NationStates Jolt Archive

Which do you prefer, and why? What do you dislike about the other forms?

I will start.

Democracy
Pros- Can't do an extreme amount of harm without some deal of preparation, especially with gridlock.
Cons- Too open to abuse by rational ignorance and rent-seeking. The "voice of the people" abstraction is a great tool to subjugate the populace.

Oligarchy
Pros- If the people in the oligarchy are in it because of the right characteristics, then it's probably the best form of government.
Cons- If the people in the oligarchy are in it because of the wrong characteristics, then it's just another bad government.

Monarchy
Pros- Tendency to preserve at least some of the welfare of the people, if only for the sake of the monarch.
Cons- Too much centralized, arbitrary power, which is detrimental to the welfare of the people.

(I believe the question is also applicable to anarchists. From what I've seen, Austrian anarcho-capitalism goes for a voluntary sort of oligarchy, with the natural elites and all, and anarcho-communism seems to focus on direct democracy, for examples.)

Democracy. Freedom is the most desirable end for our society, and the abuses of democracy are nothing compared to those that could be committed by a wealthy aristocracy or tyrannical king.

I question that centralization of power is a bad thing. Your "pros" and "cons" were highly biased on what is apparently a libertarian/humanitarian philosophy, which isn't universal. Your cons may very well be my pros.

That said, I am a fascist. I suppose I would best prefer Monarchy, since it is much closer to Fascism than the others.

Pudding FTW!

In an ideal world oligarchy would be best, in the real world, probably democracy/republic.

I question that centralization of power is a bad thing. Your "pros" and "cons" were highly biased on what is apparently a libertarian/humanitarian philosophy, which isn't universal. Your cons may very well be my pros.

That said, I am a fascist. I suppose I would best prefer Monarchy, since it is much closer to Fascism than the others.

Well, it kind of should be biased- it was my preferences.

My preference is for radical classless democracy. Everything else is tyranny.

Democracy
Pros - the only system that makes the collective will sovereign, thus permitting collective liberty; avoids elitism and hierarchy; forces policies to actually attract a broad base of support; permits governmental transfer without violence; creates identity between ruler and ruled; is actually consistent with the right to self-determination; lots and lots of others.
Cons - potential tyranny of the majority, which has always struck me as quite superior to a tyranny of the minority.

Oligarchy
Pros - well-educated rulers (maybe)
Cons - ruling class that will cease privileges for itself; unrepresentative government that does not understand and does not share the interests of the population; very difficult to control for competent and moral leadership; easily open to corruption and abuses; violates the right to self-determination. Recipe for tyranny of the minority (perhaps even definitionally tyranny of the minority.)

Monarchy
Pros - well-educated rulers (maybe)
Cons - Everything that an oligarchy has problems with, with the additional factor that leadership choice is basically arbitrary.

Well, it kind of should be biased- it was my preferences.

Oops, I misunderstood.

Whatever the case:

Democracy:

Pros: No news is good news, I guess.
Cons: It's democracy. Idiots are running the country.

Oligarchy: Not familiar with oligarchy.

Monarchy:

Pros: Centralized authority by a trained elite. Centralized, unchecked authority over the military.

Cons: Hereditary rule.

That said, I am a fascist. I suppose I would best prefer Monarchy, since it is much closer to Fascism than the others.
Weren't most fascist regimes run by an elite group who use one member as a front man for their actions? Hitler was an exception, but he ended up as the exception to most rules.

I would prefer a monarchy, at least then you've got someone clearly marked out to shoot at when it all goes into the crapper. In an oligarchy or democracy, they just pick out a scapegoat for their problems and the real troublemakers keep going.

democracy.
monarcy should be removed.

Weren't most fascist regimes run by an elite group who use one member as a front man for their actions? Hitler was an exception, but he ended up as the exception to most rules.

Il Duce defined Fascism as the centralized, unadulterated voice of the people. One of the big reasons I dislike Democracy is that it is by definition a compromised. It is a perversion of the people's will. The voice of an activist minority takes precedence over what is best for the many.

That said, yes, Fascism is heirarchal as opposed to hereditary, unlike Monarchy. Hitler's reich included. Hitler had a second in command (Himmler).

I live in a monarchy which is a democracy, hence the choices in the OP are falsely opposed.

Unless what is meant is democracy = tyranny of the majority, and monarchy = royalist dictatorship.

That said, yes, Fascism is heirarchal as opposed to hereditary, unlike Monarchy. Hitler's reich included. Hitler had a second in command (Himmler).
I'm assuming that we're using the Aristotlean definitions here (since these are the three forms of government that he identified), in which case a Monarch isn't neccessarily hereditary, but is anyone who wields supreme executive, legislative and judicial power.
Admittedly, I wasn't well into the political end during my neo-nazi phase, but I would never have agreed to play along simply for the purpose of handing over all my rights to another person.

I'm assuming that we're using the Aristotlean definitions here (since these are the three forms of government that he identified), in which case a Monarch isn't neccessarily hereditary, but is anyone who wields supreme executive, legislative and judicial power.

Thus, Fascism = Monarchy? But by definitions alone, Fascism could also be considered oligarchical (Corporatism).


Admittedly, I wasn't well into the political end during my neo-nazi

I don't consider myself a neo nazi. I consider myself a classic nazi. I am not covered in tatoos, nor have I ever been to prison, nor do I enjoy death metal. Plus, I am currently in college.

None of the above.

Thus, Fascism = Monarchy? But by definitions alone, Fascism could also be considered oligarchical (Corporatism).
My point. The "voice of the people", as it were, is still present, its just what sort of people have a voice that gets clamped down on.
I don't consider myself a neo nazi. I consider myself a classic nazi. I am not covered in tatoos, nor have I ever been to prison, nor do I enjoy death metal. Plus, I am currently in college.
I was in high school at the time, sans tattoos, and I prefered punk to death metal. The last of the "classic" Nazi's are a bunch of dying men in their 80's, unless, of course, you've managed to find a handful of National Socialists hiding under Berlin keeping the tradition alive.

My point. The "voice of the people", as it were, is still present, its just what sort of people have a voice that gets clamped down on.

In that case, Fascism must be considered completely transcendent of Aristotelian definitions. It is truly none of the above.

Democracy. Although in theory an oligarchy might be great due to education among rulers, there is too big of a risk of getting a group of people that wouldn't mind violating the rights of their fellows. At least in a democracy we have an ability to "throw the bums out". That being said, any form of government must have a constitution of some form to prevent abuses of power.

None of the above.

I would agree with this statement. I would prefer a mix of all three, with a Constitution ensuring that the government doesn't get too pervasive.

Either that or a libertarian paradise. Whichever.

I was in high school at the time, sans tattoos, and I prefered punk to death metal. The last of the "classic" Nazi's are a bunch of dying men in their 80's, unless, of course, you've managed to find a handful of National Socialists hiding under Berlin keeping the tradition alive.

*hides the SS uniform and the hidden Nazi treasures*

>.>
<.<

Democracy. Although in theory an oligarchy might be great due to education among rulers, there is too big of a risk of getting a group of people that wouldn't mind violating the rights of their fellows. At least in a democracy we have an ability to "throw the bums out". That being said, any form of government must have a constitution of some form to prevent abuses of power.

Hence, a constitutional oligarchy. With maybe a democratic Assembly with not a WHOLE lot of power, but enough that, of the oligarchs screw up too much, the Assembly can boot them and get new ones.

And then some sort of a Chief Consul of some sort to act as a head of state, a figurehead of some sort with relatively limited power.

Of all the options, only pudding has any attraction whatsoever to me. The others all suck.

Democracy

Pro: Everyone gets a voice.
Con: People are fucking stupid and they treat elections more like sports than like serious policy referendums.

Oligarchy
Pros: So long as the elite class is a class of the best fit to rule, it has the most intelligent rulers.
Cons: The little guy sometimes gets ignored. Defining fitness to rule is impossible.


Monarchy
Pros: None
Cons: Stupid, inbred cows ruling a nation with supreme power to fuck people over in the name of their own greed.

Either that or a libertarian paradise.

:D :D :D

However, since this was not an official choice, I'll go with...Pudding!!!

:D :D :D

However, since this was not an official choice, I'll go with...Pudding!!!

I am all for a Puddocracy. :D

Actually, I'm for a Godocracy, with myself as God ruling over all of you mortal playth....I mean loyal, honoured subjects of the crown. ;)

Which do you prefer, and why? What do you dislike about the other forms?

I will start.

Democracy
Pros- Can't do an extreme amount of harm without some deal of preparation, especially with gridlock.
Cons- Too open to abuse by rational ignorance and rent-seeking. The "voice of the people" abstraction is a great tool to subjugate the populace.

Oligarchy
Pros- If the people in the oligarchy are in it because of the right characteristics, then it's probably the best form of government.
Cons- If the people in the oligarchy are in it because of the wrong characteristics, then it's just another bad government.

Monarchy
Pros- Tendency to preserve at least some of the welfare of the people, if only for the sake of the monarch.
Cons- Too much centralized, arbitrary power, which is detrimental to the welfare of the people.

(I believe the question is also applicable to anarchists. From what I've seen, Austrian anarcho-capitalism goes for a voluntary sort of oligarchy, with the natural elites and all, and anarcho-communism seems to focus on direct democracy, for examples.)You are not British, are you?
The UK is a monarchy and a democracy, just like all monarchies in Europe. Monarchy is a form of state, democracy is a form of government.

You are not British, are you?
The UK is a monarchy and a democracy, just like all monarchies in Europe. Monarchy is a form of state, democracy is a form of government.

No, I'm Austrian. :D And I'm using the Aristotlian definitions, BTW. (Hence why monarchy does not necessarily mean "your papa was the king, so you are too", but rather "rule by one." Oligarchy is "rule by a few", and democracy is "rule by all".)

I like pudding. And you left out the Archy sister! Ann.

Hence, a constitutional oligarchy. With maybe a democratic Assembly with not a WHOLE lot of power, but enough that, of the oligarchs screw up too much, the Assembly can boot them and get new ones.

And then some sort of a Chief Consul of some sort to act as a head of state, a figurehead of some sort with relatively limited power.
Well, I am all for trying to blend some aspect of oligarchy and democracy, if only by limiting possible voters to those knowledgeable and intelligent enough to know what they are doing or something to prevent tyranny of the masses.

The big questions on your view of the system is how to balance the 2 and keep the oligarchy independent and still accountable and of course the about selection of an oligarchy that will be independent of private interests. We all know that democracies have private interests throughout government, but at least in the democracy the private interests compete.

Well, I am all for trying to blend some aspect of oligarchy and democracy, if only by limiting possible voters to those knowledgeable and intelligent enough to know what they are doing or something to prevent tyranny of the masses.

The big questions on your view of the system is how to balance the 2 and keep the oligarchy independent and still accountable and of course the about selection of an oligarchy that will be independent of private interests. We all know that democracies have private interests throughout government, but at least in the democracy the private interests compete.

Why would all interests in all oligarchies cooperate, rather than compete?

Why would all interests in all oligarchies cooperate, rather than compete?
Because it is more profitable to cooperate. Oligarchies limit the amount of changes that can occur in governments, so collaboration can easily be seen as more profitable in the long run to rulers in an oligarchy. They might not necessarily cooperate, but given the difficulty of competing with their corruption they are likely to come to an agreement.

there's no difference between democracy and oligarchy (more specifically, plutocratic oligarchy) in any society in which class stratification exists...which is most of them.

Because it is more profitable to cooperate. Oligarchies limit the amount of changes that can occur in governments, so collaboration can easily be seen as more profitable in the long run to rulers in an oligarchy. They might not necessarily cooperate, but given the difficulty of competing with their corruption they are likely to come to an agreement.

Hm. I'm not convinced that they'd always end up cooperating, because to do so would mean they all have common interests. If they were restricted somehow, preferably by some means of force, that would probably be for the best.

Thus, Fascism = Monarchy? But by definitions alone, Fascism could also be considered oligarchical (Corporatism).




I don't consider myself a neo nazi. I consider myself a classic nazi. I am not covered in tatoos, nor have I ever been to prison, nor do I enjoy death metal. Plus, I am currently in college.

There's more to Fascism than just that.

"Fascism is associated by many scholars with one or more of the following characteristics: a very high degree of nationalism, economic corporatism, a powerful, dictatorial leader who portrays the nation, state or collective as superior to the individuals or groups composing it."

An excerpt from Fascism a la Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facism#Definition

I think it should be noted that, in a sense of the word, all government types are authoritarian. It just depends WHO holds the authority. (eg: in a democracy the majority, in an oligarchy a group of men/women.)

That being said, my choice would be democracy.

Pudding.
Because no matter how screwed up your gov't is, pudding will always taste yummy in your mouth!
:)

Hm. I'm not convinced that they'd always end up cooperating, because to do so would mean they all have common interests. If they were restricted somehow, preferably by some means of force, that would probably be for the best.
Well, they can easily find common interests if we assume that they rule for an extended enough time. People are not dumb and oligarchs will not be motivated to constantly thrash against each other like politicians ruthlessly trying to undermine opponents, they can find common interests if only driven by the god complex derived from being controllers of an entire society.

Well, they can easily find common interests if we assume that they rule for an extended enough time. People are not dumb and oligarchs will not be motivated to constantly thrash against each other like politicians ruthlessly trying to undermine opponents, they can find common interests if only driven by the god complex derived from being controllers of an entire society.

But not only oligarchs would be moved to act in such a way. I'm not sure that it's inherently more of a problem in an oligarchy, really.

All monarchies and oligarchies are worse than when democracy is tried (except in Pakistan).

All monarchies and oligarchies are worse than when democracy is tried (except in Pakistan).

What about Indonesia, with its extermination of the Christians?

Edit: Zimbabwe, too, but with white people.

Monarchy all the way! Long life to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, huzzah!

Monarchy all the way! Long life to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, huzzah!
Head of State in a Democracy, huzzah!

Democracy FTW.

But not only oligarchs would be moved to act in such a way. I'm not sure that it's inherently more of a problem in an oligarchy, really.
Well, it exists in all governments, but within democracies outside groups have a greater say over what should be done as well. In a democracy a politician, although he may expand his own power, must also try to appease his constituents. In an oligarchy the oligarch will not have that same feedback process and can, without distraction, work soley towards the expansion of his/her power. Democracy is good because that feedback keeps the government more bound to its people than in other systems where it is just ruling elites trying to dominate over the people.

Well, it exists in all governments, but within democracies outside groups have a greater say over what should be done as well. In a democracy a politician, although he may expand his own power, must also try to appease his constituents. In an oligarchy the oligarch will not have that same feedback process and can, without distraction, work soley towards the expansion of his/her power. Democracy is good because that feedback keeps the government more bound to its people than in other systems where it is just ruling elites trying to dominate over the people.

Hence, Constitution. Ideally, you'd want the oligarchy to have relatively limited power in amending the constitution itself, but that doesn't mean it should have overall limited power.

Hence, Constitution. Ideally, you'd want the oligarchy to have relatively limited power in amending the constitution itself, but that doesn't mean it should have overall limited power.
I recognize the importance of the constitution, however, the question still remains about the corruption as unless the constitution severely limits the power so that oligarchs lack the power to be corrupt, then it stands that oligarchs are likely to be corrupt and try to hide their corruption. The US constitution may protect the US to some extent, however, still, even with that in place horrible violations of liberty are possible and corruption is definitely possible.

Well, it exists in all governments, but within democracies outside groups have a greater say over what should be done as well. In a democracy a politician, although he may expand his own power, must also try to appease his constituents. In an oligarchy the oligarch will not have that same feedback process and can, without distraction, work soley towards the expansion of his/her power. Democracy is good because that feedback keeps the government more bound to its people than in other systems where it is just ruling elites trying to dominate over the people.

Mmmm, I'm not so sure that democracy really has that great a connection with the people. Politicians, media and special interests all have common interests in a democracy, and will work symbiotically to best act as parasites (rent-seeking, in public choice theory), and need only give the appearance of serving the people. They all gain, but through taking away from a bamboozled populace who think they are being benefitted.

I recognize the importance of the constitution, however, the question still remains about the corruption as unless the constitution severely limits the power so that oligarchs lack the power to be corrupt, then it stands that oligarchs are likely to be corrupt and try to hide their corruption. The US constitution may protect the US to some extent, however, still, even with that in place horrible violations of liberty are possible and corruption is definitely possible.

Corruption is possible everywhere in every form of government. "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." However, men are not angels, men are falliable, so you will not be able to avoid corruption of any sort.

Again, the oligarchial group will not be the only authority, it would just be the main one. THere would also be the Chief Consul (your choice in title) and the Democratic Assembly to check its power, as well as an independent judiciary to ensure that the oligarchy doesn't overstep it's bounds placed on it by the Constitution, and the judiciary would be overseen by the Consul, who would be overseen by the oligarchy and the assembly. There would be a massive series of checks and balances in place, but, unlike the US government, the oligarchy would be "First Among Equals," technically having more power than the Consul and the Assembly.

Mmmm, I'm not so sure that democracy really has that great a connection with the people. Politicians, media and special interests all have common interests in a democracy, and will work symbiotically to best act as parasites (rent-seeking, in public choice theory), and need only give the appearance of serving the people. They all gain, but through taking away from a bamboozled populace who think they are being benefitted.
The special interests compete, and the media groups compete to some extent as well. Although there is an interest in bigger government there is also the fact that the government is gotten rid of if it does not please its people, and different groups serving different special interests will try to undermine the others. Public choice theory pretty much shows us that we might need to possibly decentralize political systems in order to increase accountability but it does not mean that oligarchies will necessarily do better. My contention is that all political systems suck, but democracy forces politicians to carry forward some of the promises they make to their people and to do good rather than serve their own interests. I will admit that democracies do a sucky job of serving their people and have all sorts of corruption, but I believe that due to the greater concentration of power and reduction of accountability to the masses in an oligarchy we will find worse results unless we reduce the power of the government into that of a minarchy in which it would matter very little who was ruling.

there is also the fact that the government is gotten rid of if it does not please its people

That's why the incumbency rate is 60-90%...

My contention is that all political systems suck, but democracy forces politicians to carry forward some of the promises they make to their people and to do good rather than serve their own interests.

Some, and usually the ones that don't mean a damn thing in the big picture. Also, the people don't necessarily know anything about...well, anything. All that means is we have plastic polititians that like to pork-barrel.

I will admit that democracies do a sucky job of serving their people and have all sorts of corruption, but I believe that due to the greater concentration of power and reduction of accountability to the masses in an oligarchy we will find worse results unless we reduce the power of the government into that of a minarchy in which it would matter very little who was ruling.

And the government not being able to do much isn't necessarily a bad thing.

The special interests compete, and the media groups compete to some extent as well. Although there is an interest in bigger government there is also the fact that the government is gotten rid of if it does not please its people, and different groups serving different special interests will try to undermine the others. Public choice theory pretty much shows us that we might need to possibly decentralize political systems in order to increase accountability but it does not mean that oligarchies will necessarily do better. My contention is that all political systems suck, but democracy forces politicians to carry forward some of the promises they make to their people and to do good rather than serve their own interests. I will admit that democracies do a sucky job of serving their people and have all sorts of corruption, but I believe that due to the greater concentration of power and reduction of accountability to the masses in an oligarchy we will find worse results unless we reduce the power of the government into that of a minarchy in which it would matter very little who was ruling.

1.) Why would there be competition in democracy, but not in oligarchy? Just because people are not necessarily in the area of passing policy, does not mean that they are completely out of power- kings had to deal with merchants and financiers in order to get their way, for example. But if we had an oligarchy that is active in its political discourse, the rational ignorance imposed by media would be largely reduced, as would the effects of rent-seeking special interest groups if the oligarchy wants to tear their opponents down. I also doubt that an oligarchy would truly be able to completely seal itself off from the rest of the people- they could need them as advisors, etc.

Potentially, I think a democracy could work if everyone made themselves wise to politics, and if they all pursued a philosophy that protects the welfare of the people. But I don't think that it's really possible to have that kind of attitude- a civic spirit, I suppose-, in most democracies, especially if there's no personal, emotional attachment to the government. Then again, I don't think this applies for the majority of oligarchies, either. I imagine the best thing to do would be to have an oligarchy that is based on the characteristic of civic spirit.

That's why the incumbency rate is 60-90%... As opposed to 100% in oligarchy? I never stated that democracy will always remove its leaders or even do it often. However, if you just look at recent events it is obvious that people do remove their leaders if they dislike them.


Some, and usually the ones that don't mean a damn thing in the big picture. Also, the people don't necessarily know anything about...well, anything. All that means is we have plastic polititians that like to pork-barrel. Well that is just your assessment on what is important. I will admit that I distrust government spending, however, I don't think that oligarchs will necessarily do better given that they will be more prone to the authoritarian desire to reshape their world or even to disregard their people.


And the government not being able to do much isn't necessarily a bad thing.Oh, I know it isn't. It would be preferrable if the government did less.


1.) Why would there be competition in democracy, but not in oligarchy? Just because people are not necessarily in the area of passing policy, does not mean that they are completely out of power- kings had to deal with merchants and financiers in order to get their way, for example. But if we had an oligarchy that is active in its political discourse, the rational ignorance imposed by media would be largely reduced, as would the effects of rent-seeking special interest groups if the oligarchy wants to tear their opponents down. I also doubt that an oligarchy would truly be able to completely seal itself off from the rest of the people- they could need them as advisors, etc. Governments traditionally act through fiat, government officials don't have to deal fairly or get the permission of people to impose their will on them. There are not necessarily competing views in an oligarchy and although oligarchs may be more pragmatic, exploitation is pragmatic. Are you arguing for something more similar to feudalism though? Oligarchy only is a viable solution to these problems if the oligarchs are altruistic or completely interested in accumulating more wealth for themselves through appropriating taxes, neither of which is the case with the modern dictatorship which the oligarchy is more likely to model given that oligarchy typically refers to a small council. Oligarchies can easily isolate themselves, they can easily take on characteristics of dictatorships.

Potentially, I think a democracy could work if everyone made themselves wise to politics, and if they all pursued a philosophy that protects the welfare of the people. But I don't think that it's really possible to have that kind of attitude- a civic spirit, I suppose-, in most democracies, especially if there's no personal, emotional attachment to the government. Then again, I don't think this applies for the majority of oligarchies, either. I imagine the best thing to do would be to have an oligarchy that is based on the characteristic of civic spirit.
Right, but if neither system typically has this civic spirit what makes you think that it will be protected by the oligarchy? The real problem is that all governments fail to some extent. In fact, I think that modern democracy doesn't work that well anyway, it is just I accept that it is slightly better than other governments. I mean, perhaps we should work to make sure that voters are educated, or something but I just think that oligarchy doesn't have a very good track record given that it is usually adopted by authoritarian societies such as sparta.

Governments traditionally act through fiat, government officials don't have to deal fairly or get the permission of people to impose their will on them. There are not necessarily competing views in an oligarchy and although oligarchs may be more pragmatic, exploitation is pragmatic. Are you arguing for something more similar to feudalism though? Oligarchy only is a viable solution to these problems if the oligarchs are altruistic or completely interested in accumulating more wealth for themselves through appropriating taxes, neither of which is the case with the modern dictatorship which the oligarchy is more likely to model given that oligarchy typically refers to a small council. Oligarchies can easily isolate themselves, they can easily take on characteristics of dictatorships.

I am not arguing for feudalism, but rather something more akin to the Saxon Councils/Italian Republics, which were meritocratic oligarchies with a great deal of personal freedom. Also, I don't see why there wouldn't be competing views in an oligarchy- do you completely agree with all of your friends all of the time? There would still be competition and differing views in any kind of oligarchy. Also, I think there is a better chance of filtering people to get the most civic-minded oligarchs than hoping that democracy will work fine.

Right, but if neither system typically has this civic spirit what makes you think that it will be protected by the oligarchy? The real problem is that all governments fail to some extent. In fact, I think that modern democracy doesn't work that well anyway, it is just I accept that it is slightly better than other governments. I mean, perhaps we should work to make sure that voters are educated, or something but I just think that oligarchy doesn't have a very good track record given that it is usually adopted by authoritarian societies such as sparta.

If the quality for being an oligarch is civic spirit, then that oligarchy will be able to function properly, at least as I wish. Oligarchies depend heavily on their individual characteristics that create the oligarchs, and thus are far more diverse than democracies and monarchies- see the difference between Mussolini's fascism, the Italian republics/Saxon England, and Sparta. The cause of this difference is the controlled characteristic that forms their nature. Therefore, the civic spirit oligarchy can retain its civic spiritedness even though other oligarchies do not have it, because its endogeneous nature is more relevant to it than the endogeneous natures of other oligarchies.

I am not arguing for feudalism, but rather something more akin to the Saxon Councils/Italian Republics, which were meritocratic oligarchies with a great deal of personal freedom. Also, I don't see why there wouldn't be competing views in an oligarchy- do you completely agree with all of your friends all of the time? There would still be competition and differing views in any kind of oligarchy. Also, I think there is a better chance of filtering people to get the most civic-minded oligarchs than hoping that democracy will work fine.

Of course there won't be perfect agreements but the thing is that compromises are more attainable and there is less fear around the issue of agreeing. Rather than attempting to pretend to serve some constituency, oligarchs will seek power. As well, I distrust methods of filtering civic-minded people into the position, and ones that will not cause troubles either. The fact is that such methods are not immune to corruption themselves and if this process becomes completely corrupt there is almost 0 chance of it becoming fixed.


If the quality for being an oligarch is civic spirit, then that oligarchy will be able to function properly, at least as I wish. Oligarchies depend heavily on their individual characteristics that create the oligarchs, and thus are far more diverse than democracies and monarchies- see the difference between Mussolini's fascism, the Italian republics/Saxon England, and Sparta. The cause of this difference is the controlled characteristic that forms their nature. Therefore, the civic spirit oligarchy can retain its civic spiritedness even though other oligarchies do not have it, because its endogeneous nature is more relevant to it than the endogeneous natures of other oligarchies.
I distrust an oligarchies nature to necessarily function properly in the long term, I view it in the same terms as a dictatorship, it will eventually be captured by the fact that this group wields great power and will be subverted into authoritarianism due to the desire within most men to be God. If power corrupts and oligarchies are noted for the government being a small group, then does it not stand that it is likely that oligarchs are going to use power in ways that, even with good intention, have bad effects.

As opposed to 100% in oligarchy? I never stated that democracy will always remove its leaders or even do it often. However, if you just look at recent events it is obvious that people do remove their leaders if they dislike them.

I was simply referring to the fact that a leader can screw up, but unless they do something REAL BAD, they're gonna stay in office. It'll be the same with the constitutional oligarchy. They stay in, but if they REALLY screw up, their gone. A secure position protects them from the often wrong and foolish whims of the populace, and a constitution keeps them from being dictators. Also, each oligarch would have the same amount of power and influence, so their own egos would keep each other in check.

Well that is just your assessment on what is important. I will admit that I distrust government spending, however, I don't think that oligarchs will necessarily do better given that they will be more prone to the authoritarian desire to reshape their world or even to disregard their people.

You run that risk with any government. I think it'll be the opposite -- the oligarchs, being separated from the emotional fervour that often surrounds issues, will be able to come to decisions that benefit the people, regardless if the purists are happy or not.

I was simply referring to the fact that a leader can screw up, but unless they do something REAL BAD, they're gonna stay in office. It'll be the same with the constitutional oligarchy. They stay in, but if they REALLY screw up, their gone. A secure position protects them from the often wrong and foolish whims of the populace, and a constitution keeps them from being dictators. Also, each oligarch would have the same amount of power and influence, so their own egos would keep each other in check.
Well, who decides whether or not they will stay in? The entire problem becomes one of incentives. The thing is that I think you also tend to overstate the idiocy of the populace, I will give you that they are idiots but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. The fact that oligarchs have the same power and influence means very little, they still can collude and have very little incentive not to. Collusion means that they can achieve more of their aims.


You run that risk with any government. I think it'll be the opposite -- the oligarchs, being separated from the emotional fervour that often surrounds issues, will be able to come to decisions that benefit the people, regardless if the purists are happy or not.
I think it will be the opposite, as even though oligarchs will be separate from the emotions from the people they might also be separate from the fundamental need for freedom. In democracy, the populace wants freedom for itself to some extent, however, in an oligarchy there is little reason why the oligarch will not arrogantly presume that he can do better than freedom, better than markets, and act in a manner to contradict what would be best for society and rather attempt to fulfill the desires of his ego.

democracy. the other two rely too much on arbitrary stuff. the arbitrary bit is the worst thing about authority/power. at least democracy attempts to solve that. i mean, it fails, but trying is better than nothing.

ponders quoting plato :p

Of course there won't be perfect agreements but the thing is that compromises are more attainable and there is less fear around the issue of agreeing. Rather than attempting to pretend to serve some constituency, oligarchs will seek power. As well, I distrust methods of filtering civic-minded people into the position, and ones that will not cause troubles either. The fact is that such methods are not immune to corruption themselves and if this process becomes completely corrupt there is almost 0 chance of it becoming fixed.

Well, I think that the oligarchs will have to at least act like they're working for the people- even the most evil dictators have to pretend that they're serving their nation, it would be foolish to just announce that they're going to take as much as they want. Also, the way to keep the process from being corrupted is to keep it simple, just like a simple machine is more likely to have fewer problems than a complex machine. Plus, if it is a system wherein people can join regardless of their station in life, it makes it all the better and more controllable.

I distrust an oligarchies nature to necessarily function properly in the long term, I view it in the same terms as a dictatorship, it will eventually be captured by the fact that this group wields great power and will be subverted into authoritarianism due to the desire within most men to be God. If power corrupts and oligarchies are noted for the government being a small group, then does it not stand that it is likely that oligarchs are going to use power in ways that, even with good intention, have bad effects.

It depends on the oligarchy on whether or not it would be corrupted. If it was an oligarchy where only rich people or military leaders were in charge, then yes, more likely than not it would be corrupted. But if it were an oligarchy where people were chosen because of their incorruptability, accidental to the trait necessary to be an oligarch or the trait to be an oligarch, then it would not corrupt.

I was simply referring to the fact that a leader can screw up, but unless they do something REAL BAD, they're gonna stay in office. It'll be the same with the constitutional oligarchy. They stay in, but if they REALLY screw up, their gone. A secure position protects them from the often wrong and foolish whims of the populace, and a constitution keeps them from being dictators. Also, each oligarch would have the same amount of power and influence, so their own egos would keep each other in check.



You run that risk with any government. I think it'll be the opposite -- the oligarchs, being separated from the emotional fervour that often surrounds issues, will be able to come to decisions that benefit the people, regardless if the purists are happy or not.

Agreed.

Well, I think that the oligarchs will have to at least act like they're working for the people- even the most evil dictators have to pretend that they're serving their nation, it would be foolish to just announce that they're going to take as much as they want. Also, the way to keep the process from being corrupted is to keep it simple, just like a simple machine is more likely to have fewer problems than a complex machine. Plus, if it is a system wherein people can join regardless of their station in life, it makes it all the better and more controllable. Pretending is not that difficult. We all know of the monstrosities that occur under dictatorships and we all know of the corruption that exists under those regimes. Pretending is not hard. Your assessment on simplicity is not necessarily accurate, a very simple government is an absolute monarchy yet those are known for being very problematic, and a more complex solution is divided government, which is believed to have less problems. Frankly, it takes a certain level of complexity to reduce corruption. The only thing is how do you ensure that people of all social classes can join? After all, oligarchy by lotto is a ridiculous idea and most ideas that don't deal with random probability will have a tendency to select a person with above average wealth.


It depends on the oligarchy on whether or not it would be corrupted. If it was an oligarchy where only rich people or military leaders were in charge, then yes, more likely than not it would be corrupted. But if it were an oligarchy where people were chosen because of their incorruptability, accidental to the trait necessary to be an oligarch or the trait to be an oligarch, then it would not corrupt. And incorruptability is a measurable thing that cannot be faked or even destroyed by the corrupt. Corrupt people seek power, power corrupts and the completely incorruptable do not exist. The problem with this system is that once it has gotten corrupt there is no way to reduce such corruption, even though you may wish to stop corruption in its tracks, such has never happened before and I doubt it will ever happen due to the afforementioned 3 things. You may be dreaming of the glory of philosopher kings, but you need to remember modern democracy in many cases was not a creation of idealism but rather of pragmatic concerns of maintaining freedom. As much as you distrust the average person, it needs to be remembered that they have a direct incentive to reduce the oppression they feel which cannot be emulated by any oligarchy.

ponders quoting plato :p
Even as, or maybe especially because, I do philosophy at uni, the idea of Philosopher-Kings scares me.

Socrates died because their wasn’t adequate appeal processes in Athens ;)

Pretending is not that difficult. We all know of the monstrosities that occur under dictatorships and we all know of the corruption that exists under those regimes. Pretending is not hard. Your assessment on simplicity is not necessarily accurate, a very simple government is an absolute monarchy yet those are known for being very problematic, and a more complex solution is divided government, which is believed to have less problems. Frankly, it takes a certain level of complexity to reduce corruption. The only thing is how do you ensure that people of all social classes can join? After all, oligarchy by lotto is a ridiculous idea and most ideas that don't deal with random probability will have a tendency to select a person with above average wealth.

Well, to start, I'm not going to pretend I have the perfect government mapped out in my head. I have a few general ideas, however.

Initially, the United States government under the U.S. Constitution was formed as a slightly more democratic model of what I would prefer. You have your Consul -- President; you have your relatively Independent Judiciary to keep the other two branches from passing unconstitutional laws. You had my Assembly: The House of Represenatives, and you had my Oligarchy: the Senate.

Now, what I'm advocating is a slightly less-democratic version of this. The candidates for Consul would be chosen by the Assembly, and then voted on by the people. The Consul would then appoint the oligarchs, which would be confirmed by the Assembly. These Oligarchs would serve life terms, and an oligarch could be dismissed by a 2/3 majority of the Assembly, the approval of the Consul, and a majority vote by the people. The oligarchs would have the power of the U.S. Senate, and most of the powers of the U.S. Presidency. The Consul would have a few powers of the U.S. Presidency, and would also act as President of the Assembly (having the powers of the U.S. Speaker of the House, sort of). The Judiciary would be appointed by the oligarchy and confirmed by the Assembly, and then the Judiciary would act as an oversight to ensure that no branch desides to overstep its bounds provided in the Constitution, but Judicial activism will not be tolerated.

That's the basic jist of it. Again, it's only a basic plan. After all, no nation was founded by a single person's idea, and I won't claim my model is perfect.

And incorruptability is a measurable thing that cannot be faked or even destroyed by the corrupt. Corrupt people seek power, power corrupts and the completely incorruptable do not exist. The problem with this system is that once it has gotten corrupt there is no way to reduce such corruption, even though you may wish to stop corruption in its tracks, such has never happened before and I doubt it will ever happen due to the afforementioned 3 things. You may be dreaming of the glory of philosopher kings, but you need to remember modern democracy in many cases was not a creation of idealism but rather of pragmatic concerns of maintaining freedom. As much as you distrust the average person, it needs to be remembered that they have a direct incentive to reduce the oppression they feel which cannot be emulated by any oligarchy.

Hency why Checks and Balances are a wonderful thing. By having the oligarchs separated from the people, they would not be subject to them unless they start screwing up real bad. THe purpose for protection is that the people tend to be jumpy -- if it's not a benefit right now, it's bad, and therefore they get rid of them. However, the oligarchs can be gotten rid of should they become corrupt. The purpose for so much oversight in the appointment of the oligarchs is so that limited corruption could be placed in. I hesistate to make some sort of "Morality Police" for them, as, while I am a Calvinist therefore a Fundamental Protestant, I like the First Amendment of the Constitution. A lot.

Initially, the United States government under the U.S. Constitution was formed as a slightly more democratic model of what I would prefer. You have your Consul -- President; you have your relatively Independent Judiciary to keep the other two branches from passing unconstitutional laws. You had my Assembly: The House of Represenatives, and you had my Oligarchy: the Senate. The reason why the senate was made more open was because of fact that all senate members were drawn from one class in society at that time. The senate became known as the millionaires club and acted for the interests of business elites. Which is why the original senate was made more democratic, as to be more accountable to the people and not simply act for the rich but rather for the people.

Now, what I'm advocating is a slightly less-democratic version of this. The candidates for Consul would be chosen by the Assembly, and then voted on by the people. The Consul would then appoint the oligarchs, which would be confirmed by the Assembly. These Oligarchs would serve life terms, and an oligarch could be dismissed by a 2/3 majority of the Assembly, the approval of the Consul, and a majority vote by the people. The oligarchs would have the power of the U.S. Senate, and most of the powers of the U.S. Presidency. The Consul would have a few powers of the U.S. Presidency, and would also act as President of the Assembly (having the powers of the U.S. Speaker of the House, sort of). The Judiciary would be appointed by the oligarchy and confirmed by the Assembly, and then the Judiciary would act as an oversight to ensure that no branch desides to overstep its bounds provided in the Constitution, but Judicial activism will not be tolerated. But where does the Assembly come from? If it is brought in democratically then we likely have a rather byzantine and simply less democratic form of republic and one that I doubt would improve matters of corruption but rather leave them more distant from the people. If the Assembly is unelected then if they are corrupt the entire system comes down anyway as they are a major lever in selecting what government we have.

That's the basic jist of it. Again, it's only a basic plan. After all, no nation was founded by a single person's idea, and I won't claim my model is perfect.No model is perfect, I am not going to argue that the system we have is perfect, it is just that the current system was not chosen out of idealist power to the people nonsense, it was created in order to secure freedom and has done a relatively good job of such.

Hency why Checks and Balances are a wonderful thing. By having the oligarchs separated from the people, they would not be subject to them unless they start screwing up real bad. THe purpose for protection is that the people tend to be jumpy -- if it's not a benefit right now, it's bad, and therefore they get rid of them. However, the oligarchs can be gotten rid of should they become corrupt. The purpose for so much oversight in the appointment of the oligarchs is so that limited corruption could be placed in. I hesistate to make some sort of "Morality Police" for them, as, while I am a Calvinist therefore a Fundamental Protestant, I like the First Amendment of the Constitution. A lot.
The only thing is that having the people decide is a check on the power of these groups. It ensures that they must serve the people if they are to maintain power. As you noted with the high incumbency rate these people are not thrown out unless they do really bad. Most of the time they are allowed to keep their position, however, if they are seen as not serving their people those people then throw them out. All your system does is it makes this process significantly more difficult causing for greater retention and greater difficulty in getting rid of the bad people. Really, all you have decided to do in your oligarchy is create more opportunities for corruption and a greater tendency for this to not be eliminated in government.

Lets just have a mix of monachy and democracy an example of this working perfectly is the UK.

Pretending is not that difficult. We all know of the monstrosities that occur under dictatorships and we all know of the corruption that exists under those regimes. Pretending is not hard. Your assessment on simplicity is not necessarily accurate, a very simple government is an absolute monarchy yet those are known for being very problematic, and a more complex solution is divided government, which is believed to have less problems. Frankly, it takes a certain level of complexity to reduce corruption. The only thing is how do you ensure that people of all social classes can join? After all, oligarchy by lotto is a ridiculous idea and most ideas that don't deal with random probability will have a tendency to select a person with above average wealth.

I was not saying "we should have a simple government", but rather "we should have a simple test to judge incorruptability." As for the representation, I don't want to go around and have an oligarchy that is representative of abstract groups in society. Rather, I want to have an oligarchy that is comprised of civic spirited individuals.

And incorruptability is a measurable thing that cannot be faked or even destroyed by the corrupt. Corrupt people seek power, power corrupts and the completely incorruptable do not exist. The problem with this system is that once it has gotten corrupt there is no way to reduce such corruption, even though you may wish to stop corruption in its tracks, such has never happened before and I doubt it will ever happen due to the afforementioned 3 things. You may be dreaming of the glory of philosopher kings, but you need to remember modern democracy in many cases was not a creation of idealism but rather of pragmatic concerns of maintaining freedom. As much as you distrust the average person, it needs to be remembered that they have a direct incentive to reduce the oppression they feel which cannot be emulated by any oligarchy.

I do not want a philosopher king system- I do not think that it would be possible to have one civic minded person do a good job. Rather, I want to have a fluid oligarchy based on civic spirit. While I cannot take a person's incorruptability out of them and measure it, I can give them tasks to do which are indicative of incorruptability and civic spiritedness, much as we observe a person's characteristics by their actions.

No model is perfect, I am not going to argue that the system we have is perfect, it is just that the current system was not chosen out of idealist power to the people nonsense, it was created in order to secure freedom and has done a relatively good job of such.

If you're talking about the U.S. system, I would agree with you. I don't actually support what I've been arguing, I'm just practicing for an AP Gov debate in a few weeks where I like to hold unconventional opinions to watch them squirm. :D

I'll address the rest of your post tomorrow. I'm too tired ATM.

If you're talking about the U.S. system, I would agree with you. I don't actually support what I've been arguing, I'm just practicing for an AP Gov debate in a few weeks where I like to hold unconventional opinions to watch them squirm. :D

I'll address the rest of your post tomorrow. I'm too tired ATM.
Ha ha ha!! I like that!!!:D I don't mind if you continue either.:D

pudding tastes good, therefore everyone should stop debating and vote for pudding!

I was not saying "we should have a simple government", but rather "we should have a simple test to judge incorruptability." As for the representation, I don't want to go around and have an oligarchy that is representative of abstract groups in society. Rather, I want to have an oligarchy that is comprised of civic spirited individuals.
Yes, and even a simple test can be outwitted. As well, civic minded individuals are an ideal in any system, the only issue is that these individuals may not be as civic minded as we want and even if they are they can easily be idealist fools who wish to change the world but haven't got a clue how to do it.


I do not want a philosopher king system- I do not think that it would be possible to have one civic minded person do a good job. Rather, I want to have a fluid oligarchy based on civic spirit. While I cannot take a person's incorruptability out of them and measure it, I can give them tasks to do which are indicative of incorruptability and civic spiritedness, much as we observe a person's characteristics by their actions.
I never said that it was going to be one person, Sparta, an oligarchy, had 2 kings. The issue is that ultimately the question comes to be on the maintenance of civic spirit, if it ever fails in government once then it can likely fail forever as civic spirit is rarer and harder to maintain than the lack and your system of government is designed in a manner to avoid the desires of the populace, who have every incentive to seek government of an acceptable quality(perhaps not good but not dictatorial). I would argue that these tasks, being that they are still a test can still be passed by individuals with enough cleverness and who know enough to recognize what these things are. If such things are designed to be covert though, then the question then comes up on how to keep this covertness focused soley on the oligarchy process and not on other parts of the nation as a power to act and watch covertly can be abused and rational individuals will likely do so.

My preference is for radical classless democracy.

Aye, 'twould be nice, were it possible. :(

After all, oligarchy by lotto is a ridiculous idea and most ideas that don't deal with random probability will have a tendency to select a person with above average wealth.

And what is wrong with that? When you examine a demographic you see that wealth is highly correlated with education and ability – those with above average wealth tend to be of above average capability (if you feel like yelling about Paris Hilton right now, you are one of those who lack the ability to participate in government). Are you suggesting that impoverished people are somehow more capable and educated about how to run a government? Is someone who dropped out of school at age 10 somehow more qualified to understand the effects of distortions of exchange rates in the economy than someone with a PhD in Economics?

The term ‘ignorant masses’ is not without basis. The general populace is fairly ignorant and gullible. Politicians in a democracy simply pander to the lowest common denominator, telling those who lack sufficient interest or knowledge of an issue what they want to hear. Were the voters intelligent educated people who understand the long-term effects of a position, rather than disinterested cretins who base their votes on 10 second sound bites, meaningless election slogans, or just how much they like the candidates last name, then democracy could be a great system.

The main problem with democracy is that it only works well in a small society of well educated people who are willing to do what needs to be done. When politicians can simply tell the masses what they want to hear, and the people push for foolish positions without understanding the implications beyond what they got from a quick election commercial, you get a recipe for disaster.

‘The people’ are not the sum total of intelligence and ability. Get a random sample of people off the street and a selection of the best doctors in the world – which one do you want making decisions about how to treat a disease?

As much as you distrust the average person, it needs to be remembered that they have a direct incentive to reduce the oppression they feel which cannot be emulated by any oligarchy.

The problem with the ‘average person’ is that they tend not to make the wisest decisions.
Politicians spew some garbage which sounds good to those who have a poor understanding of the issue and are not willing to devote much time to understanding it as well as they should. They also have a short attention-span so there is very little accountability; when was the last time someone actually believed a politician would fulfill all his election campaign promises?

If you hold ‘the public’ up as such a shining example of being able to understand the duties and obligations of government as well as understanding the implications of various policy platforms, how do you explain the preponderance of signatures on ‘End woman’s suffrage now!’ petitions?

And what is wrong with that? When you examine a demographic you see that wealth is highly correlated with education and ability – those with above average wealth tend to be of above average capability (if you feel like yelling about Paris Hilton right now, you are one of those who lack the ability to participate in government). Are you suggesting that impoverished people are somehow more capable and educated about how to run a government? Is someone who dropped out of school at age 10 somehow more qualified to understand the effects of distortions of exchange rates in the economy than someone with a PhD in Economics?I never stated that at all, and you pull my comment out of its context. I was responding to this comment Plus, if it is a system wherein people can join regardless of their station in life, it makes it all the better and more controllable. which implies that membership will not be decided by class. Technically you are right on the fact that wealth does correlate somewhat to education and ability and outliers do of course exist. I never implied any of the things that you state in your attack against my statement.

The term ‘ignorant masses’ is not without basis. The general populace is fairly ignorant and gullible. Politicians in a democracy simply pander to the lowest common denominator, telling those who lack sufficient interest or knowledge of an issue what they want to hear. Were the voters intelligent educated people who understand the long-term effects of a position, rather than disinterested cretins who base their votes on 10 second sound bites, meaningless election slogans, or just how much they like the candidates last name, then democracy could be a great system.The only thing is that the extremely disinterested don't vote anyway. Most of the masses are too ignorant and disinterested to care to vote, and politicians themselves will often seek the advice of intelligent people, if only to discredit other politicians. The thing is that I don't think we are comparing a great system to a not so great system anyway, democracy sucks, as Churchill states "Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." The point I would argue though, is that despite the shortcomings of democracy it generally works and that it has preserved freedom better than most other forms of government.

The main problem with democracy is that it only works well in a small society of well educated people who are willing to do what needs to be done. When politicians can simply tell the masses what they want to hear, and the people push for foolish positions without understanding the implications beyond what they got from a quick election commercial, you get a recipe for disaster. We have had democracy for many many years in most western nations but no major disaster. You are putting emphasis on works well, meaning that you seek a perfect system. I put emphasis on works because I know that all systems are imperfect. I do not think that there will be a system that "works well" so to speak, I just think that out of this basket of bad governments, democracy is the least rotten.

‘The people’ are not the sum total of intelligence and ability. Get a random sample of people off the street and a selection of the best doctors in the world – which one do you want making decisions about how to treat a disease? Of course they aren't! The only thing is that we are not dealing with doctors who are all experts and have relatively the same opinions in their field and we are not dealing directly with a random sample of the populace. Doctors tend to all have similar minds on cancer and on other maladies, economists and policy experts have obvious disagreements, with economists ranging from socialist to Austrian and policy experts having all their crazy views as well. As well, in democracy most people do not vote, the people that do are self-selected and the average voter is more educated and wealthier than the average person. If you don't believe me I can show you to an exit poll from the 2004 election.

The problem with the ‘average person’ is that they tend not to make the wisest decisions.

So who does? The elites who should rule over us and make us all slaves? In government, wisdom is not the biggest necessity, there is room for error and even our supposed experts frequently make errors. The only thing is that the average person is the guy who is going to feel the effects of all of these changes. Oligarchs being distant from the masses might not necessarily care one whit about liberty and only care about their dreams and visions, the thing is that the average man will not like his liberty usurped without just cause.

Politicians spew some garbage which sounds good to those who have a poor understanding of the issue and are not willing to devote much time to understanding it as well as they should. They also have a short attention-span so there is very little accountability; when was the last time someone actually believed a politician would fulfill all his election campaign promises?
Politicians spew garbage which is countered by the garbage spewed by other politicians, the only thing is that it often comes down to who has the best answers to the questions and who supports my issues. Politicians also have to attempt to fulfill promises as people will realize if they feel like they are being fucked with.

If you hold ‘the public’ up as such a shining example of being able to understand the duties and obligations of government as well as understanding the implications of various policy platforms, how do you explain the preponderance of signatures on ‘End woman’s suffrage now!’ petitions?
I never said that "the public" were geniuses, nor did I say that they should be ruling directly. The fact is that politicians instead seek advisors and things of that matter anyway. Intelligent people run the system no matter who votes. I am just saying that public feedback is a good thing, you mistake my belief in democracy to be a feeling that the people are wonderful geniuses, they are not. The only thing is that I see an oligarchy, although having greater potential to be ideal, also having a greater potential to screw everyone over in the same manner that past totalitarian societies have. My point is that oligarchs being that they do not derive power from the masses will have no incentive to serve those masses and therefore an oligarchy should not be enacted.

Yes, and even a simple test can be outwitted. As well, civic minded individuals are an ideal in any system, the only issue is that these individuals may not be as civic minded as we want and even if they are they can easily be idealist fools who wish to change the world but haven't got a clue how to do it.

If they can act in a civic manner, then for all relative purposes they are civic-minded. I would also have a test that has a requisite of civic action- if they are idealistic fools who are capable of acting well, then it really doesn't matter if their heads are up in the clouds.

I never said that it was going to be one person, Sparta, an oligarchy, had 2 kings. The issue is that ultimately the question comes to be on the maintenance of civic spirit, if it ever fails in government once then it can likely fail forever as civic spirit is rarer and harder to maintain than the lack and your system of government is designed in a manner to avoid the desires of the populace, who have every incentive to seek government of an acceptable quality(perhaps not good but not dictatorial). I would argue that these tasks, being that they are still a test can still be passed by individuals with enough cleverness and who know enough to recognize what these things are. If such things are designed to be covert though, then the question then comes up on how to keep this covertness focused soley on the oligarchy process and not on other parts of the nation as a power to act and watch covertly can be abused and rational individuals will likely do so.

Well, the test is basically a screening mechanism. Even if the people do pass the test, they still have very limited power, seeing as how there will be millions of other oligarchs. Also, if they wish to escalate any further in power, they will have to contend with a very knowledgeable population of oligarchs who will be watching them, who will A.) Be careful not to be tricked and get the truth out of all candidates, and B.) Include other oligarchs who will want to take them down if given half the chance. Plus, if someone goes through the test of proving civic acts, and gains power by acting in a manner that is good for the welfare of the people, it does not matter what his intent is as long as he does good. That is all that is necessary, in the end.

The reason why the senate was made more open was because of fact that all senate members were drawn from one class in society at that time. The senate became known as the millionaires club and acted for the interests of business elites. Which is why the original senate was made more democratic, as to be more accountable to the people and not simply act for the rich but rather for the people.

Yes, but if there were more restrictions and checks on how those oligarchs came to power, you wouldn't have the problem. Or, what would happen is you would develop a ruling class, but they'd be educated in the proper manners of their position and how to work it for the best, so it'd be okay.

But where does the Assembly come from? If it is brought in democratically then we likely have a rather byzantine and simply less democratic form of republic and one that I doubt would improve matters of corruption but rather leave them more distant from the people. If the Assembly is unelected then if they are corrupt the entire system comes down anyway as they are a major lever in selecting what government we have.

The assembly is directly elected, that's really as far as I've thought it through.

The only thing is that having the people decide is a check on the power of these groups. It ensures that they must serve the people if they are to maintain power. As you noted with the high incumbency rate these people are not thrown out unless they do really bad. Most of the time they are allowed to keep their position, however, if they are seen as not serving their people those people then throw them out. All your system does is it makes this process significantly more difficult causing for greater retention and greater difficulty in getting rid of the bad people. Really, all you have decided to do in your oligarchy is create more opportunities for corruption and a greater tendency for this to not be eliminated in government.

Wrong. In a Senate body, with more people, there is more corruption, as if the system is corrupted, it affects a wider scale, therefore is harder to remove. In an oligarchy, while it is technically more difficult to remove a single person, the entire system itself is not corrupt.

The Senate itself is harder to corrupt in itself, as there are is extremely difficult to remove, since it's EVERYWHERE, and it's big.

However, in an oligarchty, it is easier to corrupt, but easier to clean, as well, as you'd only have to go through the process of removing one or two members to clean up, rather than 75.