5 replies [Last post]
Don Fischer's picture
Offline
Moderator
Location: Antelope, Ore
Joined: 03/24/2005
Posts: 3190
something to think about

Subject: This is scary
>
>
>
>
>
> About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution
> in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University
> of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some
> 2,000 years earlier:
> "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 they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public
> treasury."
>
> "From that moment on, the majority always vote 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 world's greatest civilizations from the
> beginning of history, has been about 200 years."
>
> "During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the
> following sequence:
> 1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
> 2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
> 3. From courage to liberty;
> 4. From liberty to abundance;
> 5. From abundance to complacency;
> 6. From complacency to apathy;
> 7. From apathy to dependence;
> 8. From dependence back into bondage"
>
> Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, S t. Paul,
> Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000
> Presidential election:
>
> Number of States won by: Gore: 19; Bush: 29
> Square miles of land won by: Gore: 580,000; Bush: 2,427,000
> Population of counties won by: Gore: 127 million; Bush: 143 million
> 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 taxpaying citizens of this great country.
> Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in
> government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government
> welfare..."
>
> Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency
> and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some
> forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the
> "governmental dependency" phase.
>
> If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty-million criminal
> invaders called illegals and they vote, then we can say good-bye to the
> USA in fewer than five years.
>
> Pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake,
> knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.
>

Offline
Joined: 02/25/2007
Posts: 53
something to think about

Certainly that is one way to analyze the nature of the democratic state. My question is how does this analysis relate to illegal immigration? As you quote Olson, this has absolutely nothing to do with illegals. It seems as though there are two completely unrelated converations here - one about Olson and one about illegals.

The only thing I know of Olson is what you have quoted. That being said his analysis seems oversimplified. I will critique these quotes point by point.

1)

Quote:
Number of States won by: Gore: 19; Bush: 29
> Square miles of land won by: Gore: 580,000; Bush: 2,427,000
> Population of counties won by: Gore: 127 million; Bush: 143 million
> Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
> Gore: 13.2;
> Bush: 2.1

Neither the number of states, counties or square mileage for one candidate or another has any bearing on voting in this country. In a democracy such as the US we count one vote per person. That is what democracy, or rule by the people, is all about. If it were about land it would be a gov't of the landed aristocracy. Welcome to the USA land of democracy.

2)

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

Everyone pays taxes both rich and poor, so this point is moot. Furthermore, the wealthy own a disproportionate amount of land in the US. Considering this and following Olson's premise we can also conclude that mostly the wealthy voted for Bush while the working folk voted for Gore.
Lastly, more people live in the city than in the country. So the disparity between number of voters versus proportion of land owning voters is easily explained. Fewer people living in the country own more land than a greater amount of people in the city.

I would also point out that a higher percentage of educated Americans live in urban areas. So are we to assume that the uninformed vote for Bush and the educated vote for Gore? I am not suggesting this, but it is this same of logic that Olson uses. Quite simply it is oversimplified. Something as complex as voter attitudes and voting patterns cannot be explained with a few weak statistics.

Offline
Location: Idaho
Joined: 02/28/2006
Posts: 162
something to think about

Solohunter,
Don's point does relate to illegals because many are already dependant on welfare and if made citizens almost all, being low income citizens would become dependant on the govenment. Not all of course but enough.
Don is right, dependancy on government is the fastest way to lose your freedom. Any history buff could cite civilation after civilation that was forced into bondage because they had no choice. The whole point of democracy is to give people power over their government but if people depend on the government for their bread and butter all power is lost. The government then has all power. That is very SCARY! I don't care what you say. Where our government is headed, democrat or republican, is scary. I dont' trust any of them any more.
Hank

Offline
Joined: 02/25/2007
Posts: 53
something to think about

My point is not about the idea of gov't dependence leading to a loss of rights. My argument is about how Olson arrives at the conclusion that the poor welfare dependent people voted for Gore and the hard working tax paying folks voted for Bush. There are some major leaps in logic in his analysis. I could go on but I just don't care to.

Don Fischer's picture
Offline
Moderator
Location: Antelope, Ore
Joined: 03/24/2005
Posts: 3190
something to think about

I'm in the same boat with you Hank. I find it hard to trust any party to be operating in the best intrest of the people of the US. How about a government that makes and inforces laws but if something goes wrong it excempts itself from responsibility? I find it odd that we can be told we'll wear seatbelts or be punished but when terrorist attack us the same government wants to give victums families a million dollars. On one hand they take away your right to choose and on the other resort to pork barrel feel good tactics that I guess shows their great compassion.

I do believe that one of the best things that could happen in this country right now is a true voter revolt. That is every incumbent, good and bad, get's voted out of office the next two general elections. I have been told that would be bad because there would be nobody left that truely knows their way around government. Sounds like that would be good to me!

Chuck-n-Alaska's picture
Offline
Location: Southcentral Alaska
Joined: 04/26/2007
Posts: 222
something to think about

Here is a pretty good link on welfare, it suppose to be true, don't know if it is or not. Even so congress could take a lesson from it.

DAVY CROCKETT