Hey Ciaran,

There are a few assumptions in your argument. First, you assume that ‘moneyed politics’ is a good thing because it stops the development of totalitarianism. This assumes that moneyed politics itself is not a form of totalitarianism. Who is it that a government really represents? the people or a handful of rich people? And if a handful of rich people, which is what you seem to suggest, who is it at the expense of? What does it say about the judicial role of government when

As for the ‘error-correcting machinery’ of democracy. Incumbency rates highly suggest otherwise. There are also better and more effective ways to hold elected leaders accountable, such as recall powers by electors themselves.

Finally, concerning capitalism and dictatorships, there is a historical symbiotic relationship between the two. Fascist regimes the world over rose with the explicit support of business owners. Additionally, one needs to ask the question of Dictatorship by whom against whom? The arms industrial certainly has no problem imposing war made dictatorship on other countries, the entire history of colonialism can attest to that.

I also find it confusing how you can at the same time have a “ pessimistic view of human nature as it relates to power” and be ok with the idea of “politicians …[being] either legally or illegally influenced by self interested business people.” Why is it ok for businesses to have unfettered power? What makes us think their use of power is more benevolent than someone else?