Originally Posted by protonitron

You can have freedom in certain different areas. The number and significance of these areas can mean that overall you have more freedom.

Originally Posted by Ele

Yeah. It's mostly, or partly free. These non-binary scales are recognised by all the freedom indices.

Originally Posted by Ele

Because you're creating a system in which the will of a few decide the fate of all. You're creating an oligarchy - this is no different from the situation we have now. I started this thread asking for suggestions on how to fix the current situation, not replicate it. This is why I won't agree with you.

Originally Posted by Boredpayne

If someone is allowed to say more in one country, that country guarantees more freedom of speech.

Originally Posted by Boredpayne

Similarly, it is likewise unreasonable to deny that plumber the right to self-determination.

Originally Posted by Boredpayne

EDIT: Since you don't have an extensive expertise of political philosophy, every post you make rebuts your own argument, so that's kinda funny.

This is not a question of more freedom, but of less restriction.

Incorrect, under today's system I am entirely allowed to argue this position. Under the system I proposed experts would take over and could well create a better system.

Though I wonder why you would bring that up, as no one was saying otherwise...

An authoritative government is the way forward.

Originally Posted by Boredpayne

D'oh! Less restriction is more freedom.

Originally Posted by Boredpayne

Unfortunately you missed both the point being made and the irony.

Originally Posted by Boredpayne

lol

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

I don't think that's true.

Freedom is freedom, restrictions are restrictions.

No shit mate, I got the point and your attempt at irony.

Just because a government is authorative doesn't mean that the right to self-determination is violated.

No shit Ele. Are you making meaningless statements to try and get my to disagree? Do you expect me to say that "well actually it's possible and I'm sure people do it"?

You can't just go around pretending that things are they way you want them to be!

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

I disagree.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

An oligarchy based on relevant education is not the same as an oligarchy of professional politicians.

Originally Posted by Ele

Agree to disagree, then. Sick of arguing this point with you.

Originally Posted by Ele

Yes, it is. It's a system where power is in the hands of a few. It's an oligarchy. The only thing you're changing is who the few are. This is an irrefutable point.

Originally Posted by Ele

You can't just go around pretending that things are they way you want them to be!

Originally Posted by protonitron

As I mentioned earlier. You are using a different meaning of the word "free" to Ele.

Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare

You keep SAYING that, but you haven't provided any actual argument that backs it up.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

I guess you can't keep spamming argument from authorities all day long lol.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

Ok? It's a meaningless point, but you're right, it's irrefutable.

I thought you were trying to make some kind of meaningful argument before, but apparently you just wanted to express that not everyone will be in power...

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

I think you need to look up what an oligarchy is though, it's not merely having a small number of elected officials.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

Not that anyone ever said there would be a 'few' only.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

No shit Ele. Are you making meaningless statements to try and get my to disagree? Do you expect me to say that "well actually it's possible and I'm sure people do it"?

Why do you keep making random statements without any context or explaination? Do you even have a cohesive argument behind your posts or are you just posting whatever happens to come to mind?

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

You can't just go around pretending that things are they way you want them to be!

Originally Posted by Boredpayne

This is some pretty serious commitment to ignoring rationale in favor of arguing a triviality. It's kind of weird.

Originally Posted by Boredpayne

Then why are you pretending not to? That your proposed system bars laypeople such as yourself from proposing it for serious consideration in the first place is both ironic and undermining to its legitimacy.

Originally Posted by Boredpayne

An "authorative (sic) oligarchy," in your own words, is by definition violating of the principle of self-determination for the people.

Originally Posted by Boredpayne

lol

Originally Posted by Ele

Nope, just don't want to waste my time talking to a brick wall about it.

Originally Posted by Ele

My point is you're creating an oligarchy. I don't know how you don't recognise the obvious downsides of oligarchies. You must just be ignorant of them.

Originally Posted by Ele

You don't know what it means. I've said what it means. Power in the hands of a few. Once again you make up your own meanings, and then get all huffy about it. You see why people don't want to argue with you?

Originally Posted by Ele

Yes there is. Your experts are the few. As you've said before, the majority are too stupid to make decisions.

Originally Posted by Ele

lol

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

Care to explain?

I think your broad definition of oligarchy practically encompasses every modern government, so I'm curious as to why you think it's so bad.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

I just said that's not what it means and you need to look it up though.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

Would you say the US is an oligarchy?

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

Unless you have a direct democracy are you saying all governments are oligarchies?

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

I don't believe I put it like that, I think I said that issues are too complex for a general understanding to be sufficient.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

Your loose definition of what you mean by 'few' is causing problems. What do you consider to be a 'few'? 1-in-a-million? 1%? 49%?

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

u2 m8

Originally Posted by Ele

It's not a broad definition. It's the actual definition. Really, it is.

Originally Posted by Ele

Oligarchies are bad because they disconnect the will of the populace with the state. Instead of the population choosing how they want to live, a select group of people choose for them. The end result of oligarchies is, inevitably, as history tells us, populist rebellions. The oligarchs then either adjust the system so it more fits the peoples agenda, or they crush it and become totalitarian.

That's why oligarchies are bad, and that's the way we're headed now. It's the precise reason why I made this thread.

Originally Posted by Ele

Rather than my points being 'meaningless', perhaps you should actually think about them and realise they're not.

Originally Posted by Ele

Yeah. My point is that what I said is what it means. You're the one that needs to look it up. Tell me what you think an oligarchy is and I'll tell you why you're wrong. I know you're wrong because I know what it actually is and I've said it 10 times.

Originally Posted by Ele

I've said as much in this thread. Don't you ever read?

Originally Posted by Ele

Most representative governments are oligarchies. Very few countries have a system where the power is with the people. A lot of people have woken up to this and a lot more are starting to wake up. I'm not saying direct democracy is the only way - I'm saying it's an alternative that gives people more power.

Originally Posted by Ele

Semantics.

Originally Posted by Ele

It's not numerical. The 'few' is a group of people that have power over everyone else. I would've thought you'd have known this from your nuanced understanding of oligarchies.

Originally Posted by Ele

Just pointing out that you're a hypocrite, m8.

Originally Posted by Boredpayne

You want me to explain to you how a system of government that does not represent the will of the people is a violation of the people's right to self-government? Damn dude pass me the bong, that stuff must be good.