I don't see how you jump from this, to saying that Gödel, who was a very smart person, childishly believed that words on paper were universally enforceable to their logical consequences. I'm sure he was aware of the existence of courts...
I don't see how you jump from this, to saying that Gödel, who was a very smart person, childishly believed that words on paper were universally enforceable to their logical consequences. I'm sure he was aware of the existence of courts...
The point is NOT that the system is somehow immaculate and incapable of drifting into instability.
Indeed, the concentration of power in the hands of the few we see about us is, arguably, the rejection of representative systems developed in the last several centuries in favor of historical authoritarian approaches.
Sweet, sweet panem et circenses => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses
I don't think history is a linear progression from authoritarianism to representative government.
"Law is what should happen. Politics is what does happen."
Are you arguing the linearity, or the degree to which any governments in view represent much beyond the whims of the authoritarians?