Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

This has Comoncents all over it

Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2010 2:29:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
A very sober assessment of government, but perhaps too narrowly focused in its conclusions.
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2010 10:07:31 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
They simplify things waayyy too much. Plus, there are many more categories than Dictatorship, Oligarchy, Democracy, Republic, and Anarchy (on a side note, Democracy and Republic should be switched on his scale). There are DEFINITELY more categories than just Oligarchy and Republic, which the speaker claims that every system can be broken down into. Simplifying is okay, but oversimplifying makes it difficult to identify small variations.

The speakers is also quite off on his history. He claimed that the founders could have set up an oligarchy, but instead set up a republic. However, the system that they did set up was very much a system of "rule by the wealthy." Voting rights were not extended to the common man en masse until after Jackson's presidency. Even then it was a slow process. Beyond that, there was plenty of oligarchical tendencies of our founding fathers. The speaker is too starry eyed towards them.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2010 10:40:44 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
There are DEFINITELY more categories than just Oligarchy and Republic, which the speaker claims that every system can be broken down into. Simplifying is okay, but oversimplifying makes it difficult to identify small variations.:

I, for one, would be interested in hearing all the other forms of governance you think exist.

The speakers is also quite off on his history. He claimed that the founders could have set up an oligarchy, but instead set up a republic. However, the system that they did set up was very much a system of "rule by the wealthy.":

Would you mind substantiating this assertion?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2010 10:43:29 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/19/2010 10:40:44 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Would you mind substantiating this assertion?

I dunno, do you think white male landowners are the wealthy or everyone? 'Cause that was the original way it was set up.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2010 11:14:12 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I dunno, do you think white male landowners are the wealthy or everyone? 'Cause that was the original way it was set up.:

Vastly better than where they came from, where most people were Serfs with limited freedom. The idea about the New World was not the promise of wealth, it's the promise of the opportunity to be what you want to be with hard work.

Obviously slavery was bullsh*t, but then, that wasn't consigned to the New World. That was a relic of the past that had to be murdered.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2010 11:15:55 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/19/2010 11:14:12 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Vastly better than where they came from, where most people were Serfs with limited freedom. The idea about the New World was not the promise of wealth, it's the promise of the opportunity to be what you want to be with hard work.

Obviously slavery was bullsh*t, but then, that wasn't consigned to the New World. That was a relic of the past that had to be murdered.

But that completely ignores the point that it was still limited to the wealthy and the white - not exactly egalitarianism, like the author of the video tries to imply.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2010 11:29:08 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
But that completely ignores the point that it was still limited to the wealthy and the white - not exactly egalitarianism, like the author of the video tries to imply.:

A Constitutional Republic means that it is open for all within the confines of the law. Your vote means just as much as some rich @sshole in Malibu.

He's simply distinguishing between a system of a Monarchy, Oligarchy, a Direct Democracy, a Constitutional Republic, and Anarchy.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2010 11:32:10 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/19/2010 11:29:08 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
A Constitutional Republic means that it is open for all within the confines of the law. Your vote means just as much as some rich @sshole in Malibu.

Now it does, yes.

He's simply distinguishing between a system of a Monarchy, Oligarchy, a Direct Democracy, a Constitutional Republic, and Anarchy.

Yet as JBlake pointed out, the Founding Fathers, with heaps praised upon them, and he original Republic, was not so egalitarian as people like to point it out now. It wasn't an "oligarchy," but it certainly gave preference to the wealthy, much more so over the poor, women, and minorities.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2010 12:08:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/19/2010 11:32:10 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 7/19/2010 11:29:08 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
A Constitutional Republic means that it is open for all within the confines of the law. Your vote means just as much as some rich @sshole in Malibu.

Now it does, yes.:

Substantiate that it was any different back then? There were wars fought over this very thing. The English (status quo) thought that the King made all the rules. The New World said, no, we can rule ourselves just fine, thanks. Are you stating that people were more free in other countries? If so, why did they flee the Old World to come to the New in droves?

Yet as JBlake pointed out, the Founding Fathers, with heaps praised upon them, and he original Republic, was not so egalitarian as people like to point it out now. It wasn't an "oligarchy," but it certainly gave preference to the wealthy, much more so over the poor, women, and minorities.:

And I asked Blake, and now you, to substantiate the claim historically.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2010 12:51:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/19/2010 12:08:09 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Substantiate that it was any different back then? There were wars fought over this very thing. The English (status quo) thought that the King made all the rules. The New World said, no, we can rule ourselves just fine, thanks. Are you stating that people were more free in other countries? If so, why did they flee the Old World to come to the New in droves?

... Do you have ADD, or something, because you've gone off in a whole bunch of weird topics that I never brought up.

The fact is that the voting rights as they stand now, are not the voting rights as originally made up in the formative years of the US. The Founding Fathers, or whoever it is that created the republican experiment you have there, never gave the poor, women, or minorities a vote - it was limited to wealthy, white male landowners. That, sir, is a fact.

And I asked Blake, and now you, to substantiate the claim historically.

http://www.infoplease.com...
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2010 12:59:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Here is a better link, I think.

http://www.crf-usa.org...

For a full treatment of the issue, I suggest reading Sean Wilentz, The Rise of American Democracy. One of the major themes of this book is gradual shift from a more aristocratic governance to a more popular one. He traces the gradual rise in voting rights. If you want substantiation, check his primary sources. I don't have access to the primary sources it would take to prove that a very small percentage (between 10 - 20%) of the population had the ability to vote.
(The Rise of American Democracy on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com...)

By the way, N. Carolina was the last state to remove property requirements for voting. That was in 1856.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2010 1:06:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
By I don't have access to the sources I, of course, mean I don't have access to them right here right now. They can be accessed, but not through a simple internet search.

In short, I am not going to go through all of the time and effort to locate the primary sources to prove that property rights were a requirement for voting in most states (this is common knowledge anyway). You can access them yourself, or read a secondary source that has accessed them (like the Wilentz book that I recommended). It would be far too much work for such a minor point, which is considered common knowledge anyway.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2010 1:48:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I watched a good 17 seconds of that video on YouTube and then clicked on the Milton Friedman video on the sidebar in similar videos. Much more entertaining.