See, you've already misdirected the entire discussion by making a false comparison.
A ponzi scheme sets out with the intention of ripping someone off. A government does not set out with this intention; governments don't swoop in from some outside position and take people for what they have by force. A government is not a de facto malicious organization because a government is established by the very people whom it thereby "rips off." This isn't to say that a government can't be malicious; but you are completely misguided and incorrect to equivocate that seeking political office somehow qualifies as a de facto malicious act.
In what way is it not malicious I think is the better question. Governing, at some level of theory, is not de facto malicious. That's a completely different matter from saying that those seeking - particularly successfully - are malicious. Like I said, I'm not speaking purely of conscious intent. Again, the bumbling meant-well is little better than the powermonger. But it takes the powermonger to get into a political office of any consequence - because it takes support - which means being bought.
I also object to the assertion that governments are established "by the people". Rhetoric aside, the majority does not participate in the establishment of government, and even fewer than few actually participate within it (I'm speaking specifically of legislative and executive branches). It's always a handful backed by a powerful few. Even in the US, our best voting turnouts are what, like 60%? So 40% are just tolerating the charade at best. If we figure even a generous 40/20 split on the voting, that means 60% have given no confidence in the ability and/or intent of those in office or the office itself.
I'm asking you to prove to me that people who seek political office are, de facto, doing so with malicious intent. Not only is this impossible to prove, it is nearly impossible to argue convincingly.
Even if you argue that a government is an overwhelmingly negative thing, you cannot thereby extend the argument to include the claim that all office-seeking individuals are malicious. The second part hinges on a) the first claim being true, and b) the office-seeking individual being aware of this.
You might say that they don't see their actions as malicious. If that is the case, then they aren't intentionally maliciousness - in fact, they're not even malicious, since malice entails intent.
Your entire case is built on some paranoiac fantasy that all politicians are clandestine thieves and lowlifes bent on taking from everyone while doing little or no work themselves; and your argument only holds any water if that is the case.
So I'm not malicious if I walk around killing people on the misguided notion that I'm doing them a favor by sending them to a "better place"? Are we not told that ignorance is no excuse?
The bold portion is a strawman. Being a politician, especially at the higher level, is hard work. It's just not "honest work", and it's not only for the purposes of thievery (although it's amusing to watch those personal net wealth balances bloom when guys get into public office - serving the peeeplz). There are those occasional white knights (even if only parttime) of populist and/or social concerns. DOMA, CRA, etc were not about particular wealth transfers (unless you count paying for votes with legislation).
Fine, it needs critical adjustment. I'll even agree that lots of our politicians are dirty scum who aren't interested in serving the public or the country at large.
I'm merely contesting your absurd axiomatic claim that those who seek to hold political office are doing so out of malicious intent.
If you insist that maliciousness requires conscious enlightened knowledgeable intent to do harm, then that would of course be absurd. In fact, I expect that most politicians sleep at night feeling like they are all that stands against the forces of darkness. This doesn't mitigate the damage they are doing at all - and a refusal to come to terms with the nature of the system is just as bad as knowingly embracing it. You want the power, you get the responsibility that comes with it.
It's your job to find out and to know. The politician is merely a wielder of violence. If we conclude this is a necessity in some cases, we need to do this in plain and stark language to prevent its overuse.
This applies more and moreso to the military. Rather than doing things right, we just call everything a nail and send in the hammer. The military - as the conclusion of (foreign) politics - is for blowing things up. When someone goes into office it is to figuratively (and maybe even literally, heya hawks) blow things up. That should be the last of the last resorts, as there is no such thing as zero collateral damage.
