Your Favorite Form Of Government

[son_of_angels]

[quote]LIBERTARIAN/ANARCHO-CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.
[/quote]

Actually it's more like you buy bull* (insert word probably not appropriate for this forum)

I can imagine a government like this.
Each community selects a leader, who is approved/not approved for leadership by the Bishop of your diocese, together with the Archbishop of the province over your diocese. That person is ordained a deacon, with option of becoming a priest after a long term of office (whether married or unmarried).

For national government, a college of deacons selects an archdeacon over each province (although there are "archdeacons" for each diocese, only the archdeacon to the Archbishop holds national authority) who must be approved directly by the Holy See. These archdeacons may select a "president" from their number who holds emergency and immediate authority over the assembly of Archdeacons. These maintain the temporal governance of their respective assemblies, but no archdeacon of one diocese may bind anything on another diocese without the overriding consent of the Bishop of that diocese. An Archdeacon may not become a diocesan priest after his term, nor, even should he become a religious priest, may he ever become a Bishop.

[White Knight]

I prefer the way we have it now.


We have a Constitutional Republic under a Supreme Law of the Land, that sould not be thrown out the door, but rather, it sould be our standards, and it sould protect the American people and our way of life.


Our sub government sould remain as it is, a democracy ran by the people and for the people. not by the government.

[son_of_angels]

But the "Supreme Law of the Land" is based on human invention and conception. The only "Supreme Law" is the natural moral law, which government must uphold above the authority of any constitution. And that natural moral laws depends, in its interpretation and application, upon the institution of Christ. Moreover, there is no precedent whatsoever in the Bible for the constitution of a Christian nation, period, except that it be based and controlled by solidly Catholic principles, nor, overwhelmingly, has tradition handed us by the apostles allowed for any such thing.
It must be remembered, that the Church is conceived as the perfect society, a society without limits or boundaries, and as a foretaste of the heavenly Kingdom. No human government beside it can exist in the full splendour conferred on it by Christ.

[Socrates]

Shame on those who voted Socialist!

[White Knight]

[quote name='son_of_angels' date='Sep 10 2005, 09:19 AM']But the "Supreme Law of the Land" is based on human invention and conception.  The only "Supreme Law" is the natural moral law, which government must uphold above the authority of any constitution.  And that natural moral laws depends, in its interpretation and application, upon the institution of Christ.  Moreover, there is no precedent whatsoever in the Bible for the constitution of a Christian nation, period, except that it be based and controlled by solidly Catholic principles, nor, overwhelmingly, has tradition handed us by the apostles allowed for any such thing.
It must be remembered, that the Church is conceived as the perfect society, a society without limits or boundaries, and as a foretaste of the heavenly Kingdom.  No human government beside it can exist in the full splendour conferred on it by Christ.
[right][snapback]718017[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


It still something that we need to keep intact otherwise the nation would fall apart.

If we keep the Surpreme Law of the Land it aleast gives us more of a promise of survival as opposed to the other options.

[zwergel88]

Awesome poll. Feudalism all the way!!!!!!

Just kidding, democracy is working for me.

[MichaelFilo]

In the long standing tradition of Catholicism, I voted Monarchy. This whole pagan Republic and Democratic systems are not to my liking.

Funny so many people think we live in a Democracy. We vote on representtives, which is a democratic process, but we still have representivies, which is a Republic. A (capital D) Democracy is where the public votes on everything, or as Plato put it "mob rule".

Anyways, if a kingdom is good enough for my creator, it's good enough for me.

I should note, making our bishops secular leaders is, well, historically speaking, a big mistake. But thats just me. Although, I should conceed, in general they make better politicians than the worldly secular leaders. However, when you get that rotten apple secular bishop, he doesn't just do dmage to the area in his jurisidiction, he does damage to his flock.

God bless,
Mikey

[|gnat|]

First off, this thread ought to be closed because the author doesn't even know what is a form of government and what isn't.

Monarchy - Check
Feudalism - Half-Check, it's both politcal and economic
Anarchy - Check
Democracy - Check
Republic - Check
Fascism - Check
Autocracy - Check
Communism - Economic System
Socialism - Economic System

[quote name='hyperdulia again' date='Jul 15 2003, 10:43 PM']
Anarchy---No government.

Communist---liberalism at its worst. perverted socialism.

socialism---economic redistribution, communal property, etc.
[right][snapback]5252[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Anarchy - anarchism is not an absence of government, it is an absence of hierarchy. The word literally means "without authority". Anarchy is both democratic and egalitarian. It is most certainly not chaos.

Communism - Stop puting your own definitions in. Communism is not perverted socialism, it is [b]pure[/b] socialism.

Socialism - Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

[MichaelFilo]

Communism and Socialism tend to espouse certain types of government, although I agree, they themselves are not government types.

However, yoru statmeent about anarchy is a bit falsified and a bit true. Anarchy is a wide-range of political beliefs ranging from no large governments but insteal communal governments (that works well with certain forms of Communism) to, this is the world, do what you want. When an area descends into anarchy, all governments is lost. Anyways, anarchy is like saying Christian, you've just thrown out a broad range of views on government types.

Communism isn't a pure form of socialism, because, again, socialism is a wide-ranging group of ideas about government and politics, of which Communism is one. Communism according to Marx is communal, while according to Lenin and Stalin, it's a bit more authoritarian. Anyways, no form of Communism has ever existed according to the MArxist view of it, mostly because ther eis no such thing a worldwide proliteriate revolution.

Although, I'd also have to disagree with the original defenition of socialism, that is only one form. Some socialism seeks a highly authoritiative governemnt, where wealth is distributed by a governmental power.

Anyways, it's reaosnable to say socialism and communism should be thrown out. Anarchy is too broad a term. A quick look into the era right before the French Revolution, and you'll see more than a few ideas about anarchy were up. Why, Emma Goldman, the Russian immigrant to the States espoused more tha n a few forms of anarchy herself.

God bless,
Mikey

[DeeDee]

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.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[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]
While that kinda seems good at the surface, there are a number of issues lurking underneath. First, the human person has the intrinsic right to own property. Second, "personal freedom" is often misguided by faulty morality.

The only place anything like this could happen is Heaven, where all persons will each receive God as completely as is possible, where everyone will respect one another completely, and personal autonomy will be safe because there will be no sin, such as the immoral lifestyles so common today.

It's no surprise that the human heart sees some of these ideals for government...an idea of what heaven is like is built into our hearts, afterall.

[popestpiusx]

Monarchy. Preferably one ruled by me (as with my sea kingdom, from which I am currently in exile).

[Winchester]

the anarchy described is more of an oligarchy.

Distribution is socialism. It requires an organized body, even if that body is everyone.

[DeeDee]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Sep 12 2005, 09:45 AM']While that kinda seems good at the surface, there are a number of issues lurking underneath.  First, the human person has the intrinsic right to own property.  Second, "personal freedom" is often misguided by faulty morality.

The only place anything like this could happen is Heaven, where all persons will each receive God as completely as is possible, where everyone will respect one another completely, and personal autonomy will be safe because there will be no sin, such as the immoral lifestyles so common today.

It's no surprise that the human heart sees some of these ideals for government...an idea of what heaven is like is built into our hearts, afterall.
[right][snapback]720573[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Anarchy is an ideology and like all ideologies it is not united in thought or practice. So when you write about property, yes, there are Anarchy defenders of private property just as there are defenders of free market competition, protection of the individual, etc. However anarchy has never been a reality because the ideal of a society organized without a central authority is unimaginable to those who rely on authority. Anarchy requires not only the highest personal responsibility (including morality) but a massive leap of faith. Libertarianism is a modification of Anarchy and has gained followers in the last century. Anarchists very nearly won an election in Spain in the early part of the 20th century. That's about as close as it came to a reality.

[Ora et Labora]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jul 21 2003, 09:56 AM']Well You come to take my thosands of acres and all you'll get is a burned out chemically barrened desert , plus a hail of bullets for your trouble. --0- But hay I'm a texan I don't take kindly to people messing with my land or anybodies land for that matter.
[right][snapback]6921[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Ditto dude! We have 10 acres 45 min. from Houston......