Honestly, how can a party system be seen as anything but extremely toxic in a federalized democratic - republic? This would seem like a basic common sense intuition, and a very basic thing that the public should cry out about, but yet it is a non issue. I don't even care to list reasons why as many are obvious to most people here.
It's not like it would be a big deal to outlaw de facto political parties, as it's just dealing with something within the government apparatus.
I actually think the existence of party systems (esp 2 party systems, or even multi party parliments where you have a major party coalition vs the major opposition) really illustrates the very strange world we live in by doing everything in it's power to suppress, succesfully I may add, anything strange, other, esoteric, or extreme. To me this is a very weird anomoly.
My hunch is to blame the left for massive subversions, but it doesn't really matter at this point,, finger pointing to the left / academic class / or even progressives is a losing and exaughsting practicle affair
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
Jesse Ventura on political parties
Ventura: Abolish Both Political Parties
And as right as Ventura is, he gets labled an eccentric by news outlets.
Every journalist or corporation who has anything to do with politics ought to show precisly where thier funds and votes go, and not be allowed to ever say they are "unbiased". In fact they shoud wear their biasness on their sleeve. There intellectualism is also a form of subsidized "corporatism". There should only be "democrat" news or "republican" news. If these "self sacrificing" journalists want to "serve the public" via messing with public apparatus, they should be as transparant as possible, and the consequences of their ideas ought to be more real.
Austrian Economics can not say if something is good or bad as that would be assigning value to something and economics to be a true science must be value free. Austrian Economics can say that political parties are economically destructive, reduce growth and create larger more intrusive and violent governments than would exist otherwise.
You are correct about AE.
But, I never made the claim that AE could make such a claim. Nor am I making a scientific claim / logical proof.
I am appealing to intuituition and "common sense", on something I find kind of baffling.
If anything a good geneology may be good here, but that's about it.
ya their kinda dumb good point
Bogart:Austrian Economics can not say if something is good or bad as that would be assigning value to something and economics to be a true science must be value free. Austrian Economics can say that political parties are economically destructive, reduce growth and create larger more intrusive and violent governments than would exist otherwise.
Political parties are private organizations recognized by the state. That's why the Supreme Court said that the state cannot impose blanket elections on political parties. Although parties appear thoroughly involved in politics, they are merely a bunch of people getting together and "deciding" who their leader will be.
Does one vote for candidates or for parties (candidate list)? One can't ban support groups of candidates, but one could legislate the modality of elections.
I recommend this whole article, but here's a good piece:
As I have mentioned here and here, George Washington spoke unfavorably about political parties. In his farewell address, Washington stated, …Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally. This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy… …Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
As I have mentioned here and here, George Washington spoke unfavorably about political parties. In his farewell address, Washington stated,
…Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy…
…Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
Wouldn't outlawing political parties violate the First Amendment? Even if the government merely refused to recognize any political parties, I'm sure they'd still exist "informally".
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum