Translation:

I agree on the wise and helpful of Kevin Olson's reflections around the notions of "people" and "sovereignty." The human being has always required concepts and notions (enteleques) to apprehend his reality. And these notions will always be reductionism of the diversity that the environment assumes, whether physical (nature) or intangible (feelings, morals, etc.), so such notions will never be absent from contradictions and incungruencies, but they will be useful to the extent that their power to draw reality is greater than their contradictions, when this relationship changes, and always changes, we will be forced to build a new concept, a new order. The very concept of King as sovereign was not devoid of such contradictions, and only became apparent when the concept of God and the power of the King as anointed by this one was called into question. Perhaps the point is already coming that the contradictions of the notion of "popular democracy", as well-manida and instrumentalized by its own detractors to its advantage, are stronger than its power to represent reality, and in this sense, the lucid reflections of Olson understand a wonderful contribution in this necessary deabate for the future. Jorge Ernesto Rodriguez.

Translation:

Very wise and prudent words from Kevin Olson. They provoke discussion and desire for a real discussion forum on the matter. For there are many logical contradictions in the concept of democracy that come from the idea of "people." And the greatest problem is that the word designates a collective entity that does not exist; that it is not reducable to individuals, but also not expandable to older existing entities, as a nation, a country, a state. In any case, let's apply Olson's latest recommendation: Let's look out for the camouflage of toxic leaders.

Translation:

People is a broad and flexible concept, legal-political, sociological ... A problem is to consider the people as a "unified" conglomerate, a system within the legal order of the State; since in a people there is constant friction, given the diverse multiplicity of individual acts; I agree then, it is an illusion that of the people is sovereign, yet it allows democracy to be sustained in the protection of a consensus; that somehow unifies the whole People. Mirtea