disagree tbh - Id agree the money supply should be independant of the government as rule of good governance, but WW1 and the preceding arms race was waged under the gold standard. It was the gold standard that collapsed under the strain of war debt, not the war.

silverharp

Sand wrote:

Id disagree tbh - Id agree the money supply should be independant of the government as rule of good governance, but WW1 and the preceding arms race was waged under the gold standard. It was the gold standard that collapsed under the strain of war debt, not the war.

Thats the history alright, however with the improvements in technology and communications the opportunity would be for the individual to be able to vote with their feet and move their assets abroad. In the US in the 1930's the gov. confiscated gold and the people basically lined up at the banks and handed it over, the gov. then revalued gold by 50% - the public wouldn't buy that today, the internet would be buzzing that an event like this would be coming and people would take measures.
Another is the "War on Terror", what the US gov. is doing is borrowing so as not to raise taxes, if budgets had to be balanced they would have to sell the war to the public and raise taxes or else they would be out of office.