Your Favorite Form Of Government

[son_of_angels]

See, that's exactly the problem with our system. A democracy ruled by republicans is no democracy at all, as neither with democrats. Nor can a deliberative republic exist if the possibility exists for partisan politics.

The very notion of political parties bespeaks a totalitarian agenda which seeks to impose its unfounded will on the masses.

I think a Catholic nation ruled by a Court of Archdeacons or Priests, with Canon Law and Catholic doctrine as the primary source of legal precedent (without which no law is executable) is the best form.

Thus my preference is feudalism, as the natural organization of the Church is both hierarchical and feudalist.

[son_of_angels]

Or, perhaps, a judicial republic with Judges appointed for life by a Clerical House of Check, as in the Old Testament.

[|gnat|]

[quote name='DeeDee' date='Sep 12 2005, 12:35 PM']If Anarchy existed in the classical definition, I would prefer Anarchy. That is a group of people acting in perfect cooperation with one another. Of course this is an ideal, and it will never happen because people do not know how to cooperate with one another, respect one another, care for the well-being of one other to the extent that there would be no need for wars, violence, greed, etc. Anarchism looks foward to a society in which responsible personal freedom is at a maximum, in which material goods are fairly distributed, and which common tasks [work] are carried out by voluntary agreement.

So, you see why this would never be a reality.
[right][snapback]720558[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Neither is striving to be perfect, like Jesus, but we continue to press on towards that goal, don't we?

[quote]First, the human person has the intrinsic right to own property.[/quote]

How so? How is it intrinsic?

God owns this earth; who are we to divide it up and hoard it to ourselves? Now, if you are talking about houses and personal possessions, then I agree with you to an extent, but if you are referring to large plots of land (and the like), then we'll have to disagree.

Every man has an intrisic right to have access to land than can sustain him.

[quote name='Socrates' date='Sep 12 2005, 07:06 PM']Indeed.  Communism is [b]pure[/b] socialism, and thus the worst form of socialism.
Socialism has been condemned by the Church (see my signature), and thus no Catholics ought to be arguing for it.

Communism (pure socialism) was responsible for more deaths and human misery than any other government system during its 75 years of power.

Hitler was also a socialist (National Socialism), who stole a lot of his ideas from the communists and used them for his own purposes.

Socialism and especially Communism has an awful miserable track record and has been condemend by the Church.  Why are "Catholics" defending it???
[right][snapback]721103[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


A post from the CA forums concerning socialism:

"As is obvious from the quote from Pope Leo, at that time "socialist" was interchangeable with "communist". Unfortunately some people still haven't got the news that socialists parted ways with communists over 100 years ago. Socialists do not seek to overthrow civil society. BTW in the same encyclical Pope Leo endorsed the right of workers to form unions to be paid a just wage, that governments have duties to care for those unable to work etc. etc.

Socialism is in no way incompatible with Catholicism, much less a sin! much less a mortal sin!! There are many Christian Socialist/Labour/Social Democrat parties around the world with many good Catholic members. Catholics are encouraged to take an active part in politics in accordance with their various political views. Catholics are free to join any political party with the exception of those (Communist, Nazi) which require members to renounce Catholic beliefs.

Unfortunately many political parties on both Left and Right espouse some individual policies (eg on abortion) which are contrary to Catholic faith and morality. However unless the party REQUIRES you to endorse such a policy as a condition of membership, this should not deter you from joining the party if its general political aims coincide with yours. As a member you can then work on changing the objectionable policy."
----------------------------------

What exactly is your beef with socialism? Do you know how many millions of socialist Catholics exist? There is nothing inherently wrong with that ecnomic system. And speaking of misery, how many people have been plunged into poverty because of capitalism? Argentina is a perfect example of capitalism failing the people.

Neither system is perfect.

[son_of_angels]

The intrinsic problem with most movements which grow into socialism is based on the fact that they proceed from covetousness and materialism. This cannot be reconciled to Catholic doctrine.

However, neither can blind and uncharitable capitalism. Either system involves the desire of possessions over the desire for righteousness. Either system overlooks humanity, culture, and beauty in a search for personal power.

The only way any form of communalism can work is when it comes from the generosity of the people involved, on a strictly local level, as anything else betrays the notion of community and communication. It is when people start caring about "what's his face" in New York who has more than a billion dollars, or even the nameless masses of poor in Uganda rather than the neighbors they meet that righteousness, beauty, and charity are abandoned. It is so, so, necessary that social charity be itself based on interpersonal relationships rather than on personal dismay at income levels.

[son_of_angels]

That is not to say that we should not minister to the poor and destitute across the world, but that instead we should reach out to them in compassion and fellowship, rather than just bread, cash, and ideology.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='son_of_angels' date='Sep 12 2005, 10:30 PM']The intrinsic problem with most movements which grow into socialism is based on the fact that they proceed from covetousness and materialism.  This cannot be reconciled to Catholic doctrine.

However, neither can blind and uncharitable capitalism.  Either system involves the desire of possessions over the desire for righteousness.  Either system overlooks humanity, culture, and beauty in a search for personal power.

The only way any form of communalism can work is when it comes from the generosity of the people involved, on a strictly local level, as anything else betrays the notion of community and communication.  It is when people start caring about "what's his face" in New York who has more than a billion dollars, or even the nameless masses of poor in Uganda rather than the neighbors they meet that righteousness, beauty, and charity are abandoned.  It is so, so, necessary that social charity be itself based on interpersonal relationships rather than on personal dismay at income levels.
[right][snapback]721305[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
There is much truth in your words here.

[Socrates]

[quote name='|gnat|' date='Sep 12 2005, 09:17 PM']Neither is striving to be perfect, like Jesus, but we continue to press on towards that goal, don't we?
How so?  How is it intrinsic?

God owns this earth; who are we to divide it up and hoard it to ourselves? Now, if you are talking about houses and personal possessions, then I agree with you to an extent, but if you are referring to large plots of land (and the like), then we'll have to disagree. 

Every man has an intrisic right to have access to land than can sustain him. 
A post from the CA forums concerning socialism:

"As is obvious from the quote from Pope Leo, at that time "socialist" was interchangeable with "communist". Unfortunately some people still haven't got the news that socialists parted ways with communists over 100 years ago. Socialists do not seek to overthrow civil society. BTW in the same encyclical Pope Leo endorsed the right of workers to form unions to be paid a just wage, that governments have duties to care for those unable to work etc. etc.

Socialism is in no way incompatible with Catholicism, much less a sin! much less a mortal sin!! There are many Christian Socialist/Labour/Social Democrat parties around the world with many good Catholic members. Catholics are encouraged to take an active part in politics in accordance with their various political views. Catholics are free to join any political party with the exception of those (Communist, Nazi) which require members to renounce Catholic beliefs.

Unfortunately many political parties on both Left and Right espouse some individual policies (eg on abortion) which are contrary to Catholic faith and morality. However unless the party REQUIRES you to endorse such a policy as a condition of membership, this should not deter you from joining the party if its general political aims coincide with yours. As a member you can then work on changing the objectionable policy."
----------------------------------

What exactly is your beef with socialism?  Do you know how many millions of socialist Catholics exist?  There is nothing inherently wrong with that ecnomic system.  And speaking of misery, how many people have been plunged into poverty because of capitalism?  Argentina is a perfect example of capitalism failing the people. 

Neither system is perfect.
[right][snapback]721287[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Perhaps you could come up with something authoritative from the Church Herself explaining why Pope Pius XII really meant something else when condemning Socialism, or saying that socialism is okay, rather than just quoting the opinion of some guy on an internet forum.

As you yourself said, Communism is not a perversion of socialism, but its most perfect form. Socialism is based on evil principles.
And there were always forms of socialism other than Communism. The Pope is not one too be inprecise with words when condemning something. If he meant to condemn only communism, he would have just said "communist" rather than "socialist."

Workers being able to form unions, etc. is not socialism. Socialism is contrary to the Catholic Church, because the Church has always taught that people have a basic right to own property and their means of production. Socialism denies that right, making all property (whether explicitly or implicitly) that of the state. Such a system leads naturally to disaster.

Laizes Faire capitalism (that is the free market with no moral limits placed upon it) has also been condemned, but that is another topic. "Capitalism" by itself will not solve all the world's problems, bu the solution is NOT socialism, with its denial of the right to property.

The misery in "capitalist" countries is nothing compared with that suffered by people under Communism. I'd suggest reading Dr. Warren H. Carroll's Rise and Fall of the Communist Revolution for starters.

Socialism fails on both the moral and economic levels, and this fact is well established by history.

Edited September 13, 2005 by Socrates

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='White Knight' date='Sep 11 2005, 02:30 AM']It still something that we need to keep intact otherwise the nation would fall apart.
[right][snapback]719042[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Good. The foundation of our nation was evil and evl has been it's fruit for centuries. That we fall is not only inevitable it is Just.

[White Knight]

Democracy doesn't always work, people can go back or change their mind, a Government sould be ruled by a Constitution of some sort, that is so sacred, it sould be like what the Bible is to a Christian and the Korean is to a Muslim, It sould be unchangeable.


A Democracy under a Constitutional Republic is the best form of Government next to a Kingdom.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='White Knight' date='Sep 13 2005, 02:37 PM']Democracy doesn't always work, people can go back or change their mind, a Government sould be ruled by a Constitution of some sort, that is so sacred, it sould be like what the Bible is to a Christian and the Korean is to a Muslim, It sould be unchangeable.
A Democracy under a Constitutional Republic is the best form of Government next to a Kingdom.
[right][snapback]721954[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


well While I would agree on the Kingdom I would probably place oligarchy in ther between the 2 of them.

[Old_Joe]

How about a Theocracy?

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Old_Joe' date='Sep 13 2005, 02:44 PM']How about a Theocracy?
[right][snapback]721961[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


well A theocracy can be run in many ways, while I have no problem with a theocratic Monarchy a theocratic Republic is potentionally destructive to the religion itself.

[White Knight]

[quote name='Old_Joe' date='Sep 13 2005, 02:44 PM']How about a Theocracy?
[right][snapback]721961[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]



A theocracy is a type of government that could go ethier way, depending on who you have to run it, is how it will turn out to be.

[musturde]

y federalism?

[son_of_angels]

[quote]

well A theocracy can be run in many ways, while I have no problem with a theocratic Monarchy a theocratic Republic is potentionally destructive to the religion itself.

[/quote]

My problem with this statement is that it doesn't match history. Consider Iran. There has been no liberal shift out of fundamentalist Islam, nor any real movement away from the government of the Imams, yet republican principles have been carefully applied.

I would say, generally, when people are free both to practice their religion in safety and to control their nation under the principles of that religion, the religion will take on a decidedly fundamentalist/charismatic/evangelical nature. The key with theocratic government is not to give the unreligious an open target (like the king, political parties, etc.) on which they can attach their hatred. After all, Christianity itself was not able to completely engulf the west until it could convert the major governmental centers of the Roman Empire, culminating in the reigns of both Constantine and Theodosius. Until then it was a hidden religion, a persecuted religion, which gave the early martyr saints a sense of solidarity [b]because they relied on each other[/b]

If this were reasonably applied to government (i.e., a college of deacons, lay apostolates, etc.) it would have the same effect as the martyrs, because it would reflect a solidarity between the people about the religion. Early Christians were absolutely obedient to their bishops, not because of the extraordinary powers attached to them, but because they were the heroes of their faith, speakers of an oppressed and downtrodden people. Likewise in modern Iran, and in many Islamic nations, this solidarity, which is lacking now in Christian circles, must be encouraged by lay holiness.

I know it has been a long time since this thread was discussed, but I thought it worthwhile to respond to this statement.

[son_of_angels]

[quote]
well A theocracy can be run in many ways, while I have no problem with a theocratic Monarchy a theocratic Republic is potentionally destructive to the religion itself.

[/quote]

My problem with this statement is that it doesn't match history. Consider Iran. There has been no liberal shift out of fundamentalist Islam, nor any real movement away from the government of the Imams, yet republican principles have been carefully applied.

I would say, generally, when people are free both to practice their religion in safety and to control their nation under the principles of that religion, the religion will take on a decidedly fundamentalist/charismatic/evangelical nature. The key with theocratic government is not to give the unreligious an open target (like the king, political parties, etc.) on which they can attach their hatred. After all, Christianity itself was not able to completely engulf the west until it could convert the major governmental centers of the Roman Empire, culminating in the reigns of both Constantine and Theodosius. Until then it was a hidden religion, a persecuted religion, which gave the early martyr saints a sense of solidarity because they relied on each other

If this were reasonably applied to government (i.e., a college of deacons, lay apostolates, etc.) it would have the same effect as the martyrs, because it would reflect a solidarity between the people about the religion. Early Christians were absolutely obedient to their bishops, not because of the extraordinary powers attached to them, but because they were the heroes of their faith, speakers of an oppressed and downtrodden people. Likewise in modern Iran, and in many Islamic nations, this solidarity, which is lacking now in Christian circles, must be encouraged by lay holiness.

I know it has been a long time since this thread was discussed, but I thought it worthwhile to respond to this statement.

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

I think that a good modification to the US government would be to have our legislators only be able to propose legislation and once a bill is passed through Congress it is voted up or down by the people. It must receive a simple majority of both 'yes' voters in the whole nation and states with a majority of 'yes' voters to become law. The executive branch becomes responsible for executing the laws. All voting would be done electronically and after some amount of time for local debate has elapsed. Budgets would be voted on line-by-line and if spending exceeds revenues, items are dropped from the budget starting with the lines that received the least number of votes. Excess revenue is distributed to the states proportionally by population until possibly taxes are decreased.

I think this sort of national democracy would work because it would force the legislators to write good legislatoin because the laws could easily be voted down by the people. Pork barrel spending also gets thrown away. This also reduces the federal load of government and puts more back into state and local governments.

[hierochloe]

Oh man, 1337 yer name is teh pwnz3r.

[Aloysius]

[quote]How so? How is it intrinsic?

God owns this earth; who are we to divide it up and hoard it to ourselves? Now, if you are talking about houses and personal possessions, then I agree with you to an extent, but if you are referring to large plots of land (and the like), then we'll have to disagree.

Every man has an intrisic right to have access to land than can sustain him. [/quote]

The Church teaches, based on the Genesis account, that God gave stewardship over ALL of his creation to man, giving him the duty of [i]owning[/i], not just having access to, the land and working on it.

Man is created in the IMAGIO DEI, the image of God, and as such has a creative intuition within him to create his own world for himself that he basically rules over. his property, not public property.

And this is the reasoning Pope Leo XIII of blessed memory gave for condemning socialism: that man has a right to own property. Anytime a government infringes any part upon the property that a man owns, it is transgressing upon natural law. To deny the right to private property is to deny man that thing which separates him from the beasts.

That's the main point of Rerum Novarum. Unions don't have to be socialist, that's why Leo invoked the great guilds of old that weren't tainted by socialist concepts when he praised the practice of unions. Fair wages are motivated by the idea that the person should RECEIVE something that is PERSONALLY his, i.e. private property, for his work.

[ardillacid]

The perfect government. one run by me.