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

Care to explain you think it violates the principle?

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.

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?

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

What do you propose instead? Direct democracy is the only government immune to rebellion?

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

I shouldn't have to spoonfeed you to get you to express your argument.

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.

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!

Originally Posted by Ele

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 Ele

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 Ele

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 Ele

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.

Originally Posted by Ele

Look Pig, just accept that your solution is oligarchic and let's move on with the rest of the discussion.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

As I said before, and even when you quoted, oligarchies do not usually encompass all forms of government, they are usually restricted only to governments where the ruling group is a closed group.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

But then it's still an oligarchy, which you said is inherently bad.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

Doesn't this just show that democracy is flawed in the first place?

Once people are elected into power they are free to do as they want.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

I'm asking you how you quantify a 'few'... So far you quantify it as "not the majority". So If we had a representative democracy where 49% of people hold positions, that's still an oligarchy? Surely you can quantify it better than that.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

Of course it is, practically speaking all governments are. Republics, democracies, communists, dictatorships, they all fall under your definition. The only one I can think of is a direct democracy.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

Doesn't that mean that when you say all oligarchies are doomed to fail, only direct democracy can succeed?

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

Once you tell me exactly what you mean by few (is it juts the minority?), we can go on to discuss whether this is an inherent problem.

Originally Posted by Ele

It becomes less and less so as you deal with the corruption. It's not an end-all solution, but it's a plausible first step.

Originally Posted by Ele

That is a flaw in democracy, yeah. Normally, in every day life, when someone says they're going to do something of importance, a contract is signed and if they break that contract they're liable to be punished. We have nothing like that in politics. They can campaign on one thing (that they know everbody will vote them in for) and then do entirely something else and we can't hold them to account. Campaign promises really do mean nothing to them. I've read something from an insider at some point that mentioned that they treat the promises like jokes.

It is a flaw and it should be fixed. There needs to be some way to hold politicians to be accountable for what they say they'll do.

Originally Posted by Ele

Yeah. I can and I did. "Extremely disproportionate".

Originally Posted by Ele

I can think of another. A representative govt. like ours minus all the corruption. Unless you think corruption is part of human nature and will always be a part of our political systems, some way or another.

Nope. Again, representative democracies are all good and not oligarchic without the corruption.

Originally Posted by Ele

I think I've made it pretty damn clear now, but I'll say it again. A select group of people that hold extremely disproportionate power over everybody else. The Greeks would call aristocracy an oligarchy. Say if you want to think about it that way, you've got a ruling class that doesn't represent the will of the people.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

Why not just have them sign contracts then? Have them draft their campaign promises as a legally binding document.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

I think you are referring to the power they hold not the proportion of people, but it's still such a loose definition.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

Sorry but I don't see how that would make it not an oligarchy? I thought that your definition was just that "A select group of people that hold extremely disproportionate power over everybody else"? How does removing corruption change that?

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

You say "A select group of people that hold extremely disproportionate power over everybody else." but later on you qualify it with "ruling class" and "doesn't represent the will of the people". Are these two concepts that you did not include as part of the definition actually part of the definition?

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

Is, for example, an aristocracy which takes into account and acts upon the will of the people still an oligarchy? How about if there is a high degree of class mobility too?