An Oligarchy is composed of humans, there for an Oligarchy will fuck over society. Absolute power corrupting abolutely, applies to groups as well as individuals. Being the best leader and being the most intelligent are not the same. Nor does intelligence mean you will make the best decision. Intelligent people end up in jail, intelligent people ran the Holocaust, intelligent people fucked over the economy.

"An Oligarchy is composed of humans, there for an Oligarchy will fuck over society."

Virtually every 'democracy' has some form of 'oligarchy'. The US has 9 unelected Supreme Court Justices which strike down laws passed by the two elected branches. The Senate runs roughshod over the principle of one person, one vote, with tiny states like Wyoming having just as much power as populous California. The Senate was constructed to flout the will of the populace.

The electoral college was originally an oligarchy designed for choosing the Presidency, because such an important decision couldn't be trusted to the people. Initially nobody even elected electors. Ditto Senators, they were chosen by the states.

The Constitutional convention which designed and ratified our foundation of laws was a secret oligarchy par excellence. They had no democratic mandate whatsoever to throw out the Articles of Confederation and ratify the Constitution.

The Federal Reserve Board is an unelected oligarchy that controls our monetary policy.

Yet miraculously society has survived, despite these oligarchies.

The very definition of 'republic' is oligarchy.

@Putin33 My comment was in reference to Fasces comments to his oligarchy, not to the types you are refering to. Also some would say they also fucked over society.

"You don’t know but it’s obviously more important. That’s swell can you actually list of anything you can think of that’s more important to human society then what I’ve listed off? If not I’d say the riots are pretty justified as it means the government has misplaced priorities."
Stability.

"Yeah and believe it or not unless your state goes around antagonizing other states you don’t need to continually invest is increasing military might. The protection of the citizens could easily be accomplished by a police force. "
So then wars never happen?

Stability is important why?

people want security, sure, but they also want to improve their lives and those of their families, and if a little bit of stability has to go in the short term for that long term goal then people may choose to sacrifice it.

"Followed or not at some point it’s certainly ignored in a modern globalized world, where corporations continue to outsource to other countries to find cheaper and cheaper wages. And while sure the quality of the good may be all fairly equal and better then countries without competition. The drive for cheaper products has reduced the build quality of their products, because that way they can sell them for a cheaper at higher profit margins to more consumers, and since they break more people have to replace them more often. More profit. That’s the reality competition drives innovation that’s for sure but profit motivation doesn’t ensure quality of products."
However companies with better products generally sell more.

"I don’t brink up a system where the market is a failure because I’m not all against the market. By no means do I think that there should be no such thing as a private company. I do however feel there should be strict regulation in place to protect the workers and maintain jobs within a country by preventing outsourcing. Should these companies refuse fine, quick them out and create new ones that will follow the regulations, there is nothing wrong with the market, except that it shouldn’t be driven entirely by what is profitable it should instead by worried about the impacts of its actions and being a positive element of a country."
By restricting them to much, your going to loose what makes it the market so good.

"See I don’t agree with either position, there is a reason you won’t find a country that embraces party two. You’ve paired two conflicting ideas in it. Lasize Faire with high taxes and social welfare programs, I can’t think of a single party that combines the two ideas. "
Party 2 hated social welfare programs...

"Fine, they don’t deserve a say because they make poor choices and uniformed ones. However an Oligarchy allows for the exclusion of new ideas even if they are better than the old ones because the old guard wants to hold onto their power."
Makes logical sense. However if the best of best are rightfully chosen in an Oligarchy, they will deserve to keep their power.

They wont reject ideas that will make them or the state they govern more powerful, so I don't see why there is a problem here.

"I’m from Calgary here. Ironic that we are debating opposite sides of what are city normally takes."
Wow, conservatives in Toronto are a minority, but being a liberal in Calgary is just unheard of. At least your from Canada, the greatest country in the modern world.

"As I said not anti-competition, I’m anti-profit motivation, and pro-corporate conciseness "
I'll give you a billion dollars for every single entrepreneur you can name who wasn't profit driven.
The fact is, profit motive is what makes the markets so competitive and beautiful.

"-Entirely true, but electing a dictator (like hitler) is now a proven failure. Just like the economic policies which lead to the great depression. Now i'm not saying we learn from history, but some ideas which have been proved flawed remain consider thus and hence not an acceptable alternative to any current failure."
What lead to the Great Depression also lead to the modern recession...
Chevrolet has be bail out 3 times for doing the same mistake 3 times.
Hitler invaded Germany using the exact strategy Napoleon did.
I hate to break it to you, but the common man doesn't learn from his ancestors mistakes.

"No, humans send signals between each other, 'collective intelligence'/consciousness is an emergent feature depending on the organisation of these cells. There is no sharing equally among the parts..."
So when my brain, collectively sends singles to my leg to stop walking, each of the individual cells get a choice in the matter?
Also the cells occasionally revolt from the brain demanding free speech, free markets and better representation and decentralization.
I guess my grandfathers heart attack was caused when the heart went on strike.
Yeah, humans can act as a collective. The body needs to in order to work, we don't want to.

"also neurons are cells, i take it you don't know what the fuck you're talking about when it comes to the brain?"
I plead guilty. My knowledge on the brain is not how we think it works, but how I know it doesn't.

"At least your from Canada, the greatest country in the modern world."

Ever heard of this crazy rightwing blogger from British Columbia - Adam Yoshida?

"An Oligarchy is composed of humans, there for an Oligarchy will fuck over society. Absolute power corrupting abolutely, applies to groups as well as individuals. Being the best leader and being the most intelligent are not the same. Nor does intelligence mean you will make the best decision. Intelligent people end up in jail, intelligent people ran the Holocaust, intelligent people fucked over the economy."
So I guess every monarchy in history fucked over society. I guess every dictatorship fucked over society. I guess Rome fell in 40 BC because the republic fell and it was now run by a dictator.
Monarchy has a better track record then Democracy in terms of helping the people in the long run.
Now as Putin33 is more charismatic then me (and supports it more then me), I will let him do the talking for pro-dictatorship/oligarchy.

"Stability is important why?"
Because then we can get things done. And actually scrap stability, progress is more important.

"people want security, sure, but they also want to improve their lives and those of their families, and if a little bit of stability has to go in the short term for that long term goal then people may choose to sacrifice it."
Hence why I am a capitalist, they have a profit motive, now lets see them put it to use.

"Ever heard of this crazy rightwing blogger from British Columbia - Adam Yoshida?"
I'll give him a read. why do you ask?

"I'll give him a read. why do you ask?"

Because there's this weird trend of far-right Canadian people I keep running into on the internet, and he's one of the more prominent ones. Just curious.

He's an extreme militarist who thinks Canada should spend all its money on aircraft carriers or something like that - he's more pro-American than anyone I've ever read. He - like you - doesn't object to being called a fascist very much. Although he - like you - doesn't consider himself one as a technical matter.

“Stability.”
Well given the current situation in Egypt I’d say that investment was a failure. A stable country is one where the populace supports its government. (The government also has to avoid being stupid but that’s another thing altogether) So investments like I listed before are investments in stability, socially and economically in the long run as you build a stronger working base.

“So then wars never happen?”
Sure wars happen. Does that mean you should continue to try and grow your military? Once you have an adequate force to defend yourself it’s just a matter of making allies who will protect you if you’re attacked. Which means that military spending can be a lot lower then it is without hurting the population unless the government starts wars or antagonizes other countries since they will be able to find allies to defend them.

“However companies with better products generally sell more.”
Sure they might sell more than companies with crap products all things being equal. However once price comes into the equation that isn’t true anymore. Nobody will deny that the PS3 was better product hardware wise. However it was vastly more expensive than the 360, the result was it moved far less units. Only now that the price is almost par do we see a shift in consumption patterns.

“By restricting them too much, you’re going to lose what makes it the market so good.”
Whatever, stability is more important than a few extra benefits. So long as competition is still allowed you will see some of the benefits of a market without the nasty consequences

“Party 2 hated social welfare programs”
Education is a welfare program

“They won’t reject ideas that will make them or the state they govern more powerful, so I don't see why there is a problem here.”
Because if we decide that people born at the bottom can’t do their best they may never encounter new ideas and develop ideas of their own. One of those people could have a brilliant idea for the state.
Additionally not all good ideas make the state more powerful. Or at least every person in the state more powerful because they will all have personal interests

“I'll give you a billion dollars for every single entrepreneur you can name who wasn't profit driven.
The fact is, profit motive is what makes the markets so competitive and beautiful.”
I believe that was my point. The profit motive results in uncaring corporations who don’t care is hurt as long as they make more profit. You can still have competition and yes..*shudder* pursuit of profit. So long as the second is in moderation and is tempered by social responsibilities placed upon the corporations by the government to prevent exploitation then it can still be a viable system.

“Wow, conservatives in Toronto are a minority, but being a liberal in Calgary is just unheard of. At least your from Canada, the greatest country in the modern world.”
Not quite unheard of there are a fair number of us within the art world. However Alberta does tend to elect conservatives on a national level. Save for the one seat that went NDP last election in Edmonton. In provincial elections there is a bit more of a spread. My district is in fact represented by the provincial liberals. I am quite proud of Canada. It’s a lovely place to live. =)

And that’s the thing. Opposing the revolution in Egypt is fine. However the western world shouldn’t get involved in it directly because it is an independent countries affair.

... Weird. I'm fairly against increased military spending on principle as I feel Canada is better suited to a role as a peacekeeping country rather then trying to impose our ideas on others.

Fasces, once again, a stream of intellegent benevolent dictators would be fucking cool.

Is it going to happen? Fuck. no.

Dictatorships have a lot shorter lifespan than democracies. Think long-term.

In addition, I still don't understand how you plan to maintain this stream of benevolent intellectuals when you plan on keeping 80%+ of the country uneducated and in poverty, thereby instituting an extremely disparate caste system. In addition, by not educating them, you keep them poor, and ruin your own economy.

'Chevrolet has be bail out 3 times for doing the same mistake 3 times. '

So.... we didn't restrict them enough?

You appear to be support left-wing economics.

Who were this nation's finest Presidents? Franklin Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln. The closest we ever came to benevolent dictators (some would argue they were dictators..). Who were our worst Presidents? Well among the worst was James Buchanan, who believed the law was a suicide pact, essentially.

"Dictatorships have a lot shorter lifespan than democracies. Think long-term."

That's not really true. Numerous independent countries started out 'democracies', only to become one-party states or military regimes shortly thereafter - Myanmar, Pakistan, Nigeria, Kenya, Sudan, Mexico, Indonesia - just to name a few. Short-lived democracies in Europe include Greece, Italy, Germany, Spain, Portugal.
We saw short-lived 'democracies' throughout Central Asia in the 1990s. Ironically the more 'stable' regimes have been in French Africa and the former French colonies more generally, which have been anything but democratic - Togo, Mali, Chad, Niger etc.

See I agree with you there Putin. There is nothing wrong with a strong state so long as the people support there government.

The finest presidents of the USA, (Lets for the sake of argument say Churchill is one of the greats of Britain) and some of the best prime ministers of Britain.

Because the people were content with their government, and felt they still had input. A dictatorship can work. But without support or apathy from a fair percentage of the population it will fail.

Sure the Czars, the Keizers, the French Kings, Chinese Emperors, and so many others did such a good job, I guess they worked them selves out of a job. Not saying they didn't do any good when they're not trying to conquer each other. Most dictators do more harm than good, after all they are human, even if they start out honest, they become corrupt to stay in power. Rome lasted so long because there was no serious contenders by 40 BC.

And yet was China ever greater than when it was under the rule of Kangxi? Was Germany ever greater than during the Wilhelmine period? Was France ever greater than it was under Louis XIV?

Define greater.

But, I don't think the point is that countries can become super awesome at one time under a one in a billion leader, the argument that it is simply not a sustainable government in the eyes of the general populace.

Greater - more powerful, more united, more influential.

Obviously it's sustainable if the Chinese imperial system lasted continuously from 221 BC to 1911 AD. The Russian Tsars lasted something like 1100 years, etc.

Ever since France was consumed by revolution, it was beset by instability. They're currently on their fifth version of the Republic - beginning in 1958. I don't think you can say the same about the French monarchy.

During the first half century of the Mexican republic, if they could hold a government together for a year they were lucky. The Porfiriato + rule of the PRI brought a century of stability (minus the Mexican revolution interlude).

All of this is quite aside from NDP/Mubarak rule in Egypt - which I oppose. Egypt would benefit from another Nasser - preferably one less inclined to wipe out or repress Communists.

Trolling trolling trolling, keep that thread a-trolling, keep that thread a-trolling, Fasces...!

I don't think citing BC empires really counts, as most of the things humans did back then aren't viable in the modern day, so why should their governments be?

So... maybe it's sustainable when all the population cares about is 'protect me from the Mongols so I can grow some crops'.

How many millennia does a government have to last to be sustainable in your eyes?
At any rate, the only long lasting democracies have existed among the Anglo American sea powers. Insular, protected by geography from outside invasion, able to raise money through taxing commerce rather than directly tax its citizens, able to rely on a volunteer military force rather than conscription - these conditions foster open, democratic systems.

The rest of the world was not so lucky, and democracy has not lasted nearly as long anywhere else.

Just because monarchy lasted so long (your examples of China, Russia, France, and I add Egypt) doesn't mean they were stable. China suffered a few periods of intense warfare and every dynasty collapsed, many under the weight of civil war or foreign invasion. The French royal family was technically the longest ruling family in Europe, but the reigns did change sides of the family multiple times not always peacefully. What applies to China also applies to Egypt.

I agree many places haven't had smooth democracy, but you can't say that monarchies/dictatorships are very stable. Plus, you allow thousands of years for monarchies to prove their case, meaning we will have to have the conversation in another 1800 years.

largeham, you do have a point about the time span issue, and I support your assertion that it is not a sustainable practice, but you seem to be neglecting some basic history here.

For the most part, monarchies struggled in succession when there was no male heir to the throne. In Russia's time of troubles, Ivan IV killed his only mentally healthy son, creating the succession problem, England's civil war in the mid-seventeenth century stems from the fact that 50 years earlier they had to ask James I (or Charles? forgive me if I'm wrong) to come to the throne even though he was catholic because there was no other heir. So that is one aspect off in instability of the system.

The other thing that destabilizes it is how do you ensure that the ruler is going to be a benevolent one, or a great one? Well, you can't, but neither can you ensure a democratic leader will have the same qualities. Harding wasn't exactly the cleanest of politicians, and you forget the succession problems the United States has had. Most recently was the election of 2000, but other things included are the Civil War (big one) and the Hayes-Tilden affair, in which an election was rigged.

In my opinion, the benevolent dictatorship is the better option because there is less room for corruption, graft, sloth and the whole system of government is more streamlined, efficient, and can make decisions about things much quicker

"Hitler invaded Germany using the exact strategy Napoleon did.
I hate to break it to you, but the common man doesn't learn from his ancestors mistakes. "

Hitler invaded Russia, and he did it with tanks, and his men didn't die from the cold.

They did not make the same mistakes unless you simplify to 'never start a land war in asia'

Further there is a massive difference between the international global monetrary system as it was in the 30s and post gold-standard of today. check it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard

now i don't know enough about economics, but it seems like having a basis of the economic system in gold instead of credit(goodwill/trust/confidence) is a be thing.

'So when my brain, collectively sends singles to my leg to stop walking, each of the individual cells get a choice in the matter? '

what the frack does your leg have to do with it? your legs is like a tool, like a gun, or cruise missile, your network of neurons is entirely in your brain and the cells there 'choose' to pay attention or not to EACH OTHER, and the inputs they recieve from sensory input.

Thanks for demonstrating again that you don't know what i'm talking about.

'My knowledge on the brain is not how we think it works, but how I know it doesn't.' please expand on this, no doubt, hugely illustrating point.

Mine was that neurons can collectively come up with intelligence. And that humans can act in the same way. NOT that the body is a slave to the mind and that as you seem to think this is the only way collective action can reasonably be achieved (through authoritive and centralized means)

I was specifically demonstrating a system of collective signalling comparable in many ways to social networks.

------------

"Stability is important why?"
'Because then we can get things done. And actually scrap stability, progress is more important.'

Excellent, and progress towards what? a better quality of living for all? for some? is freedom of speech part of quality of living? is having a say in law-making? is democracy progress from earlier forms of government which actually did manage to control and silence the majority because they didn't have weapons and there was no concept of human rights?

what is this progress you speak of?

Hitler did WHAT now?! He really should be watched.

How's that revolution in egypt going?

Ok, I am getting rather bored of trolling this thread. I tried giving a minimum of 3 hints that I was trolling in every one of my posts. (assuming the post was a response to at least 6 different people) I am surprised you guys didn't catch it sooner.
"Well given the current situation in Egypt I’d say that investment was a failure. A stable country is one where the populace supports its government. (The government also has to avoid being stupid but that’s another thing altogether) So investments like I listed before are investments in stability, socially and economically in the long run as you build a stronger working base."
Its not as unstable as the media makes people believe.

"Sure wars happen. Does that mean you should continue to try and grow your military? Once you have an adequate force to defend yourself it’s just a matter of making allies who will protect you if you’re attacked. Which means that military spending can be a lot lower then it is without hurting the population unless the government starts wars or antagonizes other countries since they will be able to find allies to defend them."
Si vis pacem, para bellum

"Sure they might sell more than companies with crap products all things being equal. However once price comes into the equation that isn’t true anymore. Nobody will deny that the PS3 was better product hardware wise. However it was vastly more expensive than the 360, the result was it moved far less units. Only now that the price is almost par do we see a shift in consumption patterns."
However, if you enforce higher wages, for example, the price for goods goes up, and in order to make high profits, they have to cut a different part of the budget, quality of parts for example.

"Education is a welfare program"
No, education is a necessity.

"I believe that was my point. The profit motive results in uncaring corporations who don’t care is hurt as long as they make more profit. You can still have competition and yes..*shudder* pursuit of profit. So long as the second is in moderation and is tempered by social responsibilities placed upon the corporations by the government to prevent exploitation then it can still be a viable system."
You forget, the working class also have a profit motif.

"Not quite unheard of there are a fair number of us within the art world. However Alberta does tend to elect conservatives on a national level. Save for the one seat that went NDP last election in Edmonton. In provincial elections there is a bit more of a spread. My district is in fact represented by the provincial liberals. I am quite proud of Canada. It’s a lovely place to live. =)"
Quite honestly I am pleased with the economic situation in Canada, and can honestly say that it is better then any other country out there.
We have the worlds safest banks (which I agree do need regulation) and despite our economic reliance on America, we still had a strong economy in the recession.
As I already said, Paul Martin was the best PM of all time, what does that say of my real political ideologies?

"And that’s the thing. Opposing the revolution in Egypt is fine. However the western world shouldn’t get involved in it directly because it is an independent countries affair.

... Weird. I'm fairly against increased military spending on principle as I feel Canada is better suited to a role as a peacekeeping country rather then trying to impose our ideas on others."
NO! WE SHOULD INVADE THE ENEMY TO THE SOUTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
However I do agree that the west should state out of domestic affairs in smaller nations. Everytime America has gotten involved in one of these situations, they have only made it worse.

"Fasces, once again, a stream of intellegent benevolent dictators would be fucking cool.

Is it going to happen? Fuck. no.

Dictatorships have a lot shorter lifespan than democracies. Think long-term."
Roman Republic: 294 years (longest time were it was running without any dictators taking over. But whenever a dictator did, it died before taking over)
Roman Empire: 1490 years if you count Byzantium.

French Monarchy: 1100 years
First French Repbulic: 11 years

White Russia (Monarchy): 1000+ years
Bolshevik Socialist Republic (Democracy): 7 years
USSR (Dictatorship): 67 Years
Russian Federation (Democracy): 10 years
Putin's Empire: Ongoing
Yeah sure, democracy last longer, just look at the track record comparison for countries that have tried both a democracy and a dictatorship in the modern world.

"I don't think citing BC empires really counts, as most of the things humans did back then aren't viable in the modern day, so why should their governments be?"
The problem is, in the modern day America has stuck her but into everyone else's business and tried her best to make sure no dictatorship arises.

"and I add Egypt"
So the one empire that was able to remain a political power in the world for 2700 years, 1100 years more then second place, wasn't stable??? If thats not stable then please educate us into what is.

"Hitler invaded Russia, and he did it with tanks, and his men didn't die from the cold. "
So the 600,000 Germans who died from Hypothermia and frost-bite in the winter of 1941 don't count?
I guess it is possible that these diseases were biological warfare by the Russians...

"what the frack does your leg have to do with it? your legs is like a tool, like a gun, or cruise missile, your network of neurons is entirely in your brain and the cells there 'choose' to pay attention or not to EACH OTHER, and the inputs they recieve from sensory input. "
If your using the human body as your example, THE CELLS HAVE TO BE THE HUMANS. IF NOT WHAT DO THEY REPRESENT?
You said it yourself, where neurons should be those who govern society. Neurons require the digestive system for the necessary nutrients to stay a live.

Even if we are to use the human body as an example, it supports communist oligarchy. It also confirms my strong belief biology and evolution have proven that specialization in occupation is necessary (which means you only focus on your job, not your presidents) and that only the fittest deserve to live.

Answer to the rest later, I have to go to class now.