Skip to content

The Intellectual Bankruptcy of the Pro-Parliamentary Demagogues

December 11, 2011

In one Facebook group, someone asked the following question: “Why are you against parliamentary system?”

I replied: it’s because the argument, which is not even an argument, that parliamentary system is the driver- the cause of the cause– of economic progress is a gigantic fallacy concocted by irrational men. Such an anti-argument is full of fallacies. It’s a big package-deal fallacy. It actually fogs or hides the actual issue: that economic success or progress requires freedom.

The questioner replied: “The problem with our presidential system is that it’s being reduced to a popularity contest. People tend to elect popular candidates.”

I said that all elections can be treated as popularity contests. That’s why the people must be informed properly, because a free society simply means an informed society. You cannot legislate people’s minds. Are elections in parliamentary states not being treated as “popularity contests”? The issue raised by these pro-parliamentary system folks is INVALID.

The pro-parliamentary statists actually committed one big fallacy when they claimed that most rich and developed countries are parliamentary systems, therefore this form of government is more superior to presidential system. This logical fallacy is called “correlation does not imply causation” fallacy, which means “that correlation between two variables does not automatically imply that one causes the other.”

The pattern of pro-parliamentary people’s illogic is as follows:

  • Most rich and developed countries (A) adopt parliamentary system (B).
  • Therefore parliamentary system (B) causes countries to be rich and developed (A).

In this particular type of logical fallacy, these folks certainly made a premature conclusion about causality after naively observing only a correlation between two factors. Naturally, since they merely observed one factor (A) to only be correlated with another factor (B), they then assumed with finality that A is causing B even when no solid real-world evidence supports this conclusion. Certainly this is a good example of logical fallacy because there are other possibilities.

  • A may be the cause of B.
  • B may be the cause of A.
  • some unknown third factor C may actually be the cause of both A and B.
  • a combination of the three relationships is possible. For instance, B may be the cause of A at the same time as A is the cause of B (contradicting that the only relationship between A and B is that A causes B).
  • the “correlation” is merely a coincidence.

Then a pro-parliamentary supporter named Joseph Solís Alcayde posted the Correct (read: incorrect) Movement’s statement, which is as follows:

Presidential system in the Philippines is a failure because it tends popular but incompetent people like Joseph Estrada and Noynoy Aquino to be elected as president whereas in the parliamentary system, these two people have no chance to be Prime Minister. As ceremonial president maybe but as PM or Opposition Leader, they have no chance.

Presidential system in the United States only works because they have a two-party system and the candidates of each parties can’t choose a standard-bearer automatically but prospective candidates have to undergo into a primary process by the party they belong where registered voters usually that voters are member of a specific party to choose their candidates. It’s a rigid and cost-extensive for Philippine setting.

In the general election proper, the standard bearers of each party can’t be selected by direct popular vote but the Electoral College are the one who will choose the President and Vice President. Each state must have electoral college votes representation (number of House seats+2 Senate seats is the basis). No wonder that Al Gore won the popular vote but George W. Bush won the Electoral College vote.

Since I had to challenge these people’s flawed premises, I asked: “is that “presidential system” PER SE or only RP’s presidential system?” Obviously, the post solely refers to Philippine’s presidential system. Here, it is important to distinguish between RP’s presidential system and presidential system PER SE. If the post were attacking OUR presidential system, then I offer no form of defense. In fact, I agree that our economy fails NOT because of our presidential system, but because of our protectionist economic policies, faulty political system, corruption, etc. made possible by our semi-socialist constitution.

Joseph Solís Alcayde replied:

I agree with the purging of the protectionist, statist, and socialist provisions like the 60/40 but for political system it’s different story.

The presidential form of government in Philippine setting is VERY EXPENSIVE that ONLY THE RICH AND ELITE PEOPLE who can run for president and also with our version of presidential system, it is always possible for uneducated and incompetent to be the President that can be easily to be manipulated by special interests.

In our presidential system, we don’t have a primary system of choosing the party’s candidate for president and vice president and also we have a multiparty system without a run-off election. It’s very expensive to copy and vulnerable for grid-locks because the executive and the legislative inevitably clashes on matters of legislation whereas in parliamentary system, the executive and the legislative were fused and tends to have easier to pass and implement certain legislation.

My answer is: CHANGE IT. That’s the only answer. Our presidential system was NOT written in stone. Or do you think it is permanent, universal, immutable, unchangeable? Is that what you think of it?

In fact in a previous blog I stated the following:

I strongly disagree with the current format of our presidential system, as well as our political system. We have a semi-socialist, semi-republican political system bordering on dictatorship. In economic terms this system is called mixed economy, a mixture of freedom and government controls. Both our political system and form of government are defined in the 1987 Constitution.

Joseph Solís Alcayde:

It needs to change our PH presidential system to parliamentary system. In parliamentary system, two-party system is viable like in Australia. That model of parliamentary system I refer is the Westminster parliamentary system used in UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Ireland. I agree that we have to abolish the party-list system because with the current setup, almost all of the party-list seats are Communists. We need to remove the pork barrels of our legislators because the only rule of our legislators is to make law not to provide money to special interests of their constituencies.

I agree with your stand on individual rights mostly BUT some modifications according to our PH setting that in our level of economic development that we have to stipulate right of education and healthcare ONLY. I agree with your stand on what government role should be that is to protect individual rights. I’m for flat tax system of 12.5%.

I believe such a statement merely requires a single question to challenge its utterly flawed premise. I asked: “Are you saying that it’s the fault of our “presidential system” PER SE- and NOT any other factor like protectionism, etc.- that we’re economically poor?” If you can answer that question with logical, sound arguments, then I might agree with you that parliamentarism is the ONLY WAY ON EARTH.

Joseph Solís Alcayde replied: “We’re economically poor because of our protectionist economic policies mandated by our Constitution and another thing is that our presidential system never works for our Philippine setting because any legislative agenda or initiative have difficulty to pass and implement because of rivalry nature between the executive and legislative branches in the presidential system.”

My reply: “Then do not claim it’s just “our” presidential system that must be faulted. That’s a wrong way to approach a political issue. Because if that’s how you approach this “issue”, which is actually a NON-ISSUE, because I don’t see any reason to pit presidential system against parliamentary system when these are merely forms of government, NOT political system, then I could say, in response: “Why is America not as poor as RP?” That’s why it’s useless to argue on this particular matter. Hindi niyo pa ba nage-gets? It’s useless. It’s actually a sign of INTELLECTUAL BANKRUPTCY. It’s all about POLITICAL SYSTEM.”

I can also point out the many dangers of the European parliamentary system. It seems that you do not understand the difference between forms of government and political systems. A presidential system has MANY VARIANTS. You can modify it according to the aspirations of a nation or according to the political system which you seek to establish. In fact, you can even mix presidential system with parliamentary system. So stop deluding yourself.

Any country can adopt parliamentary form of government and borrow our protectionist economic policies. In fact, we can make our form of government parliamentary and retain our protectionist policies and our EGALITARIAN POLITICAL SYSTEM. Do you understand me? What I mean to say is that we can adopt parliamentary system- the people will elect MPs and the MPs will then elect PM, but the political system remains. That is, our protectionist policies, the pork barrel system for MPs, our welfare state system REMAIN. The result? STILL THE SAME: poor economy, high budget deficit, more public debt, higher corruption, etc.

Even if you tally all parliamentary governments with stable economy if you don’t understand WHAT MADE/MAKES THEM ECONOMICALLY SUCCESSFUL, the fact remains that your line of reasoning is utterly FAULTY and DEFECTIVE

Here’s another question for the pro-parliamentary folks: Are you trying to argue that parliamentary system is INHERENTLY devoid of the principles or systems of WELFARE STATE or SOCIALISTIC PARADIGM?

That is, are you trying to argue that parliamentary system exists independently of the many evils of our current political welfare state system?

If your answer is YES, then why is it that there are many parliamentary governments that are poor because of their failed political and economic policies?

To further educate you folks:

Parliamentary and presidential forms of government are merely a TOOL. They mainly refer to the administrative structure of a government, e.g., the process of election of political leaders, the functions or duties of these political leaders, how these political leaders and appointive officials achieve the aspirations or goals of the state (translation: POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC SYSTEM), the ways to ensure public accountability, the means or ways of firing erring officials, etc. FORMS OF GOVERNMENT represent the BODY of a nation.

POLITICAL SYSTEM refers to political, economic and social aspirations and goals of a nation. It represents the nation’s SOUL. It constitutes how elected and appointed officials of the state deliver these national aspirations. Typically, a nation’s political system is embodied in the Constitution’s state principles and policies.

The main parts of a nation’s political system include the following:

  1. How a nation respects, recognizes, protects individual rights. Does it limit “rights”? Does it recognize or abolish private property? Does it limit free speech? Does it guarantee the provision of welfare services to the people (e.g., provision of free education, health care, social services, etc.)?
  2. How a nation guarantees the rule of law. Does it adopt a concentrated political power?
  3. The size of government. Is it a limited government or a bloated, welfare government?
  4. How a nation treats the economy. Does it adopt central planning or guarantee separation of state and economy? Does it guarantee economic freedom or limit it? Does it adopt socialist system or capitalist system?

In short, any nation may adopt parliamentary or presidential form of government with either capitalistic or socialistic political system.

If a parliamentary state like Bangladesh adopted socialistic economic and political policies (e.g., protectionism, welfare services, etc.), the tendency is that this nation would collapse.

If a presidential state like the Philippines adopted protectionist and welfare policies, the tendency is that this nation would also collapse.

If you still don’t understand- or do not have enough brain cells to understand- these basic concepts, then I don’t see any reason to engage in further informal debates. That’s why I always maintain that those who believe that the BATTLE OF OUR TIME is a battle between presidential and parliamentary system are INTELLECTUALLY BANKRUPT.

RELATED BLOG ARTICLES:

It’s the Political System, Stupid!

Basic Principles for Presidential Type of Government

Fareed Zakaria’s Parliamentary Drivel

Presidential System Over Parliamentary System

The Origin of ‘Cult of Personality’

The Moral Base of the Filipino Nation and Philippine’s Intellectual Bankruptcy

Uncle Sam to Pinas: ‘Scrap Protectionism!’

Advertisements
31 Comments leave one →
  1. Noynoy Palaboy permalink
    December 12, 2011 3:38

    Stop reading fairy tales little Froi. 😀

    • Pinoy Astro permalink
      December 12, 2011 3:38

      Which means…? I’d like to see a counter-argument instead of bitter attacks hehe. This is interesting to see.

  2. eduardo r. alicias, jr. permalink
    December 12, 2011 3:38

    Froi, the form or structure of government defines or constrains the system of government, the functioning of government. So, you cannot simply dismiss the form as a “mere tool.” But even so, it is the basic tool–much more than any other tool!
    Re: mere correlations between form of government and economic performance of countries, theoretically you are correct, but then again these correlations are consistently in favor of the parliamentary form or structure or system–and because of this consistency, the plausible conclusion that there exists a causal connection between them appears much more convincing than the alternative hypothesis that the form does not matter. In this respect, you might want to consider reading, say, Stepan and Skach (1993) and/or Alicias (2007), that is, if you have logical and empirical basis not to be convinced by Linz (1990, 1994) and by Riggs (1992). By the way, how would you like or care to consider results of multiple regression analyses with control variables–which should be more approximativew of causality?

    • December 12, 2011 3:38

      For lack of better words, form of government, which is not properly understood by Orion, is a tool. It is an instrument, which is crucial to the achievement or delivery of the state’s goals and aspirations.

      The structure of government, which is a form of government, is a tool or an instrument to accomplish the many social aspirations and objectives of a nation. Let me show you the following model:

      1. Form of government (parliamentary or presidential): the reach or extent of its power, authority of prerogatives is defined or delimited by the Constitution. It pertains to how officials are elected or appointed, the institutions necessary to perform the functions of these elected and appointed officials, the powers/authority/privileges of these officials, the manners of firing or punishing them, the ways to ensure public accountability, how they conduct the functions of the state, etc. It refers to the structure or the corporate/administrative model of the government.

      2. Political system (socialism or capitalism or mixed economy). This refers to the political and economic and social aspirations, goals, principles of a nation. Generally, a nation’s political system is laid down in the Constitution’s state principles and policies. This is the soul of the nation.

      As to the rest of your comment, I believe I was able to address them here… https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2011/12/11/a-critique-of-riggsian-anti-presidentialism-gibberish/#comment-24297

  3. Eduardo R. Alicias, Jr. permalink
    December 13, 2011 3:38

    Further, your equating the political system with the economic system (socialism or capitalism) begets a lot of surprise! While it is true that a country’s constitution may provide that the socialistic or capitalistic economic system be adopted for that country, it does not follow that such provision ipso facto equates to the parliamentary-presidential dichotomy! Is this an instance of what logicians call the fallacy of the double middle? Let us please remind ourselves that conventional mainstream literature make a clear distinction between the political and economic systems that obtain in a particular country.
    Do you believe that some forms, or some structures, or some tools are more effective and efficient than others? If so, then do you believe that over time, the less effective and less efficient forms or structures or tools naturally fade away or are rendered obsolete–in virtue of evolutionary necessity? For instance, do you believe that the slide rule had been rendered obsolete by the adding machine, which in turn had been rendered obsolete by the calculator, and in turn superseded by the much more efficient and powerful desktop or laptop computer? If so, then you must also believe that at least one form of government is more efficient and effective than other forms, structures or “tools.” And, as empirical evidence clearly shows, it is not the presidential form!
    Well, we might be wrong (Orion and I and others), but please falsify us with logic and evidence–not with simple beliefs and speculations!

    • December 13, 2011 3:38

      “Further, your equating the political system with the economic system (socialism or capitalism) begets a lot of surprise!”

      — Eduardo R. Alicias, Jr.,

      That’s the big problem. Political system and economic system are synonymous. They’re just the same. Orion also have the same opinion. There are no differences between the two. Another term that could be used is politico-economic system or social system. Socialism, communism, fascism, and capitalism are forms of politico-economic systems. This simply shows the INTELLECTUAL BANKRUPTCY and ignorance of some people.

      Many political theorists understand that capitalism or socialism is both an economic and political system. These alleged previous literature support my claim.

      For instance, George Reisman, a professor and book author (he published Capitalism: An Economic Treatise). He wrote:

      “Laissez-faire capitalism has a definite meaning, which is totally ignored, contradicted, and downright defiled by such statements as those quoted above. Laissez-faire capitalism is a politico-economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and in which the powers of the state are limited to the protection of the individual’s rights against the initiation of physical force.”

      From this source: “Capitalism is a social system based on the principle of individual rights. The term capitalism is used here in the broader philosophical political sense, and not in the narrower economic sense, i.e. a free-market.”

      Also from this source: “Laissez faire capitalism means the complete separation of economy and state, just like the separation of church and state. Capitalism is the social system based upon private ownership of the means of production which entails a completely uncontrolled and unregulated economy where all land is privately owned. But the separation of the state and the economy is not a primary, it is only an aspect of the premise that capitalism is based upon: individual rights. Capitalism is the only politico-economic system based on the doctrine of individual rights. This means that capitalism recognizes that each and every person is the owner of his own life, and has the right to live his life in any manner he chooses as long as he does not violate the rights of others.”

      Even Encyclopedia Britannica agrees with me. It states: “Socialism is a political and economic system in which most forms of economically valuable property and resources are owned or controlled by the public or the state. The term socialism also refers to any political or philosophical doctrine that advocates such a system.”

      How do we know these definitions are correct? LOGIC! You only have to apply logic to understand the proper concept of capitalism or socialism or communism. You cannot separate politics and economics. Economics is, at root, political. You cannot simply say, “Well, the system is purely economic.” That’s wrong. Yes, such systems as capitalism or socialism are economic systems, but they are also political systems, as they require political support and structure. You cannot implement capitalism without political support or implementation. For instance, capitalism requires the protection and implementation of property rights, contracts, trade, individual rights, etc. This makes this system inherently political. But at the same time, it is a social system. Also, you cannot implement socialism without a centralized political power.

      I had a heated debate with Orion in which he desperately presented flawed, erroneous sources to support his baseless, ignorant claim. One of his sources claims that capitalism is a “political party.” Well, after critiquing his source, I found out that the author was talking about “political parties” that promote capitalism. It appeared that Orion didn’t even bother to study his source.

      ——–

      The problem with you, people, is that you’re confusing FORM OF GOVERNMENT with POLITICAL/ECONOMIC SYSTEM. They are NOT the same. I have extensively presented/discussed the difference and relation between the two. You only have to read my previous articles on the matter.

      If economic system and political system are NOT the same, kindly give then examples of political system and economic system? I’d like to understand where you’re coming from, folks.

      You said: “While it is true that a country’s constitution may provide that the socialistic or capitalistic economic system be adopted for that country, it does not follow that such provision ipso facto equates to the parliamentary-presidential dichotomy!”

      — Let me clarify that I am NOT against constitutional reform. If you only read some of my previous blogs, you’d find out that I am an advocate of constitutional reform. I want the current charter, which I call EVIL, revised.

      As to your statement above, I do not understand what made you say that. My understanding is that the Constitution– please focus on this particular statement– provides or defines the structure or form of government and the politico-economic system of the nation. A nation’s politico-economic system is laid down in the Charter’s ‘definition’ of rights, bill of rights, state principles and policies, among others. A nation’s structure or form of government is defined in the Charter’s other articles or provisions pertaining to government officials, the main branches of the government (their functions and officials), accountability of public officers, etc.

      The rest of your comment is pure gibberish. I am not sorry to say that.

      Also, kindly answer my questions in my previous reply. Thanks!

  4. tamarindox permalink
    December 13, 2011 3:38

    Politics refers to the relationship of an individual to society. Whatever system the fundamental basis the individual in relation to others or society. The protection of the individual from the brute force of the collective group or society.

  5. Eduardo R. Alicias, Jr. permalink
    December 14, 2011 3:38

    “Political system and economic system are synonymous. They’re just the same. There are no differences between the two. Another term that could be used is politico-economic.”
    Froi, your use of the compound term “politico-economic” belies your claim that the political system is synonymous with the economic system. Admittedly, the political system is entwined with the economic system, but certainly they are not the same. The communists tried to dictate and enforce the closest empirical anonymity, but as we all know they failed. Upon the other hand, the farthest separation between the two was observed during the years of the laissez doctrine during the period of mercantilism, but then again, as we all know, there were certain aspects of human social life and living that were not captured by the price mechanism, not captured by the mechanism of naked capitalism. So, the political system–via government–had to intervene! So, where is the synonymity, the sameness, the identity?
    Our definitions certainly are at variance; and therefore, surely there can be no logical and empirical resolution of issues! But, let me repeat my challenge to you, Froi, show us your own data matrix–and your own operational definition of terms–i.e., catgories of forms/structures of government and criteria of national welfare, e.g. national income, income distribution, democratic stability, and something else as you wish, coupled with the corresponding country data; and then we will do multivariate regression analyses and related statististical analyses as you may wish! Your specific hypotheses (what are they?), if true, should be able to survive these scientific tests! Remember, for a start, we are even willing to use your own data, your own specific research hypotheses, your own measures of your own variables, and your own suggested statistical analyses!
    Will you, Froi? Come on, don’t be evasive; we are willing to play your own game, as it were,
    using your own definitions and rules!

    • December 14, 2011 3:38

      Eduardo R. Alicias, Jr.,

      “Froi, your use of the compound term “politico-economic” belies your claim that the political system is synonymous with the economic system. Admittedly, the political system is entwined with the economic system, but certainly they are not the same.”

      Why not give concrete examples. Like I said- and I presented proof and previous literature- capitalism is a politico-economic, or political and economic, system. If you believe this is wrong, then I urge you to check your premise.

      You should understand that every economic model is political. Logic is what you need, sir.

      You said: “The communists tried to dictate and enforce the closest empirical anonymity, but as we all know they failed.”

      Those are the communists. Don’t you understand that the communists are not simply waging a war of attrition on our rights and freedom; they also attack LOGIC and REASON. It’s funny that you take the communists as the basis of your conceptual understanding of political theories. Of course, the communists failed as they always did in all areas or aspects. There’s no question about that.

      Let me inform you that definitions should have basis- or foundation- in reality. Definitions are the result of the process of concept-formation. A definition is a statement, which must be clear and unambiguous, that identifies the nature or context of the units subsumed under a concept.

      The problem with some people is that they thought that the purpose of definition is to state or provide the meanings of words or terms. This evaluation is not compete or exact. A term (e.g., politico-economic system) is simply a visual-auditory symbol we use to represent or describe or identify a concept. Such a term has no meaning other than the concept it carries or symbolizes, and the meaning of a concept comprises its units.

      Here, concepts such as capitalism and socialism represent certain characteristics and sub-concepts. Capitalism or socialism are not merely economic systems, they are also political systems. They are politico-economic systems and existing literature, especially those who understand politics and economics, support my claim.

  6. Eduardo R. Alicias, Jr. permalink
    December 14, 2011 3:38

    Correction please; anonymity should read synonymity. More on the distinction between politics and economics. Politics is mainly about the allocation of power between individuals and/or groups of individuals in the polity; while economics is mainly about the production, distribution, and allocation of scarce resources in the society–and which processes, under a capitalistic system, is essentially governed by the price mechanism; and, under a socialistic system, essential governed by the government (the political system). It is not difficult to see that capitalism can thrive even without the government, or even if completely independent from the political system. However, it is extremely difficult to see how socialism can thrive without government intervention, or in a situation where it is completely disconnected from
    government, or totally independent from the political system. So, Froi, where is the logic, let alone the empirical grounding of your claim that the political and economic systems are one and the same?

    • December 14, 2011 3:38

      “Politics is mainly about the allocation of power between individuals and/or groups of individuals in the polity; while economics is mainly about the production, distribution, and allocation of scarce resources in the society–and which processes, under a capitalistic system, is essentially governed by the price mechanism; and, under a socialistic system, essential governed by the government (the political system).”

      — Then that proves that capitalism is both an economic and political system. It is a social system. It is wrong to claim that capitalism is purely economic creature or concept- and that it is not concerned with politics. That simply shows your misunderstanding of capitalism or socialism. Capitalism is not merely concerned with “production, distribution, and allocation” of resources. Those are merely the “economic” parts of the system- and those values or activities won’t exist without the system’s concepts and/or principles of:

      1. Limited government;

      2. Individual rights;

      3. Rule of law;

      4. Private property;

      The problem with your so naive an evaluation, sir, is that you’re merely focusing on one part- or aspect- of the concept of capitalism or socialism. Take the whole picture- look at it- and then apply logic.

      Both the advocates of capitalism and socialism understood this. Ludwig von Mises was not merely focusing on the purely economic traits and aspects of capitalism in defending freedom and the free market system. In defending capitalism, he FIRST defended its political aspects or principles. This is what Hayek, Ayn Rand, and even MIlton Friedman did. You cannot defend those areas or aspects of “production, distribution, and allocation of scarce resources” without defending the political areas and principles of capitalism, namely, limited government, individual rights, rule of law, and private property.

  7. Eduardo R. Alicias, Jr. permalink
    December 15, 2011 3:38

    Froi, you said the politicial system is the same as the economic system. I said they are entwined but not the same. Indeed, I did not say that these terms/concepts are completely orthogonal. Precisely, I said: “entwined.” I presented the logical, if not nomological difference. You said I lack logic! But you engaged in evasive generalities!
    More tellingly, you are avoiding my challenge to you that we will settle the empirical issues
    even using your own operational research definitions and your own data matrix, say, involving 192 countries.
    Do you or will you accept this challenge! I am not asking though, at least not yet, can you or cannot you not?

    • December 15, 2011 3:38

      They are one and the same. They cannot be separated. I have extensively discussed this issue in my previous post. I think I need to write/publish a treatise on this particular issue to further educate you on the nature/context of politics and economics.

      I repeat:

      It is wrong to claim that capitalism is purely economic- and that it is not concerned with politics. That simply shows your misunderstanding of capitalism or socialism. Capitalism is not merely concerned with “production, distribution, and allocation” of resources. Those are merely the “economic” parts of the system- and those values or activities won’t exist without the capitalism’s concepts and/or principles of:

      1. Limited government;
      2. Individual rights;
      3. Rule of law;
      4. Private property;

      The problem with your evaluation, sir, is that you’re merely focusing on one part- or aspect- of the concept of capitalism or socialism. Take the whole picture- look at it- and then apply logic.

      • December 15, 2011 3:38

        If you still dogmatically cling to your beliefs, here’s a good question for you, sir:

        “Is it possible to defend or support Capitalism’s economic aspects (e.g., production, distribution, monetary policy, prices, etc.) without first establishing its political setup, which consists of individual rights, limited government, rule of law, and private property?

        I’d like to know your clear, objective answer. Thanks!

  8. eduardo r. alicias, jr. permalink
    December 15, 2011 3:38

    How do you call someone who willfully misrepresents somebody, and proceeds to attack such misrepresentation? I never said capitalism is purely economics! More importantly, how do you call someone who provokes an engagement, and then willfully muddles the issue like a squid naturally does. The test of your beliefs and speculations is none other than what reality or facts indicate via a scientific process–but which you have not accepted thus far! Don’t worry, just present your own definitions and data, and your own analyses–not just your own own beliefs and speculations! Why are you timid to make the same public? Who knows, you might be able to “educate” not only me, but a multitude!

    • December 15, 2011 3:38

      If you still dogmatically cling to your beliefs, here’s a good question for you, sir:

      “Is it possible to defend or support Capitalism’s economic aspects (e.g., production, distribution, monetary policy, prices, etc.) without first establishing its political setup, which consists of individual rights, limited government, rule of law, and private property?

      I’d like to know your clear, objective answer. Thanks!

      — My answer to your latest comment, sir. Sometimes I believe it is crucial to educate the so-called educators.

  9. eduardo r. alicias, jr. permalink
    December 15, 2011 3:38

    Don’t evade the basic issue which is that between presidentialism and parliamentarism. I initiated an engagement with you on this very basic issue–not on your supervening peripheral and tangential issues! I repeat this basic issue can be settled only with facts and/or data, and their appropriate analyses.
    I have already gone down to your level–accepting your own operational research definitions and your own data. Just make the same public, with your own statistical analyses! Let us see what comes out of it! No problem, for as long as your work survives the crucible of public scrutiny and criticism, we will willingly accept your own conclusions!
    Just do it man–if you are man enough!

    • December 15, 2011 3:38

      eduardo r. alicias, jr.,

      You said: “Don’t evade the basic issue which is that between presidentialism and parliamentarism. I initiated an engagement with you on this very basic issue–not on your supervening peripheral and tangential issues! I repeat this basic issue can be settled only with facts and/or data, and their appropriate analyses.”

      LOL! That’s funny and hypocritical, Mr. Alicias. You’re the one who insisted on this issue, isn’t it? You’re the one who introduced this issue, including other unrelated issues. You know that. I am not evading the real issue. In fact I called your attention on this latest blog of mine. https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2011/12/12/welfare-state-and-parliamentarism/

      Please REVIEW the whole thread, Mr. Alicias. I am simply RESPONDING to your own issues.

      I have reviewed some of your sources, which allegedly contain regression analyses, etc. But I found them to be works of fiction based on utterly flawed methodology and premise. I have critiqued the sophomoric works of Riggs, Stepan and Skach, and other pro-parliamentary non-thinkers. They’re simply comparing apples and oranges. That’s what they did. Please read my previous replies again to further inform yourself.

      Now I’d like to see your own study or research on parliamentarism. I’m very interested in your own arguments. Thanks.

    • December 15, 2011 3:38

      By the way, can’t you answer simple questions, Mr. Alicias? You see I’ve been responding to your own issues POINT BY POINT.

      My latest question is: “Is it possible to defend or support Capitalism’s economic aspects (e.g., production, distribution, monetary policy, prices, etc.) without first establishing its political setup, which consists of individual rights, limited government, rule of law, and private property?

      My other pending questions:

      1. Are you saying that the sole reason why some parliamentary nations are economically stable is because of their form of government? But why are most parliamentary nations today experience serious economic troubles? Is it also because of their form of government? Why are some parliamentary nations poor like the Philippines? Is it because of their form of government? I urge you to update those sophomoric comparative data, which you gathered.

      2. In what way does a nation’s FORM OF GOVERNMENT- and not its economic policies or political system- affect its economy?

      3. Kindly give a real-world example that shows this “positive correlation between the parliamentary system and economic performance”.

      4. Do you understand why most economies failed? Do you understand why the RP’s economy has become unstable after adopting the 1987 Constitution?

      5. Do you understand why America (presidentialist) and many European countries (parliamentarists) are now in serious financial and economic turmoil? Are you going to put the blame on these nations’ form of government?

      THOSE ARE MY PENDING QUESTIONS, which you chose to ignore, Mr. Alicias.

      I also offer this article… https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2011/12/12/welfare-state-and-parliamentarism/

  10. eduardo r. alicias, jr. permalink
    December 16, 2011 3:38

    Your basic premise, Mr. Froi, is the “The Intellectual Bankruptcy of the Pro-Parliamentary Demagogues.” I simply reacted to this!
    Just put up with facts and figures–under your own defintions–or just shut up!
    You do not “educate” people with just your fanatical beliefs and speculations–you simply proselytize with them! Of course, beliefs and/or faith systems cannot be settled other than by means of empiricism which you are scared to do!
    Enough of this “intellectual” Froi!

    • December 16, 2011 3:38

      LOL! I’ve been calling your attention on this… https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2011/12/12/welfare-state-and-parliamentarism/

      It’s good that you didn’t further react to your allegation that I’m trying to divert the issue, because that would simply make you a DESPERATE LIAR.

      What statistics are you talking about? How would you compare apples and oranges? What kind of parliamentarism would you prefer? Is it unitary parliamentarism? Is it bicameral parliamentarism? Is it republic parliamentarism?

      Again, I’d like to see your own work that contains regression analyses, statistics, data, comparative study, etc. Thanks!

    • December 16, 2011 3:38

      It seems you forgot you have pending issues here… https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2011/12/11/a-critique-of-riggsian-anti-presidentialism-gibberish/#comment-24334

      Are you trying to say you dogmatically buy Riggs’s and Stepan’s and Skach’s sophomoric college research paper?

  11. terence_18 permalink
    February 23, 2012 3:38

    walang titi si eduardo alicias jr bakla bakla bakla

  12. September 14, 2013 3:38

    ” In case you’re wondering, a few seconds in the microwave makes a tasty warm cookie out of an Oreo, which makes it a wonderful companion for a glass of milk. To a semi-formal wedding, a nice suit in navy, dark gray or a darker shade of brown will look nice. Most afghan puppies have a very resilient coat, it is soft in texture and wonderfully fluffy.

Trackbacks

  1. A Critique of Riggsian Anti-Presidentialism Gibberish « THE VINCENTON POST
  2. Welfare State and Parliamentarism « THE VINCENTON POST
  3. Competition is Good; Regulation is Evil! « THE VINCENTON POST
  4. An Unsolicited Advice to People Hoodwinked By a Pro-Parliamentarism Cult « THE VINCENTON POST
  5. On America’s Federalism and its Conformity to Republican Principles « THE VINCENTON POST
  6. A Critique of Riggsian Anti-Presidentialism Gibberish - VINCENTON BLOG
  7. A Critique of Riggsian Anti-Presidentialism Gibberish | vincenton

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: