It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The bad consequences of a government program usually don’t show up immediately. And the delay may be long enough to hide the connection between the program and its results.
So government never has to say it’s sorry — never has to take responsibility for the misery it causes. Instead, it can blame everything on personal greed, profit-hungry corporations, and the “private sector.” And the government’s cure for the problems is to impose bigger programs, more regulation, and higher taxes.
Browne, Harry, Why Goverment Doesn't Work, 2003
Link to full PDF
Crises, surprises, sudden and rapid changes, confusions and things out of control prevail in our world and characterize modern organizations and every complex system. Political leaders and managers must therefore be prepared to deal with such chaotic phenomena and manage complex organizations accordingly (Farazmand, 2003). Part of the solution can be the chaos theory that can help us understand and manage complex problems born out of highly complex and dynamic systems. Chaos systems can be distinguished from two other types of systems and each of them can directly be associated with political science.
Chaos Theory and its Application in Political Science,2006
The most powerful and startling effect of the Justice Paradox is that it produces a recycling of law and legal thought. This point can be demonstrated quite clearly by a brief survey of the intellectual history of contemporary legal thought, beginning with the rise of the common law. At its core, the common law seemed to offer a brilliant solution to the Justice Paradox. Rather than a system of abstract rules that must both guide behavior and resolve specific cases (such as the great civil codes of Rome and the Continental countries), the common law made no rules without a specific case.'
And, at least in its earliest iterations, there was no paradox. Each case was decided consistently with the conditions of Present Justice; and since each case only applied to future cases just like it, each case also satisfied the conditions of Future Justice as well. But embedded in the common law method lay the seeds of paradox. As more cases were decided and similarities and patterns emerged, the need for future parties to predicate their actions on correct, i.e. legal, behavior led to the publication and dissemination of the opinions of the common law judges. With the publication of opinions came the interpreters, the lawyers, who upon reading the opinions were able to discern patterns-or rules of law-that were consistent with the prior decisions.' In turn, these rules, once revealed, were restated in later cases, constraining the judges' ability to decide cases solely on the criteria of Present Justice.
Scott, Robert E,Chaos Theory and the Justice Paradox,1993, scholarship.law.wm.edu...