What form of govt. do you think is best?

[avemaria40]

:cough:HenryVIII:cough:

edited to say: in reference to Era Might's recent post

Edited February 15, 2006 by avemaria40

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Feb 15 2006, 03:20 PM']A King can be just as deranged and vicious as a mob, except he has no one standing in his way.
[right][snapback]888470[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
sure he does, at least he always has historically-- tradition stands in his way, landowners stand in his way, nobility stands in his way, and in a worst case scenario a mob stands in his way.

but historically speaking, men who were raised from birth to be kings have been the best rulers Western Civilization has ever known

[Era Might]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Feb 15 2006, 04:20 PM']of course, we have an elected monarchial system, whereby a certain noble class (the wealthy) are the only ones that have any likelihood of getting elected.  just look at where presidential candidates come from... Bush comes from a wealthy family; Kerry at least married into a wealthy family but he himself also came from one, et cetera et cetera.  Those who do not think there is a noble class pool for our leaders are merely blinding themselves to the facts.
[right][snapback]888468[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It is not an "elected monarchial system". The President is not a King, at all. As a professor once put it to me, "When we get a new president, the only thing that changes is the linen in the White House". It's not a big deal. He's just there to do the will of the people.

Of course we have a noble class in America. I never denied that. Class is not an evil thing, unless it is used for domination or degradation. Some of us are working class, some of us have yachts in Hyannisport. So be it.

If you don't serve me like I expect you to, I'm gonna vote you out of office.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Feb 15 2006, 04:23 PM']sure he does, at least he always has historically-- tradition stands in his way, landowners stand in his way, nobility stands in his way, and in a worst case scenario a mob stands in his way.

but historically speaking, men who were raised from birth to be kings have been the best rulers Western Civilization has ever known
[right][snapback]888477[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

There's nothing unique about a King's upbringing. Men who are raised to be politicans can be darn good leaders. The only difference between them and a king is that there are millions of politicians in the United States. There was only one King.

This is why Presidents are remembered. There are only 42 of them.

Edited February 15, 2006 by Era Might

[Aloysius]

yep.. if the president must do something unpopular for the good of the country, he'll get voted out of office.

[Era Might]

Yes, after his 4 year term is up. Votes have consequences. Obviously, when we vote for a President, we say, "You have the power for 4 years. Do the right thing or you're outta there".

Unless the error is so egregious, he gets impeached. Only happened once, of course.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Feb 15 2006, 03:25 PM']There's nothing unique about a King's upbringing. Men who are raised to be politicans can be darn good leaders. The only difference between them and a king is that there are millions of politicians in the United States. There was only one King.

This is why Presidents are remembered. There are only 42 of them.
[right][snapback]888481[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
so you're faulting the monarchial system for having existed so much longer that there have been many more kings than that? I don't see the point... there have been 42 of them each serving at most 8 year terms (mostly, with a couple exceptions)... in 200 yrs... 42 is a lot

the bad monarchs are the only ones we remember because there was a tremendous anti-Catholic movement that attempted to paint all kings of the past in a bad light. just like they try to do to medieval popes...

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Feb 15 2006, 03:27 PM']Yes, after his 4 year term is up. Votes have consequences. Obviously, when we vote for a President, we say, "You have the power for 4 years. Do the right thing or you're outta there".

Unless the error is so egregious, he gets impeached. Only happened once, of course.
[right][snapback]888484[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
twice. but Clinton didn't leave office because though he was officially impeached, the sentence for that impeachment was not chosen as removal from office.

let me re-phrase that voter's voice for you:
"You have the power for 4 years. Do [i]what I want you to[/i] or you're outta there".

[Era Might]

No. It has nothing to do with how many Kings there have been.

You said that a King is special because he's raised to be a king. But that's bogus. A politican can be raised to be a politician. There's nothing unique about it.

The error of your statement (that the King is special because he's raised to be King) lies in the fact that you assume this because there is only one King at a time. If he's a good King, then, apparantly, Monarchy is justified, because he was a good King. But you would have to say the same thing about politicians and democracy. Except there are thousands of politicians at a time, and so their successes and failures are cast together, and irrationally used to judge democracy.

Edited February 15, 2006 by Era Might

[Era Might]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Feb 15 2006, 04:31 PM']twice.  but Clinton didn't leave office because though he was officially impeached, the sentence for that impeachment was not chosen as removal from office.

let me re-phrase that voter's voice for you:
"You have the power for 4 years. Do [i]what I want you to[/i] or you're outta there".
[right][snapback]888487[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Well, no. We are not a pure democracy, as our friends in another thread have been so kind to remind us.

We are a Republic, which is democratic in nature, but not in an absolute sense. It is representative, without abolishing the ultimate trump of the vote.

[Aloysius]

yes, a republic is better than a democracy because it curbs the mob's power... but the representatives are still held accountable to a mob. people still vote saying do what I want you to do or I vote you out of there.

the only way a politician can get something good done that is unpopular is to use deceit so that no one realizes he did it.

politicians are not raised from birth to be rulers... well the Kennedies were, yes, but not most. also; there is a difference in being raised to be a good politician and a good ruler. a monarch is raised to be a good ruler, because he knows one day he will have to be the ruler. he is raised, educated, et cetera by the absolute best means possible, it is a whole different thing when you have a royal family.

hereditary monarchies are always the more familial system of rule. it's: "that family is in charge" not "that person is in charge"... of course in modern society it's hard to grasp what that means, but it does mean something more. your family is you, you are your family. yes, we're all alienated from disintegrating families nowadays, once we're 18 we pack up and move away and don't look back... people's life stories can be told without any mention of their family and that is the way we tell stories...

very alienated... that's what we get for crass individualism...

[Aloysius]

don't get me wrong... I like republics

I just think monarchies have the potential to be better

monarchies, like alcohol, have the potential to either be one of the greatest things ever, or one of the worst things ever.

of course, modern society is all about not taking risks, so in order not to risk the worst thing ever we lose out on the potential greatest thing ever.

[Paphnutius]

Alo brought up an interesting point that made me think of this, if I might interject that is,

He stated that republics are accountable to a mob, and to a certain extent I believe that is applicable to monarchies as well (otherwise revolts would be inevitable). Where I am going with this is that you are all disucssing the best form of government. How is this measured? It would appear as though some are implying that it is measured by how well the ruler or politician follows morality and ethics. In short, the teachings of the Church would be optimal, but if forms of government are held accountable to some extent to the mob, who is to blame?

Is it the goverment that is making poor choices? Or is it the people to whom they are accountable that influence the choices? If it is the type of leadership, then does it matter what type?

It would seem that if you want a better style of governance, start at the bottom (not social class wise, but with the governed) and work your way up.

Just a thought to chew on, back to you all

[Myles Domini]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Feb 15 2006, 08:51 PM']Alo brought up an interesting point that made me think of this, if I might interject that is,

He stated that republics are accountable to a mob, and to a certain extent I believe that is applicable to monarchies as well (otherwise revolts would be inevitable). Where I am going with this is that you are all disucssing the best form of government. How is this measured? It would appear as though some are implying that it is measured by how well the ruler or politician follows morality and ethics. In short, the teachings of the Church would be optimal, but if forms of government are held accountable to some extent to the mob, who is to blame?

Is it the goverment that is making poor choices? Or is it the people to whom they are accountable that influence the choices? If it is the type of leadership, then does it matter what type?

It would seem that if you want a better style of governance, start at the bottom (not social class wise, but with the governed) and work your way up.

Just a thought to chew on, back to you all
[right][snapback]888514[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Paphnutius I maintain that the limited monarchy is the best type of system because I believe it the most conductive to developing virtue. I am looking at things from the point of view of Aristotle's politics. Aristotle's era may have been very different but he knew what democracy could produce and can anyone say that he was wrong about the kind of vices we see arising out of the democratic system. A King needn't toe the party line so he can be put forth to stand in a seat for election, a King needn't rely on his sponsors and thus has no responsibilities to them when he takes the throne, a King doesn't need to horse trade, a King doesn't need to flatter and lie and detract and caluminate his opponents to gain power and stay in power, a King does not need to follow horribly immoral popularist policies to gain the support of loud overly vocal pressure groups, the list could go on and on...

Optimally all things being equal is it not fair to say that the monarchial system (apart from perhaps absolute monarchy, which just drives people power mad) is the best type of government at preserving people's virtue? I mean everyone's criticising monarchy and bad Kings how many ruthless and evil republican leaders have their been in history? The Athenians were such virtous people with their grossly immoral behaviour and the Roman republicans were such gentle fellows order proscriptions against one another, lets not forget the kind hearted Italian cities states of Medieval Italy wherein rival factions constantly plotted against one another seeking to control the mobs for political gain, or lets refer to the glorious reign of Terror--so good in fact the French decided to get an Emperor in its place! People talk about bad Kings f'r sure but what about wicked and corrupt republics of which their have been oh so many?

I cant believe Era that you have a problem with having a King when you admitted to Al that you dont mind a plutocracy. Rulership by the rich now there's a grand idea. Now in the modern individualistic overconsumerist world whats the best way to get rich, eh? By being virtous, good, and true to ethical principles? I'm not saying that it doesn't happen but I think if you look at the rich list of any country you'll find far more people who are unscrupulous than who are honourable. Glory O glory, these are the men who will provided the hundreds of millions of dollars needed to mount an election campaign, glory o glory these are the men who will be running for election. Best part of it is they know whichever horse they back only has two terms in office anyway so as soon as he gets elected twice they can shift all their bets to the next suitable canditate to exercise government in their best interest. Lots of virtue in that.

Monarchy isn't justified by the moral standards of the King it is justified because as Al said 'it has the potential to be better'. There's the key. It has the potential to be [b]better[/b]. Overall I believe if you compare the conductivity of virtue of both systems of government you could find more to say that's positive about a monarchy than about a representative democracy. Moreover, overall lots of what has been said about the Kings and Emperors of the past ignores all the good they've done. The Kings were under absolutely no obligation to do anything other than defend their people in times of war yet they made an effort, even some of the evil ones, to codify law and order, to enhance trade, industry and social conditions albeit according to conventions of their time (which meant build a monastery so the monks could look after the poor).

Ignoring these good actions its easy to create the impression that the Medieval period was an age wherein our basic rights and freedoms were always at risk but the truth of the matter is that is a lie concocted by the masonic deists who founded the revolutionary idea both in America, France, Spain, Portugal and elsewhere.Even Louis XIV as up himself as he may've been, the epitome of the absolute monarch, fought with conviction against the Calvinists. What does this illustrate that he was intolerant? Perhaps but it also illustrates the training he recieved as a boy never left him: He had the conviction to fight for his beliefs. How many politicians can even make it to a position of power without compromising their beliefs? And once there how many can actually go back on those compromises and upset their party, their sponosers and the swing voters?

The age of Kings was not a dark age wherein everyone was afraid that the Kings would steal all their freedoms. Rather, if you actually look at the source texts you'll find most of the peasant classes looked to the Kings to defend them against malicious employers and capricious nobles. The King was not the boogey man who was going to steal their rights rather the King was the standard bearer of their rights, their protector. If they did not believe this (and the source texts show that even the French revolutionists who supportered Robespierre--at first--were not united in their desire to kill off the Bourbon monarch's. They were indeed especially not united in their desire to see the Church removed from French life as Napoleon I quickly realised) how could a political system without any real organised law and order as well as a national guard survive? Even Jean-Jacques Rousseau that bastion of French Liberalism believed a benevolent dictator was the best governor for revolutionary France.

The idea that we are progressing and that we are at the height of our freedoms because we live in an age where a bunch of rich people behind some party decides who we're going to have stand for vote and then basically dictates the policy of the executive we elect is simply mistaken. The system we're living demands of its politicians too many ethical compromises to be held up besides the monarchial system as a conduit for virtue.

[heavenseeker]

non-Catholic Democracy