PDA

View Full Version : Democracy on its way out in the USA?



DOLFANMIKE
02-19-2004, 03:43 PM
At about the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution, 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."

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University

School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts
concerning the most recent: Presidential election:
Population of counties won by:
Gore=127 million
Bush=143 million

Square miles of land won by:
Gore=580,000
Bush=2,427,000

States won by:
Gore=19
Bush=29

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
Gore=13.2
Bush=2.1

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was
mostly the land owned by the tax-paying citizens of this great country.
Gore's territory encompassed those citizens living in government-owned
tenements and living off government welfare..."

Olson believes the U.S. is now somewhere between the "apathy" and
complacency" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy; with
some 40 percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental
dependency" phase.

inFINSible
02-19-2004, 03:47 PM
It's a race between democracy and capitalism to see which one will destroy our society first.

Thundercracker
02-19-2004, 03:54 PM
good news :mad:

themole
02-19-2004, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by DOLFANMIKE
At about the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution, 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."

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University

School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts
concerning the most recent: Presidential election:
Population of counties won by:
Gore=127 million
Bush=143 million

Square miles of land won by:
Gore=580,000
Bush=2,427,000

States won by:
Gore=19
Bush=29

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
Gore=13.2
Bush=2.1

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was
mostly the land owned by the tax-paying citizens of this great country.
Gore's territory encompassed those citizens living in government-owned
tenements and living off government welfare..."

Olson believes the U.S. is now somewhere between the "apathy" and
complacency" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy; with
some 40 percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental
dependency" phase.

Interesting Mike. I gave a talk on the "Cycle of the body politic" about 10 years ago. Don't remember to much about sources, but I do remember that it said "history has proven" that once the cycle reverted back to "Bondage" that it took an average of 200 years before the body could "WIN" its liberty back.

I learned that the price of LIBERTY is BLOOD! human BLOOD! It's all about MAN being able to decide for himself what is good for him. It's all about man learning one VERY important thing; "Government is a faithful servant... but a FIERY master" It's also about "Man getting the government he deserves".

I feel it is IMPERATIVE that all realize what our forefathers did for us by giving us the CONSTITUTION. Most today don't give a damn. Yes morality and virtue count, our society can't exsist without it.

As a nation we have become self-sufficient. This has given birth to a new religion in America that some have called secularism. This is a view of life without the idea that God is in the picture or that he had anything to do with the picture in the first place.

In the first century of our nations history, the university was the guardian and preserver of faith in God. Todays univerisity scoffs at the mention of God.

Man will believe what he will, but without self imposed order comes "Chaous" and that is what religion has prevented to date.

There are those that don't give much credence to a Supreme Being, but our forefathers set this Republican form of government up on the premise that man kind will have to answer to a higher source of government. Of the 56 signers of the declaration of indepence none were atheist, not all were christian either but they were all MASONS.

I'll step down off my soap box now. I got a little carried away. You touched on a subject that has fasinated me for many years. WHY is this country so great? We the people are basically free to do as we wish as long as we pay the tax and don't cause harm to others.

Themole

Miamian
02-19-2004, 10:39 PM
I think that's tangential.

themole
02-19-2004, 11:01 PM
Originally posted by Miamian
I think that's tangential.

Care to expound!

PhinPhan1227
02-20-2004, 10:04 AM
GOOD NEWS!!! Since we're not a Democracy, and never have been, we don't have to worry. We are afterall, a Representative Republic. One thing I will agree with is the danger of those who identify the government as their "support system". It's a VERY dangerous cycle when people have the idea that the government is the source of the nations support.

Miamian
02-21-2004, 07:22 PM
Originally posted by themole


Care to expound!

You said it yourself:
I'll step down off my soap box now. I got a little carried away

Mike detailed an analysis of the life cycle of nations. Correlating the deterioration phase of that life cycle to belief in in the Almighty is a bit off-topic.

themole
02-22-2004, 01:18 AM
Originally posted by Miamian


You said it yourself:

Mike detailed an analysis of the life cycle of nations. Correlating the deterioration phase of that life cycle to belief in in the Almighty is a bit off-topic.

Oh...I see! You may find that folly but many don't. I was referring to the talk that I gave on the same subject. The source material for that talk leaned heavely on the correlation between man kinds spiritual state and the cycle of the body politic. IMO that lays the lead dead center of the topic.

PhinPhan1227
02-22-2004, 01:30 AM
Originally posted by themole



As a nation we have become self-sufficient. This has given birth to a new religion in America that some have called secularism. This is a view of life without the idea that God is in the picture or that he had anything to do with the picture in the first place.

In the first century of our nations history, the university was the guardian and preserver of faith in God. Todays univerisity scoffs at the mention of God.

Man will believe what he will, but without self imposed order comes "Chaous" and that is what religion has prevented to date.


Themole

My only problem with this is the equation of spiritualism and religion. Religion as a group carries almost as much bad as good for a society. Especially in a heavily organized religion you're eventually going to get a group of people who place the organizations survival higher than the the organizations original purpose. Spiritualism however doesn't have th inherent organization which causes that effect. The decline of organized religion wouldn't be a tragedy. The decline of spiritualism however is a harbinger of severe decline in our society.

themole
02-22-2004, 02:18 AM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


My only problem with this is the equation of spiritualism and religion. Religion as a group carries almost as much bad as good for a society. Especially in a heavily organized religion you're eventually going to get a group of people who place the organizations survival higher than the the organizations original purpose. Spiritualism however doesn't have th inherent organization which causes that effect. The decline of organized religion wouldn't be a tragedy. The decline of spiritualism however is a harbinger of severe decline in our society.

:lol: I tend to somewhat agree. When mans hand is in it, it some how seems to turn sour. But... that's the struggle of life, recognize and correct, get up and try again.

On "spirituaity & religion"... Let's view it another way...to be spiritual and religion should go hand in hand. Combined they should work much like the makeup of a thermometer, allowing a little sway to the left or right to prevent the iron rod of the law from breaking the organization or the purpose of the law.

PhinPhan1227
02-22-2004, 03:04 AM
They SHOULD work that way but oh so rarely do. It's the nature of any institution of man that eventually it becomes corrupted by it's own self importance. There isn't a church in America that I'm aware of that puts the true message of God before the survival/thriving of it's own power base. And the excuse they all give is that if the Church doesn't survive the message won't survive. Amazingly, none of these churches seem to understand the lesson taught by martyrs.

Miamian
02-22-2004, 03:48 PM
We've been through this before; Mole, you may not have taken part in the previous debates. My problem with this is that one of the cornerstones of our democracy is a clear separation of church and state. I start feeling nervous when the separation becomes blurred.

themole
02-22-2004, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by Miamian
We've been through this before; Mole, you may not have taken part in the previous debates. My problem with this is that one of the cornerstones of our democracy is a clear separation of church and state. I start feeling nervous when the separation becomes blurred.

LOL...You'll never find those "powers" combined in the U.S. as long as there is the "CONSTITUTION". There is NO state religion and I certainly would not want to see one, unless it was being run by GOD himself! :lol: There are also those who have no belief... that wouldn't hesitate to run every faith professing person out of this country if they had their way. It seems to me that the "assault" is on the religious and not the other way around. 85% of the people in this nation claim to attend church at least once a year, 100 years ago it probably would be closer to once a week. I don't know who could deny that hasn't been a good thing for this country.

I don't recall being in on that debate. Debates seem to serve only one purpose...that's to polarize those on either side. That's why I backed off the same sex marriage thread. Not interested in making an enemy of 1227 over something I have no control over..and that would be someone elses sexual orientiation.

Miamian
02-22-2004, 11:10 PM
If you think that I'm assaulting the religious, then I must be masochistic because I've become much more religious over the past couple of years. I'm even attending a Monday/Thursday prayer session at 7:00 A.M. in addition to regular services. I prefer not to wake up that early, but everyone counts in this case.

Also, as long as there is the "CONSTITUTION" the religious have no need to worry about being run out of the country.

PhinPhan1227
02-22-2004, 11:30 PM
Well...just to argue the flip side of the coin. There HAVE been assaults on "Church and State", and in point of fact, every "Blue Law" is honestly a violation of that separation. The vast majority of our laws are based on the protection of a person or groups civil rights. The Blue LAws however are "victimless crimes", and as such are only justified by religious doctrine. Now, the flip side of the coin are those institutions which attempt to push so hard for "Seperation", that they actually do deny some individuals/institutions their right to practice as they please. That Civic Center in Texas is a good example as their zealousness extended to preventing individuals from saying Grace before supper. Also, there are a lot of individuals who interpret seperation of Church and State as the Christian church, and the Christian Church only. An example of that would be that California grade school that was assigning kids the Koran as reading material and having them do mini fasts in recognition of Ramadan. They were blinded to the fact that ANY religious indoctrination is a no-no. It's a fine line we walk as a nation. We can't allow purely religious piety to influence our laws...but at the same time we can't push so hard that we wind up oppressing the majority in our zeal to protect the minority.

themole
02-23-2004, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by Miamian
If you think that I'm assaulting the religious, then I must be masochistic because I've become much more religious over the past couple of years. I'm even attending a Monday/Thursday prayer session at 7:00 A.M. in addition to regular services. I prefer not to wake up that early, but everyone counts in this case.



No...but your statement was a little ambiguous, if you were not sideing with those who would destroy religion in this country. You obviously had a problem with something?

"My problem with this is that one of the cornerstones of our democracy is a clear separation of church and state. I start feeling nervous when the separation becomes blurred."

I suppose I misinterpreted what you had a problem with.

"Also, as long as there is the "CONSTITUTION" the religious have no need to worry about being run out of the country."

That's what I said!

Miamian
02-23-2004, 09:20 PM
Well, then it's nice that we agree.

DeDolfan
02-26-2004, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
GOOD NEWS!!! Since we're not a Democracy, and never have been, we don't have to worry. We are afterall, a Representative Republic. One thing I will agree with is the danger of those who identify the government as their "support system". It's a VERY dangerous cycle when people have the idea that the government is the source of the nations support.

I totally agree. Now if the gov would get off their keisters and fix SS, they'd be doing som'n!!;)

PhinPhan1227
02-26-2004, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by DeDolfan


I totally agree. Now if the gov would get off their keisters and fix SS, they'd be doing som'n!!;)

It should have been privatised 40 years ago. Instead, it'll be an anchor that has to be propped up until it CAN be privatised.

DeDolfan
02-27-2004, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


It should have been privatised 40 years ago. Instead, it'll be an anchor that has to be propped up until it CAN be privatised.

Right, something very easily could have been done waaaaaaaaay long ago. I even thought about having the option of staying in the SS system, if you "trust" our gov THAT much :lol: , or some kind of an mandatory participation plan much like a 401k or som'n.
Contributiona are automatically deducted thru payroll as is SS is now and placed in the plan. From there, you control it yourself and withdrawals start at whatever legal SS ages are now. THIS way, the gov keeps their grubby mitts off it and can't spend it on some stupid pork programs and if there's not enough there when you retire, then it's your own fault for not investing it wisely enough and can't blame anuone but yourself.

PhinPhan1227
02-27-2004, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by DeDolfan


Right, something very easily could have been done waaaaaaaaay long ago. I even thought about having the option of staying in the SS system, if you "trust" our gov THAT much :lol: , or some kind of an mandatory participation plan much like a 401k or som'n.
Contributiona are automatically deducted thru payroll as is SS is now and placed in the plan. From there, you control it yourself and withdrawals start at whatever legal SS ages are now. THIS way, the gov keeps their grubby mitts off it and can't spend it on some stupid pork programs and if there's not enough there when you retire, then it's your own fault for not investing it wisely enough and can't blame anuone but yourself.

Further, why is it that someone can move to the US, work for 6 months, and recieve the same "retirement" benefits as someone who lives and works in the US for 50+ years? When I draw benefits at age 67, that will be 51 years that I've contributed to the fund. Someone who moves to the US at age 66 and works for a year will get the SAME benefits I do after contributing for a whopping year? That's fair!!

DeDolfan
02-27-2004, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


Further, why is it that someone can move to the US, work for 6 months, and recieve the same "retirement" benefits as someone who lives and works in the US for 50+ years? When I draw benefits at age 67, that will be 51 years that I've contributed to the fund. Someone who moves to the US at age 66 and works for a year will get the SAME benefits I do after contributing for a whopping year? That's fair!!

Now ya went and done it and done got me all pizzed off now! I wuz doin' OK til this !! :D :D

it's just alot of bad schidt that's been progressing over the years and no one particular person or party is totally to blame for it.
Just like the IRS tax code...........is there any reason whatsoever that the damn maual be about 7 1/2 feet thick to begin with?? I have trouble remembering things "this far back", but wasn't it someone like Thomas jefferson who said som'n like the best gov is the least gov??? geez, sometimes I feel like most of us are already or still in bondage !! :D

Bodzilla29
03-01-2004, 03:51 PM
As long as money rules the world, ALL FORMS of government can be considered a joke.

Presidents don't run America or the "Free" World, corporations do, and anybody who does not believe this is pretty naive.

PhinPhan1227
03-01-2004, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by Bodzilla29
As long as money rules the world, ALL FORMS of government can be considered a joke.

Presidents don't run America or the "Free" World, corporations do, and anybody who does not believe this is pretty naive.

Actually, "market forces" run the world. If corporations were all powerful than Enron and Worldcomm would still be viable companies. corporations have plenty of power, but they are still required to play by the samae set of rules as everyone else. If they don't have a good plan, a good product, and a favorable environment they will fail. Same as governments. In point of fact, that's why America has worked so well. Of all the nations on the earth we have the best history of staying out of the way of those market forces. Other countries have tried to manipulate them and failed miserably. Oh, and anyone who thinks the President or any other single person or organization runs the country doesn't have a good grasp of politics.

DeDolfan
03-01-2004, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by Bodzilla29
As long as money rules the world, ALL FORMS of government can be considered a joke.

Presidents don't run America or the "Free" World, corporations do, and anybody who does not believe this is pretty naive.

Can't argue that. Money talks and bullschidt walks !! :D

Bodzilla29
03-01-2004, 05:26 PM
Good points phinphan....bad wording on my part.

PhinPhan1227
03-01-2004, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by Bodzilla29
Good points phinphan....bad wording on my part.


Gracias...on another note, think your avatar will be a phin next year?....:confused:

Bodzilla29
03-01-2004, 09:59 PM
i really hope so, as he is my favorite player.

true he has had a recent dip in play but he is still a very good corner and i thikn we would be making a mistake in getting rid of him, especially if we can afford to keep him.

If Fiedler has any chance at staying i think Sam's chances are excellant.

PhinPhan1227
03-01-2004, 10:13 PM
Originally posted by Bodzilla29
i really hope so, as he is my favorite player.

true he has had a recent dip in play but he is still a very good corner and i thikn we would be making a mistake in getting rid of him, especially if we can afford to keep him.

If Fiedler has any chance at staying i think Sam's chances are excellant.

If there was anyone else better I'd try and disagree....but unless Ty LAw is so angry he wants to come to Miami just to screw Bellichicken, I don't think Sam is going anywhere either. He might need to take a pay cut though.

DeDolfan
03-02-2004, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by Bodzilla29
i really hope so, as he is my favorite player.

true he has had a recent dip in play but he is still a very good corner and i thikn we would be making a mistake in getting rid of him, especially if we can afford to keep him.

If Fiedler has any chance at staying i think Sam's chances are excellant.

You make a good point there! And a valid one as well !!