Kieran: Miko, what are you, a freakin' Nazgul?
Err.. Culture gap. I know hat "Nazgul" is a word in Tolkien noves bu that's about it.
midnight Target: The founding fathers made it diffcult enough to change or amend the constitution so that "whims" or simple majorities cannot prevail.
You mean a majority vote would have to be formally enacted through a few-year process? That's hardly an obstacle.
True, the majority may be too inert to often embark on the process that would constitutionally expand the majority's legislative powers. But by the same token the majority just unconstitutionally expands it's legislative powers.
And it's not a whim at all - it's the natural and permanent desire of majorities to "envy all, endeavour to pull down all, and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand, it will be revengeful, bloody and cruel"
wrag: It was feared by the framers of our constitution that many would do as the romans did and sell their votes for money or some such.
It has nothing to do with people selling votes - which is just a superficial result - but with the inherent properties of different categories of people.
Roughly, there are people who are interested in the capital appreciation of the country - it's increasing streangth, productivity and welfare - "net worth". The "natural elite" in Jefferson's terms.
And there is a majority of the people who are interested in current cosumption even at the cost of wasting the country's "capital".
Once the balance of power shifts from the first group to the second one, the country/society slows down and eventually reverses it rise.
So my understanding is they originally intended that voters would be people with some substance.
Exactly - people with wealth that they could pass to their heirs were interested in the country becoming more productive in the future. And what did their wealth consist of? Land and capital that was used to produce goods for everybody - mostly not rich.
Such people would reduce their current consumption in order to add to the capital - invest in new productive facilities, land improvement, etc. They would be interested in strong laws protecting property rights, personal freedom, trade, etc. They took a long view - which is why those people got rich in the first place.
A majority mad does not own capital - even though he is a direct beneficiary of the capital owned by others. The threat that waste of capital will decrease future productivity is too remote to him compared to the instant gratification of current consumption.
Civilisation is nothing but degree of time preference in people and those with lower time preference (longer time horizons) tend to become wealthy through saving and investment.
The general level of time preference of a society - it's civilisation - is determined by the people who wield control. Once it shifs from civilising to de-civilising group, civilisation stops growing and starts declining.
JBA: Good thing they knew this and set up a Representative Republic instead.
Wrong. They set up a non-representative Republic - unless you call the government directly representing only 3% of the wealthiest landowners "representative".
And it was doing great - generally increasing in wealth, morals, liberties.
Untill it was gradually converted into Representative Democracy.
miko
