What form of govt. do you think is best?

[Myles Domini]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Feb 15 2006, 06:18 PM']lol... you're assuming the fragile democratic system can last 2000 years... we shall see.
[right][snapback]888298[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[Era Might]

[quote name='Myles' date='Feb 15 2006, 02:54 PM']What exactly is true monarchy? There have always been several varieties of monarchy thus I cannot think of how it can be correct to speak of a true monarchy. If you date Christendom from the conversion of the Germanic tribes to Christianity which would be shortly after the reign of Charlemagne since he was still carrying out the forceful evangelisation of the Saxons in his lifetime then you cannot provide a true form of monarchy because elected monarchy and hereditary monarchy co-existed in France and Germany thereafter. Feudal monarchy was a product of Norman conquest and caught on at the start of the next millenia but even feudal monarchy underwent huge alterations at the start of the 14th century when the exchange of lands for service became gradually replaced with the exchange of goods for services and the advent of household retainers. Thus it would be hard to characterise Christenom as having one true form of monarchy.
[right][snapback]888354[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Monarchy where a monarch is not a figurehead, but a sovereign ruler, whose word is law.

Pure monarchy is a better phrase.

[jezic]

i am still having a tough time with the idea that the freedoms that we have are really that great.

Look what we have done with them. Look at the morals of our country and indeed the world.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Feb 15 2006, 02:18 PM']lol... you're assuming the fragile democratic system can last 2000 years... we shall see.
[right][snapback]888298[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It's no more fragile than any other form of government.

All government presupposes the cooperation of the governed. A monarchy could no more survive a mass revolt than could a democracy.

Fortunately, one is more suited to peaceful means. A democracy allows for the consent of the governed, with respect to law and with respect to political office. Monarchy, which supreme office is filled by bloodline, and not by consent of the governed, does not allow for change, except by violence or blood.

Edited February 15, 2006 by Era Might

[Myles Domini]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Feb 15 2006, 07:07 PM']Monarchy where a monarch is not a figurehead, but a sovereign ruler, whose word is law.

Pure monarchy is a better phrase.
[right][snapback]888365[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Ok but in all the systems I mentioned the monarch's word was law. So in essence what you want to say is not true monarchy but just non-constitutional forms of monarchy.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Myles' date='Feb 15 2006, 03:10 PM']Ok but in all the systems I mentioned the monarch's word was law. So in essence what you want to say is not true monarchy but just non-constitutional forms of monarchy.
[right][snapback]888371[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

No, pure monarchy.

A pure monarchy can still be constitutional, if the monarch deigns it to be so.

That same monarch can dispense with the constitution as he pleases, as well.

[Era Might]

By "pure monarchy", I mean the same concept as a "pure democracy", which America is not. Some prefer not to call it a democracy, but rather a republic (which it is). But, properly understood, it can still be called a democracy (as the most people do), just not a pure democracy, where a 51 percent majority rules all.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='avemaria40' date='Feb 15 2006, 01:23 PM']But isn't it true that the USA is the most powerful nation in the world?  I know, our country is still a baby, but I think we're doing pretty well.  We've also left a powerful legacy, our Declaration of Independence has lead to other countries to demand freedom as well.  Many immigrants come to this country every year because this is the land of opportunity and we have such freedoms.  I like being able to vote for who will be our leaders, because I have a choice on who I want in office based on how his or her policies affect my life and the lives around me.  BTW, what if a king was pro-abortion and we couldn't do anything about it?  In the US, we can vote for prolife candidates.  If you have a king or a queen, you have to wait until they die.  I like being able to have a say and I like having the choice to improve my conditions.  WHen people were living in Europe during the colonial times, they didn't have a say, they were born into a social class and that's where they died.  Here, you can change that through education and hard work.  Yes, our country has a strong history of racism(mistreating the Native Americans, enslavement of African Americans, China exclusion act, etc.) but at the same time, many Americans have used their fundamental rights to fight against racism.  We're currently fighting a war in Iraq against tyrranny and a war on terror, proclaiming that we have the right to freedom, and the right to security.  Our govn't isn't perfect but it's the most liberating, the most Christian, and it works.
[right][snapback]888307[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
you've been misinformed about medieval social standings. it was indeed possible to change your social status; it's just that they wrote right into their tradition and law the reality that it doesn't often happen.

I think I saw a statistic, though I don't know how accurate it was, that said that people actually moved up in class a lot more often in medieval times than in modern times.

To change your class in medieval society meant doing some heroic deed that the king found out about... or saving the life of some nobleman... or befriending your landlord enough... et cetera. there were many things you could do, and those things I would say were a lot more essentially human than what you have to do now (work within beaurocratic education, government, and employment systems et cetera) plus, if you brought your class up it was assured that your family's class was automatically brought up.

I think Laudate_Dominum has a story about his family tree where one ancestor in his line was a peasant, and he saved the life of the king in a war or something and from that time on the family was noble.

Anyway, in America today there is not an overabundance of rags to riches stories. I think our last real rags to riches president was Lincoln... but most of the time the poor stay poor and the rich stay rich... and the poor don't even have the glory and fraternity of being known as common men... they can't even be proud of their status as the backbone of society-- they always have to be envious of the rich. back then, for those who remained in their lower classes, at least it was to them a divine calling to be part of that common class.

[Era Might]

Basically if you greased the right palms, you could become a noble serf.

:

[Didacus]

[quote name='King's Rook's Pawn' date='Feb 15 2006, 12:39 AM']

[snip]

Sorry for this verbose and sometimes snide post, especially since I'm such a newbie, but this is one subject I do feel very strongly about. I just get upset at how so many orthodox, devout Catholics seem so ambivalent about the civilizational patrimony of Christendom, when their own Church was at the hieght of its power and prestige on Earth, in favor of the fruits of ideologies that, from a historical standpoint, seem to have been intrinstically anti-Catholic from the beginning.
[right][snapback]887969[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]



Most excellent post if I can say so.

Democracy is the modern god that failed; plain and simple in my own opinion. i never liked democracy; even as a child. I think its just a big popularity contest, and to let everything in a nation be decided over a popularity contest is nothing short of foolish.

The only form of goverment currently existing in this world which has any shred of my trust is the papacy. Those are the only world leaders to whom I can say are sincere and do not need to lie in order to preserve their posts or advance their 'agenda'.




I'm a dirty little papist... and I'm proud of it.

[Era Might]

A popularity contest beats bloodline. At least a popularity contest is based on SOMETHING. A bloodline King has nothing going for him except for the fact that the duchess of lalaland married the duke of the doldrums, and whence he came.

Edited February 15, 2006 by Era Might

[Era Might]

[quote name='Didacus' date='Feb 15 2006, 03:31 PM']The only form of goverment currently existing in this world which has any shred of my trust is the papacy.  [right][snapback]888395[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Wait a few more centuries. The Borgia Popes shall rise again!

[Didacus]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Feb 15 2006, 11:17 AM']Monarchy, true monarchy as it existed in Christendom, went out with the dinosaurs.

People who advocate a monarchy are harmless, God love them, but they're living a fantasy.

Democracy is here to stay.
[right][snapback]888245[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The future might surprise my dear.

[Myles Domini]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Feb 15 2006, 07:14 PM']you've been misinformed about medieval social standings.  it was indeed possible to change your social status; it's just that they wrote right into their tradition and law the reality that it doesn't often happen.

I think I saw a statistic, though I don't know how accurate it was, that said that people actually moved up in class a lot more often in medieval times than in modern times.

To change your class in medieval society meant doing some heroic deed that the king found out about... or saving the life of some nobleman... or befriending your landlord enough... et cetera.  there were many things you could do, and those things I would say were a lot more essentially human than what you have to do now (work within beaurocratic education, government, and employment systems et cetera) plus, if you brought your class up it was assured that your family's class was automatically brought up.

I think Laudate_Dominum has a story about his family tree where one ancestor in his line was a peasant, and he saved the life of the king in a war or something and from that time on the family was noble.

Anyway, in America today there is not an overabundance of rags to riches stories.  I think our last real rags to riches president was Lincoln... but most of the time the poor stay poor and the rich stay rich... and the poor don't even have the glory and fraternity of being known as common men... they can't even be proud of their status as the backbone of society-- they always have to be envious of the rich.  back then, for those who remained in their lower classes, at least it was to them a divine calling to be part of that common class.
[right][snapback]888378[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

You're right Al. You should read the satires of the Aristocracy about the King's new men aka University graduates in the 13th century. They hated these learned up and comers arriving at court and undercutting their traditional positions of power by working to help the European monarch's created centralised administrations (which, naturally undermined the feudal system). It wasn't all glorious admittedly but as Al says does today's underclass change regularly either? Usually the same areas of the same cities produce the same classes of people.

Moreover, Al you forgot a few other important and lucrative careers during the Medieval period such as mercenaries who made a packet off of medieval wars, and merchants who exploited the trade coming from Outreemer and the urbanisation of high medieval society to become rich which you see in the growth of the Hansa league etc. Not to mention the trade which was made from the growth of art as a cultural phenomena and the comissioning of great works by the upper crust of society.

That being said I dont see why these arguments are at all relevant to the benefits of a monarchial system. There's no reason why a monarchy has to be tied to a feudal system where to paraphrase the palm of one's hand decides one's destiny. The monarchy's of the 17th century certainly didn't work that way, though I admit I have no taste for absolute monarchy. Kings like Philip II and Louis XIV effectively made their nobility nothing more than nodding men took all their decisions and were more than happy to sponsor an adventurer to the New World, promote good soldiers, foster trade and culture. The idea that a monarchy neccessarily leads to feudalism just doesn't stand up to the evidence of the early modern period. Indeed it was under the most autocratic Kings of Europe that social advancement became a more common feature of European living.

[Didacus]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Feb 15 2006, 01:34 PM']A popularity contest beats bloodline. At least a popularity contest is based on SOMETHING. A bloodline King has nothing going for him except for the fact that the duchess of lalaland married the duke of the doldrums, and whence he came.
[right][snapback]888397[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

i did advocate against bloodlines...

I disagree with its concept, and believe that a king should be choosen out of achievements and qualifications rather than heritage. But once choosen, by whatever means (I like the conclave thingy...0, then the king rules until retirement or death or both.