Iranian Revolutionary Guard behind kidnapping of 5 Britons

Started by jimmy olsen, January 06, 2010, 11:17:00 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

citizen k

Quote from: The Brain on January 09, 2010, 04:04:52 PM
Quote from: Jaron on January 09, 2010, 04:02:15 PM
You are completely wrong there.

Limited democracy is not democracy at all. It is a stalling tactic used by dictators to stay in power by appeasing the blood thirst of the masses.

:huh: The 1990 ed Twilight 2000 back cover blurb disagrees with you. See war of 1812, fought by democracies.

Great Britain was a democracy in 1812?

The Brain

Quote from: citizen k on January 09, 2010, 04:45:21 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 09, 2010, 04:04:52 PM
Quote from: Jaron on January 09, 2010, 04:02:15 PM
You are completely wrong there.

Limited democracy is not democracy at all. It is a stalling tactic used by dictators to stay in power by appeasing the blood thirst of the masses.

:huh: The 1990 ed Twilight 2000 back cover blurb disagrees with you. See war of 1812, fought by democracies.

Great Britain was a democracy in 1812?

Why do you think I still remember the statement?
Women want me. Men want to be with me.

garbon

"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

Viking

Quote from: The Brain on January 09, 2010, 04:04:52 PM
Quote from: Jaron on January 09, 2010, 04:02:15 PM
You are completely wrong there.

Limited democracy is not democracy at all. It is a stalling tactic used by dictators to stay in power by appeasing the blood thirst of the masses.

:huh: The 1990 ed Twilight 2000 back cover blurb disagrees with you. See war of 1812, fought by democracies.

Neither of them had a McDonalds :contract:
First Maxim - "There are only two amounts, too few and enough."
First Corollary - "You cannot have too many soldiers, only too few supplies."
Second Maxim - "Be willing to exchange a bad idea for a good one."
Second Corollary - "You can only be wrong or agree with me."

A terrorist which starts a slaughter quoting Locke, Burke and Mill has completely missed the point.
The fact remains that the only person or group to applaud the Norway massacre are random Islamists.

Richard Hakluyt

The franchise in the USA back in 1812 was also too limited for it to count as a democracy.

The Brain

Women want me. Men want to be with me.

CountDeMoney

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 10, 2010, 05:44:31 AM
The franchise in the USA back in 1812 was also too limited for it to count as a democracy.

Nonsense.  Anybody who needed the vote had it.

grumbler

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 10, 2010, 05:44:31 AM
The franchise in the USA back in 1812 was also too limited for it to count as a democracy.
Ah, someone who has the answer!  I have been trying to find the percentage of adult males in the US who had the vote prior to the 1824 election (when I know that universal male suffrage was the rule).  I know that Vermont, New Jersey, Maryland, and South Carolina had universal male suffrage by 1812, but not the limits in the other states, or how many people that affected.  Since you know that in 1812 it as "too limited to count as a democracy," you must know the limits (at least loosely).  What were they?  Serious question.
The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!

ulmont

Quote from: grumbler on January 10, 2010, 11:09:20 AMI have been trying to find the percentage of adult males in the US who had the vote prior to the 1824 election (when I know that universal male suffrage was the rule).

Can you really count that suffrage as "universal" prior to 1870?

Queequeg

Quote from: ulmont on January 10, 2010, 11:15:05 AM
Quote from: grumbler on January 10, 2010, 11:09:20 AMI have been trying to find the percentage of adult males in the US who had the vote prior to the 1824 election (when I know that universal male suffrage was the rule).

Can you really count that suffrage as "universal" prior to 1870?
After we give up on Reconstruction, I'm still not totally sure that it counts.
Quote from: PDH on April 25, 2009, 05:58:55 PM
"Dysthymia?  Did they get some student from the University of Chicago with a hard-on for ancient Bactrian cities to name this?  I feel cheated."

grumbler

Quote from: ulmont on January 10, 2010, 11:15:05 AM
Quote from: grumbler on January 10, 2010, 11:09:20 AMI have been trying to find the percentage of adult males in the US who had the vote prior to the 1824 election (when I know that universal male suffrage was the rule).

Can you really count that suffrage as "universal" prior to 1870?
Obviously, suffrage is never "universal."  Hell, American Indians didn't all have suffrage until 1939, and some people of Asian extraction didn't get it until 1952.

But those were citizenship issues (as was the lack of suffrage by free "black" men in some states).  All male citizens had suffrage by 1824, I think.
The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!

ulmont

Quote from: grumbler on January 10, 2010, 01:05:39 PM
All male citizens had suffrage by 1824, I think.

According to this article, several states excluded "paupers" in that time period.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1228746

grumbler

Quote from: ulmont on January 10, 2010, 01:10:18 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 10, 2010, 01:05:39 PM
All male citizens had suffrage by 1824, I think.

According to this article, several states excluded "paupers" in that time period.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1228746
Thanks.  Not sure that this invalidates "democracy," but it corrects my own knowledge on the matter.

We still are no closer to the percentage of US male citizens excluded from the vote in 1812, though.  In Britain, adult male suffrage before the 1832 Reform Act was about 8%, as I recall.
The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!

Richard Hakluyt

Quote from: grumbler on January 10, 2010, 11:09:20 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 10, 2010, 05:44:31 AM
The franchise in the USA back in 1812 was also too limited for it to count as a democracy.
Ah, someone who has the answer!  I have been trying to find the percentage of adult males in the US who had the vote prior to the 1824 election (when I know that universal male suffrage was the rule).  I know that Vermont, New Jersey, Maryland, and South Carolina had universal male suffrage by 1812, but not the limits in the other states, or how many people that affected.  Since you know that in 1812 it as "too limited to count as a democracy," you must know the limits (at least loosely).  What were they?  Serious question.

I'm afraid not  :D

I was going simply by the restriction of the franchise to white male voters. The exclusion of women and (nearly all) black people tipped it for me. I'm vaguely aware of the other restrictions that have been mentioned but have no real knowledge of the details.

I'm interested in your statements that : "Obviously, suffrage is never "universal."  Hell, American Indians didn't all have suffrage until 1939, and some people of Asian extraction didn't get it until 1952.
But those were citizenship issues (as was the lack of suffrage by free "black" men in some states).  All male citizens had suffrage by 1824, I think."

I think that if we apply that to Sparta back in 500BC then they were just as much a democracy as the USA........after all, all the male citizens of Sparta had the vote.

Which leads one to the question, how wide does the suffrage have to be for a polity to count as a democracy?

Richard Hakluyt

Incidentally the British 1832 Reform Act actually took the vote away from many people. Prior to the act there were some boroughs where all hearth-holders were allowed to vote, and all rural freeholders in the county constituencies with land in excess of 40 shillings in value (a large sum 1000 years ago but not so much by 1832).