What makes a political/economic system good or bad?
 

That is, what defines it as such? I'm not asking what components you need, but what is that actually makes you say "this system is working" when it is practiced?

It's hard to discuss these things without having a clear idea of what it is that the thing should actually be striving for. Can I make a few basic assumptions?

1. The population should not be shrinking.

2. The country should be gaining more resources than it loses, or at least reaching equilibrium.

3. The average citizen should be able to attain a lifestyle in which they can be content.

4. The average citizen should be safe.

Is this a good start?

I would say 3 and 4 are pretty good, one and two are dependent on the extent to which they affect 3 and 4 and impact long-term stability. Taking in and using too many resources can be just as if not moreso damaging in the long-term than not having enough.

Past that I don't know. I would say something about broad-based political participation but it's not as though that's always and everywhere a good.

Well, keep in mind that with 1 and 2, I basically just said the society shouldn't be losing more than it can handle. Obviously, if the system results in a general loss without gain, failure is pretty much inevitable.

Total legal equality. If you commit a crime, you go to prison for it. The head leader/boss/president should not be able to pardon people. If the president commits a crime, lock him up, too. He is not better than anyone else, or shouldn't be at least....

I would say that an executive should have the power of pardon, as that there are bound to be extraordinary situations which the law doesn't quite cover in which it is right and proper to show clemency. He just shouldn't be able to apply it to anyone who works for or has ever worked for his own administration.

I think judges should be able to pardon. It makes more sense to have a few high-placed judges to have that ability, because they are the ones most qualified out of the 3 branches to be the most impartial (relative to the others) and are generally considered to be capable of weighing a particular case against the bigger picture and judging people and their actions. The executor is typically a crook, IMO. Legislator, too. The power to make and execute law goes to their heads, but judges are the most capable of the 3 to actually consider the difference between justice vs injustice.

But if you insist, I think judges should at least have the power to veto a presidential pardon.

Edit: Anyone who issues a pardon should have to give justification. Judges often write huge papers concerning their decisions. They are very logical/legal/rational, and seem to be the best equipped. I don't like the fact that presidents can just pardon people and can give virtually no justification (because there wasn't any).

Quoted for truth.


Also, it should be taken into account that some cases DON'T have a well-defined precedent, and changes should follow accordingly. I especially worry about this in terms of how technology, and specifically artificial intelligence, is progressing. Biometrics is another big one on my list. Really, it needs to be better defined in terms of what personal data should and shouldn't be used. I'm sorry, but when a grocery store only lets their workers clock in if they scan their fingerprints (Roundy's), we REALLY need to look into limiting the use and storage of biometric data.


Edit: And ninja'd with an excellent point. But the question becomes one of jurisdiction if a judge is to do it. You can't really bother the Supreme Court over every little thing, but a federal judge who locked the person away in the first place isn't likely to just undo it. Really, maybe a panel of judges from surrounding areas would work better?

Who would have the power of pardon if something extraordinary happened to one of his administration's people?

I'd like to add social mobility to the list - people should not have access to power based on birthright. If you suck you lose, and if you kick ass you win.

Also a decent immigration policy unhindered by xenophobia. There are a lot of pretty good countries that make it impossible to join them fully unless you're part of the major racial group. Japan comes to mind. People who are willing to come and help you kick ass should be allowed a full stake in the society.

I was all set to say nobody should, on the grounds that if you for whatever reason decide you want to work at the very nerve center of executive power then there are just some risks you should be prepared to accept, but then it occurred to me that having no such ability would potentially lead to the critical ham-stringing of any executive via the threat of political prosecutions. Though I'm not sure that wouldn't be preferable than the current situation of the President's subordinates breaking whichever law they decide to break and then getting off for it scott-free.