What form of govt. do you think is best?

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Myles' date='Feb 15 2006, 04:01 PM']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). [/quote]Well that helps to clear up what you conisder to be the citeria for which is better.

But a comment on your last phrase about monasteries. Kings and lords were not always benevolent with funding monasteries. If you read the charters written up concerning them, the lords funded the monasteries so that they would have someone praying for them and thier families. Also, most of the rulers after a certain point would take advantage of monasteries by forcing them to accomidate the royal court, and then would later leave it unprotected in times of war. The short of it is that most rulers built monasteries for their own souls and the souls of their family.

[Era Might]

[quote]I cant believe Era that you have a problem with having a King when you admitted to Al that you dont mind a plutocracy.[/quote]

I don't have a "problem" with a King, at least not a moral problem. The Church accepts all sorts of government, and so must I.

My problem with Monarchy isn't theoretical, but based on where we are as a world community. I do not believe it to be feasable, especially in America, and I believe democracy is the best form of government we can have in the modern world, and going forward.

[avemaria40]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Feb 16 2006, 11:46 AM']I don't have a "problem" with a King, at least not a moral problem. The Church accepts all sorts of government, and so must I.

My problem with Monarchy isn't theoretical, but based on where we are as a world community. I do not believe it to be feasable, especially in America, and I believe democracy is the best form of government we can have in the modern world, and going forward.
[right][snapback]889188[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Amen to that

[Resurrexi]

Wow... this thread is a year and a half old...

[jeffpugh]

I don't think the right answer is there for my opinion. Basically, the Church should not be directly involved in Government, though Morality MUST be a part of it. I could probably stand a king or democracy. As long as the former isn't oppressive. But keep in mind, democracy can be oppressive when people are apathetic... it's hard. We humans are fallible.

[abercius24]

By the way, Plato explains that a Republic is the best and most logical form of government given the tendancy for men to abuse power. But...he identifies the People as an important element in keeping politicians in check. If the people do not make their power known to their government, they allow their government to become corrupt. I think this is exactly what we face in the United States today, which is why so many Catholics here tend toward a Monarchy. But we have had some really bad Catholic monarchies in the past. I really think Plato had it right, but we haven't gotten right what Plato has taught us!

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

"Plato is my friend, but a greater friend is truth". --Aristotle

[ironmonk]

The problem with democracies is that it will devolve into the lowest common denominator.... the "people" have mob mentality... most people don't pay enough attention, take the time, or have enough sense to study the facts and pick the right person to vote for...

Prime example... all the people that voted for Kerry. Dozens of blatent lies, and you could see them just by listening to him or watching him from day to day, he was a constant contradiction and his story never stood up to any critique.

Other examples: Nazi Germany, slavery in the US, gladiator fights in ancient Rome, people voting for Carter, etc... Granted... these were times where it could have been hard or kinda hard to double check things, but in today's time, there is no excuse.

It's better not to vote than cast an ignorant vote... there is a reason why dems give tabacco to the homeless during election times. LOL


-the good thing about our system, a republic is that the mob mentality isn't in total control, it does have influence though.

God Bless,
ironmonk

Edited August 11, 2007 by ironmonk

[infinitelord1]

I guess the way we run our government now is the best way. However, what really makes a government a good government is the people who are running it. I dont really agree with the idea of politics but this is how it is going to always be. I totally agree with the idea of equal opportunity. But is that how America truelly is? Is that how any nation truelly is? The truth is, knowledge is power...those who possess knowledge control how that knowledge will be spread and who it will be spread to. If they dont like you for whatever reason...you wont have much knowledge. Most likely you will be poisoned with false knowledge. So what I am saying is...if you want to succeed in America...you have to make a lot of friends. If you have the right friends in the right areas...you will be handed things that other people wont ever get the opportunity to have. Do you all agree with me on this? Is this truelly Equal Opportunity? I dont think so. But America preaches "equal opportunity".

[goldenchild17]

I think a number of government systems could work as long as they were solidly Catholic. If this were the case I think it might be nice to have a democracy in which only solidly Catholic candidates ran and only solidly Catholic voters voted. The differences between parties would deal solely with non-doctrinal issues and policies and I think could be a good thing. But do I think such a system is possible, at least in the current eras? No. The "inherent right" of people to promote anything they want, non-Catholic or otherwise, as supported by the Constitution prevents this from happening in the USA. As for other countries I can't really comment as I don't know, but I don't suspect it to be much different, at least in the most developed ones.

For now I think some form of a solidly Catholic Monarchy would be beneficial towards getting the government system back in line with Catholicism. They could rewrite whatever documentation is needed to bring it back in-line with Catholicism and then set up some sort of system of election if they can find a good way to do so.

[genxcathedra]

Have you heard of Distributism and guilds of the Middle Ages?
Chesterton was for the former; I don't know if he talked about guilds.
Guilds had businesses not destroying the others by lowering prices like crazy, there was more harmony between employers and employees, there were no corporate takeovers or buy-outs, it was ordered under Catholic principles, people of guilds supported each other when their guild members (and probably anyone needing charity) were having problems like financial ones and probably anything else.
Protestantism separated religion from economics and later, commies separated the poor and rich from their money and noone was happy. Apparently, the Jews had that economy as well, but I don't get interested in whether Jews screwed up America and the West, in general. Almost all our politicians are selling us out to China [a nation that suppresses the obedient Catholics and ordains "priests" (of which, I've heard, Maryknoll abrings here, maybe to get regularized, I hope] for business reasons and that's what bothers me.

Go see the Cardinal Kung Association's website for more there.

I understand, shortly before WW2, people of various faiths coexisted under Catholic moral laws under a Catholic noble , but went at each other after exiling him for the democracies springing up.

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='884960' date='Feb 12 2006, 07:20 PM']Which polotical system do you believe in? I personally believe in a Catholic Monarchy, but Catholic Theocracy is better than Non-Catholic Monarchy.

Edit: Just so everyone knows, by "Catholic Theocracy" I mean "A government ruled by Ecclesiastical Authorities (e.g. The Pope, Cardinals, Bishops, etc.)[/quote]

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='genxcathedra' post='1356935' date='Aug 11 2007, 08:37 PM']Have you heard of Distributism and guilds of the Middle Ages?
Chesterton was for the former; I don't know if he talked about guilds.[/quote]
I believe that is a fair way to handle economic questions, though wouldn't rule out other forms but generally think them quite void of efficiency and/or fairness. Hilaire Belloc is also a good read on this matter. But I don't think it solves the government system overall, just deals with the economic side of things.

Edited August 12, 2007 by goldenchild17

[adt6247]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1356926' date='Aug 11 2007, 10:23 PM']For now I think some form of a solidly Catholic Monarchy would be beneficial towards getting the government system back in line with Catholicism. They could rewrite whatever documentation is needed to bring it back in-line with Catholicism and then set up some sort of system of election if they can find a good way to do so.[/quote]
Agreed, but honestly, it would also take orthodox bishops and an authoritarian papacy to make it truly effective.

[Matt1618]

[quote name='adt6247' post='1361268' date='Aug 17 2007, 05:27 PM']Agreed, but honestly, it would also take orthodox bishops and an authoritarian papacy to make it truly effective.[/quote]

Supernaturally we are all part of a monarchy, being the Kingdom of Heaven. However on this earth I would not want religous authorities having all of the authority, because I would be afraid of having some leaders become corrupt and turn the Catholic Church into somthing it isnt. Ideally I want a country thats laws are FIRMLY rooted in Catholic teaching, and no chance of these laws being changed. For example laws like outlawing abortion and gay marriage could never possibly be changed. I would want a Catholic democratic republic run by laypersons, because a power hungry layperson cant effectively change the church in the same way a Clergyman can. thus protecting the Church from secular influence.

[hoosieranna]

Pillory me if you want, but I still support separation of church and state. A theocracy can do all sorts of things in the name of belief. I don't support an atheistic state, like Soviet Russia. Again, lots of very nasty things can be done in the name of ideology. The freedom to disagree is a very potent privilege.