[Gormo]

> The only point of difference I would identify is that I think a democratic government is more accountable than the monied interests to which it is a necessary counter-balance

I'm not entirely sure about that. It makes sense in theory, but in practice, we often see vested interests successfully influence democratic processes to achieve ends that would be more difficult to achieve via pure market dynamics.

We've ended up with the worst of both worlds: institutions that derive their legitimacy from perceived democratic accountability, but with the functional mechanisms of that accountability reduced largely to performative rituals; meanwhile, the incentive structures and motivations that drive their day-to-day behavior derive largely from the influence of special interests or ideological factions.

I think public choice theory is largely correct on this, and many of the policies that are intended to pursue the public interest actually end up working against it.

[eszed]

Indeed. That's the failure mode into which several (at least) western democracies seem to be tipping. Russia, among other states, is all the way down that "performative democracy (only)" road.

Democratic accountability is meant to be the alternative to mass violence. The Demos will, in the end, have their say, and it's far better for everyone that it be through the ballot box than otherwise. Elites forget this, over and over throughout history, to their (or their descendants', if they're lucky) cost. That's the lesson I wish was more remembered, because I don't want to have to live (even if I do) through that kind of time.