Rob Smith wrote:
On 3/8/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/03/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
It took us a couple of hundred years to get the balance right, and it's still changing. But over that entire period, the country remained governable and tolerably well-regulated. Is that so bad? To paraphrase a fellow Englishman, Jimbocracy is the very worst system of government, apart from all the others.
Indeed. We're doing things that have NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE; if we didn't do some *really stupid* things in the process, it'd be a clear case of not being nearly adventurous enough.
Yah but see you're all back to talking about persons and personalities whereas what's needed is an independent Commission Review, kinda like the 911 Commission, not to point fingers and find fallguys, but to examine institutional failings and weaknesses, and make dispassionate recommendations on how to avoid or manage future crisis.
Sure, but 911 Commission type structures are sometimes convenient tactics used by governments to justify doing nothing.
What best accomplishes what you say is a separation of judicial and legislative branches. In theory that keeps the politicians occupied with a more objective consideration of the laws themselves, and the courts busy with how those laws are applied in individual cases.
In these circumstances, where David is right in saying that they have never been done before, it is too easy to be knocked off track by a single unexpected issue like that of Essjay's credentials. We have to be careful not to attach too much unwarranted weight to these one-off incidents.
Ec