I Am Politically Apathetic

[dairygirl4u2c]

you might be able to argue the drug analogy about how it drugs are wrose where it's illegal. but, i'm not sure of the truth to that or whether that idea os blown out of proportion, and i'm not sure it'd be truly analogical to abortion an gay acts. (the two primary examples) i'm interested in more an that analogy that you brought up, more arguments.

[Socrates]

Rev,

A number of problems here.
First, you seem to equate being politically active with being in support of "big government." You're against big and intrusive government. So am I. But people like you being "politically apathetic" and refusing to vote is going to do absolutely nada to decrease the size or power of government in any way. If people who are for limited, constitutional government simply refuse to vote or be politically active in any way, then the government will be left entirely in the control of those who wish to increase the size and scope of government ever more. Government will get even bigger, and will do so at the expense of your tax dollars. Apathy will do nothing whatever to help the situation.
Sorry, but if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

Secondly, you make the fallacious assumption that voting for moral principles (pro-life, etc.) somehow means we are looking to government to solve all our problems, and is incompatible with promoting morality in the private sphere. That is nonsense. For the law to be just, it should reflect natural law, and protect innocent human life. The law and government will never be able to stamp out all murder, but this does not mean murder should be a legally protected "right." Nor does it mean the government should award benefits to homosexual "unions," nor should it support abortion with your tax dollars. These issues are not about "big government" trying to solve our moral problems for us, but against the government actively further supporting immorality.

And the argument that voting pro-life or against "gay marriage" somehow negates doing things in the private sector to promote Christianity and morality is totally bogus. As I've pointed out, those most active privately helping fight abortion with pregnancy centers and such are also most actively pro-life politically. No one says you have to do political lobbying 24-7; all you have to do is vote for a pro-life candidate or against "gay marriage" on voting day. Hardly takes up much of your life. Good works vs. pro-life politics is a false dilemna argument.
The government should not support baby-killing. Enough said.

And no, the political arena is hardly pure. I'm as cynical about politics as anyone. However, if good people refuse to vote for anyone, all that will do is completely hand the government over to the most godless and socialistic politicians. If you say the political situation is hopeless and yet won't even lift a finger to vote, this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Remember, as Edmund Burke said, "All that it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing."

And for one apathetic (who "could care less"), you seem to be putting a fair amount of energy into defending your "apathy."

Edited September 23, 2007 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1391079' date='Sep 22 2007, 09:23 PM']-prove it. Changing society and changing gov't are 2 different things. "Theopolitical imagination" was written by a catholic theologian.[/quote]

Here's an old thread I started which I believe is relevant which concerns the views of our current Holy Father on political action, specifically regarding abortion and homosexual "unions": [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=49982&hl="][b]Catholics Must Be Engaged in Political Debate, says Pope[/b][/url]

I'd also suggest some serious reading up on Church social teaching, as well as perhaps the works of the political thinkers Eric Voegelin, Dante Germino, and Russell Kirk.

Edited September 23, 2007 by Socrates

[The Joey-O]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1391123' date='Sep 22 2007, 10:55 PM']When has the law stopped violence? It just punished the action. Stopping violence is self-serving. Thus a function of the gov't. Keeping the people peaceful is always a goal of a gov't. Stopping abortion does not help the gov't so they wont do it.

The moral people wont run for office. The process of public media is too much for anyone to put their family in. Even if someone claims morals while being voted in. It does not change what happens in the office (there was a thread on open mic of all the catholics who voted for abortion)

Gov't wont change society. Society changes the gov't. For a christian voice to be heard we need to influence the voice in the private sector. But we dont care. We would rather try and do it with a secular gov't that will only serve the majority.[/quote]

I have to agree with Dairy Girl, Revprodeji. You're arguing for anarchy, here. Laws have a point. They deter the average person and the desperate person from committing crimes. Our justice system has also moved from simple deterance to rehabilitation. And, although it doesn't have the greatest success rate, it does have some successes.

Plus, you're not politically apathetic. You have fairly strong positions about politics and what politicians should and should not do. You are a libertarian. That means, you believe government should be minimalist and people should have the vast majority of power. When we first had this argument, I didn't realize what position you had. I, generally, agree with your position. With 1 major exception and maybe a few minor ones (will get to that later).

Also, you took the analogy I used in the wrong direction. I used the "whiney" and "bottle" analogy, because I'm not totally comfortable with the idea of lobbying the government. It seems too much like begging. Also, it places the power in the reverse of where I like it: out of the hands of the people and into the hands of the government.

But, there are a few areas that the government has control of and probably should. 1) Transportation. There are ways of making transportation private, but I don't know of any that are cost-effective. 2) Law. Law forms the backbone of government. Goverment should seek justice. I don't know how else justice could be sought in an effective matter. 3) Protection. Government should organize police, firemen and militias for the defense of the country. Government is the most efficient means to organize these three things.

Now, there are social policies that the government [i]can[/i] occassionally have the need to enforce. However, these policies should be continually re-evaluated to see if they can be removed. For example: Trust-busting. Monopolies are bad for the economy. They put too much power in too few hands. It would be fine, so long as these people didn't abuse their power. But, people usually do abuse power. Another example: welfare. I don't believe the government should pay people not to work, but should there be a means to help people find work and survive while their looking for it? Yes, I think so. I know the system gets abused, but it does a lot of good as well. And, a final example: Health care. The united states spends more money than any other nation on health care. We also don't get close to the best results for our money. So, something needs to be done to fix this. I'm not going to go as far as to say what, but something needs to be done.

On abortion: Abortion isn't just a moral issue. Abortion is an issue of law, just like murder, theft, treason and piracy. We don't enforce the morality of it any more than we enforce the morality concerning murder, theft, etc. I agree that making abortion illegal isn't going to stop abortions from occuring. However, it'll stop some (possibly most). And, the protecting of innocent lives is an ABSOLUTE GOOD. I also am in favor of alternative means to halt the number of abortions. And, many of the alternative means don't need to go through the government.

On gay-marriage: I go back and forth. On the one hand, I don't like the government officiating on marriage at all (thus gay-marriage would be left up to the clergy and and the participants). On the other hand, the church teaches and the philosophy that dominates the church (the same philosophy that I generally agree with) teaches that government is a part of society and we should work for a Christian society. However, I don't think that we should necessarily legislate others to follow Christian principles. On the other hand, people who practice "alternative lifestyles" often want to adopt. And, they're certainly going to teach they kids things that are against the Gospel of Christ. On the other hand, we would be horrified at the idea of not allowing "traditional" families to have kids or adopt even if they were sinners in some way. See? I go back and forth.

More about the "bottle" and "whiney" analogy: My point here is that activism is one of the only means we currently have to influence the government. And, I'm strongly in favor of activism for the rights of the unborn. So, putting aside your commentary on people being dependant on their government (which I agree with you about), what is your stance on activism affecting the government?

On a personal note, I saw V for Vendetta before you. I told you that V was my hero before you ever saw the movie. The line: "People shouldn't be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people." is exactly why I loved that movie (And, I think I told you that already, too). I equally like: "Those who sacrifice liberty for security shall lose both and deserve neither." - Benjamin Franklin.

Finally, the nature of politics in the modern world is compromise. While, we cannot achieve a Christian government without converting the hearts and minds of every (or at least almost every) person in the US, we can achieve a "compromise position". There are two forms of democracy in the modern world. The first, the one that predominantly exists in Europe, supports the cult of the secular (There's a french word for this, but I can't recall it off the top of my head). That is, European governments, though they generally won't admit it, have as their religion the cult of the secular. Thus, religion is forced into private residences and out of all public areas. You can have a religion, but you must not say anything about it. Also, you must not include anything religious in public anything (especially politics). However, they end up replacing what is generally considered religious things with a new religion: secularism. It has its own dogmas, it's own practices, its own fundamentalists. This is inherently harmful. The alternative (and the one the US has generally chosen) is to support religions, in general but not to pick favorites out of the religions (this too has a French name that I cannot recall). This is an attempt to allow "mini-societies" within one's nation. Although, in the US, the cult of the secular continually attempts to rear its ugly head and become the official religion (taking prayer out of the schools, taking the 10 commandments out of courthouses, etc), it has made far less in-roads in the US than in Europe.

So, when I get political, it is, generally, to try to sway government away from the cult of the secular. Whew. I'm done typing.

[Mateo el Feo]

When I skimmed through Rev's first post, I saw Libertarianism...not apathy.

$0.02

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1391032' date='Sep 22 2007, 08:42 PM']I dear friend of mine, someone I consider a brother, is very angry with me because I am politically Apathetic.

One of his arguments was that as a christian my voice and imput was needed. The less noise Christians make the less we get done what we want. The nature of democrazy is the whiner gets the bottle.

In which I reply

I do not feel we should be looking to get a bottle from the gov't. I do not feel the gov't should be what we expect to solve the problems we have. The gov't should not be trying to cure hunger, unemployment, The gov't will only do what it wants to do. if it feels it is helping itself by helping the hunger than it will appear to do that. But the effort it would take to convince the gov't would be easier and more effective if working with another organization that was actually trying to help the hunger.

Again, Im apathetic. To me a gov't should guard the boarders, get me my mail and stay the carp out of my life. Gov't will never exist to serve God. It will appear that way to gain support of a people. Any of the "goods" to attriubte to gov't would be done better if people had incitive and did it themselves and with like minded individuals.

I dont consider my view synical or unhelpful. I just do not think a controling gov't or a people addicted to the teet of that gov't is a good thing

People should not be afraid of their gov't, their gov't should be afraid of the people..

If you have a secular seperation of religious and civic control than that which is given the civic control should not be looked on as the church. thats our problem. The gov't is more than a civic control in america. It is our temple, "abortion is bad...gov't needs to ban it" "gay marriage is bad..gov't needs to ban it" "unemployment is bad...gov't needs to fix it" thats unhelpful. Rather than the christian people influencing other people to change we look for a secular gov't to fix the problem.

So I am politically apathetic. I care about the issues, but not a jack for the system and the gov't. To me it is hard to claim an insitution is christian or has christian leanings when 20 yr olds are coming home in body bags. (we can argue the war if you want...but only if you have spilled as much blood as i have in uniform--I think it is pathetic to argue the war when you are an arm chair QB.)

ok..have your shot.

btw, anyone ever read "Theopolitical Imagination" By Dr. Cavenaugh?[/quote]


It looks like others already got to this first, but I'll just post this anyways . I think you have very good reasons for believing as you do, and I agree to a point with a lot of it.

I was listening to cardinal Arinze speak in town on Wednesday and even though I definitely take serious issue with a lot of the things that he and the Vatican have said in recent decades, I enjoyed, and agreed with, a lot of what he had to say here.

He was speaking in regard to our duty as laypeople that our responsibilities don't lie so much in the Church itself, at Mass itself; more so in the public eye, so to speak. Not that we shouldn't help the priests as we are needed, but that's more of an extra chore, not necessarily our calling. He talked about our duties to evangelize and change things from within our positions in public institutions. He went over a number of examples, but one of the things he referred to was in politics and government in general and that we have a duty to do what we can in these settings because this is where God has put us in life. We have priests for the sacraments. Without priests we would be nowhere. But it is us who are placed in everyday life and is where we are to make our mark on the Church.

I recently have felt much the same as you. I have struggled with the thought of supporting a party and/or individual that doesn't fully support my views. I still don't like the idea very much, but have accepted the fact that this is most likely due to the fact that, at least I see it as a fact, that America is not in actuality a Christian nation, and most certainly not a Catholic one. There are principles that our country is founded upon that I find quite at odds with Catholicism. This being the case, I'm not confident that I will come across a candidate that will fully support Catholic ideals.

I don't know how much you are familiar with, or have any regard for, pre-Vatican II theologians. But Fr. Heribert Jone teaches as in line with Catholicism (and this is somewhat new to me as well) that we are to vote for the most worthy candidate always. And also that, if we don't do so, and in not doing so a far worse candidate is elected, we could be held morally cupable and it could even be sinful. If this be the case, I think it definitely a duty of a layperson to be as involved as one is able and support the candidate who is most worthy, even if there are certain problems with such a candidate.

I don't believe that Church and State should be separate. I think everything the government does should be solidly founded on Catholic principles. However, since America does separate Church and state, I think it is the duty of the layperson to sway government to enact Catholic principles in its lawmaking. In America the Church has no real say over what the government does, so I believe it must be our place to take on a position of messenger from the Church to the government and do what we need to in order to make Catholicism more prevalent in the government's decision-making. As I believe this country is founded on very free-masonic principles, I don't see this being particularly easy, but because of it, all the more necessary.

Certain moral principles are already legislated against, such as theft and violence. There's no need for it to stop there if we just fulfill our duties as Catholic lay people living in this world.

I would be inclined to agree with you that crimes will not be lessened simply because they are not allowed. Sin is not allowed by God, but it still happens all the time. Evil will always exist until the end of time. That's just the way things are. No amount of persuasion, or government, or punishment, or allowance of it, will lessen the evil. That's no excuse to sit back and let it happen without a fight.

Edited September 23, 2007 by goldenchild17

[ardillacid]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1391032' date='Sep 22 2007, 09:42 PM']I dear friend of mine, someone I consider a brother, is very angry with me because I am politically Apathetic.

One of his arguments was that as a christian my voice and imput was needed. The less noise Christians make the less we get done what we want. The nature of democrazy is the whiner gets the bottle.

In which I reply

I do not feel we should be looking to get a bottle from the gov't. I do not feel the gov't should be what we expect to solve the problems we have. The gov't should not be trying to cure hunger, unemployment, The gov't will only do what it wants to do. if it feels it is helping itself by helping the hunger than it will appear to do that. But the effort it would take to convince the gov't would be easier and more effective if working with another organization that was actually trying to help the hunger.

Again, Im apathetic. To me a gov't should guard the boarders, get me my mail and stay the carp out of my life. Gov't will never exist to serve God. It will appear that way to gain support of a people. Any of the "goods" to attriubte to gov't would be done better if people had incitive and did it themselves and with like minded individuals.

I dont consider my view synical or unhelpful. I just do not think a controling gov't or a people addicted to the teet of that gov't is a good thing

People should not be afraid of their gov't, their gov't should be afraid of the people..

If you have a secular seperation of religious and civic control than that which is given the civic control should not be looked on as the church. thats our problem. The gov't is more than a civic control in america. It is our temple, "abortion is bad...gov't needs to ban it" "gay marriage is bad..gov't needs to ban it" "unemployment is bad...gov't needs to fix it" thats unhelpful. Rather than the christian people influencing other people to change we look for a secular gov't to fix the problem.

So I am politically apathetic. I care about the issues, but not a jack for the system and the gov't. To me it is hard to claim an insitution is christian or has christian leanings when 20 yr olds are coming home in body bags. (we can argue the war if you want...but only if you have spilled as much blood as i have in uniform--I think it is pathetic to argue the war when you are an arm chair QB.)

ok..have your shot.

btw, anyone ever read "Theopolitical Imagination" By Dr. Cavenaugh?[/quote]
ANARCHY FOREVER!

[Anomaly]

Rev,
In your posts, you show that Government is not ALL the answer, so you don't want to utilize it.

An analogy. Let's say you're camping, and after staying and cooking two days, it's time to put out your fire. You decide Stomping on the fire will put it out (Government). You stomp, and stomp, it seems to go out mostly, but a day latter a smoldering coal ignites a wild fire. You have now concluded that stomping (Government) is pointless.

Societal Change (clearing a wide area of all compustibles) could be akin to moral values (sustained and promulgated by the Church via the family unit raising a family as "Christians") would be basic core values that are such that the conditions of society do not contribute to something going wrong with the campfire and things going terribly wrong.

Unless both things are working in society, you only have the 1/2 of the potential solution, and none of the solution.

I agree that both Church and Government are not working together or properly. At least in Government, we can vote and have some influence. Who votes for changes in the Catholic Church and how it operates to influence society? We see corruption in the Church and in Government. Eventually the Government becomes so corrupt, people revolt and change it. It doesn't happen instantly, it's like the movement of the tides. Now the Church being corrupt is another thing. That institution is built to ignore and resist the influence of the people.

Looking over the longer course of history, I'd say human Government is slowly getting better. Wars between the larger, more developed countries are less frequent and less destructive to the populace, though we now have the potential to do far more. Nations are more democratically controlled and their armies and less frequently controlled by dictators or monarchs who justify their whims with 'divine athority'. It's Religion that has degraded over the centuries with internal corruption and is headed to become meaningless and inconsequential in human affairs.

[The Joey-O]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1391378' date='Sep 23 2007, 09:03 AM']Looking over the longer course of history, I'd say human Government is slowly getting better. Wars between the larger, more developed countries are less frequent and less destructive to the populace, though we now have the potential to do far more. Nations are more democratically controlled and their armies and less frequently controlled by dictators or monarchs who justify their whims with 'divine athority'. It's Religion that has degraded over the centuries with internal corruption and is headed to become meaningless and inconsequential in human affairs.[/quote]

I don't want to jack the thread, but...I have to come down and disagree with you on this point. It was the secular government that developed and used the Atom Bomb. It was the secular Stallin government that killed more people than any other single ruler (50 million). It was the secular Nazi government that utilized the internment camps to harm and slaughter Jews, Gypsies and every other type of person. It's the secular Chinese government that oppresses its people, killing those that the ruling party perceives as dissidents. It's the secular American government that has killed over 30 million unborn children since legalizing abortion. It is RIDICULOUS to assume the new secular governments of the world are better than the religious one that preceded them and that even exist today.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='The Joey-O' post='1391566' date='Sep 23 2007, 03:13 PM']I don't want to jack the thread, but...I have to come down and disagree with you on this point. It was the secular government that developed and used the Atom Bomb. It was the secular Stallin government that killed more people than any other single ruler (50 million). It was the secular Nazi government that utilized the internment camps to harm and slaughter Jews, Gypsies and every other type of person. It's the secular Chinese government that oppresses its people, killing those that the ruling party perceives as dissidents. It's the secular American government that has killed over 30 million unborn children since legalizing abortion. It is RIDICULOUS to assume the new secular governments of the world are better than the religious one that preceded them and that even exist today.[/quote]We just have more people to kill now. And the Wars between Christians have been for fantastic purposes and were less devestating for the general populace? Hmmmm. How about the Norman invasion of England? Is it just sheer numbers or different motivation as opposed to Empire building?

[The Joey-O]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1391832' date='Sep 23 2007, 06:41 PM']We just have more people to kill now. And the Wars between Christians have been for fantastic purposes and were less devestating for the general populace? Hmmmm. How about the Norman invasion of England? Is it just sheer numbers or different motivation as opposed to Empire building?[/quote]

World Population around WWII was 2.5 Billion. 72 million were killed durring WWII. That's 2.88% of the world's population. The world population around the time of the crusades was about 275 million. 9 million were killed during the crusades, which lasted about 75 years (verses 20 years for WWII). That's 3.27% of the world's population. The percentages are fairly close even with considerable more time given to add casualties to the crusades.

So you believe killing in the name of Marxist, Fascist or Libertarian ideology is superior to killing in the name of religious ideology?

Frankly, I think the powers behind the various ideologies care more for the pursuit of their own power, wealth and fame and less for the advancement of their respective ideologies.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1391032' date='Sep 22 2007, 10:42 PM']I dear friend of mine, someone I consider a brother, is very angry with me because I am politically Apathetic.

One of his arguments was that as a christian my voice and imput was needed. The less noise Christians make the less we get done what we want. The nature of democrazy is the whiner gets the bottle.

In which I reply

I do not feel we should be looking to get a bottle from the gov't. I do not feel the gov't should be what we expect to solve the problems we have. The gov't should not be trying to cure hunger, unemployment, The gov't will only do what it wants to do. if it feels it is helping itself by helping the hunger than it will appear to do that. But the effort it would take to convince the gov't would be easier and more effective if working with another organization that was actually trying to help the hunger.

Again, Im apathetic. To me a gov't should guard the boarders, get me my mail and stay the carp out of my life. Gov't will never exist to serve God. It will appear that way to gain support of a people. Any of the "goods" to attriubte to gov't would be done better if people had incitive and did it themselves and with like minded individuals.

I dont consider my view synical or unhelpful. I just do not think a controling gov't or a people addicted to the teet of that gov't is a good thing

People should not be afraid of their gov't, their gov't should be afraid of the people..

If you have a secular seperation of religious and civic control than that which is given the civic control should not be looked on as the church. thats our problem. The gov't is more than a civic control in america. It is our temple, "abortion is bad...gov't needs to ban it" "gay marriage is bad..gov't needs to ban it" "unemployment is bad...gov't needs to fix it" thats unhelpful. Rather than the christian people influencing other people to change we look for a secular gov't to fix the problem.

So I am politically apathetic. I care about the issues, but not a jack for the system and the gov't. To me it is hard to claim an insitution is christian or has christian leanings when 20 yr olds are coming home in body bags. (we can argue the war if you want...but only if you have spilled as much blood as i have in uniform--I think it is pathetic to argue the war when you are an arm chair QB.)

ok..have your shot.

btw, anyone ever read "Theopolitical Imagination" By Dr. Cavenaugh?[/quote]


I too use to be politically apathetic... to the point of having anarchy symbols all over my notebooks. I hated the attacks on God. I hated the abortion and evil. I hated the lies.

Then someone convinced me to start paying attention to who said what. So I did.

I found that I didn't hate the government, I hated the democrat party agenda, and 99% of the dems in office.

What I witnessed over the past 17 years:[list]
[*]8 of 10 dems had to lie about Republicans and their plans
[*]2 of 10 Republicans lied about dems
[*]The dem party want to kill babies
[*]The dem party wants a godless nation
[*]The dem party repeatedly calls things what they are not... i.e. they call something a "cut" when it's actually "no increase"
[*]dems avoid telling their plans
[*]dems want to tax the poor extensively
[*]dems want to tax the businesses, when this happens, businesses cut jobs because they have to make a profit - God forbid a business wants to make a profit
[*]dems are illogical and lack basic reason
[*]dems want to use class warfare to get votes and lie about issues
[*]dems use churches as a stepping stone and have no faith in God
[*]dems want to keep the poor, poor, so they can keep their power
[*]Republican national agenda matches closest to Church teachings
[*]Republican plans do not keep from the poor, they want to help the poor, help themselves by getting them training and education, not endless handouts that keep people dependent on walfare
[*]Republican plans give tax breaks to companies who expand and hire more people
[*]Republican party is pro-family
[*]dem party is anti-family
[/list]
Great website: [url="http://www.DemocratsNoMore.com"]http://www.DemocratsNoMore.com[/url]

As Catholics, it is our responsibility to vote for Catholic values.

Great page:
Faithful Citizenship: A Catholic Call to Political Responsibility
[url="http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/bishopStatement.html"]http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/b...pStatement.html[/url]


I am Catholic, therefore I vote Catholic teachings. According to the Church, our priorities are (in order):
1) Life. We must vote against abortionists
2) Family. We must vote against the destruction of the family... i.e. cohabitation, same sex unions, etc...
3) Social Justice
4) Global Solidarity


God Bless,
ironmonk

[adt6247]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1391032' date='Sep 22 2007, 10:42 PM']Again, Im apathetic. To me a gov't should guard the boarders, get me my mail and stay the carp out of my life. Gov't will never exist to serve God. It will appear that way to gain support of a people. Any of the "goods" to attriubte to gov't would be done better if people had incitive and did it themselves and with like minded individuals.

I dont consider my view synical or unhelpful. I just do not think a controling gov't or a people addicted to the teet of that gov't is a good thing[/quote]
In a more ideal world, we [i]should[/i] be mostly apathetic to government, except local government. Let's face it: we're commoners, not nobles. Those of noble blood should rule, under God, and deal with the greater matters of state while we, the people, give tribute (taxes, but not nearly as much as we have today) to the king, and go about our business, trusting that the rulers God gave us will protect us from force or fraud.

Instead, we have democratic republic, that posits that every man, no matter how little education or qualification, should make important decisions as to who should rule us, and by extension, what our rulers do.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='adt6247' post='1392404' date='Sep 24 2007, 03:03 PM']In a more ideal world, we [i]should[/i] be mostly apathetic to government, except local government. Let's face it: we're commoners, not nobles. Those of noble blood should rule, under God, and deal with the greater matters of state while we, the people, give tribute (taxes, but not nearly as much as we have today) to the king, and go about our business, trusting that the rulers God gave us will protect us from force or fraud.

Instead, we have democratic republic, that posits that every man, no matter how little education or qualification, should make important decisions as to who should rule us, and by extension, what our rulers do.[/quote]We have a representative democracy that tends to dillute the power of the most unintelligent voters.

How do 'nobles' come to power? One day they awake with a 'message from God' and use whatever means are available to gain and hold power? Hello, wake up! God isn't running around picking out 'noble' families to rule the rest of us. It's a nice dream, but it isn't ever going to happen in real life with real humans.

[kafka]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1392407' date='Sep 24 2007, 02:09 PM']We have a representative democracy that tends to dillute the power of the most unintelligent voters.

How do 'nobles' come to power? One day they awake with a 'message from God' and use whatever means are available to gain and hold power? Hello, wake up! God isn't running around picking out 'noble' families to rule the rest of us. It's a nice dream, but it isn't ever going to happen in real life with real humans.[/quote]

those who rule should be breed from a young age to rule.

Rev,

I've never voted in my life. I think there should be a union between Church and State.