Miscellaneous > Not at the Dinner Table

Government

<< < (2/4) > >>

Suffix:
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?

Vidgmchtr:
I honestly don't care as long as I can do what I'm able to do right now.

Chupperson Weird:
I thought we had a republic here.

Lizard Dude:
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.

Derfasciti:

--- Quote from: Suffix on September 29, 2006, 10:59:02 PM ---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?

--- End quote ---


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.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page