Thread: О тех, кто в России у власти

Originally Posted by Ramil

From the other hand, both forms of management exist and a more authoritatian boss gets better results in 80% of cases (my own observations).

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).

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.

Originally Posted by Ramil

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 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.

Originally Posted by Ramil

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Yeah, right, "у вас статистика неправильная".

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...

Originally Posted by Ramil

While the people don't stop committing crimes.

For sure people would stop committing crimes when there's anarchy.

Originally Posted by Ramil

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Ramil

There are larger countries and they are less democratic. China, for example.

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.

Originally Posted by Ramil

The fact that it makes people constantly sue each other doesn't prove its effectiveness

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.

Originally Posted by Ramil

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Oh, the corruption is simply formalized, that's all. You don't pay a bribe to the judge, instead you pay your lawyer.

Exactly. That's why I mentioned the corruption is not visible to the middle class and the lower class.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

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.

Professionals don't need to be reminded of their work duties. That's what makes them professionals. And I don't need to constantly fire people in order to get obedience, I only need to cut their salary this month a little bit and they usually get the picture immediately.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

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.

The so called 'liberal approach' began.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

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.

Look at the modern world trans-national corporations. They usually have effective management (and rather authoritarian ones) and they are vertically integrated - in other word - centralized.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

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.

If you remember, that character in Matrix who asked to plug him back put a condition - to forget everything. If that option is unavailable what's the point to be plugged back knowing that everything around you is not real.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

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 that flesh-mobbing will self-regulate. After all, people would have to live with their own decisions. Besides, I don't think you can organise a flesh mob large enough to get majority of votes.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

For sure people would stop committing crimes when there's anarchy.

Technically, yes, since you can't break a law that doesn't exist. Besides, the physical threat would remain.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

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.

Right up to the point when the judical system turns into an absurdity.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

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.

Yeah, in Utopia, probably. Such a system produces sh.tloads of bureaucrats who ultimately stop the self-regulatory mechanism which looks so good on paper. Moreover, bureaucrats generate corruption which adds to the chaos even more. Democratic society as USA sees it is the same non-working utopia as communism is. Perhaps it takes probably more time for some people to realize it.