3 ms·
If they were consistently responsible and accountable, a monarchy or even a dictatorship would be a better option. Campaigning is overhead loss; it's not desira
by clock_tower 10y ago
If they were consistently responsible and accountable, a monarchy or even a dictatorship would be a better option. Campaigning is overhead loss; it's not desirable in itself, but is done because the obvious alternatives for maintaining accountability are significantly worse.
A high emphasis on fundraising is risky: a candidate who wins on donor money is going to be beholden to those donors (or won't get the money next election). I think there's a non-partisan case in favor of the state funding political campaigns, and limiting how much money goes into them.
- paulddraper 10y ago> If they were consistently responsible and accountable And thus we invoke the principle of explosion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion https://xkcd.com/704/ https://xkcd.com/704/
- clock_tower 10y ago"Falsehood" in formal logic means "a contradiction", not "a condition impossible to fulfill." It may be impossible to get a good dictator (except Cincinnatus, Sulla, and maybe Octavian Augustus), but "good dictator" isn't contradictory (as opposed to "neutron star not containing any neutrons" or the like). And I mentioned a few examples of good dictators in that parenthetical, which suggest some of the requirements necessary to get a good one.