Originally posted by AThousandYoungI predict that most non Americans, and most left of center Americans will say yes. The American system is cumbersome, intentionally so. It was more so in the past. People who are impatient about "getting things done" aren't usually very concerned about how those things get done, or the unforeseen tangential consequences.
Is the British system with Prime Ministers and electing parties better than the US sytem of electing individual people as President?
Slow with lots of checks and balances is better.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by normbenignExcept when stuff actually needs to get done/changed, in which case slow is a really bad
Slow with lots of checks and balances is better.
thing.
If change is easier then yes it's easier to change for the worse, but its then easier to
change it back again for the better.
Given that most western countries can alter things quite rapidly and radically, and we haven't
descended into dictatorships I would contend that it's evidently possible to have quite fast
change without descending into dictatorships.
Also evidence suggests that in the USA the ability to change is currently Highly asymmetric.
It is much easier and faster to move to the right than it is to not move to the right, let alone
move to the left.
We live in a dynamic and rapidly changing world, evolution tells us that things that don't or
can't adapt and adapt quickly tend to die in such situations.
The trick is to keep (or re-introduce in the case of the US) your checks and balances without
losing the ability to respond to the need for rapid change.
Originally posted by normbenignThe problem with the US system is that there are a lot of checks, but few balances.
I predict that most non Americans, and most left of center Americans will say yes. The American system is cumbersome, intentionally so. It was more so in the past. People who are impatient about "getting things done" aren't usually very concerned about how those things get done, or the unforeseen tangential consequences.
Slow with lots of checks and balances is better.
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 32473
Originally posted by whodeyThe police state that Bush set up IS growing. If you give a defense-contractor a check his next job (and only real job) is to figure out how to get you to leave the amount blank. We should be able to agree now that they have achieved their goal.
And growing every day......
What can I say, obesity kills.
Originally posted by googlefudgeThe ability to react quickly to market changes is the best argument for keeping government out of market decisions.
Except when stuff actually needs to get done/changed, in which case slow is a really bad
thing.
If change is easier then yes it's easier to change for the worse, but its then easier to
change it back again for the better.
Given that most western countries can alter things quite rapidly and radically, and we haven't
descended into dictatorship ...[text shortened]... r checks and balances without
losing the ability to respond to the need for rapid change.