LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
From the other hand, both forms of management exist and a more authoritatian boss gets better results in 80% of cases (my own observations). Provided he's not an idiot. What concerns the 'exercising of power' I can only add that provided he is not qualified to rule (due to mental instability or worse) any dictator would not abuse his power beyond measure. We're looking at this problem from two different points of views. In your case the means do not justify the ends, but sometimes the ends are more important. I cannot imagine USSR becoming a nuclear power and launching the Sputnik without truly an effective management of L. P. Beria. Taking a bit lower down to your analogy with two kinds of bosses - I am a boss myself, not a very big one, but if I have a dead-end I would demand, I would threaten and I would even play 'an idiot boss' in order to get the job done in time.Originally Posted by Crocodile
I fail to see how that would make any difference in our discussion. In either case, we're down to the situation of exercising the power. It's either veiled or unveiled and I think it's pretty obvious that the veiled power is much more humane and, therefore, preferable. I can give you another analogy: there are (among the others) two types of management: the first is - do your work or I'll fire you right away and you'll be on the street, and the second is - let's work as a team to reach our common success (blah-blah-blah). Which one you'd choose if you're an employee?
Yup. Knowing that you're livin in an illusion is unbearable. I might have preferred to be unaware, but once it comes to the choice there would be no choice for me. I will always take the red one.You're saying you really want only the red pills?
As an alternative I see only a direct electronic democracy. No central government (i.e. there are no special people who make decisions, perhaps only some secretaries to do the paperwork). I won't go into details because I haven't really thought it thoroughly yet, but it's an only acceptable choice for me.Свято место пусто не бывает.
Yeah, right, "у вас статистика неправильная".I guess you know that some less democratic countries happen to manage their statistics effectively, that's all.
While the people don't stop committing crimes.
Living conditions in USA's prisons may or may not be better than in some other countries, but does it prove anything in a problem we are discussing? Or, perhaps, the conditions in the American prisons are so nice that people commit crimes for no other reason than to get there. Then, perhaps, they should go to Norway and go to jail there (right, Hanna?)
There are larger countries and they are less democratic. China, for example.
I would not take the American judical system as an example. The fact that it makes people constantly sue each other doesn't prove its effectiveness, quite the opposite, actually. I think than in civil matters (when no crimes are committed), taking your case to the court should be the last resort only. And only in case the law-enforcing institutions failed.Also, what I was talking about is that the judicial system in the US happens to encourage people to constantly sue each other for just about anything and it causes the Americans to become very law-abiding very quickly.
Oh, the corruption is simply formalized, that's all. You don't pay a bribe to the judge, instead you pay your lawyer. If you have money, you hire a good lawyer and your chances of getting out of trouble improve tremendously, even if you've been caught with a knife over a dead body. On the contrary, if you cannot afford a good lawyer (especially in a civil case) your chances of winning are pretty weak. So, what's so different? Only that the lawyers pay taxes? And of course there's a nice thing called 'plea bargain'. The American judical system can be VERY flexible when the situation (or someone powerful's interests) demands.Also, the corruption of the judicial system is not visible for the middle class and the lower class Americans, so it's not like they can buy their way out. On the sharp contrast with the judicial system of the less democratic countries.
Reply With Quote
