Originally posted by normbenign
Slow with lots of checks and balances is better.
Except when stuff actually needs to get done/changed, in which case slow is a really bad
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.