The iron law of oligarchy is a political theory, first developed by the German sociologist Robert Michels in his 1911 book, Political Parties.[1] It claims that rule by an elite, or oligarchy, is inevitable as an "iron law" within any democratic organization as part of the "tactical and technical necessities" of organization.[1]

Michels' theory states that all complex organizations, regardless of how democratic they are when started, eventually develop into oligarchies. Michels observed that since no sufficiently large and complex organization can function purely as a direct democracy, power within an organization will always get delegated to individuals within that group, elected or otherwise.

Using anecdotes from political parties and trade unions struggling to operate democratically to build his argument in 1911, Michels addressed the application of this law to representative democracy, and stated: "Who says organization, says oligarchy."[1] He went on to state that "Historical evolution mocks all the prophylactic measures that have been adopted for the prevention of oligarchy."[1]

According to Michels all organizations eventually come to be run by a "leadership class", who often function as paid administrators, executives, spokespersons or political strategists for the organization. Far from being "servants of the masses", Michels argues this "leadership class," rather than the organization's membership, will inevitably grow to dominate the organization's power structures. By controlling who has access to information, those in power can centralize their power successfully, often with little accountability, due to the apathy, indifference and non-participation most rank-and-file members have in relation to their organization's decision-making processes. Michels argues that democratic attempts to hold leadership positions accountable are prone to fail, since with power comes the ability to reward loyalty, the ability to control information about the organization, and the ability to control what procedures the organization follows when making decisions. All of these mechanisms can be used to strongly influence the outcome of any decisions made 'democratically' by members.[2]

Michels stated that the official goal of representative democracy of eliminating elite rule was impossible, that representative democracy is a façade legitimizing the rule of a particular elite, and that elite rule, which he refers to as oligarchy, is inevitable

= representative democracy

hierachies are inevitable.
and they are not always tyranical .
they are , or should be, a "hierachy of competance" with the most competant people at the top and the hierachy is there to ensure the safety and comfort and well being of all those within the hierachy.

the left see hierachies as a power struggle and they can be.

but civilised men, work together and elect the most competant from their ranks to lead them
thats a good system
change that at your peril

freediver wrote on Jul 30^th, 2018 at 9:40pm:

= representative democracy

I understand this dribble now.

Yes, you are correct, representative democracy is oligarchy, but many people here don't seem to think so.

Either we must accept oligarchy as 'iron law' or propose more radical measures to become democratic.

Auggie wrote on Jul 31^st, 2018 at 6:16pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 30th, 2018 at 9:40pm: = representative democracy I understand this dribble now. Yes, you are correct, representative democracy is oligarchy, but many people here don't seem to think so. Either we must accept oligarchy as 'iron law' or propose more radical measures to become democratic.

Society functions pretty well now. Maybe it's 80% as good as it can get.
It's an incredibly complex system.
It's way way easier to make a complex system worse then it is to improve it.
WeVe seen the results of radical change in hitlers Germany, mao's china, communist Russia, pol pots Cambodia. . Radical change by people who are lacking in humility are virtually guaranteed to end in catastrophe.
How many million corpses do you need to pile up to accept this.
Mao and Stalin made hitler look like an amateur.
I wouldn't want anyone from the radical left trying to change the economic fabric of society.
I couldn't think of a worse idea then that

aquascoot wrote on Jul 31^st, 2018 at 6:25pm:

Auggie wrote on Jul 31st, 2018 at 6:16pm: freediver wrote on Jul 30th, 2018 at 9:40pm: = representative democracy I understand this dribble now. Yes, you are correct, representative democracy is oligarchy, but many people here don't seem to think so. Either we must accept oligarchy as 'iron law' or propose more radical measures to become democratic. Society functions pretty well now. Maybe it's 80% as good as it can get. It's an incredibly complex system. It's way way easier to make a complex system worse then it is to improve it. WeVe seen the results of radical change in hitlers Germany, mao's china, communist Russia, pol pots Cambodia. . Radical change by people who are lacking in humility are virtually guaranteed to end in catastrophe. How many million corpses do you need to pile up to accept this. Mao and Stalin made hitler look like an amateur. I wouldn't want anyone from the radical left trying to change the economic fabric of society. I couldn't think of a worse idea then that

Ok, aqua, here's an idea. Let's reform the Senate by using a sortition process - i.e. randomly selecting citizens in each State (respectively) much like the jury lottery we have now. Subject to certain conditions, i.e. age, income and criminal background, almost anyone will be able to be chosen to serve as a senator.

What do you think of this idea?

Here's an example of our democracy ... Perth By-Election last Saturday... all the votes that are highlighted, had no value and were thrown in the trash can. Neither were those voters compensated for their time and trouble complying with our oligachy's compulsory voting system



First Preference
     Votes
     
Labor
     Patrick Gorman
     
22,603
39.4%
     
+2.0%


Greens
     Caroline Perks
     
10,780
18.8%
     
+1.7%
Independent
     Paul Collins
     
5,481
9.5%
     
+9.5%
Liberal Dems
     Wesley Du Preez
     
3,813
6.6%
     
+4.9%
-
     Julie Matheson
     
3,090
5.4%
     
+5.4%
Independent
     Jim Grayden
     
2,537
4.4%
     
+4.4%
Animal Justice
     Nicole Arielli
     
1,802
3.1%
     
+3.1%
Independent
     Ian Britza
     
1,683
2.9%
     
+2.9%
Aus Christians
     Ellen Joubert
     
1,458
2.5%
     
+2.5%
Science Party
     Aaron Hammond
     
991
1.7%
     
+1.7%
Mental Health Party
     Ben Mullings
     
920
1.6%
     
+1.6%
Sustainable Aus
     Colin Scott
     
765
1.3%
     
+1.3%
Liberty Alliance
     Tony Robinson
     
675
1.2%
     
+1.2%
Citizens Elect.
     Barry Mason
     
588
1.0%
     
+1.0%
People's Party
     Gabriel Harfouche
     
219
0.4%
     
+0.4%
Liberal
     -
     
-
-
     
-42.3%
Senator On-Line
     -
     
-
-
     
-1.6%
     Informal votes
     
6,407
-
     
-
     Total votes
     
63,812
-

Bias_2012 wrote on Jul 31^st, 2018 at 6:55pm:

Here's an example of our democracy ... Perth By-Election last Saturday... all the votes that are highlighted, had no value and were thrown in the trash can. Neither were those voters compensated for their time and trouble complying with our oligachy's compulsory voting system First Preference      Votes       Labor      Patrick Gorman       22,603 39.4%       +2.0% Greens      Caroline Perks       10,780 18.8%       +1.7% Independent      Paul Collins       5,481 9.5%       +9.5% Liberal Dems      Wesley Du Preez       3,813 6.6%       +4.9% -      Julie Matheson       3,090 5.4%       +5.4% Independent      Jim Grayden       2,537 4.4%       +4.4% Animal Justice      Nicole Arielli       1,802 3.1%       +3.1% Independent      Ian Britza       1,683 2.9%       +2.9% Aus Christians      Ellen Joubert       1,458 2.5%       +2.5% Science Party      Aaron Hammond       991 1.7%       +1.7% Mental Health Party      Ben Mullings       920 1.6%       +1.6% Sustainable Aus      Colin Scott       765 1.3%       +1.3% Liberty Alliance      Tony Robinson       675 1.2%       +1.2% Citizens Elect.      Barry Mason       588 1.0%       +1.0% People's Party      Gabriel Harfouche       219 0.4%       +0.4% Liberal      -       - -       -42.3% Senator On-Line      -       - -       -1.6%      Informal votes       6,407 -       -      Total votes       63,812 -

I don't really care about this.

Please comment on my idea of the sortition Senate.

Auggie wrote on Jul 31^st, 2018 at 6:16pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 30th, 2018 at 9:40pm: = representative democracy I understand this dribble now. Yes, you are correct, representative democracy is oligarchy, but many people here don't seem to think so. Either we must accept oligarchy as 'iron law' or propose more radical measures to become democratic.

So you thought an entire new theory was necessary because you wanted to use the term oligarchy instead of representative democracy?

Can you explain why the ancients Greeks reverted back to direct democracy so many times of a 500 year span? Does that contradict the theory? Or is the theory just a really complicated way of saying that teamwork is inevitable?

freediver wrote on Jul 31^st, 2018 at 7:49pm:

Auggie wrote on Jul 31st, 2018 at 6:16pm: freediver wrote on Jul 30th, 2018 at 9:40pm: = representative democracy I understand this dribble now. Yes, you are correct, representative democracy is oligarchy, but many people here don't seem to think so. Either we must accept oligarchy as 'iron law' or propose more radical measures to become democratic. So you thought an entire new theory was necessary because you wanted to use the term oligarchy instead of representative democracy? Can you explain why the ancients Greeks reverted back to direct democracy so many times of a 500 year span? Does that contradict the theory? Or is the theory just a really complicated way of saying that teamwork is inevitable?

Politics in Athens changed over its history depending on who was in power. They had periods of direct democracy, oligarchy, and tyranny. I'm not sure what your point is.

Would you like to try explaining the theory again, assuming your audience knows what representative democracy is?

Is there something implicit in there that representative democracy is a bad thing because it is oligarchy?

freediver wrote on Jul 31^st, 2018 at 7:55pm:

Would you like to try explaining the theory again, assuming your audience knows what representative democracy is? Is there something implicit in there that representative democracy is a bad thing because it is oligarchy?

No, you're missing my point. The whole point of the 'Iron Rule of Oligarchy' is a theory which states that in large organisations (government included), oligarchy is inevitable so that when people deride or criticise the political class as being selfish leeches, they fail to understand that this is part of the oligarchic system naturally.

Now, the point I'm trying to make also is that representative democracy is NOT actually democracy. Yes, it's more DEMOCRATIC than other forms of government but it's not pure democracy, hence the term 'representative democracy'.

In what way is it undemocratic?

freediver wrote on Jul 31^st, 2018 at 8:17pm:

In what way is it undemocratic?

Because there's no direct participation in the decision-making process.

So it's only democratic if all 20 million of us are directly involved in every decision before parliament?

What if the first decision all 20 million of us made was that we should be able to choose someone to represent us?

Is there any more to this "theory" than changing the definition of a bunch of words so the author can stroke his own ego trying to come up with something sensible out of what is left?

Bias_2012 wrote on Jul 31^st, 2018 at 6:55pm:

Here's an example of our democracy ... Perth By-Election last Saturday... all the votes that are highlighted, had no value and were thrown in the trash can. Neither were those voters compensated for their time and trouble complying with our oligachy's compulsory voting system First Preference      Votes       Labor      Patrick Gorman       22,603 39.4%       +2.0% Greens      Caroline Perks       10,780 18.8%       +1.7% Independent      Paul Collins       5,481 9.5%       +9.5% Liberal Dems      Wesley Du Preez       3,813 6.6%       +4.9% -      Julie Matheson       3,090 5.4%       +5.4% Independent      Jim Grayden       2,537 4.4%       +4.4% Animal Justice      Nicole Arielli       1,802 3.1%       +3.1% Independent      Ian Britza       1,683 2.9%       +2.9% Aus Christians      Ellen Joubert       1,458 2.5%       +2.5% Science Party      Aaron Hammond       991 1.7%       +1.7% Mental Health Party      Ben Mullings       920 1.6%       +1.6% Sustainable Aus      Colin Scott       765 1.3%       +1.3% Liberty Alliance      Tony Robinson       675 1.2%       +1.2% Citizens Elect.      Barry Mason       588 1.0%       +1.0% People's Party      Gabriel Harfouche       219 0.4%       +0.4% Liberal      -       - -       -42.3% Senator On-Line      -       - -       -1.6%      Informal votes       6,407 -       -      Total votes       63,812 -

I think you've both missing the point here. All the highlighted votes/voters were only included in our so called democracy for one Saturday in three years, only one day in 1,095 days, and even under threat of penalty if they didn't vote.

For 1,094 days, those voters with their varying views on politics for their seat of Perth, are now subject to only one view, that of Patrick Gorman (and that of the Labor Party), and any submissions (letters) they send to Gorman's office over that 1,094 days will only be considered if the submissions slot into Labor's policies. All other submissions will be rejected just as their votes were rejected and therefore those votes lose all their value completely and absolutely

This is like saying those voters are not worth the time of day, and next time, "why don't you vote Labor?"

Well of course not everyone votes Labor, but for the next 1,094 days, they have to put up with the Labor oligarchy

Auggie wrote on Jul 31^st, 2018 at 6:42pm:

aquascoot wrote on Jul 31st, 2018 at 6:25pm: Auggie wrote on Jul 31st, 2018 at 6:16pm: freediver wrote on Jul 30th, 2018 at 9:40pm: = representative democracy I understand this dribble now. Yes, you are correct, representative democracy is oligarchy, but many people here don't seem to think so. Either we must accept oligarchy as 'iron law' or propose more radical measures to become democratic. Society functions pretty well now. Maybe it's 80% as good as it can get. It's an incredibly complex system. It's way way easier to make a complex system worse then it is to improve it. WeVe seen the results of radical change in hitlers Germany, mao's china, communist Russia, pol pots Cambodia. . Radical change by people who are lacking in humility are virtually guaranteed to end in catastrophe. How many million corpses do you need to pile up to accept this. Mao and Stalin made hitler look like an amateur. I wouldn't want anyone from the radical left trying to change the economic fabric of society. I couldn't think of a worse idea then that Ok, aqua, here's an idea. Let's reform the Senate by using a sortition process - i.e. randomly selecting citizens in each State (respectively) much like the jury lottery we have now. Subject to certain conditions, i.e. age, income and criminal background, almost anyone will be able to be chosen to serve as a senator. What do you think of this idea?

well thats a very bad idea as well.

you have this idea that all hierachies are oppressive and become tyranical.
they can but they arent neccessarily that way.


a hierachy works well when its a hierachy of competance.

so Jonathon Thurston gets to be the captain on the field because a group of men look at themselves and decide that he is at the top of the dominance hierachy.
you wouldnt randomly select from the 2000 rugby league players in townsville who was to be the leader.


the idea of hierachies seems to work and its deeply deeply entrenched in our DNA.


crabs and lobsters are always fighting with each other
and if a crab wins a fight, if he dominates, his serotonin goes up in his brain.
so crabs have a circuit for hierachies based on serotonin.
and if they lose and their serotonin drops, they curl up in the fetal position and wont fight for a while.

humans also have a depression circuit based on serotonin.
if serotonin drops , we get depressed.
if you give someone an antidepressant, their serotonin goes up and they become more motivated and confident.

what does this all mean?

well we diversified from crabs 300 million years ago but we are STILL using brain circuits that are always sizing up other people and working  out if they are above us or below us in the hierachy.
so that circuitry is so entrenched in us that you will never be able to get rid of it.

we are NOT biologically able to live in communities where we are all equal and one person can be randomly selected to jump up the hierachy.
that system is 300 million years old.

how old is marxism which suggests we are all equal?
less then 100 years old.

we never have, never can and never will have a system where we arent all sizing each other up ,competing and striving to climb the hierachy.

the ONLY way to make this system function is to be RIGOROUS that the most competant people climb the hierachy.  it aint random.
and you have to go thru years of brutal training to become competant

the marxist idea that an 18 yo uni student is competant enough to have any input into how society is run is just WRONG.  its wrong to tell young people anything except to knuckle down and climb the hierachy by becoming more and more competant.
there are no short cuts

freediver wrote on Jul 31^st, 2018 at 10:22pm:

So it's only democratic if all 20 million of us are directly involved in every decision before parliament? What if the first decision all 20 million of us made was that we should be able to choose someone to represent us? Is there any more to this "theory" than changing the definition of a bunch of words so the author can stroke his own ego trying to come up with something sensible out of what is left?

Again, you're missing the point. The whole purpose of this theory is to explain that oligarchic is inevitable. Maybe you already knew this, but some of us did not, and having a sociologist explain it to us give this theory give it more legitmacy.

Second, as the last paragraph of the OP states: elected representation is still oligarchic in nature. Surely, as you well know, that our representatives don't always make the decisions that the electorate want. The Iron Law of Oligarchy attempts to explain this phenomena.

Third, having 20 million Australians decide on everything is not possible, hence why oligarchy is necessary. But, I believe there is an even more democratic (less oligarchic, whatever you call) than what we have and it's this. I seek your opinion on this idea.

It's called Sortition. Let's reform the Senate so that instead of electing 6 senators each cycle, senators are chosen from amongst the citizens of the State from a lottery process (by lot), much like the way we select juries. There would be certain qualifications, such as: a person shall -:

1) be a citizen and have lived in Australia for at least 10 years;

2) have earned an income of at least $50k per year for the last 5 years;

3) have completed a high school certificate;

4) have no criminal record

etc.

Citizens would be given the chance to become senators and would be subject to term limits. This process of sortition (which was used in ancient Athens) would ensure that ordinary people would participate in the decision-making process, rather than having people pre-selected by political parties, thereby being more democratic in nature.

aquascoot wrote on Aug 1^st, 2018 at 10:44am:

Auggie wrote on Jul 31st, 2018 at 6:42pm: aquascoot wrote on Jul 31st, 2018 at 6:25pm: Auggie wrote on Jul 31st, 2018 at 6:16pm: freediver wrote on Jul 30th, 2018 at 9:40pm: = representative democracy I understand this dribble now. Yes, you are correct, representative democracy is oligarchy, but many people here don't seem to think so. Either we must accept oligarchy as 'iron law' or propose more radical measures to become democratic. Society functions pretty well now. Maybe it's 80% as good as it can get. It's an incredibly complex system. It's way way easier to make a complex system worse then it is to improve it. WeVe seen the results of radical change in hitlers Germany, mao's china, communist Russia, pol pots Cambodia. . Radical change by people who are lacking in humility are virtually guaranteed to end in catastrophe. How many million corpses do you need to pile up to accept this. Mao and Stalin made hitler look like an amateur. I wouldn't want anyone from the radical left trying to change the economic fabric of society. I couldn't think of a worse idea then that Ok, aqua, here's an idea. Let's reform the Senate by using a sortition process - i.e. randomly selecting citizens in each State (respectively) much like the jury lottery we have now. Subject to certain conditions, i.e. age, income and criminal background, almost anyone will be able to be chosen to serve as a senator. What do you think of this idea? well thats a very bad idea as well. you have this idea that all hierachies are oppressive and become tyranical. they can but they arent neccessarily that way. a hierachy works well when its a hierachy of competance. so Jonathon Thurston gets to be the captain on the field because a group of men look at themselves and decide that he is at the top of the dominance hierachy. you wouldnt randomly select from the 2000 rugby league players in townsville who was to be the leader. the idea of hierachies seems to work and its deeply deeply entrenched in our DNA. crabs and lobsters are always fighting with each other and if a crab wins a fight, if he dominates, his serotonin goes up in his brain. so crabs have a circuit for hierachies based on serotonin. and if they lose and their serotonin drops, they curl up in the fetal position and wont fight for a while. humans also have a depression circuit based on serotonin. if serotonin drops , we get depressed. if you give someone an antidepressant, their serotonin goes up and they become more motivated and confident. what does this all mean? well we diversified from crabs 300 million years ago but we are STILL using brain circuits that are always sizing up other people and working  out if they are above us or below us in the hierachy. so that circuitry is so entrenched in us that you will never be able to get rid of it. we are NOT biologically able to live in communities where we are all equal and one person can be randomly selected to jump up the hierachy. that system is 300 million years old. how old is marxism which suggests we are all equal? less then 100 years old. we never have, never can and never will have a system where we arent all sizing each other up ,competing and striving to climb the hierachy. the ONLY way to make this system function is to be RIGOROUS that the most competant people climb the hierachy.  it aint random. and you have to go thru years of brutal training to become competant the marxist idea that an 18 yo uni student is competant enough to have any input into how society is run is just WRONG.  its wrong to tell young people anything except to knuckle down and climb the hierachy by becoming more and more competant. there are no short cuts

You still haven't convinced it's a bad idea. You say hierarchy of competence, but are people pre-selected by political parties the most competent people?? What's the difference between Bob or Tim if they are members of the same party if they have to tow the party line??

Auggie wrote on Aug 1^st, 2018 at 6:32pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 31st, 2018 at 10:22pm: So it's only democratic if all 20 million of us are directly involved in every decision before parliament? What if the first decision all 20 million of us made was that we should be able to choose someone to represent us? Is there any more to this "theory" than changing the definition of a bunch of words so the author can stroke his own ego trying to come up with something sensible out of what is left? Again, you're missing the point. The whole purpose of this theory is to explain that oligarchic is inevitable. Maybe you already knew this, but some of us did not, and having a sociologist explain it to us give this theory give it more legitmacy. Second, as the last paragraph of the OP states: elected representation is still oligarchic in nature. Surely, as you well know, that our representatives don't always make the decisions that the electorate want. The Iron Law of Oligarchy attempts to explain this phenomena. Third, having 20 million Australians decide on everything is not possible, hence why oligarchy is necessary. But, I believe there is an even more democratic (less oligarchic, whatever you call) than what we have and it's this. I seek your opinion on this idea. It's called Sortition. Let's reform the Senate so that instead of electing 6 senators each cycle, senators are chosen from amongst the citizens of the State from a lottery process (by lot), much like the way we select juries. There would be certain qualifications, such as: a person shall -: 1) be a citizen and have lived in Australia for at least 10 years; 2) have earned an income of at least $50k per year for the last 5 years; 3) have completed a high school certificate; 4) have no criminal record etc. Citizens would be given the chance to become senators and would be subject to term limits. This process of sortition (which was used in ancient Athens) would ensure that ordinary people would participate in the decision-making process, rather than having people pre-selected by political parties, thereby being more democratic in nature.

You said you were making the point that it is not democratic, then accused me of missing your point and changing what your point is.

freediver wrote on Aug 1^st, 2018 at 6:55pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2018 at 6:32pm: freediver wrote on Jul 31st, 2018 at 10:22pm: So it's only democratic if all 20 million of us are directly involved in every decision before parliament? What if the first decision all 20 million of us made was that we should be able to choose someone to represent us? Is there any more to this "theory" than changing the definition of a bunch of words so the author can stroke his own ego trying to come up with something sensible out of what is left? Again, you're missing the point. The whole purpose of this theory is to explain that oligarchic is inevitable. Maybe you already knew this, but some of us did not, and having a sociologist explain it to us give this theory give it more legitmacy. Second, as the last paragraph of the OP states: elected representation is still oligarchic in nature. Surely, as you well know, that our representatives don't always make the decisions that the electorate want. The Iron Law of Oligarchy attempts to explain this phenomena. Third, having 20 million Australians decide on everything is not possible, hence why oligarchy is necessary. But, I believe there is an even more democratic (less oligarchic, whatever you call) than what we have and it's this. I seek your opinion on this idea. It's called Sortition. Let's reform the Senate so that instead of electing 6 senators each cycle, senators are chosen from amongst the citizens of the State from a lottery process (by lot), much like the way we select juries. There would be certain qualifications, such as: a person shall -: 1) be a citizen and have lived in Australia for at least 10 years; 2) have earned an income of at least $50k per year for the last 5 years; 3) have completed a high school certificate; 4) have no criminal record etc. Citizens would be given the chance to become senators and would be subject to term limits. This process of sortition (which was used in ancient Athens) would ensure that ordinary people would participate in the decision-making process, rather than having people pre-selected by political parties, thereby being more democratic in nature. You said you were making the point that it is not democratic, then accused me of missing your point and changing what your point is.

I said it wasn't FULLY democratic. It's more oligarchic than democratic, in my view.

You said it's not "actually" democratic. Did I misinterpret that?

freediver wrote on Aug 1^st, 2018 at 10:20pm:

You said it's not "actually" democratic. Did I misinterpret that?

I'm moving the goal posts now. Is that OK?

Sure, so long as you are clear about it. This entire theory appears to be about shifting goal posts. Would you like to have another crack at explaining it? Assume I still know what representative democracy is.

freediver wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2018 at 10:03pm:

Sure, so long as you are clear about it. This entire theory appears to be about shifting goal posts. Would you like to have another crack at explaining it? Assume I still know what representative democracy is.

My view is that representative democracy is oligarchical in nature, and therefore cannot be accurately termed as 'democracy' in the traditional sense of the word.

Auggie wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2018 at 6:14pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 2nd, 2018 at 10:03pm: Sure, so long as you are clear about it. This entire theory appears to be about shifting goal posts. Would you like to have another crack at explaining it? Assume I still know what representative democracy is. My view is that representative democracy is oligarchical in nature, and therefore cannot be accurately termed as 'democracy' in the traditional sense of the word.

Is it oligarchical because it is representative?

Bias_2012 wrote on Aug 1^st, 2018 at 10:11am:

Bias_2012 wrote on Jul 31st, 2018 at 6:55pm: Here's an example of our democracy ... Perth By-Election last Saturday... all the votes that are highlighted, had no value and were thrown in the trash can. Neither were those voters compensated for their time and trouble complying with our oligachy's compulsory voting system First Preference      Votes       Labor      Patrick Gorman       22,603 39.4%       +2.0% Greens      Caroline Perks       10,780 18.8%       +1.7% Independent      Paul Collins       5,481 9.5%       +9.5% Liberal Dems      Wesley Du Preez       3,813 6.6%       +4.9% -      Julie Matheson       3,090 5.4%       +5.4% Independent      Jim Grayden       2,537 4.4%       +4.4% Animal Justice      Nicole Arielli       1,802 3.1%       +3.1% Independent      Ian Britza       1,683 2.9%       +2.9% Aus Christians      Ellen Joubert       1,458 2.5%       +2.5% Science Party      Aaron Hammond       991 1.7%       +1.7% Mental Health Party      Ben Mullings       920 1.6%       +1.6% Sustainable Aus      Colin Scott       765 1.3%       +1.3% Liberty Alliance      Tony Robinson       675 1.2%       +1.2% Citizens Elect.      Barry Mason       588 1.0%       +1.0% People's Party      Gabriel Harfouche       219 0.4%       +0.4% Liberal      -       - -       -42.3% Senator On-Line      -       - -       -1.6%      Informal votes       6,407 -       -      Total votes       63,812 - I think you've both missing the point here. All the highlighted votes/voters were only included in our so called democracy for one Saturday in three years, only one day in 1,095 days, and even under threat of penalty if they didn't vote. For 1,094 days, those voters with their varying views on politics for their seat of Perth, are now subject to only one view, that of Patrick Gorman (and that of the Labor Party), and any submissions (letters) they send to Gorman's office over that 1,094 days will only be considered if the submissions slot into Labor's policies. All other submissions will be rejected just as their votes were rejected and therefore those votes lose all their value completely and absolutely This is like saying those voters are not worth the time of day, and next time, "why don't you vote Labor?" Well of course not everyone votes Labor, but for the next 1,094 days, they have to put up with the Labor oligarchy

There are winners & their are losers.

Labor won the rest lost.

A typical attitude of those who now refuse to accept the umpires decision.

Just like the anti-Trump whiners ... the anti Brexit whiners etc etc.

So a certain group didn't get who they wanted up ... now it was a waste of their time & effort to vote?

What BS.

freediver wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2018 at 6:53pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 3rd, 2018 at 6:14pm: freediver wrote on Aug 2nd, 2018 at 10:03pm: Sure, so long as you are clear about it. This entire theory appears to be about shifting goal posts. Would you like to have another crack at explaining it? Assume I still know what representative democracy is. My view is that representative democracy is oligarchical in nature, and therefore cannot be accurately termed as 'democracy' in the traditional sense of the word. Is it oligarchical because it is representative?

It's oligarchical because there's an oligarchy.

Auggie wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2018 at 7:38pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 3rd, 2018 at 6:53pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 3rd, 2018 at 6:14pm: freediver wrote on Aug 2nd, 2018 at 10:03pm: Sure, so long as you are clear about it. This entire theory appears to be about shifting goal posts. Would you like to have another crack at explaining it? Assume I still know what representative democracy is. My view is that representative democracy is oligarchical in nature, and therefore cannot be accurately termed as 'democracy' in the traditional sense of the word. Is it oligarchical because it is representative? It's oligarchical because there's an oligarchy.

So the whole theory is just a bit of a wank with the definitions?

freediver wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2018 at 7:43pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 3rd, 2018 at 7:38pm: freediver wrote on Aug 3rd, 2018 at 6:53pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 3rd, 2018 at 6:14pm: freediver wrote on Aug 2nd, 2018 at 10:03pm: Sure, so long as you are clear about it. This entire theory appears to be about shifting goal posts. Would you like to have another crack at explaining it? Assume I still know what representative democracy is. My view is that representative democracy is oligarchical in nature, and therefore cannot be accurately termed as 'democracy' in the traditional sense of the word. Is it oligarchical because it is representative? It's oligarchical because there's an oligarchy. So the whole theory is just a bit of a wank with the definitions?

I'm not sure, FD. You tell me. Do you consider representative democracy to be an oligarchy? Is the term representative democracy just a smoke screen for oligarchy??

Gnads wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2018 at 7:10pm:

There are winners & their are losers. Labor won the rest lost.

Yes there are losers the way things are now, but under a compulsory voting system, there should no losers

There should be at least some concessions for those who voted other than Labor

Everyone who votes is under duress to do so, whether they are willing to vote or not, that's the nature of compulsion, an order from the top to perform a task or you'll be punished. We are still in the days of the convicts

Compulsion without some reward for the losers is an issue that will looked at in the future, I'm sure of that

Myself and thousands of other blokes weren't recompensed for the damaging effects of compulsory military conscription, damage to our working careers, damage to relationships, emotional and psychological problems etc. Damages caused by an oligarchy supported by the rest of the community who couldn't give a damn

Now compulsory voting doesn't necessarily do that sort of damage, but it can if a voter never gets a look in, never gets a rep in parliament. But if they never get a rep, it would be wise to think of a way they could be rewarded for their effort, in an ideological way ... or maybe pay all voters for their effort, if it's good enough for the AEC to pay winning candidates, it's good enough to pay voters for turning up under duress

Auggie wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2018 at 8:02pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 3rd, 2018 at 7:43pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 3rd, 2018 at 7:38pm: freediver wrote on Aug 3rd, 2018 at 6:53pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 3rd, 2018 at 6:14pm: freediver wrote on Aug 2nd, 2018 at 10:03pm: Sure, so long as you are clear about it. This entire theory appears to be about shifting goal posts. Would you like to have another crack at explaining it? Assume I still know what representative democracy is. My view is that representative democracy is oligarchical in nature, and therefore cannot be accurately termed as 'democracy' in the traditional sense of the word. Is it oligarchical because it is representative? It's oligarchical because there's an oligarchy. So the whole theory is just a bit of a wank with the definitions? I'm not sure, FD. You tell me. Do you consider representative democracy to be an oligarchy? Is the term representative democracy just a smoke screen for oligarchy??

I don't really care whether it is an oligarchy or not. Whether it is democratic actually means something.

freediver wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2018 at 10:24pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 3rd, 2018 at 8:02pm: freediver wrote on Aug 3rd, 2018 at 7:43pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 3rd, 2018 at 7:38pm: freediver wrote on Aug 3rd, 2018 at 6:53pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 3rd, 2018 at 6:14pm: freediver wrote on Aug 2nd, 2018 at 10:03pm: Sure, so long as you are clear about it. This entire theory appears to be about shifting goal posts. Would you like to have another crack at explaining it? Assume I still know what representative democracy is. My view is that representative democracy is oligarchical in nature, and therefore cannot be accurately termed as 'democracy' in the traditional sense of the word. Is it oligarchical because it is representative? It's oligarchical because there's an oligarchy. So the whole theory is just a bit of a wank with the definitions? I'm not sure, FD. You tell me. Do you consider representative democracy to be an oligarchy? Is the term representative democracy just a smoke screen for oligarchy?? I don't really care whether it is an oligarchy or not. Whether it is democratic actually means something.

Are you then saying that you accept oligarchy as Iron Law in large modernised nation states? Considering that you don't 'really care whether it is an oligarchy or not'.

Auggie wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2018 at 10:47pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 3rd, 2018 at 10:24pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 3rd, 2018 at 8:02pm: freediver wrote on Aug 3rd, 2018 at 7:43pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 3rd, 2018 at 7:38pm: freediver wrote on Aug 3rd, 2018 at 6:53pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 3rd, 2018 at 6:14pm: freediver wrote on Aug 2nd, 2018 at 10:03pm: Sure, so long as you are clear about it. This entire theory appears to be about shifting goal posts. Would you like to have another crack at explaining it? Assume I still know what representative democracy is. My view is that representative democracy is oligarchical in nature, and therefore cannot be accurately termed as 'democracy' in the traditional sense of the word. Is it oligarchical because it is representative? It's oligarchical because there's an oligarchy. So the whole theory is just a bit of a wank with the definitions? I'm not sure, FD. You tell me. Do you consider representative democracy to be an oligarchy? Is the term representative democracy just a smoke screen for oligarchy?? I don't really care whether it is an oligarchy or not. Whether it is democratic actually means something. Are you then saying that you accept oligarchy as Iron Law in large modernised nation states? Considering that you don't 'really care whether it is an oligarchy or not'.

If you can interpret "bit of a wank with the definitions" as accept, sure.

I have read the OP and all the replies up to this point, and I don't agree with the original premise. Its positively Kaiser era German. Using the present Australian Commonwealth as the example, we do not have "Iron law of Oligarchy."

Its true that some personal circumstances are more likely than others to produce politicians, but that's a long way from what Michels was describing.

I don't think anyone ever denied that democracy is a matter of degree. To have everyone voting on everything would be stupid, but that does not mean Australia is run by a political oligarchy. If someone wants to argue there is an economic oligarchy, I might entertain the idea. But that too, is not the same as an outright political governing class in Australia.

issuevoter wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2018 at 11:50pm:

I have read the OP and all the replies up to this point, and I don't agree with the original premise. Its positively Kaiser era German. Using the present Australian Commonwealth as the example, we do not have "Iron law of Oligarchy." Its true that some personal circumstances are more likely than others to produce politicians, but that's a long way from what Michels was describing. I don't think anyone ever denied that democracy is a matter of degree. To have everyone voting on everything would be stupid, but that does not mean Australia is run by a political oligarchy. If someone wants to argue there is an economic oligarchy, I might entertain the idea. But that too, is not the same as an outright political governing class in Australia.

So, you don't agree that there's an elite class of people who make decisions on the country? Are you saying that the Australian government is not an oligarchy?

freediver wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2018 at 11:08pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 3rd, 2018 at 10:47pm: freediver wrote on Aug 3rd, 2018 at 10:24pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 3rd, 2018 at 8:02pm: freediver wrote on Aug 3rd, 2018 at 7:43pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 3rd, 2018 at 7:38pm: freediver wrote on Aug 3rd, 2018 at 6:53pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 3rd, 2018 at 6:14pm: freediver wrote on Aug 2nd, 2018 at 10:03pm: Sure, so long as you are clear about it. This entire theory appears to be about shifting goal posts. Would you like to have another crack at explaining it? Assume I still know what representative democracy is. My view is that representative democracy is oligarchical in nature, and therefore cannot be accurately termed as 'democracy' in the traditional sense of the word. Is it oligarchical because it is representative? It's oligarchical because there's an oligarchy. So the whole theory is just a bit of a wank with the definitions? I'm not sure, FD. You tell me. Do you consider representative democracy to be an oligarchy? Is the term representative democracy just a smoke screen for oligarchy?? I don't really care whether it is an oligarchy or not. Whether it is democratic actually means something. Are you then saying that you accept oligarchy as Iron Law in large modernised nation states? Considering that you don't 'really care whether it is an oligarchy or not'. If you can interpret "bit of a wank with the definitions" as accept, sure.

So, what did you mean by I don't care whether it is an oligarchy or not???

issuevoter wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2018 at 11:50pm:

Using the present Australian Commonwealth as the example, we do not have "Iron law of Oligarchy."

It depends on what you mean by "the present Australian Commonwealth" for this topic

But it could be argued that all the Lib Lab by-partisan policies represent iron law from the two party preferred major parties, which combined as they are on those policies, make those parties one single oligarchy

The term "Two Party Preferred" didn't come into existence for nothing

Auggie wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2018 at 11:52pm:

issuevoter wrote on Aug 3rd, 2018 at 11:50pm: I have read the OP and all the replies up to this point, and I don't agree with the original premise. Its positively Kaiser era German. Using the present Australian Commonwealth as the example, we do not have "Iron law of Oligarchy." Its true that some personal circumstances are more likely than others to produce politicians, but that's a long way from what Michels was describing. I don't think anyone ever denied that democracy is a matter of degree. To have everyone voting on everything would be stupid, but that does not mean Australia is run by a political oligarchy. If someone wants to argue there is an economic oligarchy, I might entertain the idea. But that too, is not the same as an outright political governing class in Australia. So, you don't agree that there's an elite class of people who make decisions on the country? Are you saying that the Australian government is not an oligarchy?

Please note my highlighted paragraph. Of course, it will be easier for some people to get into administration, but that is a lot different to an oligarchy. Like most Western democracies, the terms "leader" and "statesmen" are nothing more than hyperbole. We have politicians and bureaucrats, and their positions are all subject to media scrutiny and bias, which sways public opinion. There are no political dynasties in Australia. Collusion that tends toward monopoly and oligarchy are at present inhibited by our imperfect system. Michels' world was that of aristocratic Europe.

Bias_2012 wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2018 at 10:21pm:

Gnads wrote on Aug 3rd, 2018 at 7:10pm: There are winners & their are losers. Labor won the rest lost. Yes there are losers the way things are now, but under a compulsory voting system, there should no losers There should be at least some concessions for those who voted other than Labor Everyone who votes is under duress to do so, whether they are willing to vote or not, that's the nature of compulsion, an order from the top to perform a task or you'll be punished. We are still in the days of the convicts Compulsion without some reward for the losers is an issue that will looked at in the future, I'm sure of that Myself and thousands of other blokes weren't recompensed for the damaging effects of compulsory military conscription, damage to our working careers, damage to relationships, emotional and psychological problems etc. Damages caused by an oligarchy supported by the rest of the community who couldn't give a damn Now compulsory voting doesn't necessarily do that sort of damage, but it can if a voter never gets a look in, never gets a rep in parliament. But if they never get a rep, it would be wise to think of a way they could be rewarded for their effort, in an ideological way ... or maybe pay all voters for their effort, if it's good enough for the AEC to pay winning candidates, it's good enough to pay voters for turning up under duress

What a load of melodramatic tosh. Duress? Get paid to turn out to a polling both for 15 minutes of their life?

You sound like an Irish Union sub -branch committee discussing a return to work ......

and after a lot of tooing & froing a motion is put that to decide if they go back to work .... they will throw a brick up in the air ....

if it stays up in the air they'll go to work on a Wednesday...

and a voice up the back(Bias) says .... "What? ... every bloody Wednesday?

Bias_2012 wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2018 at 10:21pm:

Gnads wrote on Aug 3rd, 2018 at 7:10pm: There are winners & their are losers. Labor won the rest lost. Yes there are losers the way things are now, but under a compulsory voting system, there should no losers There should be at least some concessions for those who voted other than Labor Everyone who votes is under duress to do so, whether they are willing to vote or not, that's the nature of compulsion, an order from the top to perform a task or you'll be punished. We are still in the days of the convicts Compulsion without some reward for the losers is an issue that will looked at in the future, I'm sure of that Myself and thousands of other blokes weren't recompensed for the damaging effects of compulsory military conscription, damage to our working careers, damage to relationships, emotional and psychological problems etc. Damages caused by an oligarchy supported by the rest of the community who couldn't give a damn Now compulsory voting doesn't necessarily do that sort of damage, but it can if a voter never gets a look in, never gets a rep in parliament. But if they never get a rep, it would be wise to think of a way they could be rewarded for their effort, in an ideological way ... or maybe pay all voters for their effort, if it's good enough for the AEC to pay winning candidates, it's good enough to pay voters for turning up under duress

That's far from the truth ....

as for you statement .. "if a voter never get's a look in ... never gets a rep in parliament" ...

join the club of many multitudes of people...

it's not about getting a turn because you compete...

and the allocation of money given to candidates is to assist those who are ordinary Joes having a go in paying for the necessities to run a campaign.

I find most of your suggestions to be ridiculous.   

Auggie wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2018 at 11:53pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 3rd, 2018 at 11:08pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 3rd, 2018 at 10:47pm: freediver wrote on Aug 3rd, 2018 at 10:24pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 3rd, 2018 at 8:02pm: freediver wrote on Aug 3rd, 2018 at 7:43pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 3rd, 2018 at 7:38pm: freediver wrote on Aug 3rd, 2018 at 6:53pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 3rd, 2018 at 6:14pm: freediver wrote on Aug 2nd, 2018 at 10:03pm: Sure, so long as you are clear about it. This entire theory appears to be about shifting goal posts. Would you like to have another crack at explaining it? Assume I still know what representative democracy is. My view is that representative democracy is oligarchical in nature, and therefore cannot be accurately termed as 'democracy' in the traditional sense of the word. Is it oligarchical because it is representative? It's oligarchical because there's an oligarchy. So the whole theory is just a bit of a wank with the definitions? I'm not sure, FD. You tell me. Do you consider representative democracy to be an oligarchy? Is the term representative democracy just a smoke screen for oligarchy?? I don't really care whether it is an oligarchy or not. Whether it is democratic actually means something. Are you then saying that you accept oligarchy as Iron Law in large modernised nation states? Considering that you don't 'really care whether it is an oligarchy or not'. If you can interpret "bit of a wank with the definitions" as accept, sure. So, what did you mean by I don't care whether it is an oligarchy or not???

Like I explained, whether it is democratic has meaning. Whether it is an oligarchy tells us nothing, except how you define oligarchy.

Gnads wrote on Aug 4^th, 2018 at 8:20am:

Bias_2012 wrote on Aug 3rd, 2018 at 10:21pm: Gnads wrote on Aug 3rd, 2018 at 7:10pm: There are winners & their are losers. Labor won the rest lost. Yes there are losers the way things are now, but under a compulsory voting system, there should no losers There should be at least some concessions for those who voted other than Labor Everyone who votes is under duress to do so, whether they are willing to vote or not, that's the nature of compulsion, an order from the top to perform a task or you'll be punished. We are still in the days of the convicts Compulsion without some reward for the losers is an issue that will looked at in the future, I'm sure of that Myself and thousands of other blokes weren't recompensed for the damaging effects of compulsory military conscription, damage to our working careers, damage to relationships, emotional and psychological problems etc. Damages caused by an oligarchy supported by the rest of the community who couldn't give a damn Now compulsory voting doesn't necessarily do that sort of damage, but it can if a voter never gets a look in, never gets a rep in parliament. But if they never get a rep, it would be wise to think of a way they could be rewarded for their effort, in an ideological way ... or maybe pay all voters for their effort, if it's good enough for the AEC to pay winning candidates, it's good enough to pay voters for turning up under duress What a load of melodramatic tosh. Duress? Get paid to turn out to a polling both for 15 minutes of their life? You sound like an Irish Union sub -branch committee discussing a return to work ...... and after a lot of tooing & froing a motion is put that to decide if they go back to work .... they will throw a brick up in the air .... if it stays up in the air they'll go to work on a Wednesday... and a voice up the back(Bias) says .... "What? ... every bloody Wednesday?

Compulsion means we are automatically under duress. Attending a polling booth is an order from the top, or we'll be punished, a punishment that in the worst case scenario, we lose our homes. The punishment progresses from a simple fine, to automatic loss of drivers license, to garnisheeing money from bank account, to selling your house to recover the fine. That's what happens if you're unable or unwilling to pay the fine

!5 minutes of my life? you got that wrong. There are never polling booths in my village. Voting requires a special trip to a town miles away costing me fuel, vehicle wear and tear driving on dirt roads and hours of my time

The Lib Lab oligarchy sure know how to give people the runs

The oligarchy have been with us since civilisation began and have had a power struggle with every government that ever existed. Our political system bares the influence of the oligarchy the greatest scar imo opinion being the two party system, divide and conquer for the people as one would be a fearsome creature to behold.

Throughout history they have always tried to usurp the government of the day with any measure including bribes, coin and implement laws that would see them thrive above laws for the commonwealth.

From my understanding it goes back a long long way from the assassinations of Julius Caesar and Abraham Lincoln to today, what did these two historical figures have in common, they both got rid of the money lenders (bankers) of their day printing the money for the nation and delegated this responsibility to the government of the day.

After all why have a private company printing and lending money to the government with interest when the government can print as much money as it wants with NO interest.

They have swindled Neo liberalism into power at every opportunity, back in 1913 they convinced the US government to privatise the Federal Reserve Bank on the premise that there would be no booms and busts, until the great depression of the 1930 which saw neoliberalism thrown out in favour of Keynesian capitalism, established by John Maynard Keynes at Cambridge University.

To put it in nut shell Keynesian economics has the government as the head of the state and corporations are beneath it, the government intervenes in the economics of the day and passes laws for the survival and wellbeing of the commonwealth, the Nation, not just a few rich greedy leaches.

Under Keynesian economics the government owns and controls essential services, the government controls banks and other influential corporations and even has a bank of its own, the government can own the wealth of the nation for the benefit of the commonwealth.

Milton Friedman economist at the University of Chicago and the father of modern day neo liberalism started fighting against Keynesian economics from the 1950’s and through his disciples implemented his economic theories in South America in the late 1960’s early 1970’s of course no sane population would accept so radical 180 degree turn in the economic fabric and so these states had to be run by dictators, he then studied the effects of his hypothesis.

The theory behind Neo liberalism was introduced and implemented in the west through Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and for us here in Australia the Hawk Keating government and sadly it’s the system we have today.

I’m not saying the Keynesian economic model is perfect but imo much preferred amongst the majority of the people if they ever take the time and effort to differentiate between the two.

So when we say the oligarchy it has a much deeper meaning than wasted votes at the ballot box, corrupt politicians, democracy etc.

Hopefully this might inspire people that think any other system bar the neo liberals is a form of communism to have a deeper look at their convictions.

Quote:

Our political system bares the influence of the oligarchy the greatest scar imo opinion being the two party system

We have a two party system because the people choose it every 3 or 4 years.


Quote:

Throughout history they have always tried to usurp the government

They were the government throughout most of history.

freediver wrote on Aug 4^th, 2018 at 11:50am:

Quote: Our political system bares the influence of the oligarchy the greatest scar imo opinion being the two party system We have a two party system because the people choose it every 3 or 4 years. [quote]Throughout history they have always tried to usurp the government

They were the government throughout most of history.[/quote]

When I said this might inspire people to have a look at what they believe in, this didn't mean you FD.

You're a disciple and will go to the grave with these convictions even if they reduce you to squalor............. :-*

freediver wrote on Aug 4^th, 2018 at 9:04am:

Auggie wrote on Aug 3rd, 2018 at 11:53pm: freediver wrote on Aug 3rd, 2018 at 11:08pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 3rd, 2018 at 10:47pm: freediver wrote on Aug 3rd, 2018 at 10:24pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 3rd, 2018 at 8:02pm: freediver wrote on Aug 3rd, 2018 at 7:43pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 3rd, 2018 at 7:38pm: freediver wrote on Aug 3rd, 2018 at 6:53pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 3rd, 2018 at 6:14pm: freediver wrote on Aug 2nd, 2018 at 10:03pm: Sure, so long as you are clear about it. This entire theory appears to be about shifting goal posts. Would you like to have another crack at explaining it? Assume I still know what representative democracy is. My view is that representative democracy is oligarchical in nature, and therefore cannot be accurately termed as 'democracy' in the traditional sense of the word. Is it oligarchical because it is representative? It's oligarchical because there's an oligarchy. So the whole theory is just a bit of a wank with the definitions? I'm not sure, FD. You tell me. Do you consider representative democracy to be an oligarchy? Is the term representative democracy just a smoke screen for oligarchy?? I don't really care whether it is an oligarchy or not. Whether it is democratic actually means something. Are you then saying that you accept oligarchy as Iron Law in large modernised nation states? Considering that you don't 'really care whether it is an oligarchy or not'. If you can interpret "bit of a wank with the definitions" as accept, sure. So, what did you mean by I don't care whether it is an oligarchy or not??? Like I explained, whether it is democratic has meaning. Whether it is an oligarchy tells us nothing, except how you define oligarchy.

Whether it is an oligarchy tells us that it is an oligarchy. Elected representatives who are part of an oligarchy is still the oligarchy. It's just more democratic than an unelected oligarchy.

Quote:

Whether it is an oligarchy tells us that it is an oligarchy

Brilliant insight there Auggie.


Quote:

When I said this might inspire people to have a look at what they believe in, this didn't mean you FD.

You have failed spectacularly to convince me that society was always a democracy, valliantly fending off an oligarchy from a hostile takeover. But don't let this stop you chanting your mantra.

This discussion is getting ridiculous. Its nothing more than a "Deep State" conspiracy theory. Here we have claims that Australia is governed by an oligarchy, and we are offered such groups as the Liberal Party and Labor Party as "proof" of the claims. I think a lot of people would need an explanation of how these Parties form an oligarchy. Compulsory voting is an Australian historical idiosyncrasy. The major parties do not force it on us. The Law does.

freediver wrote on Aug 4^th, 2018 at 12:42pm:

Brilliant insight there Auggie.

Yet you seem to be arguing that representative democracy is not oligarchical. Is it oligarchical or not??

issuevoter wrote on Aug 4^th, 2018 at 12:46pm:

This discussion is getting ridiculous. Its nothing more than a "Deep State" conspiracy theory. Here we have claims that Australia is governed by an oligarchy, and we are offered such groups as the Liberal Party and Labor Party as "proof" of the claims. I think a lot of people would need an explanation of how these Parties form an oligarchy. Compulsory voting is an Australian historical idiosyncrasy. The major parties do not force it on us. The Law does.

Hold on, I never said anything about a deep state, which is a completely different theory.

The Iron Law of Oligarchy states that 'oligarchy' is inevitable when large organisations are formed. When I talk about oligarchy, I'm not talking about it in the sense of a Russian oligarchy, I'm talking about it in the actual definition of the word 'rule by the few'. It is a fact that the decisions of the Commonwealth government are made by the Cabinet, which consists of 20 - 30 or so individuals, not to mention other elite interests. Those 100s of people are the oligarchy because they are 'few' in number. Just because they are elected, doesn't mean that they are not an oligarchy.

The Iron Law of Oligarchy also asserts that certain behaviours that we experience from the political class, such as: self-interest; high pay packets; loyalty to party; concealment of truths; etc. are all behaviours that are instinctive to an oligarchical form of government. The Green's recent failure to adequately deal with sexual harassment claims is a telling example of how the oligarchy 'within' the Greens party behaves - by protecting the interests of the ruling elite within the party at the expense of the rank and file members.

What really annoys me, issue, is when people  on this Forum or elsewhere complain that politicians are nothing but leeches and should show more restraint in self-interest when in actual fact we tacitly support oligarchy by supporting the current system of representative democracy. Now, it may be the case that what we have now is the 'worst among all governments, except for all the others' but then we as the people should accept without complaint the deficiencies of the system.

issuevoter wrote on Aug 4^th, 2018 at 12:46pm:

This discussion is getting ridiculous. Its nothing more than a "Deep State" conspiracy theory. Here we have claims that Australia is governed by an oligarchy, and we are offered such groups as the Liberal Party and Labor Party as "proof" of the claims. I think a lot of people would need an explanation of how these Parties form an oligarchy. Compulsory voting is an Australian historical idiosyncrasy. The major parties do not force it on us. The Law does.

And who made compulsory voting into law? The Libs and Labs did

As I was saying before, the Libs and Labs with their bipartisan policies makes them a two party preferred duopoly. Bipartisan policies are set and are excluded from the normal democratic process. Try and get them changed, I wish you luck. They are the work of a two party oligarchy. They're locked in, one party won't change those policies unless the other party gives the ok. There's no chance of that happening

oligarchy |ˈäliˌgärkē; ˈōli-|
noun ( pl. -chies)
a small group of people having control of a country, organization, or institution
• a state governed by such a group
• government by such a group. 

Auggie wrote on Aug 4^th, 2018 at 1:58pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 4th, 2018 at 12:42pm: Brilliant insight there Auggie. Yet you seem to be arguing that representative democracy is not oligarchical.

That's what you got from "I don't care"?

freediver wrote on Aug 4^th, 2018 at 2:43pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 4th, 2018 at 1:58pm: freediver wrote on Aug 4th, 2018 at 12:42pm: Brilliant insight there Auggie. Yet you seem to be arguing that representative democracy is not oligarchical. That's what you got from "I don't care"?

Why are you avoiding this question: "do you believe that representative democracy is oligarchical? Yes or no?" Simple question.

I suppose it depends how you define oligarchy.

FYI, I don't particularly care how you define oligarchy.

Do you think they called it an "iron law" to mask the fact it is nothing more than a tautology?

freediver wrote on Aug 5^th, 2018 at 2:00pm:

I suppose it depends how you define oligarchy. FYI, I don't particularly care how you define oligarchy. Do you think they called it an "iron law" to mask the fact it is nothing more than a tautology?

You seem to be cleverly obfuscating, FD. On the one hand, you refuse to state if representative democracy is an oligarchy (and you don't care how I define it), and second you then seem to be saying that the Iron Law of Oligarchy is a given and is inevitable.

Is this you just 'dribbling at the mouth'? Or can you give a straight answer to the question?

Quote:

you then seem to be saying that the Iron Law of Oligarchy is a given and is inevitable

"a bit of a wank with the definitions"

"nothing more than a tautology"

Is that not straight enough for you? Do you disagree?

Would you like to have another go at explaining it? Perhaps you can make sense after all.

freediver wrote on Aug 5^th, 2018 at 2:05pm:

Is that not straight enough for you?

No, it isn't. Perhaps you'd like to be 'straighter'.

It's OK I won't be offended.

Are you asking me to dumb it down even more?

freediver wrote on Aug 5^th, 2018 at 2:08pm:

Are you asking me to dumb it down even more?

Yes, sir, I am.

Auggie wrote on Aug 5^th, 2018 at 2:10pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 5th, 2018 at 2:08pm: Are you asking me to dumb it down even more? Yes, sir, I am.

I don't think that's possible.

freediver wrote on Aug 5^th, 2018 at 2:20pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 5th, 2018 at 2:10pm: freediver wrote on Aug 5th, 2018 at 2:08pm: Are you asking me to dumb it down even more? Yes, sir, I am. I don't think that's possible.

Which means that you really have no idea what you're talking about.

Auggie wrote on Aug 5^th, 2018 at 2:39pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 5th, 2018 at 2:20pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 5th, 2018 at 2:10pm: freediver wrote on Aug 5th, 2018 at 2:08pm: Are you asking me to dumb it down even more? Yes, sir, I am. I don't think that's possible. Which means that you really have no idea what you're talking about.

It's your story Auggie. I happily concede I have no idea what you are trying to say. All I can tell you is how it appears. Every time I ask you to explain, you change the story.

freediver wrote on Aug 5^th, 2018 at 3:38pm:

I happily concede that I do not possess the intellectual capacity to understand what you're saying.

That's very big and noble of you FD. Thank you for the admission.

So.....Auggie does what FD does, and yet Auggie gets a ban and FD gets a wet lettuce for the same thing.  And yes, I know you have no alternative, Setanta.  It sucks.

Aussie wrote on Aug 6^th, 2018 at 6:55pm:

So.....Auggie does what FD does, and yet Auggie gets a ban and FD gets a wet lettuce for the same thing.  And yes, I know you have no alternative, Setanta.  It sucks.

Are you really that obtuse?

Start your own Forum and piss off from OzPol. NOBODY wants you here.

Aussie wrote on Aug 6^th, 2018 at 6:55pm:

So.....Auggie does what FD does, and yet Auggie gets a ban and FD gets a wet lettuce for the same thing.  And yes, I know you have no alternative, Setanta.  It sucks.

If you are talking about changing other members posts, it seems so, I've told FD that if I could I would suspend him for that. I hope he takes note of how one should treat other's posts. Auggie seems to think I did it because he called me an arsehole.

I think mothra is arguing for a perfect system NOW or some man is going to get a bottle of metho in the head  :D

:D :D

Auggie wrote on Aug 5^th, 2018 at 5:11pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 5th, 2018 at 3:38pm: I happily concede that I do not possess the intellectual capacity to understand what you're saying. That's very big and noble of you FD. Thank you for the admission.

Is auggie also mothra?

:o :o :o :o

How many genders are out there  :o

Setanta wrote on Aug 6^th, 2018 at 7:45pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 6th, 2018 at 6:55pm: So.....Auggie does what FD does, and yet Auggie gets a ban and FD gets a wet lettuce for the same thing.  And yes, I know you have no alternative, Setanta.  It sucks. If you are talking about changing other members posts, it seems so, I've told FD that if I could I would suspend him for that. I hope he takes note of how one should treat other's posts. Auggie seems to think I did it because he called me an arsehole.

Let me guess. Considering that it had been a couple after I made the post, FD ran complaining to you to speak to me about what I did; and you, like the good little lap dog, went and did as you were told, and banned me.

Auggie wrote on Aug 9^th, 2018 at 6:01pm:

Setanta wrote on Aug 6th, 2018 at 7:45pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 6th, 2018 at 6:55pm: So.....Auggie does what FD does, and yet Auggie gets a ban and FD gets a wet lettuce for the same thing.  And yes, I know you have no alternative, Setanta.  It sucks. If you are talking about changing other members posts, it seems so, I've told FD that if I could I would suspend him for that. I hope he takes note of how one should treat other's posts. Auggie seems to think I did it because he called me an arsehole. Let me guess. Considering that it had been a couple after I made the post, FD ran complaining to you to speak to me about what I did; and you, like the good little lap dog, went and did as you were told, and banned me.

Interesting point raised there.  Setanta, did Effendi complain to you about it or was that you acting without complaint?

wrote on :
Just a quick comment: AREN'T WE ACTUALLY NOT JUST SAYING THAT THIS FORUM HAS BOILED DOWN TO AN OLIGARCHY?