> "Deadlock is good" works in a system where the disagreeing sides are reasonable and willing to debate and compromise to produce a solution with broader support.

This is not correct. Sometimes inaction is much better than action. In the case of a corrupt government, inaction is always preferable.

The US constitution is built to create deadlock. See checks/balances. It is this deadlock that has lead to American prosperity. While it is unable to do good, it is also unable to do harm.

The constitution was built to create compromises and shared power. It was not built to create deadlock.

The question this essay asks is, how effective is it at those goals? Are there situations where it could all collapse? If yes, are there other systems which are less likely to collapse?

I suppose if you believe that the only correct amount of government action is zero, you might feel that way. But some of the rest of us enjoy having things like property rights.

How have your property rights been compromised through inaction at the federal level of government?

Actually, deadlock should be the normal state of affairs. The world doesn't change that much from year to year that the federal legislature has to do a whole lot.

People who complain about "deadlock" are really complaining Congress isn't implementing their legal and budgetary priorities. But that isn't because there's something wrong; that's because not enough of their countrymen agree.

The idea that any action is needed at all is often incorrect. Sometimes the best thing to do is nothing.

A perfect case in point, the patriot act and the department of homeland security. That represented action taken. Solutions developed. Where they the right actions and the right solutions? Not in the least. Would we be better off without them? Probably.