> A dictator is not elected. It specifically means people do not choose the leader, whereas in a democracy you do have the power vote for candidates and run for

> A dictator is not elected. It specifically means people do not choose the leader, whereas in a democracy you do have the power vote for candidates and run for office yourself. So? It's just a society that's structured a little differently. There's "nothing" stopping you from taking the insane gamble to topple the dictator, and you would have a chance at success. Perhaps that chance can be reckoned as being "fair." > Instead of telling me my question is wrong or saying I have inherent biases, why not provide the actual argument? I've told you already: your premises are flawed. > Capitalism is nothing but an economic system where an individual owns the means to production. That's it. Nothing more. You take the risks, create leverage, and either suffer the failure or enjoy the profit. Nobody needs to give you permission or gets to tell you what to do. It's the ultimate freedom to create your own living.... > Again, if those at the bottom are at a sufficient level of comfort, then there is no need to take from those above. And if political power is properly isolated from the influence of wealth, just about every issue with the wealthy now will go away. Again, that kind of isolation is impossible. Let's consider a simple, extreme scenario that's illustrative: imagine a capitalist society where one person has managed to own everything, but deigns to employ all the common people and provide them with a "sufficient level of comfort." Even if there's still some nominal democratic system, it can't truly function. He owns and therefore controls the presses, the TV stations, and the servers, so only messages he approves can get out. The economic power of his wealth gives him control over the electoral system, and thus extreme political power. The democratic processes would be turned into a sham. Attempts at "proper isolation" would be incompatible with the rights of control that wealth implies, and would amount to taking property away from the world-owner. Furthermore: In this scenario, no one can capitalistically challenge the world-owner's economic power, since he totally controls the resources they'd need to do so. No one else has their own freedom or autonomy, since they live in his system. It's also likely they'll disagree with the his idea of what a "sufficient level of comfort" is (as the history of shitty working conditions attest that owners have poor sense of this). The common people who may want to take away the world-owners wealth aren't driven by envy, they're driven by a desire for freedom and autonomy of their own. This scenario is extreme, but its broad features hold in other systems of extreme inequality, such as a single corporate world-owner or an aristocracy. Democracy functions best when there aren't the extremes of inequality. You could say the same thing about capitalism, too (if your focus is on the general welfare and not some individual). There's all kinds of books and resources that go into these topics and ideas much more skillfully than I can. I suggest you seek them out.