I support strong defense. I did not make a comment on that.
My point was to highlight the oversimplification, after you accused someone else of the same.
Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk
I support strong defense. I did not make a comment on that.
My point was to highlight the oversimplification, after you accused someone else of the same.
Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
The main topic of Federalist 10 was whether a confederation could work in a country as large as the US. Madison examined previous confederations in earlier numbers, discussing the Athenian-led (Delian?) confederation and the Swiss confederation. People had assumed that a confederation would break apart with many different governments inside it, and spread across long distances.
Madison's insight: a confederation across all the United States would survive because no one faction in any one or a few stets could never outweigh the whole.
At the time, political thinkers considered democracy only as direct democracy, only as it had been in Athens: limited to one city-state. Everyone read Aristotle's "Politics" as a basic text. (there were other texts, mainly from the 17th Century struggles against the absolutist Stuart monarchs, but everyone started with Aristotle)
"Republic" was the name they used for a rule of the people. Within the states, and then within the American republic, people increasingly demanded, and agreed to, increasing the suffrage as widely as possible. The High Federalists insisted on "rule by the best", meaning themselves, but they lost.
**
Back to the original question: third, fourth, and fifth parties do not work unless a constitution allows proportional representation. As long as a system has winner-take-all elections, it will have a majority party and a single opposition party. There is no room for a third party to grow unless one of the first two parties breaks apart.
The main topic of Federalist 10 was whether a confederation could work in a country as large as the US. Madison examined previous confederations in earlier numbers, discussing the Athenian-led (Delian?) confederation and the Swiss confederation. People had assumed that a confederation would break apart with many different governments inside it, and spread across long distances.
I literally quoted the portion of Federalist 10 that is in the middle of the republic/democracy portion of the document, and it specifically mentioning "...great points differing between a democracy and a republic..."
You said they didn't make that sort of distinction. Clearly they had, in Federalist 10.
"A truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."
I’m hearing folks argue the difference. Interesting Trumpian development.
Madison and the others took a democracy to be a government in which every citizen gathered to decide every question. In Athens citizens drew lots and about one of every ten citizens met in the assembly and ruled. No one imagined this a practical for anything but a small city of a thousand or so. That's why Madison barely considers "democracy".
The issue for Madison was whether a large confederation could survive, or whether its size would inevitably grow factions that would tear it apart. Could such a confederation be a republic? As a government by the people? In Anglo-American history, parliament had overthrown the Stuart monarchy by had devolved into a one-man rule by Oliver Cromwell leading a parliament that threw out all but a few. Madison argued that our size and diversity would keep any one faction from gaining too much power.
I'm just kicking around ideas from previous experiences, notably while involved in groups of 30 to 100 people in the Society for Creative Anachronism and Renaissance Faire. Groups of that size can function remarkably well, accomplishing what they set out to do, remaining more or less peaceful in their interactions with other members, members taking responsibility for both their own actions and for the group as a whole, and members caring for a small number of individuals who aren't quite functional even as adults. However, when the numbers exceeded that magic 100, things started to unravel. It just wasn't possible to maintain the unique social and cultural bonds that allowed the group to be as cohesive and effective as it had been with smaller numbers. That cohesion extended all the way to near-anarchy by the way, with tremendous tolerance within the group for eccentricity and divergent opinions. But over that number, and things just devolved, or became much more authoritarian in order to keep the peace within the group. I would guess that these were my own real-life experiences with the modern equivalent of Athenian democracy.
I also suspect that in the modern world, particularly in the developed world, it's essential to have rules, regulations, governmental bodies and all the things libertarians are thought to decry, just in order to support the current population and to maintain some semblance of order. I suspect that we give up a lot of individual autonomy whether we realize it or not, and that we do so in order to live in the world we live in, with cars, and paved roads, and electricity and drinkable water and sewage systems and hospitals and pharmaceuticals and digital devices and supermarkets and big box stores and and and and...I don't think we can live lives of stereotypical rugged individualism unless we remove ourselves to remote areas and live much simpler (and perhaps dangerous)
lives. I think it is possible to have a governmental system with more than two parties without things devolving into chaos. We need only look to Europe, especially Northern Europe and Scandinavia, for examples of how that might work. It's possible that American culture and society simply couldn't adapt to this; countries like Norway have both similar cultures and extremely different cultures compared to ours. The differences might be what make a multiparty system possible, and those differences might be too drastic for us to adapt.
TSherbs (July 24th, 2022)
TFarnon (July 26th, 2022)
Research suggests that when human groups exceed a certain size, they tend to fragment, owing to differences between members. Since the research is based on people who have actual contact (face-to-face, in person, kinship) it might break down given recent groupings via political parties, social media, etc. But I still think it has value.
"Dunbar's number is a suggested cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships—relationships in which an individual knows who each person is and how each person relates to every other person.[1][2] This number was first proposed in the 1990s by British anthropologist Robin Dunbar, who found a correlation between primate brain size and average social group size. . . .
Primatologists have noted that, owing to their highly social nature, primates must maintain personal contact with the other members of their social group, usually through social grooming. Such social groups function as protective cliques within the physical groups in which the primates live. The number of social group members a primate can track appears to be limited by the volume of the neocortex. This suggests that there is a species-specific index of the social group size, computable from the species' mean neocortical volume.[citation needed]
In 1992,[1] Dunbar used the correlation observed for non-human primates to predict a social group size for humans. Using a regression equation on data for 38 primate genera, Dunbar predicted a human "mean group size" of 148 (casually rounded to 150), a result he considered exploratory because of the large error measure (a 95% confidence interval of 100 to 230).[1]
Dunbar then compared this prediction with observable group sizes for humans. Beginning with the assumption that the current mean size of the human neocortex had developed about 250,000 years ago, during the Pleistocene, Dunbar searched the anthropological and ethnographical literature for census-like group size information for various hunter–gatherer societies, the closest existing approximations to how anthropology reconstructs the Pleistocene societies. Dunbar noted that the groups fell into three categories—small, medium and large, equivalent to bands, cultural lineage groups and tribes—with respective size ranges of 30–50, 100–200 and 500–2500 members each."
Dunbar's surveys of village and tribe sizes also appeared to approximate this predicted value, including 150 as the estimated size of a Neolithic farming village; 150 as the splitting point of Hutterite settlements; 200 as the upper bound on the number of academics in a discipline's sub-specialisation; 150 as the basic unit size of professional armies in Roman antiquity and in modern times since the 16th century; and notions of appropriate company size."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number
Interesting! So, our brains need to get bigger. Or at least those in TFarnon's faire membership!
Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk
TFarnon (July 26th, 2022)
Thought I might add to the discussion with regard to Dunbar (post #50). Whilst I don't disagree with Dunbar's findings, or the cognitive limit that is assumed to underpin them, it should be noted that in large modern societies there are layers both at the social level and within the administrative and legal structures. Small groups have local identity. Small collections of groups may have geographical identity (for example, all those groups living in a general area of a city), and in general all groups possess a city identity to one degree or another, i.e. when someone comes from Chinatown but also asserts that they are a Londoner. And no matter which group or groups one cleaves to, all are bound by the ordnance of city and state.
The point of course is that a city does not represent a social group in the sense that Dunbar describes. Further to this, there has been a trend over the last couple of hundred years or so, in Western societies, that encourages people to isolate themselves from their neighbours, to live independently with the doors shut. It's not universal, just a generalisation.
TSherbs (July 24th, 2022)
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
Lloyd (July 24th, 2022)
Last edited by Lloyd; July 24th, 2022 at 05:21 PM.
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
Sorry about your brain, mate.
Buy a mirror
Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
Following the idea that our societies have gotten bigger than our thinking processes can encompass, there's a widespread yearning for membership in a group that's a good fit for our biological capacity. Hence the affiliation to subgroups such as sports fandoms, internet forums, evangelical congregations, militias, etc.
Besides the fragmentation that can occur within a group, there's a constant increase in fragmentation between groups, with a tendency to polarization.
The virtue of multi-party politics is to have divisions that reflect genuine differences in values and approaches in a rational manner.
With the internet, we can form much larger groups that are very specific to what we want to believe. You want to believe the Earth is flat, cats are created by the devil to spy on humans, and that lefties have all of their internal organs reversed, you can probably find a Facebook group.
Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
Bookmarks