Forms Of Government

[Didymus]

[quote]I believe in a republic, though not one based democratically on every individual in the nation getting a vote that really doesn't matter, but that cities, towns, and if it's a small enough state families are represented in their governments... that a monarch would rise up bound by tradition (as oft happened in the old monarchies, they were bound by tradition as a balance) and bound by the will of the people (old monarchies were bound insomuch as they wanted to avoid riots) in a certain way, but the direct influence of the will of the masses lends itself to ineffective government.[/quote]

But one could easily see the small families getting screwed over by the bigger families monarch not being able to do anything because of his 'check' of tradition. In a democracy, to solve corruption, an individual merely needs to expose it to the people, and the problem could be solved through impeachment, re-election, whatever.

I'm not so sure the monarch would have to heed that check of tradition if he had a powerful family somewhere in the country to back him up and protect him from any riots of the smaller class.

Edited September 19, 2006 by Didymus

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1066469' date='Sep 18 2006, 10:56 PM']
you don't see how a republic has a system of checks and balances?

I believe in a republic, though not one based democratically on every individual in the nation getting a vote that really doesn't matter, but that cities, towns, and if it's a small enough state families are represented in their governments... that a monarch would rise up bound by tradition (as oft happened in the old monarchies, they were bound by tradition as a balance) and bound by the will of the people (old monarchies were bound insomuch as they wanted to avoid riots) in a certain way, but the direct influence of the will of the masses lends itself to ineffective government.
[/quote]


The problem with this I fear would be that the bigger and richer more populated states or towns would out vote, smaller poor less populated states.

And this form of Traditional Monarch would only take time to fall apart, (for the poor, and out voted) the more time the King lives "on high", away from the poor and needy and the poorer states or towns are out voted by the bigger richer states or towns, the King is going to give more attetion to the richer bigger states, why because they have more power, because in this system power would not be equal. And that is the cause for most of historys Monarchs, they gave much more attention to the rich than the poor, the rich had more power, and the poor had little if any.

In a Republic-Democracy, power that is voting is equally spread out, bigger states, have the same votes as the smaller states. And the leaders must always answer to the people, unlike the King who rules for life. Unless the "King" would be voted for and have limted terms of office I do not believe the people in their right minds would ever go for such a thing.

What would be on their minds woud be a Hitler, or Mussolini.

[Aloysius]

but if the votes are not determined by the number of individuals, then every town/locality/family (depending on how big this state is) is represented equally.

in point of fact, it is the democratic system in which the more heavily populated places have more influence. look at a district map of who voted for who in the last election... the city centers are basically the only ones who voted democrat yet the democratic vote was relatively close to the republican vote. it was only a few states which voted for kerry but it was up to Ohio to decide the final outcome because it was still that close.

a republic with representatives from each family (in a small scale) town (in a larger scale) or state (in a much larger scale though I don't like federalization) with one royal family whose children are all raised from birth to be just and fair rulers is not a bad system at all. a republic, not based upon the whims of the mob full of individuals but representative of all the places (or families) which have joined together in a common defence and governance agreement, is much better in my opinion that a democracy or a representative democracy, because those things are based too much upon the will of mobs.

like i said, it would be cool to see this type of republic in place, and organically develop into having one family of high esteem in the center of the government around whom all the representatives gather to form the policies. and each locality could decide to remove its representative, but they would decide when and if to do so... not an arbitrary every-four-years thing. that's basically how it works in point of practice anyway, at least for state senators, they rarely get voted out unless they do something so totally offensive that it causes everyone to want to go to the polls and vote them out.

and my point still stands that the majority of monarchs throughout history ruled over periods of relative peace and prosperity... though there were some social injustices charecteristic of the day, they did not stem from the monarchial system.

[KnightofChrist]

I dont have time to really respond, it is 2:30 am!!! But come on man its a dream! It will never happen. Your living in the past man! The United States form of Goverment is the wave of the future!!

The only problem with this dream goverment is that the King is not voted for, and cannot be voted out. And his kid rules just cause his daddy did, thats just a wittle silly.

However if and only if cuz this is a dream goverment which will never happen, if it could go by what you say, I still dont like it... but I can respect it as "cool"

Peace,
KoC

[Aloysius]

haha, nobody asked me how things are; they asked what was best.

and it certainly could exist... similar things existed in city-states in the ancient world. nation-state-ism is a relatively new thing; and in the long run it is just as foolish to say it is the wave of the future as it would have been for folks in the middle ages to say monarchy was the wave of the future. frankly, we do not know what lies in the future and if the patterns of history are any hint: what lies in the future is the collapse of the United States (eventually... maybe give it a few more centuries but eventually unless Christ comes first, but good Christian men should never assume that will happen and thus are free to speculate about many more millenia of history to follow us)... probably the collapse of many nation-states and local governments having to step up and try to keep order in their local areas.

it is a false argument which says that this is the way things are and will be in the future, and therefore this is the way they should be.. just as it is false to say this is the way it used to be so it should be that way again. they are both what CS Lewis would call "chronological snobbery"... well, I think he applied that phrase more to the former than to the latter but I think Chesterton has a quote which condemns both lines of argument.

anyway, federalization is something which is false and contradicts the Catholic teaching of subsidarity, that whatever can be accomplished at the lowest possible level should be accomplished at the lowest possible level. It is by that principle and teaching that I support strengthening local governments and diminishing the strength of the federal government except for matters of the common secuirity and international policy of the local governments. a confederation like the old south (sans slavery, of course) would be a much more just form of government. and you know, if I were you I wouldn't be surprised to see somewhere in the future (perhaps when we're all dead and gone) the rising up of noble families and royal families. they already have their less-accountable counterparts in the modern market with the large corporations owned and passed down through families and special interest groups.... I dare argue that the royal families of old were at least held to a better standard than those folks who make many matters of state move behind closed doors.

[KnightofChrist]

May I add I woud have no problem with The Pope as "king", I could trust him, because he speaks for the Church and the Church will never be defeated by Satan. But a man, could.

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1066516' date='Sep 19 2006, 01:51 AM']
haha, nobody asked me how things are; they asked what was best.[/quote]

In that case it is Christ goverment which will be the best. And the coolest ever :

I will try to take up the rest of your arguments tomorrow, and I really just meant "the wave of the future" thing to be a joke, I did not wish to seem foolish, and did not wish to offend you...

Good morning night,
KoC

[Aloysius]

you didn't offend me; I saw it as 1) a joke and 2) a teaching moment (not necessarily to you, but to the unnamed readers lurking and reading all that we do and say... you see, there's one guest reading what I write right now!)

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1066413' date='Sep 18 2006, 10:55 PM']
In a monarchy, if the King one day deisides to make himself pope and head of the church, the people have no say so, and the only opitions are to follow the wicked king or make war with him.

Repubic-Democracy you have the right to believe whatever you wish, and we're all better off because of it. In a monarchy you must believe what the monarchy believes or you can face death.

No King but Christ.
[/quote]


um-- thats not exactly what happened.

Also It is not much of an argument agianst what was and has been the most effective and longest lasting form of government in history.

Its like saying "In a democracy the people can elect a guy, who suspends all rights and then murders about 10 million people and starts the biggest war in history."

As if Hitler was a good representaiton of Democracy.

[Didymus]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1066795' date='Sep 19 2006, 03:32 PM']Also It is not much of an argument agianst what was and has been the most effective and longest lasting form of government in history.[/quote]


But our culture has matured more to an aspect that "all men are created equal," which wasn't exactly believed and lived out in most any examples of monarchies in history.

Longer lasting - yes, but once again the idea of putting liberty and equality in a system of government is only about 300-400 years old.

Edited September 19, 2006 by Didymus

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1066799' date='Sep 19 2006, 03:37 PM']
But our culture has matured more to an aspect that "all men are created equal," which wasn't exactly believed and lived out in most any examples of monarchies in history.

Longer lasting - yes, but once again the idea of putting liberty and equality in a system of government is only about 300-400 years old.
[/quote]

Actually most western monarchies protected there subjects freedom at least as well as Democracies have. And frankl I don't find that a "mature" development, rather it is childish and not in a good way. No one is equal, Are people equal in human dignity--- yes --- but that is it.

[N/A Gone]

Theopolitical Imagination

by Cavenaugh....


READ IT

[Didymus]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1066808' date='Sep 19 2006, 03:46 PM']
Actually most western monarchies protected there subjects freedom at least as well as Democracies have. And frankl I don't find that a "mature" development, rather it is childish and not in a good way. No one is equal, Are people equal in human dignity--- yes --- but that is it.
[/quote]

By equal, I am refering to just that - all men are created with human dignity and should be treates that way (with regards to slavery and such.) But I'm also refering to an economy and society where class and family would not prevent you from aspiring to a higher education, job, political influence, etc.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1066898' date='Sep 19 2006, 04:39 PM']
By equal, I am refering to just that - all men are created with human dignity and should be treates that way (with regards to slavery and such.) But I'm also refering to an economy and society where class and family would not prevent you from aspiring to a higher education, job, political influence, etc.
[/quote]


Feudal Europe had just as much social Mobility as Modern America--- that it dis not is a Myth. Furthermore, Economy has much more to do with the technological issues of the day thn the method of government. The past is filled with mainly low tech farming cultures, one cannot compare the wealth of the average peasent to the wealth of today with out taking that into account. Still they do not compare too badly, in many ways they compare favorably to a modern working class person. And f you think Class and Family don't prevent you from doing things now , you are sadly mistaken. We do not live in a Meritocracy

[avemaria40]

I don't want to live in a govn't where one family rules continuously. I like being able to help choose who goes into office.

The USA govn't isn't perfect, but it is better than the socialism that Europe seems to be experiencing, or the horrendous dictators of the Middle East and regions of Latin America, Africa, and Asia.

[Ora et Labora]

i started a thread like this not to long ago!! cool! peeps keep talking so i can write notes for my american gov't class! hehe

[Socrates]

I generally believe in as little government as possible, and believe that government should mostly be concentrated locally, rather than centrally.

I generally favor a republic that is checked by constitution and checks and balances. Neither the mob-rule of pure democracy nor the tyranny of absolute monarchism are desirable systems.

[Didymus]

[quote name='Ora et Labora' post='1066983' date='Sep 19 2006, 06:39 PM']
i started a thread like this not to long ago!! cool! peeps keep talking so i can write notes for my american gov't class! hehe
[/quote]

yeah, I was interested in all of this because we've been talkin' about it in my Am Gov class too. Good times...

[heavenseeker]

the bestform is what ever works... i think

[benedictaj]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1066365' date='Sep 19 2006, 03:09 PM']
I think democracy COULD work. But I don't believe so in a non-Catholic nation. I myself am a monarchist, but again in a non-Catholic nation it has it's downfalls. Well I guess for me all forms of government fail in a non-Catholic nation :. But I believe monarchy is the best form of leadership. Not sure if I'll have time to debate it or not though. We'll see. But at this time I am strongly anti-democracy (and anti-socialist for that matter) and also very strongly anti-capitalism which I think goes hand-in-hand with democracy.
[/quote]
I totally agree with you! (and your later posts too.)

I also agree with one of Aloysius' earlier posts.

In the Old Testament, when the Israelistes wanted some form of control that was run by them, not purely by God - He gave them kings! I say bring back the Catholic monarchy!

[Guest Rick777]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1066447' date='Sep 18 2006, 10:33 PM']
I believe the world and the people have "grown up", the people are not stupid, the people do not need one king for life and then his children to run our lifes however nice and undictator like he or she maybe.
[/quote]

So the people were childish and stupid before America came along and "set them free"? I think not.