It’s less a problem with government than the relationships between corporations and government agents. With an administration like the one we have, which hates the idea of government (unless it’s used to wage war), of course the government is going to deteriorate. I’d much prefer to replace the people in government who do not believe in government than replace it with institutions motivated by nothing but profit.

Thanks for the comment.

But I think that the problems with government run deeper than those in power.

Our political system is setup to reward conflict, not collaboration: power is gained by defeating opponents, not reaching compromises. Politicians are meant to oversee thousands of government programs, making it impossible for them to know enough about each one. And perhaps most importantly, politicians have little knowledge of the daily runnings of those programs. Most organizations choose leaders who have experience within the organization, or at least similar experience at another organization. But the only experience many of our politicians have is getting elected.

We need a new form of government that addresses these issues.

In my End of Capitalism post, I explain that the role of the corporation is evolving from being a tool of shareholders (that maximizes profit) to a tool of communities that maximizes social good.

If this is true, then corporations might be appropriate entities to take on governance roles.

[...] Government is engaging with the old system and building their new system on top of it. Last week I posted about how the big tech companies’ new patent alliance is a work-around for ineffectual IP laws [...]

Alright, so you say “If this is true, then corporations might be appropriate entities to take on governance roles” and name a few corporations like Nike and Starbucks that have made some improvements.
First, as government deteriorates, there are no guarantees of corporate responsibility – only isolated examples. What about Wal-Mart, for example? They’re certainly not going to be developing sustainable business practices in the near future.
Second, the thing you are almost getting at but haven’t quite made it is the power behind both the government and corporate forces. That is the power of social movement. I don’t need to back up my case in regards to government – obviously that is based (albeit imperfectly) on people; in regards to corporate responsibility, those examples you gave only came about BECAUSE of social pressure. Nike and Reebok allow for auditing of their production because there was a massive movement and boycott against them. Not because a board of directors had a change of heart. The same is true for the Fair Trade coffee movement and the green energy movement. Corporations will always be ruled by profit – the question is how much can social movements become a market factor (ie, boycotts) in pushing for progress.

Just a though, but if you want to look at the future of government and business, look at the underlying power structures, not just the movement of politics and corporations.