"If every country follows the same development pattern, we lose laboratories for different ways of organizing for human flourishing." Could not agree more. This would have made an interesting pairing with philosophy group's recent (quite lively) debate over Curtis Yarvin's argument for monarchies... In any case, it was a pleasure to be your horse blinker on this one :)
You are mentioning that democracy is at odds with long term planning, because of election cycles. I would guess that is true in democracies where the elected officials have most of the power.
In the case of the direct democracy of Switzerland, elected politicians are there to discuss and enact laws, propose projects, and so on. but in the end, especially long term planning, it is the population who has the say, because everything can be voted by the population.
In the case of long term planning, most big projects are automatically subjected to population vote (e.g. Gottard base tunnel, 2000 Rail plan, ...). Once it is accepted, no elected politician can undo the voted project, or cancel the funding. The power that one politician helds is more limited than in all other democracies. Switzerland also has a tradition of compromise, which means that parties have to talk to each other, find a common ground, and try to implement changes as best as they can. This is how Switzerland managed to get one of the best public transport network in the world, how research output of Switzerland is high per capita, how the roads are well maintained, ...
Switzerland has also avoided the senseless multiculturalism that other European countries have foolishly allowed. The US is stuck with this limitation, and it was fine while the federal government was small. Creating a larger government was dangerous, and now the pressures of a large, diverse country interfere with decision making. The easiest fix would be to break up the countries into more manageable bits, but we know that will not happen.
We probably do need to roll back federal government and its budget in order to allow more state-level policy diversity. Most of our problems would go away if the funding were not there for policymakers to argue over.
I wish I had visited Bhutan before I became disabled. It is one of my greatest regrets. I follow the Theravada tradition, but I would still like to visit the country and admire their art and architecture. I thought I had more time.
this is awesome. found it thru the ycombinator news forum. need more stuff like this.
a couple thoughts: you liken the pathway of bhutan to singapore, do you think part of singapore’s success is its geographic positioning in a high volume trading hub? does bhutan have this advantage and how will its path vary if it doesn’t?
They are not trying to be Singapore, but they are learning from their successful anti-corruption policies. They are trying to go their own way, but they are cautious and understand how much they can lose. This is a confident culture, but the king is unusually wise and cares deeply for his people.
"If every country follows the same development pattern, we lose laboratories for different ways of organizing for human flourishing." Could not agree more. This would have made an interesting pairing with philosophy group's recent (quite lively) debate over Curtis Yarvin's argument for monarchies... In any case, it was a pleasure to be your horse blinker on this one :)
You are mentioning that democracy is at odds with long term planning, because of election cycles. I would guess that is true in democracies where the elected officials have most of the power.
In the case of the direct democracy of Switzerland, elected politicians are there to discuss and enact laws, propose projects, and so on. but in the end, especially long term planning, it is the population who has the say, because everything can be voted by the population.
In the case of long term planning, most big projects are automatically subjected to population vote (e.g. Gottard base tunnel, 2000 Rail plan, ...). Once it is accepted, no elected politician can undo the voted project, or cancel the funding. The power that one politician helds is more limited than in all other democracies. Switzerland also has a tradition of compromise, which means that parties have to talk to each other, find a common ground, and try to implement changes as best as they can. This is how Switzerland managed to get one of the best public transport network in the world, how research output of Switzerland is high per capita, how the roads are well maintained, ...
Switzerland has also avoided the senseless multiculturalism that other European countries have foolishly allowed. The US is stuck with this limitation, and it was fine while the federal government was small. Creating a larger government was dangerous, and now the pressures of a large, diverse country interfere with decision making. The easiest fix would be to break up the countries into more manageable bits, but we know that will not happen.
We probably do need to roll back federal government and its budget in order to allow more state-level policy diversity. Most of our problems would go away if the funding were not there for policymakers to argue over.
I wish I had visited Bhutan before I became disabled. It is one of my greatest regrets. I follow the Theravada tradition, but I would still like to visit the country and admire their art and architecture. I thought I had more time.
What did you think of Edge City? Was it worth the time and money?
Also, how fast is the internet in Bhutan?
this is awesome. found it thru the ycombinator news forum. need more stuff like this.
a couple thoughts: you liken the pathway of bhutan to singapore, do you think part of singapore’s success is its geographic positioning in a high volume trading hub? does bhutan have this advantage and how will its path vary if it doesn’t?
They are not trying to be Singapore, but they are learning from their successful anti-corruption policies. They are trying to go their own way, but they are cautious and understand how much they can lose. This is a confident culture, but the king is unusually wise and cares deeply for his people.