Forms of Government

Well, I think most people will pick democracy. :wink:

But communism is supposed to be the perfect form government, in theory...

all forms of government are pernicious. that's why I am an anarchist.

good answer

Respectfully, I disagree.

As I understand it, a true democracy would be anarchistic, where the people would actually be represented by the people, not by some elected officials entrusted to somehow do it for them. Of course, it would probably require the vast majority of us to at least agree on the methods used to make decisions. Maybe that's what's playing out now among the scientific and religious communities.

I decided to stick with the oligarchy which we are currently under.

Perfect? For whom?

Go look up the word plutocracy . . .

hmm...form of government in which the supreme power is lodged in the hands of the wealthy classes; government by the rich, also, a controlling or influential class of rich men.
now that as opposed to my sticking with the oligarchy...a government in which the supreme power is placed in the hands of a few persons; also, those who form a ruling few.


Interesting how the two can to some degree be interwoven; but, in the overall picture I'll go with the good old Oligarchy any day. You see Setanta; I don't see the government (of the U.S. at least) as being ruled only by the wealthy. It is moving further towards that every day; yet, there are still pockets of 'rulers' who are not immersed in affluence.

Oligarchy is commonly held to refer to an aristocracy as representing "the few" who govern. It is less applicable with the huge governmental appartus needed than is plutocracy in view of the huge amounts of money needed to fund contemporary political campaigns, and the amount of legislation for over a hundred years which has favored capital investment--Theodore Roosevelt was complaining about that in the 1880s and -90s.

The final paragraph of Article I, section 9 of the constitution reads:

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Therefore, there is no aristocracy, per se, in the United States. It has long been held by historians and political observers that money has determined the elite of this nation, rather than birth. To that extent, it is unlikely that any oligarchic form of government would form in this country which was not also plutocratic.

As I said, they are somewhat interwoven; it just comes down to which formal name I choose to give to it.

Which you choose to give it, eh? Someone die and leave you in charge?

Yes, (they just don't know it yet )

Bottom line is we are people, living, thinking creatures and we are allowed to call it whatever we darned well choose. You see it one way, I see it another, you use your word and I will use mine.

What happens if we are both wrong and it turns out it is actually something else entirely?

It's called debate, Sturgis . . . you have advanced a proposition, and i have disputed that. Your contention is that we are an oligarchy, a nation ruled by the few. I have advanced the proposition that with 535 members of the Congress, dozens of policy makers in the executive branch, dozens of judges on the Supreme and the Federal appelate courts, as well as the fifty state governments and thousands of county and municipal governments, that contention of rule by the "few" is absurd.

I've then stated that i consider that both the cost of political campaigning, combined with the favor shown in legislation to the wealthy, whether individuals or corporate bodies, make our form of government plutocratic.

That's how debate works--one person advances a proposition, with which others are entitled to disagree. Readers here may choose to agree with one or the other of us, or advance their own propositions.

Under no circumstances, however, do you get to decide for anyone but yourself.

Now you tell me...and here I thought I was in charge and in control of everything (don't slip on my sarcasm).


How exactly do I break this news to you Setanta? I know what debate is. The simple fact that I stated earlier 'you use your word and I will use mine' should be an indication of that. I chose a word you did not connect with and I then continued with my premise of the two words (yours and mine) being somewhat connected...at least in my view. At no point did I say to you: "And you Setanta and the rest of the world will agree with me or else."
Why does it offend you that I can have a thought process which differs from yours?

Your sarcasm is too thin on the ground for anyone to slip on. You didn't seem to understand what debate was when you wrote: "As I said, they are somewhat interwoven; it just comes down to which formal name I choose to give to it."--without further qualification. You didn't say that everyone else were obliged to agree with you, but that bald statement in no way acknowledges that it were an idiosyncratic view appertaining only to yourself.

And finally, nothing about you offends me, i simply find you naive, sometimes amusing, and generally snotty.

Is that how you debate? With tit for tat snide remarks and then you say nothing about me offends you? Oh but that is a good one.


Clearly you and I will rarely agree on anything as has been shown in our meetings in other threads. You seem like a decent character and I will leave it at that.


Lastly, another reason for which I would have used Oligarchy at the start instead of Plutocracy is that Plutocracy was not one of the listed options; even if it were, I myself would have gone with my original choice since it is what I see as existing. (note, it is what I myself, Sturgis, see and believe, you are in no way obligated oh great one to even consider it as an option)

As i mentioned before, your sarcasm comes out thin . . .

What say we just shake hands and go on our own pathway?