[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Human nature is not dependant on civilizations. Civilizations are a product of human nature. The disappearance of a civilization does not delete human nature. The statement to which you refer is not that great civilizations only last 200 years, but that their average life has been about 200 years, implying some last longer, some less. I don't know if that's true, but I don't take that as relevent to the process of decline.

The point I was making is that if human nature doesn't change, and the 200 year cycle is correct, then we're set up to be at the end of the cycle. Without this device the piece is far less interesting.

An INDEPENDENT people being the goodest thing.

As opposed to bondage, of course

The wisdom of our founders was to create a Republic rather than a democracy, and create a judicial branch of government that would impede such rush to collective dependence. Unfortunately, they trusted too much in the "honor" of justices to adhere to the Constitution that was supposed to garantee individual rights from being subservient to group "rights" and governmental fiat. The judges have been all too human and have deferred to the collective portion of their human nature.

Excellent point, although I'm not sure all if this should be considered a failure. Some aspects of judicial activism I think can be seen as having benefited society and some as a detriment. Hindsight is always 20/20.

The part of his progression that intrigues me, that seems to have some credence in history, is the seduction of the polity by politicians who redistribute wealth, and the ensuing weakening of the population that accepts the goodies.

Agree, there certainly is some truth here that is probably fed by human nature. The outstanding question may be what's really sustainable? Socialism doesn't work, but does that mean some socialistic elements are always negative... or perhaps could they be a positive buffering element in a free market society?

Let us be wary of restricting this process from the top. Let us allow this base of American individualism continue to innovate. Perhaps, you might look at bondage on "a spectrum." There is the hard bondage of, say the slaves serving the Pharaoh, and, then, there is the consensual bondage of the soft depotism of a "benevolent" government that will take care of you if you will give it the power to determine your fate.

I think the right mix may be optimal. For instance, I believe that Federal funding for university based R&D has produced dramatic returns in innovation that have benefited independent businesses.

The use of the "spectrum" is appropriate here. I approve.

We are not slipping in comparison to others catching up. We are slipping in comparison to our own potential. The top down handcuffs make it difficult to be what we Constitutionally are allowed to be.

Are we any less handcuffed than we were 50 or 100 years ago? I'm not sure we are, but I would agree we can achieve more.

If the rest of the world becomes equal to us, not only in what we've taught them to be economically, but in gaining the individual freedoms with which we have been endowed, that will be a win, win.

Most definitely.

If we can reverse the trend of seeing the Constitution as relative to changing times, and revert back to protecting and preserving it as the foundation which protects us from overbearing government rather than a means to have government do for us, I have confidence that we will remain strong and adaptive to any change.

As would be expected, I'm all for balance here as well, although I also believe that relativism (moral or otherwise) if not an absolute doesn't have to be linear either.

As an aside, the Constitution was the first app I downloaded to my new iPad.

-spence