What was and wasn't mentioned in the Declaration of Independence

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,756
Repeating a claim is not providing evidence that it is true.
My claim is proven by the facts of who was allowed to vote. The few who totally controlled the government.

I do not need to produce anything other than the fact that the governance was by the few of the many. The Government was entirely by the propertied class a small minority.

To charactirse such governmenat as some how not the domination of the many by the few is entirely factual incorrect. A Gioverment where the property class hold all the power and make all the decisons is one doinated by them. Agivernment that excludes the poor form teh decion making is one where the poor is dominated.
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,431
Caribbean
From my post 6: "I used the term 'diverse' only to mean that while many of the founders wanted to establish a religion there was no consensus on which Protestant religion to establish." In this statement I have already said that religious diversity in early America did not include Catholicism. I have also clarified that my use of diversity only meant the lack of consensus, not tolerance of all religions. Please do not subsequently accuse me of positions I have already refuted.
Don't take too much umbrage, as the confusion is generated by your posts - to repeat one example, that the Founders both "established religions," but chose "neutrality." And you don't see that?

On 'free practice' vs 'freedom of conscience', the way I read your quote from New York, free practice and freedom of conscience are interchangeable terms. The document is non-sensical if practice and conscience have different definitions. To paraphrase and condense - 'New Yorkers can enjoy freedom of religion so long as freedom of religion isn't justification for breaking the law.' You can replace religion both times with conscience and get the same result, but if religion and conscience mean two different things then the quote becomes an apples and oranges comparison. - 'New Yorkers have the right to bear arms so long as the right to vote isn't justification for breaking the law' which would be nonsense.
Not exactly. Thinking and doing are not the same. One (thought) was protected in all circumstances and the other was protected only if the doing (practice)was not otherwise a crime. This is different from European Catholicism where there was thought-crime.

Deeds for which reasonable people might use the "terminology" religious practice were crimes in the 1700s, like not respecting the Sabbath, practicing witchcraft or practicing polygamy. Thus, conscience and practice are not "interchangeable."
 
Last edited:

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,431
Caribbean
My claim is proven by the facts of who was allowed to vote. The few who totally controlled the government.

I do not need to produce anything other than the fact that the governance was by the few of the many. The Government was entirely by the propertied class a small minority.
To charactirse such governmenat as some how not the domination of the many by the few is entirely factual incorrect. A Gioverment where the property class hold all the power and make all the decisons is one doinated by them. Agivernment that excludes the poor form teh decion making is one where the poor is dominated.
First, government is always the few governing the many.

Second, you have still showed no "domination?" Here is what you would have to overcome to do so - that inalienable rights were not on the ballot. Perhaps you could show some reasonableness for your claim by giving examples of which other countries in the late 1700s had no "domination" for contrast.
 
Last edited:

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,756
First, government is always the few governing the many.
Those with a say in elections was a small minority. It was governace that represented only a small minoirty teh few of the population.


Second, you have still showed no "domination?"
I have shown that the decison making process exckluded the vast majority of the population the many. and restircted the decison makingto the few,

If all position of authority and all decisions are made by small minority how is that not domination by definition.
'

Here is what you would have to overcome to do so - that inalienable rights were not on the ballot.
I fail to understand what you mean here.


Perhaps you could show some reasonableness for you claim by giving examples of which other countries in the late 1700s had no "domination" for contrast.
This is making out that I am making a completely different argument. Shfting ground and saying I am saying something other than I am.


lets be clear I thought that deciding a governance structure that restricted voting to a small minority of the population , inherently vested power into a small elite "the few" which by control of all positions of authority and voting dominated the many.

Arguments all governments are the few over the many, or that no other nation at the time was different are completely irrelevant arguments that is no way addresss or even oppose my argument at all.
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,431
Caribbean
If all position of authority and all decisions are made by small minority how is that not domination by definition.
You just said the key word: definition. You don't actually state one. You infer its existence from no examples. How was dominance over the non-voting citizens manifested in the 1780s? In the 1790s? Where are these no-domination governments? Who voted for King George III?

The call for examples is not "shifting" ground. How else can I possibly understand what you are saying? To understand why one person is tall, it would help to see him next to other people. So, if the US, per se, was founded on a system of "dominance," it would become clear if you could show some non-dominance countries. Who has universal suffrage at the time of the US founding?
.
I fail to understand what you mean here.
I know. IMO, if you did, you would have never made your original claim. If you fail to understand that inalienable rights are not on the ballot, not subject to vote - then you fail to understand the essence of the very system to attempt to characterize based on one "fact," which is actually an estimate (6%).

You use the phrase "government structure," but fail to understand that structure is not necessarily jurisdiction. How does one "dominate" that over which one has no jurisdiction?

inherently vested power into a small elite "the few" which by control of all positions of authority and voting dominated the many.
Again, you are overlooking the this supposed "vested" power is actually limited power that runs into the firewall of inalienable rights.

It's ironic to me how you characterize US voting rights. As far as I can tell citizen rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in general have an inverse relationship to what proportion of the population can vote. It is only as the US approached universal suffrage has the government obtained powers of dominance.
 
Last edited:

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,756
You just said the key word: definition. You don't actually state one. You infer its existence from no examples. How was dominance over the non-voting citizens manifested in the 1780s? In the 1790s? Where are these no-domination governments? Who voted for King George III?

The call for examples is not "shifting" ground. How else can I possibly understand what you are saying? To understand why one person is tall, it would help to see him next to other people. So, if the US, per se, was founded on a system of "dominance," it would become clear if you could show some non-dominance countries. Who has universal suffrage at the time of the US founding?
..
Shifting ground Are you going to argue in good faith or not??
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,431
Caribbean
Shifting ground Are you going to argue in good faith or not??
I am not arguing. You are: that the US Founders created a system of citizen domination.

Your opinion was quite extraordinary and, on its face, nonsensical. Now that is not a problem by itself, but it does indicate you have some 'splaining to do. And instead of holding forth when I ask you questions designed to elicit how you support your argument, you accuse me of things. So, all that remains is the nonsense. Though, you did admit you "fail to understand" how rights are a check against voter-driven domination.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,756
I am not arguing. You are: that the US Founders created a system of citizen domination.

Your opinion was quite extraordinary and, on its face, nonsensical. Now that is not a problem by itself, but it does indicate you have some 'splaining to do. And instead of holding forth when I ask you questions designed to elicit how you support your argument, you accuse me of things. So, all that remains is the nonsense. Though, you did admit you "fail to understand" how rights are a check against voter-driven domination.
It's not opinion it's fact the voting franchise was restricted to a small minority "the few' with had domination of the many. It;'s clear fact. To say otherwise is nonsense.

No I accuse you of trying to shift the argument to other things. How is what other countries do relevant? Or who voted for which King ? These are complete irrelevancies. That statment was not that teh USa was more inclusive or had a sider franchise or more democratic than other nations. that cliam was it was differnet in that "the few" did not rule of "teh many" well that is factually incorrect. what i said wasn't amout some relative cliam compared to other couties which you have riased twice as some sort of argument , well it's not it's complete irrelevancy.

The restricted voting franchise meant the earlier USA the "few" the voters had complete dominance over government compared to the vast bulk of the population.

It's simple argument based on fact. You have not reasied any logical argument but sort to move the argument to soem comparative - relational arguments about other countries. Simply not in any was relevant.

Only a few pople had the vote and say how government was formed.
 

Asherman

Forum Staff
May 2013
3,412
Albuquerque, NM
Code Pug ... this is just a reminder to keep your emotions under control and the need to be careful of your word choices in establishing your well-thought out and researched positions. You veteran members are the example newer folks will emulate, so be professional in your posts.
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,431
Caribbean
It's not opinion it's fact the voting franchise was restricted to a small minority "the few' with had domination of the many. It;'s clear fact. To say otherwise is nonsense.
You say it is a system of "domination." The Founders and Framers call it system of "liberty."

If this is a matter of fact, not opinion, then one those two "facts" is about 100% wrong.