In the eighteenth century, that was a pejorative term, something to be avoided at all costs, lest the rabble get into power.

In the colonies, and after the revolution, the franchise was severely limited, not only were the original inabitants of the land denied the vote, as were the slaves, and women. But men who were not freeholders (own property) were not allowed to vote either. And the vote was further diluted by the system of electors, that ensured many offices were not decided by the vote of the people, but by the 18th century equivalent of smoke-filled rooms, dominated, of course, by the landed gentry and the influential merchants in the towns. I guess that's a world you'd love to see come back, eh TB?

I say this not as a criticism, those were considered Liberal, even Radical ideas two hundred plus years ago, but I do think we have progressed just a bit since then, don't you think?

Depend upon it, Sir, it is dangerous to open so fruitful a source of controversy and altercation as would be opened by attempting to alter the qualifications of voters; there will be no end to it. New claims will arise; women will demand the vote; lads from 12 to 21 will think their rights not enough attended to; and every man who has not a farthing, will demand an equal voice with any other, in all acts of state. It tends to confound and destroy all distinctions, and prostrate all ranks to one common level.

John Adams, 1776

Just think, TB. If we followed the ideas of the founders today, I would be eligible to vote, and you wouldn't. My mortgage is paid off, I actually own my property.

So please don't lecture me about freedom and tyranny, I'm old and smart enough to have my own ideas about the subject.