it's the unsupported illogical leap from there to the conclusion that no government (made up of people by implication) can be trusted.
OK, I'll spell it out.
Imagine an election. The candidates are Joe Normal and Jack Psychopath, but since Jack is a psychopath, you, the voter, know him as Jack Charming. He's a
con man. That means he's good at getting you to trust him, even though he does not deserve it.
Since Joe is a normal, that by psychological definition means that there are things he will not do, things to which he will not stoop, in order to win office.
Since Jack is a criminal, he
will do
anything -- lie, cheat, steal and kill -- in order to "win" the office.
Who is more likely -- not guaranteed, merely more likely -- to get elected? Normals won't assassinate rivals; criminals will. Normals won't bribe the vote-counters to miscount or bribe the homeless with food to go in and cast extra votes under the names of dead people; criminals will. Normals won't hire a data company to comb the voting rolls in order to cull felons from the rolls and tell said data company that a mere 80% match is good enough to strike a name from the registered-voter list; a criminal would, and did (though she was never even charged with a crime, that doesn't make it any less criminal).
Now let's add a new level:
I want power, and I think in a much longer time range than most people. So I get my two godsons (not related, see) to run for office, each in a different party. Then I don't care which party is most favored in the election; either way, my man is in office. I can even let the elections be ever so fair; I still control.
Please cease from dismissing as "cynicism" conclusions you simply don't like.
We would argue that based on historical precedence, that conclusion does not automatically follow from the stated premise.
What planet are you from? Name me a US president who kept a campaign promise and quote the promise and cite the keeping of it.
properly legislated taxation by representatives you help to elect
a) I didn't help elect them. For one thing, when Candidate1 strongly supports causes A and B, which I favor, but opposes C, D, and E, which I also favor; and Candidate2 oppposes A, supports B, C, and D and opposes E, and I only get one vote, what in hell do you think I'm voting for? Neither one of these people represents me. Honestly, have you ever seen a candidate with whom you agreed in all particulars?
b) Representatives? In 2008, when the bank bailouts were first proposed, calls to "representatives" were said to be running 300-to-1 against; one pundit joked the calls were split 50-50: "50% 'no' and 50% 'hell, no'!" But the bailouts passed. Oh, yeah, real representative, there.
c) When they don't even read the bills they pass (try a search on "congressmen don't even read the bills they pass")?? How in the hell is that anything I had any power over?
Killydd:
On the other hand, I also think that "no system" will get taken over by the psychopaths as well
Yeah, I see what you mean; otoh, "no system" lacks a
center of power for the taking.