If a power exists, it will be abused. Period. It's only a matter of time. That's the whole premise behind checks and balances and due process. You don't leave power in the hands of a few, but the many.
Ah yes, here we go, a great quote from "A Man For All Seasons": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9rjGTOA2NA
This way we don't get the unaccountable second term crap we see a lot of.
Things that come to mind are the absolute restriction to a two party system and the concentration on a leader figure, ie. the identification of the government with one person. But from my limited point of view both of those things are at the core of the US political identity, utterly entrenched.
Usually the president is working so that his successor will be from his chosen party. Who thinks the next president will be a Democrat? (It doesn't really matter if you think Republican is better or worse - if they are not happy people will switch.)
Because the is the President of the United States of America.
I'm building software. But who says the algorithms I develop cannot be used maliciously, just because I won't do so myself?
What the Obama administration has done with this is more akin to creating an API for future leaders to exploit the people without recourse.
Once upon a time, someone made a hammer. A year later, someone else took that hammer and used it to break someone's face in. Sad face.
Happy?
> Because the alternative is doing nothing.
If you can't make these decisions without doing either, then you don't belong in that position. As idealistic as that may be, society is far more organic than mere algorithms and functions; thus capable of being reformulated as necessary.
And right now, it's necessary.
I recognize that you believe this alternative exists. I don't. I believe every action that could be taken is wrong, including no action. I believe that one of the core properties of any system is exploitability, including legal systems.
> As idealistic as that may be, society is far more organic than mere algorithms and functions; thus capable of being reformulated as necessary.
...how many instances of "reformulation" can you name of society, as compared to systems of algorithms and functions? Changing society in a meaningful and directed manner is damn near impossible. Algorithms get reformulated hourly.