Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Send Topic Print
Iron Law of Oligarchy (Read 2508 times)
Bias_2012
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2980
Gender: male
Re: Iron Law of Oligarchy
Reply #15 - Aug 1st, 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
Back to top
 

Our Lives Are Governed By The Feast & Famine Variable
 
IP Logged
 
aquascoot
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16203
Gender: male
Re: Iron Law of Oligarchy
Reply #16 - Aug 1st, 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
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


It's War

Posts: 7153
Re: Iron Law of Oligarchy
Reply #17 - 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.
Back to top
 

I will no longer pursue a policy of appeasement. To all the bigots, homophobes, and Islamophobes at OzPol...

CAESAR IS MARCHING WITH HIS LEGIONS.
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


It's War

Posts: 7153
Re: Iron Law of Oligarchy
Reply #18 - Aug 1st, 2018 at 6:34pm
 
aquascoot wrote on Aug 1st, 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??
Back to top
 

I will no longer pursue a policy of appeasement. To all the bigots, homophobes, and Islamophobes at OzPol...

CAESAR IS MARCHING WITH HIS LEGIONS.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 42606
I like fish
Re: Iron Law of Oligarchy
Reply #19 - Aug 1st, 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.
Back to top
 

It's God's job to forgive terrorists; it's our job to arrange the meeting.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


It's War

Posts: 7153
Re: Iron Law of Oligarchy
Reply #20 - Aug 1st, 2018 at 7:16pm
 
freediver wrote on Aug 1st, 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.
Back to top
 

I will no longer pursue a policy of appeasement. To all the bigots, homophobes, and Islamophobes at OzPol...

CAESAR IS MARCHING WITH HIS LEGIONS.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 42606
I like fish
Re: Iron Law of Oligarchy
Reply #21 - Aug 1st, 2018 at 10:20pm
 
You said it's not "actually" democratic. Did I misinterpret that?
Back to top
 

It's God's job to forgive terrorists; it's our job to arrange the meeting.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


It's War

Posts: 7153
Re: Iron Law of Oligarchy
Reply #22 - Aug 2nd, 2018 at 7:25pm
 
freediver wrote on Aug 1st, 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?
Back to top
 

I will no longer pursue a policy of appeasement. To all the bigots, homophobes, and Islamophobes at OzPol...

CAESAR IS MARCHING WITH HIS LEGIONS.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 42606
I like fish
Re: Iron Law of Oligarchy
Reply #23 - 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.
Back to top
 

It's God's job to forgive terrorists; it's our job to arrange the meeting.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


It's War

Posts: 7153
Re: Iron Law of Oligarchy
Reply #24 - 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.
Back to top
 

I will no longer pursue a policy of appeasement. To all the bigots, homophobes, and Islamophobes at OzPol...

CAESAR IS MARCHING WITH HIS LEGIONS.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 42606
I like fish
Re: Iron Law of Oligarchy
Reply #25 - 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?
Back to top
 

It's God's job to forgive terrorists; it's our job to arrange the meeting.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Gnads
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9602
Gender: male
Re: Iron Law of Oligarchy
Reply #26 - Aug 3rd, 2018 at 7:10pm
 
Bias_2012 wrote on Aug 1st, 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.

Back to top
 

Politicians are like nappies; they need to be changed often and for the same reason.
The most difficult choice a politician must ever make is whether to be a hypocrite or a liar.
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


It's War

Posts: 7153
Re: Iron Law of Oligarchy
Reply #27 - 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.
Back to top
 

I will no longer pursue a policy of appeasement. To all the bigots, homophobes, and Islamophobes at OzPol...

CAESAR IS MARCHING WITH HIS LEGIONS.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 42606
I like fish
Re: Iron Law of Oligarchy
Reply #28 - 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?
Back to top
 

It's God's job to forgive terrorists; it's our job to arrange the meeting.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


It's War

Posts: 7153
Re: Iron Law of Oligarchy
Reply #29 - 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??
Back to top
 

I will no longer pursue a policy of appeasement. To all the bigots, homophobes, and Islamophobes at OzPol...

CAESAR IS MARCHING WITH HIS LEGIONS.
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Send Topic Print