54 ms·
I'll go further and say that if there is a system, it's precisely to be resilient to bad leaders. If leaders can effectively lead, why have a system over them ?
by makapuf 8y ago
I'll go further and say that if there is a system, it's precisely to be resilient to bad leaders. If leaders can effectively lead, why have a system over them ? e.g. a system that works when everyone acts out of good will is redundant.
- dasil003 8y agoWell there's also the question of knowledge transfer.
- forapurpose 8y ago> If leaders can effectively lead, why have a system over them ? Do you mean, 'if the leader is perfect, why not give them absolute power?' The problems with that question seem obvious to me.
- dmix 8y agoWhich is why the OP proposed that (rhetorical) question... we have systems in place because we can't expect perfection, nor should the system require all actors to be acting in good faith to function. So far I haven't seen any evidence that this has not been the case in the US (that the system of controls has failed or has been circumvented). Unless of course you take rhetoric at face value over measuring real-life actions and realistic outcomes, as is popular in partisan politics these days.