The Life Span of a Republic

Status
Not open for further replies.
Old Abe had to show the South states rights didn't matter, he was the boss.
It wasn't about slavery, don't be fooled with history's rewrite.
Here is a good and easy place to start, that's not a heavy read-

Constitutional Chaos : What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws by Andrew P. Napolitano

CT
 
I wonder how many democracies and republics will have to fail before we try something new.
Perhaps a system where your rights must be earned through public service.
 
I thought the whole point of God given, unalienable rights was that you didn't have to earn them, they are yours to begin with. Only through the folly of men do we have to earn them.
 
no, only through the folly of men do we lose them.

and no god gave me any rights, the men who fought wars gave me my rights.
If certain rights actually had to be earned, they would be a lot more valuable to people.
 
Abraham Lincoln was for sending black people back to Africa. When that failed he gathered black leaders and proposed a plan to send them to Central America, which was largely agreed upon. Only problem was, all of the Central American countries refused them! Lincoln was a colossal racist by todays standards. Though to be fair, so was Jefferson, and not just because he owned slaves. He has made it very clear that he thought blacks are inferior to whites in nearly every aspect.
 
To those who consider states' rights to have been the cause of the civil war, and Lincoln to have been in the wrong on the issue, do you apply similar logic to the rights of states to allow gay marriage (MA for example), euthanasia (OR) or medical marijuana (CA)

Is Bush's DOJ wrong in fighting those states' rights? Or not?
 
dmallind, I feel that Lincoln trampled all over states rights and the civil war was a direct result of that. I don't approve of slavery as I consider all people equal. Lincoln went about it in the wrong way. I am of the same feeling on Roe v. Wade. While I believe every woman should have the right to choose, Roe v. Wade goes about guaranteeing it in the wrong way.

Massachusetts is absolutely correct in its support of gay marriage
Oregon is absolutely correct in allowing physician assisted suicide
California (and 11 other states) are absolutely correct in allowing the use of marijuana and hopefully Nevada will be the first to legalize its use for personal pleasure.

The reason these states are correct is because they protect the rights of the people.
 
Right now, from where I sit, the US is about 60% apathetic, and 40% dependant. Oh, a sizeable number will swear (from the comfort of their living room Lay-Z-Boy) that they do care, and get quite vehement about it. Still, when it comes time to DO something they are always too busy, too broke, or some other excuse. Apathy. Of course, they'll loudly cheer someone who makes an effort in the right direction, but never do anything that might inconvenience their comfortable lifestyle.

There is another group, probably single digit percentage, that DO care and WOULD do something even if it were costly and laborious and very inconvenient... they simply do not know what that something is. There is a leadership vacuum that is yearning to be filled.

Right now the ptb's are doing everything they can to foster dependency. Controlling the money will be a big part of it. After we pass 50% dependent, expect to start seeing the bondage aspect start making an appearance.
 
brusso01: What's ptb stand for?

Very interesting thread. I also have been wondering what will happen to our country in the next few generations. I have grand-kids that I worry about. Like my Great-granma used to often say, "Lordy, Lordy, Lordy. What's this world coming to?"

It seems to me like a great many fall in the compalcency-apathy category.

Revolution, civil-war, whatever? To quote a guy in the movie Platoon, "I got a baaaad feelin' about this."
 
The minute that we began allowing the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to take care of things that the local population and government traditionally took care of we signed away our rights. Government by nature tends to grab as much power as the citizens allow it to have. When we constantly make the statement that there "ought to be a law" we are allowing the government to use our very words against us to increase its power. We are fooling ourselves if we believe that we actually live in a truly free society today. We are not allowed to live our lives as we see fit, we are limited by artificial, tyrannical laws that inhibit our ability to be the kind of people we are supposed to be. By the way rights were NOT given to me by anyone dying on a battlefield, they were protected and defended by those men. My rights were mine the second I was born, this is what Jefferson meant when he said that all men are endowed with with certain rights. We as a society have bought into the idea that the government is a safe depository of the guarantees of our rights and the government has turned around and told us that certain rights are not "acceptable" or "progressive enough for us to enjoy and have. If anyone is interested in learning more about the true rights of Americans they need to read more of the writings of the "Other Founders" of the United States--The Antifederalists!!!

Stonewall34
 
I am familiar with this historian's work. Keep in mind, however, that he is speaking of democracy. Not all republics are democracies. Ours wasn't designed as one, but it has evolved into one. He is right, though, that once you have universal suffrage, the republic is lost. It's just a matter of time. Posts in a republic ought only be elected by those with a stake in preserving liberty. The Founders had it right when only property owners held the voting franchise. Property depends on liberty. Property owners are the only members of a society with a stake in continued liberty. Those without property will, quite naturally, vote for whomever will promise to cut away at property rights so as to make way for continually greater degrees of collectivism. With the loss of liberty comes the end of the rule of law. With the end of the rule of law comes lawlessness, and with lawlessness comes despotism, i.e., those in power (by now thoroughly corrupted by collectivism) will crack down with a police state in order to maintain control of the population. Next comes total collapse and revolution. It is likely that our fate was sealed when the voting franchise was loosed from property ownership and made universal.
Click to expand...

Horse hockey. I am a 24 year old who has a college degree in a discipline the general population can't seem to overcome their fear of, I am more informed about the issues than most people I know.

But I will never own property. Real estate where I live is just too pricey, and I serve the general public so it's not like I'll ever be more prosperous or wealthy. Your mortgage payment (assuming you have one, dear reader) is more money than I make in a month.

That's right I work for a living. I'm not a welfare case and I'd sooner starve than be one. However I am paid with tax dollars. Why should I be wholly at the mercy of people who can vote when I can't? There's people who are more than happy to pay me nothing and scrap my medical benefits already in office. Hell my retirement got gutted last year because the voters decided it. This year I'm getting those politicians out of office with my vote. I should have some sort of say in it.

The point is, if I'm not old enough or mature enough or smart enough to vote you might have a leg to stand on. I don't pretend I'm some sort of genius or that I understand all of the human condition, but I'd like to think I can reach a logical decision through rational thought. If I can't vote, then who can?
 
+1 Euclidean

Only allowing property owners the right to vote creates a special class of citizens, and makes everyone else, like myself, worthless to society. A democracy, in my opinion, stands on it's people and their right to vote.

Not allowing people to vote because they don't own property sounds like not letting blacks vote 50 or so years ago. It's absolute discrimination.
 
Euclidian, thats exactly why I feel the right to vote should be earned through service to the people instead of granted through property ownership or skin color.

No one can be forbidden the opportunity to serve for any reason. Service may be started at any time after your 18th b-day. You are not permitted to vote after your 2 year term, but should you choose to remain in service longer (i.e. military) you are allowed to excercise your voting rights.

I liked the idea the first time I heard it and have thought it would work quite well for the people who actually wish to vote and excercise their voice.
 
I got the idea from Heinlein's book Starship Troopers. Actually, I liked the entire operation of their government (including corporal punishment) but that would never work in our society.

The idea of earning the vote, certainly could.

I don't know if Heinlein actually believed it though. He was rather quiet regarding his own personal views.
 
Property owners are the only members of a society with a stake in continued liberty.
Click to expand...
I can't let that pass without comment. It's horsey-hockey. Everyone in a society has a stake in liberty. Liberty does not equal property. It's a little deeper than that.

Now, you might argue that property owners have a better awareness of the need for liberty, and that is also ridiculous. Look at the average suburban soccer mom (or dad) home owner. The average suburn dweller is deeply imbedded in American Idol and (whatever that Trump thing is called, or add your own best example). These people give sheep a bad name.

In my observation, property owners, especially big ones, are as ready to vote themselves big government handouts as anyone. It's just that, whereas poor renters might want to vote themselves some paltry welfare check, the property owners will buy a politician to "vote" themselves a massive government boondoggle. Just look at the Farm Bill, or the massive subsidies to real estate development, mining, timber, etc.

I mostly agree with the sentiment of the (apparently apocryphal) quotes in the original post in regard to the inherent weakness of Democracy (or you could say human nature), but hoisting "property owners" as the solution doesn't serve any purpose.
 
Geez. So replace "property owners" with "those who give more in taxes than they receive in benefits."

Feel better now?

The economic scene has changed a bit in the last few hundred years; used to be, though, that property owners were the only folks with real wealth.

If you don't like the +/- tax test, how about "those with a positive net worth of greater than <insert # here>?"

Because this is part of the problem: 47% of the population pays either no income taxes, or receives money back. Their vote counts as much as those people who contribute a million/year each.

Personally, I feel like if you're not paying into the system, then you get no say on how the money's spent.
 
Only allowing property owners the right to vote creates a special class of citizens, and makes everyone else, like myself, worthless to society. A democracy, in my opinion, stands on it's people and their right to vote.
Click to expand...
Voting is a right?
 
Derek Zeanah
Because this is part of the problem: 47% of the population pays either no income taxes, or receives money back. Their vote counts as much as those people who contribute a million/year each.

Personally, I feel like if you're not paying into the system, then you get no say on how the money's spent.
Click to expand...
Paying into the system? Since when did "he who contributes the most to support the biggest most expensive and corrupt bureaucratic empire" become something to be esteemed above being educated, owning property and achieving financial independence?

Since when did paying ever increasing taxes in perpetuity equate to some place of honor among citizens?

------------------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
 
Nathaniel,

Yup.
Click to expand...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/27/gas.rebate/index.html

Thanks --this link was the best example of blatant Roman Circus
patronage for the peons I've seen today. At some point the party
is gonna stop.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Most American taxpayers would get $100 rebate checks to offset the pain of higher pump prices for gasoline, under an amendment Senate Republicans hope to bring to a vote soon....Democrats are also expected to offer their own competing proposal, as members of both parties jockey for political position on the gas price issue.
<snip>
Frist said the rebates would go to single taxpayers making less than $125,000 per year, and couples making less than $150,000. (insert knee-slapping smilie here)
Click to expand...

Where do people think these "rebates" come from? Oh, yeah, just sell
more of our country to China while everyone still believes there's such a
thing as a free lunch..... :rolleyes:

Wake up, people, our kids, grandkids, and GREAT grandkids will be paying
for this kind of stupidity in the future. I really hope the boomers love
their approaching retirement years because they've sold out future
generations of this country for their temporary trivial creature comforts. :fire:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
History repeats itself
Replies
12
Views
2K
Dennis Olson
D
J
  • Locked
History lesson
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
Baba Louie
Baba Louie
M
  • Locked
Quote that sent shivers down my spine...
Replies
22
Views
2K
grampster
grampster
B
  • Locked
Thoughts on The Election and Country.Long
Replies
3
Views
385
tailgunner
T
L
  • Locked
GWB & Gore last election. What you think??
Replies
6
Views
532
cloudkiller
C
Back
Top