A democracy can't exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury.

From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result 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. These nations have progressed through the following sequence:

1. From Bondage to spiritual faith.

2. From spiritual faith to great courage

3. From great courage to liberty

4. from liberty to abundance

5. from abundance to apathy

6. from apathy to dependency

7. from dependency back to bondage


I don't know who it is originally quoted from, but it was one of the following.

Alexander Tyler, Lord Thomas Macaulay, Arnold Toynbee, Jack the Ripper,
or Benjamin Disraeli.

I think number five, "from abundance to apathy". We hit abundance in the 50s/60s, and it's been downhill til then. I wouldn't go so far as to think that we've hit dependency yet.

I said 5, but I'm leaning towards 6.

A democracy can't exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury.

From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.
What utter bullshit.

1. What could this possibly be based on? There's no way that anyone could have observed enough democracies to make such a deduction.

2. The idea that democracies even go through such stages is pure speculation. Furthermore, it can be disproven by looking at several countries around the world. They all go through stages that are both different from other countries and different from the stages described here.

In other words, this theory about democracy is no theory at all.

There may be something in this Democracy Theory.
Durong the late 70s early 80s, the UK was ran by Maggie Thatcher.
She sold off public housing to tennants by the million.
Basiclly buying the election. The well off, became better off,
while the working class, got poorer,and unemployed soared.
When things got so bad, the majority of voters turned on her and
then her conserveative party, they havent been back in power since.

I would say we are somewhere between 5 and 6 myself.

Whether the theory is BS or not. You cant deny that, even if there ARE more stages, these are at least some of the ones a democracy will go through. PICK ONE !

This doesn't cover everything that can happen to a democracy.
Somewhere between three and four should be "attacked by the Persians".

I beliveve Rome is the longest lasting to date. How old was it before it fell?

In the upper reaches of apathy, getting ever closer to dependence.

Yep!

In the upper reaches of apathy, getting ever closer to dependence.

To whose dependence does this refer?
The people's on the government or the nation's on the world?

I beliveve Rome is the longest lasting to date. How old was it before it fell?Ah yes, the great Roman Democracy.

I learned all about it on Xena: Warrior Princess.

I don't know who it is originally quoted from, but it was one of the following.

Alexander Tyler, Lord Thomas Macaulay, Arnold Toynbee, Jack the Ripper,
or Benjamin Disraeli.

I think we can safely rule out Jack. He had zero interest in politics and wrote nothing to newspapers unless it had a human kidney attached.

I'll say Macaulay.

I beliveve Rome is the longest lasting to date. How old was it before it fell?

Rome was a republic until one of it's generals decided to crown himself Emperor. Julius Caesar was the end of Rome as a democracy.

That is true, he was going to make himself Emperor until he met up with a bit of an accident on his way to the Senate.

edit--I believe he was AT the Senate.

Julius Caesar was the end of Rome as a democracy.Ancient Rome was never a democracy.

Maybe gmsisko means Greece--Athens.

They were more of a democracy than Rome.

This doesn't cover everything that can happen to a democracy.
Somewhere between three and four should be "attacked by the Persians".ROFL. :)

I beliveve Rome is the longest lasting to date. How old was it before it fell?
you're confusing Republics with Democracies.

Is the US a democracy, or a repisinitive republic? (*spelling)


you're confusing Republics with Democracies.

The U.S. is a Republic.

Is the US a democracy, or a repisinitive republic? (*spelling)It's both a democracy and a republic. Compare that to Britain which is a democracy but not a republic, or China which is a republic but not a democracy.

Maybe gmsisko means Greece--Athens.

They were more of a democracy than Rome.
They were still mainly a republic. A rather patriarchial republic, though most certainly not Plato's definition of a republic, but the modern one. I'm not even sure what Plato's would be called anymore. I can't think of a country that has ever fit the definition of a democracy more than a republic. Rome though was a republic for about 450 years. From the fall of the Etrucians to when Agustus and Mark Antony fought over Rome. The Roman senate still existed for the remainder of Rome's life, and even past after the split between the Eastern and Western Roman empires. Eastern Roman empire which eventually became the Byzantine Empire.
And since Britain is a constitutional monachy, they're even farther from a democracy than we are. We at least vote on things, half of their governing body is appointed. But since nobody votes on issues, neither can be democracies. The people must hold the power in a democracy, not dictate who will hold the power for them.

Ah yes, the great Roman Democracy.

I learned all about it on Xena: Warrior Princess.

You obviously have to expand your horizons my friend. HBO...ROME the series, an excellent drama.

You obviously have to expand your horizons my friend. HBO...ROME the series, an excellent drama.Ha ha ha!!

You should try Colleen McCullough's Masters of Rome series. They're a bit longish and there are six volumes in all. But she did twenty years of research -- the lady knows her stuff. Very informative and vastly entertaining if you like that sort of thing. I sure do.

Is the US a democracy, or a repisinitive republic? (*spelling)

Well, on one hand you admitted you didn't know the correct spelling. On the other hand - that's not even close! It doesn't even sound like the word you're looking for!

The word is representative. Is the US a representative republic, or a democracy?

Sometimes I just can't spell. Other times I can. Anyway as I said before, spelling is for girls and girlie-men.


Well, on one hand you admitted you didn't know the correct spelling. On the other hand - that's not even close! It doesn't even sound like the word you're looking for!

number 7. america is highly dependent on goods. the majority of these goods are made, grown outside of their own area. most of these goods are not even neccessary for survival. ps2, xbox, tv, dvd, cable, sattelite, etc.. how many use the internet for mainly entertainment? instead of learning something?

dependency gives rise to bondage.

to quote john trudell, slavery is slavery. whether you are in chains, an indentured servant, or in debt, slavery is slavery.

america is not and has never been a true democracy. it is a democratic republic. the majority rules. a true democracy only works on a small scale level as your community. a true democracy involves rule by CONSENSUS. which is what most native nations rule was.

majorty rules will always turn facist.

Ha ha ha!!

You should try Colleen McCullough's Masters of Rome series. They're a bit longish and there are six volumes in all. But she did twenty years of research -- the lady knows her stuff. Very informative and vastly entertaining if you like that sort of thing. I sure do.

Actually I just may look into them. I took a few courses way back in the Paleozoic age on Greek and Roman society/history. I quite enjoyed it. That's probably why I enjoyed Rome. They stayed the course fairly well. Don't know if they will do a 3rd season though. All the interesting characters are dead... like Anthony and Cleopatra etc. They did some pretty cool scenes with their hedonistic and debouched lifestyle. That spiced things up quite a bit. Violence wise it was more so than Sopranos if that gives you an inkling.

n a true democracy involves rule by CONSENSUS. which is what most native nations rule was.

majorty rules will always turn facist.

good point