The clearest way to portray the ideological political world is to entirely abandon the contemporary left/right political spectrum. Political ideologies should be displayed on the basis of their relation to total individualism, that is, the ability of the individual to engineer all aspects of his life, and it's opposite of collectivism, that is, the ability of the state to engineer all aspects of the individual's life.
In my view, both individualism and collectivism in their absolutes are undesirable and an agreeable balance must be struck. Progressivism, is a cultivation of the state that bases it's power on weakening the individual, through the usurpation of individual rights and the aggrandizement of itself. The strong, independent individual is the enemy of the progressive and collectivist State.
The State does not exist to be the enemy or overseer of the individual, nor the protector of the individual - especially from himself. It exists to protect the "rights" of every individual equally and justly.
The 2016 Republican primary was a rare example of a free-for-all with many diverse candidates, and with the winner up for grabs. All viewpoints got time on the stage.
The winner was decided by the people. The people enforced their power over politicians. The winner was a rookie.
The Democratic primary was decided before it began, in a smoke filled room.
The Gini number characterizes distributions, and it's often applied to wealth distributions. If one person has all the wealth, Gini=1, and if wealth is equally distributed, Gini=0.
One can apply the Gini number to the power distribution. After all, power begets wealth. Look at the Pelosis and Clintons.
Power should be distributed as widely as possible. Democrats are obsessed with wealth distribution but they oppose power distribution. Democrats want centralized power and Republicans want decentralized power. Republicans like local government over federal government.
One can define a number N which is the effective number of independent entities that have tangible power. As Gini increases, N decreases.
In a monarchy, N=1.
In the American Constitution, N=4. Prez, Senate, House, SCOTUS.
If states have more power than the fed, then N=50. Yay!
The plot shows wealth and Gini. Nations should aspire to be in the upper left corner.
The wealth Gini characterizes the fraction of millionaires, but it's insensitive to the fraction of billionaires. This suggests that it takes more than one number to properly characterize the wealth distribution.
You want to make millionaires, but you don't want to overdo it and make too many billionaires.
Politicians that distributed power: jaymaron.com/badass.html [jaymaron.com]
The Ancient Roman constitution was flexible. In times of peace, Rome was goverrned by the Senate, and N was large. In times of crisis, the Senate appointed a dictator, with N=1. This is what it takes to get stuff done. Once the dictator got the job done, the Senate would decommission the dictator and power returned to the Senate.
The story of Cincinnatus is an example. Rome was getting its ass kicked by invaders. The Senate did everything it could to stop them and failed. If Rome gets conquered, the Senators don't get to be Senators anymore. In desperation they went to the farm of Cincinnatus and declared him dictator. Cincinnatus used the dictatorial power and crushed the invaders. He resigned the dictatorship a mere 15 days after being appointed and returned to his farm.
Years later, a similar crisis occurred and Cincinnatus was again tapped to be dictator. People must have thought he did a good job the first time. People were confident that he's not a powermonger.
During times of crisis, you want the government to get stuff done. During times of peace, you want the government to not get stuff done. People can do the job themselves. Increasing N is a great way to stop the government from doing stuff.
In the land rushes, the fed gave farmers 160 acres, which enabled them to be individually independent. Having individual independence is a requirement for having individual power. Democrats work to undermine individual independence. Democrats will tax rurals off their land.
Once upon a time, the duty of the fed was to help Americans harness the frontier, and help them tap natural resources. Natural resources beget wealth and independence. Today, Democrats oppose tapping natural resources. Democrats oppose individual independence.
Governor Palin's slogan is prime. Drill baby drill. Grill baby grill.
Most of the Founding Fathers were farmers. Call them the Founding Farmers. Upon the conclusion of their presidencies, they retired to their farms. They should have included a clause in the Constitution: Retiring presidents must farm.
President Polk campaigned with the pledge to serve exactly 1 term and to not run for re-election. Polk honored his pledge. At the conclusion of his presidency, he was popular because he doubled the size of America (his other campaign pledge. Job well done). Polk didn't run for re-election and instead retired to his Farm.
In Ancient Athens, offices were for 1 year and couldn't be repeated. Most offices were determined by lottery.
Eisenhower owns a farm on the Gettysburg battlefield. Reagan owns a ranch.
You just described "The Great Reset." It's a libertarian/communalist alliance using blockchain instead of multilateral institutions to coordinate global capital flows to small, decentralized social entrepreneurs for international development.
I like @TimTuolomne's observation that the American Constitution emphasizes limiting government.
We need politicians that aren't powermongers. This is a page honoring people who possessed power and didn't abuse it. jaymaron.com/badass.html [jaymaron.com]
This is the "Cincinnatus" virtue, and Washington had this virtue. We need to celebrate this virtue.
Ancient constitutions: jaymaron.com/history.html [jaymaron.com]
There is ONE party that defends the Constitution - the only document in history to LIMIT government, not limit the rights of the people, as every other government on Earth does. I suggest you read it.
That party is the Party of Lincoln, who founded the Republican party as a response to the criminal enterprise engaging in blackmail, slavery, coersion, kidnapping and murder since its inception, known as the Democrat party.
Suddenly faced with a party of true principle, Democrats only recourse was to slander the Republican party. And more than half of Americans are functionally so dumb, they have fallen for it. I suggest you read the platform of the Republican party.
Before making nonsense assertions, be sure of your history, and your facts.
“Equal rights” are under continuous attack.
Equal rights necessarily leads to unequal outcomes.
“Equitable outcomes” is now the goal…. Which necessarily requires un-equal rights.
Equitable outcomes and the desire to reach that removes the need for personal responsibility and the need to reward accordingly to contribution.
In my view this is the biggest threat civilisation is facing today.
I mostly agree. Two points of clarification: first, the purpose of government is to protect individuals from others. And that includes not allowing the majority to abuse a minority. And second, government doesn’t confer rights. You can call rights God given or not, but there are certain well-defined, well-recognized rights that the government must defend, but has no right to alter or abolish. The US Constitution is certainly the best and most complete statement of those inalienable rights.