3 ms·

[In]efficient at what? You've got to think carefully about your metrics when it comes to government. Look it's widely understood that, if the dictator or tyra

[In]efficient at what? You've got to think carefully about your metrics when it comes to government. Look it's widely understood that, if the dictator or tyrant is good at his (or, very occasionally, her) job then things usually go well. The old women of Bhutan cried when the King decreed democracy. It's getting rid of the bad ones that's the big problem, and so: democracy. "The worst form of government except for all the others." Edit to add: the ultimate government is "full consensus", but it's incredibly expensive in terms of the time it takes to get everybody's input and consensus. However, once full consensus is reached it's the most efficient at execution: everyone works together in harmony to achieve the ends of the group in the mutually-agreed fashion. Needless to say, this form of government is very very rare on Earth, but hardly unknown. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus

TeMPOraL 7y ago
Democracy is efficient at getting shit done. As uncareful as this metric is defined. But I would say even more importantly, democracy is very efficient at limiting internal bloodshed. It provides a well-defined, peaceful process for people to grab power. The power is limited, but you don't have to kill people to gain it, and in turn you don't risk getting killed yourself by the next upstart.
- carapace 7y ago
  I agree. One of the most important and successful aspects is the relatively peaceful transfer of power. Personally I'm more concerned that the government remains responsive and, for lack of a better word, humble. (That's part of why the Kingdom of Bhutan is so amazing: the don't measure GNP, they have a measure called Gross National Happiness that they take pretty seriously. Heh. They really seem to have their kit together. It's a Third-World country you can't emigrate to.)

TeMPOraL 7y ago

Democracy is efficient at getting shit done. As uncareful as this metric is defined. But I would say even more importantly, democracy is very efficient at limiting internal bloodshed. It provides a well-defined, peaceful process for people to grab power. The power is limited, but you don't have to kill people to gain it, and in turn you don't risk getting killed yourself by the next upstart.

carapace 7y ago
I agree. One of the most important and successful aspects is the relatively peaceful transfer of power. Personally I'm more concerned that the government remains responsive and, for lack of a better word, humble. (That's part of why the Kingdom of Bhutan is so amazing: the don't measure GNP, they have a measure called Gross National Happiness that they take pretty seriously. Heh. They really seem to have their kit together. It's a Third-World country you can't emigrate to.)