But if this is so obvious, why is hardly anyone ever doubting that we are living in democracies?

I mean, If I were to go on the streets and ask people what political system we factually have, I guess 90% would say democracy, not oligarchy.

Is this some kind of "the emperor's new clothes" situation? People saying "politically correct" things despite knowing better?

Utopism is a strong force :)

How many people even know the word oligarchy? Depressingly few, I bet. I don't think many people analyze the situation beyond, "I'm allowed to vote, so I live in a democracy." At least as long as they still have their bread and circuses corn and porn, that's a good enough working definition for most.

I think the marijuana thing is good from a constitutionalist/tenth amendment type perspective, but from a libertarian/anarchist (semantics over definition of "libertarian" notwithstanding) perspective, there isn't much difference between a Federal/State government, and so the whole states-rights thing isn't much cop.

Decriminalisation is about not throwing people into jail, I'd go with that. But legalisation is just about the state co-opting the black market into its own revenue streams. If you actually look at the reforms passed in Washington and Colorado... the whole regulatory state, the licensing/permits required, minimum pricing, and taxation, crazy rules on vertical integration, etc... it's not "liberal" in any way, and is completely fascistic. Plus all that lovely, juicy, weed money is now pouring into police and education budgets so that they can now buy bigger tanks and indoctrinate your kids a little better.

The Silk Road will do more to win the "War on Drugs" than norml ever will.

I do agree that they fall into different categories, though, along the lines that you drew. I just don't think those categories are actually all that important in the larger picture.

There's one place where in the political spectrum where I think there is a fight worth fighting and that's at the local level in regards to cable/internet monopolistic policies. Also, perhaps, at the state level in regards to freeing up restrictions on homeschooling.

Ehm, I don't consider "social scientists" to be scientists. Hell, not even psychology and experimental economics should be qualified as a "science." But that is besides the point, I'm not a positivist.

Anyway, democracy is a utopian political system, and it only makes sense that it doesn't exist in the real world. Democracy as a means to structure organizations on the other hand is very functional, but only in certain instances. To have it in all areas is silly and utopian. For instance, in economics democracy is an inefficient means of information transfer when compared to prices. Prices reflect social value more frequently and efficiently than democratic voting. That's the economic calculation problem. Representative democracy is just as utopian, because it reduces the identity of individuals into that of large groups of individuals based on their geographic location.

The ideal of a government that is not hierarchical is a utopian concept. By its nature, government will be hierarchical. You are given a few the power to rule over the many, regardless of whether or not you approved of their existence (more often not) by voting. The only way to give more relative power to common people is by reducing government as much as possible. When one creates a government, one is only creating another means by which the powerful can dominate those who are not powerful - the political process.

But a democracy allows an oligarchy to exist.
If you tried to prevent an oligarchy, then it still wouldnt make it a democracy would it?

I think most people do actually understand that the political system is a joke. I do think there's some cognitive dissonance between politics as a whole, though, and the politicians that they vote for. Congress's approval rating is 9%... yet everybody loves their own Congressman.

Same thing is evident in places like California... when polled, people say they want a smaller state Government, yet when asked about individual programs, most people won't cut a single thing from anywhere.

tbh if your country has basically 2 parties.........

its like wrestling. 2 enemies in front of the camera but 1 big family behind the scenes.

I believe school choice is the most important political issue. The state public school systems have three problems: 1. They are very poor at teaching what they choose to teach. 2. The education is not tailored to individuals, but rather aggregates. 3. Indoctrination (whether it is liberal or conservative.) 

3. Is the biggest political concern, as indoctrination is purely a tool for political gain, but 1 & 2 are more problems individuals must deal with. 

The U.S would do wonders if the states stopped regulating what is taught, removed standardized testing, and allow for competing charter schools. Let the local governments decide how education should be funded. But if we are going to speak of my extreme ideal, there shouldn't be public education at all, it should all be privatized. Since education has such a high demand, the price would be affordable for the poor, and even if it is not there will be private subsidies for poor students (just as private universities pay for the tuition of poor students today, so can elementary and high schools.) Competition will bring the lowest common denominator much higher than it is now, and both the individual and aggregate productivity from education will be increased due to individuals being able to pursue their specific diverse interests. 

I completely agree.

Go and be a scientist/engineer/artist/entrepreneur and change the world in your own way. Make politics have to catch up to you.