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.
Again, it's when a select group of people have disproportionate power over everyone else. In your situation, this group of people is determined by knowledge. It's an oligarchy - whether or not it's easier to break into than the current one doesn't matter- it's still an oligarchy and it would still have the associated problems and outcomes of an oligarchy.
Originally Posted by
ImmortalPig
But then it's still an oligarchy, which you said is inherently bad.
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
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.
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
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.
Yeah. I can and I did. "
Extremely disproportionate".
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.
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.
Originally Posted by
ImmortalPig
Doesn't that mean that when you say all oligarchies are doomed to fail, only direct democracy can succeed?
Nope. Again, representative democracies are all good and
not oligarchic without the corruption.
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.
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.
Last edited by Ele; Nov 22, 2014 at 05:32 AM.