Does anyone see something wrong with this?

[nemafakei]

"I already try to explain it by counting another motivation factors"

"Some (like you, I expect) are motivated by deep politological analysis, others by expectations and trust, and for another ones is gratis beer at meetings enough"

If everyone abided by the first, democracy would be a lot easier. But few have the time and/or the patience for it. The second is still fairly good - except that it is subject to being immensely skewed by the media, who often have their own motivations: putting forward the right views and attracting the right audience in order to attact money from advertisers. Oh, and they have to appease their owners, too. And the third is just a minor version of bribery, which is banned.

"For example presidential votes are only at the end of long process inside the parties ending up with primaries"

That's not democracy in the least. That's narrowing the electorate down to sets of people - the party faithful, whose views are pretty much consistent in any case. The fact that the two US major parties are ideologically virtually indistinguishable except by their turn of phrase means that you will always get pretty much the same government every election.

If the three National front parties all elected their candidates, do you think that there would still be any choice for the electorate.

I'm going to have a look for an example where only one or two companies hold an entire country to ransom. A lot of Latin America seems to have suffered this problem to a degree, though I'm not sure how absolute the level is.

But this sort of thing happens all over; it's simply assigned to an environmental factor: conditions not ideal for business will encourage business to move elsewhere, depriving your country's economy of jobs. Taxes on the rich and taxes on businesses are regularly attacked in the Commons here because they'll 'drive business from Britain'. Companies don't need to overtly threaten to boycott a country, though often corporate groups lobby against it suggesting 'it'd be a detriment to the economy'.

[Caid Ivik]

1. Hm, to have a democracy is easy as anything else, only problem is to maintain it; to make an election is no problem as well as to accept the leader, but when two years later people revolt against him, somewhere was a problem  ;D  If you buy votes, you can't expect trust, so it democracy only during the first votes - like at Rome, which you mentioned already earlier. Altough it isn't always sure, there were some demagogues and richmen ruling (and falling from bureau) rightfully. Take Solon, for example, or Churchill, to put it closer.

2. If it would be in case of National Front, then ok, we have USA-like democracy... Difference between Bush and Kerry may be minimal (I agree with this), however that we say as foreigners. Internal politics are more differentiated, as GOP is more traditionalist and christian, while Democrats more liberal. Also, democracy in USA aren't only presidential elections, there are much more autonomous spheres. In communism everything was ruled from center, I don't fear to say that National Front was just a doll in hands of Moscow.

3. Well, this is more a thing of motivation factor. You think economy is primary thing? Vote for ANO. You think we should shit at foreign capital and squeeze our own for welfare? Vote Smer socdems. There I see, that ANO will give more place for business lobby, and Smer less. Problem is when parties don't follow what they planned; that I would call a hurt on democracy.

[nemafakei]

I've checked 1292a and 1292b and I can't find it. The passages are quite big for a reference (4.4.3-4.5.5), but from what I can see, the text is too model-specific to use in a different context.

"Well, this is more a thing of motivation factor."

This is a separate issue from party differences, although, as you mention, there is an additional problem with democracy in that it adds that consideration to party differences.

Regarding the issue that overrides party differences (in my previous post): how is it democratic and fair to have business and investment... and therefore the economy... almost totally in the hands of privately-motivated individuals? Whenever you hear on the news questions like 'would this threaten jobs', it's likely to mean 'if we don't do this, employers will find cheap labour somewhere they can more easily exploit workers, and we've got to obey business interests or they'll fire our workers'.

"In communism everything was ruled from center, I don't fear to say that National Front was just a doll in hands of Moscow"

In capitalism, everything is ruled from Wall Street; I'm not afraid to say that both the American parties are just puppets on the payrolls of businesses.

[Tinuviel]

Anyone here read Plato's "Republic"?

In it he has a theory that all democracies result in Tyranny. He basically says that the true form of democracy is anarchy, if every person creates their own law. The chaos caused will always lead to acquiring one ruler to control the confusion. Then that one person has too much power, and becomes a dictator.

Just a thought... not sure I agree, but good to mention. :D

[nemafakei]

Again, very difficult to apply the Republic to modern politics. For a start, the needs of the state are very different; the greek culture (and set of circumstances) for which it was designed would be a very alien concept to us.

[Caid Ivik]

Anyway, some of Platon's thoughts reflect reality, which could be seen troughout whole history, and sometimes even nowadays. Turning to tyranny is one of those more useful. Maybe USA and most of EU is enough developed in this thing to hold it, but there are many countries, where majority of population sees its independence as a burden, wanting a leader which would care for them. However, as aristotelian I wouldn't comment this much ;D

"Regarding the issue that overrides party differences (in my previous post): how is it democratic and fair to have business and investment... and therefore the economy... almost totally in the hands of privately-motivated individuals? Whenever you hear on the news questions like 'would this threaten jobs', it's likely to mean 'if we don't do this, employers will find cheap labour somewhere they can more easily exploit workers, and we've got to obey business interests or they'll fire our workers'."

Concept of democracy allows private companies. Such question seems to be very illogical: if a large employer leaves a country, there is more place for smaller firms to start out. Effect? Strong and self-dependant middle class, what is a pillar of democracy.

"In capitalism, everything is ruled from Wall Street; I'm not afraid to say that both the American parties are just puppets on the payrolls of businesses."

This statement is based on theory, that "everything" is equal to "business questions", with which I can't agree.

[nemafakei]

"if a large employer leaves a country, there is more place for smaller firms to start out"

That's not necessarily the case. The smaller, newer firms would likely have much greater overheads than the larger firm, they still won't have access to the market, only the resources, and the larger company will still be undercutting them in terms of wages. And if the larger firm took any of the necessary tools of the process away with them, the smaller forms would have no chance.

If Radiostan, a country whose economy depended on their large radio-assembly industry, decided to enforce a minimum hourly wage which was somewhat higher than most wages in their neighbour Poorland, then the Big Radio Country (based in Richland, of course) would simply stop employing workers in Radiostan, and would move all its industry to Poorland, where the costs are lower. Most of Radiostan would be unemployed. How quickly can alternative firms be set up? They have to begin with a new business infrastructure, find their own suppliers, design their own radios, and even if they can manage to get their radios to Richland or anywhere else that'll buy them, they're still competing with the Big Radio Company, whose prices are significantly lower than the new firms'. Meanwhile, much of Radiostan's population has not been paid for a long time, the government is likely bankrupt, and cannot provide enough loans for the businesses to start out.

Now, when we're talking about an economy with multiple industries, each individual business wields less power, so you can alienate some businesses without losing out so catastrophically (though the economy will still suffer) - but then you'll be more dependant on other industries, whom you cannot alienate, else you'll have no economy. And if the measure was targeted at one industry, it's likely had no actual effect, because the industry will proobably have moved to wherever the policy is not in force, rather than curbing its unfair tendecies. You still can't implement some policies, though, because all industries will object. Not to mention the added power of corporations when it comes to using the media they own to attack parties they dislike and give out a biased view of parties who would be sympathetic to their interests.

"This statement is based on theory, that "everything" is equal to "business questions", with which I can't agree"

Name something that businesses could not control if they really wanted to. I'll give you religion, and possibly the odd issue like foxhunting. But do you think that the power that business wields on even countries you would define as democratic has had no effect on wage policies, no effect on taxation levels, no effect on environmental policies? That would by na

[Caid Ivik]

With this Radiostan be aware. Previously I demanded self-sustainability of state, otherwise it is a colony. If infrastructure and economics of it are based only on radio-assembly, it is an industrial colony, a factory. If such state would exist, then we can say other sources needed for existence of a society are all imported, so we need a large import business. And then either this massive import system is controlled by the Big Radio Company (then all economic power is in their hands; Radiostan is their colony and such state you described cannot occur, as they wouldn't allow it) or by the state. And that looks more like fascism. Realistically, however, such state doesn't exist. If it would, then there would be no place for money (people would be able to buy only radios or state-imported goods), why not taking plow then and shitting at economics?

Security, education, law, majority of medical sector are under full government control. You can admit, that state must buy somewhere guns for its army or acylpirin for hospitals, but there starts a normal concurence battle with state as major customer. And customer is the lord...

[nemafakei]

"Previously I demanded self-sustainability of state, otherwise it is a colony"

I know. I was using it as an example to illustrate how the subsequent paragraph works.

However, going back to the subject of the thread, this is roughly how the US colonises: by introducing 'democracy'.

"Security, education, law, majority of medical sector are under full government control"

As I said very early on, these small countries with insecure democracies depend on security companies; they in particular must be appeased by the country's policies, lest the country slide into anarchy.

The US is a slightly different case: they use much of the tax from their populace to heavily subsidise the defence industry (which I suspect also lines the politicians' pockets). They then buy back equipment for whose research they've already paid, acting as a guaranteed customer for surplus production, which makes figures look good and attracts investors from other countries. The US has then large amounts of military equipment with which to secure the co-operation of smaller countries, either by direct threat, or, more commonly, threat of withdrawal of support; this co-operation ensured that goods arrive in the US on the cheap, and, wherever they would compete with american firms, import taxes are also added to keep local businesses (and investors in political parties) happy and to generate revenue to pay for the initial investments. Incidentally, the US is effectively addicted to military equipment; if it did naything to harm the industry, companies would sell the technology to other customers and move manufacturing away to other countries.

The medical sector? Well, a similar thing goes for pharmaceutical companies, investment, and the extortionate prices that other countries *have* to pay to use vital drugs, except that competition is completely prevented by patents.

Education? Well, in the US, at least, universities are often funded by businesses, since the state mostly doesn't bother. From what I gather, the education system there as a result teaches people to be hard working cogs before capable thinkers. This has obvious implications for the effectiveness of democracy, and has obvious benefits for businesses who don't need people to be hinking too hard about the ethics of what they're up to.

Law? Generally, on criminal law, I'll agree with you. On laws against such things as fraud, it's a lot more difficult: you have problems like guilty parties are rich enough simply to move elsewhere (where you can't tax them at all, not that you tax them much), or the transactions take place in so many different countries that it's often impossible to proseccute even when enough links in the paper chain are found.

The private sector is pervasive and powerful. Even if it doesn't control every single issue, there is more than enough power over many counties in private hands to say that these countries are democratic mostly in name.

After all, if businesses control just economic policies and environmental policies, neither of wich you've so far questioned, can you really class the system as totally democratic? At best, democracy exists only partially in any country.

[Caid Ivik]

Surely it has strength. But as you can see, in an independent state there are so many sectors, that it is hard to maintain an alternative power to the government.

Well, even american democracy isn't as strong there. Military production is restricted by government, they simply can't sell some technology to (potentially) hostile states, only where they are allowed. That doesn't apply on US firms only, even czech branch of Tesla couldn't sell a low-frequency radar systems to China. As they want them ready to produce enough in case of trouble, they make an artificial demand sector in own military; very like it was in communist states, however here is enuogh capital to do it without harming other business.

Same with pharmaceutics. State has enough power to declare any drug illegal by not passing it trough tests, what could be abused by companies on lesser ministerial level. Actually, same could be done by state itself; trying to pass on domestic products, like what we could see in Slovenia. Now see Lek and Krka, they are able to compete with whole Europe.

System of universal education is nearly same for last few centuries, based on "learn as much as possible and don't bother no one understood it". Lack of hermeneutical tradition is felt, but seeing business conspiracy behind it is rather out of sache. However, scripts were always written by the rulers, let it was emperor Josephus II. or a minister installed by democratic elections.

Etc, etc.

At the end, most of the power (potential or applied) remains in the government. As it is elected democratically, it must yet leave some freedom, even if that means that larger companies will outcompete smaller. However, they always have enough power to turn cards on their side. Instead of courts, all power in an independent state as USA comes from all citizens as mass. Is it not that utopia we wanted? Well then sorry, this is democracy with all what it brings. Even corruptability of already elected government, what is the only possibility of turning state into an oligarchy. However, if people vote for them once more, can you say they aren't retaining democracy?

[nemafakei]

"Military production is restricted by government, they simply can't sell some technology to (potentially) hostile states, only where they are allowed"

How many countries in the world does that actually cover? China and North Korea, I would guess.

"that it is hard to maintain an alternative power to the government"

But the point is you don't want power in the hands of any alternative to the government, else it's not democratic!

"State has enough power to declare any drug illegal by not passing it trough tests, what could be abused by companies on lesser ministerial level"

I don't see what it would acheive. You're saying that a country would ban a medicine and deprive everyone of its use because a company wants to charge more for it, thereby proving what? That government has control of healthcare? Hardly!

I'm aware there's not much that can be said on the education front for most countries, and I'm not so familiar with the US system to argue with any conviction.

"However, if people vote for them once more, can you say they aren't retaining democracy?"

What are the perceived choices? If people vote for National Front once more, can you say they aren't retaining democracy?

"At the end, most of the power (potential or applied) remains in the government."

After all, if businesses control just economic policies and environmental policies, neither of which you've so far questioned, how can you class the system as totally democratic?

[Caid Ivik]

Well, I can ensure you military producers fight for customer tougher than armies themselves. Look at Northrop, they would fell without B-2s, MiG is falling already. Technology costs much, politics put a damoclian sword over you, so you have very limited number of customers, which can afford it.

Second quote was out of context, not exactly understood.

About National Front, we are again in circle. If someone would vote for a corrupted government altough he could vote for clean one (see ie Russia), then it is still a democracy. Economic and enviromental questions (for example) are under lobbing influence, and as democracy is about freedom, it should ensure also free market. I would say this is a total democracy and if we could make a scale of it, then any restriction by state is lowering it.