-
To me, this argument symbolizes the libertarian movement: arguing over the pomp and frills of a theoretical revolution.
-
" Patriarchy is not men being in charge due to greater strength. It's a conspiracy by men that are powerless with women, to create fictions and social sentiments that give them that power by mind control rather than personal physical might or instinctual desire induction. " So you believe that patriarchical societies are "mind controlled"
-
It is interesting to see how people side on this topic.
-
" The Confederation could not have turned the country into a direct democracy because individuals could not vote on national issues." I didn't say it was a direct democracy, I was just commenting on how close some state constitutions came to being direct democracies which would translate into the Articles in varying degrees. The philosophy
-
That's an interesting question and one that the Edling book actually answers. To be a statesmen in this period, one was expected not to have personal interest in the matters of government. Gordon Wood calles it "disinterestedness" and actually has a well written article on it though if you have one of his works about the revolutionary
-
You have to be more detailed in what you mean, I do not think it is possible to be "democratically centralist." It seems to me to be kind of like saying concentrated limitlessness. And the Articles of Confederation were a failure to certain people. It all depends on how you look at it.
-
" And if there wasn't really merit for the Confederacy's existence, why'd it get replaced by an even more centralized national government?" I think this is because there are certain political figures that wanted a more European style of government because they saw the articles as being too democratic and open to the populace. I
-
No I have not but it seems interesting.
-
If anyone cares to continue this discussion, I have read Max Elbing's A Revolution in Favor of Government . I have found the work to be very insightful and would recommend it to anyone interested in understanding the psychology of early American political figures. It certainly dispels this myth that the constitutional government we have today was
-
" My point is not that men don't historically dominate relationships with women." Is this a general comment or one that is aimed at a specific society? Because if it is general then you are absolutely wrong. Patriarchal societies are dominate throughout the historical span. Matriarchies are an extreme rarity.