Monarchy

[Semperviva]

whatcha thinkin?

[Laudate_Dominum]

absolutely.

[Socrates]

I'm afraid unless there was also a radical revival of Catholic moral values in society as a whole, in today's world a monarchy would become just as big a mess as our democracy.
I'm afraid we'd just end up with a lot of spoiled, self-indulgent, megalomaniac creeps like that Kim Jong Il character in N. Korea. (for all practical purposes a monarch - he inherited absolute power in his country from his father).

I know this makes me a heretic in certain circles, but monarchism (or any other form of government) is not the magic bullet some like to think.

[Laudate_Dominum]

yeah, western culture has largely lots touch of the importance of nobility, and the sacredness of monarchy. I guess we have the enlightenment and the insane revolutions to thank for that. But my utopian fantasies involve monarchy.

[Cathurian]

I voted it didn't matter what gov we had -- then suddenly remembered that yes it does; communism is never acceptable.

[Semperviva]

[quote name='Cathurian' date='Jul 22 2005, 07:50 PM']I voted it didn't matter what gov we had -- then suddenly remembered that yes it does; communism is never acceptable.
[right][snapback]655128[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
yeah
...but the communist leader woulden't be catholic or moral or just, LOL

[curtins]

anarchy is the only way to go

[argent_paladin]

Aristotle and Aquinas considered monarchy the best form of government. The good thing about it is that it only takes one virtuous ruler to directly influence an entire nation. In a democracy, you are held down by statistical inevitability. Basically, we will get mediocre rule because we are ruled by the people.
However, some later scholastic thinkers considered a mixed government best, one that took the best aspects of monarchy, aristocracy and democracy. And the Founders borrowed from that. In fact, the US is a mixed government. We have a strong executive in the president, who has many traditioinal monarchical powers (such as pardons). We have a 100 member Senate made up of the wealthy and powerful. Remember, they were originally not directly elected, further insulated from the teeming masses. Finally, the house of reps were the most democratic aspect of our federal government. Thus a perfect combination of all three types of rule.
But we have been moving more toward the mediocre middle. Franchise was vastly expanded to include all free males, sweeping Andrew Jackson to power. Then blacks and women were let in and then the voting age was lowered (note: I am not saying these are negative developments). But now citizenship is so watered down that few take the privilege of voting seriously.
I would either make voting even more of a privilege by granting it only to men who have served in the military or other national service and women who have a child or other national service. Or, go the other way and grant the vote to all citizens, no matter the age, that is from conception. The head of household would vote for all minors by proxy. Either of these would transform the political scene in a far more conservative direction. And both can be well defended.
It used to be that the privilige of citizenship was balanced by its obligations: to defend the country, to raise virtuous children, etc. Now, we expect everything and offer nothing.
And if that is the case, if it is a birthright, then why not make it a real birthright? A 5 year old has even more at stake concerning the future of the country than does a 90-year-old. But the 5 year old cannot have his interests protected because he is too young. A new Supreme Court justice affects a 15 year old a lot, she will have to deal with these decisions for most of her adult life, but she cannot vote for president. And parents make a lot of decisions for the good of their children, why not political ones? I suggest allowing 16 year-olds to override their parents vote.
(and yes, I am a political philosopher)

[RandomProddy]

I like the monarchy, but I must concede it's a product of quite a unique country and I;m far from certain it would work anywhere else. Neither am I convinced that the American psyche is ready for such a thing.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='RandomProddy' date='Jul 23 2005, 03:46 AM']I like the monarchy, but I  must concede it's a product of quite a unique country and I;m far from certain it would work anywhere else. Neither am I convinced that the American psyche is ready for such a thing.
[right][snapback]655498[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I agree, there would need to be a revolution in thought, economics and culture of great magnitude to restore authentic monarchy in all its grandeur. But it is at least possible. We'll see.

[jasJis]

Monarchy is an hope for 'gentle' tyranny and still puts hope in humanity and hopes that God will bless the monarchy and put all the responsiblity on that family, instead of your own. Modern society cannot turn the clock back. Monarchy and Gentry were derived from the privliged classes that tended to be rich, educated, and not so consumed with the struggle of feeding your family that they could have a broader geographical perspective.

Today's society has us all living as a more liesurely lifestyle. We don't have to struggle 18 hrs a day, 6 days a week to survive. Our children get educated about the world, we have immediate news of the world, we have newspapers, radio, tv, and the internet. This knowledge and awareness of the plight of the world is a blessing. As with most of God's blessings, there comes a responsibilty for self, and others. We are our brother's keeper. We have the intelligence to vote intelligently. Catholics must be involved in politics. Mixed type democracies is a workable form.

While democracies are good for temporal government, the quasi-monarchy of the Church is the best for the governance of the Church. Americans like Voice of the Faithful, don't get it. Laity can involve themselves even more today in the running of a parish, but that does not give them the right to choose the Pastor, or vote on Bishops.

[Laudate_Dominum]

I think there are a lot of lies about feudal society (there are truths too, don't get me wrong). I would say regarding the 18 hrs a day thing that industrial society is really what makes that happen. Sure, a lot of Americans live in a bubble of empty comfort, but there is still an industrial machine with countless degrading sweatshops maintaining that lifestyle.

Agrarian communities that I've spent time with (that are self-sufficient I might add) certainly do not require 18 hour days. I can remember working 6 hour days max during certain times of the season, but in general things were laid back and full of meaningful leisure. Lot's of tea time and time for prayer, music, games, etc..

I admit I am a dreamer when it comes to this stuff, and believe me I've been hit with plenty of cynical criticisms, I've heard it all, but I've yet to be convinced that modern society is better overall. My least favourite is the old "modern medicine" argument. Modern medicine is a grotesque monster in my opinion. The perfect society that I envision has some aspects of modern science and medicine, but it all has a completely different trajectory. I don't think it is an either/or thing when it comes to the old and the new. My vision takes the best of both worlds and combines them in a system capable of harmonizing them on a foundation of truly human values.
Less pragmatism and inhuman utilitarianism, and more of an artistic vision of life.

I'm not suggesting that I think this will ever happen per se; but it helps to to evaluate things in the real world, sort of comparing them to a perfect ideal in order to illuminate problems.

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
7/23 - St. Apollinaris of Ravenna

Though monarchy has its benefits, do we really want to return to the government that produced the Hundred Years' War, the Sicilian Vespers, and the Bulgarian Massacre (not to mention the American Revolution and French Revolution)?

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Pio Nono' date='Jul 23 2005, 09:33 AM']JMJ
7/23 - St. Apollinaris of Ravenna

Though monarchy has its benefits, do we really want to return to the government that produced the Hundred Years' War, the Sicilian Vespers, and the Bulgarian Massacre (not to mention the American Revolution and French Revolution)?
[right][snapback]655631[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Wholly Carp! The French Revolution was hardly the fault of monarchy, it was a rebellion based largely on corrupt and sinister philosophies and class conflict. And besides this insane inclusion, monarchy didn't produce these wars, there is more too it than that. And what, have non-monarchist done better in this regard? Shoot, look at Europes history following the French Revolution. Look at the 20th century, world wars etc. The civil war was a zillion times more terrible than the revolutionary war ever way.. But this is besides the point, I don't think a real argument has been presented. You've conveyed some emotional content associated with monarchy that I believe represents what is instilled by the formation common to our modern society. I don't believe it is objective. I've spent many years trying to de-program myself from the government controlled schooling and agenda-driven mass media, which has conditioned by thoughts from my youth. Many things are terribly distorted. A great many things.
I'm not saying I'm right and everyone else is wrong, but there is always more to the story. And generally the attitudes towards many such things are dead wrong. It's like the attitudes people have about the middle ages, or the crusades, or the Church in general.

Just a thought. Perhaps you think I'm totally mistaken. I'm open to that possibility actually.

[curtins]

[quote]Wholly Carp! The French Revolution was hardly the fault of monarchy,[/quote]


I beg to differ.

The french people were starving and the monarchy would do nothing about it.