You're conflating individual decadence and perversion with the system in which those individuals act, which is of course a non sequitur. The excesses of a Borgia as an example speak to the individuals own corruption, not to the systemic merits or detriments of the political system in which they act in and of itself. To say it does, is as fallacious as saying that the republican polity of the united states is irredeemably tainted because of the antics of its president (or president elect for that matter) or because it happens to have corrupt politicians within it (all systems have corrupt members, because humans are inherently corruptible, ditto original sin). If you want to argue against my assertion that democracy is the most degenerate ie debased form of human government since it finds its legitimacy on the shifting vagaries of popular opinion rather than on an objective moral standard (and thus fails to restrain the excesses and licentiousness of the masses, which results in the degradation of the polity and harms the common good). Then you'd best do so by making the case as to why democracy is in fact superior (since my assertion is more a negative injunction against "democracy", rather than a positive argument for some other form of government in particular). - Spoiler : Oh and on renaissance popes, I'd like to point to the fact that even the most corrupt renaissance pope didn't make law or proclaim as good (like we have in our current democracies) perversion and moral license. The institution of the Catholic Church has many flaws, but no one can deny that it keeps in check licentiousness and the whims of its actors, and maintains in perpetuity its religious doctrine.