‘..The largest and bitterest of our modern totems, “democracy,” is a con job, a public-relations attempt to blind us to the inescapable facts about governments: they are all corrupt. The occasions on which they administer genuine justice are minuscule in number compared to the occasions on which they inflict grievous injustices upon men — and they strive to hide behind one of the oldest and most pernicious of all maxims: Vox populi, vox Dei. “The voice of the people is the voice of God.” – Francis Porretto
…….
All governments – whether freely elected or not – are coercion, dishonesty, corruption and waste – Wabbit
What do YOU think?
h/t Crusader Rabbit
Guffaw in AZ 
Well, since you asked….
Humans are social animals. We’ve been living in groups since before we climbed down from the trees.
Groups are going to have leaders. Benevolent philosopher-kings (and queens) are pretty few and far between.
Representative democracy is, in my mind, the best balance of positives and negatives that humans have invented so far.
It isn’t perfect, nothing invented by humans will ever be.
Anarchy, monarchy and theocracy are all non-starters with me.
I don’t see direct democracy being truly feasible or necessarily desirable.
If anyone has something new to suggest, I’d certainly be willing to look and listen.
Posted by Tomi | May 29, 2014, 7:17 amI always hear that anarchy is bad, but don’t recall the last time it was tried here. We know communism and socialism don’t work but keep trying it. We also know that Democracy often operates poorly but keep imposing it on people that don’t seem to want it. So, we should try anarchy for a while, if it doesn’t work out well we can go back to one of the other failed systems.
Posted by Matt | May 29, 2014, 8:48 amAnarchy never lasts for very long, because there are no safeguards from some guy with a bigger arsenal (and there always will be another guy with a bigger arsenal) from saying, “Why should I let that other guy keep his nice stuff when I can go over there and take it?”
In other words, anarchy quickly transforms into rule by warlords.
If you can show me how that could be prevented, then sure, I’d be willing to give anarchy a try.
Posted by Tomi | May 29, 2014, 8:56 amWell gang, I wasn’t necessarily looking for the vices and virtues of democracy vs. anarchy here, but rather a discussion regarding the NATURE of the argument posed by the author. to wit – are ALL governments by their very nature dishonest, corrupt and wasteful?
Posted by guffaw1952 | May 29, 2014, 10:23 amCorrupt? Check.
Wasteful? Check.
Dishonest? Hmm, not sure. Blinded by ideals may not be dishonest but it does lead to corrosive ignorance.
Some bureaucrats may actually think they are doing things properly…while they screw the pooch so bad it dies.
Posted by KM | May 29, 2014, 7:30 pmCorrosive ignorance? I LIKE that! The term, not the idea…
Posted by guffaw1952 | May 29, 2014, 10:54 pmI would answer your most recent question with no: A system of government is not intrinsically ON PAPER dishonest or corrupt. It could very well be wasteful, though.
PEOPLE are dishonest and corrupt (and often wasteful) and so, every system of government is going to have dishonesty, corruption and wastefulness in its practice and execution.
Posted by Tomi | May 29, 2014, 10:47 am‘On paper’?
A phrase dropped in to my head: ‘Governments are instituted among men…’
Can we really separate the two?
Posted by guffaw1952 | May 29, 2014, 6:03 pmYou make a good point.
Perhaps not.
Posted by Tomi | May 30, 2014, 7:51 amAre governments by their nature…? I would go with yes. THey are not intended that way, sometimes, but always wind up that way.
Currently the guy with a bigger arsenal that comes by to take your stuff will be a government agency, don’t have to wait for anarchy for people to come take what is yours. Stealing via regulations and court orders is still stealing.
Small governments, direct democracy, could be succesful but mostly at the tribal level of size. Lots of historical exampls of succesful small, very small, government. First notion that has to be done away with is that people are subordinate to government and that government has the right/authority to kill people.
Posted by Matt | May 29, 2014, 10:53 amAgree wholeheartedly about the DP. Talk about ultimate government authority!
But, I am wracking my brains to come up with a single government, society, or tribal government that I have ever heard or read about that did not tax its citizens in either goods, services, or currency. Every government comes with a price tag. It can be debated on size and what form it takes, but there has never been a society without one.
Posted by Tomi | May 29, 2014, 11:16 am‘First notion that has to be done away with is that people are subordinate to government and that government has the right/authority to kill people.’
In a libertarian world, of course, this is a given. A man has individual rights by their very nature, but a group of men doesn’t have more rights by virtue of their being a group.
Of course, those whose world view consists of there could be some kind of utopia by group conscience misses the power of the individual as a baseline.
Posted by guffaw1952 | May 29, 2014, 6:10 pmNot the government, it’s the people that are dishonest… sigh
Posted by oldnfo | May 29, 2014, 6:56 pmAnd the government is made up of…?
Posted by guffaw1952 | May 29, 2014, 10:53 pmI’m going with Lord Acton. “Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Since, almost by definition, Government has power…..
Posted by juvat1980 | May 30, 2014, 11:37 amAnd the guns with which to ensure it…
Posted by guffaw1952 | May 30, 2014, 12:17 pm