Now, with this scenario, I see two things that can happen:
a) A new party or social movement arises (party F, say) promising change. It's so "inspiring", it wins an incredible majority of both the seats in Congress and the presidential votes. Then the party uses such majority to pass any laws it wants (maybe even one allowing unlimited reelection, ... See Moreor another one banning the opposition) Before you know it, you've got a Hitler/Mussolini/Fujimori/Morales/Correa/Chávez on power...
b)Party A stages an "autogolpe" and dissolves Congress, calling for a "Constitutional Assembly"

Those are two pretty possible scenarios. That they haven't happened recently in industrialized countries is, in fact, due to the fact that no industrialized country mixes multypartism and presidentialism.

"Yes, but Olson was just an apologist for the coercive socialism that funded him, and his arguments held no logical water. Express a specific application and I'll refute it logically."
How about all his examples. And I'm sorry but I don't see how his application of the prisioner's dilemma holds no "logical water"... It's hard to get more logical ... See Morethan game theory... Anyway, his explanation of the strength of large groups and small/privileged groups is quite logical.
How was Olson funded by coercive socialism? And how is his theory of groups an apology of that? I don't see the relation... I think it's actually a pretty good explanation of why socialism can't work (almost everyone will become a free rider with a public good)

Game theory is often fallaceous, when it comes to real-world application. Either the boundaries are artificially narrow (in that sense, thought models are often fallacy), or the expectations are positively sociopathic.

The premise, for example, that the prisoners get no benefit from lowering each other's sentence is just one of many ways the ... See Moreprisoner's dilemma is sociopathically detached from the real world. Two /friends/ in that situation benefit most if they do not betray each other, as do two members of any "criminal" organization that values loyalty. In fact, any two sane human beings with decent social skill are likely to value loyalty, and have enough theory of mind and empathy to wish the other person would not suffer ten years in prison.

Getting back to theory of mind, each prisoner should be able to visualize the other one grasping that remaining loyal is the optimal outcome. Six months is FAR better than five or ten years, so he should realize the other would rationally not defect, even aside from loyalty and empathy.

In fact, what the bumbling academic's version, imposed on university students, ends up being is a means of programming people with a fallacy that instills sociopathic attitudes in them.

Sadly, this is another example of how academia ends up supporting socialism for its own benefit. Socialism is fraught with that very kind of sociopathic mindset.... See More

> Anyway, his explanation of the strength of
> large groups and small/privileged groups is quite logical.

Many socialist arguments are internally logical, yet ultimately are not only fraught with fallacy, but do not apply to the real world, usually because they do not address the many alternative influences.

It would be much more effective if you presented arguments in your own words, than simply citing something you claim applies, because you otherwise leave me faced with inserting a straw man argument into your mouth.

Olson ignored the natural voluntary collective action of a free market. In fact, free people tend to organize /better/ than coercive... See More government entities, allowing for greater provision of even public goods. In some cases, this is so straightforward that it renders Olson's fallacy meaningless. For example, nobody would build a structure without a road, so effective road-building by the private sector is 100% guaranteed.

In fact, the inevitable inefficiency and incompetence of government delivery of a private good, roads being a great example, would offset plenty of other benefit, in and of itself. Labor costs alone, when a government builds a road, are frequently seven times higher than if a private entity does.

Everyone knows McCain wasn't the Republicans fav pick, that's why he chose Palin...but are you guys still proud of her? I wouldn't be, you could've had Romney (an economy guy)...sorry about that Repubs...

Romney was slightly less Liberal than McCain, so less vile...but is certainly not a Conservative. I am still uncertain about whether Palin is tolerable, but she's actually far better than Romney, either way.

To say that Romney was slightly less liberal than McCain is the understatement of the century.

Actually, no, Romney only appears to be Conservative when you are contrasting him with a crypto-socialist like McCain. But Romney's still a New England Liberal Republican, with quite a history of tax hikes and big regulatory expansions.

He would've been better, but was still miles from Reagan.

I agree that Romney's no Reagan, but I don't really see him as a Liberal Republican. If you're the governor of Massachusetts you can't be a Conservative Republican while in that office because you'll quickly see that you can't get anything done. I believe that if he had been elected President, he would have been more conservative than you think.