[CamperBob2]

The idea behind modern democratic government is quite literally that this isn't true...

Sounds like Benjamin Franklin would agree, at least superficially. ("Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.") But if you read a little more carefully, what he's really saying is that a free society depends on the sort of people who don't need an immensely powerful government to micromanage their lives.

... and that an organization that holds people's lives in its hands must be accountable to those people in a fair and equitable way.

Which it is. Have you read the article?

I have a vote in government. I do not have any reasonable sway over the behaviour of a multibillion dollar corporation. In so far as I place my trust in any organization (which I believe is prone to corruption), I place it in the one I have more voice in.

Yes, I think we've all seen how much of a "voice" we have in government.

[nfoz]

> Yes, I think we've all seen how much of a "voice" we have in government.

And as a Canadian, I feel that it is pretty reasonable.

Maybe governments can only be effective at a certain scale. But also, some systems are more effective than others. And also "how much of a voice I feel I have in government" is a group-psychology question that is difficult to consider objectively.

shrug!

[stormbrew]

I'm not replying to the article, I'm answering a very specific statement in the comment I'm replying to. Hence why I quoted it.

My voice may be limited in government, that still doesn't mean the alternatives are better. If you want to convince me otherwise have at, but aimless disappointment doesn't make things better.