Who said: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government.?

Question

It can only exist until a majority of voters discovers that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury."

I think we're already there...........

Answer 1

That was Scottish historian, Alexander Tytler.....and he was right. The poor often have their names invoked in this game. Our social programs cost more and do NOTHING for but keep the poor dependent. The fact the government is needed to support some project tells you It Is a loser. If It were not, It would have already emerged from market forces. From an economic standpoint, the process of taking from one group and giving to another discourages both from doing anything productive themselves.

The goodies are mostly absorbed by bureaucracies who have a vested interest in keeping programs ineffective to perpetuate themselves. And how do they do that? They search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time it is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words government is a broker in pillage and every election is sort of an advance sale of stolen goods.

Answer 2

British professor Alexander Fraser Tyler:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can exist only until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse (defined as a liberal gift) out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a dictatorship."

although I might question this as it is very similar to a de Tocqueville quote from the early 1800's
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.

but one of my more favorites is
Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.

Answer 3

No kind of government is acceptable. Democracy execs: a million). people sense a feeling of freedom and are much less probably to insurrection or some thing of that nature 2). power is split so no person guy can thoroughly take over a u . s . a . (ie: there cant relatively be a us hitler except all the congress has that approach) Cons: a million). If some thing must be performed rapid, it wont be. It takes continuously. 2). Somethings that rather would desire to be performed arent, and if a president knows that a decision which would be disliked is the alternative that rather would desire to be made(whether not anybody comprehends it) it wont be made those are in simple terms small examples, so the answer to the question? in all hazard. not neccessarily downfall, in simple terms not invulnerable to a downfall.

Answer 4

Alexander Tyler

Answer 5

Alexander F. Tyler

Answer 6

WRONG.

The problem is when they learn they can vote themselves Tax Cuts without curbing any of their demands for government services. The result is deficits that will collapse the economy.

Answer 7

Before we can be there, we'd have to have started as a democracy. We didn't. The US has always been a republic.

Answer 8

agree with fascfilter, but the answer is to decrease the government spending, not raise taxes

Answer 9

We are a Republic, not a Democracy

Answer 10

Dave is right - here is the asrticle...

http://lorencollins.net/tytler.html


Ps - you know you can Google this stuff?
Ron.