From the "for what it's worth" Dept...

[JDSlack]

Someone e-mailed this to me, found it interesting (although it expresses an opinion I've had for a long time) and thought I'd share.
**********************************************************

This is passed along without any prejudice. Tyler's reference to the Athenian Republic in a way parallels Toynbee's reflection on the demise of the Roman Empire


Subject: A Republic vs. A Democracy


Folks, if you remember your civics classes, you will recall that this country was established as a REPUBLIC, not a democracy. In a REPUBLIC, you can vote only if you are a property owner. In other words, you must have a stake in the game.


In a DEMOCRACY, every one of voting age can vote, with nothing to lose because they have nothing invested. So the "have nots" vote on how to divide up the wealth of those who have property. Democracy eventually turns into
"mobocracy."


A warning from Scots Historian Professor Alexander Tyler, circa 1787, Re: The Fall of the Athenian Republic.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse (generous gifts) 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, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."

"The average age of the world's greatest civilization has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through this 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."

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University of Law, St. Paul, MN passed on that gem & provides the following 2000 election facts for consideration:

Population of counties won by Gore 127 million, won by Bush 143 million
Sq. miles of country won by Gore 580,000, won by Bush 2,427,000
States won by Gore 19, by Bush 29
Murder per 100,000 residents in counties won by Gore 13.2 by Bush 2.1 (not a typo).

Professor Olson adds, "And may I add that the map of the territory Bush won was (mostly) the land owned by the people of this great country. Not the citizens living in cities owned by the government and living off the government."

 

[BluesBear]

Hmmmmm,

Most profound indeed.

Thanks for sharing it.

 

[repsychler]

Professor Olson was very instrumental in getting shall-issue CCW passed here in Minnesota. I've seen this before, but I always enjoy seeing it again.

 

[Gabe]

Some major misconceptions here. The difference between Democracy and Republic have nothing to do with land owners.

There is no such thing as "Athenian Republic". Athens was a classic Democracy, meaning the citizens decided almost everything with referendums. The Republic was Plato's idea, which was citizens vote for representatives who made decisions for them. Plato was in support of politicians lying to the voters to get the job done, as according to him the averge voter can't handle the truth. The United States is a Republic, like most all modern "Democracies".

Neither Democracy nor Republic had universal sufferage until modern times. Historically voting rights were limited to a section of the population, often a small minority group.

Universal sufferage is an attempt to redress the disenfrancised population, and let everyone have a stake in the Republic. Remember Mao's truism "political power grows from the barrel of a gun". Just because you won't allow the non-property owners to vote, don't mean they can't take your land.

In reality the American Republic has been and always will be a Plutocracy. The rich super-property owners in effect decide policy. But at least the average Joe still matters once every four years. If you take that away blood will flow. Property rights won't mean squat.

Democratic America can only survive in the long run with universal sufferage, because it promises EVERYONE the right to participate in a legal non-militant manner in society. It's a given voters will make more mistakes on average than say a committe of Ivy Leaguers. But when mistakes are made with open participation of all citizens, there's less risk of the blame game ballooning into a full-fledged revolution.

Early in the last century Marx predicted the "have-nots" will overthrow the "haves", that didn't happen in Western Democracies because we adopted measures like universal sufferage, workman's comp, unemployment benefits. It's an imperfect world, but I'm quite wary of people who don't understand what makes it tick trying to change the system because "in theory" the changes look good on paper.

Every student of politics thinks they figured out a better way, so does everyone who wants to sell you a book. They're entertaining to think about, but don't fall in love with them too easily.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Murder per 100,000 residents in counties won by Gore 13.2 by Bush 2.1

Thank you! I'd seen that before, but neglected to copy, paste, and save it.