And oligarchs don't have absolute power, since the views of any individual are moderated by the views of the Council as a whole.
It doesn't really matter that any one individual may not have absolute power. The collective body of the privileged few has absolute power. A fact with will always lead to ruin for those who are not privileged and do not share the same interests as those who are in power. How can a small group of the elite be expected to work for the best interests of the public when the public has no input or oversight? In fact, how can a small group of the elite be expected to act in the best interest of the people when they can't relate to the position or plight of what would be in reality, their subjects?
And you honestly think that doesn't happen in a democracy?
Unfortunately, a democracy or republic is not immune to corruption. Humans are flawed by nature, and thus, any government we could create will be as well. But it's improving with time. And that's why it works. Corruption may exist, and may even be common, but the system is designed to give the people the choice whether or not to allow the corruption to continue. They may, or they may not, but at least they are given the choice. And if it gets to the point where it starts hurting the people in their wallets, they will work to change the system.
I'm no expert on the workings of the American governmental system (I'm British), but, as I understand it, the President is supposed to act to enforce the will of the people as a whole.
Well, this isn't exactly true. Traditionally the President's job is to protect the security of the nation, enact treaties with foreign powers, set policy goals with a cabinet, and fill bureaucratic vacancies. And in all these cases the President relies heavily on congressional approval.
Unfortunately, he has very little way of knowing what the will of the people as a whole is, other than that the majority of them thought that what he promised to do was a good idea (not necessarily the same as what he actually /will/ do). Therefore, he feels justified in taking whatever course of action he deems best for their good. Which is where personal agendas and opinions creep in, even in the most well-intentioned individuals.
The President and his cabinet and councilors are the government's administration. It's their job to keep things moving. Laws and the will of the people are really more the domain of the houses of Congress. With congressmen being elected directly by their constituents and fairly short-term lengths, Congress has the ability to adapt to changes in public opinion rather quickly. Also, the large number of congressmen means that each is only responsible for representing a fairly (relatively) small number of people. Congress is not with out its flaws and corruption itself, but for these reasons it represents a pretty fair cross-section of the public.
True, but that's coming from a very modern perspective.
Yes it is. However, slavery in America might have been popular in the 18th century, but it was still wrong. Just because something may be acceptable in it's time, doesn't mean it's right or that it has to be judged from "that perspective."
The Spartans were a military society, and, from their point of view, Helots and Barbaroi didn't /have/ human rights to be violated.
I've heard this "ignorance as an excuse" argument before, and I still think it’s crap. In this case it's ignorance of human rights. But it doesn't hold water. Human rights weren’t a foreign concept in ancient Greece or Sparta. The Spartans chose to believe that Helot's didn't have rights because it suited them. They certainly knew that the Helot's believed that they had rights. The Spartans simply chose to ignore that.
If anything, Sparta collapsed because its system was too rigid: it was dependant on its core of Similars both for the stability of its government and for the power of its military...Sparta ultimately failed, yes, but not through any flaw of their government, but rather an erosion of the power which lay behind their government.
Sparta collapsed because it had abused its subjects and it's neighbors for so long, it found itself without allies and surrounded by enemies after a few centuries. Sparta became greedy, stubborn, paranoid and brutal. And with no voice of its people to keep it in check, its government's own self indulgence caused it to collapse.
Not really, since the minority will always be shouted down by the majority.
More often than not, any decision to be made has several possible solutions. For this reason we often find ourselves facing a Minority-Majority, and a majority of Minorities. The point of democracies and republics is to give all minorities a voice and foster the growth of compromise.
If the majority demand it, they can. Look at the various purges of Communists during Cold War America.
Purges of communists in Cold War America? This would be news to me. Granted, the McCarthy era is something we generally look back on with embarrassment. But it wasn't a purge. There was some blacklisting and some careers were ruined, but the people realized what a farce it had become and after three year McCarthy himself was censured by congress. Twenty million Russians killed under Stalin's rule, now that's a purge.
Generally, the way the American system is designed, our Constitutional Amendments state what our basic rights are. They apply to everyone, minority and majority. The way we ensure that the majority can't simply over run the rights of the minority is that it takes an overwhelming majority to alter the Constitution, repeal an amendment, or deny someone their rights. We also have a Supreme Court of life-term judges whose job it is to make sure that the Constitution and it's amendments are applied correctly (in theory anyway).
Heck, look at Nazi Germany (okay, I admit, Hitler didn't achieve power by strict democratic processes, but the fact remains that the majority of Germans at the time /did/ strongly dislike Jews.)
Anti-Semitism had been rampant in Germany, and in fact much of Europe for centuries. In fact, the first use of the word Holocaust in relation to a purge of Jews came when Edward I drove the Jews from England. Yes, a majority of Germans did dislike Jews. And yes, Hitler may have had a majority of German support. But the Nazi party was not a democracy or a republic. The horrors the Nazis inflicted on Europe were the result of a government helmed by an evil despot. However, Hitler did rise to power through the Weimar Republic. But, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who could call the Weimar Republic a working republic. It was a government almost forced on Germany after World War I.
Essentially, one of the greatest problems with placing power in the hands of the people is that, as a whole, they have a tendancy to panic when something surprises of threatens them.
I can't argue with that. But what makes the select few any better than anyone else? How are we to select who should be our ruling class? What gives Oligarchs the right to sit in judgment of the people, when the people have no say in their own fate? The rich have access to better education, so they'd be better leaders, right? And in America the rich are overwhelmingly white and male. So, how long before your oligarchy is dominated by rich, white males? I'm sure they'd all have the best interests of everyone at heart.
Now, I realize that those same rich, white males dominate America. Forrest was correct in an earlier post that America itself is in many ways a political and economic oligarchy. It's a sad state of affairs that corporate and special interests control the purse strings of our democracy. It's hard to listen to your constituents or vote your conscience when your being handed sacks of money. But as I write this, there are people both in government and in the private sector hard at work trying to change that through finance and election reform.
Change comes slowly in a democracy or republic, but when it does come, it comes from the will of the people.
-Phil.
