5 ms·

You make it sound like "political law making" is a problem and some other form of non-political law making would be a superior solution. The performance of the

You make it sound like "political law making" is a problem and some other form of non-political law making would be a superior solution. The performance of the civil services in dictatorships indicates otherwise: they're invariably more corrupt, more prone to latching on to bad policies and refusing to give them up even in the face of disaster and so on. Governments don't refuse to fire incompetent people because of "political law making". They refuse because firing people is hard, emotionally draining, legally risky and something that managers will only do when properly incentivised. Without competition or profit there is no incentive to rock the boat and pick a fight at work, so why bother? Some noble idea of higher quality public service? Fat chance.

snowwrestler 9y ago
No, my point is not about democracy vs dictatorship or something. My point is that in government, there is a hard divide between the people who make the rules, and the people who implement the rules. The people who make the rules are rewarded for distrusting and limiting the capabilities of the staff. In private industry, it's the opposite. Executives ultimately are judged by the performance of their staff, and they have great flexibility in how they organize and delegate authority down the chain. Firing is not the key secret to success. Dictators can fire anyone whenever they want, but as you point out, their governments are not necessarily any better, and in many ways worse, than the U.S.