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 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.
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.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
Why not just have them sign contracts then? Have them draft their campaign promises as a legally binding document.
Why not, indeed?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
So all you want is more people to be part of decision making, that's simple enough.
My chief concern is that the people aren't involved in how their country is run. So I'd like them to be. There's a quote that comes to mind when I think about this; "a democracy is predicated on the idea that ordinary men and women are capable of governing themselves". Our systems were founded on that premise.
There's an argument to be made, and you've made it, that maybe people aren't capable of governing themselves - should we really expect your average Joe or Jane to be wise enough to decide on national issues? I'd be inclined to think that maybe we shouldn't. Plato, in his Republic, argued as much. It's an education problem.
Where I depart from you in this issue is that I don't think it's a matter of knowledge, but judgement. Say the top climate scientists, experts in their field, are arguing over what the correct course of action to take is. You could be full of knowledge about the topic, but everybody else who is full of knowledge about the topic have dissenting opinions anyway. The public don't need to be expertly knowledgable on the topic, rather they need to be able to decide who makes the best argument. They need to have good judgement.
The foundational skills required for good judgement aren't prioritised in our school systems. There's a book by Paul Woodruff you can pick up called First Democracy and in it he talks about this very issue at length. I don't think your system of authoritative government, based on citizens having expert level knowledge, is neccesary. We simply need to churn out voters that have the skills required to make good judgements.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
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.
Representative government represents the people. Anything internal that distorts this is corruption.
What other factors are you talking about? Only external factors come to mind.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
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.
Corruption is what distorts representative democracy, right? Without corruption, the system reverts to representative democracy. If the middle men, the guys between the people and what we want done, aren't corrupt, then that means that it's a direct line. If they're not corrupt, then what we want is what the representative want, therefore the power isn't really with the representatives (the middle men) but with us.
Originally Posted by protonitron
This idea is good even if it ends up barely being democratic.
How do you think the people would react to this? "We know you're concerned about how the country isn't being run in the way you, the everyman, want it to be run, but it's okay because we're going to change to this system where the same thing happens".
