2 ms·

Certainly it is not always obvious who shouldn't be let in and who should get a second chance, but such is life. Keeping those not appropriate is out is still

Certainly it is not always obvious who shouldn't be let in and who should get a second chance, but such is life. Keeping those not appropriate is out is still the task, even if "appropriate" varies strongly with the precise context. And without a deep discussion on what precisely is appropriate for all the contexts the state operates in, insistence on bureaucracy is merely (intended or not) a codification of conservatism.

JumpCrisscross 7y ago
> insistence on bureaucracy is merely (intended or not) a codification of conservatism That's actually the point. You get a group of people together to agree on who are the good people. You put them in place. You then install mechanisms to ensure that original view of "good" propagates, with changes being heavily guarded until a consensus similar to the original one re-appears. Governing isn't about good and bad. It's about amongst whom consensus must be formed to produce action. Expanding the pool of necessary votes is what checks and balances accomplish.