Monarchy

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='epinephrin' date='Jul 25 2005, 07:04 PM'][i]We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion.   Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net.  Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.[/i]

- [b]John Adams, Oct.11, 1798[/b]
[i] Address to the military [/i]

The same problems with democracy are the same for monarchy. It's just that it's much easier to corrupt one man holding all the power. God rules very democratically. I don't see why we shouldn't try to fit his image.
[right][snapback]658806[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


God rules democratically? you must be reading a very differant set of scriptures, God rules as an absolute despot.

Edited July 26, 2005 by Don John of Austria

[Aloysius]

you'll see in his last post he conceded that point about God ruling democratically.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Jul 25 2005, 07:23 PM']You mean when the monarch realizes if he messes around he won't have people dressing him anymore, and he decides not to rock the boat.  I'm not convinced a monarchy in human hands is all that great.  I like the American system of government, as it splits the power up and renders dictatorship somewhat less attainable.
[right][snapback]658841[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Well You don't seem to have a very good understanding of historical monarchies, but I will say this monarchies in the west have on the whole been less corrupt and protected there peoples freedoms much better than democracies. Here is something to think about litterally dozens of Kings in Western Europe were killed in battle personally leading their troops, what was the last President to do that, or Prime Minister of a Parliamentary system. Monarchs are personally responsable for their subjects and most through out western history have believed that.

Further I would contend that a dictatorship is increadably easy to obtain in the American System of Government, it was attained by force of arms in 1865 and has been neatly maintianed ever since. All are instantly subject to the decrees of the Supreme Court now about virtually anything, simularly Federal law now trumps state and local Law on all matters, and those federal laws are volumous, Have you looked at the Patriot act, believe me we are living in a dictatorship now, and have been for 140 years, it just hasn't become completly totalitarian yet, but it creeps along that road at a nice steady pace.

Edited July 26, 2005 by Don John of Austria

[Soccer 15 SWC]

[quote name='Semperviva' date='Jul 22 2005, 07:58 PM']yeah
...but the communist leader woulden't be catholic or moral or just, LOL
[right][snapback]655139[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Thats what most people think. First what happened in Russia is refered to as Stalinism. Which is a messed up weird version of Communism. Communism is where all the food and money is given out equally. This would remove the social structure to a degree. There are the goverment officals that would organize and control everything and everyone else would be exactly the same.

Lenin was doing this for a few years and all was rocky so he had to implement a few capitalist reforms in order to recover from Feudal Russia which lacked an infrastructure. Then Stalin came along and felt his power at stack so he went about killing everyone.

With all this in mind a Catholic could become a communist leader and be moral and just.

[Aloysius]

actually, no, communism is directly opposed to the basic right of private property of man. it is completely unjust for any government to organize and control everything so that there are no classes, because it completely infringes upon that which seperates man from the beasts- his ability to own private property. Not only is Stalinism condemned by the Catholic Church, but also communism itself as a state structure (voluntary vows of poverty are allowed in which an individual decides for himself not to own private property (monasteries, convents), but this cannot be imposed upon a society as a whole). Communism, even the idealistic sense in which it would be "pure", is absolutely unjust according to sound Catholic Doctrine especially as explained in Pope Leo XIII's "Rerum Novarum"

you cannot be a sincere Catholic and a true socialist or communist in governmental theory. The timeless Teaching of the Catholic Church considers man as stewards of the earth and the best form of government is one which gives the oppurtunity for people to PRIVATELY own property to the fullest degree without being forced to give up anything at all.

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jul 25 2005, 10:18 PM']Well You don't seem to have a very good understanding of historical monarchies, but I will say this monarchies  in the west have on the whole been less corrupt and protected there peoples freedoms much better than democracies. Here is something to think about litterally dozens of Kings in Western Europe were killed in battle personally leading their troops, what was the last  President to do that, or Prime Minister of  a  Parliamentary system.  Monarchs are personally responsable for their subjects and most through out western history have believed that.

Further I would contend that a dictatorship is increadably easy to obtain in the American System of Government, it was attained by force of arms in 1865 and has been neatly maintianed ever since. All are instantly subject to the decrees of the Supreme Court now about virtually anything, simularly  Federal law now trumps state and local Law on all matters, and those federal laws are volumous,  Have you looked at the Patriot act, believe me we are living in a dictatorship now, and have been for 140 years, it just hasn't become completly totalitarian yet, but it creeps along that road at a nice steady pace.
[right][snapback]659016[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

So the leader of the nation goes off and dies in battle, causing all sorts of transfer of power issues. That's useful. it's glorious and inspirational, until the lords start fighting over whether they get to rule or the monarch's children do (if he had any). I have never heard of an historical monarch *willfully* surrendering power to the people, the plebeians, the teeming horde of illiterate serfs. No, monarchy would treat most rather poorly. And even if for 100 years there were good kings, eventually it would wind up just like George III, inbred, mad and interested in maintaining a steady cash flow. And the backlash against monarchial power would produce again a movement to do away with it and put power in the hands of a representative government.
I will say that every Republic must have periods of dictatorship in order to survive. You can't always take a vote. Lincoln, FDR, to a more ambiguous extent President Bush...all through time of crisis took additional powers for the federal government. Presidents of course must engage in political wrangling in order to obtain their powers.
Another problem is our states are independent entities which have formed a great Union, but they are more and more becoming provinces which have primary allegiance to the Federal government. I agree with you for the most part about some troubling aspects of the American system, but in theory if not in practice I will take it over even a potential line of tyrants.

[son_of_angels]

Personally I think that a system of communalism, guided morally and legally by the church, but administered by local laypersons and archdeacons would be the way to go. Or, if there was a monarchy, have those monarchies limited in their ability to make laws without the consent of their bishop.

[Aloysius]

comparing apples and oranges here, but I'd definitely take issue with having any system of communalism. PRIVATE property is called private for a reason, no one has authority over it except the owner (well, and God of course). You cannot administer property.

[Didacus]

I voted as long as the leader is moral and just or Cahtolic.

Actually, I would full heartidly empower a leader, a monarch, if this monarch would swear fidelity to Rome.

Laws would have to be approved by the Cardinal, and judgement fall within Catholic doctrine.

islam is not far from this are they? I think we have certain things to learn from Islam, and combining, not seperating, religion from goverment is the ideaology I support. i listen to the Pope with much more devotion than any Prime minister.

that is not to say the church would decide everything in the nation - the church would simply affirm that the laws and governance of the nation is in line with church doctrine and thus good and the most beneficial.

This, according to my undertanding of church teachings and doctrine would not impeach on freedom but guide the citizens to freedom

things would be very different: no more strip clubs, no more condoms on corner store shelves, no more playboy magazines lining store windows, ect ect...

As a teenager, I would have gasped at such a reality, as a grown man, with children, I would fully endorse it. Think how much EASIER it would be to raise children if you only removed half the carp that is posted in your common corner store?!

[scardella]

[quote name='Didacus' date='Jul 26 2005, 01:41 PM']Think how much EASIER it would be to raise children if you only removed half the [b]carp[/b] that is posted in your common corner store?!
[right][snapback]659810[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

What do fish have to do with it?

[son_of_angels]

While the notion that private property does not exist in the Christian faith has been denounced, so has the notion that the Church cannot/should not own property on its own.
Thus, my system. All property as relates to the distribution of goods and services, together with all properties which relate to production, retail, would belong to the Church as being held in trust for the People, while all properties relating to family would belong to a person, property rights being designated by an official appointed to the task. Distribution would GENERALLY be held by the Church, as a means of distributing goods to all, with the stipulation that families and local officials would possess the duty to define usage, methods of distribution, etc. Obviously all monastic and ecclesiastical properties would belong to the hierarchy as a whole.

So that is my notion of communalism, all secular governances would be local, with the only bind between local communes being the structure of the Church itself.

[Soccer 15 SWC]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jul 26 2005, 01:59 AM']actually, no, communism is directly opposed to the basic right of private property of man.  it is completely unjust for any government to organize and control everything so that there are no classes, because it completely infringes upon that which seperates man from the beasts- his ability to own private property.  Not only is Stalinism condemned by the Catholic Church, but also communism itself as a state structure (voluntary vows of poverty are allowed in which an individual decides for himself not to own private property (monasteries, convents), but this cannot be imposed upon a society as a whole).  Communism, even the idealistic sense in which it would be "pure", is absolutely unjust according to sound Catholic Doctrine especially as explained in Pope Leo XIII's "Rerum Novarum"

you cannot be a sincere Catholic and a true socialist or communist in governmental theory.  The timeless Teaching of the Catholic Church considers man as stewards of the earth and the best form of government is one which gives the oppurtunity for people to PRIVATELY own property to the fullest degree without being forced to give up anything at all.
[right][snapback]659263[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I see your point. But you are talking about a pure communist state. This is true in all respects. But if you were to look at it from Lenins point of view. You would see some chnages would be needed. Some of these would make it ok. Which makes you correct about the either being full Catholic or communist.

Edited July 27, 2005 by Soccer 15 SWC

[Socrates]

[quote name='Soccer 15 SWC' date='Jul 26 2005, 12:49 AM']Thats what most people think. First what happened in Russia is refered to as Stalinism. Which is a messed up weird version of Communism. Communism is where all the food and money is given out equally. This would remove the social structure to a degree. There are the goverment officals that would organize and control everything and everyone else would be exactly the same.

Lenin was doing this for a few years and all was rocky so he had to implement a few capitalist reforms in order to recover from Feudal Russia which lacked an infrastructure. Then Stalin came along and felt his power at stack so he went about killing everyone.

With all this in mind a Catholic could become a communist leader and be moral and just.
[right][snapback]659233[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I am sorry, but the facts about Communism throughout its history completely contradict your claims.

Communism was based on the radically atheist and anti-Christian theories of Karl Marx, who believed that "socialist man" must be free of religion and belief in God. This militant atheism was followed by every Marxist communist government since, in which religion was variously violently suppressed, discouraged, or brought under control of the state.

The claim that Stalin was an aberration or a "weird, messed up version of Communism" is a lie. While not all Soviet leaders were monsters like Stalin, the history of the Soviet Union from the bloodthirsty and violent revolution of Lenin on down is one of tyranny, oppression of religion and political opposition, and terror, which murdered at least 20-million people in the Soviet Union alone. Soviet Communism brought about economic in spiritual ruin from which Russia has still been unable to recover.

The horrors of Communism are hardly limited to the USSR, but were practiced with a vengence by Mao in China and Pol Pot in Korea, as well as by Ho CHi Minh in Vietnam, and continue to this day in North Korea.

For a thorough documentation of the ignominious history of Communism, I suggest you read [i]The Rise and Fall of the Communist Revolution[/i], by Dr. Warren H. Carroll.
At over 800 pages, it's along read, but is well-documented, and will cure you of any Lefty illusions that Communism is benign or compatible with Christ.

No communist government in history has come anywhere close to being "moral and just," nor will one ever be, because as others have noted here, the basis of Communism is fundamentally opposed to Christ.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Soccer 15 SWC' date='Jul 27 2005, 12:54 AM']I see your point. But you are talking about a pure communist state. This is true in all respects. But if you were to look at it from Lenins point of view. You would see some chnages would be needed. Some of these would make it ok. Which makes you correct about the either being full Catholic or communist.
[right][snapback]660572[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Here's Lenin, talking about his gentle reform.

[quote] We are . . . the real revolutionaries--yes, we are going to tear the whole thing down!  We shall destroy and smash everything, ha-ha-ha, with the result that everything will be smahed to smithereens and fly off in all directions, and nothing will remain standing!

  Yes, we are going to destroy everything, and on the ruins we will build our temple!  It will be atemple for the happiness of all!  But we shall destroy the entire bourgeoise, and grind them to powder--ha-ha-ha--to powder!  Remember that! . . .

  And remember that the Lenin who talked to you ten years ago no longer has any existence.  He died a long time ago.  In his place there speaks the new Lenin, who has learned that the ultimat truth lies in communism, which must now be brought into existence.[/quote]

~ Lenin in a letter to Georgy Solomon, Dec. 1917

Edited July 27, 2005 by Socrates

[Winchester]

Monarchy is at least as useful as other forms of non-tyrannical government. It's certainly more likely to be cheaper. There can be checks and balances in monarchies (of various sorts) at least as much as there can be in our republic.

I'm sure communism can work on a very small scale. But it takes violence to put it into motion on a large scale because it neccesitates theft, perhaps mre so than any other government.