My most recent post discussed how the wage theory of value (LTV), an idiotic Marxist (but I repeat myself) idea, has found new life among young Internet agitators and morons (but again, I repeat myself).
There is (was?) a Constitution Party. Thing is, it always goes back to Duverger's Law. Ours will always be a two-party system. The only path to power is through one of the big parties, and so the only path to change is within those parties.
You gave me a cite for a textbook about logic a few months back. Do you also have a recommendation for a text about the various laws you cite in your writings? I find notions like Chesterton’s Fence invaluable.
One of the examples always cited for Duverger's Law -- the U.K. -- currently has five active and prominent parties: from far left to far right - Greens, Labour, Liberal Democrats, Conservatives, Reform. Now, it's true that the split between the Conservatives and Reform permitted Labour to form a supermajority in the last parliament, but that now seems to be replicated by the split on the left between the Greens and Labour, with the Liberal Democrats picking up members as Labour breaks apart.
In other words, even Duverger's Law is situational, not absolute. The problem in forming a classical liberal/libertarian party, though, is the relatively small number of adherents for that philosophy: about one-sixth of voters. That means that such a party will never be part of a majority except as part of a coalition.
Except that our system and theirs aren't really the same.
But, setting that aside, it is fair to conclude that there isn't a big appetite for real liberty in America. Even on the Right, where many profess to love it. Hands off Social Security, protectionism is Great, and handouts are dandy if they are done the way they want.
I suspect that one obstacle is the relative paucity of people interested in a liberty-based society. They don't want govt to protect rights; some think govt bestows rights while many of the rest want govt to act as mama, daddy, and deliverer of "free" things. Maybe this is what happens when people grow up taking freedom and relative prosperity for granted in a country whose location has spared it from direct involvement in global conflicts.
It really does feel like people have not thought through the possibility of their rights being taken away by the government they want to see empowered.
BAILI! If you were the leader of the Libertarian Party we would try to elect you as President!
I would be widely denounced as not a real libertarian.
Whatever you are, you should start a party! Mebbe call it the Constitutionaltarian Party 🤗
There is (was?) a Constitution Party. Thing is, it always goes back to Duverger's Law. Ours will always be a two-party system. The only path to power is through one of the big parties, and so the only path to change is within those parties.
You gave me a cite for a textbook about logic a few months back. Do you also have a recommendation for a text about the various laws you cite in your writings? I find notions like Chesterton’s Fence invaluable.
I just use search engines. If Google doesn't satisfy, I try DDG or Brave.
One of the examples always cited for Duverger's Law -- the U.K. -- currently has five active and prominent parties: from far left to far right - Greens, Labour, Liberal Democrats, Conservatives, Reform. Now, it's true that the split between the Conservatives and Reform permitted Labour to form a supermajority in the last parliament, but that now seems to be replicated by the split on the left between the Greens and Labour, with the Liberal Democrats picking up members as Labour breaks apart.
In other words, even Duverger's Law is situational, not absolute. The problem in forming a classical liberal/libertarian party, though, is the relatively small number of adherents for that philosophy: about one-sixth of voters. That means that such a party will never be part of a majority except as part of a coalition.
Except that our system and theirs aren't really the same.
But, setting that aside, it is fair to conclude that there isn't a big appetite for real liberty in America. Even on the Right, where many profess to love it. Hands off Social Security, protectionism is Great, and handouts are dandy if they are done the way they want.
I suspect that one obstacle is the relative paucity of people interested in a liberty-based society. They don't want govt to protect rights; some think govt bestows rights while many of the rest want govt to act as mama, daddy, and deliverer of "free" things. Maybe this is what happens when people grow up taking freedom and relative prosperity for granted in a country whose location has spared it from direct involvement in global conflicts.
It really does feel like people have not thought through the possibility of their rights being taken away by the government they want to see empowered.