You asked for elaboration, so...

Chomsky agrees with what I said! And it's more than just Madison. Read the Federalist papers. Or this long letter from John Adams to John Taylor, source of this shopworn quote on democracy [1]:

>"You say, I “might have exhibited millions of plebeians sacrificed to the pride, folly, and ambition of monarcy and aristocracy.” This is very true. And I might have exhibited as many millions of plebeians sacrificed by the pride, folly, and ambition of their fellow-plebeians and their own, in proportion to the extent and duration of their power. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy. It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history. Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty. When clear prospects are opened before vanity, pride, avarice, or ambition, for their easy gratification, it is hard for the most considerate philosophers and the most conscientious moralists to resist the temptation. Individuals have conquered themselves. Nations and large bodies of men, never."

...

>"Democracy is chargeable with all the blood that has been spilled for five-and-twenty years.

>Napoleon and all his generals were but creatures of democracy, as really as Rienzi, Theodore, Massaniello, Jack Cade, or Wat Tyler. This democratical hurricane, inundation, earthquake, pestilence, call it which you will, at last aroused and alarmed all the world, and produced a combination unexampled, to prevent its further progress."

Currently, our politicians quite rightly talk of the US as a democracy, because it is such a universal suffrage state within the shell of a republic.

>What exactly are you referring to? You seem to be arguing that the word fascism is overused, and then go on to explain that democracy would lead to tyranny, and at least the NSA understands that.
This is so broken I really, really wish you could elaborate. Call it morbid curiosity.

I'm actually quite familiar with the Chomsky critique of the American system for restricting democracy. That's not what I'm referring to.

1. I dislike it when people use 'fascist' as an all-purpose insult meaning 'form of government that I don't like that people have been propagandized against.' I suggest that people actually read fascist tracts (like 'The Doctrine of Fascism' [2]) if they're going to use the term. When people use the word, their brains shut off. It's also vulgar to claim that fascism is just the 'unification of corporations and the state.'

Now, part of the problem is that fascists were themselves gooey about the definition of what their system was -- but it's clear that whatever economic system they chose to use was subordinate to their 'spiritual' goals -- and that 'spiritual' outlook is mostly absent in the US system. While the US system may share certain characteristics of fascist states, it is not itself fascistic, and proclaiming that it is just muddles the discussion. It confuses effects with causes.

The reason why that's important is because if you believe that secret fascists are the ones corrupting the republic, all you need to do is find the scapegoats and hang them. The truth is that the source of these abuses comes from a deeper source -- the idea that constitutions the source of some strange law-magic that can restrict the actions of people in government. Regardless of how clever it seemed in the 18th century, it's now quite obvious that paper with words on it is not a source of eldritch government-restricting powers.

2. Yes, the current state under democracy is entirely a predictable consequence of the political form. I would say that Chomsky's reading of 'Politics' is incorrect in a general sense while being correct in a couple specific aspects (saying that democracy is a counter-weight to oligarchy). It'd be very tough to make a case that Aristotle saw a political system based on the first principle that men are equal in any sense as workable (because he writes the opposite in Book V, paragraph 3 [3]). 'Politics' is an essentially cynical work that describes how all political systems tend to crumble with time and the influence of human vice. While I can see why Chomsky would interpret it in the way that he does, I'd say that he's cherry picking to make a point for his favored system. Much in the same way that the founders did, arguably, to lend a classical garland to their new republic.

Hope I've satisfied your morbid curiosity.

Anyway, the NSA's actions are consistent with the addled mission of the American state as a whole. You can't provide security for Europe, the Pacific regions, certain Middle East states, many parts of Asia, and the Americas without a global surveillance state to support that mission. The main issue is that the broad policies are not achievable and shouldn't be pursued in the first place. Trying to limit what the NSA can do while also trying to preserve current US policies is just confused. You can't have both privacy and Empire. The former impedes the latter too much.

Yet, tyrannical aggression, both internationally and domestically, are popular political platforms. 'The people' are just getting cold feet about what that requires. Just another point against giving the wheel of state to the fickle and blood-soaked hands of 'the people.'

[1]http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=s...
[2]http://www.upf.edu/materials/fhuma/nacionalismes/nacio/docs/...
[3]http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.5.five.html