And the rocket's red glare

[dimentichisimai]

I’ve heard it murmured in some Catholic circles (of the Michael Voris ilk) that the concept of liberty that Americans hold so dearly is a great big misunderstanding. That the idea of democracy is inherently flawed and that the Founding Fathers of the US had no right to break ties with England.

Any thoughts on why some Catholics are quiet monarchists? Especially when great Catholic thinkers like Lord Acton and G.K. Chesterton were valiant defenders of both the Faith and Democracy?

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

I’ve heard it murmured in some Catholic circles (of the Michael Voris ilk) that the concept of liberty that Americans hold so dearly is a great big misunderstanding. That the idea of democracy is inherently flawed and that the Founding Fathers of the US had no right to break ties with England.

Any thoughts on why some Catholics are quiet monarchists? Especially when great Catholic thinkers like Lord Acton and G.K. Chesterton were valiant defenders of both the Faith and Democracy?

I do not believe that it is they are anti-democracy in the secular world, only in they do point out that the Church is not a democracy and we need to guard against it being seen as one.

 

[dimentichisimai]

I do not believe that it is they are anti-democracy in the secular world, only in they do point out that the Church is not a democracy and we need to guard against it being seen as one.

Well I have heard that said about the Church, which I agree with.

But I am addressing Catholics who are distinctly antidemocracy in their political philosophy. I’m just wondering if anyone pn CAF shares those views or can at least explain them to me.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Well I have heard that said about the Church, which I agree with.

But I am addressing Catholics who are distinctly antidemocracy in their political philosophy. I’m just wondering if anyone pn CAF shares those views or can at least explain them to me.

Given the way things are going in Washington over the last 3 years a monarchy may not be that bad.

 

[Byrnwiga]

I’ve heard it murmured in some Catholic circles (of the Michael Voris ilk) that the concept of liberty that Americans hold so dearly is a great big misunderstanding. That the idea of democracy is inherently flawed and that the Founding Fathers of the US had no right to break ties with England.

Any thoughts on why some Catholics are quiet monarchists? Especially when great Catholic thinkers like Lord Acton and G.K. Chesterton were valiant defenders of both the Faith and Democracy?

I believe Michael Voris argued for a benevolent dictatorship at one point, so it’s a little beyond a monarchy. What kind of monarchy are we talking about, though?

-Byrnwiga

 

[Skeptic92]

Well I have heard that said about the Church, which I agree with.

But I am addressing Catholics who are distinctly antidemocracy in their political philosophy. I’m just wondering if anyone pn CAF shares those views or can at least explain them to me.

Since we’re talking political Philosophy (and I hope I’m not flamed for this), but in my out look I’m anti-democracy due to what I see as inherent flaws in its very design.

I would argue for what I would call an Aristocratic Monarchy, the ‘Aristocracy’ (Rule of the Best) is not a rule of wealth but a rule by knowledge with the Monarch retaining total power but the Royal Court being composed of those that are experts in their respective fields. The Royal Court would be composed of Economists, Ethicists, Theologians, Philosophers, Scientists, Judges etcetera who would be appointed to their position for the good of the country without any personal gain (as in they have no wage for this position, their wage is derived from their ‘full time job’ as Professors and respected academics in their field while their position in the Royal Court is that of an advisor to the Crown). The Crown would still hold full control, as in they are the Supreme Judiciary, Legislative and executive branch of the Government and they advice would be submitted to the Crown which they would be free to ignore or enact.

I hold this view for the simple reason that Democracy is inherently corrupt, those with Money and the correct rhetoric end up ruling when they do not have the knowledge to rule, and nor do they (9 times out of 10) have what is best for the State at heart. Politicians nowadays say and do what they have to in order to gather votes for the next election (for example, abortion rights and gay marriage) which may or may not be what is best for the Country in truth. Whereas in an ‘Aristocratic Monarchy’ the Monarch has devoted their life to service of the country whether their policies are popular or not, and their advisers are experts in their respective fields not experts in the ability to say and do what the country thinks best, even though that is not likely what is truly best for the country.

I see democracy as one huge mistake and a lie, let me ask you this… Does Obama govern for the good of the United States? Did Bush govern for the greater good of the United States? Did Tony Blair govern for the good of the United Kingdom? Did Gordon Brown Govern for the good of the United Kingdom? or did they govern for what was popular opinion at the time, and what had the best chances of getting them re-elected?

In democracy we end up being governed by the wealthy, and they govern for what is in their (and their biggest supporters) interests, not for the best interests of the Country, both physically and spiritually.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I believe Michael Voris argued for a benevolent dictatorship at one point, so it’s a little beyond a monarchy.

Well, he could always move to Saudi Arabia. I’m sure he’d be a big hit there …

 

[dimentichisimai]

Since we’re talking political Philosophy (and I hope I’m not flamed for this), but in my out look I’m anti-democracy due to what I see as inherent flaws in its very design.

I would argue for what I would call an Aristocratic Monarchy, the ‘Aristocracy’ (Rule of the Best) is not a rule of wealth but a rule by knowledge with the Monarch retaining total power but the Royal Court being composed of those that are experts in their respective fields. The Royal Court would be composed of Economists, Ethicists, Theologians, Philosophers, Scientists, Judges etcetera who would be appointed to their position for the good of the country without any personal gain (as in they have no wage for this position, their wage is derived from their ‘full time job’ as Professors and respected academics in their field while their position in the Royal Court is that of an advisor to the Crown). The Crown would still hold full control, as in they are the Supreme Judiciary, Legislative and executive branch of the Government and they advice would be submitted to the Crown which they would be free to ignore or enact.

I hold this view for the simple reason that Democracy is inherently corrupt, those with Money and the correct rhetoric end up ruling when they do not have the knowledge to rule, and nor do they (9 times out of 10) have what is best for the State at heart. Politicians nowadays say and do what they have to in order to gather votes for the next election (for example, abortion rights and gay marriage) which may or may not be what is best for the Country in truth. Whereas in an ‘Aristocratic Monarchy’ the Monarch has devoted their life to service of the country whether their policies are popular or not, and their advisers are experts in their respective fields not experts in the ability to say and do what the country thinks best, even though that is not likely what is truly best for the country.

I see democracy as one huge mistake and a lie, let me ask you this… Does Obama govern for the good of the United States? Did Bush govern for the greater good of the United States? Did Tony Blair govern for the good of the United Kingdom? Did Gordon Brown Govern for the good of the United Kingdom? or did they govern for what was popular opinion at the time, and what had the best chances of getting them re-elected?

In democracy we end up being governed by the wealthy, and they govern for what is in their (and their biggest supporters) interests, not for the best interests of the Country, both physically and spiritually.

I’m not quite sure I see how this system is better than the one we have now. In fact, it sounds worse.

Of course, if you happened to have a SAINTLY monarch, with equally pious advisers, then yes, such a system would work wonderfully. But we’re a Fallen people. and we’ve only to look at history to see how more times than not, all of the power of a nation invested in one man absolutely results in the suffering of the people. People get beheaded because his lunch didn’t agree with his stomach. That’s not the type of society I’d like to live in.

Now, can we improve upon this Republic that we live in? I believe so. I think we’ve let wealth creep into the system too much.

I like your idea, for example, that those serving for office ought not to receive pay. I’d argue that they be given a very simple base salary to support them and their families–say, 50,000 a year. It would be a huge pay-cut for many people, but it’s about serving your country, not making a cushy career out of it. Furthermore, there ought to be limits to how many times senators can be re-elected.

I think that these improvements alone would make things a little better.

Thoughts?

 

[Qoeleth]

I’d go for the idea of some kind of academic artistocracy- set a compulsory exam testing philosophy, grammar, literature etc., and appoint the top 100 or so to form a parliament.
A good slab of those elected would surely by Churchmen (Catholics, obviously).

 

[Skeptic92]

Thoughts?

The problem would that I still see with a Republic is the exact problems we have now- the politicians cater to majority (or the very vocal minority in a lot of cases) opinion in order to garner votes for themselves and their party. I agree however though that my idea could do with improvement which I do believe could be done with a simple piece of paper- a Constitution (that is not able to be amended) limiting the powers of the Crown and the Government (let us call it the House of Lords, as the Royal Court would be handed Peerage) so we could limit the chances of a Tyranny developing through a tyrannical Monarch.

I admit my system still has it’s flaws, but it would work much better then the system we have now and with some refinements we could make the likelihood of a tyranny lower but it will require a thought out process taking lessons from the great Philosophers before us and some common sense .

I’d go for the idea of some kind of academic artistocracy- set a compulsory exam testing philosophy, grammar, literature etc., and appoint the top 100 or so to form a parliament.
A good slab of those elected would surely by Churchmen (Catholics, obviously).

I was going with that they would all be appointed due to be extremely respected academics in their respective fields. Appointed by virtue of their academic excellence, those with great knowledge having mandate not the situation which we have now being that if you are like Obama, in that you have the money and you can talk well enough to fool enough of the population you will be elected even if you are not the best man (or woman) to rule.

 

[exnihilo]

I’m a monarchist. What ultimately persuaded me is not the high praise for monarchy the philosophers had but the practical considerations presented in the arguments made by economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe. He makes a convincing case against democracy and the corporate economy. He make the case that the best results come from inheritance as the patriarch will try to increase his wealth and should he fail to due to incompetence those who own the inheritance will be inclined to remove the regent.

The problem with democracy and corporations is that the leaders only care about maximizing their returns while they are in power. They do not care about future generations. So you see in democracies and corporations moves that make it look like the ruler is successful during his reign but are shown as frauds as soon as his reign is over. The monarch or family business patriarch will have a greater incentive to grow his wealth in a way that is true and lasting for the next generation. He will tend not to squander resources for the appearance of current wealth.

Of course this will not always happen. But under a monarch the successors and the aristocracy stand ready to remove a bad monarch. Even under democracy the people are not the real power but those around the ruler. Monarchy is more honest in that all see where the real power lies, in the ruler and those around him. The duty to protect against a bad ruler is known to lie in the royal court. The people are not deluded into thinking they have any real power.

The age of democracy has been particularly violent. War has not ceased or even lessened. Democracy has certainly not been a solution to war.

The US is a myth. The average American thinks a piece of paper, the constitution, protects them from the avarice of rulers. This is not true and has never been true. Power will accumulate in the hands of the ruler no matter what system you have. The US president has far greater powers than King George had. The argument for the US was that the type of government limited the extent of power. This is clearly not true.

As for the Lord Acton and Chesterton, two great minds, being in favor of democracy I have to think that they would be against what we have today. The average American though well schooled is very uneducated and very unwise. We suffer a tyranny as great as any dictatorship when the vote is determined by a greedy, uneducated, impatient mass of humanity.

Regarding US separation from the King of England my main issue is that if that was justified so was the War for Southern Independence. But the US government and likely most citizens say this war was wrong. If it was wrong then the Revolution was wrong. You cant have it both ways.

 

[haroldhill]

Democracy is a problematic form of government because it is a system in which truth is decided by popular vote. We’ve seen how this pans out in religion (the Anglican Communion’s acceptance of contraception is an example), and now we’re starting to see it happen in democracy. As long as the majority wants it, they can slaughter unborn babies, marry whomever they want, and contracept themselves out of existence.

 

[haroldhill]

Democracy is a problematic form of government because it is a system in which truth is decided by popular vote. We’ve seen how this pans out in religion (the Anglican Communion’s acceptance of contraception is an example), and now we’re starting to see it happen in democracy. As long as the majority wants it, they can slaughter unborn babies, marry whomever they want, and contracept themselves out of existence.

 

[austenbosten]

Democracy is a problem, which is why the Founding Fathers were Federalist Republicans.

Read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers you will find just how wise the FF truly were.

 

[DaveBj]

The problem with democracy is that the majority of voters, all of whom are sinners, get to decide what’s best for everybody.

The problem with a monarchy is that one person, who is a sinner, gets to decide what’s best for everybody.

I think I’ll stick with what we have.

 

[AHapka]

I like your idea, for example, that those serving for office ought not to receive pay. I’d argue that they be given a very simple base salary to support them and their families–say, 50,000 a year. It would be a huge pay-cut for many people, but it’s about serving your country, not making a cushy career out of it. Furthermore, there ought to be limits to how many times senators can be re-elected.

No, I’m sorry I don’t agree here.

If you want a citizen to run for office and serve for a few years and leave, the pay will have to be much higher. Many of the new congressmen and women have to maintain a house for their family in their district, and live in DC for a few months out of the year. That is astronomically expensive. Plus many of them travel back to their districts quite often (some every weekend), and that isn’t cheap (especially for west coasters). It is a huge expense, but it actually keeps them plugged into their district.

If you only pay them $50K a year, only the rich are going to be able to afford serving in office since the salary will not cover expenses. You’ll get the exact opposite of what you want. Only the independently wealthy will be able to afford to serve.

I personally think the current salary of $174K per year might be a tad high, but not by much.

When I interned for my congressman back in 1993, a member of the Hawaii delegation flew home to his family almost every weekend (and yes, that’s 11 hours). From a taxpayer perspective that might seem wasteful, but from a Catholic perspective (even though out politics differed) I sincerely respected that he was willing to do that to spend even some time with his family.

And we do have term limits, WE the people are the term limits. All it takes is us to kick a Member out. I always shake my head at all of the older people who complain that Congress raided Social Security for decades, but then when I ask when they raised the issue with their congressman (or stated they wouldn’t vote for him/her because of it), all I got was blank stare. When it comes down to it, that’s not what people vote on so that’s why we are in the mess we are today.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I like your idea, for example, that those serving for office ought not to receive pay. I’d argue that they be given a very simple base salary to support them and their families–say, 50,000 a year. It would be a huge pay-cut for many people, but it’s about serving your country, not making a cushy career out of it.

Would provide huge benefits for others. For one that already owns a business becoming a policy maker could enable him or her to make decisions that give the business a better foot hold and increase profits. Unfortunately removing pay from the position doesn’t remove the potential for selfish behaviour

 

[exnihilo]

The problem with democracy is that the majority of voters, all of whom are sinners, get to decide what’s best for everybody.

The problem with a monarchy is that one person, who is a sinner, gets to decide what’s best for everybody.

I think I’ll stick with what we have.

If by we you mean the US then we have one person, who is a sinner, who decides for us. The US president is elected every four years by the people but while in office he has tremendous power. Normally he works with the Congress to give the appearance of republican rule, but in a crunch he can write laws via Executive Orders. Also given the indisputable fact he now has the power to execute anyone he declares to be a terrorist any arguments about how much power he does or does not have in other areas is not very important. The power to kill people is the greatest power there is.

 

[tabycat]

:

Given the way things are going in Washington over the last 3 years a monarchy may not be that bad.

You mean the Chi-town polico? He does look a bit like the ‘royal family’ in ‘Mother Englond’. :bigyikes:

Irish in the Ameican Colanies were not proking, They were the one ethnic group that were antienglish, antiking. Monsingure (?) John Carroll (with his brother and their cousin) was a “rebal” according to the monarcy. npatrol:

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I don’t like any government at all. All of them have extreme flaws. You know, the whole Reagan, “Government is the problem” thing.

In government classes (I’m 18) I’ve had no trouble heavily criticizing democracy. It really does have a lot of problems. But every form of government does. If I had to pick one government, it would be a democracy. It’s “the best of the worst”. At least in a democracy we have SOME concept of a say in the government, and a theoretically guaranteed freedom of speech.

Is it HEAVILY flawed. Absolutely. But I don’t think it’s AS flawed as other forms of government.