gnarlylove
Senior Member
If you ask me, self determination is freedom. The amount of stuff you're able to get ahold of is a separate concept.
The agenda was not hidden. Madison wrote:
"Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability."
Statement (1787-06-26) as quoted in Notes of the Secret Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787 by Robert Yates.
Elsewhere Madison is quoted saying "power must be in the hands of the wealth of the nation, the more responsible set of men. "
Not a very hidden agenda but I wouldn't expect any American to have studied their own history or government.
The problem with your theory is that in those days a majority of Americans were land holders. There weren't a lot of large cities over populated with ticks on the ass of society. Madison considered owning land a sign that you were responsible enough to vote.
And now we have partly recognized how stupid the idea of "not being responsible enough to vote" means in a Democracy. In a true-to-form Democracy economic standing cannot have influence in the vote. If policy decisions are made that influence your life, whether you are homeless or not you must be able to vote in a genuine Democracy. Not only to vote but to make an informed vote so that the Democracy, like it does in Germany, provides money to small platforms who get 5% of the vote or more.
But I don't know where you got the idea that I believe "in those days a majority of Americans were land holders." Can you explain where you picked them from? Because I know I didn't say that but I'd be curious to see why you think so.
Your term "self determined" is meaningless. Your belief that everyone has to have a multi-million dollar inheritance to be "self determined" would make any form of the concept impossible, wouldn't it?
Despite most people not having what you call "the resource to survive," Many Americans become wealthy and some even become billionaires. That kind of blows your theory that it can't be done out of the water.
First it wasn't my term. Please don't butt in on conversations you have no interest in following.
Second, you have a really bad habit of drawing up strawmen. I never claimed people have rights to inheritance. So blowing your own strawman out of the water is pretty funny to watch but please stop drawing ideas from your bank of "stupid things I believe liberals would say" since nothing you've accused me of has had any grounding in the posts I've made but in some lunatic leftist you have in your head.