Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Many dictators like to call themselves Democratic...but they're not.(Correct, there never has been)
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Then there's never been a communist, fascist, or a "true" dictatorship. All we're run by a group of men, not just one, so I mean really every single government has been a oligarchy except for a few random democracies.
I would argue that an Absolute Monarchy would be an oligarchy of sorts due to the fact that it would likely be governed by elite groups of people yes.
Then again, if the Despot has total control over his government, in a way that a conventional president or prime minister might not, then I would say that is certainly getting into the Autocratic theater.
For example, the Roman Republic was an Plutocratic Oligarchy which became a more Autocratic Plutocracy...
The USA today is a mixture of a Plutocratic Oligarchy and a Meritocracy.
The question you need to ask yourself is: "Who has the power"
I'm sorry, but I and the entirety of history has to disagree with you. I do agree the US is a borderline oligarchy, but just because a country is run by a group of men does not make it an oligarchy unless there is no governing figurehead. Hitler's Germany was a fascist government, no matter that is was run by more than one man. Oligarchy, as an actual government type, is dead. It can be used to describe rule, but that it no longer can be considered the government of the said country they are talking about. It's a dead form of government.
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
I'm sorry, but I and the entirety of history has to disagree with you. I do agree the US is a borderline oligarchy, but just because a country is run by a group of men does not make it an oligarchy unless there is no governing figurehead. Hitler's Germany was a fascist government, no matter that is was run by more than one man. Oligarchy, as an actual government type, is dead. It can be used to describe rule, but that it no longer can be considered the government of the said country they are talking about. It's a dead form of government.
An interesting point, however totally invalid.
Please show me how history disagrees with me on anything I said.
Yet, you can have a Communist Oligarchy or a Communist Democracy. Any way, I don't get your point...in what was is it dead- if it exists.
You seem to think Oligarchy is a system of government whereby say- 26 people run the nation and only they can. No, an oligarchy is where the rich are in power, a democracy is where the poor have power.
In fact..your post didn't make any point at all. That show of arrogance was pathetic.
No, that is not the definition. Democracy is where everyone has a chance for a say in the government. In the end, people in the United States do have that chance. Oligarchy is where a group of people lead because of privilege. A meritocracy is completely contrary to that idea. I was wrong to say Oligarchy is dead, but because the majority of nations have a meritocracy in place, oligarchy is a dying idea.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
You seem to think Oligarchy is a system of government whereby say- 26 people run the nation and only they can. No, an oligarchy is where the rich are in power, a democracy is where the poor have power.
Going by the definitions of oligarchy and democracy that's inaccurate. Going by the literal meaning of oligarchy and democracy that's inaccurate.
Oligarchy is where power concentrated in the hands a relatively small number of people. Democracy is where power is given to the population.
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
No, that is not the definition. Democracy is where everyone has a chance for a say in the government. In the end, people in the United States do have that chance. Oligarchy is where a group of people lead because of privilege. A meritocracy is completely contrary to that idea. I was wrong to say Oligarchy is dead, but because the majority of nations have a meritocracy in place, oligarchy is a dying idea.
Few nations really have meritocracies (in fact I can't think of any). Success is determined far more by wealth and status than actual ability just about everywhere.
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
But the chance for advancement is still there. Jimmy Carter was not rich when he started, and he rose to the top.
Meritocracy is just the chance for people to advance because of merit, which is within the society of the west and the government.
Fair enough. Personally, I would consider a meritocracy to be a system where advancement is possible and the playing field is equal. Otherwise the wealthy are effectively in control.
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
No, that is not the definition. Democracy is where everyone has a chance for a say in the government. In the end, people in the United States do have that chance. Oligarchy is where a group of people lead because of privilege. A meritocracy is completely contrary to that idea. I was wrong to say Oligarchy is dead, but because the majority of nations have a meritocracy in place, oligarchy is a dying idea.
You were needlessly arrogant I think.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Going by the definitions of oligarchy and democracy that's inaccurate. Going by the literal meaning of oligarchy and democracy that's inaccurate.Oligarchy is where power concentrated in the hands a relatively small number of people. Democracy is where power is given to the population.
Not according to Aristotle,
"Therefore we should say rather that it is a democracy whenever the free are sovereign, oligarchy when the rich are sovereign, but that what actually occurs is that the former are many, the latter few; many are free, fre are rich. Supposing that offices of government were distributed on basis of height or handsome appearance then there would be an oligarchy because the numbers of the tall or handsome is small. Nevertheless that does not provide adequate ways of defining these constitutions. Both consist of groups of people; whenever the free are not numerous, but rule over the majority who are not free, we can still not say that it is an oligarchy, nor that it is a democracy where the rich rule in virtue of superior numbers. A democracy exists whenever those who are free and not well-off are in control of government, an oligarchy when control lies with the rich and well-born. these being few."
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Then I apologize if you were offended.Aristotle is not the end all of government theory.
He largely defined what a democracy was and what an oligarchy was (oh and he also proves that "the entirety of history" does not disagree with me.
It is his definition that is taught in Classical Studies all across the world, which is essentially a comparison between Ancient Society and Modern.
The public understanding may have changed, but fact is:
In the USA to become President you need lots and lots of money. This immediate limits the number of people who are likely to become president, thus its Oligarchic- one or two anomaly prove nothing.
In the UK you need to join a Political Party if you wish to get into Government, Political Parties are Oligarchies.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Not according to Aristotle"Therefore we should say rather that it is a democracy whenever the free are sovereign, oligarchy when the rich are sovereign, but that what actually occurs is that the former are many, the latter few; many are free, free are rich. Supposing that offices of government were distributed on basis of height or handsome appearance then there would be an oligarchy because the numbers of the tall or handsome is small. Nevertheless that does not provide adequate ways of defining these constitutions. Both consist of groups of people; whenever the free are not numerous, but rule over the majority who are not free, we can still not say that it is an oligarchy, nor that it is a democracy where the rich rule in virtue of superior numbers. A democracy exists whenever those who are free and not well-off are in control of government, an oligarchy when control lies with the rich and well-born. these being few."
Actually, Aristotle disagrees with your claim.
"Therefore we should say rather that it is a democracy whenever the free are sovereign, oligarchy when the rich are sovereign, but that what actually occurs is that the former are many, the latter few."
Then later: "Supposing that offices of government were distributed on basis of height or handsome appearance then there would be an oligarchy because the numbers of the tall or handsome is small."
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Actually, Aristotle disagrees with your claim."Therefore we should say rather that it is a democracy whenever the free are sovereign, oligarchy when the rich are sovereign, [b]but that what actually occurs is that the former are many, the latter few
."Then later: "Supposing that offices of government were distributed on basis of height or handsome appearance then there would be an oligarchy because the numbers of the tall or handsome is small." [/B]
That was clumsy of you, the language is difficult so I shall let you look over it again until you see what he meant.
On your first quote he means, Democracy is rule of the poor, oligarchy of the rich. However, people often take this to mean, rule of the many and rule of the few- this is because the poor are the many and the rich are the few.
Your second quote he is saying, it is an oligarchy because tall men are few, however even if they were the majority it would still be an oligarchy- you need to treat the passage as a whole- thus rule of the few is insufficiant to describe an oligarchy.
Therefore, he concludes- A democracy exists whenever those who are free and not well-off are in control of government, an oligarchy when control lies with the rich and well-born. these being few."