"What did I miss? Is this categorized well?"
Path 1 isn't very convincing, because democrats already believe it. The fundamental human rights are about listing the things that aren't up for a vote. Using specifically your example, we see cries to stop executions regardless of the crime, because democrats think that you can't vote someone's right to life away. As far as I can tell, voting was originally for solving problems that don't have a clear solution. E.g. there's a right answer to how high the tax rate should be. It is zero, but there's no way for most to learn that, so they vote and hope to get close to the right answer, or at least closer.
Prospiracy. Pull the strings specifically in their own favour and damn the consequences to everyone else, often including their own descendents
Governments are absolutely fantastic at updating when it will increase their revenue. Also great at solving the problem of making the ruling elite comfortable, as above.
Schools do not fail at doing what they're actually being paid to do, which is support the rulers. Indeed, I have reason to believe they're getting better, as per path 4.
And we've kind of solved the germs thing.
IMO Acton got the causation backwards. The corrupt get power, and absolutely corrupt get absolute power.
The great is short for the great murderer.
As per my comments on #2, it doesn't look meaningfully different from #2.
If nothing else, actors always need staying power and at most sometimes need any other goal, even if they genuinely value it more.
No matter what you want, more freedom gives you the option to get more of it, by definition. If it isn't giving you more options, it isn't freedom. With the one exception of controlling other people. My presumption is that anyone who votes against freedom hungers to coerce for its own sake.
Seems the same as path 9.
Almost the same as #8 and #2. I should mention that I agree all these paths are independent lines, but they all lead to the same way-station, so...
Having found the good effects from government policies, I'm now actively looking for a program, any program, that is better than the one it replaced. (Except for the rulers.) It's really hard.
Should probably be put next to paths 2, 8, 12, as it is near the demarcation between same and different.
A different perspective on paths 3 and 11.
"She thought Welfare was a deliberate plot to destroy the black family. I personally don't figure government is that smart."A: they reliably pursue their interests that way and B: if your prospiracy is indistinguishable from a conspiracy, you deserve whatever a conspiracy would deserve. In this case, jail, or at least blistering excoriation. A prospiracy is basically being criminally negligent of avoiding a conspiracy.
"I don't think that the goal of either was to massively increase crime?"I don't have Foseti-level insight into bureaucracies, but here's a couple possibilities.
1: The drug was has in fact worked out great for the cops and prison unions. Massive crime is a side-effect or perhaps necessary precursor to their real goals.
2: That the drug war leads to more crime is not in fact the fault of cops. The real powers in this arena happen to benefit from having lots of people in jail, therefore... I'd very much like to know the names and addresses of those people, incidentally. I'm not entirely sure even the bureaucrats themselves know which ones are the important ones, though.
Edit: 3: Variation on 2. The real powers like having lots of crime - after all, it can't reach into their gated communities and creates a ton of feeling going as "There outta be a law." That lots are in jail is just the cops doing the best they can despite every handicap. That jails happen to be profitable is just a windfall.
Looks to me you made the same mistake. Society doesn't have a treasury. Government has a treasury because it has legitimized violence it can use to extort money.
You can tell trade is good because you're always allowed to trade freely with government's favoured industries. E.g, I haven't checked, but I'm betting what steel tariffs USG imposes depends on whether the automotive industry or the steel industry is currently rich enough to out-lobby the other. So when Ford was ascendant, the tariffs were low, and now they're rising. Even if I happen to be wrong on steel per se, I won't be in general.
Someone does know the right answer. They even know the right answer for the right reason.
There's no way to tell which one that is without trying it.
The study of history is (among other things) the hypothesis that someone's already tried it.