• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Isn't the US Constitution tyranny?

CFLarsen

Penultimate Amazing
C
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
42,371
Population, 1790 Census

Virginia: 747,550
South Carolina: 249,073
New York: 340,241
Rhode Island: 69,112
Georgia: 82,548
Connecticut: 237,655
New Hampshire: 141,899
Pennsylvania: 433,611
Massachusetts: 378,556
North Carolina: 395,005
New Jersey: 184,139
Delaware: 59,096
Maryland: 319,728

Total: 3,638,213

White male population 16 and over, 1790 Census

Virginia: 110,936
South Carolina: 35,576
New York: 83,815
Rhode Island: 16,056
Georgia: 13,103
Connecticut: 60,739
New Hampshire: 36,074
Pennsylvania: 110,559
Massachusetts: 95,433
North Carolina: 70,172
New Jersey: 45,251
Delaware: 11,783
Maryland: 55,915

Total: 745,412

Source

Now, only white men over 21 who owned property could vote in 1787, but let's be generous and include all white men 16 and over, since that's what we have data for.

That accounts for 20% of the whole population.

So, you have a Constitution, written by very few people, voted on by a minority of the people.

Explain to me why this is not TYRANNY?

(Originally posted here, but split into this thread)
 
That's it. You're on ignore. Shoulda done this long ago.

It's a pity that they can apply a filter that removes profanity, but can't put one in place to circumvent naked trolling.
 
Jocko said:
That's it. You're on ignore. Shoulda done this long ago.

It's a pity that they can apply a filter that removes profanity, but can't put one in place to circumvent naked trolling.
Click to expand...

Feel free to address the point, at your convenience.
 
Please stop feeding this dishonest woo-woo troll.

If you want to waste your time, spend a few weeks looking for instances where 1inClaus has backed up his many bizarre assertions with facts.

Handcuff injuries to 5 year old?

Remote medical diagnoses by Claus?

Killing sky marshalls?

Claus the IT expert?

Claus the legal expert?

Denmark with no state religion?

etc. etc. ad nauseum?


It will be as big a zero as engaging him in his anti-skeptic games.
 
Okay, I don't have you on ignore (I don't have anybody on ignore, so don't hurt your arm patting yourself on the back...), so let me see... The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language has five definitions for "tyranny", to wit:

1) A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power.
2) The office, authority, or jurisdiction of an absolute ruler.
3) Absolute power, especially when exercised unjustly or cruelly: “I have sworn... eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man” (Thomas Jefferson).
4) a) Use of absolute power.
b) A tyrannical act.
5) Extreme harshness or severity; rigor.

Which one of the above definitions comes closest to what you had in mind?
 
Jocko said:
That's it. You're on ignore. Shoulda done this long ago.

It's a pity that they can apply a filter that removes profanity, but can't put one in place to circumvent naked trolling.
Click to expand...


What a coward. ^^^


Anyways, to the point at hand. I don't think the US constitution is tyranny. It was instituted under certain factors that were a mix of oppression (slavery), old fashion attitudes (no woman vote, only land owners) and politics (certain concessions had to be made to keep the union together). These together don't constitute tyranny, and because of the constitution and the principles therein, we’ve corrected those ills.
 
CFLarsen said:
Feel free to address the point, at your convenience.
Click to expand...

So, you weren't trolling after all?

And here was I, prepared to tell Jocko that it is your particular form of humor.
 
Originally posted by CFLarsen So, you have a Constitution, written by very few people, voted on by a minority of the people.

Explain to me why this is not TYRANNY?
Click to expand...

It is by todays standards, but back in 1790 democracy of the land-owning white men was a vast improvement over monarchy.

Civilization advances in steps. Read the Magna Carta sometimes. All it promises is that the King must place you before a kangaroo court and get his appointed yes-man's approval before he murders you and steals your property, yet that was a vast improvement over the way it was before.

Historical figures must be judged by the standards of their time, not the standards of modern times. They change, you know.

Any other questions?
 
Oh, I'm just throwing some facts on the table there, and asking a question.
 
Re: Re: Isn't the US Constitution tyranny?

Mycroft said:
Historical figures must be judged by the standards of their time, not the standards of modern times. They change, you know.
Click to expand...

I think they should be judged on both.
 
Since CFL is asking us once more to prove a negative, I guess he'll ablige us with evidence that he's not a troll, at his earliest convenience.
 
Marquis de Carabas said:
Define what you mean by tyranny, since from checking out the definitions provided here, I don't see which applies.
Click to expand...

Again.

Before we proceed we must have your definition of ' tyranny '..



You might keep in mind that in the real world, ' everyone ' ; as in " Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." , doesn't really mean ' everyone.. It just means ' everyone that the writers of the document considered significant . '

There was an assumption about various groups of unentitled people. i.e. ... slaves, women, children, Native Americans & etc..


Naivete doesn't suit you Claus..



P.S.

A document doesn't ' tyranny ' make. The documemt in question, can be changed by due process. Due process hasn't seen fit to change it very much thus far.
 
BPSCG said:
Okay, I don't have you on ignore (I don't have anybody on ignore, so don't hurt your arm patting yourself on the back...), so let me see... The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language has five definitions for "tyranny", to wit:

1) A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power.
2) The office, authority, or jurisdiction of an absolute ruler.
3) Absolute power, especially when exercised unjustly or cruelly: “I have sworn... eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man” (Thomas Jefferson).
4) a) Use of absolute power.
b) A tyrannical act.
5) Extreme harshness or severity; rigor.

Which one of the above definitions comes closest to what you had in mind?
Click to expand...

As pointed out, Claus is trolling by demanding proof for a negative.

So since Dictionary.com defines 'Tyranny' as:

noun: a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.).

Claus is demanding that someone prove that presence of a constitution equals absence of a constitution.

In other words, the usual woo-woo trolling that keeps his post count up, and furthers the agenda of giving skepticism a bad name.
 
crimresearch said:
Please stop feeding this dishonest woo-woo troll.
Click to expand...

Yep, look at that. You can't even come up with an honest insult, and your behavior is like that of a dishonest, vilifying troll.

I think Claus' question is just a tad out of line historically, along with some of his numbers, and his definition of "tyranny".

I'm not sure why he took this tack, except perhaps to troll out the lunatic righties... He sure did that.
 
By today’s standards, you are correct. By 18th century standards the US constitution was a radically liberal document. Men actually getting to choose their own leaders! It was a totally ridiculous idea that could never work. Freedom of speech! Freedom of religion! Freedom from the government! I guess Jefferson and Washington were smoking that hemp they grew.

When it was created, the constitution was the greatest document for freedom at the time. My guess is that it still is. Over 200 years later, it is still the template for a country that now allows all citizens rights that were unheard of at the time. This is simply amazing.

At the time, virtually no one ever considered that woman might actual be comparable in intelligence and temperament to men. Blacks were an inferior race (or species according to some.)

Can you find a less tyrannical government at the time? Can you find a less tyrannical government in the next 50 years? I did not think so.

BTW, your including children in the population count is incredibly misleading. Would you allow my 1 year daughter to vote? I am sure she would loved to pull the levers.

CBL
 
Concur with BPSCG and crimresearch on this one (not responsible for any perturbations caused by the dearly departed rotating in their graves), but CFL is way out here.

Now, if he had changed the word "Tyranny" to "Oligarchy", he might have had an argument, for the "land of the Free" was founded with a fairly narrow definition on who exactly could vote for the benefits of that freedom--and those benefits were restricted for quite some time (black males could vote legally in national elections in the US 60+ years before women of any color were accorded the same privelege). And the Presidency was held for the first 35+ years by men from the original Colonies, while the population moved West (Jackson was the first elected from outside the original 13, IIRC).

So the limits of freedom were there; but certainly not tyranny in any sense of the word. And the way the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written allowed for the changes, allowed for the future, allowed for the fundamental fairness.

But it didn't come all at once. History take time.
 
Let me answer Claus' question for Shanek.

No, it is not tyranny, because it is exactly as the Founding Fathers (pbut) intended it. And they specifically said 'We The People' so they were backed by everyone and were forcing the constitution on no one, because that wouldn't be in line with their Libertarian principles.

Being forced by government to flush your toilet with no more than 1.6 gallons of water... THAT'S TYRANNY! (Note the caps...)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom