The ironic thing is that the Founding Fathers viewed Democracy as a bad thing and as a great way for a nation to die... And look at what we ended up with.Not enough democracy and representatives that pay more attention to their funders than their constituents?
I'm having a real hard time seeing our problem as too much democracy.
They viewed democracy as a bloody, short-lived form of government.
Keep in mind that was 200 years ago. They had a different view of democracy than we do.
.
Keep in mind that was 200 years ago. They had a different view of democracy than we do.
We do not, which is why they keep up the same efforts to prevent democracy now as they did then.
The ironic thing is that the Founding Fathers viewed Democracy as a bad thing and as a great way for a nation to die... And look at what we ended up with.Yes, vaccines, almost no one starving to death in bad winters, non hippo ivory teeth, you don't need to be rich to vote, and you're not allowed to own people anymore.
This horsepucky that things were somehow better under the "real america" back in the day needs to stop. Its factually incorrect, harmful, and deliberately engineered as a tool of those with obscene amounts of power and wealth to keep it that way.
I'm pointing out the irony that the United States, a nation that relies so strongly on democratic ideals, was founded by people who hated democracy.
We do not, which is why they keep up the same efforts to prevent democracy now as they did then..
Keep in mind that was 200 years ago. They had a different view of democracy than we do.
In their minds, "democracy" and "republic" were two different forms of government. And I can link you to the post where I demonstrated that last time.
Edit: Link!
|
This country was founded as a representative Republic. We are now a Democracy in the sense that Plato warned us about and it shows.It's too bad we can't live in a world ruled by enlightened aristocratic slaveowners like Plato--and a good portion of the Founding Fathers, come to think of it--wanted.
Hear, hear! Finally something I can agree with the goblin about!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually my point was that the "real America" of 1889 or so was a system that was able to correct itself.
It was not. People were starving in the streets, factories payed people nothing, children were dying in factories, and when people had enough the national guard was brought in to crush the unions, and the lack of regulations in both farming and the economy lead to the great depression. I'm not sure what "self" you're using for self correcting.
I'm pointing out the irony that the United States, a nation that relies so strongly on democratic ideals, was founded by people who hated democracy.The ironic thing is that the Founding Fathers viewed Democracy as a bad thing and as a great way for a nation to die... And look at what we ended up with.Yes, vaccines, almost no one starving to death in bad winters, non hippo ivory teeth, you don't need to be rich to vote, and you're not allowed to own people anymore.
This horsepucky that things were somehow better under the "real america" back in the day needs to stop. Its factually incorrect, harmful, and deliberately engineered as a tool of those with obscene amounts of power and wealth to keep it that way.
As opposed to who? Charlemagne? William the Conqueror?
Edit: Link!
Oh, you want to talk about Tommy again? Okay.
I was flipping through Eric Foner's Tom Paine and Revolutionary America when that thread was active. Found a pretty lengthy exposition comparing James Madison and Tommy. Foner says, and I paraphrase, that of all the FFs, Tommy was the only one who used "democracy" and "republic" interchangeably. Foner thinks it's because of his egalitarianism and belief that mankind could unite in happy harmony. Madison was a bit more sensitive to the conflicts of class interests among people, probably because he owned some.
Another interesting bit in the book is when Tommy is hanging out with radical evangelical Christian artisans in Philadelphia. Foner makes the point that, in the generation before the American Revolution, it was only the Protestant fundamentalists who looked back nostagically to the English Civil War who ever used such words as "republic" or "democracy." No King but God!
Yes, you pinkskins do suck.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As opposed to who? Charlemagne? William the Conqueror?I'm pointing out the irony that the United States, a nation that relies so strongly on democratic ideals, was founded by people who hated democracy.The ironic thing is that the Founding Fathers viewed Democracy as a bad thing and as a great way for a nation to die... And look at what we ended up with.Yes, vaccines, almost no one starving to death in bad winters, non hippo ivory teeth, you don't need to be rich to vote, and you're not allowed to own people anymore.
This horsepucky that things were somehow better under the "real america" back in the day needs to stop. Its factually incorrect, harmful, and deliberately engineered as a tool of those with obscene amounts of power and wealth to keep it that way.
Good question. Wanna borrow my Ouija Board and ask them? I keep getting nothing but endless sobbing in reply.
And "interesting" things to do with a potato, but Franklin always was a pervert.
Good question. Wanna borrow my Ouija Board and ask them? I keep getting nothing but endless sobbing in reply.As opposed to who? Charlemagne? William the Conqueror?
It wouldn't do any good, alas. I don't speak French.
You know, when I see someone talking about how we started to slip into mob rule in the 60s when we allowed everyone to vote, I start to wonder about who exactly they think shouldn't be allowed to vote. What changed in the 60s anyway? Hmmm.
I was trying to think of a nice way to say that last night before I went to bed.
Frankly, I'm not really certain why we should care whether or not the founders liked or disliked a democracy. We have a representative democracy, at least in theory, and democracy seems to be a pretty common system of government these days. Maybe we messed up when we gave the vote to non-land owners but how many people can say they truly want to go back to a system that restricts the ability to vote to an incredibly small portion of the population. Aren't people already complaining that the government seems to be controlled by a tiny minority of wealthy interests?
Maybe we messed up when we gave the vote to non-land owners
What POSSIBLE justification is there for this test of the ability to vote? You do realize that serfdom isn't a thing anymore right?
Read the rest of the sentence, Comrade BeeNee.
Frankly, I expect far more culture shock would come from modern attitudes towards race, women and sexuality in general,
A couple years ago I asked the boards if anyone knew of any statements by the Founding Fathers on homosexuality, and Comrade Samnell said, IIRC, that Jefferson proposed reducing the sentence for sodomy from death to castration. I never independently verified that, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not that there wasn't always plenty of unmarried sex, but it simply wasn't an openly accepted thing.
Yeah, you were supposed to do it on the dl in the slave quarters.
...And that is the self-entitled, self-important attitude which is why we have this issue going on currently. A company canThe only thing they didn't want to cover was "morning-after pills", "week-after pills", and 2 forms of IUDs that prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to a uterus lining. Their basic stance is that they will cover you to not get pregnant but once you fertilize an egg, you pay for it yourself.
People want to vilify them and say that it opens the door for companies to opt out of coverage and all that crap....who is forcing people to work for these companies? An employee has a choice. You take the options that a company offers you when you work for them or you find a company that has a better offer. If you don't like the benefits and pay that a company provides then don't work for them. It really is that simple. Some companies will certainly take advantage and strip down their benefits for a quick profit but in the long-term when the employee pool is getting less-experienced, less desirable employees and the company starts taking a hit, then they will either realize that they need to offer better benefits or they will fall to other companies that do.
Hobby Lobby has a very nice benefits package for it's employees.Sure, employees could look for work else where. By that same logic, I can just point out that Hobby Lobby's owners aren't required to employ workers. If they find the concept of NOT imposing their religious beliefs on others to be too onerous, they can just choose not to run their business.
If Hobby Lobby doesn't like the rules the rest of us have made, they can just close up shop and find another way to make a living.
That's the EXACT same logic as saying that employees can just go elsewhere for employment. Since it cuts both way, it's a moot point and doesn't actually help your argument.
You're saying that a person's health care and what it does or doesn't cover has no impact on their life?
People make real financial decisions based on what their insurance covers. These decisions impact their lives, either seeking out treatment or putting it off.
You still didn't address the issue though. Why is Hobby Lobby different from Target? Why does Hobby Lobby get to ignore the law because of their religion?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's easy to paint Hobby Lobby as a one dimensional villain, thanks to hot button stories and satires like the Daily Show. But there are some things to consider before we bring out the left-liberal crucifix.
Unlike many chain stores Hobby Lobby's lowest full-time wage is $15.00/hr having raised wages steadily during the worst of the recession years.
They donate 10 percent of their profits to charity and give all employees Sunday off.
Do we wish now to protest soup kitchens that mandate prayer before the meals they give out?
How about we protest the decision, not Hobby Lobby. BTW, I suspect that's a large part of why Hobby Lobby took the lead on this case. They weren't asking for as much as some other companies and they apparently treat their employees better in other ways. Good PR.
Remember that the decision allows all contraceptives to be uncovered and pays no attention to other working conditions.
I also wonder how much of that 10% goes to churches and other strictly religious organizations. Oh, looky here. Obviously they can donate as they please, but if those represent their charity, I'm not going to give them much credit for it.
As for soup kitchens? If they're doing it on their own, they can do what they please. If they're getting government money to give out meals, they shouldn't be able to proselytize.
The point I was making is that the Left Liberal alliance seems ready to make war on all religious groups by arguing for sharp confinement on the freedom of religion to liturgy and group prayer, I was not confining my discussion to Hobby Lobby, but the public activities of other religous groups. Do we want to ban the Salvation Army bell ringers, or prohibit the St Ann's church from holding festivals on public streets?
Ultimately I think what we will find that the most important aspect of this case, is now that the concept of the accommodation of religious...
False, it is the right which really enjoys telling people they have had war declared on them. Whether it is true or not. In this case I dare you to use Christian texts to demonstrate how a corporation is a person. And in the context of Christianity this means you will need to demonstrate that Hobby Lobby was created in the image of God.
I will immediately recant my position and apologize if you can do this from verifiable Christian documents.
Frankly, I'm not really certain why we should care whether or not the founders liked or disliked a democracy. We have a representative democracy, at least in theory, and democracy seems to be a pretty common system of government these days. Maybe we messed up when we gave the vote to non-land owners but how many people can say they truly want to go back to a system that restricts the ability to vote to an incredibly small portion of the population. Aren't people already complaining that the government seems to be controlled by a tiny minority of wealthy interests?Even beyond the implicit racism (and sexism. Guess who else couldn't vote in 1889?), that's why I think the idea is laughable. Whatever the founders thought of democracy, we've changed a lot of things they started with, many of them for the better. I'm also not convinced that their understanding of "democracy" matches our current usage, so while they might recoil in horror at the use of the term to describe our government, they might not have such a problem if the workings were described to them without using that word.
Frankly, I expect far more culture shock would come from modern attitudes towards race, women and sexuality in general, along with the vast technological gulf and the speed of modern life. They'd probably also be disgusted by the reverence the Constitution is held in and surprised that with all the changes in society we're still working off the same framework. Their first attempt only lasted a little over a decade.
More generally, there's something to be said for only giving the franchise to those educated and invested enough to use it thoughtfully. The first problem is identifying those without bias. The second deeper problem is that such people will over the long run be mostly concerned with their own problems and be less inclined to take the problems of the disenfranchised seriously. Wasn't representation one of the original rallying cries?
I think you just identified the inherent problem in their entire idea: They were hypocrites, to a degree, and the idea they had for who would run the nation did not match up with the ideals used to create the nation in the first place.
That's part of the essential problem the United States has had; it was, ultimately, founded on hypocrisy by people who very definitely did not practice what they preached and who hated the very type of system they ultimately created. And, no, they were well aware of systems like our own in history; they were also well-aware of how those systems ultimately ended. That's a major reason why they divided the government as they did; they were trying to create a stable form of a government type that they viewed as inherently unstable and justify it to themselves as being an entirely new form of government.
Remember your history classes? How it was that the Constitution Convention was something they attempted to keep secret? How they tried to prevent people from knowing what was going into the document? Do actions like that make the current working of the U.S. government and its staggering levels of corruption and incompetence seem a lot clearer now?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Frankly, I expect far more culture shock would come from modern attitudes towards race, women and sexuality in general,A couple years ago I asked the boards if anyone knew of any statements by the Founding Fathers on homosexuality, and Comrade Samnell said, IIRC, that Jefferson proposed reducing the sentence for sodomy from death to castration. I never independently verified that, though.See, progressive for his time. Horribly homophobic by today's standards. Of course, it's not just LGBTQ issues that would shock, but the open acceptance of unmarried sex of any kind.
Not that there wasn't always plenty of unmarried sex, but it simply wasn't an openly accepted thing.
They were not that homophobic. "Confirmed bachelor" basically meant "gay" and "Boston marriage" was a term for a lesbian relationship. As for unmarried sex: Benjamin Franklin. Franklin was well known, even in his era, for the massive amounts of unmarried sex he had, to the point he ended up contracting every STD known to medicine at the time.
So it's not that those things were not done so much as they were not talked about. But that was true, for the most part, of anything sexual; "Don't ask, don't tell" was pretty much the rule for anything that happened in the bedroom. High levels of homophobia didn't really exist until the 20th Century in the U.S.
So, realistically, they would be shocked by how openly such things are talked about and how women are treated today... but not by them existing.
Frankly, I expect far more culture shock would come from modern attitudes towards race, women and sexuality in general,A couple years ago I asked the boards if anyone knew of any statements by the Founding Fathers on homosexuality, and Comrade Samnell said, IIRC, that Jefferson proposed reducing the sentence for sodomy from death to castration. I never independently verified that, though.See, progressive for his time. Horribly homophobic by today's standards. Of course, it's not just LGBTQ issues that would shock, but the open acceptance of unmarried sex of any kind.
Not that there wasn't always plenty of unmarried sex, but it simply wasn't an openly accepted thing.
They were not that homophobic. "Confirmed bachelor" basically meant "gay" and "Boston marriage" was a term for a lesbian relationship. As for unmarried sex: Benjamin Franklin. Franklin was well known, even in his era, for the massive amounts of unmarried sex he had, to the point he ended up contracting every STD known to medicine at the time.
So it's not that those things were not done so much as they were not talked about. But that was true, for the most part, of anything sexual; "Don't ask, don't tell" was pretty much the rule for anything that happened in the bedroom. High levels of homophobia didn't really exist until the 20th Century in the U.S.
So, realistically, they would be shocked by how openly such things are talked about and how women are treated today... but not by them existing.
Pretty much what I said. Not just homophobic, though I'd count "proposing castration for sodomy" to be pretty damn homophobic by today's standards.
But pretty much ok if you kept it discreet. Stayed at least nominally in the closet. Both for homosexuality and for heterosexual affairs.
I apologize; I meant that as an add-on to what you were saying.
...Even beyond the implicit racism (and sexism. Guess who else couldn't vote in 1889?), that's why I think the idea is laughable. Whatever the founders thought of democracy, we've changed a lot of things they started with, many of them for the better. I'm also not convinced that their understanding of "democracy" matches our current usage, so while they might recoil in horror at the use of the term to describe our government, they might not have such a problem if the workings were described to them without using that word.
More generally, there's something to be said for only giving the franchise to those educated and invested enough to use it thoughtfully. The first problem is identifying those without bias. The second deeper problem is that such people will over the long run be mostly concerned with their own problems and be less inclined to take the problems of the disenfranchised seriously. Wasn't representation one of the original rallying cries?
I think you just identified the inherent problem in their entire idea: They were hypocrites, to a degree, and the idea they had for who would run the nation did not match up with the ideals used to create the nation in the first place.
That's part of the essential problem the United States has had; it was, ultimately, founded on hypocrisy by people who very definitely did not practice what they preached and who hated the very type of system they ultimately created. And, no, they were well aware of systems like our own in history; they were also well-aware of how those systems ultimately ended. That's a major reason why they divided the government as they did; they were trying to create a stable form of a government type that they viewed as inherently unstable and justify it to themselves as being an entirely new form of government.
Remember your history classes? How it was that the Constitution Convention was something they attempted to keep secret? How they tried to prevent people from knowing what was
Given how the vote ultimately turned out, I'm not seeing why they had to keep it a secret. Especially since they didn't actually succeed due to someone intentionally leaking what they were doing.
Honestly, simply saying, "We can't fix it, so we're building new" probably wouldn't have gotten a bad reaction at all.
Given how the vote ultimately turned out, I'm not seeing why they had to keep it a secret. Especially since they didn't actually succeed due to someone intentionally leaking what they were doing.
Honestly, simply saying, "We can't fix it, so we're building new" probably wouldn't have gotten a bad reaction at all
Because you really don't understand how major a rework it was. Post 1782, what had emerged from the Revolution wasn't a true country but a ragtag Confederation of States that each tried to function as a separate country all on it's own.
To make things short... it didn't work. Among other problems it led to a march on the capital by the Revolutionary War soldiers who demanded their pay. But there was enough obstinancy among the former colonies that if the Convention had announced straight forth that they were going to scrap the Articles as opposed to band aid it, the fledgling country would probably have flown apart right then and there with Britain still waiting in the wings to snap up loose pieces. (In fact, Britain would not give up the idea of messing around with the "United" States until Lincoln's Navy thoroughly disabused them of that notion during the Civil War.)
I am aware of how big of a change it was and the bullheadedness they had to deal with. What I'm saying is that, given they didn't manage to keep it secret at all, I fail to see what difference it made. Yes, they met in secret... but that secret meeting and news about all of the other secret meetings still leaked out. People were fully aware the convention wasn't rewriting the Articles of Confederation long before the Founding Fathers ever settled on what type of government they wanted the Constitution to set up.
So, I'm pointing out that the flying apart you speak of would not have happened because it didn't happen in real life when news got out that the Articles of Confederation were unsalvageable. Given that the "secret" meetings were public knowledge despite what the Founding Fathers wanted, the idea of the nation not existing after they admit the Articles of Confederation won't work means the United States shouldn't exist now.
They were not that homophobic. "Confirmed bachelor" basically meant "gay" and "Boston marriage" was a term for a lesbian relationship. As for unmarried sex: Benjamin Franklin. Franklin was well known, even in his era, for the massive amounts of unmarried sex he had, to the point he ended up contracting every STD known to medicine at the time.
So it's not that those things were not done so much as they were not talked about. But that was true, for the most part, of anything sexual; "Don't ask, don't tell" was pretty much the rule for anything that happened in the bedroom. High levels of homophobia didn't really exist until the 20th Century in the U.S.
So, realistically, they would be shocked by how openly such things are talked about and how women are treated today... but not by them existing.
Pretty much what I said. Not just homophobic, though I'd count "proposing castration for sodomy" to be pretty damn homophobic by today's standards.
But pretty much ok if you kept it discreet. Stayed at least nominally in the closet. Both for homosexuality and for heterosexual affairs.
Pfft. We declared sodomy "an imaginary crime" and abolished all laws against homosexuality in 1791. Eat that, Jefferson.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pfft. We declared sodomy "an imaginary crime" and abolished all laws against homosexuality in 1791. Eat that, Jefferson.Pretty much what I said. Not just homophobic, though I'd count "proposing castration for sodomy" to be pretty damn homophobic by today's standards.
But pretty much ok if you kept it discreet. Stayed at least nominally in the closet. Both for homosexuality and for heterosexual affairs.
Sparta had man-boy sodomy ingrained in its culture in 400BC!
[sodomizes mic]
[drops mic]
[walks off stage]
|
|
Hee hee!
Defiant Hobby Lobby Supporter Inadvertently Recreates Iconic Gaza Jihadist Image
Perfection.
Oh yeah, since there was all this talk about the transition from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution:
Everything else is bullshiznit.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hee hee!
Defiant Hobby Lobby Supporter Inadvertently Recreates Iconic Gaza Jihadist Image
A lot of the reason for the hate between the religions is because they're so similar. Its like a rooster attacking its own reflection.
This country was founded as a representative Republic. We are now a Democracy in the sense that Plato warned us about and it shows.It's too bad we can't live in a world ruled by enlightened aristocratic slaveowners like Plato--and a good portion of the Founding Fathers, come to think of it--wanted.
Can't, or won't? Y'know what, never mind, I'll be sulking in the solarium.
I will say that I fully support the decision. If I was required to provide contraceptives for my "employees" in the goblin kennels, Demesne Dice wouldn't have the workforce necessary to support my enlightened aristocratic lifestyle. Well, the house-goblins get gelded, but that's a behavior thing, not a birth control thing.
What I find the most puzzling about this is that it is actually in the employer's best interest to provide contraception in health care coverage because access to contraception means less unexpected pregnancies and that means less maternity/paternity leave. Of course in the US, I think you guys get all of a week or two* of parental leave so maybe its not a big loss?
*hyperbole - I know its more than that, but I don't know the exact number and I do know it doesn't even come close to the 52 weeks we get here in la belle province...
What I find the most puzzling about this is that it is actually in the employer's best interest to provide contraception in health care coverage because access to contraception means less unexpected pregnancies and that means less maternity/paternity leave. Of course in the US, I think you guys get all of a week or two* of parental leave so maybe its not a big loss?
*hyperbole - I know its more than that, but I don't know the exact number and I do know it doesn't even come close to the 52 weeks we get here in la belle province...
Yes, but if they are truly conservative Christians, then they also believe "be fruitful and multiply".
It does seem they do support parental planning though, just not certain types of birth control that goes against some fundamental belief (personhood begins at conception not implantation).
Not sure about the laws. My wife would have had 6 weeks with a normal birth, but she had a C-section, so she got 8 weeks. I didn't take any time off officially, though I scheduled my work time so that I could care for the new sprout during the day while my wife was at work for the next 2 months at which time we started with daycare.
I am actually glad he has gotten to go to daycare and interact with other kids all day. Being at home all day with 2 introverts is probably not the best for social development of many youngens.