History lesson

Status
Not open for further replies.

jsalcedo

Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2002
Messages
3,683
Found this and thought it might interest some.

Subject: History Lesson



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=2,2427,000

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 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.
 
They're not voting gifts for themselves just yet...

The thing I find interesting about the current crop of Democrat voters is that somehow, the party leaders have convinced them that giving an across the board tax cut is bad because the rich people get more money back than the poor people.

Never considering the reason is because the rich people pay more money in taxes, the poor people actually fight to make the government keep their money, believing that in doing so, at least the government is screwing the rich more than themselves. Happiness is other folks suffering more than you.

Perhaps there should be a "class warfare" phase on the list.
 
This piece has been mostly debunked here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/tyler.asp

A couple of excerpts:
The quote from "Alexander Tyler" is very likely fictitious. His name was actually "Lord Woodhouselee, Alexander Fraser Tytler," and he was a Scottish historian/professor who wrote several books in the late 1700s and early 1800s.

However, there is no record of The Fall of the Athenian Republic or The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic in the Library of Congress, which has several other titles by Tytler. This quote has also been cited as being from Tytler's Universal History or from his Elements of General History, Ancient and Modern, books that do exist. These books seem the most likely source of the quote, as they contain extensive discussions of the political systems in historic civilizations, including Athens. Universal History was published after, and based upon, Elements of General History, which was a collection of Professor Tytler's lecture notes.
The county-by-county murder-rate comparison presented in this piece is wrong.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ), in the year 2000 the national murder rate was about 5.5 per 100,000 residents. Homicide data by county for 1999 and 2000 can be downloaded from the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (NAJCD), and the counties won by Gore and Bush can be identified using the county-by-county election results made available by CNN. (The NACJD provides not only the number of reported murders for each county, but also the population for each.) The average murder rate in the counties won by Gore vs. the rate in the counties won by Bush can be determined from this data.

By calculating the murder rate for each county and then taking the averages, we find a murder rate (defined as number of murders per 100,000 residents) of about 5.2 for the "average" Gore county and 3.3 for the average Bush county. But since people, rather than counties, commit murders, a more appropriate approach is to calculate the total number of murders in the counties won by each candidate and divide that figure by the total number of residents in those counties. This more appropriate method yields the following average murder rates in counties won by each candidate:

* Gore: 6.5
* Bush: 4.1

There is a distinct difference between these two numbers, but it is nowhere near as large as the quoted e-mail message states (i.e., 13.2 for Gore vs. 2.1 for Bush). Note that the average of these two figures is 5.3, which, as expected, is very close to the reported national murder rate of 5.5.
 
I guess even though it is not attributable to the people mentioned I do agree with the gist of it.

We see evidence of how true it is everyday.
 
We see evidence of how true it is everyday.

I think we all (especially us libertarians ;) ) agree with a lot of the ideas of the "quote." But "seeing evidence of how true it is" isn't enough. That's how the antis think; the media feeds them what they expect to hear and then they fall for it hook, line, and sinker - they start to see their gun-owning next-door neighbor as the enemy. For me to believe America is beyond salvation, I'll need cold hard facts.

Personally, I read the "quote" from Tyler and the only parts that surprised me were the murder rate comparisons at the end and the population tallies of the counties won (the land mass claims could have been verified on election day by anyone who wasn't colorblind :) ).
 
The murder rates should not be suprising at all. If you take the murder rates of Gore areas such as DC, LA, Chicago, NYC, Baltimore, New Orleans and Miami, and compare it to the number of murders for the same number of people in the NonGore areas of the big square staes in the middle, I think the murder rates could be skewed even more.
 
A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.
Actually, that's nearly a direct quote from Polybius (200-118BC).

And, it's important to note that we don't live in democracy. In writing about the Roman Republic, Polybius suggested that monarchy, democracy, and oligarchy were all unstable forms of government. The Republic, however, combined the best of each into a highly stable form:
  • Monarch = executive
    Oligarch = Senate
    Democracy = general elections
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/polybius6.html

The US's Founding Fathers were well versed in Polybius.
 
The Republic, however, combined the best of each into a highly stable form

that may have been what Polybius thought, but he was wrong - as subsequent events showed.

In fact, the Roman Republic was fundamentally unstable because of the separation and conflict between the Senatorial class and the proles / tribunate / "new men" who started to come to prominence following the Gracchi and Caius Marius. These groups squabbled over the increased wealth provided by the Empire, creating a series of factional leaders who held power, culminating in Octavian.

Nowhere in the Classical world was there a stable form of government as we would understand the term today (especially places like Athens, Sparta and Carthage).
 
I always thought that "voting themselves largesse from the public coffers" came from deTocqueville. What, around the 1850s he was wandering around the U.S., gathering material for his book? Dunno for sure.

Art
 
Nowhere in the Classical world was there a stable form of government as we would understand the term today (especially places like Athens, Sparta and Carthage).
lex Hortensia (287 B.C.) to ~100BC is a greater duration than most republics that exist today.

The problem of balance between the separate branches of government has been, and probably always will be, a great concern.
Lycurgus, I say, saw all this and accordingly combined together all the excellences and distinctive features of the best constitutions, that no part should become unduly predominant and be perverted into its kindred vice; and that, each power being checked by the others, no one part should turn the scale or decisively out-balance the others; but that, by being accurately adjusted and in exact equilibrium, the whole might remain long steady like a ship sailing close to the wind.
 
what a skewed and dishonest history lesson the author paints. I'm surprised anyone would post it in any serious manner.


Bush won by more square miles? No mention of the popular vote tallies though because that would be too honest and wouldn't jibe with the authors emotional plea?

This is by far the most egregious myth going:

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


The tax paying citizens in "Bush country" are heavily subsidized by "Gore Country" also known as the producer states who pay more in taxes than they do. The rural states recieve far more than they pay into the system. The producer states pay in far more than they recieve. In some rural states (forget which) the per capita pervcentage of people on governement assistance is higher than the per capita rate in most major cities. Just 2 weeks ago I saw reports of entire towns of polygamists in Utah/Arizona that are all on welfare (they were in the news over some sort of power struggle). Is that indicative of either state? No. Nor is a tenement in NYC being all on welfare indicative of the stae of NY, the financial capital of the world.


I understand that the author knows he is comparing apples to oranges to manipulate you, as do most of the poeple that perpetuate these agitaprop emails. Nice work debunking the murder rate facade.

The society we have forged isn't perfect. But it's still better than any others I've seen. But, divide and conquerm for the votes and the power. With the state of our public ed, it seems to be getting easier each year :)
 
Jonsey

Have a few questions for you. Why do you support socialists, like Kerry, who want to severely restrict, your ability to defend yourself?

At what level of income does one become "rich"?

Why should I pay health care costs for people not in my immediate family? Why should others pay for things I should work to get?
 
I agree with 7.62FMJ. I'm disappointed and doing my part from cutting that apron string to the government.

Obij-
Have a few questions for you. Why do you support socialists, like Kerry, who want to severely restrict, your ability to defend yourself?

I agree with you. What is the definition of 'rich'?

Also, just because someone might meet the definition of 'rich', doesn't mean that they are truly rich in all areas of the country.

If paying taxes is good, then how much taxes are best to pay?

Once you take your gross pay, figure out how much goes to the goverment for any reason, income tax, social security, sales tax, gas tax, alcohol tax, tobacco tax, licenses, permits etc. I bet you find that a surprisingly large portion of your pay check is taken for one tax or another.

But I suppose I digress.

-Jim
 
OJI- where do I support socialists? that's quite a smear, no need for personal attacks.

While I have defended him when people have posted false information about him, I've never declared my support of any candidate (although I may have mentioned looking at the constitution party)

As for:
"Have a few questions for you. Why do you support socialists, like Kerry, who want to severely restrict, your ability to defend yourself?

At what level of income does one become "rich"?

Why should I pay health care costs for people not in my immediate family? Why should others pay for things I should work to get?"


You should answer those questions on your own but I certainly understand why you're throwing them out there and I'm not interested in biting.

If had any input on the current topic instead of just leveling an attack I'll be happy to engage you,K? :)
 
OJI- where do I support socialists? that's quite a smear, no need for personal attacks.

While I have defended him when people have posted false information about him, I've never declared my support of any candidate (although I may have mentioned looking at the constitution party)

Jonesy

Sorry. I assumed, by your vigorous defense of socialist candidates like Kerry, that you supported them.

I've answered those questions I poised to you years ago.

At what level of income does one become "rich"?
Monetarily, rich is being able to buy whatever you want, when you want it. If you have to decide between two wants because you don't have money for both, you're not rich.

Why should I pay health care costs for people not in my immediate family?
I shouldn't. People should be responsible for their own families.

Why should others pay for things I should work to get?
No one should be forced to pay for my needs.

My previous post is not an attack. Maybe you're hyper-sensitive?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top