The Fatal Sequence quote

[Dan 177]

Quote by Henning W. Prentis. Many may have heard of it before, but I want to re-hash this. It appears we are somewhere in-between the selfishness to apathy/apathy to dependency phase in our Republic.

 

 

Paradoxically enough, the release of initiative and enterprise made possible by popular self-government ultimately generates disintegrating forces from within. Again and again after freedom has brought opportunity and some degree of plenty, the competent become selfish, luxury-loving and complacent, the incompetent and the unfortunate grow envious and covetous, and all three groups turn aside from the hard road of freedom to worship the Golden Calf of economic security. The historical cycle seems to be: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to apathy; from apathy to dependency; and from dependency back to bondage once more.

 

At the stage between apathy and dependency, men always turn in fear to economic and political panaceas. New conditions, it is claimed, require new remedies. Under such circumstances, the competent citizen is certainly not a fool if he insists upon using the compass of history when forced to sail uncharted seas. Usually so-called new remedies are not new at all. Compulsory planned economy, for example, was tried by the Chinese some three milleniums ago, and by the Romans in the early centuries of the Christian era. It was applied in Germany, Italy and Russia long before the present war broke out. Yet it is being seriously advocated today as a solution of our economic problems in the United States. Its proponents confidently assert that government can successfully plan and control all major business activity in the nation, and still not interfere with our political freedom and our hard-won civil and religious liberties. The lessons of history all point in exactly the reverse direction. - Henning W. Prentis, Industrial Management in a Republic, p. 22, 1943

 

Which of course the fall of democracy quote supposedly by Tytler makes more sense...

 

 

“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."

 

 

The last part about dictatorship and monarchy is the very thing the founding fathers authored the 2nd Amendment in order to provide "the people" the ability to prevent from happening.

[NicePants 58]

It's almost scary how accurate that is. Like a never-ending spiral.

[Greenfire2471 0]

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.

The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is

wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts

they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,

it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...

And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not

warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of

resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as

to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost

in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from

time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

It is its natural manure."

 

- Thomas Jefferson

[Melgamatic 66]

"Man, I really enjoy having sex with the slaves I own."

 

- Thomas Jefferson

[Dan 177]

"Man, I really enjoy having sex with the slaves I own."

 

- Thomas Jefferson

 

Uhm, if you want to start your own thread on a discussion on which US presidents owned slaves, you are free to do so. Otherwise I don't get your distasteful point.

[Spartiati 63]

It's almost scary how accurate that is. Like a never-ending spiral.

 

He wasn't clairvoyant, he was simply summarizing history. A history our politicians and citizens are too blind to see.

[Melgamatic 66]

Uhm, if you want to start your own thread on a discussion on which US presidents owned slaves, you are free to do so. Otherwise I don't get your distasteful point.

 

Fair enough, and I like Jefferson. I just think the practice of using quotations from historic figures doesn't do our 2A arguments much good. You can find as much crazy or wrong stuff even the best men said (and then remembered by who?) or wrote. Some large percentage of the quotations are apocryphal, and except for maybe Lincoln and Washington they have all said some things which are pretty terrible from our modern perspective.

[Dan 177]

Yup I get it. I don't use quotes to battle arguments, nor do I use them to promote the people who said them, but solely for the thought provoking concepts they communicate. It is up to the reader to use critical thinking and their own observations to determine for themselves how to feel or react to them.

 

I agree, getting into a quote battle is as fruitless as playing the statistics game.

[O-gre 7]

Put into more simplistic form: "Once a voter realizes that they can elect those that will reward them financially a democracy will fail" Ron White

[O-gre 7]

We should think of a fix a bit short of an armed rebellion. Put in place term limits and eliminate financial gains for politicians would be a great start. No more political donations. Simply give each candidate x and let them run on their merits.

[NicePants 58]

Fair enough, and I like Jefferson. I just think the practice of using quotations from historic figures doesn't do our 2A arguments much good. You can find as much crazy or wrong stuff even the best men said (and then remembered by who?) or wrote. Some large percentage of the quotations are apocryphal, and except for maybe Lincoln and Washington they have all said some things which are pretty terrible from our modern perspective.

 

No man is perfect. And is it not a contested point of what the second amendment stands for? Many people are of the mind that it only allows the states to arm themselves. If you were to look at the writings and quotations of the founding fathers, you can see that their intent was clear that they meant to arm individual citizens. No way to spin it if you have their actual words.

[jackandjill 683]

We should think of a fix a bit short of an armed rebellion. Put in place term limits and eliminate financial gains for politicians would be a great start. No more political donations. Simply give each candidate x and let them run on their merits.

I dont think any politician, much less the majority, will vote to limit terms.

There are other options, such as this http://en.wikipedia....ration_movement .

 

Buy unincorporated land with cash and do not take any loans or owe anything to anyone

Try to live on your own and Barter what you create (not sell) and see if you can get away with paying majority of taxes , except to local Govt

Refuse to work all together and protest by going on social programs and bleed them dry

Vote NO ONE or Micky Mouse in ALL elections en-mass

Follow open source model, publish decent gun models, make your own with community (militia) funded CNC etc

 

 

But this requires large number of participants and desire to go like that for few years.

All hypothetical.

[O-gre 7]

Much easier to just force term limits no?

[jackandjill 683]

I would love to see term limits too. But the bozos arent going vote themselves out of their golden careers.

 

Or

 

Enough people consistently votes the incumbent out without regard to political affiliation.

[NicePants 58]

Much easier to just force term limits no?

 

I believe that any government office should be limited to one term. While some may argue that it'll keep us from experiencing the beneficial effects of good leaders, it will keep those who are so inclined from building political empires and becoming virtual kings within the system. If that's a little too extreme for some, I don't think a two term system is TOO out of the question.