LGP Political Discussion Thread

[dagny]

Each of the great civilizations in the world passed through a series of stages from their birth to their decline to their death. Historians have listed these in ten stages.

The first stage moves from bondage to spiritual faith. The second from spiritual faith to great courage. The third stage moves from great courage to liberty. The fourth stage moves from liberty to abundance. The fifth stage moves from abundance to selfishness. The sixth stage moves from selfishness to complacency. The seventh stage moves from complacency to apathy. The eighth stage moves from apathy to moral decay. The ninth stage moves from moral decay to dependence. And the tenth and last stage moves from dependence to bondage.

These are the ten stages through which the great civilizations have gone. Notice the progression from bondage to liberty back to bondage. The first generation throws off the shackles of bondage only to have a later generation through apathy and indifference allow itself to once again be enslaved.

I have always loved this passage, although I admittedly don't know who initially penned it (or how long it has even been around). I know it shows up on a lot of religious websites, but I find it very applicable in a strictly secular context. It reflects a lot of what Malcolm Muggeridge used to write about back in his heyday. I believe we are somewhere in the ninth stage right now.

I love this. It explains, step by step, what I always say about how, if you look at he great civilizations in history and their rise and downfall, we are following the same paths, and we are on the way to the downfall of our great civilization.

I'd say we're at stage 9 in this list.

TIME FOR REVOLUTION!

[Guinness]

Each of the great civilizations in the world passed through a series of stages from their birth to their decline to their death. Historians have listed these in ten stages.

The first stage moves from bondage to spiritual faith. The second from spiritual faith to great courage. The third stage moves from great courage to liberty. The fourth stage moves from liberty to abundance. The fifth stage moves from abundance to selfishness. The sixth stage moves from selfishness to complacency. The seventh stage moves from complacency to apathy. The eighth stage moves from apathy to moral decay. The ninth stage moves from moral decay to dependence. And the tenth and last stage moves from dependence to bondage.

These are the ten stages through which the great civilizations have gone. Notice the progression from bondage to liberty back to bondage. The first generation throws off the shackles of bondage only to have a later generation through apathy and indifference allow itself to once again be enslaved.

I have always loved this passage, although I admittedly don't know who initially penned it (or how long it has even been around). I know it shows up on a lot of religious websites, but I find it very applicable in a strictly secular context. It reflects a lot of what Malcolm Muggeridge used to write about back in his heyday. I believe we are somewhere in the ninth stage right now.

I love this. It explains, step by step, what I always say about how, if you look at he great civilizations in history and their rise and downfall, we are following the same paths, and we are on the way to the downfall of our great civilization.

I'd say we're at stage 9 in this list.

TIME FOR REVOLUTION!

I think it's apocryphal, but it's typically attributed to Alexander Tytler. I agree with the 9th stage analysis... I think the only revolution we're going to get out of these generations of Americans is statist - I'm beginning to BELIEVE that most people would sooner turn in their liberties at a cost of preserving some hallucinated reality than actually depending upon themselves.

[doublem]

To Guinness:


I think the only revolutionI think the only revolution we're going to get out of these generations of Americans is statist is no revolution at all.

So this is the society in which we sober folks live and we must continually keep an eye on the addicts, who are in fact the majority, in order to make sure they don’t affect us to the detriment of our lives. We must constantly try to convince them to seek help; to enroll in rehab because the problem starts with them.

Very true and how do you fix this?

that most people would sooner turn in their liberties at a cost of preserving some hallucinated reality than actually depending upon themselves

Hasn't this almost always been true? When was this period of people depending on themselves?

[dagny]

I think it's apocryphal, but it's typically attributed to Alexander Tytler. I agree with the 9th stage analysis... I think the only revolution we're going to get out of these generations of Americans is statist - I'm beginning to BELIEVE that most people would sooner turn in their liberties at a cost of preserving some hallucinated reality than actually depending upon themselves.

Funny thing, I didn't finish reading shafty's post before I replied. I picked the 9th stage without seeing that he also had.

It is scary to read some of the thoughts that are so accepting of dependence, and don't see the bondage on the horizon, but there are more who think like us. We are not the only ones and the ideals and compulsion to stand up and do something is spreading. Patience....

[dagny]

doublem, could you try and quote the posters name, also, when you reply? Too many people in this thread to remember who each quote is attributed to. Thanks.

[doublem]

Fixed.

[Guinness]

To Guinness:


I think the only revolutionI think the only revolution we're going to get out of these generations of Americans is statist is no revolution at all.

"No revolution at all" is the triumph of the state - it is statism. When the people tell the political class that they do not care - that they only want to be cared for - then it is the revolution of the statist.

So this is the society in which we sober folks live and we must continually keep an eye on the addicts, who are in fact the majority, in order to make sure they don’t affect us to the detriment of our lives. We must constantly try to convince them to seek help; to enroll in rehab because the problem starts with them.

Very true and how do you fix this?

By awakening people to their own liberty.

that most people would sooner turn in their liberties at a cost of preserving some hallucinated reality than actually depending upon themselves

Hasn't this almost always been true? When was this period of people depending on themselves?

Don't you just love the idea of people being dependent upon the triumph of your ideas...

[Guinness]

I think it's apocryphal, but it's typically attributed to Alexander Tytler. I agree with the 9th stage analysis... I think the only revolution we're going to get out of these generations of Americans is statist - I'm beginning to BELIEVE that most people would sooner turn in their liberties at a cost of preserving some hallucinated reality than actually depending upon themselves.

Funny thing, I didn't finish reading shafty's post before I replied. I picked the 9th stage without seeing that he also had.

It is scary to read some of the thoughts that are so accepting of dependence, and don't see the bondage on the horizon,

Hasn't this almost always been true? When was this period of people depending on themselves?

but there are more who think like us. We are not the only ones and the ideals and compulsion to stand up and do something is spreading. Patience....

Oh, if only there were time for 'patience'...

[doublem]

Don't you just love the idea of people being dependent upon the triumph of your ideas...

No, but what I would like to know is when this period of rugged individualism existed when no one was dependent on anyone but themselves? State or no state.

"No revolution at all" is the triumph of the state - it is statism. When the people tell the political class that they do not care - that they only want to be cared for - then it is the revolution of the statist

Right, and the state is the only factor here. It has nothing to do with people living reasonable well? And not caring enough about stastism, government, or ideas. And what is this Revolution? How will it look like?

[Guinness]

Don't you just love the idea of people being dependent upon the triumph of your ideas...

No, but what I would like to know is when this period of rugged individualism existed when no one was dependent on anyone but themselves? State or no state.

What does that matter? If it hasn't ever existed, can it never?

There are plenty of times in human history when man has done just fine without the "benevolent" state to look after him.

"No revolution at all" is the triumph of the state - it is statism. When the people tell the political class that they do not care - that they only want to be cared for - then it is the revolution of the statist

Right, and the state is the only factor here. It has nothing to do with people living reasonable well? And not caring enough about stastism, government, or ideas. And what is this Revolution? How will it look like?

Define "living reasonbly well". It always seems you come back to this subjective value... ironic, really.

[doublem]

What does that matter? If it hasn't ever existed, can it never?

There are plenty of times in human history when man has done just fine without the "benevolent" state to look after him.

It matters because you make it sound like now is some special time when people are "dependent" on one other. Like "we" are weak cowards that can't do anything, or at somethings being "dependent" is some form of laziness or immorality. I see a big difference between S.S. and a welfare queen. Anyways, I don't think it is possible to be completely self-reliant for that long. If it wasn't the state it would be someone else.

[doublem]

What does that matter? If it hasn't ever existed, can it never?

There are plenty of times in human history when man has done just fine without the "benevolent" state to look after him.

It matters because you make it sound like now is some special time when people are "dependent" on one other. Like "we" are weak cowards that can't do anything, or at somethings being "dependent" is some form of laziness or immorality. I see a big difference between S.S. and a welfare queen. Anyways, I don't think it is possible to be completely self-reliant for that long. What you call dependence, I call cooperation. If it wasn't the state it would be someone else.

Define "living reasonbly well". It always seems you come back to this subjective value... ironic, really.

Like having more wealth than any time in human history for the the vast majority of the population and basically having all material needs met. Not working that long of hours, not having labor jobs, living longer, modern medicine. Those type of things.

[Guinness]

What does that matter? If it hasn't ever existed, can it never?

There are plenty of times in human history when man has done just fine without the "benevolent" state to look after him.

It matters because you make it sound like now is some special time when people are "dependent" on one other. Like "we" are weak cowards that can't do anything, or at somethings being "dependent" is some form of laziness or immorality. I see a big difference between S.S. and a welfare queen. Anyways, I don't think it is possible to be completely self-reliant for that long. What you call dependence, I call cooperation. If it wasn't the state it would be someone else.

Cooperation!?!? What!? Sticking a gun to someone's head is cooperation? That's a warped sense of cooperation you have there.

If it wasn't the state it would be someone else.

You said it! You're quite right that the state interposes itself and diminishes the ability of people to help others.

I've never suggested that people shouldn't help others, or that to need help is some kind of failing. What I suggest is that "the use of governmental force is intellectual sloth, and often leads to perverse, unintended consequences". Again, and again, and again...

[Guinness]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/a ... 42893.html

“apparently they took it to one of the banks he runs now.”

[DelPen]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/a ... 42893.html

“apparently they took it to one of the banks he runs now.”

Every second Obama takes to make a decision puts our troops at risk. Everyone has told him they need more troops in Afghanistan. McChrystal told him months ago. Hillary and others told him last week. What does Obama do? Ignores their advice and votes present after talking about how the generals on the battle field should be listened to. For a guy who campaigned on Afghanistan being the main theater of the war on terror I find it appauling he has no plan on what to do there after over a year of harping on it to make his opposition to the surge in Iraq actually look like a smart decision instead of one in what has become a long line of incompetence.

Either support the operation or pull out, half-assing a war only gets people killed in vain.

[largegarlic]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/a ... 42893.html

“apparently they took it to one of the banks he runs now.”

Every second Obama takes to make a decision puts our troops at risk. Everyone has told him they need more troops in Afghanistan. McChrystal told him months ago. Hillary and others told him last week. What does Obama do? Ignores their advice and votes present after talking about how the generals on the battle field should be listened to. For a guy who campaigned on Afghanistan being the main theater of the war on terror I find it appauling he has no plan on what to do there after over a year of harping on it to make his opposition to the surge in Iraq actually look like a smart decision instead of one in what has become a long line of incompetence.

Either support the operation or pull out, half-assing a war only gets people killed in vain.

I am somewhat perplexed by the President's indecision on Afghanistan as well. I think the most plausible explanation is that he is still evaluating whether or not the Karzai government can be effective, reasonably honest and win the support of the Afghan people. From my very limited understanding of the Vietnam war, one big reason for the failure of the war was that the South Vietnamese government never really had the support of the Vietnamese people and was corrupt and ineffective. No matter how many troops we poured in, that government was never going to be able to effectively deal with the North Vietnamese in the long run.

I wonder if Obama is worried about running into similar difficulties in Afghanistan. Karzai needs to show he can win the support of the Afghanis and run an effective, less-corrupt government before we commit any more troops. If the Karzai government is ultimately like the South Vietnamese government, then no amount of new troops will help in the long run. I don't know what we do if that is the case, because pulling out completely is basically like handing the country back to the Taliban, undoing everything accomplished there in the last 8 years.

[doublem]

You said it! You're quite right that the state interposes itself and diminishes the ability of people to help others.

I was talking about this mythical dependence at the ninth stage of "great civilization". My point was when was this great time in human history when people just started to pick themselves by the bootstraps without the help of anyone and "earned" everything they got in life. The same "force" you mention could easily exist outside of the state, so it seems to be an argument about how one earns what they get, merit? If you look at history and the last 5k years what model of government meets your definition of limited, (not counting the early U.S. which we could debate forever ) or do you have to go even before that? Hunter-gathers? What examples in human history meets your standard because it seems like very few could?

What I suggest is that "the use of governmental force is intellectual sloth, and often leads to perverse, unintended consequences". Again, and again, and again

Again, again, again, nothing the state could ever do besides protect property or against fraud is considered just. I know.

Cooperation!?!? What!? Sticking a gun to someone's head is cooperation? That's a warped sense of cooperation you have there.

Okay, It's fine in my books.

[doublem]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/11/15/scotus ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hey, wasn't this stuff supposed to be different under Obama?

The president later said that doing so "would pose an unacceptable risk of danger to U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq."

Didn't W almost say the same thing? What is different about the President? And how can he also be attacked as this great socialist liberal evil when he has done nothing to "change" the system, he just made it worse with hypocrisy.

Separately, the administration also urged the high court to dismiss a pending lawsuit by several Guantanamo Bay detainees, over their claims of torture and religious discrimination.

ehhh, who wants those right things?

[dagny]

Separately, the administration also urged the high court to dismiss a pending lawsuit by several Guantanamo Bay detainees, over their claims of torture and religious discrimination.

ehhh, who wants those right things?

The "administration" needs to keep their nose out of telling the DOJ what to do. There's a reason they're separate branches.

This "administration" is scaring the hell out of me.

[HomerPenguin]

I wonder if Obama is worried about running into similar difficulties in Afghanistan. Karzai needs to show he can win the support of the Afghanis

He can't.

and run an effective, less-corrupt government

He REALLY can't. Or won't. Whatever.

before we commit any more troops.

Which we shouldn't.

If the Karzai government is ultimately like the South Vietnamese government,

It is.

then no amount of new troops will help in the long run.

DING!

I don't know what we do if that is the case, because pulling out completely is basically like handing the country back to the Taliban, undoing everything accomplished there in the last 8 years.

Precious little has been "accomplished" there in the last 8 years. Nobody is any freer than they were before. Backwards tribal pseudo-religious superstitious hokum still runs rampant to the detriment of women, children, minorities, etc. Our biggest accomplishment there has been boosting Afghanistan's share of the global opium trade from next to nothing to about 93%.

Letting the Taliban take over again wouldn't really affect the lives of anybody other than maybe the Karzai family, but it's a decent guess that the Taliban wouldn't make the mistake of allowing bin Laden and his fighters back in when the US military could easily do what it did in late 2001 all over again. We can remove them from power any time we like; it's replacing them that we're no good at.

[Guinness]

You said it! You're quite right that the state interposes itself and diminishes the ability of people to help others.

I was talking about this mythical dependence at the ninth stage of "great civilization". My point was when was this great time in human history when people just started to pick themselves by the bootstraps without the help of anyone and "earned" everything they got in life. The same "force" you mention could easily exist outside of the state, so it seems to be an argument about how one earns what they get, merit? If you look at history and the last 5k years what model of government meets your definition of limited, (not counting the early U.S. which we could debate forever ) or do you have to go even before that? Hunter-gathers? What examples in human history meets your standard because it seems like very few could?

Hey, Skippy... what do you have, some kind of comprehension hang up or something?

What I suggest is that "the use of governmental force is intellectual sloth, and often leads to perverse, unintended consequences". Again, and again, and again

Again, again, again, nothing the state could ever do besides protect property or against fraud is considered just. I know.

I don't think you do...

Cooperation!?!? What!? Sticking a gun to someone's head is cooperation? That's a warped sense of cooperation you have there.

Okay, It's fine in my books.

[doublem]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/us/po ... .html?_r=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Genentech, a subsidiary of the Swiss drug giant Roche, estimates that 42 House members picked up some of its talking points — 22 Republicans and 20 Democrats, an unusual bipartisan coup for lobbyists.

Members of Congress submit statements for publication in the Congressional Record all the time, often with a decorous request to “revise and extend my remarks.” It is unusual for so many revisions and extensions to match up word for word. It is even more unusual to find clear evidence that the statements originated with lobbyists.

[DelPen]

So Obama again doesn't understand his current position and was only 1 of 47 diginitaries who bowed to the emperor of Japan. Heads of State simply do not bow to other Heads of State. It was wrong when he bowed to the Saudi King and wrong again. And you want to know who's most upset about this? The Japanese. They are viewing this as a sign of weakness and considering the US is still proctecting Japan militarly I'm sure they're just pleased as punch that Obama is making a fool of himself on the international stage while North Korea is testing missles that have a range within striking distance of Tokyo.

[bh]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/us/po ... .html?_r=1

Genentech, a subsidiary of the Swiss drug giant Roche, estimates that 42 House members picked up some of its talking points — 22 Republicans and 20 Democrats, an unusual bipartisan coup for lobbyists.

Members of Congress submit statements for publication in the Congressional Record all the time, often with a decorous request to “revise and extend my remarks.” It is unusual for so many revisions and extensions to match up word for word. It is even more unusual to find clear evidence that the statements originated with lobbyists.

I saw this yesterday. They just keep letting us know who really runs things around here. It saddens me that so many in Congress seem so unaware they are being led like this. Are they truely unaware or just acting that way? It's eithor deciept or ineptness; eithor way we are no better off. We need to hamper these people and limit the damage they can casue. I'm all for ending the Fed. That seems like the only way to put a cap on what they will spend. It will force government to actually make choices about what is most important for them to provide. They will have to cut programs and live within a budget. If they don't we'll see the higher taxes right away and people will not stand for that. I'm so sick of this corporate take over.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/imf-advice" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[bh]

So Obama again doesn't understand his current position and was only 1 of 47 diginitaries who bowed to the emperor of Japan. Heads of State simply do not bow to other Heads of State. It was wrong when he bowed to the Saudi King and wrong again. And you want to know who's most upset about this? The Japanese. They are viewing this as a sign of weakness and considering the US is still proctecting Japan militarly I'm sure they're just pleased as punch that Obama is making a fool of himself on the international stage while North Korea is testing missles that have a range within striking distance of Tokyo.

Are etiquette customs really THAT important?