Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Alexander Tyler and Democracy
Topic Started: Jan 2 2008, 11:17 AM (623 Views)
8247
Member Avatar
Apparently we look like this now
And, you keep missing my point...

If I said "It is my opinion that the Canadian opresses every Canadian." and gave a reason why, would that be worthy of a discussion?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
That depends on the reason why that was given. If the reason was "because I said so" then no, it wouldn't be worthy of discussion.

Basically this is what has happened here. The statement was made that the points given always lead to decline and dictatorship. You are asking me to accept that it always happens. I cannot base a discussion on an unproven assertion. Prove the assertation and then we have a starting point for discussion.

Frankly at this point I don't accept that the following is a true statement.

original statement that started this thread
 
a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policies followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been 200 years


You are asking me to accept that this is true based on nothing more then because you say it is true. That's not good enough. Especially since whoever started circulating this lied about the source to try and give the statement credibility.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
8247
Jan 2 2008, 05:42 PM
Ok, I'm an idiot, and Dante and Min are the super geniuses.

They would rather nit pick at the quote, and take every sentence literally. Dante...Did you not see the people on the rooftops on TV with signs that said "SAVE ME!" Who do you think they were begging to save them? Superman?

Its just a quote that gives examples of progression that have taken place here in the USA.

If ever I find my self on my roof top after a natural disaster I will be asking to be rescued too, I would hope my government and the good people of this country come and rescued me. So I really don’t understand your point. I suppose you are wanting me to believe that you will refuse to be rescued in such a situation, some how I highly doubt that.

You have not made a good argument that this pasage does give good example of a progression that has taken place here in the USA.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
8247
Member Avatar
Apparently we look like this now
I admit it..I fell for the hoax, but can we drop the word 'always' and replace it with 'can' or 'could' and have a discussion based on that?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
8247
Jan 2 2008, 09:42 PM
I admit it..I fell for the hoax, but can we drop the word 'always' and replace it with 'can' or 'could' and have a discussion based on that?

I agree, I think we should in light of the further information. The progression does seem like a possible a logical one. Its and interesting topic that can be further explored on that merit.
I of course am not convinced that the US is on ‘this’ particular path to destruction.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
I would still be convinced more easily of the "could" if an example was given. What were the fiscal policies of Athenian society? I admit that I don't know. What other democracies have even existed and why did they collapse?

I am sorry - but I just don't accept that the fiscal policy even "could" lead to dictatorship. I honestly give the American people far more credit then that. Many democratic countries in Europe have liberal/socialistic fiscal policies. I don't see any of them collapsing into dictatorship. I don't see Canada or Australia as being in danger and we are far more socialistic then the US. Give me a good reason to accept the theory.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
I think it's more likely that people would take their democracy and freedoms for granted and not fight for them while the government steadily works to subvert the electoral process.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Minuet
Jan 2 2008, 09:59 PM
I am sorry - but I just don't accept that the fiscal policy even "could" lead to dictatorship. I honestly give the American people far more credit then that. Many democratic countries in Europe have liberal/socialistic fiscal policies. I don't see any of them collapsing into dictatorship. I don't see Canada or Australia as being in danger and we are far more socialistic then the US. Give me a good reason to accept the theory.

Certain fiscal polices could lead to dictatorship, it was the physical polices of the 1920's that lead to the dictatorship of Germany in the late 1930s.

France is now amending their fiscal polices in the hope to avert a disaster.

The question is whether the fiscal polices of the US at present can lead to such an end, I am quite convinced that they could. I am just not convinced that we are as far along on that path as Frimp thinks, and I am convinced that a lot can happen between here and there to make the whole thing simply a “what if” rather then something to be worried about.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Quote:
 
Certain fiscal polices could lead to dictatorship


Of course this is a true statement. But what fiscal policies are we talking about? Do democratic socialist policies lead to this? Especially in the modern era?

I think democracy and socialism can exist together. To me socialism is the pooling of public funds to help the needy in society. It is not the same as communism. It is not intended to put everyone on the same level. It is only intended to provide a minimum standard of living to the poorest in our society.

I don't see how that leads to dictatorship. Although I certainly see how communism does.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Minuet
Jan 2 2008, 10:20 PM
Quote:
 
Certain fiscal polices could lead to dictatorship


Of course this is a true statement. But what fiscal policies are we talking about? Do democratic socialist policies lead to this? Especially in the modern era?

I think democracy and socialism can exist together. To me socialism is the pooling of public funds to help the needy in society. It is not the same as communism. It is not intended to put everyone on the same level. It is only intended to provide a minimum standard of living to the poorest in our society.

I don't see how that leads to dictatorship. Although I certainly see how communism does.

Well the easy answer is that socialism can lead to communism, it’s the next step in the continuum. There for socialism can lead to dictatorship, it’s a matter of when society decides to stop moving in that direction.

If a socialistic society has a good gasp of their place on the continuum and have reached an equilibrium of sorts, then they can coexist as a democracy with out fear of dictatorship. However if this socialistic society does not have a firm grasp on their position on the continuum then they will move ever closer toward dictatorship as time passes.

That is what this passage (legitimate or not) is saying. It is saying that at some point, if the members of a society are greedy enough and aren’t mindful enough, the system will denigrate to a point where the government can no longer sustain itself. If said government can no longer sustain itself those with the means to be dictators can easily take over.

It should also be pointed out that this passage doesn’t even mention anything about socialism, or what the money from the public treasury will be used for. Why are we assuming it is for socialistic pursuits? For example, the current presidents tax cuts where a key issue to his gaining the majority electorate vote. In a sense the majority of people where voting for the candidate that was promising them most amount of money from the public treasury, yet it had nothing to do with socialism.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
Quote:
 
In a sense the majority of people where voting for the candidate that was promising them most amount of money from the public treasury

no, actually, the majority were voting for the candidate that was promising them that the public treasury would take the least amount from them.

My income and my money are not the governments, and them not taking all of it is not them giving me money as the democrats would have us believe.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
38957
Jan 3 2008, 08:52 AM
Quote:
 
In a sense the majority of people where voting for the candidate that was promising them most amount of money from the public treasury

no, actually, the majority were voting for the candidate that was promising them that the public treasury would take the least amount from them.

My income and my money are not the governments, and them not taking all of it is not them giving me money as the democrats would have us believe.

6 of one half dozen of the other. This same government that “Let you keep your own money” also spent it on your behalf. This is not any different then spending your money and just to give it back to you. Both are examples of a majority voting them selves and increasing amount of money from the public treasury.

Had this goverment cut their spending inorder to give you that tax cut, you might have a point. But they didnt.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
It is not "6 of one; half dozen of the other". Private property rights are one of the things that has made the USA great.

I didn't break into your house last night and steal all your stuff, so you should thank me for letting you have all that stuff.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
38957
Jan 3 2008, 09:16 AM
It is not "6 of one; half dozen of the other".  Private property rights are one of the things that has made the USA great.

I didn't break into your house last night and steal all your stuff, so you should thank me for letting you have all that stuff.

Taxation is not stealing that is just your redirect.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
taxation is taking, not giving and that is your (and most of the left's) redirect
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus