I seems from your tirade about the generation of people you see as responsible for all the world's calamities that you have inherited one thing- selfishness.

probably until the entire civilization collapses or a bloody revolution sets things aright.

This statement really puzzles me. You're hoping for collapse or bloody revolution because you think it's unfair that you have to pull a few dollars out of your pocket to be spent for those who have been part of the young struggling families you mention. The young struggling families end up being the tax paying workers and pension fund contributors who worked for decades while you were just learning to walk, let alone producing anything other than what was in your diapers. I think you do have an obligation to those you have come before you.

How about a source for the Tytler citation, Justin? Shouldn't be too hard to find which publication that first appeared in, since Tytler was a historian (or perhaps that's a bunch of bs).

Spurious quotations aside, it's good to see you and Ms. Losasso coming out against the democratic system as fatally flawed. It takes courage on the right to admit that.

btw, in case it's not clear, I don't share that pessimism. I just applaud your honesty in admitting your fundamental disbelief in the long-term viability of democratic rule.

Russ,

It's not the democratic system that's fatally flawed. No system of governance will work which sits on top of the absolutist idea that government owns society, and therefore government is free to put ironclad claims on the present and future livelihoods of its subjects that the subjects are not allowed to alter or even challenge.

I think it was historian Alexis de Tocqueville who commented that democracy works well until politicians figure out they can bribe people with their own money.

As a retiree who paid into social security, I want my money's worth. But I admit it was my generation (not me personally)that squandered those funds on social programs years ago. So what's fair and doable? Don't try to turn back the clock, but at least let's stop doing it from now on.

Here's the Charlatan-in-Chief and his his USDA in action today:

"President Hussein Obama's United States Department of Agriculture has delayed shale gas drilling in Ohio for up to six months by canceling a mineral lease auction for Wayne National Forest (WNF). The move was taken in deference to environmentalists."

Yes the "Occupy" your wallet administration once again calling for job creation by killing jobs. Don't forget Americans are "lazy" according to Hussein in Bali.

I think it was historian Alexis de Tocqueville who commented that democracy works well until politicians figure out they can bribe people with their own money.

Another spurious quote! Funny thing, that's also frequently attributed to Tytler. So what's the original citation? btw, I believe it to be this:

"This is the Hard Core of Freedom" by Elmer T. Peterson in The Daily Oklahoman (9 December 1951) (attributed without source to Tytler):

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.

Russ,

What are you trying to say? That a democratic form of government cannot work because people don't vote rationally (i.e.: for those who promise the most benefits).

I'd agree that the people voting based on political promises, hyperbole, rhetoric and demagoguery rather than facts or common sense is a big part of our problems.

Do you have a better form of government? Are you proposing we go to a dictatorship or monarchy in lieu of a democratic republic?

Or are you pointing out that democracy has its dangers? I won’t disagree with that. Freedom has dangers.

"What are you trying to say?"

No, no, not that at all, although I would say that Justin is verging on that type of premise. The sentiment is at its core profoundly antidemocratic.

I think these are nonsense quotes, evidenced by the need to falsely attribute them to Tocqueville or Tytler to give them a sense of truth that would not otherwise be there especially in the U.S.

Everyone can admit that democracy is flawed, and I doubt with our current culture and level of technology that a better form of government is available. Certainly the "progressive" notion that more decisions should be made by appointed policy "experts" will lead to a tyranny and the inevitable collapse of all planned economies. Democracy is a good thing in small doses and should be used in limited areas when absolutely necessary. In the remaining areas, people are too hesitant to brush off the option of having no governance at all. Our Constitution enumerates individual liberties that are off-limits to the democratic process short of navigating a virtually impossible amendment process. I support this and would like to see the list of liberties protected from the democratic process greatly expanded. In other words, I don't object to the outcome of a legislative vote on something like marijuana. Rather, I object to its ability to vote on something like that in the first place. Who are they to tell me what I may and may not ingest in my own home?

I think Justin is trying to say that government policy based on “providing the most goodies” is doomed. I certainly agree with that premise. The reality is that the elderly is a strong lobby and have a lot of power. I happen to find it very unfortunate that the elderly population is often the reason that local school levies do not pass.

Yet the truth is that pretty much everyone votes selfishly – what is singularly best for them. This goes for the elderly, big business – it why people want no tax increases but more social programs. They want small government when less interference benefits them but more government assistance when they need it.

It’s not as if the elderly has never been affected by policy. The Social Security retirement age has been increased. Is that fair to the people who have to work for more years than their predecessors? Decreases in Medicare reimbursement have also affected access to health care for the elderly.

I agree with Justin that reform is absolutely necessary, and that all people will be affected by it. I’m sure most people will agree that reform is necessary and they also agree that it should not affect them.

"Certainly the 'progressive' notion that more decisions should be made by appointed policy 'experts' will lead to a tyranny and the inevitable collapse of all planned economies."

Wait a minute. You folks can't have it both ways. OWS is a progressive movement, which if nothing else is an experiment in direct participatory democracy, exactly the opposite of this "progressive" strawman. Mega-jazz hands, anyone? You guys seem to define progressive as any idea contrary to the sensibilities of the right.

Dan, we're likely much more sympatico on that one than either of us are to so-called centrists in the corporate parties.

"Progressivism" is a political movement seeking a democratically elected strong centralized government that entrusts enlightened "experts" to enact policies for the good of the people collectively. It envisions a society in which everything is political, i.e., these experts have complete control over the life of private citizens to mold their behavior, with elections as the only check on their power. To that extent, Russ, you are correct that OWS is a progressive movement in that it is generally seeking enhanced government control over wall street compensation and the economy as a whole. The internal voting structure and operation of the movement is separate from the political goals it is seeking, although presumably if the movement eventually amounted to anything, then it would see the appointment of some forms of representatives or czars to enact its democratically-reached agenda.

I haven't seen anything in the OWS movement about "enlightened experts." That's just the libertarian boogieman. Notably conservatives want strong government in areas like protecting property, limiting liability, patent and copywrite laws, defense, law enforcement, etc. I could just as easily make the case in reverse.

It's been said, we're not for big government or small goverment. We're for government on our side.

er, copyright.

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years"

This is getting off to a self-serving start. Somehow, I think the Egyptians, Phonecians, Greeks, Persians, Romans, Carthaginians and Chinese might not agree. I suppose that it could be argued that China has had several civilizations, and that Romans lost their republic. Possibly later, more democratic, civilizations may have shorter life spans. For instance, France is always in question.

"I haven't seen anything in the OWS movement about "enlightened experts." That's just the libertarian boogieman."

That is because OWS is not synonymous with progressivism, it simply shares some common planks, most significantly enhanced redistribution of wealth through government.

If you're arguing that conservatives tend to be for big government in certain areas, then we aren't really arguing at all because I think that much is obvious and even most conservatives would acknowledge that much. I'm personally not in favor of any of those things besides basic protections of private property and law enforcement for actual crimes that victimize others.

You are wrong in your assertion that all political philosophies come down simply to different types of government that favor the participants in various ways. Progressives seek to increase the aggregate power of government far above what is in place now and want to see it centralized, while libertarians and conservatives tend to be for reducing the aggregate power of government and dispersing its power geographically and politically. I don't dispute that there can be hypocrisy all around, although I try to be consistent. I personally don't subscribe to the idea of intellectual property, so perhaps an advocate can justify it in my place.

Everything I hear of the OWS seems to cry for more government, if not actual socialism. This is not "Progressivism" as it is commonly understood. I think it shares more with greed. There is certainly a lot of "gimmie" in it.

Everybody:

It's fruitless to engage Russ in conversation as if he's arguing in good faith. In the above post, I present a quotation in which I'm sure a good number of people will find at least a kernel of truth, and then I write: "I'd like to think that the cycle can be broken."

It shouldn't take much familiarity with my writing to know that I generally argue on behalf of breaking the described cycle somewhere between complacency and dependence. The odds may be long, but freedom is a principle worth striving for.

-----

Phil,

I'm not sure why you persist in misreading. Clearly I'm not "hoping for collapse or bloody revolution"; indeed, I follow that statement with, "some rational, not-exactly-arduous reforms now would be preferable."

Which points to another distinction that you're much too eager to elide: We do have a moral obligation to help others, elders included. We do not have an obligation to fund decades-long vacations for people who aren't producing anything at the expense of people who are striving to do the difficult work of raising and supporting families.

Justin

First My tone in my comments was overly harsh. I have a private matter of an 88 year old friend who is having some difficulties at present. She worked in factories in Pawtucket for most of her working life while raising her only child after her husband died of a heart attack. She rose every day to get breakfast and lunch for her daughter and then go off to work the shift at the electrical assembly factory. She was the union treasurer for a good part of her time there. She does not gossip, drink liquor, gamble , or swear and she is very dear to me. So please forgive me for being emotional about the generation that now is resting. I should not have laid that on you. Best wishes Phil

Second You wrote and own the bloody revolution and collapse language. There are many now in the right wing sphere who use this type of device--say outloud the things they wish to say and then quickly disavow them to escape the consequences. But those things get said and those words are remembered.
I notice that you will respond to comments from those you disagree with but you do not take to task those that leave inflammatory and hateful comments that in some way mirror your own although you would never express them in that way. Your silence speaks as consent. The Navajos said that even a calm wind has a voice. So I ask you... Do you want me to continue to post here or would you prefer for me to go away?

Phil,

I don't respond to comments much at all, being much too busy (although I should probably make time). I respond to those with whom I disagree because I find it much more interesting to do so; that's how conversation advances. Be that as it may, I don't feel like I tend to respond to people with whom I agree just because they're saying hateful, inflammatory things (if they are).

As for the revolution comment, I'm not sure what you're saying I own. It's not a hope, so it must be, what, a prediction, a warning? Look, if we allow the entrenchment of an overly powerful and incompetent governing class, there will be two ways out: collapse (and rebuilding as something new) or bloody revolution... bloody not for the fun of it, but because that's the only way to unseat a powerful, incompetent governing class that doesn't want to leave. It is in order to avoid that outcome that I advocate many of the policies that I do and that I encourage difficult adjustments (as to retirement entitlements) right now.

As to your closing question, well, I respond to you more frequently than I respond to many other people, from which you can infer that I find your comments interesting.

Posted by phil

" There are many now in the right wing sphere who use this type of device--say outloud the things they wish to say and then quickly disavow them to escape the consequences."

I don't think the "right wing" owns this. Historically speaking, I think this is known as "political discourse".

Phil, I am genetically Republican and "right wing", some would say that my 13th chromosome is shaped like an elephant. I too support an elderly aunt whose children have abandoned her. I assure you that those children are very "left wing", transparently, they have no shame. Should I call the government? Recently I found one of the "kids", and progeny, stealing firewood off my property. They are very "green". I am not sure they knew I owned it, they may have "assumed" it was public. I told them $200 for the tree and the money was going to their mother. Was I being too "governmental"?

Warrington

No. I think you are being realistic. Ownership has it's responsibilities. Let's hope that your younger generation comes around to an appreciation of your efforts in regard to caring for the elderly.

Justin

Thank you for your answer. We may never agree about much but I do think that you are principled.

Russ was happy to point out in the comments that the Tytler quotation is actually a common misattribution. That's fine. Just as I wouldn't argue that a cultural observation must be true because some historian made it, I won't discount that it might be true even if he didn't say it...

I'll wait patiently then for your proof of the comment. Till then I say it's a load of crap that smells as sweet no matter from which horses ass
it came.

www.lorencollins.net/tytler.html

And that is where the vice of misattribution lies. Perhaps the words speak the truth of democratic governments; or perhaps they do not. But either way, attributing the words to a scholar who never spoke them is to lend to them an authority and reliability that they do not deserve. Quotations should not be given fictitious attributions merely to lend credence to the messages they impart. To do so is to favor persuasiveness over accuracy, and to sacrifice truth for the sake of image.

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."

What a load of crap. OK, let's pick Afghanistan starting with the introduction of Islam in the 8th or 9th century... from bondage to spiritual faith. What next?

You guys actually take that tripe seriously?

btw, found this analysis much more interesting and less nonsensical than the misattributed quote above about "courage" or whatever...

www.counterpunch.org/2011/12/02/debt-slavery-%e2%80%93-why-it-destroyed-rome-why-it-will-destroy-us-unless-it%e2%80%99s-stopped/

Book V of Aristotle’s Politics describes the eternal transition of oligarchies making themselves into hereditary aristocracies – which end up being overthrown by tyrants or develop internal rivalries as some families decide to “take the multitude into their camp” and usher in democracy, within which an oligarchy emerges once again, followed by aristocracy, democracy, and so on throughout history.

Debt has been the main dynamic driving these shifts – always with new twists and turns. It polarizes wealth to create a creditor class, whose oligarchic rule is ended as new leaders (“tyrants” to Aristotle) win popular support by cancelling the debts and redistributing property or taking its usufruct for the state.