[ModernMech]

That's the thing about the nature of power -- it's not really power if it can't be easily abused. That's why with great power, comes great responsibility. Responsibility would not be needed if the power couldn't be abused.

At the end of the day if someone has the ability to prevent you from using your power, they are the ones who actually have power. So who watches the watchmen?

The US tries to solve this conundrum by making the checks on power a self-reinforcing circle. "Checks and balances". But at the end of the day, the Constitution is just a piece of paper, and all it takes to abuse power once given to you is to convince yourself you have the right.

We can diffuse the power so much that not one person can abuse it. But that has the problem of making action so impossible that the power is never used and nothing gets done. Equally problematic.

That's why it's so important to elect people of high character. Most politicians fail this test.

[_heimdall]

I think we agree here in general. For me the risk is too high when only one person can abuse power in a meaningful way with little or no check on that authority. I put most executive branch powers (in the US) on that list - the president was meant to largely be a figurehead only executing on what the legislative branch passed and the courts haven't found unconstitutional.

> That's why it's so important to elect people of high character. Most politicians fail this test.

I'd say we have failed to build a system that incentivizes anyone of high character to run for office.