2007-11-21 14:49:44 · 19 answers · asked by Madmax 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
well first off...it would be an Aristocratic Republic.
And no.....because the rich dont "get to rule", we allow them to rule by voting for them. Remember, anyone can run for president as long as the meet the age and citizenship requirements....no mention of income. Maybe next election, hit the pavement and rally votes for your local favorite independent candidate.
2007-11-21 14:55:58 · answer #1 · answered by malachai 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
saywhat had the right idea -
"I'd call it an Aristocratic Democratic Republic. The poor have some political influence although it is very small."
Kiki also had the right idea of adding in a Theocracy.
I would go a step further, by adding in the fact there are many Dynasties within the Aristocrat-like rich that choose to be politically involved, but it's the major corporations that fun either party that really drive the direction of laws and policies put into play by the government.
One strong example of this would be Telco and Cable deregulation - under liberal control, communications and entertainment broadcast companies weren't allowed to do nearly what they can today. Now, FOX owns the biggest newspaper, the most popular cable/satellite news channel (per ratings), and more televisions on American soil than any other network or station conglomerate, simply because the conservatives have control of the FCC.
2007-11-21 15:18:21 · answer #2 · answered by been there done that got shirt 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No - an aristocracy is where one's fitness to rule is based on one's social standing as a result of family and birth. One where the rich rule would be called an oligarchy, or possibly a plutocracy.
2007-11-21 16:25:06 · answer #3 · answered by JerH1 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm not An American but live along their longest border and been there plenty of times. If you think only the rich get to rule you are very ill informed. To be honest hard work gets you ahead in the US better than anything. The downside would appear to be that the unwilling to work have all basic needs taken care of so some lose any incentive to better themselves in that situation. We have the same problem here.
What the whole world needs inspirational leadership. That means to inspire them to succeed not follow or rely on another even when the other is a divine or semi=divine personage.
2007-11-21 14:59:19 · answer #4 · answered by Sid B 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
God only knows if the rich allow honest elections.
Stalin said "It is not those who vote, who decide elections; it is those who COUNT the votes!!!"
Since the poor folks get a vote, just like rich guys, the middle class holds the balance of power.
Unfortunately, a lot of us still believe in "Regan Economics", including the old controversial theory of "Trickle down economy".
The middle class is afraid we NEED the rich to make our economy run. We know that is true, because "they" say so!
Praise God for the accident of birth in a vibrant economy, rather than the tragedy of the 3rd world.
Happy Thanksgiving every one!!!
2007-11-21 15:04:47 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. In 'The Republic', Plato said that the democratic state is one level above tyranny. It actually rules for the best interests of a particular group.
2007-11-21 14:55:01 · answer #6 · answered by Astrajingga 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'd call it an Aristocratic Democratic Republic. The poor have some political influence although it is very small.
2007-11-21 14:52:17 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Unfortunately, ALL GOVTs since the beginning of time were controlled by the wealthy.
In antiquity wealth meant military power through control of land which meant food for sustaining soldiers.
In recent history wealth meant weaponry power though control of industry which meant weapons of steal and gun powder.
Presently wealth means technology & energy power though control of knowledge & resources which means control of information & OIL.
Democracy is a scam. At best it is a system were groups of wealthy take turns exploiting the masses.
2007-11-21 15:37:14 · answer #8 · answered by Genuis by Design 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
“It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their own selfish purposes.”
-- Andrew Jackson
American, 7th US President, 1767-1845
“He who controls others may be powerful, but he who has mastered himself is mightier still”
-- Lao Tzu
Chinese Philosopher, founder of Taoism, wrote "Tao Te Ching" - 600 BC-531 BCE
--
---
2007-11-21 14:55:47 · answer #9 · answered by Lu 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Under those auspices, every nation is an aristocracy.
2007-11-21 15:22:14 · answer #10 · answered by Nothingusefullearnedinschool 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋