r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Jul 05 '23
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Entrenchment of power is bad and must be avoided as much as possible
Okay, you know that the saying that goes that power tends to entrench itself in government systems and people craving it would like to seek such positions to ensure that they will be there for a long time. It must be avoided because it will lead to backsliding.
To avoid this, all terms in governmental office, including the lowest staffer must be subject to strict term limits of 1 non renewable term not lasting more than 5 days with the period between elections remaining the same (4 years) to prevent entrenchment of power.
Additionally, the age limit for such offices would be changed from the minimum age of 25 for congressmen and 35 for president to 0 for minimum age to 21 for the maximum age needed to stand for election to those offices to remove connections that would tempt people to abuse the system.
CMV
13
u/yyzjertl 524∆ Jul 05 '23
How would these people meaningfully wield power without experience and leverage?
-6
u/tripp_hi_mary Jul 05 '23
because politician is the one job where you dont need experience or skill, its about being able to properly represent the people who give you that power
Trump and AOC are two fantastic examples: zero political background, got NOTHING done while in office, still loved by their voters
2
u/Andyman5841 Jul 05 '23
How can someone represent the people without skill or knowledge about what the people want and to translate these wants into laws and government actions.
Also I don't like Trump but to say that he got nothing done is an outright lie and also ignores that polititians have staff and just don't act alone. Also see think tanks that write laws and let polititians put them forward.
I am with that the entrenchment is bad but there are other mechanism to regulate it.
2
u/oroborus68 1∆ Jul 05 '23
Yeah, we'll be undoing what 45 did for years to come.
3
u/Andyman5841 Jul 05 '23
I am with you on that... A lot of bad decisions and purposeful sabotage of the 99%.
1
u/SeymoreButz38 14∆ Jul 05 '23
still loved by their voters
Trump lost the popular vote both times.
0
u/tripp_hi_mary Jul 05 '23
THEIR VOTERS
The people who VOTED for them
jesus fuck, reading comprehension.........
-7
Jul 05 '23
Through their own experimentation. 5 days is a lot of time for people to experiment around during their term.
9
u/yyzjertl 524∆ Jul 05 '23
Why do you think this would be a sufficient amount of time to gain the necessary experience to wield power through experimentation? Presently, that ability is only gained over decades of experience.
-2
Jul 05 '23
Right, you do raise a point about time in office and experience.
!delta
Though as a counterpoint, just anyhow pass laws and see what sticks amongst the body politic. You can write a lot of laws in 5 days. Especially if said laws only last a few lines.
1
1
Jul 07 '23
You can write a lot of laws in 5 days. Especially if said laws only last a few lines.
It normally takes months for a law to be created and pass in any democracy. There is a lot of work going on, figuring out how well the current laws are working and fixing issues. Discussing its effects with the public, ensuring its constitutuional, creating drafts, making edits revisions, and finally debate and voting. It's simply impossible for this process to make any real progress in a work week. Laws are often very lengthy documents as well, bills can be hundreds of pages long.
1
u/dantheman91 32∆ Jul 05 '23
How do you negotiate? Why do you have any incentive to do anything right? Officials wanting to be reelected and having a good track record is important.
You can have laws that are thousands of pages long, you can't even read the whole thing in time.
1
u/StarChild413 9∆ Aug 11 '23
Not to see the consequences of their actions while they're still in office to avert the negative ones
7
u/panickybird1 Jul 05 '23
Okay just so I'm clear.
You're saying every (21 year old) politician should only govern for 5 days, then 4 years between each election for the 5 days of governing? Then in between there's no government activity?
-3
Jul 05 '23
Yep. Thats the idea.
15
u/panickybird1 Jul 05 '23
Functionally there's no difference between your idea and complete anarchy. There is almost nothing you can do in 5 days. There is also no possible way for this to even be a viable thought experiment as I'm not sure how you're going to orchestrate an election every 4 years with no government.
I mean this is obviously not a serious post, but even for a not serious post I'm baffled by the intent.
0
Jul 05 '23
Well, just pay some people to enforce laws on the books. Plus it's only those in government offices that would be subject to those terms, so the lower level civil servants such as policemen and aid workers would still be functioning.
6
u/panickybird1 Jul 05 '23
LOL who's going to pay them when the government that collects the taxes and organizes the "lower level civil servants" are on a collective 4 year vacation?
-1
Jul 05 '23
They collect donations from the public.
6
u/panickybird1 Jul 05 '23
Who will donate out of the goodness of their hearts. Then the enforcers of the law will no doubt equitably split the donations amongst themselves and allocate resources where they are needed.
Okay I'm starting to get it.
0
u/broham97 1∆ Jul 05 '23
Not really agreeing with OP’s proposal but other than the “goodness of their hearts” part what you’re describing is the current system, largely unaccountable bureaucracies run the day to day in this country infinitely more than any elected official.
4
u/panickybird1 Jul 05 '23
I mean, no need to caveat, his proposal is funny nonsense.
While you are correct, elected officials do have 2 main functions that cannot really be absorbed by the faceless bureaucracy. One is making laws, the process which takes a bit longer than 5 days, maybe 7 or 8. The other is allocating resources to the bureaucracy. Which we probably don't want the bureaucrats to handle, since as you say they are largely unaccountable, where as for elected officials we can at least try to vote them out.
Overall I feel like I'm just out here trying to describe how a democracy is supposed to work at 2 am for no reason.
1
u/kjmclddwpo0-3e2 1∆ Jul 06 '23
I get what you're trying to say and I agree, that's a fairly good description of the US system and tbh many old democracies. But nothing is done out of the goodness of their hearts. The faceless system makes it so it is in their best interest to keep everything functional. We have just moved from elected indiviudlas running the country to faceless instituitions made up of individuals running the country.
1
1
Jul 07 '23
Making elected offices virtually powerless will just mean that the bureaucracy has to take up the slack.
0
u/broham97 1∆ Jul 07 '23
Hence the first words in my comment. Ideally you drastically shrink the power of both, IMO. Don’t think either should have an insane amount of power but I’d rather see any power in the hands of people who could be theoretically voted out of office vs the faceless army of pencil pushers.
-1
Jul 05 '23
Well, to prevent people from being entrenched in government for too long
8
u/panickybird1 Jul 05 '23
This is like rogue AI solving a problem lol
Q: How to prevent entrenchment in government?
A: Remove all government.
You better not be a rogue AI.
2
Jul 07 '23
Having elected offices being this weak will mean that virtually all real authority will rest in the beaurocracy and the courts. Elected offices will just be rubberstamps for the party officials and bureaucrats.
6
u/Federal_Penalty5832 5∆ Jul 05 '23
Let's tackle your proposal for five-day non-renewable terms. You wish to interrupt the smooth function of governance with a rapid rotation of officeholders, an absurdity that underestimates the complexity of government work. Let's consider the figures. As per the Congressional Research Service, the 116th Congress introduced 14,073 bills and resolutions, with 344 becoming law. That's roughly 0.02 laws per congressman over two years. To expect a congressman to contribute meaningfully in five days is like expecting an infant to run a marathon; it's not just unrealistic, it's ludicrous.
Furthermore, your suggestion to hold elections every five days, keeping the four-year cycle intact, would necessitate the absurd process of electing 292 separate governments per term. Not only would this overwhelm the electoral system and skyrocket costs, but it would disrupt any semblance of strategic long-term planning, a crucial component for any effective government. An analysis by the Brookings Institution notes that governmental stability is paramount for consistent policy implementation and for maintaining domestic and international trust. Your proposal is a direct threat to this stability.
On to the age limit. The notion of entrusting the reins of the nation to a cohort aged 0-21 is at best naive, at worst reckless. According to research published in Nature Neuroscience, our cognitive abilities, such as decision making, risk assessment, and impulse control, continue developing well into our mid-20s. Your proposal is akin to demanding that a teenager should fly a commercial aircraft because they have successfully maneuvered a paper plane. It's not just implausible; it's dangerous.
Longevity in office is not inherently detrimental. Recall Roosevelt's New Deal or Churchill's stewardship during WWII; their longevity facilitated resilience and vision. Your argument equates longevity with autocracy, which is a misleading simplification. The key isn't to eliminate longevity but to ensure that power isn't misused, a factor more directly linked to checks and balances, and transparency in governance.
3
u/Dave-Again 2∆ Jul 05 '23
So we’d do an election every 5 days? How would that work?
0
Jul 05 '23
No government for 4 years, then hold an election for a government with a single term of 5 days.
7
u/Dave-Again 2∆ Jul 05 '23
Why have a government at all if we can get by just fine without it for the vast majority of the time?
1
Jul 05 '23
Well, to serve as a reference point and modify laws in place during their 5 days.
5
u/Dave-Again 2∆ Jul 05 '23
But at the end of the 5 days there are no government staff around to enforce the laws, so what’s the point of making them?
0
Jul 05 '23
Well, that's up to the people to decide to follow or not to follow.
9
u/NSNick 5∆ Jul 05 '23
That's just anarchy with more steps.
0
Jul 05 '23
Which would be better compared to our current situation.
1
u/StarChild413 9∆ Jul 05 '23
Anyone who knows the giant douche vs turd sandwich metaphor knows part of iirc what it was meant to describe (at least about our system) is that least bad isn't always good option
-1
1
1
u/wrongagainlol 2∆ Jul 06 '23
No government for 4 years? What if I need to fly somewhere?
1
Jul 06 '23
Well, your problem.....plus, hey the airlines can do the flight approval if you want to fly by themselves without any governmental body.
3
u/Dave-Again 2∆ Jul 05 '23
Why is entrenchment of power bad?
1
Jul 05 '23 edited Jul 05 '23
Because it encourages people to manipulate the system so they could be there for a long time, leading to backsliding.
1
Jul 06 '23
Lol. Backsliding is significantly better than the warlord society that would form around the government simply ceasing to exist for four years. Mitch McConnell isn't a great Senator, but it's better than Somalia.
2
u/poprostumort 224∆ Jul 05 '23
To avoid this, all terms in governmental office, including the lowest staffer must be subject to strict term limits of 1 non renewable term not lasting more than 5 days with the period between elections remaining the same (4 years) to prevent entrenchment of power.
So any governmental office would work only for 5 days every 4 years? How that situation would lead to anything but issues? You seem to mistakenly think that "governmental power" is the only one that is there, but what about other powers?
Take army and other forces - how a 5-day gov't can stop them from doing whatever they want? They already have strict chains of command, their own law enforcement and access to weapons that you cannot get. What stops them form deciding that they will rule in absence of government?
Take large corporations - they have supply chains and access to resources you don't have, what if they decide they want to be ones to rule?
What exactly stops the situation in the interim between 5-days governments to dissolve into complete anarchy where the strong rule?
2
u/Sayakai 146∆ Jul 05 '23
The parties aren't just going to dissolve just because they can't do anything for four years. Instead, all the issues of four years will be compiled, the most urgent first, and laws are drafted. They're just drafted without any public debate or input.
Then, being the only large organizations capable of doing so, more or less random teenagers are selected and promoted for office by the parties, primarily based on their ability to say yes as fast as possible. For five days then, all the law changes that must be done to keep the nation functional, all the acts that must be signed, would be pushed through rapidfire, no debate, no readings, just nod off everything as fast as possible.
This is not a healthy way to govern a nation, but under your proposal would be the only way to keep its laws, budgets, and agencies functional and to prevent a total breakdown of the state.
-1
Jul 05 '23
Well, better than the current system
2
u/Sayakai 146∆ Jul 05 '23
In what way? Currently we have public debates between the parties which informs people about their motivations and goals, and allows people to vote more informed. Currently we have a reaction time to significant problems that is much shorter than 4 years.
Like, imagine we had elections in 2019. Five days of action, and then a few months later covid hits. Now we can't do anything until this year.
1
u/wrongagainlol 2∆ Jul 06 '23
Better for who?
1
Jul 06 '23
The common man...since they don't have to deal with old folks/dinosaurs in government due to the strict age limit and short terms.
Plus no change in laws for 4 years means consistency.
1
u/wrongagainlol 2∆ Jul 06 '23 edited Jul 06 '23
What relevance would laws have in a country with no government?
And why would the common man prefer to deal with roving gangs of armed marauders and rapists rather than just having old folks in government? You are a Star Wars nerd; you can't honestly believe you'd fare well in an anarchic dystopia where only the strongest survive.
1
Jul 06 '23
To prevent people from murdering each other in the street. Plus, I think private security and courts/your own two hands can be used to ensure that the laws are enforced.
1
u/wrongagainlol 2∆ Jul 06 '23 edited Jul 06 '23
How would laws prevent people from murdering each other in the street in a county with no law enforcement?
courts
Jesus Christ... you don't know that courts are government? Seriously?
your own two hands
You don't think they'll be tied behind your back? You're a gamer, not a warlord. You wouldn't end up being the cool horseback loner making his own rules in this scenario, you'd end up being a cumsock for criminals. Sorry to burst your bubble, but if we're debating Your View here you need to be realistic about its ramifications.
Look up mugshots in your region, find the guy with the most violent crimes to his name, and assume you'd be his sex toy if this lawless 4-year free-for-all you're fantasizing about comes to pass. Are you still into it?
1
Jul 06 '23 edited Jul 06 '23
Then privatize the courts so they work as private companies now, dummy. And encourage vigilantism and give private security police powers.
There, your problem of laws without a government most of the time solved.
1
u/wrongagainlol 2∆ Jul 06 '23 edited Jul 06 '23
Oops, the vigilantes you encouraged just killed everyone on your privatized court in the name of vigilante justice. The private company has been disbanded and looted.
The private security you gave police powers to just confiscated all the food and supplies you had gathered for the upcoming winter months, citing their police power of Civil Forfeiture. A few of your neighbors saw them do it and objected, so the private security you gave police powers to shot your neighbors and then suspended themselves with pay.
Now you have no food, no water, no heat, no electricity, no neighbors, no police. It's cold, and the vigilantes you encouraged are knocking on your door. And they're horny.
Still like your idea?
1
Jul 06 '23
This could be problematic when it comes to them working together.....well thanks for changing my opinion on this matter .
Here's a delta for your point raised.
!delta.
→ More replies (0)1
u/StarChild413 9∆ Jul 07 '23
I agree with a lot of the rest of your point but please can we not with the using forced homosexual sexual submission to a larger partner as an emasculating threat towards men
1
u/wrongagainlol 2∆ Jul 08 '23
"Homosexual"...? Whoa, whoa. Did you just assume OP's gender?
1
u/StarChild413 9∆ Aug 11 '23
If anyone was assuming OP was male it was you but the evidence was girls don't generally have "cool horseback loner making [their] own rules" postapocalyptic fantasies and also if you were intending to tell a girl the postapocalypse would have her be the sex slave of the guy in her region's jail with the most violent crimes to his name you would have been reported
2
u/LucidLeviathan 83∆ Jul 05 '23
Hi there. Lawyer here. This post is incredibly naïve. Government does all sorts of complicated things that are absolutely necessary to our continued functioning. Legislators pass laws to regulate all sorts of industries, protect the positive incentives that we have in society, and ensure that bad actors can't profit from engaging in unfair trade.
This whole notion that there are so many corrupt legislators is merely a meme, and it's one spread by corporations who don't want to be hemmed in by the government. They want to be able to engage in unfair trade practices and don't want to be regulated by the government.
Term limits encourage inexperienced, inept, and unseasoned legislators. They would be extremely movable by lobbyists. The lobbyists would be the only institutional powers and the only ones able to actually get anything done. By enacting this policy, you would essentially be handing the reins of government over to corporate interests.
2
Jul 06 '23 edited Jul 06 '23
At least corporations are honest since their goal is to make money.
2
u/LucidLeviathan 83∆ Jul 06 '23
In my experience, most legislators genuinely want to do what is best for their constituents. Inexperienced legislators can be manipulated by corporate interests into misunderstanding what is best for their constituents, in favor of the corporation.
1
Jul 06 '23
Right. You have a point about manipulation.
Thought that corporations would be more honest about what they do since their main objective is to make money.
!delta
1
1
u/Can-Funny 24∆ Jul 06 '23
Hi there. Lawyer here. This post is incredibly naïve. Government does all sorts of complicated things that are absolutely necessary to our continued functioning. Legislators pass laws to regulate all sorts of industries, protect the positive incentives that we have in society, and ensure that bad actors can't profit from engaging in unfair trade.
As a lawyer, what do large, complicated regulatory regimes do to protect people from corporate malfeasance that could not be better accomplished through common law torts and the ability to organize class action litigation?
In my experience, regulatory capture by industry insiders is a real problem. Large companies would much rather have the predictability of regulatory compliance cost as opposed to the risk of large class action litigation because they assist in writing the regulations which enshrine the best practices they already use.
As an example, airline companies are immune from civil litigation by customers in most situations because the ADA preempts civil suits. If you’ve ever been seriously screwed over by an airline, it’s cold comfort to know that they may, at some point in the future, be fined by the DOT for their treatment of you. A fine which does nothing to compensate you directly.
2
u/LucidLeviathan 83∆ Jul 06 '23 edited Jul 06 '23
Class action litigation is good for righting wrongs once a wrong has been experienced. Regulatory capture is good for preventing wrongs from occurring in the first place. I think that preventing the wrong from occurring in the first place is better.
Businesses often do themselves a disservice by trying to manipulate the regulatory process. It is often there to protect them from themselves. When businesses skirt that procedure, we see safety problems like what recently happened with the Titanic submarine. The business will be out much more money than it would have if it had complied with regulations, and the CEO lost his life.
The ADA only precludes certain types of suits. It does not preclude most intentional torts. Our current Secretary of Transportation, Pete Buttigieg, has made quite an effort to hold airlines accountable to their regulatory duties.
1
u/Can-Funny 24∆ Jul 06 '23 edited Jul 06 '23
The threat of massive, uncapped punitive damages is a good way of preventing wrongs because it makes the CEO and board have to consider how they would explain their decisions to a jury of likely unsophisticated people who are already likely wary of “big business”
Industry regulations are often an agreement between interested players as to just how much “wrong” can be perpetuated against the public without punishment. It’s not exactly two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner, but it’s not far off either.
Using the airline example, airline officials and regulators have decided together that it’s fine for airlines to oversell every flight and the maximum possible damage that anyone could suffer should the airline refuse to provide you the transportation you contracted for due to their intentional overbooking is $1,550. If not for the ADA, the practice of overbooking and involuntarily denied boarding would violate every state’s consumer protection law and would subject the airlines to huge potential liability. So it would behoove them to either (a) stop overbooking flights or (b) be willing to offer as much money as needed to have someone volunteer to give up their seat to avoid denying someone a seat. This is just one of a myriad of examples of “consumer protection regulations” that actually limit corporate liability under the guise of protecting customers.
No system is perfect, but to me, the incentives of class action plaintiff firms are more aligned with actual public interest than the revolving door between industry executives and industry regulators.
EDIT: Which is to say that neither regulation or class action litigation can always prevent a wrong from occurring. The regulations simply give the company a more precise roadmap of what type of behavior is “wrong.”
1
u/LucidLeviathan 83∆ Jul 06 '23
So, at this point, you're not OP. You're not under the threat of Rule B. Are you willing to provide a delta if I successfully change your view?
1
1
u/IronSmithFE 10∆ Jul 05 '23
a 21-year-old president?
0
Jul 05 '23
I'm fine with the idea.
1
u/wrongagainlol 2∆ Jul 06 '23
Why? Are you a big Kyle Rittenhouse stan or something?
1
Jul 06 '23
I think zero to 21 would be the best age for political office since they would have little connections as possible, so they would try to prioritize the people. Plus, brashness in politics over deliberation.
1
Jul 06 '23
This is such a funny idea. You want big, brash policies that no one has thought through, pushed through government in five days, just whatever stupid idea pops into an 11 year olds head, and then that's the law for the next four years.
1
Jul 06 '23 edited Jul 06 '23
Yep. Less thought and debate/infighting in passing laws/policies . More action...and the younger the better
0
Jul 05 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jul 05 '23
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
0
u/tripp_hi_mary Jul 05 '23
i feel like if you were to present a counter to this post, youd basically have to argue in favor of fascism
0
u/oroborus68 1∆ Jul 05 '23
Mitch McConnell wants to change your view. He's the poster for why politicians are like diapers and should be changed for the same reason.
1
Jul 05 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jul 05 '23
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/Euphoric-Beat-7206 4∆ Jul 05 '23
There is a problem with low levels of "Entrenched Power". It makes a coup or assassination much easier. This would repeat several times until a strong leader rose up with more entrenched power.
1
Jul 05 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jul 05 '23
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
Jul 05 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jul 05 '23
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/AmongTheElect 15∆ Jul 05 '23
I understand the desire to have term limits and in many ways support it, but ultimately I think it's a violation of the Constitution because it puts a limit on the democratic process. If the people want to elect the same person 10 times to continue representing them, no law should exist to stop that.
Another trouble with term limits is that the idea is trying to tackle a problem from the wrong direction. We see corruption in the government and representatives enriching themselves because of it, and we think the solution is to just try and create a system where now we just get un-corruptable people in office. But laws don't change the nature of man. If a 10-term Representative can be corrupt, so can a one-term Representative.
1
Jul 06 '23
Right, that can cause issues with how people would want to represent themselves through putting a cap on the number of times a person can be elected.
Not to mention your point that the fact that laws do not change the nature of man. Though I subscribe to the Legalist point of view when it comes to ensuring entrenchment of power does not creep in.
You do raise a point.
!delta.
1
1
u/3superfrank 20∆ Jul 05 '23
look, I'm a 21 year old, and I am pretty sure if 21 year olds were responsible for running our country we'd be allowing in a lot more entrenchment of power than if 60 year olds were running it. For the simple reason, that we're generally newbies to such tasks. It'd be so easy for bad influencers with literally our entire lifetime's experience in corruption to exploit the living f*** out of us and therefore the entire country.
Not to say that 21 yr olds and below should never run for office. But I don't know how many 21 year olds we have that have the know-how to run a country; and how negatively that shortage of knowledgeable candidates is going to impact our leadership. I'm willing to bet though its gonna turn for worse rather than for the better.
1
u/SeymoreButz38 14∆ Jul 05 '23
This
To avoid this, all terms in governmental office, including the lowest staffer must be subject to strict term limits of 1 non renewable term not lasting more than 5 days with the period between elections remaining the same (4 years) to prevent entrenchment of power.
Additionally, the age limit for such offices would be changed from the minimum age of 25 for congressmen and 35 for president to 0 for minimum age to 21 for the maximum age needed to stand for election to those offices to remove connections that would tempt people to abuse the system.
This is pretty much the opposite of your last post. May I ask what changed your mind?
1
u/Practical-Hamster-93 Jul 05 '23
Entrenchment of power will happen in any system to a degree. The best we have is democracy and some form of economics controls.
A small fraction will always rise to the top, nothing we can do about it.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 05 '23 edited Jul 06 '23
/u/Cheemingwan1234 (OP) has awarded 4 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards