I feel the need to speak my piece about running a country, and to be completely frank about it. I don't pretend to know everything. In my opinion, college as made me more of a sophmore than I have ever felt in my life. By unlocking that one missing piece in my education, I truly understand what it means to not know a god damn thing. Most of these are in American terms, which I think most of you assume, as I have an embarrassingly low amount of knowledge on international policiy (ironic, really. My Intl Business classes have taught me how to deal with international countries, not necessarily how they run. Guess that's in area studies).

The question is this: what is the best way to run a country? Many theories have come up, most recently, a debate has risen about free enterprise vs. planned economy. As payne so endearingly calls me, I'm a "die hard capitalist." What that really means to me is that the market dictates the structure of a country. For a country to be truly free, they must have control over everything in their lives. But in order to have control, someone has to make sure that someone else isn't impeding on these rights (or lack thereof, I'll explain what that means in a moment). In order for free market to truly rein, one and all must choose what is the best for the community so that the community supports their rights both implicitly and explicitly. And one cannot be forced to do so. They must choose to, and they can even choose to do and say nothing about what is best, and leave the decisions to the people who "really care." (or the people who like to fill in ballots, if you catch my meaning). Now, I know what you're all are thinking, I know you think I'm about to go sing the praises of the democracy.

In reality, a democracy is one of the most inherently inefficient systems every contrived. In its attempt to create an elaborate system of checks and balances, it has taught its people to pursue what they want at that moment, and it has taught its people to be incredibly short sighted in terms of goals and objectives. Look at America. Everything is based on two year milestones, that is every election period. At most, a president has eight years to put into place policy, and that's if he can convince everyone else that he's correct, initiate it, and complete it within that period. Otherwise, the next administration comes in and vetos the whole thing, and for the most part the country is back at square one. Look at it this way. If you went up to a CEO of a major corporation and said that they need to come up with a new strategy, initiate it and then dismantle it within two yeras, you will probably be laughed right out of the office. Or, most companies are expected to fail within the first five years of opening their doors as a lack of long term planning.

Not to mention, the people of a country can be relatively smart, but can act rather stupidly. As my friend told me, he hates the idea of prolonging the tax cuts. But, he needs to feed and clothe his family, so he's not going to stop anyone from prolonging it. Tax cuts are really really bad in terms of longevity. It leaves a huge deficit and guess who's going to pick up the bill? Us and our children. Most of us are in the age group where we won't ever see money from Social Security, and yet we're still required to pay into it, and after it bankrupts I wouldn't be surprised if to keep it on life support taxes increase - or deficit spending increase. And subsidies are useless. There is no concrete evidence that Global Trade has destroyed employment. A matter of fact, for most developed countries, it has caused people to get new skill sets that will give them more pay. Oh hey, here’s another example of how the country is too short term. It would take about twenty years to see benefits from increasing government help for students (say, steel mill workers) to go back to school and learn new skills. It would be the best twenty year program ever, in my opinion, but it is so much easier just to throw money into the steel industry. Short term job security? Sweet! But you have to justify it. Infant Industry? No one’s falling for that one. Oh, and we’ve tried. National Defense? Its emotional enough that our peers won’t question it. Did I mention that of the military’s budget, only 0.01% requires steal?

It is a big issue of entitlement. Whatever happened to "ask not what your country can do for you..." ? When did we become so selfish? Well, the unions don't help. No one here will be able to convince me that unions in America are helping or protecting anyone. A matter of fact, guess why one of the reasons your groceries are so expensive at the store, and yet grocers on average have a profit margin of 1%? Because of unions. People are paid upwards of $15.00 - not kidding - to bake chicken, bread, and stock produce. Honestly, that is absolutely ridiculous. By the time my boyfriend stopped working for a grocer after about a year of working there, he was making $12 something an hour. Even he says it was ridiculous high for the work he was doing. Other newer grocers, that find value added in other ways pay their employees less - but they are paid at what the work is worth. That sounds really cold hearted of me. But it is because of the unions that prices are driven up. If that cost was literally cut in half, we would see a change in prices. Why? Because the consumer would demand it. And, not to mention, if all of sudden you lose a huge cost factor you can charge less to undercut competition. And as most large chains share the same union, the competition will respond by lowering it. Soon it will find an even price. Everyone will benefit. Tada....free market. Too bad unions didn't really put into their charter an exit strategy.

So I want the ability to work where I want if I want without joining a union (which also takes dues, which to no one's surprise usually lines the pockets of the union boss). And don't tell me unions are needed to take care of the employees. Last I checked, Zappos, Google, Facebook, and Starbucks - huge corporations in their own rights - are not unionized, and they all offer incredible benefits and pay to their employees. But I don't want an enforced right to work I'm not saying that at all. There are European countries that have a Right to Work, Right to Leisure policy. That boggles my mind entirely too much. From what I understand, you have to try really really hard to get fired - if its possible. That's just expensive; you are forced to keep people who aren't producing instead of just getting rid of them. (Can I tell you why I love Colorado? We have a Hired at Will Fired at Will policy: anyone can hire me for any reason. Any one can fire me without giving cause. Well that's relative. If it turns out to be because I'm a woman, I could sue. But I'd have to prove it. And companies are very careful to document everything in case that comes up. I can fire someone whatever day of the week I want. I can quit without giving two weeks notice. Its a good policy and self enforcing). And a right to leisure - companies are required by law to offer paid vacation to everyone. Holy cow, that's expensive. Will, or some European, please correct me if I get something wrong in describing it. But I just don't see how its beneficial to the company or society on macro levels.

The interesting thing is that in a free market benefits are self regulating, especially now that there is a societal push. Just recently, Google gave their employees a 10% raise to keep them from going to Facebook. I got paid vacation at Starbucks after I earned it. Ever XX amount of hours I worked I got a percentage of paid time off. Managers were required every year to take two weeks off, but that's because they were salaried, and you couldn't exactly track hours. But it isn't legally enforced. Because in my opinion, it isn't any of the government's business if I choose to offer paid vacation time. What if instead of vacation time I think my employees would benefit more from half an hour of a deep tissue massage a week? Shultz decided to offer health benefits even to part time employees after his father was hurt on the job and no longer could get the same benefits he once had because he couldn't work as much. I want the right to choose what benefits I offer and who I offer them to. Which for the record is why I dislike the health care bill. That's an entire other issue altogether that I'm sure some place has its own topic.

Alright, you get it. And if you don’t, democracy is great for individual rights in a society that doesn’t demand change and that feels when they die the society won’t matter. Which is a lot of people and companies, unfortunately. Then what does work? Oh Payne, I know what word you’ve been scrolling to see...
Communism. What a great idea. Insure that everyone is provided for equally and to their own ability. How cool is that? It is a pretty nifty idea, too bad human nature gets in the way constantly, just like it would in a company that grows too large. Communism only works if everyone feels they have equal ownership. And in order for you to feel that way, you have to see it or feel it. You have no property. Your bread is put on the shelf along with everyone else’s bread. It all looks and costs the same. Planned Economies don’t really allow for value added techniques. There’s no way to really add a “personal” touch to a loaf a bread dictated by the state. How depressing to me.
In large corporations in free enterprise, it is pretty hard to imagine anyone feels personal contribution there either. Honestly, what usually supports that feel is the company culture. If the company makes you think you are contributing, then you are. And if you are actually honestly contributing, you feel even better. The strength of a company culture is defined by the loyalty of the lowest structural rank. If you have a dishwasher singing the praises of your restaurant, you are doing it so right. Interestingly enough, the business structure that I am most interested in is very much a collective. But it is small with only a couple handful of people, so loyalty is relatively easy to reign in. But loyalty is just as much of an issue in communist countries.

Here’s an interesting tidbit. Russia’s second largest party is the communist party. They want that USSR identity back, they want to feel good and proud of their country. Look at all the cool things they did when they were communist. They defeated Hitler’s army, they sent a spaceship into outer space, they kept pace with an economic giant in terms of development. Too bad it fell apart, and that causes hesitation, keeping it for now at number two. Not to mention I’m pretty sure Putin would win a violent uprising. I really feel that he’s one of those guys under the “thank God he’s on our side for now” title. But that’s how I think we should feel about most of our allies.

What about China? The Chinese people have been impoverished for so long. They are incredibly grateful that the government is providing them some economic stability. One of my professors that visits China often said that if you went up to a Chinese person and asked how they felt about communism, the general response is that they really don’t care. Not in a bad way. They’re just happy that if they follow a few simple rules they aren’t going to die as quickly. That makes it really hard for them to put in a free market perspective, when by their standards they are living in a land of plenty (for the most part anyways). Not to mention if a simple sarcastic comment on Twitter gets you a year in a labor camp, I don’t think anyone is really feeling the need to speak too strongly about how they feel. As they grow complacent, I think that’ll change. Before that, though, I believe China is going to be facing a huge labor shortage in the near future. In both cases, it’s an underlying cultural identity that drives the need for communism.

Well what does that leave? A dictatorship. Man those things are efficient. But no one appears to know what the best type of dictatorship is. If you rule with an iron fist, surely for a while efficiency will be incredible, because people will be scared into submission. And then you get some sort of wise guy that’s going to come in, kill you, and turn your wonderful dictatorship into either a democracy or into a commune. And well, see above. What about a benevolent dictatorship? Yes, it would appear that this is the best situation. But soon people will want some sort of representation because the country will grow too big to deal with only one person calling the shots. Then what? Well I guess you could create a parliament, though that does defeat the purpose of a dictatorship, as it just gets things caught up in bureaucracy for a long period of time. And there goes your efficiency.

So what is the right way to go? They all got there problems. In my opinion, it largely depends on size. And just as a monopoly has to be split up once it grows too big, maybe a country needs to be too. I would love to be ruled by Colorado and Colorado only. I do think the states would live in harmony. Well, for the most part, but that’s what trade agreements are for. Even if we put dumb initiatives on the ballot like the ET Commission, I love my state. I feel a stronger cultural identity to Colorado and Denver than I do to the United States of America. It is still large, and so it would run into the same problems as many small but crowded countries. But I think it is the most equal balance of all the choices above. One leader, many representatives that answer to that leader, and then the people that answer to the representatives. That’s it. That’s all I need.
So guys, what do you think? What is the best, what do you dislike, what do you like? There is no one system out there thus far that I have found that will sufficiently please me. I’ve only listed the three most common.

The best governments are those with lots of resources, because having plenty makes the government simply a bargaining power. When government really makes a difference is when a country has nothing. Unfortunately, in most cases the government depends on the specific leaders more than the ideology. There are good leaders and bad leaders, not necessarily good and bad governments. However, different government systems give various amounts of power to these leaders, making dictatorships a hit or miss scenario, and republics more controlled, but less effective.

In terms of the question, the proper government depends on the situation of the country. If the country is large and diverse, people will not rally together as easily as a small and uniform country. A stronger government would be needed for such a large country, or a system that is broken into smaller pieces. There will never be an effective rule by the people for a diverse nation.
Then there is the question of what the political situation is around the country. One thing that a government needs to be able to do is communicate with those around it, which necessarily means having political voice that is in the same realm of neighboring countries. Kings talk with kings, they don't talk with congress as much, and nobody talks with the self appointed ruler for life types.

My point is that there is not a one size fits all government style.

Firstly, URSS and China never even tried communism... they were stuck in a transitory phase which was failing pretty hard.
Secondly, I might have mis-understood what you've written but I think you've stated America as being a democratic country? I say it isn't. I do not consider ''representative democracy'' as a form of democracy as it is (and I like to call it aristocracy, even though it's false ).

How would I run a country? Fuck countries: as I'm seeing it, they are too big for my ideology to properly work on them. I'd divide them. It's all about thinking "local".
On a small scale, communes would work so well: small villages where everyone knows everyone and trusts everyone. The cohesion would be much greater than in a whole country.
I'm also seeing a ''direct democracy'' system and the abolition of "property".
Production is spread to everyone based on their needs (so it might not be equally, though there shouldn't be much of a huge difference between the needs of different people), and the left-overs are distributed to people in regards of their work for the community.

That's too idealist. The problem is that everyone must agree on this and act accordingly, which is inherently difficult to accomplish due to innumerable factors. Due to the way current affairs exist and various other issues, that is not possible. What you are suggesting is essentially utopia. The fact of reality is that it's not realistically possible to achieve that sort of perfection of systems.

It should be obvious: not everyone is going to agree with that. Some people are content with nothing, some with everything, and some with inflicting suffering on others.

tl;dr It's not (realistically) possible.

Quote from Sand Wraith

tl;dr It's not (realistically) possible.

It -became- irrealist because of capitalism, which forced people into egoism. We can change this back, but it'll take time. I do believe we'll require a very long transitory phase.

Egoism is inherent to life. Capitalism, i.e. free market, is based in competition - also inherent in life.

It has nothing to do with changing "back." What you are suggesting is moving away from the natural order of things (which I honestly have no problem with in this case, considering how naturally capable humans are at constructing the unnatural).

So, yes, doing so would take an extremely long time - so long, in fact, that it can safely deemed to be outside of the single life span of a human. Some people cannot think farther than their lifespan (some cannot think further than 5 seconds). The problem here is that you're suggesting something so radical that it will always have opponents.

Even within the last few decades, there have been multiple wars and genocides (Korean War, Vietnam War, Darfur, the Hutu and Tutsi in Rwanda, so on and so forth). These incidents merely illustrate how utterly incompatible your ideology is with the other 6.6 billion people that coexist on the Earth.

You should definitely read some books by Amy Chua, particularly "World on Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability". Also,books by Kenichi Ohmae, who is a very influential Japanese academic and is very pro-globalism .

Anarchy (or small, independent states):
The problem with smaller states is that they have the tendency to fight each other a lot (Medieval Europe, Warring States Period, etc.). If every town/county was independent, I would not be surprised if warfare broke out within a year. Eventually, one state would grow stronger than the others (due to natural resources, military/leadership genius, etc.) and the whole system would break down.

Communism:
People are too egocentric. Lazy people exist, and most people would do as little as possible to get by at their job if they knew there was no material incentive to work for. Look at the current teenage generation in America (I don't know about Europe or elsewhere).

Dictatorship:
The rule of all by one is more or less preferable than the rule of one by all. However, dictatorships tend to be unstable. They allow for too much corruption.

Democracy:
"...Democracy is the worst possible form of government except for all the others that have been tried."
-Winston Churchill
Currently, democracy is the best bet we have under the current situation. Of course, the cycle of all empires (e.g. America) states that the empire will eventually fall. I predict this will happen within the next 100 years.

Quote from rayNimagi

Anarchy (or small, independent states):
The problem with smaller states is that they have the tendency to fight each other a lot (Medieval Europe, Warring States Period, etc.). If every town/county was independent, I would not be surprised if warfare broke out within a year. Eventually, one state would grow stronger than the others (due to natural resources, military/leadership genius, etc.) and the whole system would break down.

Who said while cities would be independent, they'd be required not to cooperate?

Well written opening post Kame. You definitely lost yourself a lot of Troll points for that one.

The most obvious question is the one that you asked: What is the best government? However, to answer this question there is another question which must first be answered: What do we want from our government, or what do we mean when we say best? For what purpose and result do we institute a government? I am a fan of the U.S. government, and more so the way in which it was created. Here is one answer to the question, from the Declaration of Independance:

Quote from Declaration of Independence

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The founding fathers answered the question by saying that the best government is the one which protects the safety and happiness of its people. There are many things an individual cannot do, such as fighting a war to protect his homeland, negotiating trade agreements, act as a judge in a trial that he's involved in, ect, so government is instituted to fulfill these capacities. Obviously many people have differing views on the purpose of government, but the purpose must first be established before you can figure out how to best effect that purpose.

Once that question is answered, we arrive at your question: What government is best? To answer this, we need to analyze a number of different factors. One of the largest factors, in my opinion, is that of the nature of man. Are most men (and or women, don't mean to be sexist here but I don't feel like typing "man or woman" every time) really savage, destructive, forces which need to be kept in check by a powerful government? Or perhaps man is inherently good, and the evils we witness are due to the unfortunate circumstances of our world. This debate is largely associated with the debate between philosophers John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. Locke takes the stance that men are inherently reasonable, whereas Hobbes believes man is inherently evil. If Locke is right, that would imply government would not need to be massive or overbearing, because people would largely be the guardians of the peace themselves, but if Hobbes is right, a large powerful government would be necessary to keep everyone in check. Some other factors include the resources available to the country, the current state of the country, the culture of the people, ect. For example, if a country is rampant with crime and murder you'd want a different government policy than a country without that sort of activity.

I believe that the answer to the Locke/Hobbes debate is somewhere in the middle. Man may be naturally reasonable, but there is enough unreasonableness and evil out there that I have observed to lend credence to Hobbes' take on the situation. So, the answer to the best government would have to be a government both capable of dealing with evils, but not so large and oppressive that the reasonable people are smothered by it. There are also the implications of the other factors and purposes to deal with. This government should be large enough to fund an army, if we believe the purpose of the government is to support an army. The government should be powerful enough to deal with crime, but small enough so that people can actually afford to pay its taxes. The government needs to be distant enough from its people so that the senators and such can do their jobs without being harassed by all the different groups within the populus, but close enough so that people can sort out corruption. The government should not be wasteful. There are just so many factors to consider it might not be possible to maximize every one. If you think about each factor as a circle in a venn diagram, there may not be an intersection in the middle where you can get a piece of every one.

I think the current American government has drifted too far from the people. Its original institution was much different, the individual States had a great deal of power, whereas the national government was relatively weak. The constitution actually says that all powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the people, or to the States respectively. People didn't say, "I'm from the U.S.A.", they said "I'm from Kentucky" or "I'm from New York" Nowadays, a lot of people don't even realize that each state has its own government. Because of this, if I live in california but want to talk to my senator, I'd have to fly to Washington D.C. to do it. If the U.S. Gov't was pushed closer to the people, as in having more power at the state-level instead of the national level, I think that would help solve a lot of our current bureaucracy and efficiency problems. I was surprised to hear you speak about colorado in that way, I haven't spoken with many folks who agree with me.

I'll probably have more to write later.

Quote from payne

Quote from rayNimagi

Anarchy (or small, independent states):
The problem with smaller states is that they have the tendency to fight each other a lot (Medieval Europe, Warring States Period, etc.). If every town/county was independent, I would not be surprised if warfare broke out within a year. Eventually, one state would grow stronger than the others (due to natural resources, military/leadership genius, etc.) and the whole system would break down.

Who said while cities would be independent, they'd be required not to cooperate?

Uh, history? He just cited historical evidence.

Out of my limited pool of knowledge, I can only recall the Native Americans of North America to have come the closest to small, independent political entities that cooperated well (I don't have citations). Even then, they still had fights and such, which, in this day and age, would be a lot more destructive thanks to the more advanced armaments available.

Ugh. Independent states? It just horrifies me to think of having Visa for every state you have to go through.

Governments exist, in my opinion, to maximize happiness of their constituent populations.

What a weird thing to say, Vrael. Senators are in Washington because that's their job; they do random crap in the Senate. Maybe states should have a little more power, but give them too much, like the ability to determine their own foreign policies, to create their own intelligence services, etc, and not only are you repeating efforts nationwide but you get something as fragmented as Europe today. I don't really see a need to give states more power. The current system centralizes things that I consider essentially federal, like national security, and sets a few nationwide laws (drinking age), but otherwise lets states figure things out for themselves, whether to keep a small government or a large one, etc.

I agree with Kame that the American system isn't efficient, but, practically, it doesn't really have a fantastic tested rival. Thankfully, there is now most likely an alternative in centrally-planned economies controlled by supercomputers. The USSR considered something resembling this in the 1980's, I believe, but never went through with it because of the capital required. Using computers to run the economy can greatly trim the inefficiensies of socialism and is, I believe, the best system for maximizing happiness and results (scientific progress, tech, etc). Less middlemen skimming the cream off the budget, better estimates for supply/demand, better potential centeralization of information, etc.

Quote from Centreri

Thankfully, there is now most likely an alternative in centrally-planned economies controlled by supercomputers. The USSR considered something resembling this in the 1980's, I believe, but never went through with it because of the capital required. Using computers to run the economy can greatly trim the inefficiensies of socialism and is, I believe, the best system for maximizing happiness and results (scientific progress, tech, etc). Less middlemen skimming the cream off the budget, better estimates for supply/demand, better potential centeralization of information, etc.

That looks epic. Any links or key-words so I can inform myself about it?

The Russian acronym for the system is OGAS (ОГАС), concieved by Victor Mikhailovich Glushkov in 1962. Elements from the idea were implemented, but the USSR never committed to the idea. They tried different liberalizations to stimulate the economy instead, but it didn't work out (The USSR was much less stict about wages and such than most people think; they had various bonuses and such for effort and results).

The Chilean government tried a similar system in the 1970's at some point, but I believe a military coup brought that to an early end. Wikipedia "Cybersin".

Quote from Centreri

What a weird thing to say, Vrael. Senators are in Washington because that's their job; they do random crap in the Senate. Maybe states should have a little more power, but give them too much, like the ability to determine their own foreign policies, to create their own intelligence services, etc, and not only are you repeating efforts nationwide but you get something as fragmented as Europe today. I don't really see a need to give states more power. The current system centralizes things that I consider essentially federal, like national security, and sets a few nationwide laws (drinking age), but otherwise lets states figure things out for themselves, whether to keep a small government or a large one, etc.

The idea is not to completely remove the national government, just that our current national government is too large. Take the drinking age for example; it is not a nationwide law. The national government pressured each state into setting the age at 21 through use of highway tax funding; there used to be different ages in different states. Obviously there are certain things which are better off centralized like the FBI, the military, foreign policy, tariffs, ect, but everything else should be state law as per the bill of rights. Right now hardly any law besides crime is set at the state level. There wouldn't be silly things like requiring a passport to travel between states, there never have been, and the USA would still be one country. The only difference would be in the structure of the government. Let Idaho decide whether or not Four Loko is legal in Idaho, and let Utah take care of their own highways, let Texas teach their kids that the universe was created in 6 days, and let massachusetts gay people get married. The national government should not be telling us how to live our lives. The U.S. constitution delegates certain powers to the national congress like the ability to declare war and regulate interstate commerce and such and such. It delegates everything not specifically given to the national government to the states. A number of Supreme Court cases have allowed the national government to use some tricks, like withholding funding, to pressure state governments into passing certain laws. The federal reserve bank has a massive influence over the economy, the president holds the national spotlight, and congress is allowed to tax incomes on people, giving the national government massive influence over the state governments. The balance of power between the national and state governments just doesn't exist anymore, the national government is way too bloated.

The point I made with senators was that the government is so distanced from its people. There's a big difference for someone in colorado flying to washington D.C. versus driving to denver to be politically active. How much easier would it be to cut through bureaucratic bullshit for people, if you could actually drive to the office of the person who can deal with your issue?

I see what you're saying... but I don't really care that much, honestly. It's not a huge problem or a complete overhaul. Maybe it'd be better, maybe not. <_<

Quote from payne

Quote from Centreri

Thankfully, there is now most likely an alternative in centrally-planned economies controlled by supercomputers. The USSR considered something resembling this in the 1980's, I believe, but never went through with it because of the capital required. Using computers to run the economy can greatly trim the inefficiensies of socialism and is, I believe, the best system for maximizing happiness and results (scientific progress, tech, etc). Less middlemen skimming the cream off the budget, better estimates for supply/demand, better potential centeralization of information, etc.

That looks epic. Any links or key-words so I can inform myself about it?

Cybersyn didnt fail because of a military coup. It failed because it looked like the goddamn Starship Enterprise.



It was a classic example of forward thinking people (Stafford Beer, Salvador Allende, any many others) trying to implement something ahead of its time. I am just surprised that the principles and theory of this project are not applied and implemented in todays world. Maybe it already has been

Quote from Centreri

I agree with Kame that the American system isn't efficient, but, practically, it doesn't really have a fantastic tested rival. Thankfully, there is now most likely an alternative in centrally-planned economies controlled by supercomputers. The USSR considered something resembling this in the 1980's, I believe, but never went through with it because of the capital required. Using computers to run the economy can greatly trim the inefficiensies of socialism and is, I believe, the best system for maximizing happiness and results (scientific progress, tech, etc). Less middlemen skimming the cream off the budget, better estimates for supply/demand, better potential centeralization of information, etc.

Unfortunately, inefficiency is built into America's system. It is a double edged sword. On the con side, nothing gets done. On the plus side, nothing gets done. There isn't any dramatic reform that is not reversible that occurs overnight. I guess that's one of the reasons that I hate and protest the health care bill, but it doesn't frighten me. Not yet. Anyways, it is inefficient and takes so long that it is nearly (modifier) impossible to have something passed through without proper representation from the country. The larger a country grows, the more inefficient it will become.

As for the computers thing, I don't like that idea. Computers are not intelligent, they're programmed to be able to deduce things. I'm pretty sure you could teach a computer that two plus two equals apple. What I'm saying is, you can ingrain an unintentional (or intentional) identity into a computer that will make them act in a certain way to further a certain agenda. One of the biggest proponents of support for the cold war were scientists who though nuclear power was really neat to play with. If the government didn't have the money to provide them to play with it, then who would?

Oh, also, the only thing I think of when I see something about being run by computers is "the only way to win is to not play at all."

I think that's because of too many movies. It's basically the Soviet system but much more efficient. Oh, imagine what the USSR could've done with that kind of efficiency... I could see it matching or overtaking the rest of Europe in worker productivity with this.