sandandfoam
Veteran Member
There is an argument that recognized democracies are evolving towards aristocratic regimes.
I'm inclined to agree. What do you think?
I'm inclined to agree. What do you think?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are we moving from democracy to aristocracy?
- Thread starter sandandfoam
- Start date
Who would our nobles be?
They are not evolving towards that. Representative governments are always under threat of a takeover, but aristocracy is more unstable than representative government. The reason its more unstable is that it is unjust, so at every turn there is a new life & death scramble for power. In representative governments there is faith in the justice of government. If someone were truly more divine than other people then aristocracy could work, but no one is. The aristocrats inevitably will begin to abuse their positions, undermine the sovereignty of their governments and cause general havoc. Representative government will remain attractive with its long history going back thousands of years. So whenever there is aristocracy it actually is part of evolution towards representative government not the other way around.
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
Well yours would include the Bush and Clinton families. Mine included a whole plethora of families who've been running the place in line with their best interests since the birth of the state. Dail Eireann is full of family dynasties.
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
Your representation of aristocracy is perfectly in line with my view of our 'democracy'.
These appear to be contradictory statements.
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
No. Have another look.
Those might appear to be dynasties, but notice how Jeb is fizzling?
And I don't expect Chelsea to follow Hillary.
A true aristocracy would have more continuity & durability.
There is a point here. We have had twenty years of Bushes and Clinton's. If Hillary does two terms, that would be 28 years.
I'll worry about an aristocracy if Chelsea & Charlotte reign over us.
If we are going to go down that rabbit hole, I agree Bernie would make a much better President than Hillary would.
Bernie would help my gold positions........
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Both have pluses and minuses, imo, so I don't know who in the final analysis would be better. Either way, I don't think they're gonna get much cooperation from the Republican-controlled, do-nothing Congress.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Can you share?
Typical socialist......get your own gold!
Slap me if you must, but I
couldn't resist that opportunity.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I did but my wife spent it all.
I apologize for letting you waste my time.
This is sort of a meta reason I couldn't get behind Hillary for 2000. 28 years of the POTUS being tossed between the immediate members of two nuclear families made me want to toss my breakfast. If this were some third world country we'd call that "oligarchy". And a couple terms by Obama followed by a Clinton vs Bush campaign (which I still think likely) doesn't make me feel any better about it.
Tom