Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare
You keep SAYING that, but you haven't provided any actual argument that backs it up.
Please read my shit again. I believe I mentioned freedom indices as examples as to why freedom isn't a binary. They examine whichever area of freedom within countries and then apply to them non-binary labels.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
I guess you can't keep spamming argument from authorities all day long lol.
Nope, just don't want to waste my time talking to a brick wall about it.
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...
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 ImmortalPig
I think you need to look up what an oligarchy is though, it's not merely having a small number of elected officials.
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 ImmortalPig
Not that anyone ever said there would be a 'few' only.
Yes there is. Your experts are the few. As you've said before, the majority are too stupid to make decisions.
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!
lol
Guys, I know you think quoting me (even if out of context) automatically makes you win the argument, but come on!
u2 m8
As I explained, your joke was funny, but it's a joke none the less. Reread my post.
Care to explain you think it violates the principle?
u2 m8
u2 m8
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.
I just said that's not what it means and you need to look it up though.
Would you say the US is an oligarchy? The UN? etc
Unless you have a direct democracy are you saying all governments are oligarchies?
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. If everyone was to be an expert on everything, I would be happy to include them in the pools of people eligible for the positions. But that isn't true, and it's not productive to have everyone work in the government.
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%?
I'm not sure if you are being deliberately vague to make it easier to defend your position or you are trying in earnest but forget to actually explain yourself. Typically an oligarchy would have a handful of people, not hundreds or thousands although both of the later would be less than 0.001% of the US's population - definitely a 'few' comparatively.
u2 m8
Originally Posted by Boredpayne
This is some pretty serious commitment to ignoring rationale in favor of arguing a triviality. It's kind of weird.
u2 m8
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.
As I explained, your joke was funny, but it's a joke none the less. Reread my post.
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.
Care to explain you think it violates the principle?
Originally Posted by Boredpayne
lol
u2 m8
Originally Posted by Ele
Nope, just don't want to waste my time talking to a brick wall about it.
u2 m8
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.
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 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?
I just said that's not what it means and you need to look it up though.
Would you say the US is an oligarchy? The UN? etc
Unless you have a direct democracy are you saying all governments are oligarchies?
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.
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. If everyone was to be an expert on everything, I would be happy to include them in the pools of people eligible for the positions. But that isn't true, and it's not productive to have everyone work in the government.
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%?
I'm not sure if you are being deliberately vague to make it easier to defend your position or you are trying in earnest but forget to actually explain yourself. Typically an oligarchy would have a handful of people, not hundreds or thousands although both of the later would be less than 0.001% of the US's population - definitely a 'few' comparatively.
Originally Posted by Ele
lol
u2 m8
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
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.
It's not a broad definition. It's the actual definition. Really, it is.
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. Rather than my points being 'meaningless', perhaps you should actually think about them and realise they're not.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
I just said that's not what it means and you need to look it up though.
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 ImmortalPig
Would you say the US is an oligarchy?
I've said as much in this thread. Don't you ever read?
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
Unless you have a direct democracy are you saying all governments are oligarchies?
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 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.
Semantics.
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%?
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 ImmortalPig
u2 m8
Just pointing out that you're a hypocrite, m8.
Originally Posted by Ele
It's not a broad definition. It's the actual definition. Really, it is.
Usually you wouldn't say that a republic or representative democracy are oligarchies... Your definition is so broad that it encompasses every government in existence.
You don't think that is a problem?
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.
I don't think it's inevitable.
What do you propose instead? Direct democracy is the only government immune to rebellion?
Originally Posted by Ele
Rather than my points being 'meaningless', perhaps you should actually think about them and realise they're not.
I shouldn't have to spoonfeed you to get you to express your argument.
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.
"Power in the hands of a few." is too broad. The group of people who have power needs to be a closed group for one thing. You can't have an oligarchy where anyone can walk in and join.
For example a while back people were saying USA is an oligarchy. How can this be true? How is this different to how it's always been? If the only qualifier is to have the power in the hands of a few, then USA should have always been an oligarchy.
Originally Posted by Ele
I've said as much in this thread. Don't you ever read?
You didn't, but I can see where you might have tried to express it but didn't. You said my idea was no less oligarchic than the current situation, which coupled with your belief that the world exists in shades of grey, doesn't really tell me much!
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.
Is there any other alternatives?
How will a direct democracy be more resistant to 'oligarch-ification' than a representative democracy?
Originally Posted by Ele
Semantics.
Is a maths professor stupid because he doesn't understand quantum physics?
It's not 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.
I'm asking how you qualify 'few' and you just reply that the 'few' are the ones with the power? How is this productive!
What do you consider a 'few'? Is it any minority? Can it be a majority? Can a representative democracy with 1 representative per 2 population still be an oligarchy?
Originally Posted by Ele
Just pointing out that you're a hypocrite, m8.
Nothing hypocritical about it 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.
Do you have an argument or not? So much rhetoric!
There's nothing about requiring a certain level of certification to enter government that violates the right to self-government.
It should be obvious that they can pursue it simply by acquiring certification!
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
Usually you wouldn't say that a republic or representative democracy are oligarchies... Your definition is so broad that it encompasses every government in existence.
You don't think that is a problem?
I think it's a huge problem. Which is why I created this thread.
Democracies are meant to be for the people (etymologically, it's Greek for 'rule by the people'). Democracy has been corrupted. It's no longer for the people - it's for a group who aren't for the people. They're oligarchies.
And again (how many times do I have to repeat myself), it's not my definition of oligarchy. It's the definition. I don't make the rules.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
What do you propose instead? Direct democracy is the only government immune to rebellion?
I'm repeating myself again. I said, explicitly, that direct democracy wasn't the only solution.
Any measures that deal with corruption, in terms of campaign finance and lobbying, would go a long way to solving the problem. One idea I've heard, that I like, is jacking up public funding to match whichever candidate raises the most amount of money. Why would Politician A bother to seek money from them when Politician B could just sit on his backside and get the money from the public? This solution doesn't impinge on the idea of 'corporations as people' and their subsequent 'free speech', it just levels the playing field so their 'free speech' doesn't drown out everyone elses.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
I shouldn't have to spoonfeed you to get you to express your argument.
I shouldn't have to spoonfeed you to get you to comprehend my expertly expressed arguments. :P
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
For example a while back people were saying USA is an oligarchy. How can this be true? How is this different to how it's always been? If the only qualifier is to have the power in the hands of a few, then USA should have always been an oligarchy.
I'll refer to the point I made above about corruption. Originally, representative govts. were all cool. They lived up to their namesake and actually represented the will of the people. Over time, and as ideas like 'corporate personhood' developed, the will of the people became gradually overshadowed by the will of them. 100 years ago, this would be less the case. 100 years before that, even less so. Corruption builds on itself, gradually, over generations.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
I'm asking how you qualify 'few' and you just reply that the 'few' are the ones with the power? How is this productive!
You've skipped over a few words I wrote. "The 'few' is a group of people that have power over everyone else". I bolded and italised it this time so you can't miss it. The 'few' is, by definition, not the majority. The 'few' is a group of people that wield extremly disproportionate power over the majority of people. Such is the current situation. Such is your 'authoritative' solution.
Look Pig, just accept that your solution is oligarchic and let's move on with the rest of the discussion.
