US founders did not want democracy

[cassowary]

[neverfail]

Well of course they did not want democracy as we practice it today. No country on Earth at the time had it. The time for democracy based on the one man one vote premise did not arrive until the latter half of the 19th century.

But so what?

[cassowary]

Well of course they did not want democracy as we practice it today. No country on Earth at the time had it. The time for democracy based on the one man one vote premise did not arrive until the latter half of the 19th century.

But so what?

The Founders are still regarded as wise men. So you have to ask why they were against democracy and whether the reason still applies today.

[neverfail]

Well of course they did not want democracy as we practice it today. No country on Earth at the time had it. The time for democracy based on the one man one vote premise did not arrive until the latter half of the 19th century.

But so what?

The Founders are still regarded as wise men. So you have to ask why they were against democracy and whether the reason still applies today.

I thought that I had already answered that question Cass. One man one vote democracy was not on anyone's agenda at the time. There was no popular push for it.

Might I point out that the American struggle for independence started as a big gripe over who had the right to tax Americans. The 'representation" bit came into the picture because there were no Americans elected to the UK House of Commons to have a say on behalf of the 13 colonies on taxation matters.

What I believe that the leaders of the American revolt initially visualized was the election of American MP's to the UK Parliament on the same basis as British MP's were elected at the time. To be eligible to be enrolled a voter you needed to be a landed property owner: I know not whether the rules specified whether you needed to own a minimum number of acres or whether your property needed to be of a minimum monetary (resale) value: but the point is it meant that only a wealthy minority ever got to vote.

Women, even those who owns enough landed property to qualify had they been born male were likewise disqualified on the basis of gender.

Now in the American colonies in the latter 18th century it was likely that land ownership was more widespread than it was in the British Isles: but not so widespread as to have allowed a majority of even male Americans to enrol as voters.

Once the US republic came into being Americans still elected their state legislatures, members of the US House of Representatives and their presidents according to the same property ownership qualification basis for enrolment as prevailed in the UK at the time (and no different than on the basis that they had elected members of their colonial legislative assemblies before independence) and everyone would have accepted that normal. That's life!
.........................................................................................................................................

American historical mythology has since elevated the founders of the US constitution almost to the status of having been demigods: principally because political battles in the US can still be fought and won over their sound judgement. However they were only men of their day acting out of what they knew then (not the same as what we know now) and should not be attributed an omniscience akin to that of God Almighty.

[cassowary]

Well of course they did not want democracy as we practice it today. No country on Earth at the time had it. The time for democracy based on the one man one vote premise did not arrive until the latter half of the 19th century.

But so what?

The Founders are still regarded as wise men. So you have to ask why they were against democracy and whether the reason still applies today.

I thought that I had already answered that question Cass. One man one vote democracy was not on anyone's agenda at the time. There was no popular push for it.

Might I point out that the American struggle for independence started as a big gripe over who had the right to tax Americans. The 'representation" bit came into the picture because there were no Americans elected to the UK House of Commons to have a say on behalf of the 13 colonies on taxation matters.

What I believe that the leaders of the American revolt initially visualized was the election of American MP's to the UK Parliament on the same basis as British MP's were elected at the time. To be eligible to be enrolled a voter you needed to be a landed property owner: I know not whether the rules specified whether you needed to own a minimum number of acres or whether your property needed to be of a minimum monetary (resale) value: but the point is it meant that only a wealthy minority ever got to vote.

Women, even those who owns enough landed property to qualify had they been born male were likewise disqualified on the basis of gender.

Now in the American colonies in the latter 18th century it was likely that land ownership was more widespread than it was in the British Isles: but not so widespread as to have allowed a majority of even male Americans to enrol as voters.

Once the US republic came into being Americans still elected their state legislatures, members of the US House of Representatives and their presidents according to the same property ownership qualification basis for enrolment as prevailed in the UK at the time (and no different than on the basis that they had elected members of their colonial legislative assemblies before independence) and everyone would have accepted that normal. That's life!
.........................................................................................................................................

American historical mythology has since elevated the founders of the US constitution almost to the status of having been demigods: principally because political battles in the US can still be fought and won over their sound judgement. However they were only men of their day acting out of what they knew then (not the same as what we know now) and should not be attributed an omniscience akin to that of God Almighty.

The reason why they didn’t push for one man one vote was because they thought it was a bad idea.

They knew that the poor outnumbered the rich. So the rich would be subjected to the tyranny of the majority. This means their wealth would be taxed or confiscated for the benefit of the majority. That’s what the Founders, who were often wealthy men saw.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on who is for like lunch.

The tyranny of the majority (or tyranny of the masses) is an inherent weakness to majority rule in which the majority of an electorate pursues exclusively its own objectives at the expense of those of the minority factions.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

[cassowary]

https://www.heritage.org/conservatism/c ... e-majority

In my opinion, it does not go far enough.

[neverfail]

The reason why they didn’t push for one man one vote was because they thought it was a bad idea.

(You have fielded that idea several times on this website before and it has become very tiresome).

Of course they thought it was bad idea! They were members of the American settler elite of the time; concerned first and foremost about preserving their own damned privileges. Biased judges!

Well, almost two and one half centuries have passed since their time and they have been proven absolutely wrong. In every country where one man one vote democracy has been practiced honourably (i.e. without widespread improprieties such as vote rigging; as in the recent Philippines election) it has been functioning well; reaping benefits for all concerned.

[cassowary]

The reason why they didn’t push for one man one vote was because they thought it was a bad idea.

(You have fielded that idea several times on this website before and it has become very tiresome.

And you have no refutation to my logical .reasoning. No counter argument. Won’t people vote according to ones’s personal interest? Won’t the poor vote for politicians who promised to tax the rich and redistribute their wealth? Isn’t a fact that the poor outnumber the rich and so will get their way in a democracy? You thus get tyranny of the majority.

[neverfail]

The reason why they didn’t push for one man one vote was because they thought it was a bad idea.

(You have fielded that idea several times on this website before and it has become very tiresome.

And you have no refutation to my logical .reasoning. No counter argument.

Your "logical reasoning", like theirs, is nothing but hot air. My "counter argument" lies in the empirical evidence (there for anyone but a blockhead to see) provided by literally dozens of functioning democracies now dotted across the world. None of them have brought down "civilization as we know it" as the founders of the US Constitution purportedly feared.

[cassowary]

The reason why they didn’t push for one man one vote was because they thought it was a bad idea.

(You have fielded that idea several times on this website before and it has become very tiresome.

And you have no refutation to my logical .reasoning. No counter argument.

Your "logical reasoning", like theirs, is nothing but hot air. My "counter argument" lies in the empirical evidence (there for anyone but a blockhead to see) provided by literally dozens of functioning democracies now dotted across the world. None of them have brought down "civilization as we know it" as the founders of the US Constitution purportedly feared.

Empirical evidence shows I am right. Greece? Venezuela? Most mature democracies have huge government debt. Not sustainable. The end off democracies is a leftist government driving it into bankruptcy caused by overspending.