I would argue it’s the same country and the same people. Capitalism was the guiding principle then it is the same now.
Why else would you not have universal suffrage, don’t banish slavery, not conduct genocide, other than to concentrate power in hands of few while continuing exploitation of everyone.
Back then they were building the system for ‘the betterment of all’, hence what you mentioned. Now they’re exploiting the system for personal gain, or to secure what they’ve already grifted, hence what you have today.
How can giving voting rights to only land owning elites be for the ‘betterment of all’? How is disenfranchising the majority for the ‘betterment of all’? Even if we don’t count the slaves, how is not giving voting rights to women and poor for the ‘betterment of all’'? How is it any different from what is happening today, where people’s voting rights are being taken away other than the reasons? It was people wouldn’t know what’s better for them, now it is fake votes.
One could argue that as a fledgeling country early politicians did need the support of the rich slave owners. But it didn’t take 76 years to build the country. Secondly how it is different than politicians doing the dirty work for the corporate for their election today?
There is no way one could spin up a fantasy where genocide of indigenous people was for the ‘betterment of all’.
Maybe back then people could have a good faith discussion without having to decide if the other person was a supporter of genocide. Like I said, different world, different people.
Please don’t misunderstand I never meant you were supporting genocide. What I meant was the framers had in their mind genocide when the constitution was made.
George Washington was a prospector and his motivation, in part if not whole, was the British restriction against surveying and annexing Indian lands.
It’s not the same country. They’re not the same people.
I would argue it’s the same country and the same people. Capitalism was the guiding principle then it is the same now.
Why else would you not have universal suffrage, don’t banish slavery, not conduct genocide, other than to concentrate power in hands of few while continuing exploitation of everyone.
Back then they were building the system for ‘the betterment of all’, hence what you mentioned. Now they’re exploiting the system for personal gain, or to secure what they’ve already grifted, hence what you have today.
How can giving voting rights to only land owning elites be for the ‘betterment of all’? How is disenfranchising the majority for the ‘betterment of all’? Even if we don’t count the slaves, how is not giving voting rights to women and poor for the ‘betterment of all’'? How is it any different from what is happening today, where people’s voting rights are being taken away other than the reasons? It was people wouldn’t know what’s better for them, now it is fake votes.
One could argue that as a fledgeling country early politicians did need the support of the rich slave owners. But it didn’t take 76 years to build the country. Secondly how it is different than politicians doing the dirty work for the corporate for their election today?
There is no way one could spin up a fantasy where genocide of indigenous people was for the ‘betterment of all’.
Maybe back then people could have a good faith discussion without having to decide if the other person was a supporter of genocide. Like I said, different world, different people.
Please don’t misunderstand I never meant you were supporting genocide. What I meant was the framers had in their mind genocide when the constitution was made.
George Washington was a prospector and his motivation, in part if not whole, was the British restriction against surveying and annexing Indian lands.