shared as separate post:

in USSR, you have one great monopoly. your life belongs to one monopoly.

you want to start something? you need funding? well, there is only one power you ask.

this is exactly about what we call democracy. what happens in russia (or armenia, because it’s under russian influence). putin needs to control the business. because otherwise there will be powers which do not agree with him. therefore he has less chances to preserve the power. that’s why business is done by those whom he can trust, or in the best scenario the government allows to do business while you are loyal.

which means monopolies and preferences.

so this is not about free market. this is more like central planning.

when we have free market, and equal opportunities to make business, and be protected by the law, then balance of different powers with different interests emerges.

of course interests can be contradicting. and when nobody can take control, then these parties have to agree on something. make compromises. thus interests of different layers of society are more likely to be satisfied.

in case of authoritarian regime, like in russia/armenia, judge has no obligations for me, for the people. but has obligations for those who set them to that position. mayor of the city as well. did i vote for him? no. whom does he responsible to? not to me. i have nothing to do with him. thus his decision will reflect interests of the authority(ies).

but the drawback is, when you don’t have free market, those who are in charge, who make business, who are in government, are not those who does they work better, but those who are closer/more loyal, who can take bribes, and share them up.

so democracy is when interests of different layers of society are at least considered. but pre requirement for that is balance of powers. different powers. and not one power that decides everything. you can point out Singapore. yes, but firstly power corrupts, you know that. and you know that absolute power can corrupt absolutely. secondly, but there you have only one warrant of your business: the leader of the country. what if he dies? what if there will be revolution? democracy implies the machine, which is a better warranty for business, than one person. and on the contrary - if Tramp wins in USA, then… well, the machine will digest him. nothing very bad will likely happen. Because the person in USA does not decide everything without considering interests of different parties. But it can in Russia, or Turkey. That is why those countries are much more unpredictable, than countries with established democracies. Also, that is why democratic societies are less aggressive. Can you imagine today’s Germany or France to invade some part of let’s say Slovakia? But we can imagine Russia to invade some other part of Ukraine or Kazakhstan or Georgia, right? well, it already happened with two of them. Because obviously, France and Germany are much more democratic. And it is connected with the more free and equal business opportunities.

բնօրինակ սփիւռքում(եւ մեկնաբանութիւննե՞ր)