LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Yes, but look at the big picture. That system would only work if you constantly fire people and hire the new ones. Then the employees would really be afraid to lose their job since they know there's always someone happy to replace them. On the other hand, the most talented professionals tend to prefer a more liberal approach if have an alternative, so they would flee to your competitors. Such tough system can only work effectively for the relatively short period of time. Stalin's system worked as long as he purged the party and the controlling bodies. The KGB have done it elsewhere. Once the process stopped and the nomenclature became a lifelong privilege (with Brezhnev), the whole system became paralyzed by the ineffective management at all levels. In the meantime, while the main objective of the Soviet Regime was incomplete, many of the potent people were purged with no decent replacement. And at the same time the West didn't have that authoritarian system spurred by L.P. Beria but still was a way ahead (except for the weapons, of course).Originally Posted by Ramil
The authoritarian approach stops being effective once the system becomes very complex. The inventors of the planned economy didn't know that back then. The system should be designed so that it works autonomously in a de-centralized way.
You're tough. I think most people would prefer living in the oblivion (for the most part). And the comfort oblivion is usually preferable to the only-getting-by oblivion.
Right, you need to think it though keeping in mind the flesh-mobbing phenomena. I'm pretty sure the manipulation with the mass consciousness would step to an entire new level of sophistication. But, I find it interesting to discuss that option if you choose to.
I think you're probably the heaviest user (in this forum) of the "lie, big lie, and the statistics". Now, all of a sudden, you're resorting to it?????? I would never have thought...
For sure people would stop committing crimes when there's anarchy.
Not really. That's why I think it was useless to resort to the crime statistics. You gave your interpretation, I gave mine. That doesn't prove anything in either case.
There are countries with no prisons at all and they are neither democratic nor communistic. I just offered another interpretation to the crime statistics you mentioned. I'm pretty sure if we collectively think hard enough we can also find some relationships of that statistics with the Antarctic penguins behavior.
No it doesn't, but it makes people be constantly conscious of the possible consequences of their actions. That significantly adds up to the overall law-abiding mindset.
Sure. Build your case with several strong precedents and you win. In the US, if a police officer haven't responded to your call, you should immediately sue the police and demand some xyz compensation. Then settle for the 20% of the xyz they offer to avoid more legal expenses from their end. Once that happens 100 times and the police keeps paying, they would need to justify their budget for the next year: why their legal costs are higher than those of the other departments? That's how it starts to roll out higher and higher to the government. Once the Head of the Police position becomes vacant, all the candidates would promise their higher executive bosses to reduce the legal costs. And subsequently they would make the local police officers respond to the calls. So, when that process is exercised by most of the citizens under various circumstances with the different combinations, the government officials feel the pressure to do their job in a way that the citizens would not be able to find substantial cases to sue them. That more or less is their mindset.
Exactly. That's why I mentioned the corruption is not visible to the middle class and the lower class.
Reply With Quote
