American Government

[MorphRC]

Since nobody has answered yet, i wasnt being serious. Theres discussion not debate, and my plan didnt work

[jrndveritatis]

[quote]Maybe it'd help if some terms and ideas were clarified to substantiate my argument. And it'd allow for better rebuttal cuz I'd think it can be fully refuted somehow, unless I don't understant some points. (this is just a new notion that other thread got me toyin with) With jrd on board, I think this can be accomplished if we really wanted. 


QUOTE 
I don't think you can call democracy evil because it presents the opportunity for people to allow moral evils.

If you completely accept this argument, then every form of government would be evil, even a Catholic monarchy, because monarchies can become corrupt. Any human institution or government can become corrupted and used for evil. 



My argument would call for two different types of democracies as I see it. One that theoretically allows for others the opportunity to legally do evil, and one that does not. The theoretically good and bad, can be either bad or good in practice.

The theory behind a Catholic government would be adherence to the decrees of the Church. There is no room in this theory for nonadherence, and again this is in theory. So when the Catholic government does not adhere to the decrees, it is evil in and of itself in practice, but not in theory. I don't see how you could argue that a Catholic government can become theoretically bad. I mean, it can theoretically become bad in practice, but can not become theoretically bad in theory. (if you know what I mean lol)

So, I'd still argue that a democracy that allows for those opportunities is evil.

And maybe it'd help if I tried to elaborate on how I could how as I see the confusion arose.


QUOTE 
Perhaps the American system of government started out as good, (I don't know) but it became bad. Not because it became bad per se, but because it allows for the possibility of bad.



What I meant was that in the beginning there might have been no opportuniites for bad, so the system was good in theory. Even if the government was bad in practice, it was good in theory. And now the government is (or always has been, this is what I don't know) bad in theory, and of course bad in practice. Maybe it was neutral, but then this neutrality allows for evil practice and theory.

I suppose you could argue that American democracy is theoretically good, and it's bad in practice. I s'pose this would depend how looking up the founding fathers ideas, though even then it might be unclear. It's probaly meant to be lenient (though I'm sure this is debatable) to allow for the government to cater to the people. Since it does not cater to the people in accordance to the Church, I'd say it's evil. Even if you were to argue that the fathers wanted it to be lenient in a general sense, neutral, that doesn't specifically condone evil, it still allows for it.

I don't think the Catholic monarchy example was best, but there's prolly a better example. I sort of see the neutrality validity opposed to my arguments, but it'd be neutrality that allows for evil as far as I can see. I know there's a better way to look at the foundation of the US constitution and this neutrality arguement that prolly refutes my notion, but I'm losing my train of thought. I need some critique.

Something like not theoretically bad or theoretically good, but theoretically neurtral. And the practices can be good or bad. But then the neutral allows for bad so I don't see how it can be good. Cuz by good I mean doesn't allow for bad in theory. I'm confusing myself, and prolly everyone else and I'm losing my thought. I can clarify later or ya'll can try to explain.
[/quote]

So you are proposing a democracy which would be constitutionally bound to uphold the natural moral law? In other words, it would be bound to not allow sinful/evil activities?

It seems that this would be a democracy which is good in theory. And it is also pretty clear that compared to this all other types of democracies, which either could allow for or do allow for moral evils to be legally practiced (i.e. abortion) would be in that sense evil. And this classification could be applied to every form of government: you could have a monarchy, aristocracy, or democracy which is not capable of allowing moral evils to be legally sanctioned; and likewise you could have monarchies, aristocracies, or democracies which could or do allow this.

My question then would be how do you enforce this restriction? What prevents a government from legally sanctioning evil and thus makes a government "good"?

A constitution? But they can be amended. Church control of the state? Corruption can exist in the agents of the Church (as history has demonstrated).

I guess what I am saying is I don't think that there is a form of government which can be considered good or evil in and of itself because there is no way to ensure that that government would be used to defend the moral law. Every government can be twisted: monarchy into tyranny, aristocracy into oligarchy, democracy into mob rule.

But if you are saying that there can be a good manifestation of a democracy, one in which the moral law is upheld, then, yes, I would agree that that is a good government.

I [i]think[/i] Aquinas (as well as Aristotle and every respectable philosopher) said that insofar as a government defends and protects the common good it is a good government.

So, in theory, is the American government good or bad? Hmmm. I think if you uphold the Constitution and interpret it correctly, it is in theory good. But the way the liberal courts interpret it now, it is not.

[Socrates]

All human government will allow for opportunities to do evil. This is due to fallen human nature. Anything has the potential to be corrupted towards evil. This is not to say that all systems of government are equal - it's just that in this world it is impossible to have a system in which no evil will be possible. You'll have to wait fro heaven. Due to original sin, we cannot have heaven on earth.

A good government should be ordered toward the common good of the citizens, and not encourage evil, but for all evil to be erradicated is impossible. If a government attempted this utopian goal (and it has been tried in the past), inevitably, since the human agents of government are themselves fallen and fallable, more problems, even attrocities, inevitably result. (You end up with purges and "witchhunts.")

The law should deal with serious threats to the common good, but a system which does not "allow for evil practice and theory" is simply utopian and impossible.

This is a bit philosophical and difficult, and I don't know if I've expressed this very clearly, but I hope this makes some sense.

Again, megamattman, it would be more helpful if you told what it is specifically in the American Constitution that you find troublesome. You have been rather vague as to what exactly you are referring to.

[jrndveritatis]

[quote]All human government will allow for opportunities to do evil. This is due to fallen human nature. Anything has the potential to be corrupted towards evil. This is not to say that all systems of government are equal - it's just that in this world it is impossible to have a system in which no evil will be possible. You'll have to wait fro heaven. Due to original sin, we cannot have heaven on earth.

A good government should be ordered toward the common good of the citizens, and not encourage evil, but for all evil to be erradicated is impossible. If a government attempted this utopian goal (and it has been tried in the past), inevitably, since the human agents of government are themselves fallen and fallable, more problems, even attrocities, inevitably result. (You end up with purges and "witchhunts.")

The law should deal with serious threats to the common good, but a system which does not "allow for evil practice and theory" is simply utopian and impossible.

This is a bit philosophical and difficult, and I don't know if I've expressed this very clearly, but I hope this makes some sense.

Again, megamattman, it would be more helpful if you told what it is specifically in the American Constitution that you find troublesome. You have been rather vague as to what exactly you are referring to. [/quote]

Well put Socrates.

[megamattman1]

[quote]So, in theory, is the American government good or bad? Hmmm. I think if you uphold the Constitution and interpret it correctly, it is in theory good. But the way the liberal courts interpret it now, it is not. [/quote]

It may actually be good in its theory, I dunno. Now that I think about it, it seems that they wanted to adhere to the natural law. Just taken at this face value, I would agree that it is good. But this may be misleading cuz it also seems they might have let it be done that the majority gets to decide natural law. If it said something like "we will follow the natural law", then it is good. If it implies somewhere that we have to vote for it, it may is not good.

[quote]it would be more helpful if you told what it is specifically in the American Constitution that you find troublesome[/quote]

The American government allows for people to judge what is natural law based on popular vote (it is also may allow for allowing for a wide range of acceptable natural laws) This is my underlying assumption. Like I said in my first post:

[quote]Given that it has been established as immoral to consider other people's morals, and given that the American system is based on allowing for that[/quote]

I don't mean the system is based on that because of bad practice, but because of bad theory. If ya'll think my premises are wrong, then that's that and the government is good if we are to follow the natural law. but this is my assumption, I am wondering if it is evil.


Saying neutral may be misleading because in theory the government can allow for evil. (flexible or somethin like that might be better) It's the theory that allows for the possibility of evil. And it's the theory that is being judged. In this set of parameters I'm basing everything.


Prolly help if I responded to this.
[quote]The law should deal with serious threats to the common good, but a system which does not "allow for evil practice and theory" is simply utopian and impossible.[/quote]

I wouldn't say does not "allow for evil practice and theory", but say does not "allow for evil theory". I dunno if this is impractical or not. People will still do wrong, but it won't be sanctioned by the government's theory.

The American democracy is not one way or the other but allows for bad in theory. in its actual theory. In other words, the theory of the american government is that evil can occur.

A catholic democracy say would not allow for evil in its theory. Evil would occur, but not because of its theory.

[quote]My question then would be how do you enforce this restriction? What prevents a government from legally sanctioning evil and thus makes a government "good"? [/quote]

It's not about what happens to the government outside the realm of its theory. (that I'm talkin about anyway) If its not carried out, if it's bad in practice, then the government is still good in theory. If people change it in its theory, then it's no long the theory it was. Again theory being the basis of the good or bad.


I can still see the neutral arguement somewhat. I really I don't know..

Edited August 27, 2004 by megamattman1

[megamattman1]

It does depned on what you think of as the real american government whtere good or bad. But this is all based on my assumption.

Edited August 27, 2004 by megamattman1

[voiciblanche]

[quote name='JP2Iloveyou' date='Aug 24 2004, 11:34 AM'] Democracy is definitely the best form of government available. [/quote]
Oh?

[voiciblanche]

[quote name='White Knight' date='Aug 24 2004, 04:15 PM'] I think its one of the best nations in the world to be honest, because it gives the most freedom out of any other country that has ever existed throughout History. [/quote]
Yes, but isn't there such a thing as too much freedom? The problem with America is that if we didn't have half the freedoms we have, half the things we do as Catholics would be illegal... perhaps a good deal of us would be martyrs, then. Now, if we had good leaders, then we wouldn't need quite so many freedoms because we'd have good/better laws.

[voiciblanche]

[quote name='megamattman1' date='Aug 24 2004, 08:25 PM'] Will you all agree that democracy that allows for that is evil, even if at the time it is good? [/quote]
No. You could say that with a lot of things. I have the "possibility of going bad" even though I was created good and to be good by Him who is good and from whom all good things come. Does that mean I'm evil? No.

[quote]Will you all agree that we as Catholics are bigots and intolerant? (of other's morals ie)[/quote]

We're intolerant of sin, and therefore intolerant of the "love the sinner, let them sin - I'm not getting involved" attitude of this stupid culture of death. We're not intolerant of the people. And I don't think we're bigots.

[voiciblanche]

[quote name='megamattman1' date='Aug 25 2004, 12:45 AM'] One that theoretically allows for others the opportunity to legally do evil, and [b]one that does not.[/b] [/quote]
I don't think such a democracy - or any form of government - exists.

[qfnol31]

I am personally with Plato on this, and think that Democracy, or our current form of government, is by far not the best that we could have. There are many things that I disagree with in the setup of our government.

[jrndveritatis]

[quote]I am personally with Plato on this, and think that Democracy, or our current form of government, is by far not the best that we could have. There are many things that I disagree with in the setup of our government.  [/quote]

Hey [i]The Republic[/i] is an awesome book.

But I think that the setup (original, constitutional, theoretical, not as currently practiced) of our republic is pretty good as far as democracies go.

Do you think it would be possible for a monarchy to work in America? Or what do you think is the best form of government we could have?

Aquinas said a monarchy would be best. But he allows for the fact that any form of government is just if it pursues the common good.

[Socrates]

America was actually founded as a Constitutional Republic, not a pure Democracy -there is a difference.

[megamattman1]

[quote]America was actually founded as a Constitutional Republic, not a pure Democracy -there is a difference. [/quote]

This is a good point because certain things are the constitutional non-negotiales - not open for majority rule. Everything else is majority rule democracy. Whereas pure would be all majority rule.

The problem in American is decideing what should should be the constitutional part. Often to the point of making it practically pure democracy.

The constitutional part is going to become temporary ideals someday.

[jrndveritatis]

Yeah, a constitutional republic answers many of the objections which Socrates raises in Plato's [i]Republic[/i].

The Constitution limits mob rule. The Founding Fathers set it up with this in mind. The masses are fickle and can be led astray by demagogues. The whole system of three branches and a Senate was set up to overcome the problems of democracies.

But megamattman, you are right in saying that the Constitution is almost a temporary ideal. Look at how all these mechanisms are being killed off one by one. Now the people elect senators. Now the electoral college is criticized. Now the will of the people dominates and the representatives really don't do anything. Really representatives are supposed to be chosen for their wisdom and then they decide policy, not the people, and they pick the Senators and president. Direct democracy is approaching, against the wishes of the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.

[voiciblanche]

[quote name='jrndveritatis' date='Aug 26 2004, 09:26 PM'] Do you think it would be possible for a monarchy to work in America? [/quote]
Probably not - most likely we'd end up with a terrible king.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='jrndveritatis' date='Aug 26 2004, 09:26 PM'] Aquinas said a monarchy would be best. But he allows for the fact that any form of government is just if it pursues the common good. [/quote]
LoL, today, in our country, the common good seems to be too secularized...

[Guest JeffCR07]

megamattman1, I would like to respond to your question, though I know I am late in joining the conversation.

I think one would be in error to claim that the American Governmental system is intrinsically evil, as one would be in error to claim that [i]any[/i] governmental system is intrinsically evil.

Even dictatorship is not, by necessity, evil. A dictator may be evil, but the system itself is not. So too with a King, or a republic, or a democracy, or anything in between. (lets avoid communism for now, as it goes beyond a simple governmental system and incorporates false social doctrines).

The issue, really, is of people, not the system. If the people within the American Government are good, so too with the government be. If the Monarch or Dictator is a good person, so too with the Monarchy or the Dictatorship be a good one.

Seeking to portray the American Government as "evil" because it takes into account (in most cases) the majority morality rather than true morality, is, ultimately, a poor and unscholarly thing to do, because one could make the same assertion with regards to Monarchy (for a monarchy, in fact, asserts only the morality of [i]one[/i], so its all or nothing).

If you are asking whether or not America, as a nation, is evil as a result of the corruption of its government [i]visa vi[/i] its people, then I would argue, on the whole, yes. Secularism and Tolerance have gone too far.

When I look at America today, all too often I see a frenzied mob running around every which way, screaming and shouting "freedom." They are so enslaved by this idea, so fanatical about it, that they will break asunder anything that even remotely looks as if it is a form of bondage. This mob, in its frenzy and rage, it seems has broken the "bonds" of morality upon the nation, and, it seems to me, has shattered the chains of bondage that were keeping Satan in hell.

However, while I assert that a great many people in America are evil, I would never assert that the system itself is bad.

Also, just on a side note, Chesterton makes a great argument for democracy in his book [u]Orthodoxy[/u].

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[Socrates]

[quote]When I look at America today, all too often I see a frenzied mob running around every which way, screaming and shouting "freedom." They are so enslaved by this idea, so fanatical about it, that they will break asunder anything that even remotely looks as if it is a form of bondage.[/quote]

Ironically, this desire for (false) freedom (licentiousness is a more acurate word) leads not to greater freedom, but to increasing beaurocratized tyranny. Liberal judges and courts strike down even the most basic religious freedoms to protect the interests of secularists, homsexuals, etc.

As a nation, we are much less free than we were at the time of America's founding (and ironically less free than even under the tyranny of King George). The power of the federal government has increased tremendously over the past century or so. The courts have put local institutions such as families, churches, schools and businesses under increasing restraint. Tyrannical taxes and regulations burden everyone. Freedom of religion, true free speech (not the same as obscenity!) and the right to bear arms are under increasing threats from politically correct interests.

We should stand up for true freedom and fight licentiousness and politically correct tyranny!

Edited August 27, 2004 by Socrates

[qfnol31]

Isn't it really true that the government can't be evil, especially the people making it up? Technically, I would think only their actions could be evil...