Why Threats of Election Violence May Be Here to Stay
A repeated pattern of close elections accompanied by threats of violence (or actual violence) is a sign that something is wrong with a nation's political system.
A repeated pattern of close elections accompanied by threats of violence (or actual violence) is a sign that something is wrong with a nation's political system.
Fighting erroneous socialist doctrines is not a special interest of a single class but the cause of all; everyone would suffer under the limitation of production and of progress entailed by socialism.
Kenneth Arrow showed in 1951 that the entire project of social choice theory rested on quicksand.
The new "right to repair" measure on the ballot in Massachusetts has very little to do with rights, and a lot to do with new costly and bureaucratic mandates on automakers.
"Countries threaten to split apart when their people seem hopelessly divided….We’re less united today than we’ve been at any time since the Civil War."
As we face a second wave of coronavirus outbreak in Europe, we know that the March measures and aggressive lockdowns were a grave mistake.
A very close or contested election would remind us that elections do not demonstrate "the will of the people" and that national unity is founded on some very fragile myths.
Politicians love to present themselves as benefactors of mankind. In truth, they add nothing to the happiness and well-being of the voters they hope to exploit.
If democracy is so fundamental, shouldn’t we all have a vote in every place we set foot, from Sunbury, Alaska, to Monaco?
Rawls claims equality is the default position and any departure from it requires justification. This is a trick that slants the debate in Rawls's favor. Anthony Flew didn't fall for it.