Even in places that have reasonably good and democratic government, officials take bribes. This happens in Italy, Greece, Spain, India, and many more (almost all of South and Central America). The US and UK are pretty unique in that they aggressively prevent low-level corruption.

Stopping low-level corruption while allowing high-level corruption to pass through (i.e. with high-dollar lobbying) is IMO less democratic than at least letting those with less money buy off at least their small part of government to let them do what the high-dollar people tried to outlaw.

There is no routine bribe paying in Spain. What occurs is similar to what occurs in the US - bribes to get government contracts. Day to day bribes are unheard of and Spain is no more corrupt than the US in that sense (in fact, probably less so - I know of people having to pay small "fees" at a county sheriff's office to get some routine document processed).

Fees paid for document processing are annoying and regressive but are not bribes.

They are there to stop you from wasting department resources with requests for 500,000,000 copies of an incident report whose content you disagree with.

I said "fee" not fee ... This was a cut and dried under the table twenty dollars to get someonw to do something ...

Motte: All governments are like criminal organizations.

Bailey: Even some Western governments have issues with low-level corruption.

Umm... those are two completely different statements, not a Motte and Bailey fallacy. I am happy to defend my position that governments use force the same way mobs do, but they give you more of a say in how the force can be used and they give you some written protections (that they are happy to infringe on when convenient).

> A democratic government is the means by which the population prevents the monopoly on legal violence from falling permanently into the hands of any individual

That would be nice if we had a “democracy”. Because of both gerrymandering and the design of the constitution - 2 senators per state, and the electoral college - we don’t have one.

The “majority” doesn’t care as long as law enforcement is used unfairly against “them”. There is a reason that during the protests in the US, protestors started using “White shields”. They knew how fast the population would turn against law enforcement when the local news showed them beating up on white people.

https://www.blackenterprise.com/white-protesters-form-human-...

The Constitution had the House grow with increase in population. Congress stopped that growth so now lobbyists have the access.

Two Senators per State worked ok when appointed by State because Senators would get recalled and replaced if they voted against State's interests. Now the people vote on Senators and the lobbyists have the access and control.

So you’re saying it was better when the state legislators had control? That’s even less democratic.

You realize that the “states interest” back in the 60s was the continuing of Jim Crow laws in the South. How many Trump supporting states would have recalled Senators in the 2020 for not agreeing to give him the Presidency?

Do you think it would be good to follow the Constitution and have the House grow with population?

It would have been untenable as the country grew. Originally, a representative shouldn’t have represented more than 30K people. If that had continued, we would now have 10,000 representatives.

You could always reduce the size of the government like conservatives want - at least until they realize that for the most part, conservative states are smaller more rural states that are a net beneficiary of federal income taxes.

As it is now, the lobbyists and special interests have control.

30,000 sounds like real representation, would make gerrymandering pointless, and the lobbyists would find it difficult to control even 1/5 of the 30,000. I support this bigger government! They can do zoom calls, meet regionally, or meet in a baseball stadium.

If instead we optimize this democratic republic for cost, then a king will do.

So how would that have worked in 1939 when they capped the number of representatives?

You earlier brought up gerrymandering, electoral college, protests and your "white shields". Now you avoid the solution to the present day lack of representation, a solution which would make gerrymandering and lobbyists irrelevant in the House, by undoing the cap on the House. You instead want to go into 1930s whataboutism with an unexplained reference to Trump.

We can fix this together and everyone could have better representation in the federal House. Neither of the big parties, nor you, will discuss it. America is addicted to arguing for their team, while the lobbyists and special interests feed at our tax trough.

> how would that have worked in 1939 About the same as 1839 and 1937 and 1938.

> You instead want to go into 1930s whataboutism with an unexplained reference to Trump.

It’s not whataboutism or about Trump. When it came time to certify the electoral votes for the election, there was a huge push for Republican representatives and senators not to certify the votes because of the “stolen election” much of that came from state houses. If the states (not the voters) could arbitrarily recall representatives, many of the Republican representatives who did do the right thing wouidnt have.

Besides, there is all types of coercion that could happen remotely that wouldn’t happen when everyone is one place.