Slavery is a bit of a stretch. There were many restrictions on who was able to vote when slavery was legal in the US. (Most obviously, slaves couldn't vote, but women and many white men were also unable to.)
It is not a stretch at all, The fact that "There were many restrictions" has no bearing on the conversation.
You are simply grasping at straws to defend the "golden standard" for Authoritarian Government... democracy. where all unethical actions can be justified as long as the "majority" agrees
As you can tell I am no fan of democracy, and believe people that refuse to acknowledge massive ethical problems with democracy treat it almost like a religion, replacing the traditional Omnipotent God with "will of the majority"
I suggest you look up the etymology of "democracy" and open a few history books - any that have been written in the English language, at any time - if you think that's a stretch.
Universal suffrage is a separate concept, and it's not necessary that a government have it in order to be considered a democracy. It's certainly how we all (one hopes) think a democracy ought to work, but that's a separate issue.
I'm just going by the definition of democracy that you can find in a dictionary. The modern usage of the word has little to do with the ancient Athenian system of government (which also excluded large swathes of the population).
> I'm just going by the definition of democracy that you can find in a dictionary.
No, you're not, unless dictionaries have started specifying what percentage of the population should have the right to vote in order to qualify as a "democracy." Though if you use the right dictionary you can look at the etymology and note that the word "democracy" existed well before the concept you are talking about, universal suffrage, existed.
> The modern usage of the word has little to do with
Government, and other human institutions, evolve. It's important to know their history, if for no other reason so you can avoid having boring conversations like this one.
Also, note how ridiculous your use of the term "modern usage" is here. The United States has had women's suffrage less than a hundred years. Narrowing your definition of democracy to the extent that you do in the name of "modern usage" requires us to regard 1919 as not modern... so that's another word that you will have to redefine.
> Athenian system of government (which also excluded large swathes of the population).
>No, you're not, unless dictionaries have started specifying what percentage of the population should have the right to vote in order to qualify as a "democracy."
Everyone agrees that there's some requirement. A country of 1 million where 1 person has the vote isn't a democracy. You're right that a dictionary isn't the place to look to find out where to draw the line, but the line certainly has to be drawn somewhere. I'd say most people would agree that a society where people are systematically disenfranchised based on race, property and gender is not democratic.
>It's important to know their history, if for no other reason so you can avoid having boring conversations like this one.
I do know the history, despite your suggestions to the contrary -- which to be honest are a bit patronizing.
>Also, note how ridiculous your use of the term "modern usage" is here.
I mean the usage of the word today, which is what's relevant. Perhaps I should have said 'present usage'. (I have to say though, I think it is quite common to contrast the 'modern' usage of a word with its differing usage decades earlier, even if this isn't strictly consistent with a historian's usage of the word 'modern'.)
You are simply grasping at straws to defend the "golden standard" for Authoritarian Government... democracy. where all unethical actions can be justified as long as the "majority" agrees
As you can tell I am no fan of democracy, and believe people that refuse to acknowledge massive ethical problems with democracy treat it almost like a religion, replacing the traditional Omnipotent God with "will of the majority"