Aristocracy

I originally intended to define Aristocracy, but I see my opponent has already done so. However, I will define a few additional terms, such as the individual forms of Aristocracy, some of which I support more than the traditional Aristocracy. DefinitionsI will use Wikipedia for these definitions. Please do not count this against me. I tried both Merriam-Webster and Dictionary. com, but they could not find definitions for these terms. I do not know why. I do not particularly like Wikipedia and I will avoid using it whenever I can, but I will use it if I must. In this case, I must. However, Wikipedia does cite its sources, so I will cite them instead of citing Wikipedia. Geniocracy - “the framework for a system of government which was first proposed by Raël (leader of the International Raëlian Movement) in 1977 and which advocates problem-solving and creative intelligence as criteria for regional governance. ”[1] Meritocracy – “a political philosophy which holds that power should be vested in individuals according to "merit". Advancement in such a system is based on intellectual talent measured through examination and/or demonstrated achievement in the field where it is implemented. ” [2]I would like to share the following: "The concept evolved in Ancient Greece, whereby a council of leading citizens was commonly empowered and contrasted with direct democracy, in which a council of male citizens was appointed as the "senate" of a city state or other political unit. The Greeks did not like the concept of monarchy, and as their democratic system fell, aristocracy was upheld. " [3] The above definitions may not seem relevant to this topic at first, but they actually are. The two can – but not automatically are – forms of Aristocracy. There can be a Geniocratic Aristocracy or Meritocratic Aristocracy. The concepts work. ArgumentsBenefits of AristocracySimply for clarification, Aristocracy and Dictatorship are not the same. I am going to primarily argue from opinion in this section, but they will certainly be supported by facts. According to my Merriam-Webster's definition, an Aristocracy is "a government by the best individuals or by a small privileged class," which my opponent has provided and I fully accept. I am primarily going to argue about the best individuals, not necessarily the privileged. As an Aristocracy is a government of the best or privileged, the people who are running that government are surely worthy and they surely know what they are doing. An Aristocracy will surely succeed due to the "best" and "privileged" people in office. Why would they be chosen to run the government if they were not worthy? Tell me that. Geniocracy and MeritocracyGeniocracy and Meritocracy would be effective forms of government. My opponent himself supports Geniocracy (. http://www.debate.org...) He himself said in his debate, "As you can see, there is a direct correlation between great leadership and intelligence. Not only that, but there is also a correlation between responsibility and intelligence, common sense and intelligence, and logic and intelligence. One cannot simply deny that they would rather be led by an intelligent person than an unintelligent person. It is simple logic that the more intelligent, the more likely you are to be great. Honestly, a person with an IQ of 60 would make a bad president, congressman, or leader of any kind. A person with an IQ of 160 would make a great president. To me, this seems obvious. I wish for my opponent to tell me why this is not obvious to him and why he does not support a more fair system of government and law. " My opponent himself supports Geniocracy. We both had a discussion personally - we are friends not only online, but also personally - and we discussed the issue of Meritocracy. He said he would support it. May I ask, how would these two forms of government not be beneficial? If you need for me to go more in depth, I will gladly do so. Comparing Democracy and AristocracyI would like to devote a part of my argument to comparing Democracy and Aristocracy. Dictionary. com provides the following definition for Democracy: "[G]overnment by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the peopleand exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. " [4] Most Americans tend to assume that Democracy/Republic is the best form of government, but I refuse to believe that. I do believe that people should exercise their rights through representative government, but what if that is simply not the best choice? Often, people choose the wrong leaders, who will eventually corrupt the nation - there are plenty of examples here in the United States - but there may be people devoted to public service, serving in an Aristocracy, that will drive the nation to prosperity. Consider that. Democracy is full of risks and the people themselves will have caused that. Aristocracy has less risks. The people will still have a voice, but that voice will not be as loud as in a Democracy. ConclusionI believe I have shown how Aristocracy is beneficial. I hope that my opponent and the voters recognize that it does have crucial benefits. Works Cited1. Raël, Geniocracy. Nova Distribution, 2008.2. "Definition of merit - attribute, positive aspect and score (British & World English)". British & World English. Oxford Dictionaries. Retrieved 8 December 2012.3. . http://en.wikipedia.org...4. . http://dictionary.reference.com...