I don't think that's it. I think it's more a consequence of democracy versus autocracy. An autocracy could make these trade-offs without political consequence. Of course, autocracies come with other profound challenges. Most I think agree that a benevolent dictator produces the best outcomes. The problem is that human benevolence is fickle, and subject to interpretation -- invariably leading to violence.
Near as I can tell, there is also a narcissistic manipulation element here.
Autocrats often exist because ‘no one else can do what needs to be done’. They do this by being willing to be unphased by the threat of being ‘the bad guy’, or even reveling in it. They know as long as the folks in the background get what they need, they’ll actually be fine.
Narcissistic manipulation is when someone tells a story placing the blame for damage on someone
or an institution while ignoring the actual context of that person or institutions actions so as to displace the blame/damage for their own actions (or lack thereof) and their own lack of ownership for the outcome. We’re awash in it right now.
It’s super toxic for everyone, and fighting it is extremely difficult to nearly impossible in the legal system because of rules designed to STOP this kind of manipulation (which is typical), and steady reduction in the consequences for ‘minor’ issues like Perjury and Contempt of Court which make failed attempts at this manipulation ‘free’.
Rules of evidence, standing, the way court ‘happens’, procedural things that cost time and money, etc. all play into it.
And the system inevitably ends up favoring bullshit, because anything but bullshit requires individuals take a stand and say ‘the rules say x, but in totality that’s bullshit and produces an unjust outcome so we’re doing something else’ is, well, not favored in the way the law works. Sometimes for good reasons, but it usually gets perverted in the day to day reality.
>The problem is that human benevolence is fickle, and subject to interpretation
Basically, the "benevolent" half of the "benevolent dictatorship" is a long-shot at best and a total fantasy at worst. I think this is well-understood by reasonable people, but I'd also argue that "dictatorship" in this context is even more of a fantasy.
>An autocracy could make these trade-offs without political consequence
See, I don't think this is true at all.
Nobody rules alone, every dictator needs enforcers, those enforcers need enforcers, all the way down, and suddenly the well-oiled autocracy that can cut through red tape like butter looks more and more like it requires an endless hierarchy of "benevolent" (i.e. compliant) dictators or a bureaucracy overburdened by rules that was supposed to be democracy's great weakness.
Every decision you make as an autocrat is a gamble that your enforcers will carry out your vision faithfully, with a bunch of details you haven't even thought of also accounted for, while maintaining the facade that you are actually all-powerful.
All it takes is a few slip-ups for your underlings to have flexible loyalties, where "of course" you're in charge but maybe next time leave some wiggle-room for an alternative path of implementing your omnipotent decrees.
Democracies also make these tradeoffs without political consequences, if the people who are subject to the negative externalities are sufficiently disenfranchised, or are simply a powerless minority that we can run over, or are ones whose concerns are sidelined for the benefit of a larger umbrella movement.
I completely agree with the parent poster. This is not a democracy vs autocracy question. This is entirely an individualism[1] versus a collectivism[2] question.
[1] Which prioritizes 'do not actively harm any individual.' [3]
[2] Which prioritizes 'do what is best for the group as a whole.' [3]
[3] While some societies are pretty clearly democratic, and some are pretty clearly autocratic (and some are a mix of both), every society is, to a mixture of degrees, individualistic, and to a mixture of degrees, collectivist. Where they differ is in where the line gets drawn, and on which questions.
There's a reason by China is having no problem rolling out high speed rail across the entire country on the order of a decade while California can't even roll out a single line in the same time.
China can just bulldoze entire villages while the little people have no recourse to resist. That power is incredibly useful for getting things done, but the big problem of succession makes that level of power incredibly dangerous, fickle, and fragile.
1) it’s all good until you’re one of the ‘little people’
2) succession/plan B is always the problem with dictators/dictatorships.
If you’re lucky, the interests of those in power are genuinely aligned with your best interests and they’re competent - (Singapore/PAP, at least historically), but nothing lasts forever.
Don't forget in China these little people have way higher attachment to their homes. They are often ancestral homes. The people that would be happy to be 'forced to move' have already moved to the city in most cases, with only those with high connections to their home remaining. In the USA we don't really have the same sort of attachment to ancestral homes and would be more receptive to paid relocation and view it way differently. Those that celebrate China's way and say the relocated people are happy to be moved from their ancestral homes and communities to concrete block apartments don't understand Chinese culture and provide cover to how soul crushing relocation is for those impacted.
At the end of the day, it either happens or it doesn’t - and that has pros and cons either way.
You’re correct on the impact to those folks, but there are also a LOT of other folks who benefit from the new rail (or should, anyway!).
At the end of the day, their strategy works for the majority better.
We’re deadlocked trying to not offend anyone (and get scammed by the contractors in the process). They say ‘fuck it’ and pave it over, and then tuck the little people in a closet and tell them to shut up or else.
But if they didn’t, they’d have no rail where they need to go, like…. us.
Eventually, without some compromise or balance, either system reaches a breaking point. Ours, we’ll eventually be so mired in shit not working that people will leave to somewhere different (if they can) wherever it’s really bad. Think NYC/Detroit/LA/etc. in the 70’s and 80’s.
In China, they crack down too hard (or stay too focused on ‘the plan’) that they destroy what they are trying to preserve/create. Either Violently (Russia), or by going broke/financial crisis (Japan).
It’s way easier to tie everyone up in manipulative bullshit court proceedings in the US, and no one has the incentive/interest in stopping it right now.
It isn’t even about 10-100x cost, if it was straightforward cash. It would be resolved in weeks if that was the case. In many of these equivalent situations, it drags out for decades. At that point, it’s a toss up if the project even makes sense anymore, since everyone who needed it when it was voted in/started has moved on (by necessity) to something else.
In China, the courts basically just say ‘which way does the CCP want this to go?’ and voila, that happens. For better or worse.
My 2 cents is that all 3 of you are right. There's an aspect of culture in the US which leads us to being very, very litigious. Call it "get rich quick" mentality, or "I got mine". The huge numbers of lawyers helps, but I think the causal relationship is the other way - that the number of lawyers in this country increased to meet demand.
Of course a consequence of democracy is as you way - there are political consequences to unpopular (but necessary) actions, making such measures unpalatable for any but a second term president.
But we surely have navigated politically unpopular initiatives before, for the greater good of the nation. See: Civil Rights Movement.
