Turkey blocks access to Wikipedia

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**LordofHats**

oldravenman3025 wrote:
The United States wasn't founded as a democracy of any kind. Period.

Democracy and Republic. The former defines a means of legitimizing socio-political authority, while the later defines a framework for the exercise of power. Constitutionalism is the third facet, providing a legal basis for the democratic transference of socio-political authority to the the Republic so that power may be exercised..

This is a two sentence summation of Madison, aka the Father of the Constitution, who was the real theoretical power behind the document and the guy who created its initial framework. Hamilton was just a talking head who wouldn't shut up about how we needed a national bank to avoid going bankrupt (Oh and who was all around an impetulant man child who could never get over being treated like an impetulent man child). For a much longer explanation of these with a special focus on reducing factionalism (which hilarious the Constitution failed to actually do), see Federalist Paper No. 10, aka the "defining opus of American civics."

But enough checks and balances were in place via the Executive and Senate to, in the words of Hamilton, "check the imprudence of democracy".

Question.

Why would it be necessary to check the imprudence of democracy, if you are not a democracy?

At which point I point out that you're playing a semantics game absent substance so you "rage against the man."

**Co'tor Shas**

oldravenman3025 wrote:

You claim to be a history buff. Might I suggest that you go back and brush up on early U.S. history some.

The United States wasn't founded as a democracy of any kind. Period.

But it did borrow and incorporate some democratic ideas into the final draft of the U.S. Constitution as a compromise solution, on the national level. The House of Representatives was the end result. But even then, suffrage was limited to land/property owners. The purse strings were controlled by the voters via the House, the House had investigative powers, and laws (legislative power) would originate in the House. But enough checks and balances were in place via the Executive and Senate to, in the words of Hamilton, "check the imprudence of democracy". The Hamiltonian Federalists (who had a major influence in the Convention) didn't trust the people to govern wisely, and the compromise solution was a "bone" thrown to the supporters of egalitarian democracy (of whom Franklin was a well known figure). And there were issues of time, distance, and communication to take into account as well.

However a few democratic principles and sole legislative power alone doesn't make a democracy. And It's the separation of powers/checks and balances, not popular representation, that is important to safeguarding Liberty and keeping the national government accountable to the American people.

No, you just don't know what a democracy is. All that is required for a democracy is voting. The mere fact that the house was an elected body makes the US democracy. And the fact that the state houses (which appointed the senators and electors) were all democratically elected (unless I'm forgetting one) also made the US a democracy.

**Ensis Ferrae**

oldravenman3025 wrote:

You claim to be a history buff. Might I suggest that you go back and brush up on early U.S. history some.

And what primary sources have lead you to that conclusion?

**Humble Guardsman**

Spoiler:

Since the US is a sovereign state, the term Democratic Republic might be more applicable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_republic

Hopefully that should clarify things for those confused as to the definition of democracy.

**AndrewGPaul**

oldravenman3025 wrote:
I wouldn't mind going back to a system where property owners (i.e. stakeholders in society) would be the only ones who could vote for House Reps on the Federal level.

I don't know what the US is like, but in the UK, house prices are skyrocketing compared to salaries, so the proportion of people renting is rising. Contrarily, more and more properties (I assume you mean "land", otherwise I know plenty of people who's miniature collections might qualify them for the vote), especially in London, are being bought up as investments by foreign nationals, never to actually be used as homes.

Why would an absentee foreign landlord be a "stakeholder in society", but the hundreds or thousands of people who live on said land, generating prosperity and contributing to the tax revenues of the state, not be? If, and I'm not sure it's even a good idea, it should perhaps be based on income tax (constitutionally defined to be at a threshold of 80% of that paid by someone on minimum wage) or on lifetime tax and/or National Insurance contributions, so someone's not deprived of the vote due to long-term unemployment or illness. On the whole, though, I'm of the opinion that the franchise should be universal and unconditional for adults living in the relevant jurisdiction. Anything else is asking for it to be "gamed" to remove anyone who might vote against you from the electoral register. If you're going to rig the vote, you'll have to be more obvious about it.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

Humble Guardsman wrote:
I'm sure you don't mean to say that a 'bad' democratically elected leader is better replaced with a 'good' autocratic leader. How could anyone say with a straight face "The people of a nation have the right to elect their own leaders, but only if they're the kind of leaders that we approve of."

No, I am arguing that a 'bad' democratically elected leader is better replaced with a 'good' democratically elected leader

.
Or rather, that being democratically elected doesn't in any way, shape or form mean you are a good leader, or even that your rule will be democratic.

**Spetulhu**

AndrewGPaul wrote:
oldravenman3025 wrote:
I wouldn't mind going back to a system where property owners (i.e. stakeholders in society) would be the only ones who could vote for House Reps on the Federal level.

If, and I'm not sure it's even a good idea, it should perhaps be based on income tax (constitutionally defined to be at a threshold of 80% of that paid by someone on minimum wage) or on lifetime tax and/or National Insurance contributions, so someone's not deprived of the vote due to long-term unemployment or illness. On the whole, though, I'm of the opinion that the franchise should be universal and unconditional for adults living in the relevant jurisdiction. Anything else is asking for it to be "gamed" to remove anyone who might vote against you from the electoral register. If you're going to rig the vote, you'll have to be more obvious about it.

Yah, going back to only landowners or rich enough citizens voting would probably not be a good idea. Unless ofc you actually want to keep the poor out of it. IIRC many "anti-voting fraud" measures in the US only serve to keep poor people from voting simply because they can't afford to buy the necessary ID cards. It's usually Republicans who push for such measures and the poor getting shut out would usually vote Democrat.

Or over here - the better off you are finacially the more likely you are to vote for a certain party that likes to make companies richer and cut funding for social security, education etc. If the poorest couldn't vote why should any party care about their problems? In fact those that can't vote should probably go back to being cottagers (in effect a type of serfdom) again, or become state serfs to be rented out to companies that need cheap labor! It's a win-win situation for the wealthy and the companies that they own!

**Co'tor Shas**

AndrewGPaul wrote:
oldravenman3025 wrote:
I wouldn't mind going back to a system where property owners (i.e. stakeholders in society) would be the only ones who could vote for House Reps on the Federal level.

I don't know what the US is like, but in the UK, house prices are skyrocketing compared to salaries, so the proportion of people renting is rising. Contrarily, more and more properties (I assume you mean "land", otherwise I know plenty of people who's miniature collections might qualify them for the vote), especially in London, are being bought up as investments by foreign nationals, never to actually be used as homes.

Why would an absentee foreign landlord be a "stakeholder in society", but the hundreds or thousands of people who live on said land, generating prosperity and contributing to the tax revenues of the state, not be? If, and I'm not sure it's even a good idea, it should perhaps be based on income tax (constitutionally defined to be at a threshold of 80% of that paid by someone on minimum wage) or on lifetime tax and/or National Insurance contributions, so someone's not deprived of the vote due to long-term unemployment or illness. On the whole, though, I'm of the opinion that the franchise should be universal and unconditional for adults living in the relevant jurisdiction. Anything else is asking for it to be "gamed" to remove anyone who might vote against you from the electoral register. If you're going to rig the vote, you'll have to be more obvious about it.

It's just code for "feth the poor".

**Iron_Captain**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
AndrewGPaul wrote:
oldravenman3025 wrote:
I wouldn't mind going back to a system where property owners (i.e. stakeholders in society) would be the only ones who could vote for House Reps on the Federal level.

I don't know what the US is like, but in the UK, house prices are skyrocketing compared to salaries, so the proportion of people renting is rising. Contrarily, more and more properties (I assume you mean "land", otherwise I know plenty of people who's miniature collections might qualify them for the vote), especially in London, are being bought up as investments by foreign nationals, never to actually be used as homes.

Why would an absentee foreign landlord be a "stakeholder in society", but the hundreds or thousands of people who live on said land, generating prosperity and contributing to the tax revenues of the state, not be? If, and I'm not sure it's even a good idea, it should perhaps be based on income tax (constitutionally defined to be at a threshold of 80% of that paid by someone on minimum wage) or on lifetime tax and/or National Insurance contributions, so someone's not deprived of the vote due to long-term unemployment or illness. On the whole, though, I'm of the opinion that the franchise should be universal and unconditional for adults living in the relevant jurisdiction. Anything else is asking for it to be "gamed" to remove anyone who might vote against you from the electoral register. If you're going to rig the vote, you'll have to be more obvious about it.

It's just code for "feth the poor".

Revolution time now?
I will get my red flag ready!

**LordofHats**

No. The new revolution will not be red. The new revolution will be the boldest of colors! Purple Mountain Majesty! Toss away those pitch forks and prepare your most flamboyant hat and white trim fur coat!

**Mozzyfuzzy**

LordofHats wrote:
No. The new revolution will not be red. The new revolution will be the boldest of colors! Purple Mountain Majesty! Toss away those pitch forks and prepare your most flamboyant hat and white trim fur coat!

Could've chosen a better colour than slightly (very slightly) darker than lavender

https://colors.findthedata.com/compare/291-298/Lavender-Purple-vs-Purple-Mountain-Majesty

**LordofHats**

Nothing infuriates the color establishment that just slightly offing one of their colors

EDIT: Although if we went with Mauve we could call ourselves the Mauve Storm in the press (or the Mauve Avengers!)

**Mozzyfuzzy**

LordofHats wrote:
Nothing infuriates the color establishment that just slightly offing one of their colors

Put me down for double infuriation, there's a you in colour

Edit* No Dakka, don't put you in there, I want to use the letter

**Frazzled**

This thread has turned...fabulous!

**Easy E**

So how long until he is invited to the White House? Before or after Duterte's visit?

**Iron_Captain**

Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
No. The new revolution will not be red. The new revolution will be the boldest of colors! Purple Mountain Majesty! Toss away those pitch forks and prepare your most flamboyant hat and white trim fur coat!

Could've chosen a better colour than slightly (very slightly) darker than lavender

https://colors.findthedata.com/compare/291-298/Lavender-Purple-vs-Purple-Mountain-Majesty

Ah look, the first schism in the purple revolutionary movement appears. And so history will repeat itself once more.
All thanks to you, a bunch of traitorous splitters who deny the revolutionary primacy of pearly purple! Its slightly more pinkish hue symbolises the struggle of the fabulous class better than any other purple colour! Those who advocate purple mountain majesty or mauve are no better than the reactionaries!

**LordofHats**

Iron_Captain wrote:
Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
No. The new revolution will not be red. The new revolution will be the boldest of colors! Purple Mountain Majesty! Toss away those pitch forks and prepare your most flamboyant hat and white trim fur coat!

Could've chosen a better colour than slightly (very slightly) darker than lavender

https://colors.findthedata.com/compare/291-298/Lavender-Purple-vs-Purple-Mountain-Majesty

Ah look, the first schism in the purple revolutionary movement appears. And so history will repeat itself once more.
All thanks to you, a bunch of traitorous splitters who deny the revolutionary primacy of pearly purple! Its slightly more pinkish hue symbolises the struggle of the fabulous class better than any other purple colour! Those who advocate purple mountain majesty or mauve are no better than the reactionaries!

This may well be one of the most historically glorious posts ever made on Dakka XD

**Bran Dawri**

LordofHats wrote:
Nothing infuriates the color establishment that just slightly offing one of their colors

EDIT: Although if we went with Mauve we could call ourselves the Mauve Storm in the press (or the Mauve Avengers!)

The Mauvengers?