Media forum settings similar to ABC television Q&A debates may seem an honest open discussion. I suggest the forums can be manipulated to guide people onto poor thought out conclusions.
Google “Republic definition” to find:
*republic definition. A form of government in which power is explicitly vested in the people, who in turn exercise their power through elected representatives. Today, the terms republic and democracy are virtually interchangeable, but historically the two differed.

I am going to say, governments governed by the people is a very romantic concept.
An open political system for any person or organisation to become voted into political power is a ridiculous idea.
The notion that media are independent from the political and legal system is a fantasy. Proving what happens behind closed doors is real or invented stories to entertain working class poorly educated voting citizens is difficult. Even though arguments supporting ideas that what is said by a media is invented stories to both entertain and badly inform voting citizens, people believe what they want to believe. Politics is like following a sports team, being that the best entertaining result is what people want to believe.

Incorruptible monarchs supposed to be separate from self-interested land owner parliamentarians, making sure parliaments aren't making laws to enrich themselves. Because government political power has so much influences over tax payers money, organisations wanting to control public expenditure, competing with other organisations not to be left out, “will” create corrupt competition between organisations.
Royalty for hundreds of years were suspicious of others counties royalty, marrying into each others families to ensure alliances.
The Roman empire created a trading alliance between empire states. A assumption being, Christianity continued a system of uncompetitive incorruptible trade. I am saying these same centrally controlled uncompetitive incorruptible controls are being maintained in secret from public knowledge.

Whether Republic or Monarch, a centrally controlled incorruptible organisation which merely invents money to finance a pretend self-controlled economic system (capitalism), allowing inflation to erode the value of money, increasing paper and property asset prices, increasing speculating investment valuations, leading to controlled bubble bust crashes.

https://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/southasia/History/British/EAco.html
http://www.victorianweb.org/history/empire/india/eic.html

Recently a television documentary told a story on how the British East India company governed parts of India with the single idea of making profits for company share holders. The East India company had a monopoly on trade, restricting other companies. Eventually the British Government had to take over due to an Indian rebellion, mentioned in the above websites.

In other recorded documentary mentioned histories, The British government continued to control and monopolise raw materials, shutting out other country competitors.
The American war of Independence, dumping tea into Boston Harbour, known as the Boston Tea Party. The independence movement was about taxation on top of monopolised trade controlled by British Parliament.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party
Even though British taxes was part of the problem, government taxes finances public development projects to be built, allowing politicians and their supporters to make profits supplying materials and manufacturing military products.

The point being that politics; capitalist profit making; monopolising consumer markets, create opportunities to make money without having to compete with other countries more competitive labours.

The business about free trade and competition between counties without countries inventing money out of nothing in reality may not work as portrayed by the media.
The idea that parliamentarians shouldn't have shares in companies removes personal wealth incentive. The idea that political party financial supporters are not having interests in companies is not a notable media topic.
Ideas of real democracies can lead to pre-World War One class divisions, wealthy classes buying cheap repressed labours, taxing middle and working class people to build public work projects, allowing profits to be made by limited share holders in the know, doesn't seem to be noticeably happening. My idea why such events aren't happening is due to everything is controlled by a US ruling class super rich, whom as a committee structure are not concern about making profits, having an ability to create money out of nothing. Politicians having no real power over government expenditure, makes more sense than portrayed two party democracies, which can easily become single party money making concerns, with the media being in on the action.

Commercial television supposedly finances programming with advertisements. I have noticed a large number of commercials are devoted to confectionery: M&Ms; chocolates; mouth freshening chewing gum; occasional motor vehicles. Most 20 minutes within commercial time of 60 minute programs are taken up with selective programming promotions: “Blacklist” example. I am rarely influenced by commercials into buying something other than MacDonalds $2 burger specials. I can't believe the devotion to M&Ms and several other confectionery commercials expense justifies an increased amount of customers buying confectionery. I'd even say, commercials aren't trying to sell viewers anything.

A limited number of repetitious commercials turn me off watching television. With DVR recording and shift, people can avoid commercials. My point is that commercials allow 40 minutes of production to seem to be financed by commercials, supporting ideas of separation between media entities competition. That programs are designed to encourage viewing, not to dumb people down with: sex; violence; crime; murders stories; assassination stories; back ground laughing comedies; sports; child like enthusiastic competition programs.
Television is a great distraction from skilled thinking, skilled thinking that allows people not to believe what they're told as being true. Prime time rolled over news: murder stories; finance news; medical advancements research; plain crashes; space exploration; firemen putting out fires, are all looking after each other capitalist system working well propaganda.

When share markets crash, democracies' spreading the blame among many dysfunctional embarrassed entities and advancements propaganda in science and living conditions are a trade off from many investors financial losses disappointments. Rebellious thoughts can be carried out at the voting booth. Government controlled working class bad education and television having distracted voting citizens from realising above ideas.

OK Steve101, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. So, what do we do? It didn't matter when humans were few and lived in small family groups where they argued and made consensual decisions. But we wanted to be comfortable and entertained and safe, so we gathered in towns where consensus was impossible, so, being natural animals, we let the strongest take control and for the next ten thousand years human societies were slave societies. It is only in the last century that some societies let everyone have a vote on who would govern them. It hasn't worked because, as you say, money and lies convince people to appoint rascals who have arranged things since about 1980 so we are rapidly returning to the slave societies that are the only way to keep vast hordes of humans under control, and the wealthy, wealthy. It's the natural order. Like it or lump it.

Dear Steve,

Over 2000 years ago the philosopher Aristotle
observed that we are political animals.
We are indeed, and necessarily so, for politics
is an inevitable consequence of social living.

In every society some valued resources are scarce,
and politics is essentially the process of deciding
"who gets what, when, and how."

The character of political institutions and behaviour
varies a great deal from one society or group to
another, but the political process itself is
universal.

The political order is the institutionalised system
through which some individuals or groups acquire and
exercise power over others.

Politics is about power - about who gets it, how it is
obtained, how it is applied, and to what purposes it is put.
We define Democracy as a form of government in which it is
recognised that the ultimate authority belongs to the
people, who have the right to participate in the decision-
making process and to appoint and dismiss their rulers.
In practice, no such system has ever existed. Pure Democracy
would mean that every citizen would have the right to
participate in every decision, a situation that would lead
to complete chaos and would leave little time for all kinds
of other activities.

In practice, the societies we consider democratic are those that
have institutionalised procedures for periodically choosing
among contenders for public office.

They have Representative Democracy.
That is, the voters elect representatives who are responsible for
making political decisions. In all democracies the right of the
individual to choose among alternatives is held in high regard,
and this right presupposes such basic civil liberties as
freedom of speech and assembly.

Extensive research on political socialisation has shown that most
people take the legitimacy of their particular political
system for granted very early in life. Most of us take an
overwhelmingly favourable view of our own country's
system and of its national leaders.

"Representative democracy" is a contradiction in terms. Only I can represent me. Elected government is goverment OF the people BY the politicians and appointed mandarins FOR whoever has acquired enough wealth (usually without creating any) to buy them. That's how the IPA comes to own the Abbott government and decide its legislative and administrative programme.

Over decades California and many other American States have ironed out many of the glitches in operating a system of Binding Citizen-Initiated Referenda (BCIR) which enables the people to have a say in the main decisions affecting them (regrettably not at a national level). Some States accompany this with Recall - the power of the electorate to junk a "representative" and force a by-election.

If we in Australia took advantage of every opportunity at every level of government to promote BCIR and Power of Recall, we would begin to evolve into a Democracy. What we have today doesn't even begin to resemble one.

Very interesting EJ. I didn't know this. Thanks. I agree.

I believe the Apple Tax Dodge theory is a media made up attention grabbing myth. If I were to research tax laws and attempt to explain tax laws, few readers would bother to read it, fearing not being able to understand. Instead I'm going to say that because of examples like Apple company avoiding taxes, trade within the establishment, between counties is centrally controlled. Counties get what they need depending on other counties ability to provide. Because money is no more than a token of exchange that tokens can be invented out of nothing, counties providing exporting resources, merely invent bank credits to pay for local labours. In many instances the costs of: mining; manufacturing; transporting; handling; to profit margin retailing, maybe more than wage earning customers are willing to pay. Query being, “is capitalism too good to be true”?
Intentional: inflation; market crashes; company bankruptcies; increased savings, removes increased bank credits' circulation and wealth.
As Australian finance media are often going on about monthly trade deficit figures adding up to many billions of dollars, particularly during the 1990s. I'd say there are few countries with trade surpluses, as I assume, all countries' media go on about debt. Displaying another example of government being in control of the magic.
Taxation rules regarding companies that are not part of the establishment must go through an enduring amount of taxation paperwork to ensure taxes are correctly invoiced and paid in the correct countries.

The Apple company symbol, a bite out of an apple, allows me to believe the Genesis bible story “Garden of Eden” forbidden fruit of knowledge, having Adam and Eve taking a bite, is where the Apple company logo came from. Two people, I have expressed this theory to says, “No, I'm wrong”. They say, Steve Jobs saw an apple with a bite taken out of it, concluded the image would be a good logo. Did Steve Jobs or someone else think of the Garden of Eden when deciding to use the image as a computer company logo?