I Am Politically Apathetic

[N/A Gone]

I am not ignoring this thread. Just working on my paper right now (see filioque thread) but then I will address this.

[The Joey-O]

[quote name='adt6247' post='1392404' date='Sep 24 2007, 02:03 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]


[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]


[quote name='kafka' post='1392411' date='Sep 24 2007, 02:16 PM']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.[/quote]

One response to everybody: If you think that one form of government has performed superior to others you are dramatically mistaken. I will remind every reactionary Fuedalist here that kings, lords and princes often waged horrible and bloody war against one another. Breeding sovereigns usually resulted in spoiled, royal brats. And, they frequently tried to take power and authority that belongs to the Pope and bishops into their own hands. Representative Democracy can be a decent compromise to allow the people, the peasants, the commoners to have some power. One might argue that a Representative Democracy could be balanced with a king or at least a group of people that are hold their position for life (Like Supreme Court Justices). Additionally, Representative Democracies have their own failings. What started out as a means to safeguard against corruption rapidly became corrupt. What began as a movement to ensure the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happines has become liberty at the expense of the other two rights, death to the unwanted and happiness for the elite. Also, modern Democratic Republican states fought against each other in WWII. It was the Republic of Russia that killed 50 million during the Stallin regime. It was the US that dropped to nuclear bombs on populated areas. Sovereign authority has always been imperfect and frequently has committed attrocities. But, it's a necessary authority.

[SarahB]

[quote name='adt6247' post='1392404' date='Sep 24 2007, 02:03 PM']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]

That's not the way it's supposed to be, it's the way it has become. We're supposed to have a knowledge of the government and especially the Constutition in order to make our decisions but most of us have become dumbed down. Elections have become a joke.

[adt6247]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1392407' date='Sep 24 2007, 03:09 PM']We have a representative democracy that tends to dillute the power of the most unintelligent voters.[/quote]
I'd say that less than 1% of the country is educated enough, myself included, to make decisions on the finer points of foreign policy. Heck, most people in this country think some elements of socialism (such as welfare, farm subsidies, etc.) are a good thing. That alone should prove that they aren't qualified even for national policy making.

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1392407' date='Sep 24 2007, 03:09 PM']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]
All authority figures are given to us by God -- parents, teachers, bosses, presidents, etc. Nobles come to power in many different ways, whether succession, victory in battle, appointment by the pope, arising as the leader that the members of a viliage accept as their ruler, etc. They generally, through the generations, are bred and raised to be heads of state. As an apostate, I know this means nothing to you, but Pope Pius IX called monarchy the best of all forms of government. God is the King of kings, not the president of presidents.

Democracy -- as well as communism -- is founded on the principal that the right to rule comes from a mandate from the masses. This is untrue, even in democracy -- the right to rule comes from God alone.

[adt6247]

[quote name='SarahB' post='1392441' date='Sep 24 2007, 04:19 PM']That's not the way it's supposed to be, it's the way it has become. We're supposed to have a knowledge of the government and especially the Constutition in order to make our decisions but most of us have become dumbed down. Elections have become a joke.[/quote]
Actually, that's wrong. That's why we have the electoral college -- it was assumed that the average person would not be able to make such decisions, because when the constitution was framed, most Americans couldn't read. There has never been a period of American history where the populous was more educated politically than now.

[adt6247]

[quote name='The Joey-O' post='1392431' date='Sep 24 2007, 04:01 PM']One response to everybody: If you think that one form of government has performed superior to others you are dramatically mistaken. I will remind every reactionary Fuedalist here that kings, lords and princes often waged horrible and bloody war against one another. Breeding sovereigns usually resulted in spoiled, royal brats. And, they frequently tried to take power and authority that belongs to the Pope and bishops into their own hands.[/quote]
What of these statements can't be applied to politicians in our representative democracy? Why did the colonists in this country revolt from the HRH George III? Primarily because of taxes -- of around 7% of a person's income. We now pay over 30%, or more if you count capital gains, sales tax, property tax, etc. The wars were on MUCH smaller scales than they are now. As far as spoiled brats -- what about GW Bush's kids? Reagan's kids? Chelsea Clinton? The Kennedy's? What about all the fantastic monarchs, like the current pretender to the throne of Austria and Hungary, Otto von Hapsberg?

If you learned about the middle ages in a secular institution (or most Catholic ones nowadays), changes are you know more lies than truth. The enlightenment era elite wished to cast a dark shadow on the middle ages -- which was a golden age for the Church -- to make their ideas look like the salvation of humanity.

[quote name='The Joey-O' post='1392431' date='Sep 24 2007, 04:01 PM']Representative Democracy can be a decent compromise to allow the people, the peasants, the commoners to have some power.[/quote]
Why would us commoners want any political power vs. our peers? Why shouldn't we just mind our own business and go about our lives?

[quote name='The Joey-O' post='1392431' date='Sep 24 2007, 04:01 PM']One might argue that a Representative Democracy could be balanced with a king or at least a group of people that are hold their position for life (Like Supreme Court Justices).[/quote]
Such a government (with a king and an elected body) would still be a form of monarchy -- Great Britain is a monarchy, holding a tricameral government -- the Monarch, the house of Lords, and the House of Commons. Prior to the Blair administration, the House of Lords was still hereditary, and was divided into the Lord's Temporal and Lords Spiritual -- which included a seat for each of the highest ranking Anglican bishops. Only the commons was elected, but the house of commons grew more and more powerful as the Lords and the Queen became more obsessed with public opinion, and ceded power to the commons. Amazingly, as the commons grew in power, the welfare state also grew, and now they're practically a socialist nation.

[quote name='The Joey-O' post='1392431' date='Sep 24 2007, 04:01 PM']Additionally, Representative Democracies have their own failings. What started out as a means to safeguard against corruption rapidly became corrupt. What began as a movement to ensure the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happines has become liberty at the expense of the other two rights, death to the unwanted and happiness for the elite. Also, modern Democratic Republican states fought against each other in WWII. It was the Republic of Russia that killed 50 million during the Stallin regime. It was the US that dropped to nuclear bombs on populated areas. Sovereign authority has always been imperfect and frequently has committed attrocities. But, it's a necessary authority.[/quote]
The greatest atrocities in history were caused by communism, in terms of loss of life. Monarchies tend to be more stable, and they tend to leave their subjects alone more. Nobles and commoners know their place in society.

[The Joey-O]

[quote name='adt6247' post='1392456' date='Sep 24 2007, 03:58 PM']What of these statements can't be applied to politicians in our representative democracy? Why did the colonists in this country revolt from the HRH George III? Primarily because of taxes -- of around 7% of a person's income. We now pay over 30%, or more if you count capital gains, sales tax, property tax, etc. The wars were on MUCH smaller scales than they are now. As far as spoiled brats -- what about GW Bush's kids? Reagan's kids? Chelsea Clinton? The Kennedy's? What about all the fantastic monarchs, like the current pretender to the throne of Austria and Hungary, Otto von Hapsberg?[/quote]

Wow. You're actually going to say that violent rebellion over taxes is legitimate? That's ridiculous. King George III was a tyranical, crazy dictator and the governemnt levied more than unreasonable taxes. The colonists were also required to fight if England mandated that they should. Regardless, how can you say on the one hand it's totally fine to rebell because you disagree with the form of government and taxes but it's not okay to rebell if you have a king?

[quote name='adt6247' post='1392456' date='Sep 24 2007, 03:58 PM']If you learned about the middle ages in a secular institution (or most Catholic ones nowadays), changes are you know more lies than truth. The enlightenment era elite wished to cast a dark shadow on the middle ages -- which was a golden age for the Church -- to make their ideas look like the salvation of humanity.[/quote]

I learned almost all of my medieval history from priests who had doctorates in history. I'm aware of the Black Legend and other Anglican/Enlightenment propaganda to paint the "dark ages" as a time of barbarous terror. However, there were still wars. If you look at the percentages of those killed in the Crusades compared to the world population verses those that died in WWII compared to the world population, the percentages are roughly the same (see a couple posts ago). The fact is: the level of corruption, the horror of war, etc. has been about the same from the beginning of the medieval era through the present. The diference: wars are faster now with all the amazing technology we have.

[quote name='adt6247' post='1392456' date='Sep 24 2007, 03:58 PM']Why would us commoners want any political power vs. our peers? Why shouldn't we just mind our own business and go about our lives?[/quote]

It's a form of protection against corruption: redundancy and checks and balances. The demagogue can be an excellent check in the political system. I agree that the average person shouldn't be making foreign policy decisions, so don't allow foreign policy to be something to be voted on.

[quote name='adt6247' post='1392456' date='Sep 24 2007, 03:58 PM']Such a government (with a king and an elected body) would still be a form of monarchy -- Great Britain is a monarchy, holding a tricameral government -- the Monarch, the house of Lords, and the House of Commons. Prior to the Blair administration, the House of Lords was still hereditary, and was divided into the Lord's Temporal and Lords Spiritual -- which included a seat for each of the highest ranking Anglican bishops. Only the commons was elected, but the house of commons grew more and more powerful as the Lords and the Queen became more obsessed with public opinion, and ceded power to the commons. Amazingly, as the commons grew in power, the welfare state also grew, and now they're practically a socialist nation.[/quote]

If you read what I wrote, I'm not really defending Representative Democracy against monarchy. I'm saying that all forms of government have essentially the same problems (with a few exceptions of extraordinarily evil people in power).

[quote name='adt6247' post='1392456' date='Sep 24 2007, 03:58 PM']The greatest atrocities in history were caused by communism, in terms of loss of life. Monarchies tend to be more stable, and they tend to leave their subjects alone more. Nobles and commoners know their place in society.[/quote]

I couldn't agree more. Communist Russia, China, North Korea, etc. are all evil. However, these are all examples of fairly stable governments. It's the philosophy of Communism that's evil. Stability under malevolent tyrany isn't good at all.

[b]Can I ask that we not hijack this thread with this discussion. If we want to debate Monarchy vs. Democracy, can we do it in another thread?[/b]

Edited September 24, 2007 by The Joey-O

[SarahB]

[quote name='adt6247' post='1392449' date='Sep 24 2007, 03:35 PM']Actually, that's wrong. That's why we have the electoral college -- it was assumed that the average person would not be able to make such decisions, because when the constitution was framed, most Americans couldn't read. There has never been a period of American history where the populous was more educated politically than now.[/quote]


Hehe, quite true. It's nice to see there are people out there who understand the process. But that is true for the Electors. They're supposed to understand the government and the Constitution and I very much doubt that most of them today do. Most of our politicians don't, either. That's why I support Ron Paul. But I digress. Today, the electors are basically "normal" or "average" citizens. Things have changed since the days when we were founded, and more people are able to vote/become Electors(Women, minorities, etc) Unfortunately, as time has gone on, more people are able to vote and less people are qualified to vote. Or maybe it's just the people I know, who vote solely based on party lines, or because someone told them they should vote for Canidate X, etc.

Ok, sorry....that's probably totally scattered. My ony defense is that I'm heavily medicated with Nightquil right now.

[adt6247]

[quote name='The Joey-O' post='1392488' date='Sep 24 2007, 05:52 PM']Wow. You're actually going to say that violent rebellion over taxes is legitimate? That's ridiculous. King George III was a tyranical, crazy dictator and the governemnt levied more than unreasonable taxes. The colonists were also required to fight if England mandated that they should. Regardless, how can you say on the one hand it's totally fine to rebell because you disagree with the form of government and taxes but it's not okay to rebell if you have a king?[/quote]
Never made that claim. I don't think the colonists had the right to rebel. Violent rebellion is almost always wrong, and objectively sinful from a Catholic perspective. Many nations had mandatory conscription -- that doesn't justify revolution either.

[The Joey-O]

[quote name='adt6247' post='1392513' date='Sep 24 2007, 05:51 PM']Never made that claim. I don't think the colonists had the right to rebel. Violent rebellion is almost always wrong, and objectively sinful from a Catholic perspective. Many nations had mandatory conscription -- that doesn't justify revolution either.[/quote]

For once, I agree.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='adt6247' post='1392456' date='Sep 24 2007, 04:58 PM']If you learned about the middle ages in a secular institution (or most Catholic ones nowadays), changes are you know more lies than truth. The enlightenment era elite wished to cast a dark shadow on the middle ages -- which was a golden age for the Church -- to make their ideas look like the salvation of humanity.
Why would us commoners want any political power vs. our peers? Why shouldn't we just mind our own business and go about our lives?[/quote]Dude, put down the King Arthur and Prince Valiant comic books. If the world was so great in the Middle Ages with the Church ruling everything, then what happened?

It's the way you look at it. It's not about 'commoners' who want 'power vs. our peers'. That just nonsensical. Check out the catechism before you claim that democracy is based people's need to 'gain power' that isn't of God. Where is that even approached.


[quote]1901 If authority belongs to the order established by God, "the choice of the political regime and the appointment of rulers are left to the free decision of the citizens."20

The diversity of political regimes is morally acceptable, provided they serve the legitimate good of the communities that adopt them. Regimes whose nature is contrary to the natural law, to the public order, and to the fundamental rights of persons cannot achieve the common good of the nations on which they have been imposed.[/quote]That looks pretty much like a democracy to me. The only reason why you want a monarchy is to force a Religion on the rest of the 'sinful masses'. The idea that humanity is fundamentally evil (not flawed) is hardly a Catholic one. If you could get beyond forcing the Roman Catholic Religion down everyone's throat and admitted the reality that society needs to move toward Christian Principles, not be forced to Catholic Obedience, you'd get somewhere.

We aren't living in Eden or Heaven or other form of Utopia. Humanity isn't about to produce and 'breed' a 'noble caste' that will rule us with benign benovolence. Human society has developed and evolved. We communicate much better, can educate, can share ideas and experiences with others accross the globe. Calling for a de-evolution to an archaic form of rule is pointless and dismissive of human dignity and growth. Bringing this back to the original topic of questioning Political Apathy, and reading what the Catechism says about citizen participation in Govenment along with personal responsibility for Christian Charity, etc., the answer is Political Apathy and shirking our responsibilities for Christian participation in society with Christian morals, is working against making positive changes in society.

It was Judas that wanted 'Revolution' to overthrow the pagan Roman Government and establish Jesus as King to rule and force the conversion of Judea and the world. Instead, Jesus took the longer view and wants us to convert ourselves, and eventually the people converted the Government. Sadly, the Roman Catholic Church forgot that it's clergy needed to live by the same Christian Principles and allowed itself to be corrupted to the purposes of political power in order to 'control' the masses and keep them more 'Catholic' than Christian. One day, probably, the Church will remeber it's 'grass roots' role, and stop playing politics and work at being spiritually nurishing.

[The Joey-O]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1392562' date='Sep 24 2007, 07:05 PM']Dude, put down the King Arthur and Prince Valiant comic books. If the world was so great in the Middle Ages with the Church ruling everything, then what happened?

It's the way you look at it. It's not about 'commoners' who want 'power vs. our peers'. That just nonsensical. Check out the catechism before you claim that democracy is based people's need to 'gain power' that isn't of God. Where is that even approached.

...

That looks pretty much like a democracy to me. The only reason why you want a monarchy is to force a Religion on the rest of the 'sinful masses'. The idea that humanity is fundamentally evil (not flawed) is hardly a Catholic one. If you could get beyond forcing the Roman Catholic Religion down everyone's throat and admitted the reality that society needs to move toward Christian Principles, not be forced to Catholic Obedience, you'd get somewhere.

We aren't living in Eden or Heaven or other form of Utopia. Humanity isn't about to produce and 'breed' a 'noble caste' that will rule us with benign benovolence. Human society has developed and evolved. We communicate much better, can educate, can share ideas and experiences with others accross the globe. Calling for a de-evolution to an archaic form of rule is pointless and dismissive of human dignity and growth. Bringing this back to the original topic of questioning Political Apathy, and reading what the Catechism says about citizen participation in Govenment along with personal responsibility for Christian Charity, etc., the answer is Political Apathy and shirking our responsibilities for Christian participation in society with Christian morals, is working against making positive changes in society.[/quote]

Your rhetoric is just as nonsensical as adt6247's (Is there an abbreviated form to that. It's a mouthful.). Representative Democracies have been corrupted in the worst way. It's not being a "democracy" that makes a nation good. Otherwise, you'd have to consider Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, Communist China, North Korea, Iraq under Sadam Hussein (and the list goes on) all good nations. What makes a nation good what the Catechism says, a nation that serves its people and respects the full human person.

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1392562' date='Sep 24 2007, 07:05 PM']It was Judas that wanted 'Revolution' to overthrow the pagan Roman Government and establish Jesus as King to rule and force the conversion of Judea and the world. Instead, Jesus took the longer view and wants us to convert ourselves, and eventually the people converted the Government. Sadly, the Roman Catholic Church forgot that it's clergy needed to live by the same Christian Principles and allowed itself to be corrupted to the purposes of political power in order to 'control' the masses and keep them more 'Catholic' than Christian. One day, probably, the Church will remeber it's 'grass roots' role, and stop playing politics and work at being spiritually nurishing.[/quote]

There's an inapropriate expression that I wish to use here. Poor Biblical Scholarship in today's age is inexcusable. All the disciples wanted Jesus to take the throne as king and usurp Rome (a position that the Apocalypse of John says will eventually happen). They eventually came to understand that that wasn't exactly what was going to happen. Judas is evil because of his betrayal, not because he didn't get it. Also, don't presume to know what people want. That makes you look like a different inapropriate expression. I don't believe that adt wants to convert people by force.

[b]And, please if you want to debate Democracy verses Monarchy, DO IT IN ANOTHER THREAD.[/b]

[Socrates]

[quote name='The Joey-O' post='1392431' date='Sep 24 2007, 02:01 PM']One response to everybody: If you think that one form of government has performed superior to others you are dramatically mistaken. I will remind every reactionary Fuedalist here that kings, lords and princes often waged horrible and bloody war against one another. Breeding sovereigns usually resulted in spoiled, royal brats. And, they frequently tried to take power and authority that belongs to the Pope and bishops into their own hands. Representative Democracy can be a decent compromise to allow the people, the peasants, the commoners to have some power. One might argue that a Representative Democracy could be balanced with a king or at least a group of people that are hold their position for life (Like Supreme Court Justices). Additionally, Representative Democracies have their own failings. What started out as a means to safeguard against corruption rapidly became corrupt. What began as a movement to ensure the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happines has become liberty at the expense of the other two rights, death to the unwanted and happiness for the elite. Also, modern Democratic Republican states fought against each other in WWII. It was the Republic of Russia that killed 50 million during the Stallin regime. It was the US that dropped to nuclear bombs on populated areas. Sovereign authority has always been imperfect and frequently has committed attrocities. But, it's a necessary authority.[/quote]
I basically agree with you here. There's no perfect form of government on earth. All have their problems, though some forms are better than others, and some (such as Communism) are plain evil.
There's some things I could say about this Monarchism vs. Democracy nonsense on here, but I'll respect your wish to not further hijack this thread, which has already been hijacked beyond all recognition.

[quote]Also, modern Democratic Republican states fought against each other in WWII. It was the Republic of Russia that killed 50 million during the Stallin regime.[/quote]
At the risk of futher hijack though, I thought I'd point out that the USSR (and especially under Stalin) was in reality anything but a Democratic Republican state, despite what it may have called itself. (And this is true of all the Communist "People's Democratic Republics" - such titles being nothing but blatantly false Commie propaganda.) Stalin was arguably the most ruthless, brutal and murderous dictator in history, and ruled completely autocratically, ruthlessly killing off any who opposed him, including many of his fellow Communists.

[Socrates]

[quote name='The Joey-O' post='1392545' date='Sep 24 2007, 05:38 PM']For once, I agree.[/quote]
Yeah, we could all be wussy Canadians with the Queen on our coins.

Liberty or Death, baby!

[Socrates]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1392407' date='Sep 24 2007, 01:09 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]
"The Lady of the Lake held aloft Excalibur . . . "

"Strange women lyin' about in ponds distributing swords is no basis for Supreme Executive Power!"

(Sorry for the further hijacking, but I couldn't resist.

Note: Those responsible for the sacking have been sacked. . . )