[weikel]

Look at Western Europe between the time of the 30 year's war and WWI. The Middle East has never really had any nice government of any variety either before or after Islam. It should be noted the best run Arab states are the monarchies of Jordan and Bahrain( Saudi Arabia is a monarchy in name only its a government by clan associated with theocrats).

[x]

That precisely shows how provincial the argument is. It's based wholly on European experiences within a rather limited time frame. Take Russia, China, Egypt, Greece, Rome, the Ancient Near East, the Aztecs and Incas into account and you may come up with a different picture.

The argument has much to do with the modern development of technology, which enables governments to be more distructive and intrusive. It also has much to do with the "decadent" characteristics of monarchy after the Wars of Religion: Monarchs no longer sought to compel their subjects to think or believe in a certain way, and they were increasingly uncertain about the security of their thrones and, hence, more inclined to compromise.

When a form of government is not too sure of its authority, it's also not inclined to do much damage, but it shouldn't be assumed that that form of government is inherently and essentially less dangerous.