This represents democracy because the judge was voted in, and the jury represents the society's view. Whether direct or indirect the people are constantly involved in their society. And helping it evolve into what they believe is ideal. "Justice depends on a person's contribution to society"(Washburn 156.) The people decide whether the contribution is positive or negative by their votes, and people are either rewarded with success or punished with failure. .
In a nutshell, this is capitalism. Which brings us to the elitist side of my argument. .
The elitist views are much simpler. Elitists believe that you are either the best or the worst. They believe in excellence. Meaning that, "there is a good way to do something, and a poor way of doing something. Then there is the best way of doing something. And that is excellence" (Washburn 146.) An elitist thinks that people are alike in simple terms, however, people have different talents and different levels of talent in certain fields. People should recognize these differences and inform people. People should also be put into fields that they succeed in. There should not be an artist teaching science; this would be the opposite of excellence. This is a simple concept, but "people who are blessed with talent or intelligence will always be outnumbered by people who are average, and therefore elitism will always be an unpopular point of view" (Washburn 152.) If this concept could be grasped then the world could be a better place, which brings us to the elite capitalism that this essay is defending. .
There are many pros to combining these two views and implementing them into a society. For example, if the intelligent and successful keep improving and moving to the top of society, and the unintelligent and unsuccessful are weaned out, then society as a whole grows. This in turn would make competition grow and better product would be put out.