by Stratego » Thu Jul 18, 2013 11:30 pm
Is a one party system better than a two party system in generating diversity of opinion and healthy debates? At initial glance it doesn't sound like it would, since one less party seems like one less set of opinions. But (!) let's examine what happens when you go from a two party system to a one party system. There are no party line division since every politician belongs to the same party. But that doesn't homogeneity of opinion, because everybody would still have their views on what's best. But now with one party, you don't have to hide some of your opinions to be within party line, because EVERYTHING is within party line. Let's say we get rid of the Democrats and the Republicans and replace them collectively with a party called The Ruling Party. Does the Ruling Party support a ban on abortion? Does the Ruling Party support more gun control? Does the Ruling Party support we have more dialogue with Middle Eastern rulers whose interest oppose ours? In all these cases, some of the Ruling Party will support it and some will oppose it. But they will support or oppose based on their views not based what the party's official stance is. Having a one party system is equivalent to having no parties which is equivalent to having infinite parties.
Sigmund Freud defined four parts of a psyche; the id, the ego, the superego and the stratego. The Stratego being the highest form of morality and scientific thinking.
If guns are not outlawed, the in-laws will have guns.