After Daniel’s great post on nationalized health care being a societal “gateway drug” to socialism, I got into a rather heated debate on the subject with a friend who vehemently disagreed, especially in the case of SCHIP, saying that it was “for the children” and “it works so well”. Herein lies the problem.
Whenever we consider a piece of legislation or a budget increase, we should not just ask “will this work?” or even, “will this work well?” but, “should the government be doing this in the first place?”. The Democrats have largely shifted the discussion in the House and Senate at a national level and in Wisconsin at a state level, to the first two questions. They are bickering over how much to increase spending by and where to spend it. The real question should be, “what should the government be doing and what can be done best by private industry or charity?” and then, “how do we get to the point where the government is only doing these few things that it was created to do?”
To close, I would like to quote a piece that has been attributed to a number of authors and historians, chiefly Sir Alex Fraser Tytler. It is definitely a timeless quote indicative of the slide to socialism that Daniel describes and I attempted expound upon:
Last 5 posts by Brandon“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess of the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship….
The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from great courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependency back again to bondage.”
- The Graphic Effect of High Taxes and Spending, Move on out! - June 16th, 2010
- Live from the 2010 Wisconsin GOP Convention - May 22nd, 2010
- Republican Party of Wisconsin State Convention 2010 - May 21st, 2010
- Charts: Artificial American Recovery? - April 15th, 2010
- Liberal Professor to Teach FUELMilwaukee "Government 101" - April 14th, 2010
Brandon, could you please list some well established democracies which by public greed collapsed under socialism?
sean s.
MU 1L
Brandon,
I spent some time last night researching the quote you like so much. Sorry to say it appears to be a fabrication. It appears that Alexander Tyler (a.k.a. Lord Woodhouselee, Alexander Fraser,) never wrote those word (or words substantially like them); and no other author can be verified either. I know that you did not fabricate the quote, but you should be more careful to verify what you find on the internet.
This makes it’s assertions about an historic tendency to slide into socialism dubious. Not “false” but merely “dubious”. There is much to criticize about that quote; it’s apparent fabrication makes that unnecessary. Again, I am certain you did not fabricate it, you only failed to verify its authenticity.
sean s.
As I stated in my post: “To close, I would like to quote a piece that has been attributed to a number of authors and historians, chiefly Sir Alex Fraser Tytler”.
I too, did some research on the quote and found it has been attributed to many but, most commonly Tytler. Here is a rather exhaustive inquisition: http://lorencollins.net/tytler.html
As it has not been decisively proved, or disproved, to be by Tytler, and he is the most common author I attributed the quote as such with the precursor I opened my response with.
Some of those who have quoted it as such include Reagan, the Wall Street Journal and a number of other notable speakers and publications. It’s logic seems sensible enough to me especially when considering it in the light of the Athenian democracy (Your query for a list of Democracies that have undergone this process is nigh impossible to produce as there are not that many Democracies that have lasted 200 years).
Brandon,
The first source I found regarding the “Tytler quote†was also at http://lorencollins.net/tytler.html. Since you cite it, I should draw your attention to its last two paragraphs:
>
These facts lead me to suspect that these quotes were probably coined by separate individuals in the first half of the twentieth century. The authors were most likely not famous persons or respected scholars, but rather just private political thinkers who got their words in print, and whose words then happened to strike a chord in others. The passage of time merely encouraged quoters to attach an author’s name that strengthened the authority behind the words.
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. Anonymous quotes, which these almost certainly are, 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.
>
More eloquently than I could, this precisely summarizes what I find objectionable about your post: a “misattribution†of an idea “to a scholar who never spoke them . . . to lend them an authority and reliability they do not deserve.â€
Regarding the dubious citation, you comment “It’s logic seems sensible enough to me especially when considering it in the light of the Athenian democracyâ€. Logic tells us that a rule cannot be reliably deduced from a single example. Since Athens did not collapse into socialism, the ultimate applicability of this meager example to the apparent point of your post (Policies “Progressing†Towards Socialism) is obscure. Even if Tytler did say the words you quoted, he spoke about “dictatorship†and “bondageâ€. Socialism is not necessarily the equivalent of those. Look at the socialist nations of Western Europe, or Canada. Socialist? Yes. Dictatorships? No.
You finish with a parenthetical comment “Your query for a list of Democracies that have undergone this process is nigh impossible to produce as there are not that many Democracies that have lasted 200 yearsâ€. If so, one must ask how we can believe in a rule that is “nigh impossible†to validate. A theory is not correct just because it is pleasing; that is wishful thinking.
sean s.
I never stated in my post that the quote was a “rule” or even claimed that it had the type of “authority” you are working so hard to disprove. I merely stated “It is definitely a timeless quote indicative of the slide to socialism that Daniel describes and I attempted to expound upon:”.
“Timeless quote”, not “rule” or even “historical truth”. Take it however you wish, doubt it’s authenticity. I plainly stated that it “has been attributed to a number of authors and historians”. Thats what I don’t understand about your argument, I gave that precursor to a quote that describes a pattern in society that seems logical to me. You extrapolated it out in an attempt to create an iron clad “law of democratic decline”, not unexpected from a student of law, but not my intention on a “blog” or record of my personal opinions.
I still believe the quote is quite logical, yes Athens fell to a dictatorship, in the time before hand they became increasingly dependent on the government, described in the quote as “from apathy to dependence” and then they proceeded “from dependency back again to bondage.â€
I think most of Europe is in the “from apathy to dependence” stage which is why I cannot compile the list you asked for, it has not gone full cycle as of yet. The rest of the steps can easily be put into context however. It’s a pattern that seems to be emerging with an increasing number of democracies. It is not inevitable nor a historical rule. We can change it and I am attempting to with a blog that promotes independence and free markets with passion rather than enabling apathy with dependence.
I appreciate your readership and look forward to continued discussions in the future.
So … when you provided us an extended quote “attributed to a number of authors and historians, chiefly Sir Alex Fraser Tytler†we were supposed to notice that you didn’t actually claim the quote had any “authorityâ€. We were supposed to figure out for ourselves it was of unknown provenance and might even be a fabrication and that you in fact have absolutely no idea where it came from. Ah. You must be a law school student too!
And when you said that the quote was “indicative of the slide to socialismâ€, we were supposed to notice that you didn’t say it represented a “‘rule’ or even ‘historical truth’â€; and that you didn’t think it represented a rule or truth either.
So the quote, which took up nearly half of your post was not intended to have any authority nor convey any rule or historical truth. Wow. So … it was empty prose, and I was supposed to get that. Sorry, I didn’t. My bad. Do you get paid by the word?
Here is an opinion of mine; and I suspect that others will agree with it though I claim no proof of that: When a writer cites authorities — even unnamed authorities, and provides a quote attributed to these authorities, a reader expects that the writer actually means to use this to lend a “type of authority†to their argument. Further, when a writer cites a quote like this as “indicative†of something they argue; the writer is telling the reader that this quote is indicative of a rule or historical truth.
This is especially so when the quote alleges that “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government.†That is an absolute claim; an assertion of a rule or historical fact claiming to identify something that CANNOT occur; a rule that has the supposed weight of “historians†behind it. This allegedly authoritative quote also asserts with phrases like “It can only exist until …†and “majority always votes for … †and “a democracy always collapses …â€. These are strong claims of historical truths devoid of qualification or ambiguity. If a writer cites such authorities and provides such quotes without disclaimer, a reasonably prudent reader can fairly believe the writer agrees with these quotes and that the writer believes in the validity of the rules and historical truths the quote sets out. The reasonable reader will not regard this quote as mere filler; empty prose.
Brandon; suppose you came across a post on a Liberal website, a post making strong assertions by way of a quote attributed to respected authorities. And suppose you discovered that the quote likely was a fabrication and that the Liberal writer who posted it was unable to prove the validity of the citation. How would you regard that post?
sean s.