Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Shuckins on January 15, 2005, 10:42:26 AM
-
...whether democratic, socialistic or communistic, have a natural tendency over time to become despotic?
The Founding Fathers of the United States seemed to think so, although many of their ideas would be laughed out of modern academic circles. When it came to trusting the benevolence of any form of government they were unrepentent cynics.
That seems to be the main reason they supported the establishment of armed state militias with that embarassing second amendment.
Your thoughts.
-
Could be, but consider also this was a young, poor nation. Rainsing and keeping a large standing army and navy may have been prohibitively expensive?
-
Good point Oboe. Actually, they believed that the militias served a dual purpose, a volunteer force which could be rapidly called up to counter invasion, and as a protection against the rise of despotic government.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
...whether democratic, socialistic or communistic, have a natural tendency over time to become despotic?
Get a grip man, whats the diffrence between a democratic or socialistic, communistic goverment?
Please use other words, there is/been a lot of states with socialistic , even communistic goverments, that are democratic.
Democratic, socialistic, communistic?
The opposite to democracy is dictatorship.
However, your (USA) second admendment are a great "security" to your version of "democracy".
-
Any form of "government" or "state" is only a way of supressing the personality. The more I live, the more I understand that Lenin was right with this definition.
-
Patrone, most political historians recognize that democratic, socialistic, and communistic governments have different characteristics. Despite these differences, the Founding Fathers maintained that all forms of government would have a tendency to become despotic, given the passage of enough time.
That's why there were so many "safeguards" written into the U.S. Constitution, such as separation of powers and checks and balances, among others.
-
shuckins is right , there is a natural tendency for all governments over time assume more and more power and control over the people.
The US constutition was written to prevent this , but over the years loopholes were found , such as the "interstate commerance clause" that allowed the federal govt to gain more control.
-
The US is the only country I know of that is the bain of Despotism.
That's because the power rests in the hands of the people, not the government. The Declaration of Independence and the Second Ammendment insure this.
-
That is perhaps the greatest danger to stem from embracing the "loose-interpretation" of the Constitution ideology so favored by some political circles in the U.S. This allows the government to decide that the meaning of the law is whatever the government wants it to be.
-
No, the people decide what the constitution means. Our guns prove this.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
The US is the only country I know of that is the bain of Despotism.
That's because the power rests in the hands of the people, not the government. The Declaration of Independence and the Second Ammendment insure this.
the declaration of independence insures nothing. it is a declaration not a set of laws.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
No, the people decide what the constitution means. Our guns prove this.
um. how do the guns prove this?
-
Couldn't the US be more accurately described as a "corporatocracy" or "plutocracy"?
I looked up the definitions and they seem to fit pretty well with whats been going on the last few decades.
-
Originally posted by oboe
Couldn't the US be more accurately described as a "corporatocracy" or "plutocracy"?
I looked up the definitions and they seem to fit pretty well with whats been going on the last few decades.
can you imagine the cost of changing all of the textbooks?
-
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Weapons, being the tools of revolution, are guarenteed to us by the top two articles of law in the US constitution.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Weapons, being the tools of revolution, are guarenteed to us by the top two articles of law in the US constitution.
i am disagreeing with you.
i am simply noting that the declaration of imdependance was a declaration. not a legal document or contract.
-
Sure it's a legal document. It sets up the United States and the reason why we were setting it up.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Sure it's a legal document. It sets up the United States and the reason why we were setting it up.
um. no it is not.
it is not a law or set of laws.
it is a declaration to england declaring the establishment of the united states of america. it does serve as a handy tool for intent...
but it guarantees nothing.
look it up if you dont believe me.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
...whether democratic, socialistic or communistic, have a natural tendency over time to become despotic?
The Founding Fathers of the United States seemed to think so, although many of their ideas would be laughed out of modern academic circles. When it came to trusting the benevolence of any form of government they were unrepentent cynics.
That seems to be the main reason they supported the establishment of armed state militias with that embarassing second amendment.
Your thoughts.
I don't think it's automatic that the gov't will inevitably deteriorate. but once people start thinking it can't happen in a country, it will begin.
btw- I think the point Patrone was trying to make was that you list democratic, socialist or communist you are jumping topics.
democracy just gives the people a voice. you could have communism, socialism, capitalism, whatever and have your gov't elected democratically. you could also have all of those types of gov't with leaders chosen through a monarchy, a militarily enforced coup, or even a lottery I suppose.
I know of no country that is a true democracy (you'd have to allow every citizen an equal voice in all decisions. you'd get nothing done).
we have a Representative gov't where we get to choose (democratically) who wants to make our decisions for us. being allowed to choose who has the power to make decisions for you isn't the same thing as actually giving you the option to not give up the power to choose at all. it works as well as any other gov'ts but it's not a democracy.
basically it comes down to communism and socialism being on the subject how your gov't operates, what it tries to control and what it stays out of. regardless of how your gov't officials are chosen.
while democracy isn't so much about how your country is ran but how you'll go about hiring the guys to run it. regardless of the type of gov't they will be working in.
-
Capt., many socialistic and communistic governments during the 20th century were started with the purist of motives, but the communistic system seems to lend itself to the worst abuses of government, and therefore degenerates into despotism faster than does a democracy...or a socialistic system for that matter.
Nevertheless, I contend that even the most wholesome of democracies will ultimately degrade into tyranny as time passes, unless the populace is extremely vigilant. My fear is that the American people may ultimately become so complacent and comfortable with our system that they fail to detect the signs of deterioration into despotism.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Any form of "government" or "state" is only a way of supressing the personality. The more I live, the more I understand that Lenin was right with this definition.
The more you talk, the more I understand you are a brainwashed idiot.
dago
-
Originally posted by Dago
The more you talk, the more I understand you are a brainwashed idiot.
dago
That is approaching sig material there Dago :D
WTG
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Any form of "government" or "state" is only a way of supressing the personality. The more I live, the more I understand that Lenin was right with this definition.
muhehe we say something like ....
" State is an organized voilence"
We used that definition during the communist time and we use it, during contemporary democracy.. coz its still true.
But in generaly Democracy has never been consider to be a good. It has been considered to be one of those worster forms. But this definition do not apply to all countries who claim, that they are democratic. But some of the biggest countries running democracy show, that democratic countries can act in same way as Dictatorships, you only need diferent way, how to start the engine.
-
lada, what country are you living in?
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Capt., many socialistic and communistic governments during the 20th century were started with the purist of motives, but the communistic system seems to lend itself to the worst abuses of government, and therefore degenerates into despotism faster than does a democracy...or a socialistic system for that matter.
LOL......as I said get a grip man. I live in a Monarchy, Kingdome of Sweden, ruled by a Socialistic goverment.
In our Parlament there is 8 diffrent parties elected by the people every 4 th year. There is even Communists in the parlament, they hold about 10% of the seats.
So, because my Goverment thinks that everyone should have the right to go to any school they want to, without paying, of to have the same healthcare: It is not a Democracy and will degenerate into despotism in a while?
Mind you, its been like 100 years of socialistic Goverment soon.
Just how old is your Goverment form? And how many Parties is representated in congress?
Could a member of the communist party become a congressman?
Please explain, how you can call yourself a democracy, while you are saying Sweden is not?
-
America is not a democracy, it's a republic.
Next.
-
Originally posted by oboe
...may have been prohibitively expensive?
Not "may have", but "definitely was". George Washington had a lot of difficulty dealing with the USA's debt in his terms in office. Maybe that is why we have such a great credit rating now & can borrow forever without anyone questioning our ability to pay off
-
lada, what country are you living in?
====
Im going to guess lada lada land?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
lada, what country are you living in?
In country, where american emb. employees has been charged by taking bribe for Visas.
In country whitch host Radio free Europe whitch transmiting to Iraq and Iran.
In country where we didnt have any terrorist attack in past 15 years.
In country whitch have traditionaly good relationships with Me coutries.
In country, whitch has been 13. most ritch country in the world, before Churchil gave it to Stalin... so republic has been destroyed.
ummm and if you still dont know, use Search button. People ask about it quite often.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
lada, what country are you living in?
====
Im going to guess lada lada land?
actualy yes... it is land of Lada`s
we still have some of them around on the roads.
-
Originally posted by lada
In country, where american emb. employees has been charged by taking bribe for Visas.
In country whitch host Radio free Europe whitch transmiting to Iraq and Iran.
In country where we didnt have any terrorist attack in past 15 years.
In country whitch have traditionaly good relationships with Me coutries.
In country, whitch has been 13. most ritch country in the world, before Churchil gave it to Stalin... so republic has been destroyed.
ummm and if you still dont know, use Search button. People ask about it quite often.
in other words, you don't want to tell anyone what country you are in.
-
last time i did it i saw satelites cruising above our house for next 6 months
here you are (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/search.php?s=)
btw i think that you dont even know where is our country on the map :D
-
lada, nobody probably cares where you are. But you are ashamed of your country....no other reason to hide it. You are afraid and ashamed of your nation.....pretty sad.
-
Originally posted by lada
In country, where american emb. employees has been charged by taking bribe for Visas.
In country whitch host Radio free Europe whitch transmiting to Iraq and Iran.
In country where we didnt have any terrorist attack in past 15 years.
In country whitch have traditionaly good relationships with Me coutries.
In country, whitch has been 13. most ritch country in the world, before Churchil gave it to Stalin... so republic has been destroyed.
ummm and if you still dont know, use Search button. People ask about it quite often.
Have you forgotten Toad's history lesson allready orel?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
lada, nobody probably cares where you are. But you are ashamed of your country....no other reason to hide it. You are afraid and ashamed of your nation.....pretty sad.
It's just his trademark evasiveness. He knows that he's full of **** so he's not going to state anything directly and literally. He's orel, eaglecz, maslo, the stench of blind hate is unmistakable. He's from Czech Rep.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Capt., many socialistic and communistic governments during the 20th century were started with the purist of motives, but the communistic system seems to lend itself to the worst abuses of government, and therefore degenerates into despotism faster than does a democracy...or a socialistic system for that matter.
Nevertheless, I contend that even the most wholesome of democracies will ultimately degrade into tyranny as time passes, unless the populace is extremely vigilant.
not to keep beating the point but, again, you can have a communist gov't that is also democratic, so they're not really two ideas you can contrast between.
communism would be more fairly contrasted with anarchism, socialism, capitalism, totalitarianism.
I don't think that communism is necessarily quicker to fail than capitalism. they both have some serious un-addressed fatal flaws.
with capitalism the big problem is that money and power can be used to influence the gov't to make laws that favor those who have that money and power.
the influence they buy allows them to amass even more money and power, giving them the ability to further tilt the laws to favor them. this continues with the powerful gaining more power and influence at a ever increasing rate.
the rich get richer, the middle class drifts into the poorer class until it no longer exists, and the rest of us live our lives with that same feeling you have in the last 20 minutes of a game of monopoly. you know what I mean, right? where you know you ain't got a chance in hell of coming out on top. you're just surviving until you land on boardwalk and it wipes you out.
eventually you get to a point where there are few or none in any sort of a middle class, the poor and powerless are the vast majority, and a very small elite minority controls the so much of the wealth and power that they are making virtually all of the decisions for the majority who they are completely out of touch with.
this continues until you have enough people becoming powerless and desperate at the same time, so that you have a lot of people with absolutely nothing to lose. at that point they start killing the rich, dividing up their property and wiping the board clean. then it starts over and works well until a couple people amass enough wealth that they can use it to influence the laws to give them more, and the cycle begins again.
with communism the fatal flaw is it doesn't take into account basic human nature. the traits that seem relevant to me are greed and laziness. in a true communist society, each citizens contribution to society will be based on his ability, and will be compensated based on his need. a very noble and idyllic plan until greed and laziness rear their heads. you'll always have deadbeats who will try to do as little as possible while still taking their share, and of course you'll have the greedy who try to get more than their share. or worse yet you could get a guy who is both greedy and lazy, takes a double share and contributes nothing. it's been my experience through life that you will have no problem acquiring an ample supply of people with one or both of these tendency's, more than enough to screw up your utopia.
you'll also run into people who are independent, resourceful, gifted in ability, and blessed with out major liabilities. many of them will figure out that the society isn't profitable for them, since they are producing more than they receive. it won't be long before they figure out that they'd do better on their own or in a more independent gov't and would rather not participate in your system.
so now you're in a tight spot. those who are likely to opt out would be those who are able to contribute to a higher level than their need. if you let them leave (or even just go on about their business working out their own needs while choosing to not participate), you will be left with a nation made up of people who have higher needs and lesser ability to contribute.
your only other option is to play the 'heavy' and force someone to participate against their will. holding them prisoner in their own nation. you'd probably have to do something extreme maybe kill a few to scare the others into line, make a few examples. you can't just lock up those who opt out. you need their contribution to survive, so locking them up defeats the purpose and also uses up additional resources to make sure they stay where you put them.
the heavy option is somewhat effective in the short run. but isn't exactly conducive to a 'happy worker'/'team player' state of mind. eventually the use of this tactic will foster an attitude that will make people feel less a part of the society and more like looking out for themselves. that leads back to the greed and laziness, which ensures a constant supply of dissidents who you need to play the heavy with.
IMO the reasons why our capitalist society has a longer run than the soviet communist society are a bit more complicated than just the nature of the systems. a couple points to consider is that at the onset of the cold war we were an established nation with over 150yrs under our belt, the USSR was a baby as nations go, and we get in to direct competition. not just to come out on top but to destroy the other system, and consider any country who chooses their style of gov't to be enemies of our state. why were we so afraid of this idea if it was doomed to fall apart anyway? we sure put a lot of effort and resources into the cold war if we were fighting an adversary that had one leg in the grave already.
I believe that if we'd have both minded our own damn business, and took the stance that we don't give a rats-prettythang what form of gov't some other country wants to operate under. both nations, and pretty much everyone else on the planet as well would be much better off today.
I find it amusing that is almost always the very same people who are first to state that communism is a doomed and unworkable system that has built in insurmountable flaws, are also the very same people who will tell you how Ronald Reagan was a great man who finally, and apparently nearly single handedly, put an end to the soviet union.
so which is it? is Ronny just a fake, a con-man who took credit for a situation that was an inevitable eventuality that would have happened no matter what he did? or was he the great American hero, who single handedly destroyed our rival, who had such a strong, workable system that we had to be constantly vigilant so they didn't over-power us?
Originally posted by Shuckins
My fear is that the American people may ultimately become so complacent and comfortable with our system that they fail to detect the signs of deterioration into despotism.
I agree with you 100% on this. I also believe that this point of complacency, feelings of safety, the idea that it can't happen here, or whatever you want to call it and not the setting up of the gov't is the point were it becomes doomed and won't become repaired in any real way without bloodshed.
I also believe we are already there. passed it quite a while back in fact.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
...whether democratic, socialistic or communistic, have a natural tendency over time to become despotic?
The Founding Fathers of the United States seemed to think so, although many of their ideas would be laughed out of modern academic circles. When it came to trusting the benevolence of any form of government they were unrepentent cynics.
That seems to be the main reason they supported the establishment of armed state militias with that embarassing second amendment.
Your thoughts.
I don't think I have any new ideas on this topic.
The Founding Fathers of the United States were, are and will be absolutely right in their notion of the necessity of armed militias.
But I would like to stress that the armed militias are needed not only at the state level but also as the local units, and not only in the United States of America. :aok
-
Originally posted by patrone
LOL......as I said get a grip man. I live in a Monarchy, Kingdome of Sweden, ruled by a Socialistic goverment.
In our Parlament there is 8 diffrent parties elected by the people every 4 th year. There is even Communists in the parlament, they hold about 10% of the seats.
So, because my Goverment thinks that everyone should have the right to go to any school they want to, without paying, of to have the same healthcare: It is not a Democracy and will degenerate into despotism in a while?
Mind you, its been like 100 years of socialistic Goverment soon.
Just how old is your Goverment form? And how many Parties is representated in congress?
Could a member of the communist party become a congressman?
Please explain, how you can call yourself a democracy, while you are saying Sweden is not?
The example of Sweden and the secret of the United States of America prove my opinion that the people do not need the government but they need A SYSTEM OF SELFGOVERNING which should include the best elements of anarchism, communism, capitalism, monarchy, democracy, and dictatorship. :aok :aok :aok
-
Originally posted by oboe
Couldn't the US be more accurately described as a "corporatocracy" or "plutocracy"?
I looked up the definitions and they seem to fit pretty well with whats been going on the last few decades.
I would prefer to call it "plutocracy" because in Russian the word "plut"[pronounced as "ploot"]
means "trickster". :D
So the literal translation of term "plutocracy" from Russian into English will be "tricksterocracy". :rofl
-
Originally posted by Dago
The more you talk, the more I understand you are a brainwashed idiot.
dago
The less you talk, the better for your scullbones.
They are not being shattered by any brain waves.
:D
-
Originally posted by NUKE
in other words, you don't want to tell anyone what country you are in.
I guess it's Chech Republic. They appropriated some of the tsarist gold during the civil war in Russia, and made very good use of it as the former Chechoslovakia. :aok
-
You're still missing the point Patrone...the FORM of government doesn't matter...not even if it is a currently benevolent limited monarchical, socialistic democracy. The question that was asked was whether or not ALL forms would drift into despotism...given enough time and the right circumstances.
If you find it impossible to EVER invision something of that sort happening in Sweden then you yourself may be guilty of a dangerous form of complacency.
YOU get a grip...this topic was tossed out for theoretical discussion only.
-
First off, all forms of government exist with the consent of the majority. Whether that consent derives from the ballot box or from the business end of a Tommy gun it doesn't matter.
'Democracy' can be and has been as repressive as any aristocracy or dictatorship. Historically Democracy has given way to the dictator. Majority rule provides the basis of the worst sort of tyranny. A king or body of nobles can be directly held responsible and over thrown. But what happens when the mass becomes the tyrant?
the tyranny of the few over the many is always subject to limits; that of the many over the few has none.
One of the most demoralizing results of 'democracy' is the dissipation of responsibility. Power without responsibility is ruinous to all good government. It could be said that its up to the the citizenry to keep government in check and hold it to its responsibilities. This is pure fantasy, most citizens don't pay that much attention to government. The clever politicians know this and have no problem passing the buck and manipulating the ignorant. A benevolent aristocracy, or even dictatorship, is preferable at times over the worst of democracy.
The founders of this country new this to be true. They didn't give the vote to anyone who could make their mark. There were real restrictions on who could vote. They set up an oligarchy and licensed freedom back to the people. Liberty is the licensing of freedom. Not matter what rhetoric is used to whip the mass into a frenzy (as if it originated with God).
Violate that license, even today, and your liberty will be revoked. It is the same here as any where else in the world. Just the license requirements are some what more liberal.
In the US a wannabe tyrant would not only need to win over a majority but would have to win over many others, from bureaucrats to the military. As such America is reasonably safe and there are enough of us who view federal authority with suspicion, and at times contempt, that I don't worry to much about it. Lincoln was as close as we have gotten to a dictator. There quite a few in this country who refuse to 'go along just to get along'. The type of mass complacency that took place with the rise of Hitler is unlikely in the US.
I have more fear of those who advocate government policies as a way 'to protect me from myself'. This inevitably leads to an erosion of liberty.
Even when the 13 colonies were under the reign of the King of England men had more individual freedom. They could just wonder away in the wilderness and forget about ole' George. Today we have more restriction on liberty then ever before. The most obvious being federal taxation.
So my answer to the original question is, yes all forms of government are to some degree or another will be or become despotic.
-
Originally posted by Dago
The more you talk, the more I understand you are a brainwashed idiot.
dago
Beautiful statement.
When the person sees that his "opponent" has wider field of view and uses concepts that are unknown and sometimes ununderstandable for him - the opponents becomes a "brainwashed idiot".
Excluding political, philisophical and social concepts that don't comply with traditional point of view from your circle of knowledge is up to you, but you again show me that you and me are in different mental spaces. If you fail to admit obvious things only because they were defined by people, who's works you never even tried to know due to the fact that your education and cultural tradition declares them "alien" and "evil" - you should think twice before calling other people "brainwashed idiots".
Sorry for my English.
Now please, tell me why you disagree with Lenin: "Any form of "government" or "state" is only a way of supressing the personality."
-
Originally posted by Suave
It's just his trademark evasiveness.
Aaaahh... so fact that he know nothing about world`s history means that im evasives...
aaah... i got your point.. that realy make sence
-
Originally posted by NUKE
lada, nobody probably cares where you are. But you are ashamed of your country....no other reason to hide it. You are afraid and ashamed of your nation.....pretty sad.
yeah i do not expect that somebody care about my country.... actualy you were the only one who were asking about it.
Shall i walk every sunday with Czech flag around our house and call ... " Czech vi va Czech... we spread freedom " or what shall i do to convince you that i dont shaming ?
Or may be i shall add .... Loooord BleZZ Czech rep. to my sign ?
:D
Wotan : hey nice post
-
Lada, we do this in Sweden. Every sunday.
Marching with the blue and yellow flag, yelling god bless Sweden.
I though this was a very common thing in the world!
Are you ashamed of your country, are you not a Patriot..........?
-
Originally posted by patrone
Lada, we do this in Sweden. Every sunday.
Marching with the blue and yellow flag, yelling god bless Sweden.
I though this was a very common thing in the world!
Are you ashamed of your country, are you not a Patriot..........?
now ?
i do ... a lot :D
-
I doubt that governments on planet Earth are the only systems in the universe immune to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
-
Originally posted by genozaur
I guess it's Chech Republic. They appropriated some of the tsarist gold during the civil war in Russia, and made very good use of it as the former Chechoslovakia. :aok
muhehehe .. since Stalin got Czechoslovakia as a gift by west, we were "happy" to danate him Gold.... uranium... technology... zillion of money ... food and so on... :lol
edit.: Noooo .. you guessed wrooongg.. im not from CHech :p
-
What are the good parts of communism?
The less government you have the better off you are. the founding fathers knew this above all things.
lazs
-
All of the wonderful government philosophies and ideal theories and lofty books and grand documents are undermined by the drive of people to control other people. Money, power and control for controls sake.
Those who control simply understand the weakness of the masses and their ability to endure ever-increasing, massive, heaping mounds of steaming horse crap.
-
Ok... what happened to the real rolex and who is this imposter? Kinda like the imposter tho so far.
lazs
-
The less government you have the better off you are. the founding fathers knew this above all things.
The current State of our Government isn't the same as it was when it was founded.
What the founding fathers thought is moot, just ask the federal courts.
Lincoln, Roosevelt and Johnson certainly didn't want a less intrusive federal government and their pals in the congress agreed.
Government changes because each generation of politician has to leave his / her mark. We may hear allot about 'less government' but under Bush and the repubs we certainly don't have less government.
Then there are the liberals, they only run because they believe we need saving from ourselves.You never hear a politician running on a platform of, "I am not running to fix or change anything". First they manufacture an 'issue' then sell themselves as the solution. Then they need to build a record to get re-elected.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
What are the good parts of communism?
The less government you have the better off you are. the founding fathers knew this above all things.
lazs
The good part of Communism is that it's a social formation where state and government is unnessesary amd doesn't exist.
But according to some Stalin's works - strengthening of government leads to it's abolishment :rolleyes: There are many thing that I can't understand...
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
the Second Ammendment insure
They would crush you like an insect.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
The good part of Communism is that it's a social formation where state and government is unnessesary amd doesn't exist.
But according to some Stalin's works - strengthening of government leads to it's abolishment :rolleyes: There are many thing that I can't understand...
now you are just being silly.