Welcome to our little game. It's a game of make-belief, a game of what-if's. But it's a good game. It is a game were we show you how we compare basic political theories.
In our lesson Political Theories and Systems - what they are and how they work, we showed you why and how a Political Theory is a misnomer and can never be a scientific Theory. However, what if we could do just precisely that?
What if we could treat Political Theories and Systems as scientific theories? What information could we glance? What insight could we gain?
This is an attempt to do precisely that, to throw some objectivity at the problem and see what happens. Call it an experiment. That's fair.
The scientific characteristics that we described in the above mentioned article, can also be used to compare basic Political Theories. Why Political Theories and not Political Systems? Because as we have shown in the same article a Political Theory is as close as one can get to a more-or-less definable set of rules, while a Political System is nothing but a mixed bag of arbitrary and nonsensical rules.
So, in order to place this analysis under the best case scenario for all Political Theories, we make the assumption that we can magically transfer a Political Theory into reality without changing it. Let’s compare:
|
Political Theory |
Scientific Method |
Truth |
Self-Correction |
Internally Consistent |
|
|
Logic |
Measurement |
||||
|
No System |
No Logic |
Cannot forecast |
No Truths |
Not self-correcting |
Not internally-consistent |
|
Minimum Leadership |
Minor Logic |
Minimum forecast |
Medium-Truths |
Not self-correcting |
Not internally-consistent |
|
Totalitarian Leadership |
No Logic |
Cannot forecast |
No Truths |
Not self-correcting |
Not internally-consistent |
|
Absolute Monarchy |
Minor Logic |
Cannot forecast |
No Truths |
Not self-correcting |
Not internally-consistent |
|
Limited Monarchy |
Medium Logic |
Low forecast |
Low-Truths |
Low self-correcting |
Medium internal-consistency |
|
Communism / Socialism |
Medium Logic |
Low forecast |
Low-Truths |
Low self-correcting |
Minor internal-consistency |
|
Democracy |
Medium Logic |
Low forecast |
Low-Truths |
Medium self-correcting |
Medium internal-consistency |
|
Absolute Austro Libertarian |
High Logic |
Medium forecast |
Medium-Truths |
High self-correcting |
High internal-consistency |
This table summarizes (in a pseudo-objective manner) how close a Political Theory is to a Scientific Theory. The closest it is, the better it is because it is more objective and therefore reliable and resilient.
As you can see, the Absolute Austro Libertarian theory (if we can call it a theory) beats all other political theories by a large amount. And since we are Austro Libertarians we declare victory and expect a revolution any day soon!
Well... no. Although it is true that such an analysis is just a best guess and necessarily biased, it is also a good faith attempt at the effort. It is so because when we set out to fill-in the blanks in the table, we did not have any idea what to expect. We tried to look at each item as honestly as possible and ask a simple question: To what degree I can do this or that based only on the Theory's axioms?
The point we are trying to make is that the Absolute Austro Libertarian Theory is the most rational of them all. We don't know by how much but we do know that it is better. It is precisely because of this that we are Absolute Austro Libertarians and not Communists or Liberals, Conservatives or Socialists.
Please consider this analysis when you make your choices. They are yours and only yours. The future is yours. It's up to you to make it better.
HOW WE DID IT
For those of you who are interested in technical details. This section will hopefully provide some of them.
Definitions:
Scientific Method – Logic: amount of a Political Theory that depends on clear and objective behavioural axiomatic rules (see Political Theory and Systems: Description and Characteristics) in contrast with murky and subjective ones.
Scientific Method – Measurement: capacity for producing good qualitative predictions, this is, predictions that cannot be measured but can be ordered (better health, better food, etc.).
Truth: easiness for testing predictions.
Self-Correction: capacity for discovering errors and correcting them without external intervention.
Internally Consistent: capacity of a Political Theory to deduce complex rules using only its original axioms.
Explanations
|
Political Theory |
Scientific Method – Logic |
|
No System |
There are no rules |
|
Minimum Leadership |
There are almost no rules, other than that in certain circumstances a Leader will be obeyed |
|
Totalitarian Leadership |
There are no rules other than that the Leader must always be obeyed |
|
Absolute Monarchy |
The main rule is that the Monarch must always be obeyed, but in addition, there are rules about other hierarchies such as Princes, Lords, etc. |
|
Limited Monarchy |
Rules are mostly created by a group of people representing the royal domain and upheld by a judiciary. These rules are somewhat consistent with each other but they contain a large degree of arbitrary conditions. |
|
Communism / Socialism |
Rules are mostly created by an absolutist group or people (oligarchs in communism) or a group representing the territory (elected representatives in socialism) and upheld by a judiciary. |
|
Democracy |
Rules are almost always created by a group of people representing the territory (elected representatives) and upheld by a judiciary. |
|
Absolute Austro Libertarian |
Rules are clearly described in the Master Contract from which all other default rules can be logically deduced. All other rules must comply with the Master Contract, however beyond this requirement, people are free to choose. |
|
Political Theory |
Scientific Method – Measurement |
|
No System |
It is not possible to forecast what does the Political Theory want to achieve, because there is no theory. |
|
Minimum Leadership |
It is not possible to forecast what does the Political Theory want to achieve beyond a certain minimum agreements. |
|
Totalitarian Leadership |
It is not possible to forecast what does the Political Theory want to achieve because goals are defined by the Leader on an ongoing basis. |
|
Absolute Monarchy |
It is barely possible to forecast what does the Political Theory want to achieve beyond the selfish goals defined by the Monarch and the hierarchy on an ongoing basis. |
|
Limited Monarchy |
Because the rules are mostly created by a group of people representing the royal domain it is possible to have some idea about their general goals since these people represent people’s will to a degree. |
|
Communism / Socialism |
Because rules are mostly created by an absolutist group or people (oligarchs in communism) or a group representing the territory (elected representatives in socialism) it is possible to have some idea about their general goals since these people represent people’s will to a lesser or larger degree. |
|
Democracy |
Rules are almost always created by a group of people representing a territory (elected representatives) since these people represent people’s will to a large degree. |
|
Absolute Austro Libertarian |
The Master Contract was developed from historical facts and experiences that worked and is designed to achieve the same conditions. As such an AL system goes beyond forecasting and into proven facts. |
|
Political Theory |
Truth |
|
No System |
It is not possible to forecast what does the Political Theory want to achieve, because there is no theory. Therefore nothing can be tested. |
|
Minimum Leadership |
It is not possible to forecast what does the Political Theory want to achieve beyond a certain minimum agreements. These agreements are few and simple and therefore easy to test. |
|
Totalitarian Leadership |
It is not possible to forecast what does the Political Theory want to achieve because goals are defined by the Leader on an ongoing basis, hence, they cannot be tested. |
|
Absolute Monarchy |
It is barely possible to forecast what does the Political Theory want to achieve beyond the selfish goals defined by the Monarch and the hierarchy on an ongoing basis. Therefore other than these goals, there are no other ones to test. |
|
Limited Monarchy |
Because the rules are mostly created by a group of people representing the royal domain it is possible to have some idea about their general goals since these people represent people’s will to a degree. The general direction of these goals can be known in advance and therefore could be tested somewhat. |
|
Communism / Socialism |
Because rules are mostly created by an absolutist group or people (oligarchs in communism) or a group representing the territory (elected representatives in socialism) it is possible to have some idea about their general goals since these people represent people’s will to a lesser or larger degree. The general direction of these goals can be known in advance and therefore could be tested somewhat. |
|
Democracy |
Rules are almost always created by a group of people representing a territory (elected representatives) since these people represent people’s will to a large degree. The general direction of these goals can be known in advance and therefore could be tested somewhat. |
|
Absolute Austro Libertarian |
The Master Contract was developed from historical facts and experiences that worked and is designed to achieve the same conditions. As such an AL system goes beyond forecasting and into proven facts. Facts are inherently testable. |
|
Political Theory |
Self-Correction |
|
No System |
Since there is no system, self-correction depends of each individual and (if it exists) it is therefore personal and not systemic. |
|
Minimum Leadership |
In this system the capability of detecting errors does exist (people see errors), however, correction is either personal (which is irrelevant) or limited to a change in leadership (which does not guarantee improvement beyond coincidence). |
|
Totalitarian Leadership |
In this system the capability of detecting errors does exist (people see errors), however, self-correction depends exclusively of the Leader, which is to say that it is random at best. |
|
Absolute Monarchy |
In this system the capability of detecting errors does exist (people see errors), however, self-correction depends mostly of the Leader, or the hierarchy which is to say that it is random at best. |
|
Limited Monarchy |
In this system the capability of detecting errors does exist (people see errors), and because the rules are mostly created by a group of people representing the royal domain it is possible for them to correct them since it is in their own best interest to do so (getting re-elected). However, there is an unknown factor which is a Monarch. |
|
Communism / Socialism |
In these systems the capability of detecting errors does exist (people see errors). If rules are mostly created by an absolutist group or people (oligarchs in communism) then the chances of self-correction are very low since this group does not depend of the people. If rules are created by people representing the territory (elected representatives in socialism) then some self-correction will occur, however it will be limited due to the blind adherence of heavily idealized political concepts (communism or socialism behaves as a religion). |
|
Democracy |
Rules are almost always created by a group of people representing a territory (elected representatives) representing people’s will to a large degree. It is possible for them to self-correct since it is in their own best interest to do so (getting re-elected). |
|
Absolute Austro Libertarian |
This system is set-up as a ruthless evolutionary machine where the people gets to choose at all times all the time. If an error is detected, the public’s rejection is automatic and the faulty element is discontinued and replaced by a better one (think ruthless marketplace competition). |
|
Political Theory |
Internally Consistent |
|
No System |
There are no axioms therefore nothing can be deduced |
|
Minimum Leadership |
This system is typically formed as an agreement to achieve certain minimum goals (mutual protection). It is task-oriented, not rules (axioms) oriented. Therefore nothing can be deduced. |
|
Totalitarian Leadership |
Since this system depends entirely of the will of the Leader, there are no general axioms. |
|
Absolute Monarchy |
This system depends entirely of the monarch’s and hierarchy’s will. Therefore there are no general axioms. |
|
Limited Monarchy |
Some basic axioms exist but they are compromised by the addition and subtraction from them that people’s representatives make. They are further compromised by the monarch which is an unknown factor. |
|
Communism / Socialism |
These two systems contain clearly defined axioms. However, these axioms are severely compromised by either the absolutist group or people in power (oligarchs in communism) or by people representing a territory (elected representatives in socialism). They are so because reality clashes against the blind adherence of heavily idealized political concepts (communism or socialism behaves as a religion), forcing the amendments or “explaining away” to axioms in order to be able to operate in reality. |
|
Democracy |
This system has clearly defined rules but they are somewhat compromised by the group of people representing a territory (elected representatives). This is so because when there is a difference between an axiom and a rule representatives tend to act in their own best interest which impairs the axioms. |
|
Absolute Austro Libertarian |
This system is based on the Master Contract from which all default rules of behaviour can be deduced. Therefore it exhibits a high degree of internal consistency. |
