An Unsolicited Advice to People Hoodwinked By a Pro-Parliamentarism Cult
Here’s my unsolicited advice to some people successfully hoodwinked by a megalomaniac leader of a highly insignificant political
Facebook group: be a critical thinker and try to read/study the group’s so-called articles and pro-parliamentarism literature, videos, and articles.
You need to have critical thinking skills in order to connect the dots. But for now here’s what you can do:
- Understand the proper concept of capitalism or free market system and then try to know what this system requires. Does it require a limited, non-interventionist government? If yes, what form of government fits this requirement? This is the first step.
- Know the difference(s) of the following concepts: 1) political/economic system, 2) form of government, 3) government, 4) state, 5) political/economic policies. These terms certainly do not have the same definition, concepts, or nature. But they’re all embraced by a single category: POLITICS. In other words, you need to understand/know basic concepts.
- Know the conceptual connection/relation between politics and economics. Are they opposites? NO. But politics embraces economics, but that doesn’t mean that in practice, a political entity (called government) has to be intrusive and must arbitrarily intervene in economic affairs. This is one of the misconceptions about the concept of politics. It is NOT an inherently negative, evil concept. It is the politicians that makes politics evil. Politics defines the relationship between the individual and the state. This is why a government (a proper government) is so important to man’s life, but I am certainly talking about a proper government. Here’s politics in action and how it is related to economics: A proper government respects, guarantees the rights of the individual. What are these rights? The right to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of individual choices and actions. A government does NOT grant or create those rights. It simply respects and protects them. They are part of you nature as a human being. In reality, all these rights signify, imply ECONOMIC ACTIONS, which may include the right to trade, to buy, to seek employment, to save money, to put up a business, to form a corporation, etc. The government may only intervene when any of these rights is violated. That’s why we need proper laws. There are laws that protect life, security, privacy, and property. But these laws are NOT regulations. There’s a big difference between rights-protecting laws and regulations. In fact, the term RIGHTS-PROTECTING LAWS (my term) is redundant, because the only proper use and purpose of a law is to protect man’s rights. A law that abrogates, negates, or limits man’s rights is NOT a law. It is an ANTI-LAW. How would you regulate murder? How would you regulate rape? Homicide? Theft? So ’nuff with the misunderstanding of the concept of regulation.
- Let’s go to parliamentarism. Try to study this form of government. Try to understand that there are forms of parliamentarism as applied in many countries. There are parliamentary regimes with unicameral system or bicameral system, andhere are big differences between these two parliamentary models. There are parliamentary regimes under a monarchy, while some have very distinct political policies. So you need to patiently study these aspects.
- Know the impact of economic and political policies on a nation’s economy. This is to prevent you from comparing apples and oranges. So do not ever commit the mistake of thinking/assuming that parliamentarism is a fixed system. It is a THEORY in the first place. It is a flexible theory, which can be altered, modified or changed by practicing regimes. What alters parliamentarism? ANSWER: the political and economic policies implemented by regimes. This is why there are socialist parliamentary regimes. This is why there are economically free parliamentary regimes.
- Know and study the connection between form of government (e.g., parliamentarism, presidentialism, etc.) and economic/political policies. This is what most parliamentary fanatics and even political analysts tend to ignore. A form of government is a political tool- or engine- or machine- that carries the political ambition, goals, or aspirations of a nation in the form of political policies. See the connection now? Does parliamentarism allow for the quick, speedy passage of laws or legislation? If yes, what does that mean? Are laws or legislation supposed to be easily, quickly passed? This is primarily a philosophical question. It is an established fact that legislation has always had an impact on people’s rights, freedom, security, and future. As already stated above, capitalism rejects the idea that laws must be hastily enacted because of the principle of limited government, individual rights, and non-interventionism. Try to figure this out if you embrace the free market system or economic freedom.
- Know the history of parliamentarism. Why did it flourish in Europe? What was this element or beauty that attracted Europe’s political elites to embrace parliamentarism? The Answer? It’s its ability to easily, quickly pass legislation. This alleged ‘beauty’ is what actually makes this form of government antagonistic to free market system. Remember that capitalism is all about limiting or downsizing the powers of government. Under a capitalist regime, laws should not be easily and quickly passed. This is why I believe that a proper system for capitalism is a form of government (presidentialism or any practical theory) with two chambers (bicameral) and the following principles: separation of powers, principle of co-equal branches of government, secularism, non-intervention, and non-welfare politics.
- Let’s now go to the methodology applied by pro-parliamentarism academics, scholars, and apologists. Try to carefully study their METHODOLOGY. How did they arrive at their conclusion that parliamentarism is superior to all forms of government? Or is it even possible to compare governments according to their form of government? Is it? Did they commit a lot of fallacies? Did they have a solid conceptual framework to support their findings and conclusions? Or: did they simply compare apples and oranges? You know, not all academic studies and peer-reviewed articles, especially those that focus on political and economic issues, are reliable and factual. Based on what I read from the linked literature at the group’s website, most of their so-called scholars and academics produced NOTHING but kilometric scholarly gibberish.
- Engage in education campaign, not in influence-peddling. Do not try to fool yourself that the main target of your advocacy should only be politicians or policy-makers. That’s demagoguery.
- Think on your own. Do not take things on faith without carefully studying the facts of any issue. Formulate your own opinion or conclusion based on objective facts.