Fungi Forums
Miscellaneous => General Chat => Not at the Dinner Table => Topic started by: PaperLuigi on September 29, 2006, 09:04:22 PM
-
(No, this is not topic about what you think of our government.)
I'm in an AP History class, I need your help. With our powers combined.............we can all cast a vote on which government America really needed back in the 1700's.
I need votes people, and I need them now. I've been assigned to Theocracy, and I'm trying to figure out if that type of government is appealing to the people. With your voting powers in hand, vote on "which one of these whould have been best for America after the first revolution?"
For those who don't know which is which, here's a def.
(Everyone can help out. This is a project, you know.)
Monarchy: A King or Queen rules the people. (EX: England)
Republic: People elect delegates to represent them. (ex: America.)
Democracy: The people rule. They make all the decisions for themselves by vote (EX: Greece)
Dictatorship: One guy rules all, with complete control over the military. (EX: Soviet Union)
Theocracy: The Church rules, and makes decisions based on what God tells them (EX: Puritian America)
Anarchy: No one rules. Everyone is out for themselves. (EX: Small isolated areas in Africa, S. America, ect.)
-
Being the horrible history-class person I am, I voted for Democracy because that's what I learned was good, way back in second grade. I remember this song we sung and one line involved living in a democracy.
How can you take accelerated history? How is it faster if it already happened?
-
I'm not sure I understand your question. It's probabley simple, and in the front of my face, but I'm slow tonight
-
His question is a joke.
-
Communism!! XP
Democracy.
-
Back in the 1700s, most people were all for Democracy. You know why?
People went over to the Americas to escape the oppressive and controlling church (no Theocracy), the oppressive and controlling king and company (no Monarchy or Dictatorship), and were looking to be able to control their own lives and live them to their fullest. Being weary of authority makes Democracy the only logical choice. If the general public had not wanted control, why else would a democracy/republic have been created?
-
I honestly don't care as long as I can do what I'm able to do right now.
-
I thought we had a republic here.
-
Under democracy, do you mean ancient Greece? Because right now they're a "presidential parliamentary republic" in their own constitution.
We have representative democracy, which by the definitions in the first post is a republic.
-
Back in the 1700s, people were all for Democracy. You know why?
People went over to the Americas to escape the oppressive and controlling church (no Theocracy), the oppressive and controlling king (no Monarchy or Dictatorship), and were looking to be able to control their own lives and live them to their fullest. Being weary of authority makes Democracy the only logical choice. If the general public had not wanted control, why else would a democracy have been created?
Heh that's funny, Because we don't have a democracy at all. It's a republic.
Also, there was something called Loyalists during the Insurrection. Hmmm... I wonder who they were loyal to?
Most people early on in the rebellion, regardless of general outlook, all drank toasts to King George and always thought of themselves of either dissenting or loyal Britons of some sort or another. It was only a bit way through the war that something of a general idea of independence was taken up. In no way was this "people were all for Democracy" or anything like that. Those that were rebelling generally wanted an adress to their grievances, not a change in government. That crap that every colonial was a hardcore "patriot" (in reality the patriots should have been the loyalists) is just not true at all. In reality, the revolutionary war was really our first Civil War.
Nor was the king a repressive dictator. There was, and is, a thing called Parliament in England. Much like our American congress, it held the real power. This monarch/parliament fight was settled in the English Civil War about a century before the insurrection. The king had some definite power, and he could get what he wanted sometimes, but he was no tyrant. His trying to reclaim the colonies was nothing different then the North's reclaimation of the South during the Civil War.
Even after the war there was a sizeable minority that wanted a king to sit on the throne of the newly independent thirteen colonies.
Forgive the rant but people should really know what they're talking about beforehand.
As for the question: Either you or your history teacher made a goof. You've forgotten a couple major government types. socialism, communism, fascism all have their place. (and no they're all not stereotypical shoot everyone who disagrees dictatorships we hear so much about... at least in hoped theory) Nor does the king/queen rule England now. They are nothing but figureheads as are most if not all monarchs nowadays.
As for my opinion: there is no better government in the world than an Enlightened Dictatorship. (that of Napoleon or Frederick the Great) the problem is keeping that dictatorship from decaying into degradation through the coming generations.
-
*sigh* It's amazing how I can create a topic explaining something and everyone does something totally different.
Derfasciti, I'm gonna be nice since your new, but I gave you choices. Those are the only choices you can pick. No communism. No socilaism. Just those. Please, read the first post. This is not a topic about explaining government.
-
I remember reading about different goverments early this year.
I think that after the revolution, a goverment of democracy would have been nice. Not just one person ruling over and veto'ing something if they don't like it.
-
Under democracy, do you mean ancient Greece? Because right now they're a "presidential parliamentary republic" in their own constitution.
We have representative democracy, which by the definitions in the first post is a republic.
Yes, ancient Greece. Many of my examples were based on different times, including the British monarchy.
-
Anarchy.
-
Anarchy.
*kills superstarMASIAH and steals all his worldly goods*
This is awesome!
-
I don't think anything will ever workout just right for everyone to tell you the truth, in any kind of government.
-
I don't think anything will ever workout just right for everyone to tell you the truth, in any kind of government.
Yep. So long as people disagree about moral/political issues, which is going to happen, one type of government for everyone cannot possibly be efficient at all, ever.
I'd advocate a re-distributing of "countries" based on political beliefs (people of similar belief systems could "live" where their governmental beliefs were upheld), but that would be a supreme logistical nightmare and totally impractical.
-
And also the countries would destroy each other, with countries of warmongering imperialists attacking everyone and certain others defending while others just got taken over (pacifist countries).
-
Or it may be possible that an entire country composed of warmongering imperialists would destroy itself with civil war.