http://mises.org/Community/blogs/brainpolice/archive/2007/11/28/checks-and-balances-two-kinds.aspxChecks and balances should be a fairly familiar concept to Americans. The standard definition of checks and balances is that the state must be broken up into multiple segments that function as checks against eachother&#39;s power and perform differentenCommunityServer 2008.5 SP2 (Build: 40407.4157)http://mises.org/Community/blogs/brainpolice/archive/2007/11/28/checks-and-balances-two-kinds.aspx#4562Wed, 28 Nov 2007 23:30:19 GMT944abf2b-d1be-4bf2-990d-438cb0e377e9:4562Brainpolice<p>Right. I suppose I just don't buy any kind of notion of internal change. It can only simulate competition, but it's not actual free competition, since it's within a monopoly. I think agorism and the spread of information is a better way to go. </p> <div style="clear:both;"></div><img src="http://mises.org/Community/aggbug.aspx?PostID=4562" width="1" height="1">http://mises.org/Community/blogs/brainpolice/archive/2007/11/28/checks-and-balances-two-kinds.aspx#4561Wed, 28 Nov 2007 23:10:36 GMT944abf2b-d1be-4bf2-990d-438cb0e377e9:4561IrishOutlaw<p>This ties in somewhat with my post on the Supreme Court, there is the illusion that there is some sort of internal check on the power for the state because of the existence of another branch of that same state. Its incredible to me that people don't see through that sham. Even if internal checks and balances had been worked into the system, they have long since been destroyed.</p> <div style="clear:both;"></div><img src="http://mises.org/Community/aggbug.aspx?PostID=4561" width="1" height="1">