1. a class of persons holding exceptional rank and privileges, especially the hereditary nobility. 2. a government or state ruled by an aristocracy, elite, or privileged upper class. 3. government by those considered to be the best or most able people in the state. 4. a governing body composed of those considered to be the best or most able people in the state. 5. any class or group considered to be superior, as through education, ability, wealth, or social prestige.
Only once is wealth even mentioned so I dont think that is the deciding factor.
But if you insist, read the thread title as "Is democracy realy just a delayed government that relies on the wealthy?"
Alright then what government doesn't do this? They all have the wealthy to rely on as the wealthy are the ones who invest in business and hire the workers. Yes it does rely on the wealthy. It also relies on the middle and lower class.
The rich always will hold power, democracy is a form of aristocracy. Aristocracy includes fascism, democracy, theocracy, and monarchy.
Democracy is an aristocracy, but it involves equality.
I think I agree with this answer the most.
Alright then what government doesn't do this? They all have the wealthy to rely on as the wealthy are the ones who invest in business and hire the workers. Yes it does rely on the wealthy. It also relies on the middle and lower class.
I hate when smart-***** take what a person says to the last word. I obviously was referencing wealthy people in particular.
Democracy is an aristocracy, but it involves equality.
Um...contradiction?
Democracy does not necessarily imply a form of "ruling class" or whatever you want to call it, even though there is the potential for it. This is unlike monarchy or other forms of oligarchy which imply a rule of the few.
Democracy does not necessarily imply a form of "ruling class" or whatever you want to call it, even though there is the potential for it. This is unlike monarchy or other forms of oligarchy which imply a rule of the few.
How is that a contradiction? You can have equality in an aristocracy, just not social equality.
I quote Thomas Jefferson: The selecting the best male for a Harem of well chosen females also, which Theognis seems to recommend from the example of our sheep and *****, would doubtless improve the human, as it does the brute animal, and produce a race of veritable. For experience proves that the moral and physical qualities of man, whether good or evil, are transmissible in a certain degree from father to son. But I suspect that the equal rights of men will rise up against this privileged Solomon, and oblige us to continue acquiescence under the degeneration of the race of men which Theognis complains of, and to content ourselves with the accidental aristoi produced by the fortuitous concourse of breeders.
Bottom line Aristocracy is a class of people considered to be "outstanding" and the best in a sphere of activity, thus they cannot be considered "equal" to someone not aristocratic. Anyhow, the key element in equality is equal treatment, which does not get along with Aristocracy.
