Would you consider the US a democracy in 1776?

[Stapel]

but we do love liberty and justice. Ask any American whether Republican or Democrat, those our very precious.

For once and for all: A majority of Americans does not not love liberty. On enterprising liberties you are right, but on social liberties, the US (like most other nations) is quite far from being 'The Land of the Free'.

In a way it is quite offensive to say most Americans love liberty. It is a false opinion, which is, imho, fed by patriotism.
I really get the feeling (might be wrong) that Americans learn at school that the USA is THE Land of the Free[/i], and never ever check how much truth such a statement really holds.

The US lacks some serious liberties! Though I am utterly fed up with a 1000 minor moronic left wing economical limitations we have here in NL, I am very happy we have many great social liberties, that practically any other nation in the world lacks.

 

[Zarn]

For once and for all: A majority of Americans does not not love liberty. On enterprising liberties you are right, but on social liberties, the US (like most other nations) is quite far from being 'The Land of the Free'.

In a way it is quite offensive to say most Americans love liberty. It is a false opinion, which is, imho, fed by patriotism.
I really get the feeling (might be wrong) that Americans learn at school that the USA is THE Land of the Free[/i], and never ever check how much truth such a statement really holds.

The US lacks some serious liberties! Though I am utterly fed up with a 1000 minor moronic left wing economical limitations we have here in NL, I am very happy we have many great social liberties, that practically any other nation in the world lacks.

We have plenty of social liberties. I have taken an extreme amount of knowledge about US politics and laws. I was born here, afterall. I don't base my kwoledge on high school lessons, I base it on our laws. We have laws for the purpose of order. The Netherlands is going to dig itself a large hole, at its rate. You remember what order means, right? To have justice, you need some order.

 

[Stapel]

We have plenty of social liberties. I have taken an extreme amount of knowledge about US politics and laws. I was born here, afterall. I don't base my kwoledge on high school lessons, I base it on our laws. We have laws for the purpose of order. The Netherlands is going to dig itself a large hole, at its rate. You remember what order means, right? To have justice, you need some order.

So, you think we have no order here?
On what basis do you think it is right to limit liberties, for the purpose of order?
Don't you think you need to be sure that order is really jeapardised, before you start to create limitations on social liberties?
With all the liberal laws we have here, we also have better figures on drugs victims, number of abortions, teen mothers, abused prostitutes, and probably the most important: a lower crime rate.

I do realise your opinion is not just a simple result of biased education or whatsoever (that line was addressed generally, not personal). But, it might be useful to inform you that our liberal laws do not only give use great social liberties, but these same laws (on any issue) also tell under what circumstances these liberties can be enjoyed.


I guess this is abit off topic, but I really cannot accept that those who claim to love liberties, at the same time think it is right to limit liberties for the sake of order, without having straight facts on the results of not having those limits!

 

[Marla_Singer]

We have plenty of social liberties. I have taken an extreme amount of knowledge about US politics and laws. I was born here, afterall. I don't base my kwoledge on high school lessons, I base it on our laws. We have laws for the purpose of order. The Netherlands is going to dig itself a large hole, at its rate. You remember what order means, right? To have justice, you need some order.

It's not in the Netherlands that we find people who are so scared they finally decide to get a gun in their house in order to protect themselves.

I'm not sure the Netherlands are really the place where order is an issue.

 

[Shadylookin]

The United States is not, never has been, nor will ever be a democracy.

 

[stormbind]

I really get the feeling (might be wrong) that Americans learn at school that the USA is THE Land of the Free[/i], and never ever check how much truth such a statement really holds.

Well, it is a little true. In US high school I had teachers and students telling me that citizens of England (they dunno what UK is) cannot own land, and have no rights.

 

[luiz]

It was a military dictatorship in 1776

I must insist on knowing the early US voting framework, and British voting framework of that time, and other national voting frameworks, before I can make a sound judement.

luiz, you seem to know the answers to the above. Please explain them to me

Maybe 1776 is not a good date, but take 1781.

As for a comparisson with Britain, the british were still stuck with a non-elected head of state with also big political power. I wouldn't consider that democratic at all.

Some would say even today Britain is not a democracy, due to the Queen. Personally I disagree with them, but in the past where the kings/queens had a larger power there is no denying that Britain was far from a democracy.

 

[Zarn]

Well, it is a little true. In US high school I had teachers and students telling me that citizens of England (they dunno what UK is) cannot own land, and have no rights.

Where was that? Most teachers have more brain cells than that.

 

[stormbind]

Where was that? Most teachers have more brain cells than that.

Florida. The crucial voting state

 

[stormbind]

As for a comparisson with Britain, the british were still stuck with a non-elected head of state with also big political power. I wouldn't consider that democratic at all.

We still have an appointed head of state, but without political influence.

King George III did have some influence: he could select a Prime Minister from ministers of the dominant party, but I think that was the limit of his power. That would make the King a bit like the Electoral College.

Exact details are required. How did the by-elections work?

 

[Azadre]

The US didn't have a government in 1776, so that is obviously a no, in 1781 it became a republic and in 1789 it became a federal republic (democracy).

We're a democracy.

 

[North King]

No, it wasn't. Not at all. An Oligarchy. The popular vote wasn't even counted. It had the electoral college vote for whoever they wanted. At best it was a sort of feudalistic oligarchy, where everyone in the lower tier elects those of the middle tier who elect those of the higher tier. The people had no say in government, really.

 

[Free Enterprise]

There is no reason democracy is better than a mixed form of government. Democracy means rule by the people. What country really has rule by the people? The reason almost no countries are purely a democracy is that it is ineffective.

Any government with a legislative body has to a large extent an oligarchy ruling over it. The body may be elective however it is entirely possible to have an elective oligarchy. This makes it more democratic however it does not make the country a democracy.

Most Western countries are a mixture of an oligarchy with some democracy and a pinch (increasing over time) of autocracy.

It is useless to claim that democracy is innately superior to any other system as there is no reason why the majority ruling over you is anymore a case of being subject to oppression than a minority ruling over you. Note this is not to advocate a despotism or an aristocracy rather the point is to argue that democracy is not always the best form of government in all cases. I think a government needs some democracy however too much of a democracy is not effective.

The Founders of the United States definitely did not want it to be more comprised of more than fifty percent democratic elements. They apparently wanting a mixture of democracy, oligarchy, and autocracy. Most favored either a slight edge towards democracy or oligarchy. The majority feared too much autocracy. Democracy slowly has begun to become the predominate element in the system (though it was not that way at first). There are many types of oligarchies which was another contensious issue the founders of the U.S. had to deal with.

Freedom can exist without democracy and democracy can exist without freedom. Though there may be some correlation between having a substantial element of democracy and freedom existing in a state.

 

[Zarn]

We're a democracy.

How many times do I have to say this?

Higher levels: Has Federal Republic written all over it

Local: mixture of Democracy and Republic as people vote on local issues

Overall, we are a Federal Republic. Get use to the idea.

 

[Ebitdadada]

Florida. The crucial voting state

Don't beleive anything you here reguarding Democracy from Florida

Also like to appologize for my previous posts about your posts. I was not of a clear mind at the time and pretty much trying to keep myself awake long enough to drink a large amount of water (Halloween Eve, and Halloween) here is a pretty big drinking night). Sorry about that.

 

[Ethics]

No we wern't a democracy. We were the pretty democratic for the time ( despite what Stormblind will tell you (he apparently doensn't like the US I get the feeling as I have seen about 1 pro US statement per 100 anti US statement posted by him, Do get the feeling thougth that the UK is the most wonderfull place on the planet (from Stormblind), which I find somewhat odd since they spawned the obviously evil USA) but no, we wern't ruled by the people or for the people, we were ruled by and for the people who owned land. Became a Democracy about 1968 or so which, considering how we started (pretty democratic compared to the rest of the world) is pretty sad. If only Alexander Hamilton would have been elected president we may have had a better run at things (he didn't like slavery, did like common currency), anyway, I'm wasted. Like i said though, Stormbilnd, a bit rediculasly to the point of obserdity, anti-everything American, pro everything British. I'd like to point out though that I have some weird pro everything British feeling myself, maybee its a disease.

People who owned land, were the ones who were allowed to vote. Now, the conclusion being drawn in this thread is that therefore, that only the rich allowed those to vote, but this is an absurd statement.

The Northwest Ordinance is one of the few things that the Confederated government passed in its abyssmal reign. It was a revolutionary concept at the time, for a government to be handing land out for such absurdly cheap prices to its citizens. There was no rich conspiracy to keep the unlanded masses from voting. The concept was to give these unlanded masses a chance to hold and attain something tangiable, and to have something invested in the process.

Alexander Hamiltonm, had he even been elected, barring his sexual affair, he would have done nothing in regards to slavery. The presidency did not possess this type of authority to begin with, and the Congress pushed the issue asside for twenty years. The preservation of an extremely fragile federation, proof being in the numerous troubles of the AoC years, would not have risked break up over slaves.

 

[Ancient Grudge]

Exact details are required. How did the by-elections work?

Elections of this era in Britain were hardly democratic at all.
In the majority of elections there would be only one candidate standing for the seat in Parliament 'Before 1832 the percentage of seats contested never rose above 38% and was normally below 30%'

There where two 'parties' yes, but these where rather loose groupings of men with similar ideas then what we would understand as a party today, also you are forgetting there was a third grouping called the radicals. Parties as we know them today did not come about until 1846 (the Conservatives had formed in 1836, but the Liberals did not emerge until 1846 when Peels followers joined with the Whigs anyway i digress).

The House of Lords appointed the PM, which is hardly democratic at all due to the nature of the House of Lords.

IRRC only 4% of the total population of the UK could vote.

The aristocracy and the landed gentry dominated our system.

Up until the 1870's the vote was an open ballot, which lead to huge amounts of corruption and threats.

 

[Azadre]

How many times do I have to say this?

Higher levels: Has Federal Republic written all over it

Local: mixture of Democracy and Republic as people vote on local issues

Overall, we are a Federal Republic. Get use to the idea.

We're a Federal Democracy, research the history.

It is only because of Newt's word lists and such that you say otherwise.

 

[Ethics]

It's not in the Netherlands that we find people who are so scared they finally decide to get a gun in their house in order to protect themselves.

I'm not sure the Netherlands are really the place where order is an issue.

Yes, because it must be fear that people wish to own guns, and not some belief at the core of American ideology that a government has no right to control or deny such property of its citizens.

 

[Ebitdadada]

People who owned land, were the ones who were allowed to vote. Now, the conclusion being drawn in this thread is that therefore, that only the rich allowed those to vote, but this is an absurd statement.

The Northwest Ordinance is one of the few things that the Confederated government passed in its abyssmal reign. It was a revolutionary concept at the time, for a government to be handing land out for such absurdly cheap prices to its citizens. There was no rich conspiracy to keep the unlanded masses from voting. The concept was to give these unlanded masses a chance to hold and attain something tangiable, and to have something invested in the process.

Alexander Hamiltonm, had he even been elected, barring his sexual affair, he would have done nothing in regards to slavery. The presidency did not possess this type of authority to begin with, and the Congress pushed the issue asside for twenty years. The preservation of an extremely fragile federation, proof being in the numerous troubles of the AoC years, would not have risked break up over slaves.

I agree with all of the above. Do think Alexander Hamilton would have built a better economy but I agree he couldn't have done much about the slavery issue.