Systems of government that bias towards inaction and stalemate, via excessive amounts of checks and balances and other deadlock-inducing mechanisms, are going to be less and less able to keep up with technology that is growing at an exponential rate. A system that biases towards zero change can’t keep up with a world in which the rate of change is rapidly accelerating.
You can even view the climate catastrophe etc and environmental contamination issues and other things as a manifestation of this. Our industrial scale has outpaced our system’s willingness to regulate, and agile corporate structures using this tech advance at a decidedly linear or exponential pace while the government agility trends towards zero.
It is better to have systems that bias towards someone being able to rule, and then we can work on making sure the system decides that someone in a fair way, rather than biasing towards gridlock unless every possible dimensionality of the population (as represented by the various branches and chambers of government) all absolutely 100% concur. Obviously it would be silly to require 100% concurrence, but if you require that five different dimensions of society all agree at 70% threshold then you have effectively required that level of agreement anyway. At some point this leads to social collapse.
Since the US has a unique geographic position which makes it effectively invulnerable this will take the form of internal rot, stagnation, and gridlock until a sufficient crisis pushes us over.
And really those are both just two sides of the same coin anyway, it is pretty obvious to me that over-biasing to inaction is just as dangerous as over-biasing to action in general, and especially inaction may be particularly dangerous as we move into a century where things are ever faster and the consequences are going to be very very real.
> Some say the world will end in fire, Some say in ice. From what I’ve tasted of desire I hold with those who favor fire.
> But if it had to perish twice, I think I know enough of hate, To say that for destruction ice Is also great.
And would suffice.
You can even view the climate catastrophe etc and environmental contamination issues and other things as a manifestation of this. Our industrial scale has outpaced our system’s willingness to regulate, and agile corporate structures using this tech advance at a decidedly linear or exponential pace while the government agility trends towards zero.
It is better to have systems that bias towards someone being able to rule, and then we can work on making sure the system decides that someone in a fair way, rather than biasing towards gridlock unless every possible dimensionality of the population (as represented by the various branches and chambers of government) all absolutely 100% concur. Obviously it would be silly to require 100% concurrence, but if you require that five different dimensions of society all agree at 70% threshold then you have effectively required that level of agreement anyway. At some point this leads to social collapse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberum_veto
Since the US has a unique geographic position which makes it effectively invulnerable this will take the form of internal rot, stagnation, and gridlock until a sufficient crisis pushes us over.
And really those are both just two sides of the same coin anyway, it is pretty obvious to me that over-biasing to inaction is just as dangerous as over-biasing to action in general, and especially inaction may be particularly dangerous as we move into a century where things are ever faster and the consequences are going to be very very real.
> Some say the world will end in fire, Some say in ice. From what I’ve tasted of desire I hold with those who favor fire.
> But if it had to perish twice, I think I know enough of hate, To say that for destruction ice Is also great. And would suffice.