Best Governmental System?

[Della]

It is mysterious to me why certain people identify aristocrats (or men with social or economic privilege) with superior moral or technical competence. I do not necessarily see why would a more aristocratic system be superior. I just see incentives for familial and social nepotism at the expense of the interests of everyone else.

Such people tended to be better educated and to have learned the art of ruling from childhood on up. Whereas the lower classes had generally been less educated and brought up to serve–that’s how the hierachy in England worked for centuries, at any rate.

But I guess most people here have no love for Franklin Roosevelt (I believe his legacy is worth celebrating), given that the expressed assent with aristocracy would likely yield no sympathy towards his liberal (as exemplified with Four Freedoms) philosophy, his proactive, progressive economic policies, and his anti-colonial views.

Ironic considering he, as an American aristocrat, went to the best schools and was brought up to rule others as his given right.

I have sympathy towards left-wing anarchism general distrust of authority as they see it as a vehicle of oppression and control. But do you think left-wing anarchists sympathy with the right-wing anarchist’s principle of non-aggression, which is almost strictly invoked to kvetch about the state using force to tax people to use that money for social welfare programs (although I doubt many really do complain about military spending).

The right-wing that I’m familiar with only complains about paying for welfare since it’s created generational poverty and hardened ghettoes from which people cannot escape due to being brought up to think and act like dependents instead of citizens. And as long as we live in a world in which terrorists and tyrants are determined to conquer everyone else for their own gain, a strong military is necessary. Would that both cases were otherwise.

 

[SWolf]

It is mysterious to me why certain people identify aristocrats (or men with social or economic privilege) with superior moral or technical competence. I do not necessarily see why would a more aristocratic system be superior. I just see incentives for familial and social nepotism at the expense of the interests of everyone else.

I was referring more along the lines of the senate election as opposed to aristocracy in general.

With the senate, the original plan had the two-fold benefit of giving the states governments a more direct say, which solidified State’s rights, and made it much easier to make hard decisions that may take a decade to see real fruit.

 

[Latias]

Such people tended to be better educated and to have learned the art of ruling from childhood on up. Whereas the lower classes had generally been less educated and brought up to serve–that’s how the hierachy in England worked for centuries, at any rate.

Ironic considering he, as an American aristocrat, went to the best schools and was brought up to rule others as his given right.

I am aware of that he had superior social connections, but his policies are certainly anti-aristocratic. But did Roosevelt believe that ruling others was his “right”?

The right-wing that I’m familiar with only complains about paying for welfare since it’s created generational poverty and hardened ghettoes from which people cannot escape due to being brought up to think and act like dependents instead of citizens. And as long as we live in a world in which terrorists and tyrants are determined to conquer everyone else for their own gain, a strong military is necessary. Would that both cases were otherwise.

I am not a pacifistic, and I think the possession of nuclear weapons (including reliable delivery systems) is something to be celebrated since it betokens technological competence and it is a means to deter others.

But the US spends disproportionately on its military relative to the rest of the world. The question, of course, whether its geopolitical interests are legitimate to justify such spending (and policy). I most certainly do not believe that the US is besieged by foreign and domestic belligerents that it faces an existentialist risk that such spending can be ingenuously classified as “defense spending”. Of course, one should not be so naive to believe that the US military is used to perform its role as the world’s benevolent policeman.

 

[Della]

I am aware of that he had superior social connections, but his policies are certainly anti-aristocratic. But did Roosevelt believe that ruling others was his “right”?

Well, he’d never have put it that way, but in a way, he did because he had the kind of upbringing that lent itself to rule and he ran for the highest office in the land. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing. A guy with a 3rd grade education and no higher ambitions than to live on welfare the rest of his life, not so much.

I am not a pacifistic, and I think the possession of nuclear weapons (including reliable delivery systems) is something to be celebrated since it betokens technological competence and it is a means to deter others.

Yes, it’s too big a stick to wield, which has its pluses and minuses. It keeps big governments from starting wars, but it does nothing to deter terrorists.

But the US spends disproportionately on its military relative to the rest of the world. The question, of course, whether its geopolitical interests are legitimate to justify such spending (and policy). I most certainly do not believe that the US is besieged by foreign and domestic belligerents that it faces an existentialist risk that such spending can be ingenuously classified as “defense spending”. Of course, one should not be so naive to believe that the US military is used to perform its role as the world’s benevolent policeman.

Well, we had the “we don’t need a standing army” mentality when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. We nearly lost WWII because we were unprepared. It’s always better to be over prepared than to be caught “unarmed and outta of gas.” We keep many of the world’s governments from having to spend on their militaries because they depend on ours. In the wrong hands such a military could be a terrible weapon of oppression, I agree. It’s why we need to be constantly vigilant to keep that from happening.

 

[Latias]

Well, he’d never have put it that way, but in a way, he did because he had the kind of upbringing that lent itself to rule and he ran for the highest office in the land. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing. A guy with a 3rd grade education and no higher ambitions than to live on welfare the rest of his life, not so much.

Yes, it’s too big a stick to wield, which has its pluses and minuses. It keeps big governments from starting wars, but it does nothing to deter terrorists.

Well, we had the “we don’t need a standing army” mentality when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. We nearly lost WWII because we were unprepared. It’s always better to be over prepared than to be caught “unarmed and outta of gas.” We keep many of the world’s governments from having to spend on their militaries because they depend on ours. In the wrong hands such a military could be a terrible weapon of oppression, I agree. It’s why we need to be constantly vigilant to keep that from happening.

Tactical nuclear weapons have been phased out, perhaps because they are not necessary in the post-Cold World, since one is not facing the prospect of facing off against Soviet Deep Battle, and that conventional weapons would suffice (and it would not endanger military potential with fallout radiation and neutron flux). I do not know too much about the utility and strategy of tactical nuclear warfare. Portable tactical warheads, although while “nuclear” do not have the destructive capacity of Little Boy, as the warhead of the Davy Crockett only had a yield of about 10 to 20 tons, about the yield of a MOAB or a Grand Slam bomb delivered from an Avro Lancaster. Its true utility, relative to a truck bomb with a yield of about 2 tons of TNT, is probably its radiological hazard.

Strategic nuclear weapons are more likely to be guarded and harder to acquire through corrupt official or lack of security at a stockpile warehouse.

The logic of deterrence only works against potential belligerents with a concern for self-preservation. But it does not seem likely that a terrorist group will acquire sufficient U-235 for a “simple” gun-type weapon, or even enough bred Pu-239 for an implosion-type weapon, much less have the metallurgy capacity to create a hollow sphere of Pu-239 or engineering acumen to engineer the implosion mechanism around the critical Mass of Pu-239.​

I most certainly do not subscribe to naive reactionary realism where the US’ administrative and economic capacities is imminently threatened by many capable and belligerent enemies.

So how did we nearly lose World War II due to a lack of standing army? It is not like that the Wehrmacht or the army of Pancho Villa was 15 km away from Washington DC? In contrast, the Soviet Union was importuning Great Britain to relieve its perceived precarious strategic position to open up in a second front in the midst of Operation Barbarossa and Case Blue. Perhaps you are referring the scenario that would be considered a “geopolitical disaster” where Marshals Zhukov and Konev would reach the banks of the Rhine perhaps a year after the initiation of Operation Bagration and the US would have little leverage at the Potsdam Conference (or wherever it would convene in that scenario).

Yamamoto himself had misgivings about going to war with the US because the US had superior industrial might. That reasonable assessment does not comport to the opinion that the US is in a vulnerable position.

–

The right-wing that I’m familiar with only complains about paying for welfare since it’s created generational poverty and hardened ghettoes from which people cannot escape due to being brought up to think and act like dependents instead of citizens.

Really, I suspect it has more to do with a general contempt for the poor and thinly veiled racism coded in dog whistling. Not that the left are truly magnanimous and virtuous either.

 

[Saint_Cunigunde]

Amazingly, people ignore St. Thomas Aquinas and go their own way, because what he said is uncomfortable(to some).

A monarchy is the form of government that probably is the least accountable to the people, the the most likely to have no checks and balances on the monarch’s absolute power. Actually, I think that a monarchy is only slightly better than anarchy; historically, if it were so wonderful, nations wouldn’t have “grown up” and replaced their monarchs with elected governments as has happened in many nations.

It’s ad hominem I know, but statements like these mark you as a true idiot.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Forbes Top 10 best governments in the world.

forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2012/11/29/the-worlds-10-most-responsible-governments/

1. Japan
2. Germany
3. Austria
4. The Netherlands
5. New Zealand
6. Australia
7. Finland
8. Norway
9. Sweden
10. Denmark

If you google the happiest countries in the world Denmark comes out on top followed by several of the other countries in this list.

:ehh:

Best governments? Based on what? A lot of these countries have problems ranging from immigration to harassment by by Russia, China and radical sects of Islam.

 

[Latias]

:ehh:

Best governments? Based on what? A lot of these countries have problems ranging from immigration to harassment by by Russia, China and radical sects of Islam.

So could you tell me how some of the aforementioned countries are harassed by Russia and China?

I only ask because I want to know what type of “harassment” (is it just border disputes and issues of irredentism with Japan) would justify military spending to deter it. Certainly that is a perquisite of having a strong military, even if such “harassment” is not necessarily consists of threats of economic action, but may rather be an unwillingness to make a concession on some economic issue such as not opening up one’s country’s labor force or national resources to foreign capital, or leaving one’s domestic market closed to the hegemon’s corporations.

 

[Della]

Tactical nuclear weapons have been phased out, perhaps because they are not necessary in the post-Cold World, since one is not facing the prospect of facing off against Soviet Deep Battle, and that conventional weapons would suffice (and it would not endanger military potential with fallout radiation and neutron flux). I do not know too much about the utility and strategy of tactical nuclear warfare. Portable tactical warheads, although while “nuclear” do not have the destructive capacity of Little Boy, as the warhead of the Davy Crockett only had a yield of about 10 to 20 tons, about the yield of a MOAB or a Grand Slam bomb delivered from an Avro Lancaster. Its true utility, relative to a truck bomb with a yield of about 2 tons of TNT, is probably its radiological hazard.

Strategic nuclear weapons are more likely to be guarded and harder to acquire through corrupt official or lack of security at a stockpile warehouse.

The logic of deterrence only works against potential belligerents with a concern for self-preservation. But it does not seem likely that a terrorist group will acquire sufficient U-235 for a “simple” gun-type weapon, or even enough bred Pu-239 for an implosion-type weapon, much less have the metallurgy capacity to create a hollow sphere of Pu-239 or engineering acumen to engineer the implosion mechanism around the critical Mass of Pu-239.​

I most certainly do not subscribe to naive reactionary realism where the US’ administrative and economic capacities is imminently threatened by many capable and belligerent enemies.

So how did we nearly lose World War II due to a lack of standing army? It is not like that the Wehrmacht or the army of Pancho Villa was 15 km away from Washington DC? In contrast, the Soviet Union was importuning Great Britain to relieve its perceived precarious strategic position to open up in a second front in the midst of Operation Barbarossa and Case Blue. Perhaps you are referring the scenario that would be considered a “geopolitical disaster” where Marshals Zhukov and Konev would reach the banks of the Rhine perhaps a year after the initiation of Operation Bagration and the US would have little leverage at the Potsdam Conference (or wherever it would convene in that scenario).

Yamamoto himself had misgivings about going to war with the US because the US had superior industrial might. That reasonable assessment does not comport to the opinion that the US is in a vulnerable position.

Well, we’re getting off topic. Weapons and armies are, sadly, necessary. Determining how much we need of them is a matter for discussion for another thread.

Really, I suspect it has more to do with a general contempt for the poor and thinly veiled racism coded in dog whistling. Not that the left are truly magnanimous and virtuous either.

We can both suspect anything, can’t we? But the fact is that merely doling out money hasn’t solved anything, indeed, it’s only made poverty worse. If we truly care about those stuck in generational/ghetto poverty we will enact programs that will help them out of it instead of letting them go on rotting in such hell. True compassion means helping someone become self-sufficient as much as he is able–to get an education and training so he can be in the work force and support himself and his family.

The government should also not go on rewarding promiscuous behavior that creates one parent families with multiple children with multiple fathers and only one mother. The operate phrases being only one mother and many fathers who don’t marry anyone but simply have sex whenever and however they like with no consequences.

The reality is that the “War on Poverty” (along with the “sexual revolution”) created this situation. The truly caring person will want to find a way to remedy the abuses of poverty instead of throwing more money at programs that have not and cannot work. The true conservative loves the poor too much to let them go on suffering in such misery, but we are unfairly characterized as uncaring and racist simply because we don’t buy into the left’s interpretation of compassion, which is not real compassion but laziness which keeps the status quo. The reality of the situation belies the nonsense about the left caring more than the right. It’s simply a lie, and a big one, meant to keep minorities voting for leftist candidates. Sadly, all that accompilshies and has accomplished is to keep them in adject poverty, which promotes crime, despair and helplessness.

The best government is one that allows people to work to support themselves and their families without undue interference. Big government is a cancer that will eat us all alive if we don’t do something about it, and immediately, not in some far distance future. I never dreamed as a child that I would grow up to see America so split, so angry, so down on itself. I know exactly where to lay the blame, and I’m not afraid to say so.

 

[PolarGuy]

Saint cuni-whatever, when you call people “true idiots” (all the while accusing them of ad hominem attacks) what you really announce is “I don’t like what you wrote but I am not smart enough; articulate enough, or patient enough to explain why I dislike what you wrote, so I’ll just rant like a spoiled child.”

So all you did was make yourself look foolish, and managed to pay me a nice compliment (namely, that you were not smart enough to respond substantively what I wrote).

 

[PolarGuy]

Saint cuni-whatever, when you call people “true idiots” what you really announce is “I don’t like what you wrote but I am not smart enough; articulate enough, or patient enough to explain why I dislike what you wrote, so I’ll just rant like a spoiled child.”

So all you did was make yourself look foolish, and managed to pay me a nice compliment (namely, that you were not smart enough to respond substantively what I wrote).

 

[Invictus_88]

Democratic governments, in so far as they enfranchise the bulk of the population with the ability to directly influence the governance of the nation, make necessary the education and formation of citizens outside of the ruling class.

This feature is not present in more autocratic systems, or dictatorial systems, and in those systems it is very often the case that education is extended to the ruling class and not to the majority.

This has a range of documented negative consequences, from the economic to the spiritual.

 

[Latias]

Well, we’re getting off topic. Weapons and armies are, sadly, necessary. Determining how much we need of them is a matter for discussion for another thread.

No, we’re not going off topic, because the issue of military strength is part of political philosophy. You are just saying that because you are not comfortable with discussing that topic. I now also suspect you are actually not really interested in discussing that, but want to discuss the black triangle individuals and how liberal policies do not help them because you interjected a unnecessary remark about that when talking about Franklin Roosevelt’s social background.

I just thought it was ridiculous and frankly untenable to assert that the US’ strategic position was perilously endangered as one would infer what was meant by losing “World War II”. Even if, for whatever reason, the Yorktown, Hornet, and Enterprise were sunk in Midway and the island was invaded with the four Imperial carriers unscathed, I do not necessarily think this would mean that the US would lose the war. It would likely mean that more carriers would have to be constructed later on. Perhaps this might have delayed victory for a few months, and ceteris paribus, it would likely mean the USSR would invade Manchuria before the atomic bombs were dropped.

Since the notion that the “We nearly lost WWII because we were unprepared” cannot be reasonably defended if one reasonably assessed the US’ strategic position, I thought it was a more artful way of saying that would not have such an advantageous position in the postbellum state as other parties such as Great Britain and the Soviet Union would have more leverage.

We can both suspect anything, can’t we? But the fact is that merely doling out money hasn’t solved anything, indeed, it’s only made poverty worse. If we truly care about those stuck in generational/ghetto poverty we will enact programs that will help them out of it instead of letting them go on rotting in such hell. True compassion means helping someone become self-sufficient as much as he is able–to get an education and training so he can be in the work force and support himself and his family.

…]
The best government is one that allows people to work to support themselves and their families without undue interference. Big government is a cancer that will eat us all alive if we don’t do something about it, and immediately, not in some far distance future. I never dreamed as a child that I would grow up to see America so split, so angry, so down on itself. I know exactly where to lay the blame, and I’m not afraid to say so.

My succinct remark merely noted that many people are actually attracted to conservative policies concern this issue for ignoble reasons such as identity politics, but I also added a comment so one could not construe them as me smugly portraying liberals as compassionate individuals as many are attracted to liberal causes because they get some psychological satisfaction by associating themselves for fighting for a progressive cause even if they have little involvement in it.

Nevertheless, I am less likely to attribute the vicissitudes of the economically disenfranchised to a lack of virtue (as you have done) or a decay in traditional morality. I mostly see the issue as a disparity in economic and political power. And no, I most certainly do not believe economic policy should solely be social welfare programs.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Democratic governments, in so far as they enfranchise the bulk of the population with the ability to directly influence the governance of the nation, make necessary the education and formation of citizens outside of the ruling class.

This feature is not present in more autocratic systems, or dictatorial systems, and in those systems it is very often the case that education is extended to the ruling class and not to the majority.

This has a range of documented negative consequences, from the economic to the spiritual.

The danger of democratic governments is that when the enfranchised bulk of the population realizes that they can influence the government to empty the treasury and spread the wealth…that signals the end of the democracy and the government and the bulk of the population.

Greece is a prime example.

 

[bjryman]

So, which System is the best? Democracy, Dictatorship, Anarchy, Kingship, Plutocracy…etc?
I know there can be arguments for and against all of them, but which one is the best overall? I’m trying to make up my own mind and would like some (name removed by moderator)ut.

“Best” is a relative and subjective word in this context.

The “best” system would be one that upholds the precepts of equality, freedom of speech and the like. Technically, a benevolent dictator or monarcy could be “best” compared to an ultra progressive, secular democracy.

Now, history shows that the old adage of “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely” tends to result in dictator/monarchs being less tolerant and corrupt. So the reality of mankind’s actual implementation of various government systems would indicate that the “best” are those with legitimate, enforceable checks and balances. To date, the US version of Democratic Republic seems the best fit

 

[bjryman]

The danger of democratic governments is that when the enfranchised bulk of the population realizes that they can influence the government to empty the treasury and spread the wealth…that signals the end of the democracy and the government and the bulk of the population.

Greece is a prime example.

Yes, we forget that the US practices a version of Democratic Republic, and not a pure democracy where it is possible for “the inmates to run the asylum”. Though in today’s Progressive approach to Big Government, we may be heading down that slippery slope.

 

[Saint_Cunigunde]

A monarchy is the form of government that probably is the least accountable to the people, the the most likely to have no checks and balances on the monarch’s absolute power. Actually, I think that a monarchy is only slightly better than anarchy; historically, if it were so wonderful, nations wouldn’t have “grown up” and replaced their monarchs with elected governments as has happened in many nations.

If you think that government should be more accountable to the people, then you have exactly what you want: abortion, euthanasia, divorce/remarriage, same-sex so-called “marriage”, none of which existed in traditional Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant European monarchies, even in absolutist one, such as the middle to late Ancien Régime. Since these are views wholly incompatible with the Catholic Faith, I do not hold, but instead I stand with Holy Mother Church, who has traditionally taught us that the best system of government is the only one that mirrors that of the Kingdom of Heaven, namely, monarchy. I’m sorry to burst your bubble… well, not really.

when you call people “true idiots” (all the while accusing them of ad hominem attacks)

I said “I know it s ad hominem”, meaning my calling you a true idiot. I wasn’t accusing you of anything, except being an idiot. I apologise for this remark, in any case.
However, you must understand how my blood boils when I see someone blatantly ignoring the truths of Catholic political theology expounded by none other than St. Thomas Aquinas, who wrote about these things extensively.
My personal favourite is De Regno ad Regem Cypri, which he wrote as a gift for the King of Cyprus.

what you really announce is “I don’t like what you wrote but I am not smart enough;
articulate enough, or patient enough to explain why I dislike what you wrote, so I’ll just rant like a spoiled child.”
So all you did was make yourself look foolish, and managed to pay me a nice compliment (namely, that you were not smart enough to respond substantively what I wrote).

Again, sorry for I said.
But this whole thing seems to have been a big misunderstanding. True, I shouldn’t have called you an idiot, an statement for which I have already apologised, but you didn’t really make any coherent argument against, agian, SAINT THOMAS AQUINAS, and you insulted my dear patron, Saint Cunigunde in the process. So, I’m off to bigger and better pastures.

I apologise again for my comment. Please don’t think badly of Saint Cunigunde on account of me. Please pray for me. Be sure you have my prayer as well. Thanks for debating, at least you have the guts to do that. So long.

 

[Entwhistler]

The “best” system would be one that upholds the precepts of equality, freedom of speech and the like. Technically, a benevolent dictator or monarchy could be “best” compared to an ultra progressive, secular democracy.

Interesting
I once heard a homily that said if most of the people were good people (ethical, moral and all of that) then there should be a democracy. If there are only a few good people then there should be an oligarchy. If there is only one good person, then a monarchy.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

A government is an institution that holds the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area.

The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the military, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law.

The source of a proper government’s authority should be “the consent of the governed.” This means that the government is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of the citizens; it means that the government, as such, has no rights except the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific purpose.

The fundamental difference between private action and governmental action lies in the fact that a government holds a monopoly on the legal use of physical force. It has to hold such a monopoly, since it is the agent of restraining and combating the use of force; and for that very same reason, its actions have to be rigidly defined, limited and circumscribed.

Under a proper social system, a private individual is legally free to take any action he pleases (so long as he does not violate the rights of others), while the government is bound by law in every official function. A private individual may do anything except that which is legally forbidden; a government may do nothing except that which it is legally authorized to do.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

If you think that government should be more accountable to the people, then you have exactly what you want: abortion, euthanasia, divorce/remarriage, same-sex so-called “marriage”, none of which existed in traditional Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant European monarchies, even in absolutist one, such as the middle to late Ancien Régime. Since these are views wholly incompatible with the Catholic Faith, I do not hold, but instead I stand with Holy Mother Church, who has traditionally taught us that the best system of government is the only one that mirrors that of the Kingdom of Heaven, namely, monarchy. I’m sorry to burst your bubble… well, not really.

This is “Rex Lex” (the King is law) I will take “Lex Rex” (the Law is King) anytime.