An argument against too much opposition in the government is that people will quarrel the whole day and get nothing done.
Taiwan and USA are cited as examples.
But, is getting nothing done bad?
In today's age of heavy privatization, the government has relied on the natural forces of economics to handle decisions, citing the higher efficiency.
If forces of economics are good enough, there wouldn't be a need for goods and services that lose money. And people won't do things that are bad for them.
The government's role is to provide these things that are needed by the people, and make unpopular decisions to force people to do things at their expenses but benefit the entire society in general.
Keyword being unpopular. And efficiency of capitalism.
If government only makes unpopular decisions, and forces of economics are efficient enough to run the world on its own, why bother having the government make any decision?
In the first place, who evaluates that the government's decisions are good or just trying to make a quick buck? How would we know if the success of a country is due to its "leaders" or the exploited people?
W A R N I N G !
W A R N I N G !
This page is full of non-facts and bullsh!t, (just like the internet and especially forums and other blogs), please do not believe entirely without exercising your intellect. Any resemblance to real things in reality is purely coincidental. You are free to interpret/misinterpret the content however you like, most likely for entertainment, but in no case is the text written on this blog the absolute truth. The blog owner and Blogger are not responsible for any misunderstanding of ASCII characters as facts. *cough* As I was saying, you are free to interpret however you like. *cough*