It seems to be a rule that the more powerful a government gets the worse it's behaviour. Logical when you think about. They are just people. People with very few restraints on their behaviour. People who get away with invading and killing other people and destroying vast amounts of property over and over again.
But it's a necessary evil
I know that was tongue in cheek (and I think we're on the same page at least 90 percent of the time) but I would like the larger audience to think about that phrase.
"necessary evil" and "choosing the lesser evil" are two phrases that grind my gears.
I will state as a fact that while always present, evil is NOT necessary, and that if you are going to deliberately choose evil, as in elections, then you should not be a pussy. Go ahead and choose the greater evil. If you are actually trying to escape evil, arm up and don't participate in the farce known as democracy.
Yes, I do find we are always in complete agreement; what you're saying is the truth. There is no such thing as a necessary evil, there is only the good we cannot see. But to be frank, I can't think of any evil that didn't consider itself necessary; humans always believe the evil they're doing is necessary or else they wouldn't do it. Behind every villain is good intent and a winding road to hell.
In the case of democracy, the necessary evil is propagated in the idea that a law passed by majority vote is moral, when in reality it can be anything; if 6 out of 10 people agree that rape is lawful, it doesn't become any more moral than before. If the foundation of law is morals and ethics, then democracy is, by its very nature, an invalid form of government, for there is a paradox in democracy: if the people are knowledgeable enough to effectively participate in a democracy to ensure that all laws are ethical and justice is upheld, they would have no need for a democracy; they would be anarchists.