Snuck premise much? I doubt he'd agree that it's dogmatic, nor would I. Governments are certainly needed for certain things, but politicians tend to come up with problems to solve, or try to solve problems which they are not equipped to solve. They aren't really supposed to create a social order so much as a legal one, anyway. Even if the could, I'd see that as disturbingly close to brain-washing...
This is why it's dogmatic. You can't agree that there are use cases and then in the same sentence denigrate all the use cases. Or... I guess you can, but...
> They aren't really supposed to create a social order so much as a legal one, anyway.
At the risk of being overly ontological, the legal order arises from the social order, since the law is simply a construct of beliefs that society nominally agrees on.
> Even if the could, I'd see that as disturbingly close to brain-washing...
...And there it is. It's ok to disagree with some things that politicians do. That doesn't mean there aren't good politicians.
That is a big leap to call those two ontological. Laws represent the beliefs of those that right them, nothing more. I am sure most politicians believe they know the will of their constituents, which is simply another belief. And yes, if a law is egregiously beyond social norms, it is possible that it will be rejected by soceity, but I would argue that is a distinct veto function.