"So if you're only problem is who's on top, you're just a fascist with a different set of xenophobic exclusivist nationalist ideals."
I am surprised, Denis actually thinks logically for one +1 Denis
So you admit you are a fascist?
Read it again... You say your only problem with fascism is who's on top, then you agree with my quote that says if you say that your a fascist...

China is the one reason i consider dictatorship as a viable option, China's growth is indeed astounding.
Singapore? I believe Singapore is a parliamentary democracy, with elections and all. Its just that their law is stricter than usual.
Rome: Yes, there were good emperor's, and it was an emperor that ended the meritocratic system. So if you have a dictatorship, there must be a way to ensure that with all his power, the dictator doesn't subvert the system itself, and change the way the successor is chosen.

I never said it was a democracy... I eluded to it being a "dictatorship" by adding the part about disqualification of candidates, all I said is that it is a parliamentary republic, which has nothing to do with democracy.
And Fasces why are you touting it if it would be complete shit if you were at the bottom.

"Alright, Fasces and I float in and out in agreeing for each other here. I am a history buff, and I can't recall a system where competent people were consistently elected to power. Byzantines, Turks, Ottomans, French, English, Romans...all have had their stellar leaders as well as their corrupt or weak leaders. The downfall of such an absolute system is that you *need* a benevolent, wise leader at its head, and that is *virtually* impossible. "
So all the colonial powers went nowhere because of the lack of good leaders? More often then not the Monarchies of Europe were producing competent leaders, not shitty ones. Your just relying on naming the few shitty.

However once again I use the 5 good emperors argument.

"So why then, am I bashing democracy? BLA BLA BLA"
you will always have that in democracy, regardless of term length and funding. Canada's campaigns are every 4 years and cost 1/100 as much as the states. However we still suffer from similar problems (however granted our system is better then yours, our unelected senate helps). Democracy will always have vote buying, its the only way to win. So thats why governments can't be solely based apon public support.

"So if you have a dictatorship, there must be a way to ensure that with all his power, the dictator doesn't subvert the system itself, and change the way the successor is chosen."
Agree.

"And Fasces why are you touting it if it would be complete shit if you were at the bottom."
its not complete shit at the bottom of America? There is no difference.

Democracy is flawed as always but much better than the alternative fasces envisions.

"Democracy is flawed as always but much better than the alternative fasces envisions."
Which would be what? name the flaws of Oligarchic Meritocracy.

(jack might remember this arguement from a while ago)

Standard of living in America is better than china's
That also true for Norway, Australia, Sweden, and 65 or so other countries...

Also fasces can I get a definitive answer to what you meant by your +1 comment and how you think you did not admit to being a fascist?

@Fasces : just to make things clearer, can you describe the political system of Oligarchic meritocracy? So people dont confuse it with some other dictatorial systems?
I believe it goes something like this. There's a ruler, chosen neither by elections nor by succession, but by some sort of test. Once he is chosen, he has near absolute control, either till death or for a prespecified time. His domain of control does not include the successor choosing system itself, e.g. he cannot alter the test, or remove it (which raises the question of who has authority to do so, if a flaw in the test system is found).
After his rule ends, the next successor is again chosen by the same system, and the cycle continues

"Standard of living in America is better than china's
That also true for Norway, Australia, Sweden, and 65 or so other countries..."
China is up and coming. 50 years ago China was one of the poorest places on Earth.

"Also fasces can I get a definitive answer to what you meant by your +1 comment and how you think you did not admit to being a fascist?"
+1 because you are thinking logically. I am not a fascist, just antidemocratic.

"Which would be what? name the flaws of Oligarchic Meritocracy."

1. It is unrealistic, oligarchich meritocracy I may suggest, is an oxymoron. An oligarchy is limited, a meritocracy requires full opportunity. Who chooses the oligarchy?

2. It does little to address any of the problems you cite inherrent in Democracy. It does not remove the problem of interest, as each oligarch will eventually have his own, it does not remove the problem ofunderrepresentation, it merely institutionalizes it, it does not necessarily streamline decision making, as oligarchies throughout history have had disagreements that put the debt debate to shame. It does nothing

"@Fasces : just to make things clearer, can you describe the political system of Oligarchic meritocracy? So people dont confuse it with some other dictatorial systems?
I believe it goes something like this. There's a ruler, chosen neither by elections nor by succession, but by some sort of test. Once he is chosen, he has near absolute control, either till death or for a prespecified time. His domain of control does not include the successor choosing system itself, e.g. he cannot alter the test, or remove it (which raises the question of who has authority to do so, if a flaw in the test system is found).
After his rule ends, the next successor is again chosen by the same system, and the cycle continues"
Not quite. Replace one ruler with rulers. One man can't bear the responsibility of rule. There has to be a few people who together hoist absolute power.

Well if you agreed with my statement and believe that the only problem with fascism is who's on top, and I'm thinking logically... You must be a fascist... Or would you like to retract your +1

"Once he is chosen, he has near absolute control, either till death or for a prespecified time. His domain of control does not include the successor choosing system itself, e.g. he cannot alter the test, or remove it (which raises the question of who has authority to do so, if a flaw in the test system is found)."

Who makes the test? Who grades the test? How does the test reflect reality?

@Idiot:
"1. It is unrealistic, oligarchich meritocracy I may suggest, is an oxymoron. An oligarchy is limited, a meritocracy requires full opportunity. Who chooses the oligarchy?"
Oligarchy and meritocracy are both limiters. Oligarchy means it puts power into the hands of a few and meritocracy means its puts power into the hands of the competent. So Oligarchic Meritocracy officially means "ruled by a competent few".

"2. It does little to address any of the problems you cite inherrent in Democracy. It does not remove the problem of interest, as each oligarch will eventually have his own, it does not remove the problem ofunderrepresentation, it merely institutionalizes it, it does not necessarily streamline decision making, as oligarchies throughout history have had disagreements that put the debt debate to shame. It does nothing"
"The true interest of an absolute monarch generally coincides with that of his people. Their numbers, their wealth, their order, and their security, are the best and only foundations of his real greatness; and were he totally devoid of virtue, prudence might supply its place, and would dictate the same rule of conduct."
— Edward Gibbon

"Well if you agreed with my statement and believe that the only problem with fascism is who's on top, and I'm thinking logically... You must be a fascist... Or would you like to retract your +1"
no, just my definition of Fascism changed during the debate :)

"Who makes the test? Who grades the test? How does the test reflect reality?"
That is the question.

"Oligarchy and meritocracy are both limiters. Oligarchy means it puts power into the hands of a few and meritocracy means its puts power into the hands of the competent. So Oligarchic Meritocracy officially means "ruled by a competent few"."

Yet in the way you mean it is that the best will rule, how do you ensure that the best will rule, how do you ensure that even the competent rather than the strong will rule? You can't.

"The true interest of an absolute monarch generally coincides with that of his people. Their numbers, their wealth, their order, and their security, are the best and only foundations of his real greatness; and were he totally devoid of virtue, prudence might supply its place, and would dictate the same rule of conduct."

Tell that to the Russian serfs and the French Revolutionaries. how about the jews in gas chambers and those that starved in the cultural revolution. Don;t be a fool

That is the question.

One that cannot be answered sufficiently, because it undermines your whole pretense of a detached ruling class

Fascism could pretty much be anything that's taken to an extreme of xenophobia, and exclusivism. Even nationalism isn't Nessecary because it's so arbitrary for it to be Nessecary. It just has to be collectivist conservative hierarchical xenophobic ideals applied to an authoritarian totalitarian model of government.

"Yet in the way you mean it is that the best will rule, how do you ensure that the best will rule, how do you ensure that even the competent rather than the strong will rule? You can't."
There is no country today ruled by the strong...
Take the army for instance, not using this as a perfect example, but your promoted based on acts of competency. There are systems in todays world that try to measure competency in people. And more often then not they are successful.

"Tell that to the Russian serfs and the French Revolutionaries. how about the jews in gas chambers and those that starved in the cultural revolution. Don;t be a fool"
The Russian serfs were better off under Stalin? Its not about how well off they are, its how well off they think they are..
Also since when did Hitler consider Jews to be his people?

"Fascism could pretty much be anything that's taken to an extreme of xenophobia, and exclusivism. Even nationalism isn't Nessecary because it's so arbitrary for it to be Nessecary. It just has to be collectivist conservative hierarchical xenophobic ideals applied to an authoritarian totalitarian model of government."
I am not 100% xenophobic, but I do believe in exclusion of the incompetent... If that makes me a fascist then yes I am one.

That's a lot of buzzwords that don't have much meaning.

Fascism is a nebulous concept that doesn't have much coherence. It is more or less simply a (ruthless) preemptive strike by capital to prevent revolution. There were plenty of differences between the various 'fascist' parties of Europe, especially on economic policy. For example, the UK fascists were not particularly militaristic. Neither were the Spanish fascists (neither were the American fascists). Military regimes serve/served the same function in poorer countries. Fascism only seems possible when there is something of a middle class and relatively strong institutions.

"The Russian serfs were better off under Stalin? Its not about how well off they are, its how well off they think they are.."

Yes I would say, but even better off now under democracy.

"Take the army for instance, not using this as a perfect example, but your promoted based on acts of competency. There are systems in todays world that try to measure competency in people. And more often then not they are successful."

You mean like Democracy...

"Also since when did Hitler consider Jews to be his people? "

Oh so I see, just because they were German citizens doesnt mean they were his people. Got it. So now your oligarchic meritocracy gets to decide which groups are under the state and who is "other" and subject to slavery, torture, death etc. It keeps getting better Fasces

Fasces is just doing his obligatory monthly democracy sucks troll. I mean the guy said he supported the extermination of black people. We don't really need to rehash this.

BTW if it were a meritocracy wouldn't the Stalin quote become
It's not the test taker that counts, it's the test grader...

"You mean like Democracy..."
Democracy isn't an example. Its not about competency its about charisma.

"Oh so I see, just because they were German citizens doesnt mean they were his people. Got it. So now your oligarchic meritocracy gets to decide which groups are under the state and who is "other" and subject to slavery, torture, death etc. It keeps getting better Fasces"
Well the state issueing citizenship can decide who gets it...
I also don't recall advocating slavery and torture, nor have I ever supported the holocaust.

"BTW if it were a meritocracy wouldn't the Stalin quote become
It's not the test taker that counts, it's the test grader..."
More or less.

So why do you support a meritocracy?