Forms Of Government

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1066448' date='Sep 18 2006, 10:33 PM']
but they did it all through the democratic process
[/quote]


How many have been overturned by the democratic process? And thouse that didnt get overturned was it truey Democracy? Or the murder of Democracy, by a Monarchy system. It is very hard to because a Monarch in a democracy. In a monarchy system, it alot easier to become the ruler with a iron-fist, that has always been the cause and always will be.

[Aloysius]

I don't know... what examples do you have of a dictatorial ruler in a democratic society ever being overthrown by anything other than war?

perhaps the fall of communism could be cited... but it's not exactly that the people voted out the communist dictators...

[Didymus]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1066448' date='Sep 18 2006, 11:33 PM']
what is safest is not always best. that there is a margin for error in monarchies shows that there ought to be safeguards in the monarchy by which the king is unable to do unjust things... as determine by a constitution of some sort... and that there should be some sort of republic in place which keeps the king from being unjust to any town or family, because they are represented in bodies of power, is also a possibility.
[/quote]

A direct democracy ensures that the people control that constitution you are refering to.

If you agree with this, then the monarch would be more of an executive president then a monarch. The people, thereby controlling the constitution would have more power than the monarch to make and interpret.

Our system of checks and balances is a very thought out, intricate, and yet efficient system. I don't see how this type of state you describe would have a good system of checks and balances.

[Aloysius]

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.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1066457' date='Sep 18 2006, 10:40 PM']
the majority of monarchies in history have not been dictatorships, and have not had state-churches (this only tended to happen when someone broke off from the Church, as a matter of fact, with the state churches of the east and the anglican church in the west)... the christian kings of christendom ruled over christians... and jews... and others... and did not require all to believe as they believed, nor enforced their beliefs with the sword. Granted, times of violence against infidels, heretics, and schismatics broke out at times (usually sparked democratically, not from the monarchy down), and the state (especially the spanish state, because spain had so long been threated and oppressed as a state by muslims) occasionally enforced the Church's various inquisitions with its power... but very few and far between are events of 'convert to the kings way of thinking or die'
[/quote]

I dont know if that true are we talking about all monarchies threw out time? Now it is probably true for the Kings who did not break away from Holy Mother Church. Did these states have Liberty like we have to today could all the people no matter whom they were choose the person that ruled over them? No, not really. Even you want some kind of Monarch-Democracy.

Do you want a Catholic-Monarch-Democracy in union with the Pope, with no state church? The same could be done with a Catholic--Republic-Democracy, and the people could choose their leaders, instead of being force to be ruled by people who only rule because they are born to those that rule.

This is the main problem with any kind of Monarch, he or she whom is King or Queen rules only because they were born, thats a little silly. They are not Jesus Christ, their "birth right" to be my ruler means nothing to me. Thats is why I say we as humans have "grown up", someone can not just get to rule the goverment or have any power just cause their father was King before them, they must ask the people and be voted into office, and if they fail they are voted out. In a Monarchy that is not really possiable, because it is their "birth right" to rule.

[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.