As Rome sunk from republic to empire, its citizenship was expanded from Romans eventually to millions who had never set foot in Rome or Italy, but were ruled by the emperor. As the franchise expanded, suffrage meant less and less until the army, not citizens, choose an emperor’s successor.
The Founders prohibited a religious test for office, having learned from the bloody wars of religion.
The Founders could not imagine that ideology would take the place of religion; that the same passions they saw attached to dogmas of petty sects would be possible without God; that a single ideological party with a greater reach than any religion would come to rule peoples and nations, including their own.
In America this ideology would create a fourth branch of government—the regulatory state—and its allies in the legislature would abandon legislative duties to write bills enabling the bureaucracy unchecked power; its allies in the executive abandon its oversight duties allowing the bureaucracy to set its own methods and goals; and its allies in the judiciary rule to expand its powers again and again.
It is not possible to ban ideology from government, as government is its purpose, and so, until we—or more likely our successors—can create new checks and balances, by ideology shall we be ruled despite its failures and interregnums.
The simple-minded think legislators sagely debate proposed legislation then wisely choose which laws by which we will be governed. Naivety of this sort embarrass the human race.
Actually, legislators blow with the wind, extract graft from all sides, and vote with whomever appears to have the most bribery, authority or popularity.
Legislators, sensitive to passion and money in factions, damper factional differences by appearing to consider multiple opinions and by accepting
bribes contributions from clashing interests.
In an ideological struggle swaying with popularity won’t help a barometric legislator—both sides will hate such a Solon.
It’s hard to ignore one of the largest countries in the world. The question to ask yourself is, are the Chinese people better off with a limited version of Google, or are they better off with no access at all? And that’s not so clear to me. –John Hennessy, Alphabet
China may not be clear to him, but it’s clear to me that Alphabet thinks that limited versions of Google and YouTube are better for the American people.
By limited he means lying by omission.
When asked about censorship in China, Communist repression, and Laogai, Hennessy replied, “I know nothing! Nothing! — A Google search will show nothing!” [Not a real quote.]
It’s possible deceit and subterfuge by software multinationals and dependence of governments on software ends with the obsolescence of government and declaration of the World Corporate Congress.
Loss of corrupt, oppressive socialist states such as the People’s Republic of China would be no big loss. Government by Alibaba might improve China.