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.


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.


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


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.


Semantics.


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.


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