Originally Posted by Ele
Why not, indeed?
Seems like a simpler solution than having complete reforms.
Originally Posted by Ele
The very reason it's 'disproportionate' is because there is a natural 'portion' that every citizen holds. It refers to both the power, and the proportion of people. You can't have disproportionate power without having inequity in numbers. They hold extremely more power than they should given their numbers. Disproportionate. Don't make me try to reduce this any further, it's very clear.
I don't agree that having less people means they have more power, but let's just go with that for now.
So all you want is more people to be part of decision making, that's simple enough.
Originally Posted by Ele
Corruption takes the power away from the people (by putting it in the hands of them) which distorts representative governance. Remove corruption, remove the distortion. With the distortition removed, representative democracy is restored and the power is back in the hands of the people.
Well that's not quite correct, it's in the hands of the elected representatives. Even without corruption you can't expect people to act in the interest of the aggregate of people who voted. There are still many factors that divorce the desires of the people from the actions of representatives.
And besides that, there's still the same amount of people in power, we haven't really changed the fact that a few have disproportionate power. Even if there is absolutely no corruption, the senate/president/etc is still a small group that holds power of a huge population.
Originally Posted by Ele
No, I said an aristocracy is an example of an oligarchy. Which it is. You've seen those questions on IQ tests, right? All aristocracies are oligarchies, but not all oligarchies are aristocracies. I only mentioned aristocracies so you and others reading might have them as points of reference with respect to oligarchies.
That may be what you meant, but it's not what you said. Thanks for the clarification.
Originally Posted by Ele
First question, yes. No matter how it acts (and you'd be hard pressed to find an aristocracy that truly represented the people anyway), the fact that power is concentrated to a small group of people makes it an oligarchy. On the second question, high class mobility (which you won't find in an aristocracy anyway (they tend to guard their power)) doesn't change that either, so yes, still an oligarchy.
Well it was theoretical so it's not really a problem if it's hard to find such an example...
But ok.
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»