I'm curious how everyone here would respond to this quote, as I think it is increasingly becoming reality:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."

It seems to me the only thing prolonging the existence of the Democratic system is the innovation of new technologies and economic engines that have primarily come from the United States. The United States has, until recently, avoided the decent into democratic socialism to which Europe has succumbed. New innovations allow the state to continue to fund itself. As socialism spreads, which seems to be inevitable under democracy, the incentives for developing new innovations diminishes, while the amount of money required to fund the state increases.

The question for Democracy becomes, can the state itself facilitate the development of new innovations that will expand its economy and feed its ever expanding need for cash? The answer seems to me to be no. Europe has declined into stagnation and debt crises, which seems to be the ultimate fate of all democracy.

People will always vote for their own self interest, which is an expanded state providing more and more benefits. The result is suicide, indicating to me that Democracy is a failed system.

Very true.

It's been doomed for decades!

This country aint even a democracy anyway. The US is and has always been a republic.

Completely untrue.

People will not vote for their self interest. They will vote for what they perceive to be their self interest, although that won't always be to give themselves wealth. They also love being altruistic with other people's wealth, and believing that money will fix everything, so they will feel good about spending money to fix a problem, even if the money spent is completely wasted and incapable of fixing the problem. People will always vote to make themselves feel good. And that means they will vote for anything that their gullible minds can be convinced is a charitable use of money, and helps the poor or disadvantaged people. Why? Because "helping" the poor feels good, even if you're just making yourself feel good, and not actually helping the poor. To a lot of people, it even feels better than doing what is most likely to make you wealthy.

If you assume people are intelligent, any conclusion you draw from that will be unsupported. If you assume that people are idiots, you get a much realistic and accurate conclusion.

Also, here's one piece of elementary logic for you:

1st statement: All People are idiots
2nd statement: All leaders are people

Inescapable conclusion: All leaders are idiots

THE MIGHTY CLAN DANGER DISAGREES WITH STATEMENT NUMBER 1, AND THEREFORE ALSO DISAGREES WITH THE INESCAPABLE CONCLUSION.

THE UNITED STATES WAS FOUNDED BY AN INCREDIBLE COLLECTION OF VERY WISE PEOPLE WHO STUDIED HISTORY, EXAMINED WHY GOVERNMENTS FAIL, AND CAME UP WITH A SYSTEM THAT PERPETUALLY PITS ONE PART OF GOVERNMENT AGAINST ANOTHER. FROM THE COEQUAL BRANCHES OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WITH COMPETING POWERS AND INTERESTS, TO THE FEDERALIST SYSTEM UNDER WHICH ALMOST ALL POWERS WERE RESERVED TO THE STATES, WITH THE EXPECTATION THAT STATES WOULD FIGHT (FIGURATIVELY OR LITERALLY) TO PRESERVE THEIR POWERS.

THE FOUNDERS RECOGNIZED THAT "ENLIGHTENED STATESMEN" WOULD NOT ALWAYS BE IN CHARGE, AND AS SUCH THEY CONSTRUCTED A CONSTITUTION THAT SEVERELY LIMITED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S POWER. THEY EXPECTED THEIR POSTERITY - US - TO BE THE LAST LINE OF DEFENSE AGAINST TYRANNY. THEY EXPECTED THAT WE WOULD, LIKE THEM, VALUE OUR LIBERTY ABOVE ALL ELSE.

WHAT THEY DIDN'T FORESEE WAS THE WAYS IN WHICH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, BY IGNORING THE CONSTITUTION AND WITH A COMPLIANT SUPREME COURT, WOULD PERVERT THE PROCESS. I DON'T THINK THEY IMAGINED THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WOULD USE TAXATION TO TAKE UP TO 1/3 (MORE IN YEARS PAST) OF THE WEALTH OF THE CITIZENS, AND THEN EXTORT THE STATES WITH THAT MONEY.

THEY ALSO DIDN'T FORESEE THAT WE, THE PEOPLE, WOULD BECOME SO COMPLACENT AS TO SIMPLY STAND BY AS OUR LIBERTY IS STOLEN AN INCH AT A TIME, IN THE NAME OF THE "COMMON GOOD". THE LAST LINE OF DEFENSE IS FAILING, BECAUSE WE REFUSE TO BOOT OUT THE "REPRESENTATIVES" (IN BOTH PARTIES) WHO THINK IT IS THE JOB OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO BE OUR NANNIES.

IF ANY OF YOU THINK I'M FALSELY ASCRIBING MOTIVES OR BELIEFS TO THE FOUNDERS WHICH THEY DID NOT HOLD, I BEG YOU TO SPEND SOME TIME READING THE FEDERALIST PAPERS. THEN COME BACK HERE AND TELL ME WHAT YOU LEARNED. YOU WILL BE ASTOUNDED AT HOW WE HAVE TWISTED THE ORIGINAL VISION OF THIS NATION.

AND BY THE WAY, THIS IS NOTHING NEW. EVEN SOME OF THE VERY PEOPLE INVOLVED IN CRAFTING THE GREAT DOCUMENTS THIS NATION WAS FOUNDED UPON SOON WENT TO WORK ASSAULTING LIBERTY. EVEN THEY, WHO HAD RECOGNIZED HOW EASILY POWER CAN CORRUPT, WERE NOT IMMUNE TO ITS SIREN SONG. WHAT HAS CHANGED IS THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS SPENT THE LAST CENTURY KNOCKING DOWN THE BARRIERS TO TYRANNY, AND AS WE CONTINUE TO IGNORE IT, THE PROCESS ACCELERATES.

LIBERTY IS ONLY DOOMED IF WE WILL NOT STAND UP FOR IT. IT IS OUR DUTY TO PROTECT IT WITH OUR BALLOTS, SO THAT OUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN DO NOT HAVE TO RECLAIM IT WITH BULLETS. BOTH "MAJOR" PARTIES ARE ENSLAVING YOUR POSTERITY TO CRIPPLING DEBT. STOP VOTING FOR THEM, OR STOP PRETENDING TO CARE ABOUT THE FUTURE.

HA!

SAM

Any evidence to the contrary? Of course, many will vote for what they think is best for a country as a whole, but a Democracy requires 51%. 51% will always vote for their own interests over a country as a whole.

Elected officials in the United States are highly responsive to the public. They are self-interested and adopt the policies of their constituents so that they can get reelected.

Representative democracy won't end just because politics you dislike is being adopted around the world.

Becoming socialist does not end representative democracy (or republic, if you prefer that term). Socialism in it's evolving form has to do with which policies are adopted by the government. Republicanism and democracy merely address how those policies are decided on.

That point having been made, SAM_DANGER is 100% on the mark.

SAM_DANGER FOR PREZ!!!

HA!

Until we stop having professional politicians, we will be in decline. Politics was never meant to be a career, but a true act of public service.

pretty much.
only need to look at australia's politics atm to see a failed democratic system.
each option is as bad as the other pretty much, and their political campaigns are both aimed at making the other look bad, rather than laying solid policy. Instead of demonstrating plans as to how they intend on governing the country and spending our money, they would rather attack each other in slanging matches.

"It seems to me the only thing prolonging the existence of the Democratic system is the innovation of new technologies and economic engines that have primarily come from the United States."

That statement alone renders your argument moot. In the 19th century Britain was light years ahead in terms of "democracy" and getting closer to "universal sufferage" than the united states. It was also a much more advanced military and economic power. In the 20th century while the US (after WW2) became the worlds formost economic/military power, it was never the most democratic nor was it ever intended to be set up to be that way.
The president of the united states is not directly elected for example.


Democracy fails when the system get corrupted by entities that are not elected by the people, be it influential individuals, corporate interests or foreign powers.


The fact that people believe economic freedom = democracy is illustrative of my point above.

Less economic freedom does not mean less democracy. Just like economic freedom does not mean democracy. There are plenty of examples of high levels of economic "Freedom" from some of the worlds most brutal dictatorships. China is granting more and more economic freedom to it's citizens. It's not getting more democratic anytime soon.

To imply that Germany, France, and Italy (for example) are less democratic than the united states illustrates a very narrow minded view of the world. As far as "the death of democracy goes", your statements could be lifted directly out of a press release from the conservative colation in 1934.

And the comment regarding "socialism" stiffling innovation.

You do realize that a large degree of research/innovation in the united states came about as the result of government funding either directly or indirectly? And I'm not just talking about NASA and military spin off technology.

lol @ "descent into democratic socialism". Only in the US is socialism an insult.

(citation needed)

Sam nailed it. The founding fathers were pretty much obsessed with one thing: preventing the abuse of power. They were paranoid of this, and rightfully so. And speaking of power, the primary goal of those that hold power is and always will be the same. That being to KEEP whatever power they have. Everything else is secondary, including the expansion of said power.

People should always vote in their own interests. There is overlap between voting in your own interest and the interest as the country as a whole. Part of the reason why we elect people to represent us rather than putting everything to a direct vote is in the hope that those we elect can balance the two.

The only advantage democracy has over other systems is that it's easier to replace governments we don't like and/or hold them accountable. Not to say that it's super easy.

What frightens me the most in some countries are the elements advocating forms fascism which has had an even worse track record than communism as a form of government (even excluding the nazis).

Portugal and Argentina are very striking examples of why we should not head in that direction

Mhmm I agree with martian; there seems to be a line of thinking amongst Republican americans that democracy means "you can do whatever you want with your money", extended from people to corporations; that, incidentally, is not the classical definition of democracy.

It seems as though you've completely missed my point. My point is that the fate of Democracy seems to be overwhelming debt to the point that it collapses. Debt is highly popular. People want the government to collect debt to provide them with more benefits. At the same time, the expanding state stifles private innovation, which is it's own source of income.

I'm not arguing that any country is more Democratic than another... not sure where you got that from. Socialism is highly Democratic because it's ultimately what people want, but it's also destructive.

The problem is, there's a difference between what people perceive as their own interests, and what their own interests actually are. Everyone has a different idea of what each person's own interest should be, and its hard to pick any one person's answer as correct. But we can clearly see wrong choices, and people definitely make those.

People will vote for what they perceive to be their self-interest. Some people will claim that they are not voting in their self-interest, because they are voting to make themselves less wealthy, and because they're voting to "help" the poor. But in their situation, they find it preferable to have the government take more money from them (but much more importantly to them, to take more money from everyone else as well) to achieve these goals that they view as a worthy use of taxpayer money. They are still voting in their self-interest, because by voting to "help" the poor, they feel less guilty about actually not doing anything to help the poor on their own. And that peace of mind they get is more valuable than money to them.

"The answer seems to me to be no. Europe has declined into stagnation and debt crises, which seems to be the ultimate fate of all democracy."

And the US hasnt? from what ive gathered the democrats in the US actually wants to raise taxes to be able to pay off the debt while the republicans refuse

I'm yet to see any sort of empirical evidence that shows government spending inhibits innovation.

We are heading in the same direction as Europe i.e. Greece if we don't change something now. You can't just keep printing money and spend your way out of all your problems.

If we continue on this path, our fate will be that of Greece.

Politics are fluffed.

Also this is LOL:

http://www.humanevents.com/...ts-ban-corporate-profits/

I WOULD VOTE FOR HIM! :D

The last time we had a balanced budget... which political party was in office? ;)

My buddy posted this reply to the OP:

"The countries in Europe which declined to stagnation and debt crises are not democratic socialist states. at least not on the scale of the scandanavian countries.

Something to consider: capitalism is the only world economic system that we know. socialism is a subset in that the difference is that government plays a role in the redistribution of capital (into social services for the people) as opposed to the flow of capital being directed by free enterprise/free markets. Pure socialism is communism, pure capitalism is fascism. neither can exist in democratic states because they will oppress the masses. this is an academic theoretical exercise: we have no pure examples of its implementation on a global scale.

People "always" voting in their own self-interest is a statement which forms the basis of western political thought - rather, it is a perspective (Locke? someone help me here, its late and I woke up just to write this out) of one ideology which forms a particular theoretical framework.

If people vote (i'll take this to be "act" in general) in their own self-interest, there is the question of whether those actions turn man into beast/animal or common citizen. One is ruled purely on instinct, survival (in our case: get rich at the expense of future generations, hence, a result of inevitable suicide). The other factors in intelligence and reason and logic and an appeal to a moral 'center'. This other is what makes us able to NOT vote for self-indulgence, short sided returns. It is the reason why we still value hard-work regardless of whatever silver spoon government, heritage, race, religion, culture bestows on us.

"Avoided descent into democratic socialism" sounds like democratic socialism is an evil to be avoided. Look at the fiscally responsible nations which are able to better navigate economic disasters. In relation to the USA, Canada is democratically socialist. We are not unaffected, but we are less affected.

Innovation of new technologies sounds to me like the development of new products and services to sell to the rest of the world to fund the current standard of life. But there are two sides: one is the supply (development) side, the other is the consumption side. There are so many factors at play here. The US may be the fiscal (policy) centre of the world, but it is no longer the monetary (cash money yo) one. China has largely replaced the US as the economic hegemon simply because of its purchasing power.

I do not see how the spread of socialist policy reduces the incentive for new innovation because socialism and capitalism are different sides of the same coin - the aggregation/redistribution of capital and who gets to make those decisions. This balance and the "ratio" for the lack of a better term of how these two interplay is reflected in different nations across the world, some more right, some more left. The result are decisions made for the longevity of their respecitive societies.

Democracy isn't a failed system because it is still here. Failed systems are the ones in history which no longer exist."

Argentina is a DISASTER, I know, im from there :(

lol nice touch

In which office? And why was it "balanced?" The technical answer I believe is actually Eisenhower. I suspect you're seeking Clinton and then foolishly believe it's in balance by his choice rather than Congressional budget resolutions requiring it and a stellar economy funding it. How off am I in my presumptions?

=p.

You're talking about things the private sector is prohibited from administering or doesn't have a financial incentive to do so (such as NIH supporting research for a very rare disease). What you're not factoring in is socialism's depressant effect on entrepreneurs. It's not always the case, but often is.

This case well laid out by the Economist so I feel little need to rehash it except with some quotes and a link to the article:

"There are about 50,000 Germans in Silicon Valley, and an estimated 500 start-ups in the San Francisco Bay area with French founders. One of the things they find there is a freedom to fail."
...
"According to an analysis of the world’s 500 biggest publicly listed firms by Nicolas Véron and Thomas Philippon of Bruegel, a think-tank, Europe gave birth to just 12 new big companies between 1950 and 2007. America produced 52 in the same period (see chart 1). Europe has only three big new listed firms founded between 1975 and 2007. Of those, two were started in Britain or Ireland, which are closer to America in their attitude to enterprise than continental Europe. Europe’s big privately held firms, too, mostly date from before 1950, often a very long time before."

http://www.economist.com/...=scn/tw_ec/les_mis_rables

And, by the way, America is sadly moving in the direction of Europe on how it treats stuff. For instance, the new bankruptcy laws following from Dodd-Frank move us more toward the Euro-centric model of risk aversion, which is entirely contraditory toward our goals.

you keep repeating this comment about large companies being mainly US based as if somehow there's some benefit to a country from having large companies

when on a per capita GDP basis the eurozone core nations are at the same ratio with America as they were at the beginning of your survey

Whose goals?!?!?!?

There is a huge benefit to hosting corporations. Ask any Governor or state staffer in an Economic Development office.

And that's not my survey, that's the Economist's survey and column. I just happen to think they're raising an astute point.

Fair point, I should clarify to say toward mine and many Americans belief in a goal of promoting small business and economic entrepreneurs/innovation.

http://news.yahoo.com/...atic-photo-230750114.html

In a round-a-bout way, you agreed with statement #1.

I think the fall of democracy won't come from the government itself, but rather everyone's desperate clinging to economic growth. Capitalism worked wonders when economies grew, but those times are beginning to fade. I don't find it likely that it will return either. Socialism is the obvious soft next step as more and more control will be needed. Innovations rate diminishes partly because the more we've had, the harder new ones are to obtain, but also because we can't afford to innovate as much as previously.

Injecting socialism to capitalism is like mixing gas and water in your tank and expecting to run your engine or drink it safely.

I think your initial analysis is flawed, Klown, while the quote you provided is both vague and, when put into context, demonstrably false.

I'm going to work backwards through those three points. First, why it's demonstrably false:

That quote is attributed to Alexander Tytler, a Scottish lawyer who served as a lord judge during the early part of the 19th century. The quote is probably apocryphal, and so its exact date cannot be determined, but since British debt spiked during this time, it seems reasonable that it is British debt, democracy and fiscal policy of this period to which the quote was meant to be directed.

Unfortunately for your argument, the predictions made in this quote never came to pass. Despite debt of over 200% of GDP which existed in Britain towards the end of Tytler's life (which ballooned to over 250% in the decades following his death) democratic traditions in Britain strengthened throughout the 19th century, and have continued to strengthen to this day. British debt has spiked and withdrawn several times throughout this period, but at no point could its form of governance has been described as a dictatorship.

In other words, the quote you're using to demonstrate a general rule, was false even in the very limited context surrounding its original issuance.

Beyond the fact that his prediction did not come to pass, the quote itself is virtually meaningless. It begins with a statement which cannot be denied, saying "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government". Yet, when you give it some thought you realize that no form of government (in fact, no system either man-made or natural) can exist indefinitely. Eventually it will be replaced, morph into something new, or collapse. And so, specifying Democracy is disingenuous (as it implies that this is a condition unique to that form of government) and meaningless once you realize its deceptiveness.

The next line, "It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury" is equally meaningless because it's based on a false assumption; that voters can vote themselves "largesse". At some point, they cannot vote for more largesse... and reaching this point does not invariably result in the collapse of democracy.

This part is simply bullfluff: "From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury". Voters do not side with the person who promises the most benefits. They vote for the person they believe can deliver the most benefits -- but "delivering benefits" does not necessarily mean spending money. It's a non-sequiter, because in this context benefit ought to simple mean "the thing which benefits the voter" rather than what it means in the modern US context (this is something which actually makes me doubt the origin of this quote... but I digress).

Here's my biggest wtf moment: "with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy"... many democracies survive loose fiscal policy, and many democracies collapse for other reasons, so this statement has no foundation in reality.

Okay, I lied, this is the biggest wtf moment: "always followed by a dictatorship" Where did dictatorship come from? Nothing else in this quote provides any logical reason why a dictatorship is inevitable. That is, unless you define any type of government in which the people has ultimate power as a "democracy" and every other form of government as a "dictatorship"... in which case, obviously where there's no democracy there will be dictatorship, because we've just defined those terms in such a way where one of them must always be present.

Anyway, that's why your quote sucks... on a line by line basis, it's either ignoring reality or saying nothing. And the prediction it seems to make did not come to pass.

As for your analysis. It sort of sucks too.

I will accept that facing economic challenges increase the likelihood of a country undergoing significant changes of government, both in form and substance. However, with the exception of a few European countries who have only recently adopted democracy, the current economic situation is far from the most dire economic situation national democratic institutions have faced.

Change may be more likely now than in times of prosperity in these countries, but that does not necessarily make an end to democracy in these nations probable, and certainly not inevitable.

The causal link you've put forward between economic instability and the end of democracy may be dubious, but the link between what you refer to as socialism and that economic instability is laughable.

Portugal, Ireland and, to a somewhat lesser extent, Spain are all in economic troubles which had nothing to do with what you've called socialism. While in the Scandinavian countries, who seem to best fit your mould of socialism, the only economic concern is the weakness of their neighbours and trading partners.

As for your amero-centric views... well, I've written enough for one night.

The truth is, Klown, you've made so many assumptions thoroughly detached from reality, that it's difficult to even discuss the issue you've brought up. I've done my best, but the meandering nature of what I've had to write to refute your points is probably the best testament to their weakness.

In the end, the future remains unpredictable. I can't say definitively that the outcome you expect will not come to pass. However, there is certainly nothing inevitable about it, and it does not even seem probable or likely from what I can see of this world.

Even if events do transpire as you expect, however, your reasoning will remain flawed and it will be a result of forces only tangentially linked to those you've put forward here.

Broken clocks.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

The United States would have to be a Democracy for the statement about the US avoiding the colapse to be true.. what ever goverment type that is controled by corperations is technically what the US is right now... maybe we'll fall back into a Democratic goverment later on is the years..

There is nothing inherent to the definition of democracy which is violated by corporations having the ability to spend money lobbying voters and elected officials.

There are many points which can be made to demonstrate why corporate involvement is not beneficial to the majority of US citizens, but this does not alter the fact that the United States is still a democracy.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

No, but the US Constitution does prove that the United States is not a Democracy.

Yep. Republic.

Except the Scandinaivan countries are rich in natural resources and encounter little in the way of immigration. They're not really a good comparison. You would do better to use Germany as the comparative model. However, there is a case to be made that socialism, particularly the worst of the populist brand of socialism, does inhibit new economic innovation growth. However, many advanced countries with extensive middle classes may not find that to be a bad thing as it maintains the status quo.

The "lesser extent" citation of yours should be Italy, not Spain. Spain's in a heap of trouble with bank withdrawls, the upper middle-class bailing out, significant banking issues due to a variation of the real estate collapse, and it's not looking too bright for them. Moving out of the European model all together, Argentina is probably a good example of why populist socialism really doesn't work all that well. Let's see who exactly wants to invest in ADRs for Argentine energy resources next time following the nationalization of said resources a few months ago.

No one reads that old thing! We just make it up on the go!