Important - please read

[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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

What is interesting to me in the piece is Tytler's "cycle," and not so much Kiyosaki's application of it. Though no-one has found the quote in Tytler's works, he certainy wrote about democracy in a way that the quote could be derived.

The Founders were well read in history and may have read Tytler's sceptical views of democracy. He also seems to have been of the mind that, though democracies in the purest sense are a fiction, a republican form of democracy offers the best opportunity for individuals to rise from lower to higher classes. He, like the Founders, based his ideas on his view of human nature. Whether Tytler was influental or not, the Founders chose a republican form that, in its constitutional frame would allow governance to evolve so that, if it adhered to the fundamental guidlines of the Constitution, optimum individual freedom would be preserved. In essence, the Founders created the path that breaks the cycle. We will be sucked into the vortex of Tytler's cycle if we stray from the path.

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 problem with judicial activism is its precendent of straying from the path and the inherent danger of becoming lost. Nature is not static. It evolves constantly in the infinite directions that its minutest elements take, whether taken by accident or by "choice." Each element remains distinctly what it is by maintaining its integrity, and can become stronger by combining that integrity with another. It fails and disappears when it loses integrity. The integrity of our republic is maintained by adhering to the Constitution. Legislation that evolves over time will maintain that integrity if it stays within the "genetic code" of constitutional bounds. The SCOTUS is our republic's genetic regulator/protecter. If it allows mutations, we become other. Better or worse? Whatever we become may think it's better, but we will have wandered into another political existence and, as Obama wishes, we will be fundamentally transformed.

As for "some aspects of judicial activism" having benefited society--how so? Is a short term "gain" for some group in a society founded on individual freedom beneficial to that society if it restricts that freedom and leads the way, by precedent, to stray from the path that breaks the cycle so that more freedoms are lost and we slip onto a path to bondage?

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?

Which socialistic elements? Different forms of economies and governments have simlar elements. It is human nature that buffers all systems. Compassion, good will, honor, love, (and all their opposites) are inherent in our nature, not in our political/social systems. It may be argued that some system may most enable our "good" nature. I think a system derived from a society of free individuals allows human nature to be expressed in its "spectrum" of diversity, and that, on the whole, our good nature will prevail. And, IMO, in a system based on the good of the collective, human nature will be neutralized and suppressed into compliance, obedience, submission.

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.

Federal funding, IMO, should be for areas originally in the federal domain. Federal funding for military R&D (the common defense) is good--lots of it--but not stupid waste.

Federal funding for areas outside of what is constitutionally federal leads to far more bad than good. It redistributes all the people's money in ways that favors some people over other people. It creates inflationary cycles wherein huge piles of money that were not previously available are spent and sought and prices rise and the value of money is decreased. And, worse, it constantly flows toward the prestige and dependence on central power. The diverse localities should decide how their public purse should be spent. R&D paid for by corporations, businesses, and even states or local communities will exist without the Feds, will cost much less, and, if the free market is not overly restricted, will be far more diverse than R&D financed by the bottomless pocket of the Fed.Gov. and the particular preferences of those running it at any given time.


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.

We are probably more handcuffed.


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

-spence

I approve.