Hyerdahl3 wrote:
> >Subject: Re: In a perfect world...
> >From: rdubose{at}pdq.net
> >Date: 1/8/2005 8:21 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: 
> >
> >By the time of the American revolution, the government of G.
Brittain was a
> constitutional parlaimentary system based on a fairly wide electoral
base. The
> role of the King was secondary to parliment. In
> >fact, the system finally settled upon in America with our
constitution in 1789
> was no more democratic than the system in GB at the time.
>
> The balance of powers as created by our Constitution was more
democratic from
> it's concept.

One could argue that giving a non-elected body (the supreme court)
and a semi-elected official (the President) absolute veto power over
the popularly elected House of Representatives is anti-democratic. I
think it is a good idea, but it is indeed anti-democratic.



>
> We did>not have a king getting in the way but no larger percentage of
> the>population could vote than in GB.
>
> Property owners in both countries were accorded more rights than
non-property
> owners.  AND, in England, women could not always inherit property,
thus could
> not have voted.

Women have always had the right to own as much property as they
could defend with their own arms.
Oh? You wanted someone to defend it for you? That is a different
matter./




>
> And the office of President was more
> powerful than that of a British PM and presidents were not at first
meant to be
> elected by popular vote.
>
> Again, rich land owners were in charge, sort of like corporations,
today.  :-)
>
> >I do not bring this up to be contentious but to underline the point
that the
> extension of the right to vote and own property were gradually
extended things
> and were never, ever given away.
>
> You can't really "give away" what you don't own, and as more and more
people
> understood their rights, more and more people demanded them, from
non-property
> owners, and women to freed slaves.
>
> Different categories>of men had to earn these rights.
>
> Not so.  Rich white men, from the get-go took


All people have always had the "right" to exert themselves in
politics and the economy. Not everyone has been able to provide a
reason why they should get help doing so.


that which did belong to them as
> well as that which did not.  Sending poor folks off to fight your
wars doesn't
> seem to prove up 'earning'.
>
> Merely existing and breathing air were
> >never taken seriously as a basis for having political rights, even
in>the few
> places that were trying to perfect and extend democratic>ideals.
>
> Stealing rights was a well-known practice of elite white males, dear,
and still
> is in corporate power.

I get the feeling that you would give voting rights to illegal
aliens. They breathe the air here too, afterall.


> >So when feminists get all angry about having no vote in the
past,>they are
> merely revealing the depth of their sense of entitlement vs>men.
> >
> No, women are simply more aware today that a group of elite white men
stole
> what never belonged to them.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 1/29/05 1:41:09 AM ---