Discussion
A long post but I found it interesting. I'm currently reading A History of Julus Ceasar, by Jacob Abbot. An enjoyable book, written in 1904. After I'd finished up on here last night, lamenting the socialist morass Britain finds itself in, the death of the Tory party and the miserable return of Tony Blair to UK politics, I picked up my Kindle, started reading and came across this passage:
I find it sad that we seem to have forgotten so much in what is almost living memory.
Book I am reading said:
Many of the most important offices of the state depended upon the votes of the people; and as the people had very little opportunity to become acquainted with the real merits of the case in respect to questions of government, they gave their votes very much according to the personal popularity of the candidate. Public men had very little moral principle in those days, and they would accordingly resort to any means whatever to procure this personal popularity. They who wanted office were accustomed to bribe influential men among the people to support them, sometimes by promising them subordinate offices, and sometimes by the direct donation of sums of money; and they would try to please the mass of the people, who were too numerous to be paid with offices or with gold, by shows and spectacles, and entertainments of every kind which they would provide for their amusement.
This practice seems to us very absurd; and we wonder that the Roman people should tolerate it, since it is evident that the means for defraying these expenses must come, ultimately, in some way or other, from them. And yet, absurd as it seems, this sort of policy is not wholly disused even in our day. The operas and the theaters, and other similar establishments in France, are sustained, in part, by the government; and the liberality and efficiency with which this is done, forms, in some degree, the basis of the popularity of each succeeding administration. The plan is better systematized and regulated in our day, but it is, in its nature, substantially the same.
In fact, furnishing amusements for the people, and also providing supplies for their wants, as well as affording them protection, were considered the legitimate objects of government in those days. It is very different at the present time, and especially in this country. The whole community are now united in the desire to confine the functions of government within the narrowest possible limits, such as to include only the preservation of public order and public safety. The people prefer to supply their own wants and to provide their own enjoyments, rather than to invest government with the power to do it for them, knowing very well that, on the latter plan, the burdens they will have to bear, though concealed for a time, must be doubled in the end.
And yes "this country" refers to Britain. What happened, in the relatively short space of 100 years, to make this country so utterly state dependent? So totally beholden to personality cults, and so easily swayed by promises of spending our own money foolishly? This practice seems to us very absurd; and we wonder that the Roman people should tolerate it, since it is evident that the means for defraying these expenses must come, ultimately, in some way or other, from them. And yet, absurd as it seems, this sort of policy is not wholly disused even in our day. The operas and the theaters, and other similar establishments in France, are sustained, in part, by the government; and the liberality and efficiency with which this is done, forms, in some degree, the basis of the popularity of each succeeding administration. The plan is better systematized and regulated in our day, but it is, in its nature, substantially the same.
In fact, furnishing amusements for the people, and also providing supplies for their wants, as well as affording them protection, were considered the legitimate objects of government in those days. It is very different at the present time, and especially in this country. The whole community are now united in the desire to confine the functions of government within the narrowest possible limits, such as to include only the preservation of public order and public safety. The people prefer to supply their own wants and to provide their own enjoyments, rather than to invest government with the power to do it for them, knowing very well that, on the latter plan, the burdens they will have to bear, though concealed for a time, must be doubled in the end.
I find it sad that we seem to have forgotten so much in what is almost living memory.
AJS- said:
A long post but I found it interesting. I'm currently reading A History of Julus Ceasar, by Jacob Abbot. An enjoyable book, written in 1904. After I'd finished up on here last night, lamenting the socialist morass Britain finds itself in, the death of the Tory party and the miserable return of Tony Blair to UK politics, I picked up my Kindle, started reading and came across this passage:
I find it sad that we seem to have forgotten so much in what is almost living memory.
I do wonder though it there isn't an importance relevence to modern media revealing the shennanigans more than it was able to in 1904?Book I am reading said:
Many of the most important offices of the state depended upon the votes of the people; and as the people had very little opportunity to become acquainted with the real merits of the case in respect to questions of government, they gave their votes very much according to the personal popularity of the candidate. Public men had very little moral principle in those days, and they would accordingly resort to any means whatever to procure this personal popularity. They who wanted office were accustomed to bribe influential men among the people to support them, sometimes by promising them subordinate offices, and sometimes by the direct donation of sums of money; and they would try to please the mass of the people, who were too numerous to be paid with offices or with gold, by shows and spectacles, and entertainments of every kind which they would provide for their amusement.
This practice seems to us very absurd; and we wonder that the Roman people should tolerate it, since it is evident that the means for defraying these expenses must come, ultimately, in some way or other, from them. And yet, absurd as it seems, this sort of policy is not wholly disused even in our day. The operas and the theaters, and other similar establishments in France, are sustained, in part, by the government; and the liberality and efficiency with which this is done, forms, in some degree, the basis of the popularity of each succeeding administration. The plan is better systematized and regulated in our day, but it is, in its nature, substantially the same.
In fact, furnishing amusements for the people, and also providing supplies for their wants, as well as affording them protection, were considered the legitimate objects of government in those days. It is very different at the present time, and especially in this country. The whole community are now united in the desire to confine the functions of government within the narrowest possible limits, such as to include only the preservation of public order and public safety. The people prefer to supply their own wants and to provide their own enjoyments, rather than to invest government with the power to do it for them, knowing very well that, on the latter plan, the burdens they will have to bear, though concealed for a time, must be doubled in the end.
And yes "this country" refers to Britain. What happened, in the relatively short space of 100 years, to make this country so utterly state dependent? So totally beholden to personality cults, and so easily swayed by promises of spending our own money foolishly? This practice seems to us very absurd; and we wonder that the Roman people should tolerate it, since it is evident that the means for defraying these expenses must come, ultimately, in some way or other, from them. And yet, absurd as it seems, this sort of policy is not wholly disused even in our day. The operas and the theaters, and other similar establishments in France, are sustained, in part, by the government; and the liberality and efficiency with which this is done, forms, in some degree, the basis of the popularity of each succeeding administration. The plan is better systematized and regulated in our day, but it is, in its nature, substantially the same.
In fact, furnishing amusements for the people, and also providing supplies for their wants, as well as affording them protection, were considered the legitimate objects of government in those days. It is very different at the present time, and especially in this country. The whole community are now united in the desire to confine the functions of government within the narrowest possible limits, such as to include only the preservation of public order and public safety. The people prefer to supply their own wants and to provide their own enjoyments, rather than to invest government with the power to do it for them, knowing very well that, on the latter plan, the burdens they will have to bear, though concealed for a time, must be doubled in the end.
I find it sad that we seem to have forgotten so much in what is almost living memory.
Let's face it, back then big business was also steering govt policy, owned spokesmen etc.
I think there is a strong argument though that a lack of social accountability in modern society means the weasel gene is very dominant.
Maybe I quoted too much, but one line that really got me was that people were "united in the desire to confine the functions of government within the narrowest possible limits."
I don't see any of the major parties really standing for that idea now. The Conservatives could be said to have a desire to trim it in the economic sphere. The Lib Dems in a few areas regarding civil liberties, but really I would say if anything most people now are united in their desire for the state to do more. The questions most often debated is how we pay for it.
I don't see any of the major parties really standing for that idea now. The Conservatives could be said to have a desire to trim it in the economic sphere. The Lib Dems in a few areas regarding civil liberties, but really I would say if anything most people now are united in their desire for the state to do more. The questions most often debated is how we pay for it.
AJS- said:
Maybe I quoted too much, but one line that really got me was that people were "united in the desire to confine the functions of government within the narrowest possible limits."
I don't see any of the major parties really standing for that idea now. The Conservatives could be said to have a desire to trim it in the economic sphere. The Lib Dems in a few areas regarding civil liberties, but really I would say if anything most people now are united in their desire for the state to do more. The questions most often debated is how we pay for it.
Sadly, all too true. But we are all Lords of the Manor today and we like having serfs wiping our arses.I don't see any of the major parties really standing for that idea now. The Conservatives could be said to have a desire to trim it in the economic sphere. The Lib Dems in a few areas regarding civil liberties, but really I would say if anything most people now are united in their desire for the state to do more. The questions most often debated is how we pay for it.
It's also this huge 24 hour lifestyle we all have which leaves us absolutely no time to be civilised. We are just too important.
I find when the snow falls you notice modern British society at its best. The only people in the street clearing the pavements are generally those who are too old to be doing something like that and foreigners who have come from a society which still has social values. The British are far too busy trying to get a rear wheel drive BMW to the shops to desperately increase their debt servicing costs.
DonkeyApple said:
I find when the snow falls you notice modern British society at its best. The only people in the street clearing the pavements are generally those who are too old to be doing something like that and foreigners who have come from a society which still has social values. The British are far too busy trying to get a rear wheel drive BMW to the shops to desperately increase their debt servicing costs.
Move out of London to North Suffolk/South Norfolk, you'll find that almost eveyone still mucks in when the chips are down.Rude-boy said:
DonkeyApple said:
I find when the snow falls you notice modern British society at its best. The only people in the street clearing the pavements are generally those who are too old to be doing something like that and foreigners who have come from a society which still has social values. The British are far too busy trying to get a rear wheel drive BMW to the shops to desperately increase their debt servicing costs.
Move out of London to North Suffolk/South Norfolk, you'll find that almost eveyone still mucks in when the chips are down.
AJS- said:
And yes "this country" refers to Britain. What happened, in the relatively short space of 100 years, to make this country so utterly state dependent? So totally beholden to personality cults, and so easily swayed by promises of spending our own money foolishly?
I find it sad that we seem to have forgotten so much in what is almost living memory.
Two world wars culling the brightest and the brave. Next question.I find it sad that we seem to have forgotten so much in what is almost living memory.
carmonk said:
Rude-boy said:
DonkeyApple said:
I find when the snow falls you notice modern British society at its best. The only people in the street clearing the pavements are generally those who are too old to be doing something like that and foreigners who have come from a society which still has social values. The British are far too busy trying to get a rear wheel drive BMW to the shops to desperately increase their debt servicing costs.
Move out of London to North Suffolk/South Norfolk, you'll find that almost eveyone still mucks in when the chips are down.I'm reminded daily, however, that nice is not the norm. Fortunately it rarely snows.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff