In the 1790s about 80% of adult white males could vote. This rose to roughly 100% by the end of Andrew Jackson's term.
"A more careful examination of the same sources made earlier by Robert
Dinkin calculated that by the end of the 1780s the qualified electorate
in the thirteen states probably fell in the range from about 60 to 90
percent of adult white males, with most states toward the upper end.
When some of his figures for individual states have been slightly adjusted
to conform to revised figures given above, his tabulation places six states
at around 90 percent (New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, North
Carolina, and Georgia), and three states above 80 percent (Massachusetts,
Delaware, and South Carolina); Rhode Island, Connecticut, and
Maryland stand between 65 and 70 percent, followed by Virginia and
New York at about 60 percent, or just below. Revised or not, Dinkin’s
survey suggests that, across the nation as a whole, about 80 percent of
adult white males were eligible to vote in the late 1780s." http://jer.pennpress.org/media...
Furthermore most of the new states admitted before 1820 had universal white, male sufferage.
By the 1820s tax paying (or being a member of the state militia) began to replace landholding in those states that did not have universal suffrage - example Massachusetts, NY and Maine.
Which one to fear? You mean as far as "fearing" I should care between one totalitarian system which will throw me into a gulag for not following the party rule and another which will do the same?
Socialism, a collectivist ideology in which the "state" owns the means of production and distributes work and profit as it sees fit.
Communism, same as Socialism except one is not able to own anything. The debates between socialists and communists are like the medieval arguments between Franciscans and Dominicans: "are we, as followers of Christ allowed to own an extra pair of shoes"
Both Socialists and Communists despise individualism and individual liberty. It makes their arguments in favor of "democracy" laughable.
Roughly 90% + of the US (the world) was rural before modern industrial farming started in the mid-19thC. According to the US census 5.4 of the US population was urban in 1790. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
First of all urban centers were not large in the modern sense. You couldn't supply the food nor take out the waste. Urban areas were much smaller. NYC, for example, had about 60,000 people in 1800.
Secondly, there weren't any states with numerous cities.
Finally, don't argue about things when you don't know what you're talking about. It would be better to do a little research first and see if your hypothesis played out. Take a look at the link I put in. Absorb the information there and rethink your statement.
If you're a US citizen, and graduated high school, then you should sue your school system for not having taught you the basics of the US Constitution.
If you're not a US citizen then:
There were huge debates at the Constitutional Convention at how best to deal with unequal sized states. (For example large states such as France and Germany in the EU and small states such as Luxembourg and Cyprus.) The solution was to give Electoral Votes close to the size of the state population and then make it a winner take all scenario for each state. The purpose for this was to prevent a candidate from racking up the votes in a large state and thus swamping, and making irrelevant, the wishes of the small state.
Imagine you lived in a union where you joined for common defense; had a common currency, open borders internally, and no internal tariffs - but just about everything else left to the states. Imagine there were huge social and economic differences between these states in which there was little to no common ground.
In the 1780s the main point of contentions were slavery and agriculture v merchant trading policies.
Today we have other issues.
This is why the electoral system helps keep peace. A large part of our current discord comes from trying to make a multi-cultural, continent-wide country have one-size fits all laws. That doesn't work - and it surely doesn't work when it's unequally enforced.
Here's an example we have the crazy scenario where it's close to illegal for one person to transport his legally owned firearms to another (and zero exception for people who make an honest mistake in how they transport these items). Furthermore a resident of a state (say NY) can't buy, own, and keep a firearm in another state. WTF is this? A law that prevents you from legal actions elsewhere. This is like a state making drugs illegal in its state and preventing its citizens from using drugs in another.
The electoral system is there to prevent the large states from stomping on the small states. If not for the electoral college and separation of powers there cannot be a stable union. Take a look at the collapse of the EU.
I have read MANY, MANY articles - from standard sites to EFF articles and the devil is in the fukin details.
Case in point - Are you opposed to the deplatforming going on by Facebook, Twitter, etc... and what will the government do differently. Is it then a first amendment issue? I haven't heard detailed explanations about this. Have you?
Does this mean that companies cannot deplatform websites and people?
Does it mean that companies must treat all data as the same? (So data from an email and a netflix video must be treated the same?
Does it mean that companies cannot come to agreements with content providers? After all if TMobile give free data access to Netflix it is promoting that company above Hulu.
UN Declaration of Rights is not followed, nor needs to be followed by countries. Secondly, reading through the UN Declaration of Rights shows how little the drafters of the UN declaration understood the concept of rights.
I see your point. The ideal is that we reach one of the infinite points in the middle.
I personally don't see global warming being much of a problem as we are inexorably on the path away from carbon-based fuels. Photovoltaics have dropped to the point where they are competitive with fossil fuels and the price is continuing to drop at an exponential rate. We getting very close to the point where fossil fuels will not be needed for electric production (and that production will cover personal transportation).
IF global warming is as bad as some activists are saying then we have already passed the point of no return; frozen methane in the oceans will be released into the atmosphere and there is nothing we can do about it. Therefore, in my opinion, we need a technological solution to this ecological problem, The alternative is to simply stop breeding and bring the population of the earth to under a billion people.
Now, if that's the case. A lot of people will have to die. We can't help them for the good of the planet. etc.. (I despise that particular solution.)
Wow. You use free-market ideology when it suits you and disparage it when it doesn't.
When you say that companies must serve the public (bakers, woolworth, etc...) then do it for all companies.
I know I won't convince you. It's sad that you think deplatforming people for disagreement is acceptable. Bruce Jenner won the decathlon in 1976. Oooh. According to some fools I'm "dead" naming. Look at the fools at google - they have Caitlin Jenner as the winner of the 1976 decathlon. I think this is foolsihness of the first order. And for that I can be deplatformed from Twitter.
The American Cultural Revolution is at peak stupidity. Watch the coming fights between the feminist and lesbian communities and the transgender community over what constitutes a woman.
A generation ago when the journals had to be printed and distributed then of course there had to be a hefty fee. But now, it should be placed on the web. The submitters do the research and the work writing the article (and they're not paid); reviewers aren't paid; submitters do the formatting (so there is no cost there).
The cost is almost entirely website access and data storage .
I'm not for giveaways to corporations but many landlords give "breaks" to entice new customers.
Let's look at what NYC was giving away - 3 billion dollars
What were they gaining- 20,000 jobs averaging 125,000 / year.
The total amount of new income in the city would be 20,000 x 125,000 = 2.5 billion (per year)
NYC would charge 3% income tax on this income which is 75,000,000 per year.
So. Just talking about income tax it would take the city 33 years to break even.
That's not good.
But the state also collects over 6 percent. So that brings it down to 11 years. (It's not truly even as that tax money goes to the state but the state funds a lot of NYC projects so it does count some.)
And finally - those people making 120K plus will be paying sales tax (8.875%) on all purchases except for food and rent. If they buy a condo they pay tax and transfer fees. And their increased spending will mean other jobs, and other income taxes that the city could collect.
So yeah. There's a good case to be made for spending 3 billion in order to get the Amazon jobs.
This is exactly correct. There is no ethical downside to this. (At the current level of tech). It will almost be a "cyborg" vehicle - drone (with human control) + automated action.
Can we extrapolate this to the future where a dictator can control his own people with no fear of his armed forces deserting him? Yes. Absolutely. But this piece of tech is not that. Not even close.
Financially - of course it affects Israel and Israeli companies. But the issue is less the money than the debate over the legitimacy of the state. If Israel has done wrong (and you can list a series of events) then so has Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, Iraq, Iran... and the list goes on. Hey, how about China.
I don't think Israel's list of crimes surpasses these other countries. And Israel has the same right to exist as all the rest of the countries in the world.
Going back to talking strictly on the economic end - BDS isn't going to accomplish anything of note. The hit on GDP is in the west is minor at best since exports and trade between the EU and Israel has been rising steadily over the past 20 years. Same with the US.
Of course Divesting and Boycotting in protest IS A RIGHT.
And so to is buying from a company (or country) because you agree with them.
Your BDS is failing miserably. In a couple years China will be a bigger trading partner with Israel than Europe. Not too long after that the rest of Asia (especially India, Sourth Korea and Japan) will also be a larger than the European market.
Whatever you think of Israel the Palestinians keep shooting themselves in the foot. And BDS isn't going to help them.
The pecker checker law as you put it makes sense to me - and unironically many feminists and lesbian activists. The don't want a chick with a dick in their bathroom. It makes them feel uncomfortable.
As for muslim ban? Really? Indonesia, India and Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nigeria, the five largest muslim countries weren't on the list. So it was a Muslim ban only in the minds of zealots.
As a secondary matter - not allowing foreigners into your country is not an individual rights issues for citizens of that country.
Re gerrymandering the Dems are as bad as the Reps. This has been a problem since the country began. The easiest solution would be to have fixed sized "puzzle" pieces to fit together. This way towns and neighborhoods can be all in one (or at most two) CDs. Take a look at NY CDs, California CD, Maryland CDs to see that the Dems play the exact same game. As a matter of fact both sides are playing by the rules as they exist. You want to change that? Good. So do I. But saying that the Reps are bad but the Dems are good is foolish.
Now you're correct the Republican party is awful when it come to individual rights - but they, unlike the Democratic party, (and in this I'm talking about the rank and file) are pro-free speech. Democratic activists are pissing on free speech. Just look at the riots over Milo and Ben Shapiro and the hohums coming from the Dems. Look at the deplatforming going on youtube, twitter, patreon - who's leading the charge?
Slashdot Mirror
I have no idea what you just said but it sounds impressive.
In the 1790s about 80% of adult white males could vote. This rose to roughly 100% by the end of Andrew Jackson's term.
"A more careful examination of the same sources made earlier by Robert
Dinkin calculated that by the end of the 1780s the qualified electorate
in the thirteen states probably fell in the range from about 60 to 90
percent of adult white males, with most states toward the upper end.
When some of his figures for individual states have been slightly adjusted
to conform to revised figures given above, his tabulation places six states
at around 90 percent (New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, North
Carolina, and Georgia), and three states above 80 percent (Massachusetts,
Delaware, and South Carolina); Rhode Island, Connecticut, and
Maryland stand between 65 and 70 percent, followed by Virginia and
New York at about 60 percent, or just below. Revised or not, Dinkin’s
survey suggests that, across the nation as a whole, about 80 percent of
adult white males were eligible to vote in the late 1780s."
http://jer.pennpress.org/media...
Furthermore most of the new states admitted before 1820 had universal white, male sufferage. By the 1820s tax paying (or being a member of the state militia) began to replace landholding in those states that did not have universal suffrage - example Massachusetts, NY and Maine.
Which one to fear? You mean as far as "fearing" I should care between one totalitarian system which will throw me into a gulag for not following the party rule and another which will do the same?
Socialism, a collectivist ideology in which the "state" owns the means of production and distributes work and profit as it sees fit.
Communism, same as Socialism except one is not able to own anything. The debates between socialists and communists are like the medieval arguments between Franciscans and Dominicans: "are we, as followers of Christ allowed to own an extra pair of shoes"
Both Socialists and Communists despise individualism and individual liberty. It makes their arguments in favor of "democracy" laughable.
Absolutely not. And, it's false on it's face.
Roughly 90% + of the US (the world) was rural before modern industrial farming started in the mid-19thC. According to the US census 5.4 of the US population was urban in 1790. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
First of all urban centers were not large in the modern sense. You couldn't supply the food nor take out the waste. Urban areas were much smaller. NYC, for example, had about 60,000 people in 1800.
Secondly, there weren't any states with numerous cities.
Finally, don't argue about things when you don't know what you're talking about. It would be better to do a little research first and see if your hypothesis played out. Take a look at the link I put in. Absorb the information there and rethink your statement.
If you're a US citizen, and graduated high school, then you should sue your school system for not having taught you the basics of the US Constitution.
If you're not a US citizen then:
There were huge debates at the Constitutional Convention at how best to deal with unequal sized states. (For example large states such as France and Germany in the EU and small states such as Luxembourg and Cyprus.) The solution was to give Electoral Votes close to the size of the state population and then make it a winner take all scenario for each state. The purpose for this was to prevent a candidate from racking up the votes in a large state and thus swamping, and making irrelevant, the wishes of the small state.
Imagine you lived in a union where you joined for common defense; had a common currency, open borders internally, and no internal tariffs - but just about everything else left to the states. Imagine there were huge social and economic differences between these states in which there was little to no common ground.
In the 1780s the main point of contentions were slavery and agriculture v merchant trading policies.
Today we have other issues.
This is why the electoral system helps keep peace. A large part of our current discord comes from trying to make a multi-cultural, continent-wide country have one-size fits all laws. That doesn't work - and it surely doesn't work when it's unequally enforced.
Here's an example we have the crazy scenario where it's close to illegal for one person to transport his legally owned firearms to another (and zero exception for people who make an honest mistake in how they transport these items). Furthermore a resident of a state (say NY) can't buy, own, and keep a firearm in another state. WTF is this? A law that prevents you from legal actions elsewhere. This is like a state making drugs illegal in its state and preventing its citizens from using drugs in another.
The electoral system is there to prevent the large states from stomping on the small states. If not for the electoral college and separation of powers there cannot be a stable union. Take a look at the collapse of the EU.
I have read MANY, MANY articles - from standard sites to EFF articles and the devil is in the fukin details.
Case in point - Are you opposed to the deplatforming going on by Facebook, Twitter, etc... and what will the government do differently. Is it then a first amendment issue? I haven't heard detailed explanations about this. Have you?
Serious Question.
I still don't understand Net Neutrality.
Does this mean that companies cannot deplatform websites and people?
Does it mean that companies must treat all data as the same? (So data from an email and a netflix video must be treated the same?
Does it mean that companies cannot come to agreements with content providers? After all if TMobile give free data access to Netflix it is promoting that company above Hulu.
Either that or we have non-carbon based energy sources - example PV electricity which is already cost-competitive with carbon-based sources.
UN Declaration of Rights is not followed, nor needs to be followed by countries. Secondly, reading through the UN Declaration of Rights shows how little the drafters of the UN declaration understood the concept of rights.
I see your point. The ideal is that we reach one of the infinite points in the middle.
.. (I despise that particular solution.)
I personally don't see global warming being much of a problem as we are inexorably on the path away from carbon-based fuels. Photovoltaics have dropped to the point where they are competitive with fossil fuels and the price is continuing to drop at an exponential rate. We getting very close to the point where fossil fuels will not be needed for electric production (and that production will cover personal transportation).
IF global warming is as bad as some activists are saying then we have already passed the point of no return; frozen methane in the oceans will be released into the atmosphere and there is nothing we can do about it. Therefore, in my opinion, we need a technological solution to this ecological problem, The alternative is to simply stop breeding and bring the population of the earth to under a billion people.
Now, if that's the case. A lot of people will have to die. We can't help them for the good of the planet. etc
The jump is that will not be able to calibrate this perfectly. Or there may be political / military reasons to do so.
Forget the military reasoning - let's look at the two scenarios:
sea level rising 4 inches (10 cm) or a comparably rapidly advancing ice age?
Which would be worse? Which would be tougher to deal with?
Wow. You use free-market ideology when it suits you and disparage it when it doesn't.
When you say that companies must serve the public (bakers, woolworth, etc...) then do it for all companies.
I know I won't convince you. It's sad that you think deplatforming people for disagreement is acceptable. Bruce Jenner won the decathlon in 1976. Oooh. According to some fools I'm "dead" naming. Look at the fools at google - they have Caitlin Jenner as the winner of the 1976 decathlon. I think this is foolsihness of the first order. And for that I can be deplatformed from Twitter.
The American Cultural Revolution is at peak stupidity. Watch the coming fights between the feminist and lesbian communities and the transgender community over what constitutes a woman.
It's coming here right now. Just look at the deplatforming being done by Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, Patreon.
I would say that a small fee should allow you to access all articles, in all journals, that are in electronic format.
I miss not being able to read the journals (yes, I'm a geek).
These journals should be available to all.
A generation ago when the journals had to be printed and distributed then of course there had to be a hefty fee. But now, it should be placed on the web. The submitters do the research and the work writing the article (and they're not paid); reviewers aren't paid; submitters do the formatting (so there is no cost there).
The cost is almost entirely website access and data storage .
I'm not for giveaways to corporations but many landlords give "breaks" to entice new customers.
Let's look at what NYC was giving away - 3 billion dollars
What were they gaining- 20,000 jobs averaging 125,000 / year.
The total amount of new income in the city would be 20,000 x 125,000 = 2.5 billion (per year)
NYC would charge 3% income tax on this income which is 75,000,000 per year.
So. Just talking about income tax it would take the city 33 years to break even.
That's not good.
But the state also collects over 6 percent. So that brings it down to 11 years. (It's not truly even as that tax money goes to the state but the state funds a lot of NYC projects so it does count some.)
And finally - those people making 120K plus will be paying sales tax (8.875%) on all purchases except for food and rent. If they buy a condo they pay tax and transfer fees. And their increased spending will mean other jobs, and other income taxes that the city could collect.
So yeah. There's a good case to be made for spending 3 billion in order to get the Amazon jobs.
Oh yeah. How about Ice Ages from hell. (Hmmm. that didn't work out so well ... ice and ... hell)
Ok. Redo - how about Ice Ages from Niflheim. (If you're into Norse Mythology and all that. )
And yeah. I had to look it up. I can't remember things I can't pronounce.
LOL. Have to read that story.
This is exactly correct. There is no ethical downside to this. (At the current level of tech). It will almost be a "cyborg" vehicle - drone (with human control) + automated action.
Can we extrapolate this to the future where a dictator can control his own people with no fear of his armed forces deserting him? Yes. Absolutely. But this piece of tech is not that. Not even close.
Why is sending people to Mars "without conscience?"
If people, who know the risk, chose to go then what's the problem? They WANT to go.
Financially - of course it affects Israel and Israeli companies. But the issue is less the money than the debate over the legitimacy of the state. If Israel has done wrong (and you can list a series of events) then so has Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, Iraq, Iran ... and the list goes on. Hey, how about China.
I don't think Israel's list of crimes surpasses these other countries. And Israel has the same right to exist as all the rest of the countries in the world.
Going back to talking strictly on the economic end - BDS isn't going to accomplish anything of note. The hit on GDP is in the west is minor at best since exports and trade between the EU and Israel has been rising steadily over the past 20 years. Same with the US.
There is something worse than the concentration of capital - it's the concentration of political power.
Nah, he's trolling.
He's pretending (whether to himself or not, I don't know) that young earthers are a large percentage of the population.
And, he's probably implying that those who have problems with evolution are also young earthers. So, not true.
Of course Divesting and Boycotting in protest IS A RIGHT.
And so to is buying from a company (or country) because you agree with them.
Your BDS is failing miserably. In a couple years China will be a bigger trading partner with Israel than Europe. Not too long after that the rest of Asia (especially India, Sourth Korea and Japan) will also be a larger than the European market.
Whatever you think of Israel the Palestinians keep shooting themselves in the foot. And BDS isn't going to help them.
The pecker checker law as you put it makes sense to me - and unironically many feminists and lesbian activists. The don't want a chick with a dick in their bathroom. It makes them feel uncomfortable.
As for muslim ban? Really? Indonesia, India and Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nigeria, the five largest muslim countries weren't on the list. So it was a Muslim ban only in the minds of zealots.
As a secondary matter - not allowing foreigners into your country is not an individual rights issues for citizens of that country.
Re gerrymandering the Dems are as bad as the Reps. This has been a problem since the country began. The easiest solution would be to have fixed sized "puzzle" pieces to fit together. This way towns and neighborhoods can be all in one (or at most two) CDs. Take a look at NY CDs, California CD, Maryland CDs to see that the Dems play the exact same game. As a matter of fact both sides are playing by the rules as they exist. You want to change that? Good. So do I. But saying that the Reps are bad but the Dems are good is foolish.
Now you're correct the Republican party is awful when it come to individual rights - but they, unlike the Democratic party, (and in this I'm talking about the rank and file) are pro-free speech. Democratic activists are pissing on free speech. Just look at the riots over Milo and Ben Shapiro and the hohums coming from the Dems. Look at the deplatforming going on youtube, twitter, patreon - who's leading the charge?