A warning about Democracy from a Scots Historian.

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Animal: "From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship." I think we are all aware that just because a politician promises something, doesn't mean that they will deliver. That is the reason that a democracy can exist.

A good point.

I'm curious though - has anyone ever sued a politician for "Breach of (election) promise"? When a politician promises on TV to do x,y, and Z, isn't that a verbal contract that he has undertaken?

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Khazadman, while Lieberman is up there on the "makes some sense" list, Howard Dean is at the top in my book. Check his deanforamerica website and tell me if you think he's a left wingnut. He was very good for business in VT -- and did it without pissing off the enviros. He actually took a state in debt and now it has a "rainy day fund." How many politicians exhibit that much common sense?

You got to be kidding me TL Dean ran a small state, "HALE" most major cities have larger populations then Vermont, bigger budgets would you consider a mayor to have the experience to run the entire country?

[Timber Loftis]

John D, I'm a believer that microeconomic issues translate just fine to macroeconomics. VT is generally a poor state. Folks there make a low salary comparatively. Yet, housing is not cheap. And, goods cost as much. Yet, the people there generally enjoy a better quality of life ("QOL"). I think being able to adequately manage such a small state and its concerns, and do it so well, can very well prepare someone to run the country. VT's 600,000 folks divided into three distinct geographic regions, with some heavy pockets of money/new-wave academes and Yuppies (Burlington environs) as well as heavy pockets of abject poverty, present a full panopoly of issues and concerns.

Besides, I really don't want D.C. micromanaging Alabama or Kentucky's affairs. I don't need a President who tells Mayor Daley how to run Chicago -- I want one who is able to allow Mayor Daley to do his job for himself (as disgruntled as I am with the Mayor these days).

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: John D, I'm a believer that microeconomic issues translate just fine to macroeconomics. VT is generally a poor state. Folks there make a low salary comparatively. Yet, housing is not cheap. And, goods cost as much. Yet, the people there generally enjoy a better quality of life ("QOL"). I think being able to adequately manage such a small state and its concerns, and do it so well, can very well prepare someone to run the country. VT's 600,000 folks divided into three distinct geographic regions, with some heavy pockets of money/new-wave academes and Yuppies (Burlington environs) as well as heavy pockets of abject poverty, present a full panopoly of issues and concerns.

You can certainly say that again! "Hale" we rented a 2 bed room 1 bath house in Barre for $650 12 years ago. I could have rented the bigger house in the panhandle of Florida, or Alabama for $350-$400 and got paid damn near the same amount in wages, OPPS I did after we left Vt. [img]smile.gif[/img]

The problem I have is the business friendly part. Business friendly compared to what? N.Y., N.H. , or Mass. "Hale" the old USSR was Damn near business Friendly compared to Mass.

[johnny]

Originally posted by Skunk: quote: Originally posted by Animal: "From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship." I think we are all aware that just because a politician promises something, doesn't mean that they will deliver. That is the reason that a democracy can exist.

A good point.

I'm curious though - has anyone ever sued a politician for "Breach of (election) promise"? When a politician promises on TV to do x,y, and Z, isn't that a verbal contract that he has undertaken? [/QUOTE]Interresting question, i don't know if it ever happened. But i don't think such a case would have a reasonable chance of succes, situations in a country keep changing, and the politicians act on these changes. If during his campaign Balkenende would have said he was going to do what he is doing now, he wouldn't be prime minister as we speak. But i assume he didn't know the country's financial status back then.

[ 09-03-2003, 10:08 PM: Message edited by: johnny ]

[Skunk]

Well, speaking specifically about the law in the Netherlands - a verbal contract is not invalidated by changing environment but can only be invalidated/changed/cancelled if the other party agrees to a change or acts outside the terms of the contract.

That means that if I promise to paint your house by the end of the week and but fail to do so because I was involved in an accident, you can still sue me for any damages (emotional, physical, financial) etc that you incurred as a result of my failure to live up to the contract. As far as the law is concerned, I should have had a contingency plan in place for just such an eventuality...

The classic mistake that many expatriates make in the Netherlands is when buying a house. Now all Dutch people know that you that when you make a verbal offer for a property that it is important to make the caveat 'subject to raising the neccessary funds' - if you don't, you get stung. Quite a large number of expats have made offers on properties before getting a mortage approved - and when they failed to get a high enough mortage, they were still hit with a bill from the house vendor: "Sorry, but your inability to raise a mortgage is not my problem - let's discuss damages...

[ 09-04-2003, 04:54 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

[skywalker]

Well, personally, I've been living in Vermont for over 14 years and my wife and I were doing a heck of a lot better when Clinton was President and Dean was Governer. Dean ran a "small state" pretty damn well in my opinion. It is a micrcosm. He balanced evironment with business, gave health care to all children and most of the poor, balanced the budget every year, etc. That sounds like something this country could use right now. I'd stack Dean's record as Governer against Bush in Texas any day.


Mark

[WillowIX]

Originally posted by MagiK: Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University of Law, St. Paul, MN passed on that gem & provides the following 2000 election facts for consideration. Population of counties won by Gore 127 million, won by Bush 143 million Sq. miles of country won by Gore 580,000, won by Bush 2,427,000 States won by Gore 19, by Bush 29 Murder per 100,000 residents in counties won by Gore 13.2 by Bush 2.1 (not a typo) Professor Olson adds, "And may I add that the map of the territory Bush won was (mostly) the land owned by the people of this great country. Not the citizens living in cities owned by the government and living off the government....

Which proves that? The American election system doesn't work? Or that statistics, as you yourself so many times have pointed out MagiK, really doesn't show anything?

[Azred]

I thought the death of democracy would be when voting blocks, from a demographic point of view, care only about increasing their own political power base and not on trying to bring about positive results. In short, the blocks will simply want political power without accomplishing anything else simply to have the political power, then demand benefits from a politician or they might vote for someone else--this is sometimes called extortion.

Skunk, I don't think anyone will ever try suing a politician, nor would they win. The politician may always claim "the other guys stopped me, but I was trying my best to fulfill my promises--it's not my fault".

I still think a random lottery will breathe new life into the representative democracy, but I shudder at how many nutcases would gain temporary power with that method.

Back on topic...yes, I agree with Professor Tyler. It is only a matter of time before our democracy collapses into itself; the lessons of history prove that it eventually will.