I would argue that democracies/republics while flawed are still objectively the best form of government. If you group the countries of the world by government type I think you'll see a clear trend.
If you disagree what form of government is better?
Democracy is not "a form of government". Democracy is mob rule, with the fig-leaf of "majority vote" applied over the top. Majority vote is not a form of government, and it is not a magic wand for solving all decision problems. Majority vote only makes sense when every vote matters enough that withholding or changing it has a substantial risk of changing the outcome. Even among the 535 members of Congress, majority vote is sufficiently dilute that the votes of many of the members can be simply ignored, e.g. Ron Paul or Thomas Massie. That is because the members form voting coalitions and so the forming of coalitions becomes the overwhelming interest of those who are in Congress, rather than the purported reason for them being in Congress, that is, to cast
representative votes on behalf of their constituents. I'm not sure what is the magic number beyond which majority vote is no longer a reasonable decision-making procedure but it's surely less than 1,000, more than 10, probably closer to 100. By the way, I am assuming unlimited stakes, since smaller-stakes can probably be well managed with larger decision-making bodies as a result of the dilution of special interests.
Better than majority-vote is
consensus. In Amish communities, each rule which is applied within the community has to be agreed upon by a consensus of the church (which are all males of age who are baptized and members of the church in good standing). Of course, there are people who disagree to some extent with some of the rules, or their exact wording, etc. Nevertheless, formal consensus is eventually reached. The "social dynamics" or "politics" implicit within this procedure are absorbed by the decision-making process itself. That is, consensus is reachable for exactly those rules for which there is enough "peer pressure" to be able to nudge the reluctants to give their vote for the rule. That peer pressure exists is a fact of human existence. But building that in to your decision-making process makes sense, because this forces the various "lobbies" to calculate how they think they are going to push their rules through. Any non-negligible minority who disagrees with that rule, maybe even as few as 15-20%, will be enough to block it, because the peer pressure will not be strong enough. The breakaway group is big enough to simply refuse to change their vote. This makes the making of new rules a procedure that is "no by default", and results in minimal rules and minimal governance.
In short, nearly every "form of government" is fine from the standpoint of liberty, the key is whether those governed actually
consent to be governed in that way. The "consent" of the masses that we have in modern America is as much consent as that given by a woman conked out on quaaludes in Bill Cosby's mansion. For American government to actually be consensual, we need a population that is awake and paying attention to what is going on. Government is only non-reprehensible to the extent that it is a servant to the people. This is the central thesis of the Declaration of Independence. In delegating power to the government, the people must remain alert against treachery and tyranny. A wealthy landowner might hire a security company to watch his vast frontier, but he should keep a wary eye on the security company who might try to mount a coup against him and lock him out of his own land and seize the title. And that's precisely what Washington, DC has done to the American public, and worse. We are now slaves on our own plantation, while the mutinous guards we hired to watch the gates and man the fences are sipping iced-tea on the balcony of the mansion, binoculars and rifle in hand in case we attempt to run away.
Once again,
democracy is not a form of government. It is just mob rule. BLM rioting really is true democracy. They claim to be that, and they are exactly what they claim to be. Democracy was despised by the ancients and throughout the entire medieval era. It's one of the few points on which Christian and pagan philosophers actually agreed. Things remained this way until the French revolution. That is when the shadowy string-pullers began to conflate "freedom" with "democracy", as they continue to do to this day. Freedom is not mob-rule. Freedom is freedom, and we all have it by right of birth. Mob rule is repugnant and can lead only to slavery because it is the "running bull" mindset. Who wins in the bullfighter's ring? The fighter or the bull? With extremely rare exceptions,
the bullfighter always wins. Those who are singing the siren song that "democracy is freedom" want you to become the running-bull, they want you to join the BLM riots and "exercise your freedom". In this way, the bull-fighter transforms you into the bull, then slides a sword right into your beating heart.
Wake up!
