Here's A Thought

[kujo]

[quote name='TeresaBenedicta' post='1544154' date='May 26 2008, 10:48 PM']There are two things that every kid coming out of public school in America is likely to have beaten into their brains:

A. Democracy is the best form of government.
B. Capitalism is the best form for economy.

Personally, (and I feel like I'm committing treason even by saying it) I don't think that democracy is the best form of government. In fact, I think it might be pretty low down on the list.

I'd take a monarchy with a good King any day of the week. Unfortunately, it's finding that good king which is the problem...[/quote]

Democracy is not the best form of government and America is not a democracy. We are a republic.

Capitalism is the best from of economy that I can think of. It ensures that labor is rewarded while sloth is not. While other economic systems advocate for a fairer distribution of wealth, such redistributions naturally lead to welfare states and a decrease in incentive to work beyond the minimum requirement. With capitalism, the state is less involved in the economy, instead letting popular will (demand) dictate the outcome (supply). While there are certainly evils involved, to think that any system would be perfect is to forget about human nature.

People much smarter than you or I have made the point that, while "the good sovereign" would be preferrable, he does not exist, and thus institutions must be made to protect against the evil that can come from monarchies.

[Galloglasses]

Yet the evils that come from monarchies don't seem as bad as the obvious moral evils that can infect democracies. For goodness sake, look at Europe! Sure its peaceful, but back when they had monarchs were they ever so morally bankrupt?

Again I do not advocate monarchies, but its a nice idea, especially when democracies, as idealistically perfect as they may seem, are so woefully easily to manipulate by a plethora of third party interests. Sides, i'm not entirely sure about this concept, but I'd much rather have a monarch who can stand up and say STFU to the guy next to him rather then have poofy-footed Democratic Governments that are more then willing to sneak in policies and laws under people's noses, (The Lisbon Treaty is basically a Constitution in disguise for a major example), and to cowtow to soon-to-be-superstates and Trans-National Organisations. (The UN and the EU)

This raises another question, Democracies tend to be greed or economy centric, while monarchies tend to be Pride and Tradition centric.

Which is the greater evil? Pride of Greed? In the context of Human Nature, neither are desireable to the Catholic.

[StColette]

[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1543952' date='May 26 2008, 07:57 PM']Aren't all Christians, and for that manner Jews and Muslims, by definition, ultimately monarchist despite wide ranging political veiws and ideologies held by people of the three Religions? (God is King), Its a thought i've kicked around with. Discuss.[/quote]

Very interesting. Makes me think back to one of my exegetical works at FUS. During the Trial of Jesus, the Jews present declare that there is no King but Caesar. I found this odd because Scripture speaks clearly that there is only one King and that's God. I pointed it out to the Prof. and got pretty high marks. I love exegesis.

[Galloglasses]

Exegesis is quite fun sometimes. There's always something new to find.

[CatherineM]

There was talk at the beginning of making George Washington King instead of President. The man wise enough to be king is also wise enough to know that having a king isn't wise. He chose president instead.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1546408' date='May 28 2008, 02:50 PM']Yet the evils that come from monarchies don't seem as bad as the obvious moral evils that can infect democracies. For goodness sake, look at Europe! Sure its peaceful, but back when they had monarchs were they ever so morally bankrupt?[/quote]

Again, there's a reason our ancestors left Europe, established a republic with a Constitution and Bill of Rights. We might look back romantically about the days of monarchies now, but it's human nature to focus on the negative things we're currently dealing with and the positive things of the past (every generation grows up to reminisce about the "good ol' days"). There is a certain romanticism to having a monarch. Great Britain and Japan both retain their royal families mostly for the sake of their identity and tradition. Without real power, you get all the positives without the drama.

Also remember that government is simply a tool; the people decide how it should be used. If Europe were ruled by monarchs today, would Europeans somehow be morally better? The Middle Ages were infamous for the incestuous relationships and marriages in royal families, nepotism among both royalty and clergy, pride, greed, jealously, conspiracy, murder, divorce (of course, easier to kill your wife than divorce her). Today's scandals are child's play.

[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1546408' date='May 28 2008, 02:50 PM']Again I do not advocate monarchies, but its a nice idea, especially when democracies, as idealistically perfect as they may seem, are so woefully easily to manipulate by a plethora of third party interests.[/quote]

Idealistically perfect? Think you're confusing democracy with Communism

Democracy (and capitalism too) work because they aren't at all idealistic. The system is built to guard against its own imperfections.

[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1546408' date='May 28 2008, 02:50 PM']Sides, i'm not entirely sure about this concept, but I'd much rather have a monarch who can stand up and say STFU to the guy next to him rather then have poofy-footed Democratic Governments that are more then willing to sneak in policies and laws under people's noses, (The Lisbon Treaty is basically a Constitution in disguise for a major example), and to cowtow to soon-to-be-superstates and Trans-National Organisations. (The UN and the EU)[/quote]

The problem is the only thing keeping that good-willed monarch in power is the absence of a monarch wannabe who can overthrow him/her.

[Galloglasses]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1546528' date='May 28 2008, 01:56 PM']Again, there's a reason our ancestors left Europe, established a republic with a Constitution and Bill of Rights. We might look back romantically about the days of monarchies now, but it's human nature to focus on the negative things we're currently dealing with and the positive things of the past (every generation grows up to reminisce about the "good ol' days"). There is a certain romanticism to having a monarch. Great Britain and Japan both retain their royal families mostly for the sake of their identity and tradition. Without real power, you get all the positives without the drama. [/quote]
The reason the majority of europeans left Europe was, well, quite frankly, for money, work and a fresh start on life and Religious freedom. Especially Puritans from England escaping the Anglican clampdown on other Christian Faiths. And your Republic was actually a hairs-bredth away from being a Monarchy in itself, as Catherine M said there was talk of making George Washinton 'King' of America, which indicates popular sentiment towards monarchism, and it can be argued its largely because of that one man's decision that America is a Republic. And no, there's more and more talk of trying to destroy tradition, in England, they've been trying to get rid of the House of Lords, (which is unelected and cannot pass laws but has proven an Effective 'speedbump' in preventing the Executive and Commons from getting away with passing any law they want. Look up the Terorism Act, Great Britain), and the Democracy in Japan was, once again, imposed by America after the war. How democratic is a system that is imposed on a population? And while the Royalty serves as a possible National Icon, people don't look to either The British nor Japanese Monarchs BECAUSE they have no power, as such whats the point of having a hero who can't do anything? In America you have the President who operates a King-like role in the sense he is often portrayed as the last word in American Politics. He'd be your equivilent of what a Monarch used to be, albeit, with much less power.

[quote]Also remember that government is simply a tool; the people decide how it should be used. If Europe were ruled by monarchs today, would Europeans somehow be morally better? The Middle Ages were infamous for the incestuous relationships and marriages in royal families, nepotism among both royalty and clergy, pride, greed, jealously, conspiracy, murder, divorce (of course, easier to kill your wife than divorce her). Today's scandals are child's play.[/quote]
Yet society was not worse off for the royal scandals. (Ok, until the reformation happened but that had little to do with democracy nor monarchism, altough it did affect both), and yes I'd say they'd be somewhat morally better, I can't really imagine monarchs doing a worse job of keeping Moral standards conservative then the, sometimes rather overt, attacks on European morality done by democracies today. My Example? Look up Blessed Emperor Karl, the last Emperor of the Habsburg Dynasty of the Asutro-Hunagarian Empire. Yes, he is a Blessed. Something that surprised even me that any world leader in the 20th Century could be considered a possible Saint.

[quote]Idealistically perfect? Think you're confusing democracy with Communism [/quote]
No, pretty much all ideologies are idealistically perfect. Democracy was idealistically perfect in that it would prevent Tyrants and Dictators coming to power. Hitler proved quite capable of manipulating the Democratic system of Weimar Germany to his benefit. And it was one of the most democratic societies In Europe after world war one. But I get the joke. (Especially because I both loath communism and am a bit puzzled why idealist commies can't see human nature) And the British Executive is, as Lord Hailsham once stated in 1976, "An elective Dictatorship"

[quote]Democracy (and capitalism too) work because they aren't at all idealistic. The system is built to guard against its own imperfections.
The problem is the only thing keeping that good-willed monarch in power is the absence of a monarch wannabe who can overthrow him/her.[/quote]
Democracy really doesn't work. It more or less pushes concerns further and further into the future until they are forgotten about and never really addressed. The situation here in Northen Ireland for example, neither of the two sides have, or will ever, get what they want, both had to compromise their values, both sides and their electorates must drink from the same socialistic syrup. With the same spoon. At the same time. That and this democracy was imposed from outside pressures. No Justice was done and all the violence, and death of the past has simply been forgotten about, mourned and blamed on one of the sides, (The Nationalists, which, I happen to be one of), IRA, doubtless they did evil things, stopped a 'democratic' hedgmony and in fact helped caused the democracy and 'peace' today that is so celebrated. Yet are demonised and blamed for all the problems of the state-let. With all this injustice, cynicism and nihilistic attitude to history, culture and grievance in one example, how are you to convince someone like me, who is living in aforementioned political nonsense, that democracy is not idealistic and works? Because it brought Peace? Is an unjust Peace worth sacrificing not just one sides values, but both? Can the same be said to other such democracies in the world?

Capitalism is an ideology, it incorporates the ideals of freedom to work, freedom to look after ones own affairs and other such ideals. The entire cold war was a war of ideology between Capitalist America and Communist Russia. Capitalism is idealistic, just not in the overtly Christian sense. And to be honest, whats the difference between Monarchs overthrowing eachother physically which could destroy the body and democratic parties undermining eachother, (towards the same end: Power), with slander and smearing that destroy's people's spirits?

I'm not advocating Monarchy, but I really do wish people would wise up and realise that while NO government or political system is Perfect, (In the words of the Holy Father, "No perfect Community exists"), Democracy is FAR from the best. Very far. Monarchism isn't much better, but a cynic would argue in Monarchy, there are less people lieing to you.

Edited May 28, 2008 by Galloglasses

[mortify]

Monarchy is bad because it's the least representative government. It's only good if you're the king.

[Galloglasses]

What makes Representation that good to begin with?

[CatherineM]

Yeah, I've never really felt like I was represented well by my representatives.

[geauxsaints26]

A republic is best, most leaders are crackpots.

[mortify]

[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1547093' date='May 28 2008, 06:08 PM']What makes Representation that good to begin with?[/quote]

It provides the greatest good for the most people. Where there is no representation people are abused by those in power.

[dustthouart]

I think a lot of "good old days" people forget how BAD things really could be. Why do you think we had so many reforming saints? It's not because there was a lack of things to reform, that's for sure!

I mean look at some of the popes back then... Alexander VI for crying out loud. He gave his illegitimate daughter Lucretia an opulent wedding AT THE VATICAN! And how did this odious man become Pope? By buying the votes of the other Cardinals.

And this is the CHURCH we're talking about... the corruption and evil within secular monarchies themselves could go even worse. Vlad the Impaler, anyone?

Who was it that said "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the other ones that have been tried"?

[Deb]

[quote name='mortify' post='1547524' date='May 28 2008, 10:50 PM']It provides the greatest good for the most people. Where there is no representation people are abused by those in power.[/quote]

It may be good if we were actually represented. We don't even elect our Presidents based on the popular vote!
I can't think of anyone who has really represented me in a long time. The only people that get heard or I should say listened to, are those who can afford lobbiest or buy their politician.

We are so corrupt now that we no longer have a republic.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Deb' post='1548070' date='May 29 2008, 10:15 AM']It may be good if we were actually represented. We don't even elect our Presidents based on the popular vote!
I can't think of anyone who has really represented me in a long time. The only people that get heard or I should say listened to, are those who can afford lobbiest or buy their politician.

We are so corrupt now that we no longer have a republic.[/quote]

We are represented. We have to keep in mind that believers in Catholic morality are a rather small percentage of the U.S. population. And the electoral college was set up to ensure places like California aren't electing our president (and as a safeguard against the people electing a complete dimwit, but the electoral college rarely, if ever, votes against the underlying popular vote). Many states would be largely overlooked if we went with a straight popular vote, and we wouldn't have the pro-life Supreme Court justices that Bush selected, the partial birth abortion ban, etc.

We have to deal with corruption, but it's not nearly as bad here as many countries. A lot places can't even rely on peaceful elections while government officials are basically paid by the bribes they collect for doing their job. Civil rights are either non-existent or largely unenforced. Just imagine being accused of a felony in Great Britain, then having to prove your innocence!

Of course, obviously a lot of innocent people end up in prison or death row, so the "proven guilty" policy isn't perfect, but as a philosophy it surely seem more reasonable.