Abortion In The Usa

[Arco]

[quote name='Winchester' date='15 July 2010 - 02:48 PM' timestamp='1279216116' post='2143023']
How is feudalism not effective as a means of curbing the power of a king? Or is this merely the prejudice of a believer in Western democracy, which is a child of the Enlightenment, which in its turn is a product of the Protestant Revolt?
[/quote]

Feudalism demands an absolute monarch. Either the state is subjected to the church, or the church subjected to the state. Two equal powers will not coexist. One will conquer the other.

Feudalism also reduces the relationship of people to those between landholders and tenants, the holders and the held. While, yes, they have mutual obligation toward one another, this was never successfully carried out; in its place we had rapacious dukes and often unclear boundaries among who is beholden to who.

Feudalism also proved unable to deal with a mobile, commercial society where people were not tied to land. Feudalism *only* works -- even in theory -- in agrarian societies based on subsistence farming.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Arco' date='15 July 2010 - 03:09 PM' timestamp='1279220998' post='2143058']
Feudalism demands an absolute monarch. Either the state is subjected to the church, or the church subjected to the state. Two equal powers will not coexist. One will conquer the other. [/quote]
It does not demand this.

[quote]
Feudalism also reduces the relationship of people to those between landholders and tenants, the holders and the held. While, yes, they have mutual obligation toward one another, this was never successfully carried out; in its place we had rapacious dukes and often unclear boundaries among who is beholden to who. [/quote]
That's a gross generalisation. It did work. It doesn't work forever, but no society does. It worked for far longer than modern democracies have.

[quote]Feudalism also proved unable to deal with a mobile, commercial society where people were not tied to land. Feudalism *only* works -- even in theory -- in agrarian societies based on subsistence farming.
[/quote]
It can adapt to commercial realities. The response of modern governments to free economies has been increasing socialism.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Arco' date='15 July 2010 - 03:06 PM' timestamp='1279220779' post='2143052']
And yes, I do believe authority is ultimately based on the consent of the governed.
[/quote]
Authority only comes from God.

[Arco]

This is true, but I do not believe God raised up the Windsors to govern those storied isles any more than I believe he raised up the Democratic Party.

Take that for what you will.

Authority comes from God, which is why my king is Jesus. I am content with a president or a prime minister to govern a country, and with only one king, sovereign over the universe.

Edited July 15, 2010 by Arco

[Nihil Obstat]

After reading Trojan Horse in the City of God by Deitrich von Hildebrand, I decided that I've really got no particular devotion to democracy. He makes a very good case for the concept that there's no reason that democracy is all that much better from anything else that's been tried.
It does seem to me that unreserved support for democratic systems shows some level of a moral progressivist mindset.


Sorry for the horrific sentence structure. I'm still a bit drowsy from Versed and Fentanyl.

Edited July 15, 2010 by Nihil Obstat

[Winchester]

[quote name='Arco' date='15 July 2010 - 04:20 PM' timestamp='1279225215' post='2143086']
This is true, but I do not believe God raised up the Windsors to govern those storied isles any more than I believe he raised up the Democratic Party.
[/quote]
Do you reject the notion that God calls people to certain duties in life?

I don't view leadership as a lofty position. You might skip out on some of the dirty work, but you're the one who works all the time and looks after your people. A real leader will (not recklessly) put himself between his people and any threat. The modern view of hierarchy sees rulers as above us. They are the servants of the servants. It used to be that the nobility went to war. Now it's the poor and the "nobility" (who feigns equality) sits in air-conditioned chambers and ridicules those who protect them. We're better off in creature comforts, but that's because of technology.

[Arco]

I was unclear.

Let me ask you. Did God raise up Barack Obama, George Bush, and Richard Nixon to be president?

I guess what I'm saying is, if he could raise up a monarch, why not a president, and if he didn't raise up a president, who's to say he raised up a king?

[dairygirl4u2c]

who does all these monarchists here at phatmass want to be the monarch? i assume the pope? who else would be acceptable? and, how would his person be made monarch? election? and what would be th conditions for removal, if any?
i often take the push for monarchy from people here, as a joke. but they are being serious. so, i should take the issue seriously, too. and, so im genuinely curious.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Arco' date='15 July 2010 - 07:31 PM' timestamp='1279240296' post='2143202']
I was unclear.

Let me ask you. Did God raise up Barack Obama, George Bush, and Richard Nixon to be president?

I guess what I'm saying is, if he could raise up a monarch, why not a president, and if he didn't raise up a president, who's to say he raised up a king?
[/quote]
I don't think that He raised up any of them in the sense that he raised up David.

[Winchester]

What Nihil said.


But also, I'm not rejecting democracy in the same way you're rejecting monarchy. I do disagree with egalitarianism. I do disagree with granting voting rights to people without testing them for literacy and the ability to understand philosophy and the structure of the government.I don't think democracy is inherently evil. I think it's best left to local offices like mayor, though.

[Socrates]

Since we're all (happily) in agreement concerning abortion, we can debate monarchy instead!
(Maybe next, we can debate chalices.)

[quote name='Arco' date='15 July 2010 - 03:09 PM' timestamp='1279220998' post='2143058']
Feudalism also proved unable to deal with a mobile, commercial society where people were not tied to land. Feudalism *only* works -- even in theory -- in agrarian societies based on subsistence farming.
[/quote]
Agreed. Feudalism was something that arose in response to a particular, rather primitive, stage of socio-economic development. It basically began with the strong (warrior class) offering the weak protection in return for their servitude. Feudalism is definitely not something we can artificially return to or re-create in modern times, though I think in the event of a total collapse of government and society, a type of feudal system would probably evolve in the aftermath of the chaos and anarchy (in the real, not the Sternhauser, sense of the word) following the collapse.


[quote name='Arco' date='15 July 2010 - 04:20 PM' timestamp='1279225215' post='2143086']
This is true, but I do not believe God raised up the Windsors to govern those storied isles any more than I believe he raised up the Democratic Party.[/quote]
What? Are you telling me you [i]don't[/i] think God personally raised up Obama and the Democrats to lead America into the Promised Land of universal healthcare and wonderfulness??

Heresy!

I'm one of those oddballs not particularly enamored of either the modern goddess of Democracy, nor of monarchy. Democracy is simply mob rule, and puts into power those with ambition (read "power-hunger")and the ability to sway the emotions of the mob ("Hope!" Change!"), while kings are simply born into power, and may or may not be ambitious. Our contemporary "democratic" bureaucratic government possesses power beyond the wildest dreams of King George.
However, unchecked power in one man without limitations or morality breeds monsters (Nero, Caligula, Kim Jong Il).

I believe the degree to which government power is checked or limited is more important that whether it is democratic or monarchic.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Winchester' date='16 July 2010 - 05:47 AM' timestamp='1279273649' post='2143353']
What Nihil said.


But also, I'm not rejecting democracy in the same way you're rejecting monarchy. I do disagree with egalitarianism. I do disagree with granting voting rights to people without testing them for literacy and the ability to understand philosophy and the structure of the government.
[/quote]
I agree on principle, but in a modern system, I'm afraid such tests would likely be designed to measure political-correctness more than political literacy.

But that's unlikely to happen, as today the bleeding hearts scream and howl over such "discriminatory" practices as requiring those registering to vote provide ID or proof of citizenship.

[Arco]

[quote name='Socrates' date='16 July 2010 - 01:42 PM' timestamp='1279298554' post='2143451']

I'm one of those oddballs not particularly enamored of either the modern goddess of Democracy, nor of monarchy. Democracy is simply mob rule, and puts into power those with ambition (read "power-hunger")and the ability to sway the emotions of the mob ("Hope!" Change!"), while kings are simply born into power, and may or may not be ambitious. Our contemporary "democratic" bureaucratic government possesses power beyond the wildest dreams of King George.
However, unchecked power in one man without limitations or morality breeds monsters (Nero, Caligula, Kim Jong Il).

I believe the degree to which government power is checked or limited is more important that whether it is democratic or monarchic.
[/quote]

We are in deep agreement. +1.

All in all, as I've said before, I prefer to ignore government entirely if I can. The Church is my nationality, as far as I am concerned, and my king is Christ. Americans can have the Star Spangled Banner, but we are an Easter people, and alleluia is our song.

(in case it wasn't also evident, I am deeply suspicious of nationalism and patriotism as well, although I am trying to reconcile myself to them, because they are not inherently evil)

[JimR-OCDS]

If you were a member of congress and were to draw up a piece of legislation to make abortion illegal, what would
you have for a penalty, for those who violate the law?

This includes both the mother and the people who provided the abortion.


Jim

Edited July 16, 2010 by JimR-OCDS

[MIKolbe]

murder works for me....