I'm just saying that the sentence "choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil" is a fact, based on logic. But I understand that my point may seem preposterous, so it might require a deeper explanation.

From my point of view, the problem is not who's in charge but the fact that we need someone in charge. Regardless of who's in charge, the problem is the same: the government as a coercive institution. Of course there are different types of government, so comparing North and South Korea is not fair: the former is a dictatorship and the latter is a democracy (even though both are power institutions).

So I'm talking about modern democracies, where people consider they have a choice. Things may change on the surface every four years or so, but the problem is still the same: someone surrounded by a small group of people is making decisions for millions of other people. In theory this should work, if it was regulated by a system of social control, based on justice and equality. But it isn't. In practice we're seeing that our democracies are a total failure regardless of who gets into office.

Enter the populists swearing they can change the system from within. They play with people's hope and finally succumb to the same corrupt system of incentives. The powerful elites get more power and the hopeless crowd are increasingly weaker, expecting and praying for their savior. And restart.

Perhaps all this is pointless if I don't propose an alternative method. So far the only way I've found to fight all this in an actionable manner is Bitcoin, which is based on the principle of rules without rulers. I don't know if it will succeed in changing our societies but at least it shows me an alternative path. So I don't expect anymore that the government or the financial institutions grant me their permission to have some dignity. Maybe we could build new societies on that principle.