• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

How statist do you think the womens' suffrage movment was?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
Objective lesson time. There are no objective rights. None. Nothing of the sort is written in spacetime. What we do have is a social species who tend towards selfishness and are highly aggressive. The natural consequence is that people will take your stuff and possibly kill you. That got old and the smarter ones figured that being killed sucked and nothing got done. So they made some rules with consequences. That was the first government. More complicated situations required more complex rules. Eventually someone had to have the last word and that would have been an alpha male. Now w have many people working towards one goal with a leader, and that was to beat up other people and take their stuff. Eventually some of these leaders thought themselves so good that they convinced others to work for them and beat the shit out of those who didn't listen and obey. That was the first police force. Now once in a while things sucked so bad people ran off/killed/ate the old leader and they got another bastard. I mean people who had to look over their shoulder constantly must have had some incentive. Thats called power. You can get stuff for the asking. That's taxation. With that you can pay people to beat other people up in distant lands and take their stuff. You can even take their people and have them do the nasty stuff. Thats called slavery. Have you noticed "rights" hasn't appeared? That came in when enough people have the finger to the leader with enough force behind it that they would eat yet another king if he didn't play ball. Someone said "Shit, what happens if we forget this stuff? We had better write this down. These were legal protections and when they were around long enough people felt naturally entitled so they became rights. Why not? Now we have back up a bit. Remember this is an aggressive primate species who "wins" by taking your stuff. That's hard to do when there are those higher up on the food chain. Those people however are protected and so good that they have learned how to convince people to do what they want. These are politicians. Politicians form groups to help them convince people that they want to be ruled by their pod. These are political parties. In the US we have I've just two that have any real control. They say you can have one from column R or D. This is Democracy. If you go along with the establishment they will let you some things. That's freedom. Rights? They exist as long as you are a good boy or girl. Otherwise you learn the realities Power and they lock you up and take your stuff.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,649
0
76
www.facebook.com
The correlation is interesting, but we should all know by now that correlation does not equal causation.
That's true. There is no denying the correlation, however. That said, my point still stands that most of the women's suffrage movement was statist and many people who were against it were extreme States' Rights Democrats (i.e., libertarians).
 

Capt Caveman

Lifer
Jan 30, 2005
34,553
650
126
There were other ways for women to get rights and I never said I wanted slavery and inequality, but bad things came with this movement
Please explain how women and minorities could gain equal rights without laws to protect them? It didn't exist before.
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
Please explain how women and minorities could gain equal rights without laws to protect them? It didn't exist before.

There is the constitution which gives everyone their rights, Im not against the laws but more the increasing size of government and taxes along with affirmative action programs
 

Capt Caveman

Lifer
Jan 30, 2005
34,553
650
126
There is the constitution which gives everyone their rights, Im not against the laws but more the increasing size of government and taxes along with affirmative action programs
Huh? How did the Constitution stop slavery and women suffrage? Heck, the writers of the Constitution owned slaves themselves and didn't consider women equals.
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
Huh? How did the Constitution stop slavery and women suffrage? Heck, the writers of the Constitution owned slaves themselves and didn't consider women equals.
The writers opposed slavery though, the constitution guarantees everyone their freedom but the government didn't obey the constitution just like there doing it now. Anyways the whole suffrage movement lead to an increase in the size of government
 

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,940
5
81
The writers opposed slavery though, the constitution guarantees everyone their freedom but the government didn't obey the constitution just like there doing it now. Anyways the whole suffrage movement lead to an increase in the size of government
The writers of the Constitution were split regarding the issue of slavery and compromised to allow its continuation. Slavery was not prohibited until the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment.

My condolences that your instruction in American history was no more successful than your instruction in basic grammar or reasoning.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
61,615
14,610
136
Is the whole point of this thread that the OP, in addition to being too lazy to find gainful employment, is also too lazy to vote?
 

Doppel

Lifer
Feb 5, 2011
13,313
2
0
Has anybody ever noticed that anarchist in his first post of a thread throws out a complex, if ridiculous argument, but in later responses just very short little things? It's because his first post is a summary of a web page he found somewhere; one he didn't write himself and thus cannot really defend the thesis he presents on another's behalf.
 

momeNt

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2011
9,299
350
126
Has anybody ever noticed that anarchist in his first post of a thread throws out a complex, if ridiculous argument, but in later responses just very short little things? It's because his first post is a summary of a web page he found somewhere; one he didn't write himself and thus cannot really defend the thesis he presents on another's behalf.
Anything to keep the wool over your eyes. He also has never had a job, lives in his parent's basement, wishes he never would have to work because of a deflationary environment that would allow him to liquidate his parent's assets for increasing gains. Supports Ron Paul. Ample supply of ad hominems to keep your sheeple status.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY