new | show | ask | jobs Github

MrBuddyCasino 5 hours ago

> In reality, they want to be dictators.

Its much worse than that. They want to be unaccountable bureaucrats.

▲

bartleeanderson 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Very funny if it weren't so true!

▲

MrBuddyCasino 5 hours ago | parent [-]

I‘m not being ironic. With a dictator you have full responsibility concentrated in a single person. Bureaucracies are the opposite: they’re intentionally setup to diffuse responsibility as much as possible and hold no one accountable. Instead of a single guy, you now have to fight something resembling a fungus. This is much harder: instead of a decapitation strike, you face an enemy that is more resilient and resistant to change, and near impossible to kill.

▲

plufz 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Are you saying that historically very bureaucratic countries have been worse to live in than dictatorships? Not sure I follow actually. It sounds very strange to me. Isn’t also the first move of all dictators to take over all institutions with their own people?

	▲	ablob 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		They are saying that in bureaucratic countries there is not a single entity that can be held accountable, which means that "bad" decisions, are not easily undone. Likewise it means that "good" decisions are hard to change. It is a statement about the momentum of change, not about it's worth or intention. There is no further comparison made between these governmental forms and how they affect their subjects. Why would you create such a blatant red herring?

▲

personomas 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]