= representative democracy

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


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.

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


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?

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


I don't really care about this.

Please comment on my idea of the sortition Senate.

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


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.

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


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'.

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


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

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



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

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


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.

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


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.

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

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.

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


Is it oligarchical because it is representative?

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


It's oligarchical because there's an oligarchy.

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


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??

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


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

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


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

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


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?

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



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

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


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?

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


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

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.

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


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.............

Quote:


Brilliant insight there Auggie.

Quote:


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.

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


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:



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. 

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


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

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


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?

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


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

It's OK I won't be offended.

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


Yes, sir, I am.

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


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

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


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

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


Are you really that obtuse?

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

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

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


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.

Quote:

Just a quick comment:

AREN'T WE ACTUALLY NOT JUST SAYING THAT THIS FORUM HAS BOILED DOWN TO AN OLIGARCHY?