6 votes

A Draft Outline Of An Idea To Better Preserve The American Republic : A ZERO-Political Party System

Disclaimer :

1. This is very theoretical.

2. This is very "out-of-the-box" thinking, though I certainly do not mean to reinvent the wheel or deny everything from the past.

3. I do not claim any applicability whatsoever.

4. I have NO agenda, no plan, either (see #1 and #3)

A ZERO-Political Party System For The Republic ?

It is important to understand what is meant, here.

At the core, what I'd like to challenge is the idea, long unquestioned, that the following question underlies :

"Does the POLITICAL PRACTICE in a Republic absolutely NECESSARILY implies the existence of political parties ?"

Please also understand I DO NOT challenge the idea, or concept, of political parties PER SE.

Of course, though it brings many opportunities for moral hazards when it gets perverted (as we know all too well), people often find convenient to "label" themselves as groups around more or less extensive sets of ideas that they share and defend in common.

I DO NOT mean to challenge that. At all. That would be totally CONTRARY to Liberty :

freedom of THOUGHTS, of SPEECH, of ASSOCIATION, of MOVEMENT (beyond, naturally, our unalienable rights to life, property, and the pursuit of happiness) ALL must be preserved. No discussion about that. Including for those who'd want to stick to political parties.

So, it is really important to distinguish the concept from its PRACTICE, there, though I do not mean to make unlawful the latter EITHER.

I ONLY, STRICTLY advocate to REFRAIN from practicing politics through political parties. As often as possible, and ALWAYS voluntarily.

Not EVEN ONE. A mono-party political system being a gross, tasteless, insulting joke the sole purpose of which is to disguise TYRANNY behind another fancy name.

So, again : I DO mean ZERO. NONE. NADA. "0".

1 + 2 - 3 = 0. ZERO. Indeed.

Even with ZERO political party, we may (but of course, I don't know what time will tell !) be able to restore or sustain the Republic better.

But that will be obviously after the SHTF and TPTB have been defeated.

I shall now give the rationale for such an idea, and what I envision could be POLITICALLY PRACTICED more faithfully, with LESSER RISK (I hope) for corruption, especially the flavor it which is induced just by the overall very shape of the political system itself.

So, How To Do Politics WITHOUT ANY Party ?

What is a country ? Well, in the simplest terms ... it's a set of delimited lands with a name on it.

But a country is never defined without its people : the folks living in it, socially, with a minimum amount of order, and to begin with, a known set of languages.

Of course, soon enough, the people have to set basic rules to live orderly enough, without the chaos that the only rule of pure, brute force would bring in no time.

I am not going to give an historic summary here. And I will also assume an intuitive "consensus" of what "politics" (defending or opposing ideas, before making new rules - or laws) means generally.

So ... how to reasonable practice politics, and yet WITHOUT ANY political parties ?

Not TWO, Not even ONE (while some people won't help and won't resist to do it as it as always been done throughout history).

I cannot insist enough. I am NOT for making the practice of political parties - creating them, joining, membership, inside lobbying, financing, etc - unlawful ever. People should and in fact MUST remain free to do so, if they so wish - to stick to the millennium old "political design status quo".

My idea is ONLY for those interested in it, and accepting that political parties may very well be biased, damageable, UNNECESSARY artifacts playing AGAINST a political practice which ought to be MORE THOROUGH, when given A MORE PROPER FOCUS, when looked at more closely.

A "more proper focus" did I write ?

Indeed, finally, my rationale ... sorry for all this suspense, is TWO FOLD :

1. I noticed that RENT SEEKING, both WITHIN PARTIES and OUTSIDE OF THEM (once the elected representatives are known and in office), before the Houses is VERY, VERY damageable - indeed.

and

2. per the old Latin saying - "Ex nihilo, nihil" - i.e. : you cannot create ANYTHING out of ... NOTHING.

And paradoxically enough ! ... this is mostly about point TWO, in fact :

a country, and a people, such as the American people, ALREADY HAS a legacy and foundations :

WHATEVER state of its fundamental texts is deemed useful, current, and ACCEPTED (voted on, and passed as laws).

The people is essentially "gifted" with at least :

1. a Constitution

2. Amendments (of those I wish the 16th, and some acts would be repealed)

3. Federal and State Laws

Then, WHY NOT leverage the POLITICAL PRACTICE by putting the texts AT THE CENTER anew of the political thinking and activity ?

Instead of putting our TRUST IN JUST WISHFUL THINKING "BIDS" for our representatives TO BE TRUSTWORTHY and FAITHFUL enough to those texts, on our behalf, by a BIASING screen of POLITICAL PARTIES AFFILIATION, acquaintances, -isms, etc ?

In the system I envision, there thus wouldn't be a candidate representative from the party "X", "Y", or "Z" - way too much VAGUE, IMO, ways to delimit the political thinking, intent, and true involvement.

Representatives instead, would be IDENTIFIED, RECKONED, QUESTIONED, EVALUATED (by the people voting for them or not) against the VERY TEXTS THEMSELVES.

Thus, this or that candidate would be a political candidate representative (for example) about :

In the case of candidate "John", who is a candidate on the ontology of :

* the 2nd Amendment
* the 5th Amendment
* the 14th Amendment

In the case of candidate "Peter", who is a candidate on the ontology of :

* the 4th Amendment
* the 5th Amendment
* the 10th Amendment
* the 12th Amendment

(just a simplistic example ... candidates might choose many more texts they feel strong enough to encompass intellectually, of course)

And that's it.

Politicians would thus be recognized and CHALLENGED on THEIR IDEAS and UNDERSTANDING about policies and their implications (and their corresp. rationales) regarding specific TEXTS, clearly identified and self-delimited, instead of A CONVENIENT FUZZINESS of a platform mixing issues, confusing the texts' prerogatives, or biasing the people's perspective on them.

Hence, candidate, "John" would, for instance, have COMPETING IDEAS with candidate "Peter" ONLY on what is directly related to the single 5th Amendment they have in common in their respective "platforms" (to use the old terminology).

And there you have it :

no longer need, either, to invent fancy political party names or -isms

Political parties and -isms, now made ... "HAS BEEN".

A New, Modern Political thinking only DEFINED and DISTINGUISHED, CENTERED around known sets of EXISTING LEGACY TEXTS and IDEAS - announced, defended, and elaborated upon (in their defense, while trying to solve practical disputes).

This is because I have noticed that most politicians today, FORGET ABOUT WHAT SHOULD BE IMMUTABLE in the founding texts' interpretation, and the first source of MORAL HAZARD is when THE PEOPLE AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVES DO NOT EVEN KNOW ANY LONGER what they are talking about or RECKLESSLY putting at stakes.

And that's when THE PEOPLE LOSES AND FAILS THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS they had chosen and hoped to be protected by :

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html

Thoughts ?




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

What are Political Parties?

A political party is an organization that exists to influence government policy. The foundation of the party is based on a variety of beliefs that embrace economic, legal, social, religious or moral principles. Members join the party and give financial support with the expectation the leadership of the party will stay true to the original tenets. Candidates who run for government office do so on a political platform that theoretically is in alignment with party dogma. The voters make campaign contributions to the candidate as does the party itself. The constituency believes the politician will represent their interests since it is the official who is elected into office, not the party.

As the party swells in membership and authority so does it crave for greater power, like a vampire that seeks human blood. Over time, voters still believe the politician serves only them but their needs become secondary to the agenda of the party leadership. The elected official is eventually relegated to the status of a cardboard cutout that moves its mouth, arms and legs to the beckon of the party chieftain.

The party in the end corrupts itself by changing its image to garner more support from the pool of ignorant citizens. The hubris of the party no knows bounds as it spreads its tentacles of propaganda, deception and outright fraud to stay in control. The media aids in this dupery by creating the party into a political character for the people to dwell on. Americans are led to believe their attention should focus on the party instead of the candidates or incumbents. The political party is the devil’s work in all its manifestations and latency of evil.

Why do the people feel the need to associate with something that ultimately descends into immoral behavior? Do we not elect a person to represent us in government?

The electorate must demand candidates stand on their own platform and not serve two masters. Ending the party system would be one of the best things we could do as Americans.

Cyril's picture

Thank you for sharing these

Thank you for sharing these thoughts. :)

I don't think it is desirable to forcefully end the political party system but I do believe it is worth the try to think our way out of it.

Hence this idea.

To put back ideas, texts, and political candidates' commitment to those, at the center of the debates, and refrain from giving in the vagueness and group tank thinking.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Laws

wont restrain a majority who does not want to follow.

It is ideas that important. You cannot chain people with "fair" and "just" laws if people do not want to follow. L. von Mises stressed that many times in his early works.

Religious right was instrumental in procreating the poor in order for themselves to be self-employed in charity as a path to Utopia in the sky. The poor masses, on average, will harbor envy, jealousy, resentment and will gravitate to a collective. There will be no gratitude from them to taxpayers or to those who commit sacrifice. Intellectuals also prefer big government because they, on average, cannot sell product of their labor to masses.

We have little chance to advance our ideology. If you are honest, you will see that only bad economy helps us, nothing else. That is the weakness of Rothbardian/RP Libertarian ideas few can admit. The only solution is restoration of rational thinking - applying Ayn Rand teachings.