The United States

[CharleyH]

though i have areas of disagreement with 3113, she's smart and right on as far as the original thread topic. it's fairly complicated to discuss the origins of human morality. there's fascinating stuff connected with evolution, which we haven't touched on. let there be a thread, if people want it.

I am not sure I agree with you or 3113, so please do all you can to give to a good enough arguement. I do not see one.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I'm happy not to further debate 'strict construction.' I'm glad you agree there is a right to early abortion.

On another topic...

However, for the record, you stated that Jefferson abolished the property qualification for voting (federally? in his state, for state office? in every state, for their state offices?). Jefferson died in 1826, and his presidency did not extend past 1810.

Your statement is incorrect as regards lifting the property restriction in any of the various senses above, and makes no sense if you look at other countries' time lines, e.g., the UK. Sometime in the mid 19th century is the correct dating.

Directly confirming this is

http://www.historynow.org/09_2004/historian1b.html

[start quote]
The most significant political innovation of the early nineteenth century was the abolition of property qualifications for voting and officeholding. Hard times resulting from the panic of 1819 led many people to demand an end to property restrictions on voting and officeholding. In 1800, just three states (Kentucky, New Hampshire, and Vermont) had universal white manhood suffrage.

By 1830, ten states permitted white manhood suffrage without qualification. Eight states restricted the vote to taxpayers, and six imposed a property qualification for suffrage. In 1860, just five states limited suffrage to taxpayers and only two still imposed property qualifications. And after 1840, a number of states, mainly in the Midwest, allowed immigrants who intended to become citizens to vote.

Pressure for expansion of voting rights came from propertyless men; from territories eager to attract settlers; and from political parties seeking to broaden their base.

Ironically, the period that saw the advent of universal white manhood suffrage also saw new restrictions imposed on voting by African-Americans. Every new state that joined the Union after 1819 explicitly denied blacks the right to vote. In 1855, only five states -- Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont -- allowed African-Americans to vote without significant restrictions. In 1826, only sixteen black New Yorkers were qualified to vote.

The era of universal white manhood suffrage also saw other restrictions on voting. In New Jersey, the one state that had allowed women property holders to vote, women lost the right to vote. Twelve states forbade paupers from voting and two dozen states excluded felons. After 1830, interest in voting registration increased. There were also some attempts to impose literacy tests and prolonged residence requirements (ranging up to 21 years) in the 1850s.

[end quote]
===

Question Sev, Are the citizens of the US, the freest in the world?
(Back to the thread topic).

Actually, by the Jeffersonian Revolution, I meant the phenomenon that was pushed at the same time and in the same basic movement as Jefferson's rise to office. My understanding was that this happened a little earlier than 1819, but I could have been wrong on some dates. I'll have to double check.

In any case, it is certainly true that the gains for non-propertied white men coincided with losses for others. However, on balance, more people gained than lost.

Is America the freest? That's your other question. Well, that's debatable. We have freedoms that Europe doesn't have, and they have freedoms that we don't have. It's a matter of a trade-off, actually. I would love to have fewer restrictions on consensual crimes, as in Europe, but I would hate to forfeit my 2nd Amendment rights in the process. I would also hate to have restrictions on my speech, as seems common in Europe at times. Like I said, a trade-off. It's a matter of which matters more, or in my case, pure sentiment. I love my nationality and have no desire to change it.

 

[CharleyH]

Actually, by the Jeffersonian Revolution, I meant the phenomenon that was pushed at the same time and in the same basic movement as Jefferson's rise to office. My understanding was that this happened a little earlier than 1819, but I could have been wrong on some dates. I'll have to double check.

In any case, it is certainly true that the gains for non-propertied white men coincided with losses for others. However, on balance, more people gained than lost.

Is America the freest? That's your other question. Well, that's debatable. We have freedoms that Europe doesn't have, and they have freedoms that we don't have. It's a matter of a trade-off, actually. I would love to have fewer restrictions on consensual crimes, as in Europe, but I would hate to forfeit my 2nd Amendment rights in the process. I would also hate to have restrictions on my speech, as seems common in Europe at times. Like I said, a trade-off. It's a matter of which matters more, or in my case, pure sentiment. I love my nationality and have no desire to change it.

waiting for one. A good argument that is ...

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

waiting for one. A good argument that is ...

Regarding?

 

[Pure]

hi sev,
was just trying to get to the author's claim of america as the first moral society.

freedom, you say 'toss up.'

how about regarding [apparently] arbitrary arrest/detention (i.e., no details given, no evidence shown, no charges laid) how does the US stack up?

how about justice, for people within?

is the US foreign policy and conduct more moral than other nations'?

---
on property, we're not talking 1819, but apparently two states had a property qualification as late as 1860. interestingly, the property requirement was, afaik, just a common custom; it's NOT in the constitution; nor did it take constitutional reform to abolish it, generally.

also interesting is that the constitution as originally laid out did NOT place any barrier toward women voting.

it did take an amendment to get rid of the 'poll tax.'

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

hi sev,
was just trying to get to the author's claim of america as the first moral society.

freedom, you say 'toss up.'

how about regarding [apparently] arbitrary arrest/detention (i.e., no details given, no evidence shown, no charges laid) how does the US stack up?

how about justice, for people within?

is the US foreign policy and conduct more moral than other nations'?

---
on property, we're not talking 1819, but apparently two states had a property qualification as late as 1860. interestingly, the property requirement was, afaik, just a common custom; it's NOT in the constitution; nor did it take constitutional reform to abolish it, generally.

also interesting is that the constitution as originally laid out did NOT place any barrier toward women voting.

it did take an amendment to get rid of the 'poll tax.'

True, but I was referring to legality in general too.

As for the other things, well, a lot of it is more recent and more disturbing. However, I still prefer to work toward changing them (i.e. illegal detention, and so forth), rather than "voting with my feet". Nothing against your choice to do so. That's a personal preference.

The foreign policy doesn't please me too much of late, either. We've gone against the 2 decades of post-Vietnam military doctrine, and paid for it, like we did in 'Nam. An open-ended war is nothing but trouble.

 

[Pure]

note on the opening quote of this thread

the quote about 'the first moral society' is from Ayn Rand. apparently none of her followers--those around here at least-- have the cojones to defend or even elucidate her statement.