> A perfect social or political system, in all systems I have examined,
> requires perfect people in some quantity -- dictatorship being the
> best in this regard because it requires the fewest perfect people,
> and anarchy among the worst because it requires that the overwhelming
> majority -- possibly everyone -- be perfect. In this part of the
> world, perfect people are a rather scarce item, and what I read in
> the newspapers doesn't tell me that this is a strictly local
> shortage.
>
> Imperfect anarchy is unstable, and seems likely to quickly collapse
> into tribal warlordism, and then later into dictatorship or
> hereditary monarchy.
Yes, exactly! I couldn't agree more. From a purely rational point of view
a "dictatorship" or oligargy based on enlightened principles (as discussed
earlier) would be the most preferable form of government. There is a
reasonable possibility to pick the right people to rule a country (there
have been benevolent emperors in the past, I belief for ex. the Romans had
a few), it's usually the ones who really _don't want the job_. The possibility
that all or at least the majority of "the people" is rational and benevolent
(as needed for good democracy or anarchy) on the other hand is about 0.0...