View Poll Results: Republican vs. Democracy Voting

Voters
23. You may not vote on this poll
  • Republican

    9 39.13%
  • Democracy

    9 39.13%
  • Other (Explain)

    5 21.74%
Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 120

Thread: Republican vs. Democracy Voting

  1. #81
    Professor
    The_Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    02-06-12 @ 06:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,488

    Re: Republican vs. Democracy Voting

    Quote Originally Posted by marduc View Post
    Whre did this "real" property concept come from? that was not a part of your attempted condo equivocation and you are now tryng to redefine the terms after the fact.. you said property ownership, not "real" property.

    and since your equivocation revolved around wanting to make this point clear:


    and override these sentences that launched the thread where you presented a variation of the term land owner not once, but (3) times



    It would have behooved you to actually specify "real" property.

    it would have not only clarified your revised position, it would have made my joining in on the equivocation game a bit harder.

    So your revised revised position is now "real" property holders.. gotcha, We have already established quite a few reasons why that is flawed and we have wasted a few posts on your attempts to redefine your position, and are back where we left off with you holding a very leaky bucket.
    Land and buildings, like homes and condos, are classified under law as being real property in reference to real estate, which is non-moveable. Owning real estate is being a property owner and is a commonly accepted useage of the term property owner by such organizations as the government and the media. It doesn't take a lot to figure out exactly what I meant when I referenced property owners. Thus, no equivocation on my part in your little silly game.

  2. #82
    Professor
    The_Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    02-06-12 @ 06:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,488

    Re: Republican vs. Democracy Voting

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    No, it's a plutocracy. You are basing achievement on a very narrow set of standards, mostly that adhere to monetary gains. Historically, property owners have been the wealthy. There are plenty of ways to contribute to society, to add to society, and to achieve... most of which have zero to do with property or money. Your position does not reward achievement. It rewards ownership and monetary gain. That is why it is a plutocracy, something that always leads to tyranny. You are proposing a tyrannical system.
    Yet, history proves you wrong since under a republican system the country was freer and the people could do what they wanted with the gains of their industry as they saw fit. While under a democracy we have fallen into a tyranny of the majority. Under the current democracy system, acheivers and those that make wealth are punished for the simple act of succeeding which makes this a mobracy. Under the republican system it is a meritocracy since anyone can acheive anything they wanted to and are not penalized for succeeding. In the republican system there are both wealthy and poor property owners and history is replete with examples of this being the case. If you want an example of a poor land owner I give you none other Thomas Jefferson. He was poor and his estate had huge debts to pay when he died. His creditors did not come after him while he was alive out of respect for his contribution to the independence of the United States. He earned his positions in life on his own merit and acheived great things when he was alive. However, he was a poor land owner.

  3. #83
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,692

    Re: Republican vs. Democracy Voting

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Patriot View Post
    Yet, history proves you wrong since under a republican system the country was freer and the people could do what they wanted with the gains of their industry as they saw fit. While under a democracy we have fallen into a tyranny of the majority. Under the current democracy system, acheivers and those that make wealth are punished for the simple act of succeeding which makes this a mobracy. Under the republican system it is a meritocracy since anyone can acheive anything they wanted to and are not penalized for succeeding. In the republican system there are both wealthy and poor property owners and history is replete with examples of this being the case. If you want an example of a poor land owner I give you none other Thomas Jefferson. He was poor and his estate had huge debts to pay when he died. His creditors did not come after him while he was alive out of respect for his contribution to the independence of the United States. He earned his positions in life on his own merit and acheived great things when he was alive. However, he was a poor land owner.
    You are talking about a completely different time in history. Today, if someone has huge debts, no creditor is going to "not come after than out of respect". If they did, they lose their land. Today, there is far more freedom, to contribute, to achieve, or to be. You equate achievement with being a landowner. This is the basic flaw in your argument. People who do not own land can be just as successful, contributory, and achieve things as those who do. Perhaps then, this was not the case, but today, we have far more freedom of choice of where and how to live, and to achieve, anyway. This is why your system is NOT a meritocracy, but a plutocracy. It does NOT reward merit; it rewards wealth, land, and a specific tyrannical choice. Merit is based on many things.

    By the way, here is evidence that you are NOT talking about a meritocracy, but something else. From wikipedia:

    Meritocracy is a system of a aristocratic or oligarchical government or other organization wherein appointments are made and responsibilities assigned to individuals based upon demonstrated intelligence and ability (merit), evaluated using (frequent) institutionalised examination.

    This is opposed to other value systems, where reward and legitimacy is based upon possession of wealth (plutocracy), origin (aristocracy), family connections (oligarchy), property, friendship (cronyism), technical expertise (technocracy), seniority (gerontocracy), popularity (representative democracy), or other historical determinants of social position and political power.
    Read the first paragraph. Nothing about property. In fact, in the second paragraph, it defines a value system based on property as being OPPOSED to a meritocracy. That and a plutocracy meet your system's definition, best. You are talking about a tyrannical government. A meritocracy is NOT based on property ownership.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  4. #84
    Professor
    The_Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    02-06-12 @ 06:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,488

    Re: Republican vs. Democracy Voting

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    You are talking about a completely different time in history. Today, if someone has huge debts, no creditor is going to "not come after than out of respect". If they did, they lose their land. Today, there is far more freedom, to contribute, to achieve, or to be. You equate achievement with being a landowner. This is the basic flaw in your argument. People who do not own land can be just as successful, contributory, and achieve things as those who do. Perhaps then, this was not the case, but today, we have far more freedom of choice of where and how to live, and to achieve, anyway. This is why your system is NOT a meritocracy, but a plutocracy. It does NOT reward merit; it rewards wealth, land, and a specific tyrannical choice. Merit is based on many things.
    It is up to the creditor to not pursue or to pursue a debt. It is up to the company. I provided an example of a poor property owner that acheived great things under the republican system. If you are saying that requiring to have proper licenses and identification issued by the government is being more freer then you would be correct, but you aren't. Not everyone can contribute because we are not a meritocracy, but a mobracy/plutocracy that is a corporatist system. If by having a Bachelor's degree to drive a garbage truck an example of being an achievement then I feel sorry for you thinking that. I am referencing the American Dream, which has always been the ownership of land. You earn it through your hard work and your merits. This is why the system I stated is historically known as a meritocracy. If you have a problem with this classification then take it up with the historians and the political scientists as well as the founding fathers themselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    By the way, here is evidence that you are NOT talking about a meritocracy, but something else. From wikipedia:

    Read the first paragraph. Nothing about property. In fact, in the second paragraph, it defines a value system based on property as being OPPOSED to a meritocracy. That and a plutocracy meet your system's definition, best. You are talking about a tyrannical government. A meritocracy is NOT based on property ownership.
    I'll disregard Wikipedia since anyone can edit it and there isn't a scholarly review of it. I presented up the definition from a scholarly reviewed source which definitively states what is a meritocracy.

    One does not need a vast sum of wealth to own property. Yes, it does require some wealth to get, but then not everyone is barred from advancing themselves to owning it as they would under a plutocracy. For a plutocracy see England since that is what a plutocracy is. You also have no concept of what a tyranny is when you state that currently there is more freedom than there was under a meritocracy. The government was rarely involved in a person's life prior to 1916 and most definitely when we were still a republican system. Are you free when the government is involved in every single aspect of your life?

  5. #85
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,692

    Re: Republican vs. Democracy Voting

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Patriot View Post
    It is up to the creditor to not pursue or to pursue a debt. It is up to the company. I provided an example of a poor property owner that acheived great things under the republican system. If you are saying that requiring to have proper licenses and identification issued by the government is being more freer then you would be correct, but you aren't. Not everyone can contribute because we are not a meritocracy, but a mobracy/plutocracy that is a corporatist system. If by having a Bachelor's degree to drive a garbage truck an example of being an achievement then I feel sorry for you thinking that. I am referencing the American Dream, which has always been the ownership of land. You earn it through your hard work and your merits. This is why the system I stated is historically known as a meritocracy. If you have a problem with this classification then take it up with the historians and the political scientists as well as the founding fathers themselves.
    Again, you are basing your perception of achievement on both a very narrow view... and on a position from 1790, one that no longer applies. You fail to understand that, today is not 1790. Society has changed, significantly. Achievement and success are individual perceptions and cannot be quantified. You are dictating what they mean and demanding what merit equals. This is not freedom, but tyranny. When you do this you eliminate choice, and you qualify what "achievement" equals in the image of certain folks. It's a system based on controls. It is also not a system based on achievement, but based on the accumulation of property. You keep failing to understand that merit is not the static term that you claim it is. This, along with you not recognizing that society is far different today than it was in 1790 are the main flaws to your position. It's tyrannical.



    I'll disregard Wikipedia since anyone can edit it and there isn't a scholarly review of it. I presented up the definition from a scholarly reviewed source which definitively states what is a meritocracy.
    From the American Heritage Dictionary Online:
    mer·i·toc·ra·cy (měr'ĭ-tŏk'rə-sē)
    n. pl. mer·i·toc·ra·cies
    A system in which advancement is based on individual ability or achievement.

    A group of leaders or officeholders selected on the basis of individual ability or achievement.

    Leadership by such a group.

    mer'it·o·crat' (-ĭ-tə-krāt') n. , mer'it·o·crat'ic adj.
    The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
    Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
    Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
    Nothing about land ownership. You are completely wrong, as prove by your own source. Further, this supports MY contention that achievement is less quantifiable than you are stating in this kind of political system. Your vision is not a meritocracy... as defined by YOUR OWN SOURCE. Your system is either a plutocracy or something else... but regardless of what it is, it's tyrannical.

    Also, so you know, the term "meritocracy" originated in 1958 by Michael Dunlop Young in his book "Rise of Meritocracy". The founders knew nothing of this concept and their idea of land ownership equates to voting rights had nothing to do with it. Therefore, based on your own source, you have been lying about the definition. Not good to do.



    One does not need a vast sum of wealth to own property. Yes, it does require some wealth to get, but then not everyone is barred from advancing themselves to owning it as they would under a plutocracy. For a plutocracy see England since that is what a plutocracy is. You also have no concept of what a tyranny is when you state that currently there is more freedom than there was under a meritocracy. The government was rarely involved in a person's life prior to 1916 and most definitely when we were still a republican system. Are you free when the government is involved in every single aspect of your life?
    Society is far more complicated than it was prior to 1916. One has vastly different freedoms today than one did then. More? Less? Because of the difference, any comparison is silly. But what you are talking about, as we have established by your own source, is NOT a meritocracy. You are creating apartheid. That is tyrannical.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  6. #86
    Professor
    The_Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    02-06-12 @ 06:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,488

    Re: Republican vs. Democracy Voting

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Again, you are basing your perception of achievement on both a very narrow view... and on a position from 1790, one that no longer applies. You fail to understand that, today is not 1790. Society has changed, significantly. Achievement and success are individual perceptions and cannot be quantified. You are dictating what they mean and demanding what merit equals. This is not freedom, but tyranny. When you do this you eliminate choice, and you qualify what "achievement" equals in the image of certain folks. It's a system based on controls. It is also not a system based on achievement, but based on the accumulation of property. You keep failing to understand that merit is not the static term that you claim it is. This, along with you not recognizing that society is far different today than it was in 1790 are the main flaws to your position. It's tyrannical.
    Is not owning property an achievement? Yes, it is. Thus, it is based off the merits of one's ability to advance themself. Society has changed to where the government is intruding from your bedroom to what you can do outside in public. That is tyranny. Our entire way of life is all about the accumulation of property and material possessions since we are a commercialized society. Thus, my statements are true. You have no concept of what a tyranny is.

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    From the American Heritage Dictionary Online:


    Nothing about land ownership. You are completely wrong, as prove by your own source. Further, this supports MY contention that achievement is less quantifiable than you are stating in this kind of political system. Your vision is not a meritocracy... as defined by YOUR OWN SOURCE. Your system is either a plutocracy or something else... but regardless of what it is, it's tyrannical.
    Advancement can be through the acquisition of property, both real and personal. Thus it is upon your merit alone. Again, stating that it is a tyranny when historical fact refutes you is laughable at best.

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Also, so you know, the term "meritocracy" originated in 1958 by Michael Dunlop Young in his book "Rise of Meritocracy". The founders knew nothing of this concept and their idea of land ownership equates to voting rights had nothing to do with it. Therefore, based on your own source, you have been lying about the definition. Not good to do.
    The term may not have been invented until 1958, but the founding fathers believed in it. They called it 'natural aristocracy'. I'll cite Thomas Jefferson's letter to John Adams dated October 28, 1813. Meritocracy was alive and well as an idea in the time of the founding fathers.

    The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature, for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society. And indeed, it would have been inconsistent in creation to have formed man for the social state, and not to have provided virtue and wisdom enough to manage the concerns of the society. May we not even say, that that form of government is the best, which provides the most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi into the offices of government? The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provision should be made to prevent its ascendency. I think the best remedy is exactly that provided by all our constitutions, to leave to the citizens the free election and separation of the aristoi from the pseudo-aristoi [pseudoaristocrats], of the wheat from the chaff. In general they will elect the really good and wise. In some instances, wealth may corrupt, and birth blind them, but not in sufficient degree to endanger the society.

    At the first session of our legislature after the Declaration of Independence, we passed a law abolishing entails [limitations on the inheritance of property to a specified succession of heirs]. And this was followed by one abolishing the privilege of primogeniture [the eldest child?s exclusive right of inheritance], and dividing the lands of intestates equally among all their children, or other representatives. These laws, drawn by myself, laid the ax to the foot of pseudoaristocracy.
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Society is far more complicated than it was prior to 1916. One has vastly different freedoms today than one did then. More? Less? Because of the difference, any comparison is silly. But what you are talking about, as we have established by your own source, is NOT a meritocracy. You are creating apartheid. That is tyrannical.
    Society is far more complicated due to the intrusion of the government in every day life. One had greater freedoms back then due to the lack of government intrusion. You are for the enslavement of a certain class of people to do the bidding of the majority. Historically speaking, under the republican system guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States, there was tyranny in the form of slavery being accepted, but beyond that it wasn't a tyranny due to the lack of government intrusion. As I stated before, you have no idea on what is really freedom and what is tyranny. When you have large groups of immigrants from communist countries coming here and stating that the government here is being tyrannical you should pay attention to what they are saying. Having a gilded cage doesn't mean you are free. It just means that you have a prettier cell to view the world from.
    Last edited by The_Patriot; 07-12-10 at 06:22 AM.

  7. #87
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,692

    Re: Republican vs. Democracy Voting

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Patriot View Post
    Is not owning property an achievement? Yes, it is. Thus, it is based off the merits of one's ability to advance themself. Society has changed to where the government is intruding from your bedroom to what you can do outside in public. That is tyranny. Our entire way of life is all about the accumulation of property and material possessions since we are a commercialized society. Thus, my statements are true. You have no concept of what a tyranny is.
    Owning property is ONE achievement. It is not THE achievement. When you define achievement is a solitary way, and base a system on it, you are being tyrannical and are restricting choice. You do not know what tyranny is, mostly because you have cornered yourself and refuse to admit it,



    Advancement can be through the acquisition of property, both real and personal. Thus it is upon your merit alone. Again, stating that it is a tyranny when historical fact refutes you is laughable at best.
    Your own source refutes and disproves your position on what a meritocracy is and what achievement is defined by. This is called self-pwnage. Now, you can "bob and weave" all you like, but you have been proven wrong. What you are proposing is NOT a meritocracy, by the very definition you cited. I'm sure you didn't think I'd go and find it. You thought wrong.



    The term may not have been invented until 1958, but the founding fathers believed in it. They called it 'natural aristocracy'. I'll cite Thomas Jefferson's letter to John Adams dated October 28, 1813. Meritocracy was alive and well as an idea in the time of the founding fathers.
    Do you actually read what you post? Adams is professing that the aristocracy should rule. He stated "In some instances, wealth may corrupt, and birth blind them, but not in sufficient degree to endanger the society." He is stating that the wealthy will tend to choose the best people. He is professing an plutocracy, NOT a meritocracy. I've read a bit about Adams, and he always felt this way. You just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper.

    Society is far more complicated due to the intrusion of the government in every day life. One had greater freedoms back then due to the lack of government intrusion. You are for the enslavement of a certain class of people to do the bidding of the majority. Historically speaking, under the republican system guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States, there was tyranny in the form of slavery being accepted, but beyond that it wasn't a tyranny due to the lack of government intrusion. As I stated before, you have no idea on what is really freedom and what is tyranny. When you have large groups of immigrants from communist countries coming here and stating that the government here is being tyrannical you should pay attention to what they are saying. Having a gilded cage means you are free. It just means that you have a prettier cell to view the world from.
    You have no idea of freedom and tyranny in context. Government regulation is key in a modern society. Your perception that if we leave everyone alone, everything will be fine is a fantasy, and does not take into consideration basic human psychology. Beyond not understanding your own terms, your position is not based in reality. Freedom does not mean doing what you want, simply because you do not live in a vacuum.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  8. #88
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Republican vs. Democracy Voting

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Patriot View Post
    You know who got us our freedom from Great Britain? It was the wealthy land owners like James Madison and Patrick Henry. It wasn't the bottom feeders of their day that got us our freedom.
    Completely untrue. I doubt the rag-tag revolutionary army was fully composed it the wealthy.

  9. #89
    Cheese
    Aunt Spiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sasnakra
    Last Seen
    09-10-16 @ 06:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,433

    Re: Republican vs. Democracy Voting

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Patriot View Post
    You know who got us our freedom from Great Britain? It was the wealthy land owners like James Madison and Patrick Henry. It wasn't the bottom feeders of their day that got us our freedom.
    *giggles*
    Oh, Patrick! good ole fear mongering Patrick who didn't even want our Constitution to be Ratified.
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

  10. #90
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Last Seen
    01-19-12 @ 03:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    358

    Re: Republican vs. Democracy Voting

    I'm a supporter that only those who actually pay for the government should be the ones that have say in the government. Those who do not pay still get the protection of the government as a US citizen. But they do not get to help choose what 'protections' the government provides if they are not the ones paying for it.

Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •