Swastikas and Germany in the modern day...

[Friscobay]

Originally Posted by Catfish

@ Friso bay
That was a very good film.
The quote would also fit Dr. Strangelove ..

I am not sure, my theory always was the US got the space jockeys, while the Soviets got the submarine ones.
But i was not referring to the scientists, more to the secret services ..


@Skybird:
There's always speaker's corner, in Hyde Park..

CIA V KGB?

Tough ones all the way around. The hands-down coup of coups was performed not by the CIA, but by the Soviets and the British , when the UKs entire top spy circle led by The Cambridge Five, sold out to Stalin during WWII. Indeed, the sellout helped launch the careers of veteran spy novelists John LeCarre [ ''The Spy Who Came In From The Cold'', ''Tinker Tailor, Soldier, Spy '' ], Graham Greene [ ''The Third Man'', ''Our Man In Havana'' ] and of course Ian Fleming [ ''Casino Royale'' et al James Bond ].

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I disagree with you, so now I'm naive? Interesting sort of dismissal.

Is there a better word in Englisch to translate "naiv" ? Ingenuous (unbedarft, arglos)? Undiscerning (unbedarft, einsichtslos)? Low-brow?

To take something literally just because it is written, or to believe somebody just because he says something, is "naiv" in German , is "naive" in English. Or not?

No attack was meant.

America may not have a history going back thousands of years, but we do have the unique position of having started from scratch* and creating the government we wanted. We also made sure we had it in writing that we reserved the right to do so again, if necessary.

You people of today did that NOT. Because you lived not back then. What I called naiuve earlier is this beoleive that because over 200 years ago some people meant to design a new country today would automatically mean their principlkes are still valid. The naivety lies in ignoring the long time that has passed sionce then, the wider and wider rift between how your country once was meant to be, and how it today reallky is, and to assume that becasue somewthing isd written on a historic papyrus it still is protected from already being eroded and abused. I see massive abuse and distortions there, I massive treason of ideals writtehn down long time ago, and a system that only stage-acts as if it still is driven by the motives and still is in conformity with thgose values. Many ordinary people may htink that way indeed, loike you do, and they may design their social habits to reflect that. But the power structure, the state, the laws, the mechanisms that drive politics - to me that has little to do with old ideals of back then anymore. And I have made that point many times by now in forum debates, since over a decade! If the early presidents would see how modern Us politics are functioning and are driven behind the scene, they would cry in despair over what has come of their hopes.

[Skybird]

Friscobay, I focusse don where you said "However, within the wider world of public and even private association and discourse , individuals are not protected from ''speech which offends''. It does not enter either into realms of ''space'' or ''time''. I made clear that the olublic space is not unpossessed, but is owned by somebody, is claimed by somebody, which is the state. And that the state therefore rules as claimed owner of the place what goes and what not. Therefore, free speech finds its lkmits in the need that if you use it, you still need to possess the space and the time to pratcice it, or must be given allowance by the owner to use it by leasing the opporuntiy in space and time. And you are given that byx the state - or not. The state is a monopolist in making the rules as he likes them. First problem. Second problem is that I do not automatically accept anymore the state being called the protector of the communal interest. It is not, but a tool of power abused by the few.
Regarding the first problem, you can see the problem in Turkey currently, with Erdoghan switching on and off internet services as it serves his interests, and punishing lawyers, polcie ninvestigators and state attorney doing research against him and his clan. In the West, censorship and limiting free speech usually it is done more subtle and secretive, not so much by obvious force that could be fingerprinted and condemned easily, but by shifting the censor into the thinking of people, and anchoring it in redesigning the meaning of words, manipulating public opinion and media reports, mobilising this by now terrifying thing called "solidarity" and "public interest" (like "national security" can gag just anything in the US). And what's even worse: these things spread like a pandemic. You must not ban free speech explcitly. Eroding the fundaments of the ability to make use for it and on issues that are indeed important, works even better, for it is more difficult to see and thus less easy to brandmark it as such, not to mention to fight back.

A standard tactic in cults and sects like the Moon sect as just one example is to brake resistance and free will of newcomers by complimenting them "to death", so to speak. They are never left alone, they are treated with kindness no matter what, they are always helped, they are always given a helping hand. The point is that this is done to such extreme that they never are not helped and never are not being met with kindness. You reach out for something - they are faster and give it to you. You want to go somewhere - they show you all the way. You wish for something - they just briung in the fulfillment of your wishes. You lose the ability of doing yourself becasue you are systemtically prevented form doing yourself. That is becasue you do not see the need to do yourself, and the silent aggression you maybe feel after some time is met with disbelief and consternation - has not everybody been so kind to you? Has not any wish been read from your lips? Haven'T you been met with nothign but friendliness, and meeting mkany freinds you coinstantly are around?

Formally, legally, nothing of that is limiting you, preventing you, hindering you. But of course, it does limit you, it does prevent you, it does hinder you. That's why it is being done, and believe me: it works damn well with most people exposed to this brainwashing. It works frighteningly well.

That is just one example of how you could erode freedom without formally eroding freedom. The anonymous pressure of the group, social standards, the constant sprinkling by media using key terms and ideas over and over again, legal standards, goals and views inculcated by the education system. Brute force works well. Hitler, Stalin, North Korea proved that beyond doubt. But the subtle methods I tried to hint at, are working better, and are much more difficult to resist to, to be identified, to be fought against. Doing so often leads to situations where the victims to whose help you come are turning against you, and see malice only where indeed your intention was to help and to free them. That is why these methods make Hitler, Stalin and North Korea and their use of brute force the dilletantees.

[areo16]

Originally Posted by Skybird

You are wrong there, Friscobay. I am quite confident that if a stranger would suddenly stand in your living room and start to hold a political speech or a religious nuthead interrupts a cinema movie by stepping onto the stage and starting to engage people in a missionary speech or a fellow would raise in the restaurant walking from table to table trying to get people engaged in an argument over something, would make the owners of the place call the police or throw him out themselves. Same is true for the guy who starts to yell ideological paroles in the backyard after midnight and all windows become lit again, or a person storms a radio office and demands to be broadcasted, or some body demands the newspaper to print his essay for free although the newspapers refuses to print it.

You have to "own" the "place" and the "time" to practice free speech, if you do not own them, then your right of free speech is worth nothing. And we should be thankful for that. Regarding our private sphere, homes, houeses: its our places, and so its our rules. Somebody else is not free to say and do just anything within these just like he pleases.

Why is it that you are interpreting our Bill of Rights into a literal meaning from which they were never meant to represent the day they were written over 200 years ago? You're describing incidents which would violate other laws like curfews, verbal threats, trespassing and disturbing the peace. They didn't write this amendment so someone could have the right to yell at the top of their lungs at someone else just 3 inches away from their ear 24 hours a day seven days a week. Nor did they put into the constitution that in order to live free someone must first breath to live , which involves breathing in and out by first inhaling and then exhaling, because these things were implied. They also have to eat once in a while and drink water at least every three days in order to live, before they can live to exercise their freedoms.

You are taking the Bill of Rights out of its context, which is a document which guards the rights of man from the abuses of government. What you are talking about has nothing to do with this. The amendments were not written to tell someone how to treat others, as if its some kind of common courtesy pamphlet.

[areo16]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Is there a better word in Englisch to translate "naiv" ? Ingenuous (unbedarft, arglos)? Undiscerning (unbedarft, einsichtslos)? Low-brow?

To take something literally just because it is written, or to believe somebody just because he says something, is "naiv" in German , is "naive" in English. Or not?

No attack was meant.



You people of today did that NOT. Because you lived not back then. What I called naiuve earlier is this beoleive that because over 200 years ago some people meant to design a new country today would automatically mean their principlkes are still valid. The naivety lies in ignoring the long time that has passed sionce then, the wider and wider rift between how your country once was meant to be, and how it today reallky is, and to assume that becasue somewthing isd written on a historic papyrus it still is protected from already being eroded and abused. I see massive abuse and distortions there, I massive treason of ideals writtehn down long time ago, and a system that only stage-acts as if it still is driven by the motives and still is in conformity with thgose values. Many ordinary people may htink that way indeed, loike you do, and they may design their social habits to reflect that. But the power structure, the state, the laws, the mechanisms that drive politics - to me that has little to do with old ideals of back then anymore. And I have made that point many times by now in forum debates, since over a decade! If the early presidents would see how modern Us politics are functioning and are driven behind the scene, they would cry in despair over what has come of their hopes.

The Bill of Rights is not treated lightly by the three branches of government here, at least not in the public eye. It takes precedence over any statute or law, and in a case its interpretations hold alot of weight. Most of us know that it is getting spat on every day, and the rights are shrinking constantly. The majority of Americans believe this. But we also believe that whatever else is not abused, we want to preserve. Interpretation of the Bill of Rights is also a very lengthy subject. However, its not as grey as religious texts.

I'm not sure why you have an impression that Americans don't know the Bill of Rights is getting abused in this country. Where did you get that idea? Part of being an American and being a patriot is fighting for a specific interpretation of the Bill of Rights, and preventing other powers from abusing those rights. But, I wouldn't expect someone who never became an American citizen to know of this same emotion or to understand the way we see our relationship with our government.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by areo16

You are taking the Bill of Rights out of its context, which is a document which guards the rights of man from the abuses of government.

Watching the state of things nowadays, it does a lousy job in that. Which is no wonder, since it is only ink on paper, and since many many decades open for abuse and violation. I agree with the ideals (at least with most, but where it formulates the wish for a state to govern people I necessarily disagree), but I also realise that these ideals today play no really influential role anymore, and get bypassed and violated by political actors and economic lobbies if they see their interests served by that. I see the huge discrepancy between how the world should be, and how it is.

It's not different in Germany as well. Over here, the Basic Law, laws and treaties get constantly violated, too. For opportunistic reasons, and because the actors get away with it. Same on EU level. The US story just fits into the bigger international trend. Sorry, nothing special there, but the same systematic erosion being done like anywhere else. Believing that one is the most special people in the world, does not change that, it is just a supremacist belief like so many others as well.

[areo16]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Watching the state of things nowadays, it does a lousy job in that. Which is no wonder, since it is only ink on paper, and since many many decades open for abuse and violation. I agree with the ideals (at least with most, but where it formulates the wish for a state to govern people I necessarily disagree), but I also realise that these ideals today play no really influential role anymore, and get bypassed and violated by political actors and economic lobbies if they see their interests served by that. I see the huge discrepancy between how the world should be, and how it is.

It's not different in Germany as well. Over here, the Basic Law, laws and treaties get constantly violated, too. For opportunistic reasons, and because the actors get away with it. Same on EU level. The US story just fits into the bigger international trend. Sorry, nothing special there, but the same systematic erosion being done like anywhere else. Believing that one is the most special people in the world, does not change that, it is just a supremacist belief like so many others as well.

How things ought to be and how they are are always two different things. Let's not dwell on the obvious.

What I was discussing was not us thinking as "supremacists", it was to show how we think of our Constitution and our relationship with our government. Which, considering our history which is unique (as every nation has a unique history), is special. Special being unique and different, not supremacist. Not sure how you drew that conclusion from what I said. Supremacist would be more of how the Germans saw themselves compared to the Herero and Namaqua who lived in Deutsch-Südwestafrika.

[Friscobay]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Friscobay, I focusse don where you said "However, within the wider world of public and even private association and discourse , individuals are not protected from ''speech which offends''. It does not enter either into realms of ''space'' or ''time''. I made clear that the olublic space is not unpossessed, but is owned by somebody, is claimed by somebody, which is the state. And that the state therefore rules as claimed owner of the place what goes and what not. Therefore, free speech finds its lkmits in the need that if you use it, you still need to possess the space and the time to pratcice it, or must be given allowance by the owner to use it by leasing the opporuntiy in space and time. And you are given that byx the state - or not. The state is a monopolist in making the rules as he likes them. First problem. Second problem is that I do not automatically accept anymore the state being called the protector of the communal interest. It is not, but a tool of power abused by the few.
Regarding the first problem, you can see the problem in Turkey currently, with Erdoghan switching on and off internet services as it serves his interests, and punishing lawyers, polcie ninvestigators and state attorney doing research against him and his clan. In the West, censorship and limiting free speech usually it is done more subtle and secretive, not so much by obvious force that could be fingerprinted and condemned easily, but by shifting the censor into the thinking of people, and anchoring it in redesigning the meaning of words, manipulating public opinion and media reports, mobilising this by now terrifying thing called "solidarity" and "public interest" (like "national security" can gag just anything in the US). And what's even worse: these things spread like a pandemic. You must not ban free speech explcitly. Eroding the fundaments of the ability to make use for it and on issues that are indeed important, works even better, for it is more difficult to see and thus less easy to brandmark it as such, not to mention to fight back.

A standard tactic in cults and sects like the Moon sect as just one example is to brake resistance and free will of newcomers by complimenting them "to death", so to speak. They are never left alone, they are treated with kindness no matter what, they are always helped, they are always given a helping hand. The point is that this is done to such extreme that they never are not helped and never are not being met with kindness. You reach out for something - they are faster and give it to you. You want to go somewhere - they show you all the way. You wish for something - they just briung in the fulfillment of your wishes. You lose the ability of doing yourself becasue you are systemtically prevented form doing yourself. That is becasue you do not see the need to do yourself, and the silent aggression you maybe feel after some time is met with disbelief and consternation - has not everybody been so kind to you? Has not any wish been read from your lips? Haven'T you been met with nothign but friendliness, and meeting mkany freinds you coinstantly are around?

Formally, legally, nothing of that is limiting you, preventing you, hindering you. But of course, it does limit you, it does prevent you, it does hinder you. That's why it is being done, and believe me: it works damn well with most people exposed to this brainwashing. It works frighteningly well.

That is just one example of how you could erode freedom without formally eroding freedom. The anonymous pressure of the group, social standards, the constant sprinkling by media using key terms and ideas over and over again, legal standards, goals and views inculcated by the education system. Brute force works well. Hitler, Stalin, North Korea proved that beyond doubt. But the subtle methods I tried to hint at, are working better, and are much more difficult to resist to, to be identified, to be fought against. Doing so often leads to situations where the victims to whose help you come are turning against you, and see malice only where indeed your intention was to help and to free them. That is why these methods make Hitler, Stalin and North Korea and their use of brute force the dilletantees.

Heck SKYBIRD, this kind of debate has been taking place in the US as long as there has been a US. Liberal and conservative socio-political thought sees the other as the ''enemy of the people''. Yet in all of this raucous rancor, the ability to treasure the freedom of the nations citizens to engage in the widest expressions of speech without official or ideological sanction is a bedrock reason why America is patently different than other nations, whether European, Latin, or Asian or African. All of these come to an America which bears a Constitution like no other on earth, for it allows its greatest protections, most often to the things people hate more than any other. The biggest dangers to this republic, occur only when these freedoms are allowed to erode. Or when they are seized by one group or another '' in the name of'' some ideal that is not universally embraced by the nations citizens and imposed upon these. One need not be either the ''oldest'' or ''newest'' member of SUBSIM to observe such patent facts.

[Skybird]

"A constitution like no other on earth"? And you wonder why I think that talking like this sounds supremacist a bit? You certainly did not mean to express that it is that bad, did you?

Have you ever cared to check whether it really is so unique - by comparing it to others? The German Basic Law, first 20 articles, for example? I did. And I disagree with the claim that the US constitution is so unique. The German one for example pretty much says the same things, and guarantees the same basic rights and freedoms. Or take the many French constitutions they have had, more than a dozen in two hundred years, they had more constitutions than there have been French republics, and currently they count it the Fifth Republic. But from late 18th century on, they also had the separate declaration of human and civil rights, which effectively guarantee pretty much the same as the German and American basic rights and freedoms. It has preceded several of those constitutions, and also precedes the current one, means: it is as binding as the constitution itself.

But by the end of the day, the abuse and exploitation, the bypassing and erosion of these basic rights is the same everywhere in the western world, in France and Germany and remaining Europe as well. America in no way is an exception there. I would claim that it also is inevitable in a democracy, for it carries the seed of its own destruciton within itself. the reason is power accumulation, democracy fostering and turning into socialism unavoidably, the forming of elites who monopolise their political and economic power, the destruction of money, and the pinciple of voter bribery that dominates democracy from all beginning on and turns everybody participating in it into a complice in crime. One of the early US presidents said that once people find out that they can vote their money, it will be the beginning of the end of the republic. The present proves his words to be visionary. Some days ago, the US High Court has ruled that money can buy political influence without limits, and not allowing that would be a violation of the first amendment. Well. The court certainly used another wording than I do. I only translate the obvious from Tryingtohideit into plain English.

I also want to remind of that in the founding era of America, the concepts debated amongst the intellectual elites on the Eastern coast, not really were originally American, but all based on and led further concepts forethought by French thinkers. It's often claimed that America were the cradle of democracy, well, not only have a I problem with democracy itself, but also with the historical truth of that claim. The US owes more to French thinking, than the other way around. For that reason, the spiritus rector of the project that led to the creation of the statue of liberty insisted already in the late 19th century, before the building began, that any memorial celebrating the American independence should be a joint project of the French and the American people.

Anyway, in the end, it all is just sheets of paper. What people do or not do, what the decide or not decide, what they chose or not chose, and what they accept responsibility for and what not, determines how events unfold and what path history follows. Paper does not blush, or as we say in German: paper is endlessly patient.

So are internet forums.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Have you ever cared to check whether it really is so unique - by comparing it to others? The German Basic Law, first 20 articles, for example? I did.

On the other hand the US Constitution predates all of those.

I would claim that it also is inevitable in a democracy, for it carries the seed of its own destruciton within itself. the reason is power accumulation, democracy fostering and turning into socialism unavoidably, the forming of elites who monopolise their political and economic power, the destruction of money, and the pinciple of voter bribery that dominates democracy from all beginning on and turns everybody participating in it into a complice in crime.

I would agree. It was Thomas Jefferson who pointed out "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."

One of the early US presidents said that once people find out that they can vote their money, it will be the beginning of the end of the republic.

The quote is "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.", and it's attribution is to a British subject (Scottish), Alexander Tytler, Lord Woodhouselee. The attribution itself is false, the first known use of the phrase coming from Elmer T. Peterson in 1951.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Alexander_Fraser_Tytler

That said, it's a good quote and arguably true.

I also want to remind of that in the founding era of America, the concepts debated amongst the intellectual elites on the Eastern coast, not really were originally American, but all based on and led further concepts forethought by French thinkers.

Not all, certainly. While writers like Descarte were influential, so were British philosophers like John Locke.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/amer-enl/

It's often claimed that America were the cradle of democracy, well, not only have a I problem with democracy itself, but also with the historical truth of that claim.

I agree, but disagree also. While the ideas of the American Founders were born in the writings of others, it was here that they were put into action.

[quote]The US owes more to French thinking, than the other way around.
Also true, but the French owe their Revolution to the one that took place here, and not the other way around.

While we can argue about the way things are today, the fact is that the American Experiment, as it was know worldwide, was indeed unique at the time, since others had talked about it but no one else had actually tried it. The Dutch had a Democracy before we did, but it was an outgrowth of what had come before. The American ideal was a conscious experiment, intentionally designed to be an Enlightenment Government.

I do agree that things today are not as the Founders dreamed, and not what they should be, but there are many here who still remember what was said and written, and who still believe in that dream.

[areo16]

Originally Posted by Skybird

"A constitution like no other on earth"? And you wonder why I think that talking like this sounds supremacist a bit? You certainly did not mean to express that it is that bad, did you?

Have you ever cared to check whether it really is so unique - by comparing it to others? The German Basic Law, first 20 articles, for example? I did. And I disagree with the claim that the US constitution is so unique. The German one for example pretty much says the same things, and guarantees the same basic rights and freedoms. Or take the many French constitutions they have had, more than a dozen in two hundred years, they had more constitutions than there have been French republics, and currently they count it the Fifth Republic. But from late 18th century on, they also had the separate declaration of human and civil rights, which effectively guarantee pretty much the same as the German and American basic rights and freedoms. It has preceded several of those constitutions, and also precedes the current one, means: it is as binding as the constitution itself.

But by the end of the day, the abuse and exploitation, the bypassing and erosion of these basic rights is the same everywhere in the western world, in France and Germany and remaining Europe as well. America in no way is an exception there. I would claim that it also is inevitable in a democracy, for it carries the seed of its own destruciton within itself. the reason is power accumulation, democracy fostering and turning into socialism unavoidably, the forming of elites who monopolise their political and economic power, the destruction of money, and the pinciple of voter bribery that dominates democracy from all beginning on and turns everybody participating in it into a complice in crime. One of the early US presidents said that once people find out that they can vote their money, it will be the beginning of the end of the republic. The present proves his words to be visionary. Some days ago, the US High Court has ruled that money can buy political influence without limits, and not allowing that would be a violation of the first amendment. Well. The court certainly used another wording than I do. I only translate the obvious from Tryingtohideit into plain English.

I also want to remind of that in the founding era of America, the concepts debated amongst the intellectual elites on the Eastern coast, not really were originally American, but all based on and led further concepts forethought by French thinkers. It's often claimed that America were the cradle of democracy, well, not only have a I problem with democracy itself, but also with the historical truth of that claim. The US owes more to French thinking, than the other way around. For that reason, the spiritus rector of the project that led to the creation of the statue of liberty insisted already in the late 19th century, before the building began, that any memorial celebrating the American independence should be a joint project of the French and the American people.

Anyway, in the end, it all is just sheets of paper. What people do or not do, what the decide or not decide, what they chose or not chose, and what they accept responsibility for and what not, determines how events unfold and what path history follows. Paper does not blush, or as we say in German: paper is endlessly patient.

So are internet forums.

You are leaving out vital information. The Bill of Rights is unique. America did have a big influence over the creation of the German Federation and Basic Laws. The Bill of Rights also had a great influence over the French Rights of Man. The American Bill of Rights had a large influence over the French Revolution. But this all still leaves the American and Basic Law and Rights of Man unique documents. They are not the same documents, but are similar. Similar, but still unique.

"But from late 18th century on, they also had the separate declaration of human and civil rights, which effectively guarantee pretty much the same as the German and American basic rights and freedoms. It has preceded several of those constitutions, and also precedes the current one, means: it is as binding as the constitution itself."

This is incorrect. The French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen does not predate the US Constitution.

[Skybird]

the bill of rights would have been impossible to imagine without the intellectual input from European and especially French mentors who preceded it, and whose thoughts formed a basis on which Am e rica'S ideas then based on and owed to. This influence usually gets completely ignored or denied (telling by experience), but French iontellectual culture has been popular to be debated amongst American intellectuals and politicians of the very early American era.

On the declaration of human and civil rights, I thought the context in which I wqrote it made it clear that I meant the series of French constitutions there have been. The declaration preceded them all. It was written in 1798, the first French constitution is from 1791.

It's not a competetion running for who had the first written document, however. I talked about the general intellectual influence that some Frenchmen had on the minds in the New World. It's about a cultural climate in which ideas blossom and get developed further due to the climate being what it is, and not being somehow repressive. I assume that the beginning of a nation had plenty of freedom left to allow such ideas blossoming that in established regimes in the old world faced tougher resistence. Therefore, the formal race of who wrote his historic papyrus scrolls first, was "won" not by France, by America. But that simply does not mean that much and is of academic interest only.

Britain until today has no formal constitution, as far as I know, and nevertheless its tradition of moral philosophers did fine and influenced great parts of the world back then, and even in modern time (except those stubborn, emotional Germans who were too irrational for that sane reasonability). As follow historians' arguments that trace that German speciality back to the social-cultural losses during the 30-years-war and see that as the reason why in Germany was no real enlightenment but the era of Romantik, and later the Nazis.

Schwülstige Emotionen. Mörderisch. I prefer the British enlightenment and the cultural and intellectual climate it created over the German Romantik any time. It just appeals more to my head-heaviness and desire to have reasonable explanations instead of instincts and collective emotions deciding my actions.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

The quote is "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.", and it's attribution is to a British subject (Scottish), Alexander Tytler, Lord Woodhouselee. The attribution itself is false, the first known use of the phrase coming from Elmer T. Peterson in 1951.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Alexander_Fraser_Tytler

Hm, I wanted to hint at this quote, I looked it up on my books again and then found the translation via google. It's is Benjamin Franklin: "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."

And I now add this, since it was the same page in that book:

John Adams, 2nd president of the US. "Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide."


Thomas Jefferson, 3rd president: "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

H.L. Mencken, journalist and essay writer 1880-1956: "Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods."

F. Bastiat, French political philosopher and libertarian theorist 1801-1850: "
The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else. "

I have all that as German quotes as in F. Karsten, K. Beckman, Munich 2012. I then found via Google the English translations.

And finally, this one I translate myself:

Aristotle: "Absolute democracy is, like oligarchy, a form of absolute tyranny imposed on a very huge group of people."

Just because I had it all on one page, in one place. Of course, there are so many more good ones.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Hm, I wanted to hint at this quote, I looked it up on my books again and then found the translation via google. It's is Benjamin Franklin: "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."

Again, there is no attribution to Franklin earlier than 1998, and it does not appear anywhere in his writings. That's okay though. It's a good quote and arguably true. Also, Franklin was never president.

John Adams, 2nd president of the US. "Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide."

Adams did indeed write that, in a letter to John Taylor, dated 1814. In that same letter he also said "Liberty, according to my metaphysics is a self-determining power in an intellectual agent. It implies thought and choice and power.”

Adams, unlike his friends Jefferson and Madison, was a firm believer in a stronger government, and prefered the ruling class be elite, not elected from the common people.

Thomas Jefferson, 3rd president: "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

Earliest attribution is 2004. There is no evidence that Jefferson ever said anything like that.

H.L. Mencken, journalist and essay writer 1880-1956: "Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods."

Menken was also a humorist, as attested by the series of quotes I'm currently putting into the Favorite Quotes thread. Everything he says should be taken with the proverbial grain of salt.

"No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
-Winston Churchill, Speech in the House of Commons, 11 Nov. 1947.

Yes, even a Democracy (or Republic, if you prefer) needs to be watched all the time. That said, what would you have in its place? A new monarchy? Totalitarianism? Anarchy? It's easy to tear something down; not so easy to erect something better in its place.

Also, if you're using quotes to support an argument it's a good idea to verify the source first.

[Skybird]

I have turned into a zero state or zero government guy, as should have become clear over the past months and years. The criticism against both feudal and democratic state orders, is too fundamental and too destructive as if I could make compromises with it anymore. Note that Hoppe too condemns both feudalism and democracies. even worse, I think the likelihood of demicracy bringing bad perosnnel into controlling power is greater than the cfhance in a monarchy. Due to the implicaitons of the election mechnsim, you have extremely high chances, that the worst of the worst, the lowest charcters, the greatest cheaters liars, the most unscrupulous liars, the most immoral egoists come to power. And qualification is no argument in all this anyway. A monachy, on the other hand, "owns" land and people, and thus has an interest in keeping its property in good shape and manage it wisely. At lerast it shoudl have, and if that is the case, muzch more effort is donbe to make sure the next ruling generation indeed is sufficiently qualified. Of course, the monarchic system however gets haunted by corrupted gangsters, too, and history is filled with monarchs having caused havov on their nations and people. I would only argue that the chance to occasionally get a good administrator at the top is greater in a monarchic syste, than in a democracy, especially in the degenrated culture we have today the chance that political elections will give us responsible leaders, is zero. Because those telling the grim truths do not get elected, and do not get supported by established parties and lobbies, and voters prefer to vote for those making them better promises. It's all about voter bribery, as I have often said now, and by that making every voter a complice in crime who therefore has no right to complain, to criticise, to resist. In other words: it all is about preserving power and control for the elite at the top, and delaying the judgement day when our collapsing system will have no more space to evade. The power m onopoly and the monopoly of orinting money are the two most important tools for that. And if you think you can change that by going to the next elections and vote for the other guy, then I really cannot help you. I don't say it is naive, but I silently think it is.

I do not trust politicians and states, nor symbols or paroles, and my state of alertness is the higher the greater the group is by which it is triggered. Crowds of people are nothing but herds of cattle, easy to be led around. Also, to me, human intelligence and its resulting behavior and decision-making, and group size, are inversely proportional. By my life experience so far, I have no reason to step away from that assessment.

On quotes, for an academic paper you of course have different standards for source validation, than in private, and when the same quotes get printed in several different books, in several languages, and on the web get quoted up and down anyway, it becomes difficult to not realise what may or may not be historically original. In the end, while it might be correct to attribute a quote to "Anonymous" or somebody else, or like you did: giving a totally different quote replacing the first, which is different in wording and syntax, even in length and number of sentences, in the end it is the content that counts as long as the theme debated is not the historical figure assumed to be behind the quote, a person that then may appear in a different light

Such disputes about to whom a given quote is to be attributed, also are not new, nor are they rare.