Why is it an oxymoron?

In the US at least, many (most?) tycoons are involved with lobbying of the sort that destroys the function of democracy, even though they leave the form.

Being rich and successful isn't inherently evil, nor anti-democratic. Weak and corrupt governments who bend themselves to please evil people who are also rich, however, are very much a threat to democracy.

Agreed, but using the word "evil" in a political context tends to suck all of the nuance out of the room.

The rich who attempt to bend the government are certainly ALSO a threat to the democracy.

Well said. This is what I was trying to say, but I'm stupid.

Edit 0: I would point out: weak governments bending over backward to rich people requires rich people opposed to good governments.

Edit 1: See dbtc's comment. I removed the word evil from this comment.

As long as wealth means influence, people being rich is inherently anti-democratic.

Can you expand more how it destroys the definition of democracy:

> Democracy (Greek: δημοκρατία, dēmokratiā, from dēmos 'people' and kratos 'rule') is a form of government in which the people have the authority to choose their governing legislation. Who people are and how authority is shared among them are core issues for democratic theory, development and constitution. Some cornerstones of these issues are freedom of assembly and speech, inclusiveness and equality, membership, consent, voting, right to life and minority rights.

Democracy is more than just political lobbying.

Excessive lobbying can lead to where although people are able to vote for representatives, said representatives are likely to do what is best for them only -- taking money from lobbyists to do things that may or may not be unethical.

This leads to a situation where although you voted, you don't actually get a say in government.

Of course, this only applies to representative democracy.

Edit: see also kemonocode's response to my above comment. That's what I was trying (badly) to say.

Some among the US founding fathers argued that such was inevitable. The only plausible solution, they posited, was to encourage even more lobbying. The only thing that could protect the democracy from special interests was, well, special interests. Competing special interests. The only hope was to set them against each other.

Radical transparency enforced by rules would also come a long way. The electorate would be outraged if they knew about the extent of lobbying to their representatives. It would allow them to put public pressure where it is due.

This would be the most beneficial thing, I think. I do find the idea of competing special interest groups intriguing, but what do you do when one wins?

Endure.

One is always winning. Some victories last a long time. Others are shorter. Endure, regroup, retool, resurge.

> One is always winning. Some victories last a long time. Others are shorter.

Excellent point. The optimist and pessimist in me are at odds about this concept, I have a hard time believing that there are enough people who would endure long enough to make a difference.

However, there is a good chance that I am wrong, and I will try to hold on to it.

Edit: I'll have to be going offline now, or I'll never actually sleep. Thank you for the excellent discussion, this is why I'm on HN.

If anyone has the source from freeopinion reply please add it. That actually a really interesting concept.

The Federalist Papers are amazing. I could point you to No. 10, but then you would miss out on so much. I think they should be required reading for all USians. There should be a high school class separate from US History that is an entire school year to digest them.

How wonderful it would be to have the luxury to discuss and debate them, along side Marx and others. Pick them apart, mix them together, stir, think, think, think.

> I think [The Federalist Papers] should be required reading for all USians. There should be a high school class separate from US History that is an entire school year to digest them.

I just realized, I have never read them outside of the heavily abbreviated versions covered in US history class. I am reading them now, here's a link to them at the Library of Congress for anyone else who would like to read them as well [0]. I have to add, this is my first experience with a government website that is not like nails on a chalkboard to use. It's simple, efficient, and doesn't require enabling _any_ JS.

> How wonderful it would be to have the luxury to discuss and debate them, along side Marx and others. Pick them apart, mix them together, stir, think, think, think.

I don't have much to say on this, except that I needed to comment agreement on how amazing this would be. I believe in an afterlife, and I hope to get this chance.

[0] https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/full-text

Edit: fix link to be to entire set, not just 1-10. Also, complement LOC website.

No most people destroying democracy are the people with nothing and want things with no effort. IMO

I have to ask, how is that destroying democracy? It may or may not be leading the nation down a negative path, something that I suspect we disagree on based on your phrasing.

However, if people vote and their votes actually influence government, as discussed elsewhere in the thread, isn't that democracy following it's path?