History Alexander Tytler and the lifespan of Democracies

[Lord Sovereign]

So I was trundling through twitter and found this rather splendid thread on democracies and their ultimate fates, posited by one Alexander Tytler, a 19th century Scottish judge and professor of history at Edinburgh university.



TL;DR his idea was that democracies can begin with tremendous virtue and courage having thrown off the shackles of tyranny, but as time passes will fall into selfishness and depravity as the system grows more wealthy. The fundamental issue is the utopianism of democracy: it can't function without a perfect citizenry, and as such a thing doesn't exist...

Even worse, the electorate can be influenced by effective bribes from would be leaders, who ultimately debase then crash and burn the economy to pay for all these benefits/bribes.

Mr Tytler believed it took two hundred years for this cycle to complete itself.

Food for thought!

 

[Skallagrim]

I have some trouble opening these threads, probably because I don't have an acount on Twitter... er... X.

But in any case, Alexis de Tocqueville noted much the same, as did many of the Founding Fathers of America. (Franklin and Adams had some insightful comments about democracies and the dangers thereof; note that they both advocated for a republic, but not a "democratic" one.) Several British thinkers of the time also felt this way.

History, thus far, has vindicated them. Any democracy, by its internal process, moves towards a broadening of the franchise. This is because of a symbiotic relationship between 1) opportunistic politicians who want to buy the votes of certain non-contributing groups and thus seek to enfranchise them, and 2) non-contributing groups who want said politicians to give them stuff that was forcibly taken from others.

Note that this process has an inherent check on it, in the reality that initially, the people who have the vote are not served by expanding it. Only when a third faction emerges does that change. That faction is 3) the intelligentsia, who argue for a powerful and restributative state apparatus because it gives them power that they'd never "naturally" gain in a free market (of ideas) rooted in meritocratic principles.

I think mr. Tytler's estimations on the durability of democracies is generally correct. Personally, I consider the age of so-called "modernity" to have begun around the dawn of the 19th century, and I expect it to terminate around the close of the 21st century. Obviously, that's three-hundred years, rather than two-hundred. But the "inherent check" that I described above also kept the excesses of democracy under control for the duration of the 19th century. It's only at the dawn of the 20th entury that "mass democracy" began to fester and swell outside all reasonable proportion. So... two centuries from that point until the whole thing comes crashing down? Sounds about right.

Of course, the increasingly violent death throes will be felt long before we get to the final termination. In fact, their beginnings can be felt already.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

I think mr. Tytler's estimations on the durability of democracies is generally correct. Personally, I consider the age of so-called "modernity" to have begun around the dawn of the 19th century, and I expect it to terminate around the close of the 21st century. Obviously, that's three-hundred years, rather than two-hundred. But the "inherent check" that I described above also kept the excesses of democracy under control for the duration of the 19th century. It's only at the dawn of the 20th entury that "mass democracy" began to fester and swell outside all reasonable proportion. So... two centuries from that point until the whole thing comes crashing down? Sounds about right.

Of course, the increasingly violent death throes will be felt long before we get to the final termination. In fact, their beginnings can be felt already.

Tytler also believed that Oligarchy (which can very well be elected) and Monarchy are the only real forms of government, to which I agree. Mass democracy as we’ve tried has spiralled out of control so bloody quickly it’s almost depressing.

Granted, as Tytler proves, it’s not like there isn’t precedent for it. How long did Athenian Democracy last, whilst the Roman Res Publica managed to trundle along for five hundred years? How many French Republics have we got through whilst the line of British Monarchs has carried on?

But in any case, Alexis de Tocqueville noted much the same, as did many of the Founding Fathers of America. (Franklin and Adams had some insightful comments about democracies and the dangers thereof; note that they both advocated for a republic, but not a "democratic" one.) Several British thinkers of the time also felt this way.

Which I think feeds into the point. The Founding Fathers envisioned an Oligarchy of sorts, quite like the Res Publica with a bit of Westminster thrown in. Although alas, as is often the case, Republics run into all sorts of problems with expansion.

 

[Cherico]

I have some trouble opening these threads, probably because I don't have an acount on Twitter... er... X.

But in any case, Alexis de Tocqueville noted much the same, as did many of the Founding Fathers of America. (Franklin and Adams had some insightful comments about democracies and the dangers thereof; note that they both advocated for a republic, but not a "democratic" one.) Several British thinkers of the time also felt this way.

History, thus far, has vindicated them. Any democracy, by its internal process, moves towards a broadening of the franchise. This is because of a symbiotic relationship between 1) opportunistic politicians who want to buy the votes of certain non-contributing groups and thus seek to enfranchise them, and 2) non-contributing groups who want said politicians to give them stuff that was forcibly taken from others.

Note that this process has an inherent check on it, in the reality that initially, the people who have the vote are not served by expanding it. Only when a third faction emerges does that change. That faction is 3) the intelligentsia, who argue for a powerful and restributative state apparatus because it gives them power that they'd never "naturally" gain in a free market (of ideas) rooted in meritocratic principles.

I think mr. Tytler's estimations on the durability of democracies is generally correct. Personally, I consider the age of so-called "modernity" to have begun around the dawn of the 19th century, and I expect it to terminate around the close of the 21st century. Obviously, that's three-hundred years, rather than two-hundred. But the "inherent check" that I described above also kept the excesses of democracy under control for the duration of the 19th century. It's only at the dawn of the 20th entury that "mass democracy" began to fester and swell outside all reasonable proportion. So... two centuries from that point until the whole thing comes crashing down? Sounds about right.

Of course, the increasingly violent death throes will be felt long before we get to the final termination. In fact, their beginnings can be felt already.

You ever notice how every ending of a modern age ends with the intelligentsia being purged?

 

[Lord Sovereign]

You ever notice how every ending of a modern age ends with the intelligentsia being purged?

“Proscriptions of the Second Triumvirate“ and all that. The Boffins and Academics really do have a nasty habit in setting themselves up for it, don’t they?

 

[ATP]

I have some trouble opening these threads, probably because I don't have an acount on Twitter... er... X.

But in any case, Alexis de Tocqueville noted much the same, as did many of the Founding Fathers of America. (Franklin and Adams had some insightful comments about democracies and the dangers thereof; note that they both advocated for a republic, but not a "democratic" one.) Several British thinkers of the time also felt this way.

History, thus far, has vindicated them. Any democracy, by its internal process, moves towards a broadening of the franchise. This is because of a symbiotic relationship between 1) opportunistic politicians who want to buy the votes of certain non-contributing groups and thus seek to enfranchise them, and 2) non-contributing groups who want said politicians to give them stuff that was forcibly taken from others.

Note that this process has an inherent check on it, in the reality that initially, the people who have the vote are not served by expanding it. Only when a third faction emerges does that change. That faction is 3) the intelligentsia, who argue for a powerful and restributative state apparatus because it gives them power that they'd never "naturally" gain in a free market (of ideas) rooted in meritocratic principles.

I think mr. Tytler's estimations on the durability of democracies is generally correct. Personally, I consider the age of so-called "modernity" to have begun around the dawn of the 19th century, and I expect it to terminate around the close of the 21st century. Obviously, that's three-hundred years, rather than two-hundred. But the "inherent check" that I described above also kept the excesses of democracy under control for the duration of the 19th century. It's only at the dawn of the 20th entury that "mass democracy" began to fester and swell outside all reasonable proportion. So... two centuries from that point until the whole thing comes crashing down? Sounds about right.

Of course, the increasingly violent death throes will be felt long before we get to the final termination. In fact, their beginnings can be felt already.

Yes,survivors in 2050 would live in dictatorships,monarchies,maybe slave states,but - not Democracy.

 

[SoliFortissimi]

If his rules are correct, US democracy should die in about the 2040s, 200 years after 1840 Presidental election where <40% of the population and 80% of all free white men voted.

 

[ATP]

If his rules are correct, US democracy should die in about the 2040s, 200 years after 1840 Presidental election where <40% of the population and 80% of all free white men voted.

Trust in Biden,he would made it till 2028!

 

[SoliFortissimi]

Trust in Biden,he would made it till 2028!

Individuals are irrelevant on that scale.

 

[ATP]

Individuals are irrelevant on that scale.

He is not simple individual,he is MIGHTY SLEEPING JOE.Supported by entire deep state!
If they fake election now,there would be no USA in 2028,only another banana republic.