| | Michael wrote, "Objectivism has not yet developed a system of political science..."
Objectivism also doesn't choose between electronic balloting, written ballots or punch cards. Objectivism also doesn't determine what to include or exclude in parliamentary procedures to be followed by congress.
Objectivism is a philosophy and is not required or expected to create a political science. Philosophies, at the most, are about metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, political philosophy (not the details that would be worked out in political science), and aesthetics.
Political science would examine things like checks and balances. From Wikipedia, "Political science is a social science concerned with the theory and practice of politics, and the analysis of political systems and political behavior."
--------------------
Michael wrote, "Why have two legislative houses and not three or one? Is there an objective standard?"
The principles are hierarchical.... We are familiar with the principles that lead from man's nature qua man to individual rights to a government that is limited by a constitution to actions that protect those rights. This is the foundation from which political science attempts to determine what political checks and balances will be most effective in keeping the government stable within the historical and cultural context.
For example, we know that the constitution, before being amended, called for our two houses to be very different, with Senators elected by the states legislators while the United States Congress was elected by the citizens of a district. This forced sharing of power between the House/people and Senate/state was seen as a fair way to share authority and to balance power. This is an objective approach to implementing a principle relating to federalism. If a better practice would give a better result as measured by the objectives mentioned, it should become the practice of choice. What more could someone ask for in the social sciences?
|
|
