Idealist Capitalism vs. Idealist Democracy

I wish to point out some of the seeming contradictions that an ideally democratic nation (one in which all men, women, beings, of all races, creeds, social statuses, etc. are equal, that is, all have equal rights and an equal say in the workings of their government, which in effect influences the economy, society, and general moral status of the country) would have when embracing an ideally capitalist system (an economic system in which profits are based on performance within the system, or, in other words, the amount of work you put into your specific effort is directly proportional to the personal profit you receive from it, and the same goes for entities such as corporations).While in a sense, this is much like comparing apples to oranges, our aim is not so much to compare and contrast as it is to display contradictions that would emerge as a result of the union of the two, like in my darling motherland, the United States of A.

Let us say that this ideal state has an economy which works on principals close to our own, though in a much more simplified manner; the value of money is rooted in the overall performance of the country in the world market, which is a result of the proactivity and initiative taken by businesses and business owners to promote and sell their product. And let us also say that the governmental system works in a similar, albeit once again simpler, manner in that each citizen is granted one vote in all elections, from the induction of a law to the induction of a president, if they so choose, and all citizens are granted the same basic rights.

Beginning on the most basic level, it seems that the two are incongruous; democracy wishes to promote equality for all, whereas the capitalist ideal is to promote competition which inevitably leads to inequality. Though it would seem that since we are speaking in ideals, we can also make the argument that the capitalist ideal is to maintain equality through equal effort through all, despite the reality that no one will be as motivated as their fellow man, or as unmotivated. For the man of democratic principles, all should be equal in the matter of freedoms granted to them. But when placed within the constraints of a capitalist system, all of these men are hardly equal in the rights granted to them by the money they possess; those at the top of the chain (those with the most money) have much more say within their individual company, as they are ultimately in control of who is hired at the company, which will control how their product is marketed, how it is sold, and who it is sold to. And outside of our ideal example, those at the top of the chain exercise much more influence in the political system, where corruption runs rampant.. They have the potential to buy off politicians, who are eager to take the payments, since more money will be able to buy them more comforts, necessities, etc.

Though all of these men, from the lowliest janitor to the most affluent CEO, have the same essential legal rights, in the sense that they can all marry whomever they so choose, they can vote for who they want, they all have the right to speak on whatever topics they want, worship whatever deity interests them (or doesn't) and so on, the janitor who works just as many hours per day as his better, is paid far less, and is thus unable to afford a quality of life equal to the CEO. And further down the line, if our janitor and CEO decide to have their own children, the janitor's children do not have access to the same quality of education, nor the same quality of shelter, nor the same quality of sustenance.

"All men are created equal," and yet "You get what you pay for."

Inequality at its finest.