[kjvail]

Churchill's comment has always been quoted by democratists absent the context and background. I found this article by J. K. Baltzersen interesting, Churchill on democracy revisited

Todays most productive individuals and corporations are increasingly international and with the use of technology are less tied to any one location or government than in the past

And government is busy keeping trying to keep up with them with ever expanding centralizing bureaucracies and nascent world government. A world democracy can only result in a Chinese/Indian coalition government that would immeadiately begin redistributing the wealth of the West. This Jacobin worship of democracy is going to come back and bite us hard.

Democracies don't HAVE to end in failure.

There are no success stories in the history of mass democracy. The only democracies that were even moderately successfully were small, isolated communities. This is why every political mind prior to Locke (Even Hobbes was a royalist) despised democracy as I do.

[monday]

"And government is busy keeping trying to keep up with them with ever expanding centralizing bureaucracies and nascent world government."

and given the extreme efficiency with which government operates </sarcasm, you are confident that they are capable of keeping up? I'm not.

"There are no success stories in the history of mass democracy."

There are no success stories of any form of government over the long term. All have evolved and/or fallen to revolution.

I am curious. Keeping in mind that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, what form of government would you prefer to a Democratic Republic?