James M Buchanan: kill democracy to save capitalism
- Thread starter evince
- Start date
evince
Truthmatters
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice
Public choice
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For the academic journal, see Public Choice (journal).
Public choice or public choice theory refers to "the use of economic tools to deal with traditional problems of political science".[1] Its content includes the study of political behavior. In political science, it is the subset of positive political theory that studies self-interested agents (voters, politicians, bureaucrats) and their interactions, which can be represented in a number of ways – using (for example) standard constrained utility maximization, game theory, or decision theory.[1] Public-choice analysis has roots in positive analysis ("what is") but is often used for normative purposes ("what ought to be") in order to identify a problem or to suggest improvements to constitutional rules (i.e., constitutional economics).[1][2][3]
The Journal of Economic Literature's classification code regards public choice as a subarea of microeconomics, under JEL: D7: "Analysis of Collective Decision-Making" (specifically, JEL: D72: "Economic Models of Political Processes: Rent-Seeking, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior").[4] Public choice theory is also closely related to social-choice theory, a mathematical approach to aggregation of individual interests, welfares, or votes.[5] Much early work had aspects of both, and both fields use the tools of economics and game theory. Since voter behavior influences the behavior of public officials, public-choice theory often uses results from social-choice theory. General treatments of public choice may also be classified under public economics
Public choice
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For the academic journal, see Public Choice (journal).
Public choice or public choice theory refers to "the use of economic tools to deal with traditional problems of political science".[1] Its content includes the study of political behavior. In political science, it is the subset of positive political theory that studies self-interested agents (voters, politicians, bureaucrats) and their interactions, which can be represented in a number of ways – using (for example) standard constrained utility maximization, game theory, or decision theory.[1] Public-choice analysis has roots in positive analysis ("what is") but is often used for normative purposes ("what ought to be") in order to identify a problem or to suggest improvements to constitutional rules (i.e., constitutional economics).[1][2][3]
The Journal of Economic Literature's classification code regards public choice as a subarea of microeconomics, under JEL: D7: "Analysis of Collective Decision-Making" (specifically, JEL: D72: "Economic Models of Political Processes: Rent-Seeking, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior").[4] Public choice theory is also closely related to social-choice theory, a mathematical approach to aggregation of individual interests, welfares, or votes.[5] Much early work had aspects of both, and both fields use the tools of economics and game theory. Since voter behavior influences the behavior of public officials, public-choice theory often uses results from social-choice theory. General treatments of public choice may also be classified under public economics
evince
Truthmatters
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_voter_theorem
Median voter theorem
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
One possible model; here, if parties A and B want to catch the median voters, they should move towards the center. The red and blue areas represent the voters that A and B expect they have already captured.
The median voter theorem states that "a majority rule voting system will select the outcome most preferred by the median voter".[1]
The median voter theorem rests on two main assumptions, with several others detailed below. First, the theorem assumes that voters can place all election alternatives along a one-dimensional political spectrum.[2] It seems plausible that voters could do this if they can clearly place political candidates on a left-to-right continuum, but this is often not the case as each party will have its own policy on each of many different issues. Similarly, in the case of a referendum, the alternatives on offer may cover more than one issue. Second, the theorem assumes that voters' preferences are single-peaked, which means that voters choose the alternative closest to their own view. This assumption predicts that the further away the outcome is from the voter's most preferred outcome, the less likely the voter is to select that alternative.[3] It also assumes that voters always vote, regardless of how far the alternatives are from their own views. The median voter theorem implies that voters have an incentive to vote for their true preferences. Finally, the median voter theorem applies best to a majoritarian election system.
man some interesting stuff here.
be back to guide you through what I learn later
the search is on
Median voter theorem
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
One possible model; here, if parties A and B want to catch the median voters, they should move towards the center. The red and blue areas represent the voters that A and B expect they have already captured.
The median voter theorem states that "a majority rule voting system will select the outcome most preferred by the median voter".[1]
The median voter theorem rests on two main assumptions, with several others detailed below. First, the theorem assumes that voters can place all election alternatives along a one-dimensional political spectrum.[2] It seems plausible that voters could do this if they can clearly place political candidates on a left-to-right continuum, but this is often not the case as each party will have its own policy on each of many different issues. Similarly, in the case of a referendum, the alternatives on offer may cover more than one issue. Second, the theorem assumes that voters' preferences are single-peaked, which means that voters choose the alternative closest to their own view. This assumption predicts that the further away the outcome is from the voter's most preferred outcome, the less likely the voter is to select that alternative.[3] It also assumes that voters always vote, regardless of how far the alternatives are from their own views. The median voter theorem implies that voters have an incentive to vote for their true preferences. Finally, the median voter theorem applies best to a majoritarian election system.
man some interesting stuff here.
be back to guide you through what I learn later
the search is on
evince
Truthmatters
Political work[edit]
In 2017, historian Nancy MacLean published Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for America, based on documents she found in Buchanan's personal archives. The book states that Buchanan saw a conflict between "economic freedom and political liberty", and that he sought (in his own words) "conspiratorial secrecy" in pursuit of what George Monbiot has described as "a hidden programme for suppressing democracy on behalf of the very rich".[1] Monbiot's piece also argues that Buchanan worked to impede desegregation, and assisted Augusto Pinochet's regime in writing the 1980 Constitution of Chile.[1] Conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg has criticized what he describes as "MacLean’s ideologically motivated shortcuts."[22] Legal scholar Jonathan H. Adler describes a pattern of misrepresentation in MacLean's book, drawing upon criticism from libertarian academics and thinkers such as Russ Roberts and David Boaz.[23] Novelist Genevieve Valentine praised Democracy in Chains as taking the time to "meticulously trace" the links between Buchanan and David Koch and Charles Koch.[24]
evince
Truthmatters
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...james-mcgill-buchanan-totalitarian-capitalism
Wednesday 19 July 2017 00.29*EDT
Last modified on Wednesday 19 July 2017 08.35*EDT
It’s the missing chapter: a key to understanding the politics of the past half century.
To read Nancy MacLean’s new book, Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for America, is to see what was previously invisible.
The history professor’s work on the subject began by accident. In 2013 she stumbled across a deserted clapboard house on the campus of George Mason University in Virginia. It was stuffed with the unsorted archives of a man who had died that year whose name is probably unfamiliar to you: James McGill Buchanan. She says the first thing she picked up was a stack of confidential letters concerning millions of dollars transferred to the university by the billionaire Charles Koch.
Wednesday 19 July 2017 00.29*EDT
Last modified on Wednesday 19 July 2017 08.35*EDT
It’s the missing chapter: a key to understanding the politics of the past half century.
To read Nancy MacLean’s new book, Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for America, is to see what was previously invisible.
The history professor’s work on the subject began by accident. In 2013 she stumbled across a deserted clapboard house on the campus of George Mason University in Virginia. It was stuffed with the unsorted archives of a man who had died that year whose name is probably unfamiliar to you: James McGill Buchanan. She says the first thing she picked up was a stack of confidential letters concerning millions of dollars transferred to the university by the billionaire Charles Koch.
evince
Truthmatters
https://history.duke.edu/people/nancy-maclean
Nancy MacLean is an award-winning scholar of the twentieth-century U.S., whose new book, Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for America, has been described by Publishers Weekly as “a thoroughly researched and gripping narrative… [and] a feat of American intellectual and political history.” Booklist called it “perhaps the best explanation to date of the roots of the political divide that threatens to irrevocably alter American government.”*http://bit.ly/2oJklds*
The author of four other books, including Freedom is Not Enough: The Opening of the American Workplace (2006) called by the Chicago Tribune "contemporary history at its best,” and Behind the Mask of Chivalry: The Making of the Second Ku Klux Klan, named a New York Times "noteworthy" book of 1994, MacLean is the William H. Chafe Professor of History and Public Policy. Her articles and review essays have appeared in American Quarterly, The Boston Review, Feminist Studies, Gender & History, In These Times, International Labor and Working Class History, Labor, Labor History, Journal of American History, Journal of Women’s History, Law and History Review, The Nation, the OAH Magazine of History, and many edited collections.
Professor MacLean’s scholarship has received more than a dozen prizes and awards and been supported by fellowships from the American Council of Learned Societies, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the National Humanities Center, the Russell Sage Foundation, and the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowships Foundation. In 2010, she was elected a fellow of the Society of American Historians, which recognizes literary distinction in the writing of history and biography. Also an award-winning teacher and committed graduate student mentor, she offers courses on post-1945 America, social movements, and public policy history.*
Nancy MacLean is an award-winning scholar of the twentieth-century U.S., whose new book, Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for America, has been described by Publishers Weekly as “a thoroughly researched and gripping narrative… [and] a feat of American intellectual and political history.” Booklist called it “perhaps the best explanation to date of the roots of the political divide that threatens to irrevocably alter American government.”*http://bit.ly/2oJklds*
The author of four other books, including Freedom is Not Enough: The Opening of the American Workplace (2006) called by the Chicago Tribune "contemporary history at its best,” and Behind the Mask of Chivalry: The Making of the Second Ku Klux Klan, named a New York Times "noteworthy" book of 1994, MacLean is the William H. Chafe Professor of History and Public Policy. Her articles and review essays have appeared in American Quarterly, The Boston Review, Feminist Studies, Gender & History, In These Times, International Labor and Working Class History, Labor, Labor History, Journal of American History, Journal of Women’s History, Law and History Review, The Nation, the OAH Magazine of History, and many edited collections.
Professor MacLean’s scholarship has received more than a dozen prizes and awards and been supported by fellowships from the American Council of Learned Societies, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the National Humanities Center, the Russell Sage Foundation, and the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowships Foundation. In 2010, she was elected a fellow of the Society of American Historians, which recognizes literary distinction in the writing of history and biography. Also an award-winning teacher and committed graduate student mentor, she offers courses on post-1945 America, social movements, and public policy history.*
evince
Truthmatters
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/...ng_vision_of_society_is_the_intellectual.html
Slate
History
Then, again.June 22 2017 9:02 AM
What Is the Far Right’s Endgame? A Society That Suppresses the Majority.
Nancy MacLean, author of an intellectual biography of James McGill Buchanan, explains how this little-known libertarian’s work is influencing modern-day politics.
Slate
History
Then, again.June 22 2017 9:02 AM
What Is the Far Right’s Endgame? A Society That Suppresses the Majority.
Nancy MacLean, author of an intellectual biography of James McGill Buchanan, explains how this little-known libertarian’s work is influencing modern-day politics.
evince
Truthmatters
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/...ng_vision_of_society_is_the_intellectual.html
His first big book in his field, which is called public choice economics, was titled The Calculus of Consent, and it came out in 1962 and was co-authored with Gordon Tullock. It was the work for which Buchanan was most recognized in his Nobel citation. In that work, he seemed to believe that somehow people of good will could come to something close to unanimity on the basic rules of how to govern our society, on things like taxation and government spending and so forth.
And by the mid-1970s he concluded that that was impossible, and that there was no way that poor people would ever agree … there was no way that people who were not wealthy, who were not large property owners, would agree to the kind of rules he was proposing. So that was a very dark work. It was called The Limits of Liberty. He actually said in that work that the only hope might be despotism.
Advertisement
And he went from writing that to advising the Pinochet junta in Chile on how to craft their constitution. This document was later called a “constitution of locks and bolts,” [and was designed] to make it so that the majority couldn’t make its will felt in the political system, unless it was a huge supermajority.
His first big book in his field, which is called public choice economics, was titled The Calculus of Consent, and it came out in 1962 and was co-authored with Gordon Tullock. It was the work for which Buchanan was most recognized in his Nobel citation. In that work, he seemed to believe that somehow people of good will could come to something close to unanimity on the basic rules of how to govern our society, on things like taxation and government spending and so forth.
And by the mid-1970s he concluded that that was impossible, and that there was no way that poor people would ever agree … there was no way that people who were not wealthy, who were not large property owners, would agree to the kind of rules he was proposing. So that was a very dark work. It was called The Limits of Liberty. He actually said in that work that the only hope might be despotism.
Advertisement
And he went from writing that to advising the Pinochet junta in Chile on how to craft their constitution. This document was later called a “constitution of locks and bolts,” [and was designed] to make it so that the majority couldn’t make its will felt in the political system, unless it was a huge supermajority.
evince
Truthmatters
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/the-architect-of-the-radical-right/528672/
great read
you can see all the right wing ideas and where they came from
they seek the death of democracy
great read
you can see all the right wing ideas and where they came from
they seek the death of democracy
evince
Truthmatters
so they began cheatin g the voters out of their rights folks.
this is when the courts start catching the republican partys attempts at cheating voters
evince
Truthmatters
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histo...rty#Moderate_Republicans_of_1960.E2.80.931980
Moderate Republicans of 1960–1980[edit]
The term Rockefeller Republican was used 1960–1980 to designate a faction of the party holding "moderate" views similar to those of Nelson Rockefeller, governor of New York from 1959 to 1974 and vice president under President Gerald Ford in 1974–1977. Before Rockefeller, Tom Dewey, governor of New York 1942–1954 and GOP presidential nominee in 1944 and 1948 was the leader. Dwight Eisenhower and his aide Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., reflected many of their views.
An important moderate leader in the 1950s was Connecticut Republican Senator Prescott Bush, father and grandfather, respectively, of presidents George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush. After Rockefeller left the national stage in 1976, this faction of the party was more often called "moderate Republicans", in contrast to the conservatives who rallied to Ronald Reagan.
Historically, Rockefeller Republicans were moderate or liberal on domestic and social policies. They favored New Deal programs, including regulation and welfare. They were very strong supporters of civil rights. They were strongly supported by big business on Wall Street (New York City). In fiscal policy they favored balanced budgets and relatively high tax levels to keep the budget balanced. They sought long-term economic growth through entrepreneurship, not tax cuts.
Moderate Republicans of 1960–1980[edit]
The term Rockefeller Republican was used 1960–1980 to designate a faction of the party holding "moderate" views similar to those of Nelson Rockefeller, governor of New York from 1959 to 1974 and vice president under President Gerald Ford in 1974–1977. Before Rockefeller, Tom Dewey, governor of New York 1942–1954 and GOP presidential nominee in 1944 and 1948 was the leader. Dwight Eisenhower and his aide Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., reflected many of their views.
An important moderate leader in the 1950s was Connecticut Republican Senator Prescott Bush, father and grandfather, respectively, of presidents George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush. After Rockefeller left the national stage in 1976, this faction of the party was more often called "moderate Republicans", in contrast to the conservatives who rallied to Ronald Reagan.
Historically, Rockefeller Republicans were moderate or liberal on domestic and social policies. They favored New Deal programs, including regulation and welfare. They were very strong supporters of civil rights. They were strongly supported by big business on Wall Street (New York City). In fiscal policy they favored balanced budgets and relatively high tax levels to keep the budget balanced. They sought long-term economic growth through entrepreneurship, not tax cuts.
evince
Truthmatters
http://www.brennancenter.org/legal-work/dnc-v-rnc-consent-decree
they were first caught in the 1982 case which resulted in the courts placing them under a consent decree in which they could not do voter rolls cleaning WITHOUT the courts consent.
they have NEVER BEEN RELEASED from that case because they keep getting caught cheating voters
they were first caught in the 1982 case which resulted in the courts placing them under a consent decree in which they could not do voter rolls cleaning WITHOUT the courts consent.
they have NEVER BEEN RELEASED from that case because they keep getting caught cheating voters
evince
Truthmatters
the cheating by republicans coincides with when the wealthy fucks decided to Kill Democracy so they could have capitalism free of those pesky workers thinking they mattered.
its a natrual that they would be thinking a russian dictator who owns everything his country has and acts like a mob boss is a great leader.
its their dream world
any voter who votes republican is a complete idiot
its a natrual that they would be thinking a russian dictator who owns everything his country has and acts like a mob boss is a great leader.
its their dream world
any voter who votes republican is a complete idiot