5 ms·

Most other countries went from aristocracy to democracy. I'm sad that America is maybe the only one to go the other way -- to have been founded on the principl

Most other countries went from aristocracy to democracy. I'm sad that America is maybe the only one to go the other way -- to have been founded on the principles of The Enlightenment and to slip into plutocracy. I point my finger of blame at the same thing that gave us the American Dream: a vast amount of land and the automobile. It meant everyone could own a home and land of their own, but it also meant that by not living in closer proximity to each other we forgot that we're family members and we turned into competitors. It only became important that you get your share (large, please!) and not making sure that we're all, as a nation, able to live well. Now we are engaged in a great power war, testing whether this nation, or any nation so misguided and so derailed, can long endure.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- greggyb 12y ago
  > ... founded by an elite group of aristocrats.... And on the basis of taxes which disproportionately affected them. I understand that there is more nuance here, but to a first order approximation parent comment and my extension are accurate.
mcguire 12y ago
America was founded as a democracy only for land-owning white men. We have gone back and forth through various levels of plutocracy and populism, but overall have been getting more democratic. For one thing, we're nowhere near the plutocracy of the pre-income-tax, late nineteenth century. While recent trends have not, in my opinion, been going in a good direction, I wouldn't be worried about this particular issue at all. Check out Made in America (https://madeinamericathebook.wordpress.com/about/ https://madeinamericathebook.wordpress.com/about/).
AndrewKemendo 12y ago
I'm sad that America is maybe the only one to go the other way -- to have been founded on the principles of The Enlightenment and to slip into plutocracy. Hardly. This is a very traditional political cycle that was first documented by the Greek historians and philosophers. Polybius and Plato aptly named it "Kyklos" (Cycle) and goes from Anarchy -> Democracy -> Aristocracy -> Monarchy. This period of cycle is different however as there is no more "West" to go and start your anarchic society so it should be interesting to see what happens this time round the cycle.
- api 12y ago
  In Europe it's gone: Anarchy -> Democracy (Greece, early Rome) -> Aristocracy (late Rome) -> Monarchy (imperial Rome, middle ages) -> Revolution (brief partial anarchy?) -> Democracy -> Aristocracy (Eurozone) -> ??? I wonder if it's one of those "wheels of reincarnation," kind of analogous to the mainframe/PC cycle of centralization vs. decentralization. Decentralization creates problems that can only be solved by centralization (tragedy of the commons, paradox of thrift, etc.), but then centralization creates its own new problems that drive decentralization (corruption, arbitrary power), rinse and repeat.
  - carlob 12y ago
    Why do you say the Eurozone is an aristocracy?
  - AndrewKemendo 12y ago
    Right, well you just described the cycle well with example. Anarchy is usually short lived as people naturally form groups.
- lem72 12y ago
  I envision that Space is the new "west" or final frontier.
  - AndrewKemendo 12y ago
    Unfortunately I don't. Space has a lack of most of the basic things needed for humans to survive. Like air, water and land. Trivialities I know.
    - zo1 12y ago
      They lack those things now. But who knows what the future holds. Personally, I believe that eventually those "necessities" you mention won't hold individuals back from exploring that new frontier.
j_baker 12y ago
Our government has always been plutocratic. > The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa or rolls in his carriage, cannot judge the wants or feelings of the day-laborer. The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe, — when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. -- James Madison, the architect of our Constitution
nmeofthestate 12y ago
" I'm sad that America is maybe the only one to go the other way" Ahh, you Americans can be quite funny - being exceptionalist even when you're slagging yourselves off. The fact is, it's not just America where inequality is growing and elites are entrenching themselves. I also don't think your analysis of why America ended up uniquely having inequality/elites is convincing one, even if it were true.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

greggyb 12y ago
> ... founded by an elite group of aristocrats.... And on the basis of taxes which disproportionately affected them. I understand that there is more nuance here, but to a first order approximation parent comment and my extension are accurate.

mcguire 12y ago

America was founded as a democracy only for land-owning white men. We have gone back and forth through various levels of plutocracy and populism, but overall have been getting more democratic. For one thing, we're nowhere near the plutocracy of the pre-income-tax, late nineteenth century. While recent trends have not, in my opinion, been going in a good direction, I wouldn't be worried about this particular issue at all. Check out Made in America (https://madeinamericathebook.wordpress.com/about/ https://madeinamericathebook.wordpress.com/about/).

AndrewKemendo 12y ago

I'm sad that America is maybe the only one to go the other way -- to have been founded on the principles of The Enlightenment and to slip into plutocracy. Hardly. This is a very traditional political cycle that was first documented by the Greek historians and philosophers. Polybius and Plato aptly named it "Kyklos" (Cycle) and goes from Anarchy -> Democracy -> Aristocracy -> Monarchy. This period of cycle is different however as there is no more "West" to go and start your anarchic society so it should be interesting to see what happens this time round the cycle.

api 12y ago
In Europe it's gone: Anarchy -> Democracy (Greece, early Rome) -> Aristocracy (late Rome) -> Monarchy (imperial Rome, middle ages) -> Revolution (brief partial anarchy?) -> Democracy -> Aristocracy (Eurozone) -> ??? I wonder if it's one of those "wheels of reincarnation," kind of analogous to the mainframe/PC cycle of centralization vs. decentralization. Decentralization creates problems that can only be solved by centralization (tragedy of the commons, paradox of thrift, etc.), but then centralization creates its own new problems that drive decentralization (corruption, arbitrary power), rinse and repeat.
- carlob 12y ago
  Why do you say the Eurozone is an aristocracy?
- AndrewKemendo 12y ago
  Right, well you just described the cycle well with example. Anarchy is usually short lived as people naturally form groups.
lem72 12y ago
I envision that Space is the new "west" or final frontier.
- AndrewKemendo 12y ago
  Unfortunately I don't. Space has a lack of most of the basic things needed for humans to survive. Like air, water and land. Trivialities I know.
  - zo1 12y ago
    They lack those things now. But who knows what the future holds. Personally, I believe that eventually those "necessities" you mention won't hold individuals back from exploring that new frontier.

j_baker 12y ago

Our government has always been plutocratic. > The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa or rolls in his carriage, cannot judge the wants or feelings of the day-laborer. The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe, — when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. -- James Madison, the architect of our Constitution

nmeofthestate 12y ago

" I'm sad that America is maybe the only one to go the other way" Ahh, you Americans can be quite funny - being exceptionalist even when you're slagging yourselves off. The fact is, it's not just America where inequality is growing and elites are entrenching themselves. I also don't think your analysis of why America ended up uniquely having inequality/elites is convincing one, even if it were true.