Best Governmental System?

[PolarGuy]

Some further musings:

1. As to the concept that “a government for the people will bring you abortion, euthanasia, etc.,” I would respond that the overwhelming majority of human suffering in human history has universally resulted from times when one person had absolute power. Whether that was any given European 15th century monarch; Stalin; or the present leader of North Korea, the result is the same: 1 leader whose rule is law = human suffering.
2. For all those who would pine for return of a monarch, you can usually take your pick of where you’d like to move to. I’m sure they’ll welcome you (just better love the monarch).
3. The nations that bring you “abortion and euthanasia” have generally also brought things like “property rights for women and blacks; fair trials; (relatively) humane prisons; universal sufferage,” and things many non-democratic nations would only dream of.
4. Although I actually don’t think Zoltan’s view of optimal government is that far off, I would add that the government should also take certain steps to ensure that the weakest among us can live; the disabled can be supported; and the mail should get delivered.
5. As to the whole silliness of being called a “true idiot,” Saint: I’d say this:

You made a fool of yourself; you painted all Catholics as uncharitable haters to all lurkers; you couldn’t have a reasoned debate; you made yourself look small; you only apologized after the mods likely suspended you or sanctioned you; if anonymous posts make your blood boil you should consider professional therapy; I don’t care if I insult your patrons even thought that was not my intent; go ahead and say “bye” because now I can follow you to your other posts forever, happily linking any response to your “true idiot” comment, thereby showing the universe exactly who the real smart one was in the discussion…

 

[bjryman]

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.

The comment is valid in a perfect world. The challenge is that as entities and people are granted more power, they tend to become ever more corrupt in using that power. All one needs to do is read some of Old Testament history of the Jewish and other Kings and see this starkly illustrated.

So, one could conclude that it is the “balance of power” that protects the whole system. The US Democratic Republic, and to some degree, the UK system, probably are the current best examples…however, they are moving ever towards extended power in the few running the Federal Government. That condition should be considered with great trepidation.

 

[Latias]

1. As to the concept that “a government for the people will bring you abortion, euthanasia, etc.,” I would respond that the overwhelming majority of human suffering in human history has universally resulted from times when one person had absolute power. Whether that was any given European 15th century monarch; Stalin; or the present leader of North Korea, the result is the same: 1 leader whose rule is law = human suffering.

There are people who actually admire Stalin, to my chagrin, but most of them are either Marxist-Leninists or nostalgic people in Russia. Because of the latter, it just shows that many people are disillusioned with capitalism and democracy and embrace Stalin’s legacy.

But the question is how do deal with a potential fifth column that could undermine the country when bordered by a hostile nation in a democratic system? Stalin just approved of death quotas and deported people.

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.

That perspective is potentially dangerous because it assumes one can assess the “goodness” of a person and their competence in administration and leadership. It reduces the question of political power to locating “good people” and apportioning power to them.

Karl Popper in The Open Society and Its Enemies said this regarding that attitude:

But if we approach political theory from a different angle, then we find that far from solving any fundamental problems, we have merely skipped over them, by assuming that the question ‘Who should rule?’ is fundamental. For even those who share this assumption of Plato’s admit that political rulers are not always sufficiently ‘good’ or ‘wise’, and that it is not at all easy to get a government on whose goodness and wisdom one can implicitly rely. If that is granted, then we must ask whether political thought should not face from the beginning the possibility of bad government; whether we should not prepare for the worst leaders, and hope for the best. But this leads to a new approach to the problem of politics, for it forces us to replace the question: Who should rule? by the new question: How can we so organize political institutions that bad or incompetent rulers can be prevented from doing too much damage?"

A democratic system may not be able to give a nation a good leader, but it can provide an orderly procedure to depose of a corrupt and incompetent one. Still the people usually do not have technical competence, have relative short-time horizons, may be subject to repugnant prejudices and attitudes, or be receptive to demagoguery.

 

[xNoOnex]

I
I have some sympathy towards left anarchism’s 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 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).

There’s a lot of “left wing” anarchists that also have principles of non-aggression. The anarcho-punk scene in the UK, which actually involved itself with radical political activism in the late 80’s, was non-violent.

Likewise, a lot of the “right” still do heavily believe in wealth distribution. Or at least, rather extreme forms of charity and reworking the economic system.

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.

You could argue that the same danger exists when a part of the population realizes it can influence the government to empty the treasure and give the money to banks and corporations rather than starving people and make corporations people.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

1. Although I actually don’t think Zoltan’s view of optimal government is that far off, I would add that the government should also take certain steps to ensure that the weakest among us can live; the disabled can be supported; and the mail should get delivered.

Thank you for your agreement.

However…a government has no business “ensuring that the weakest among us can live; the disabled can be supported; and the mail should get delivered”…unless those services are authorized by the people.

A society without such governmental authorizations would simply rely on private charity to provide for the weak and disabled and private enterprise to deliver mail.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

You could argue that the same danger exists when a part of the population realizes it can influence the government to empty the treasure and give the money to banks and corporations rather than starving people and make corporations people.

Exactly! and that is why government should have no power over banks and corporations. It only leads to corruption.

 

[SuperLuigi]

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.

We wouldn’t if the “inmates” in the scenario were more informed as voters and if Catholics actually voted their values in priority of importance instead of what makes them look and feel good.

 

[Latias]

We wouldn’t if the “inmates” in the scenario were more informed as voters and if Catholics actually voted their values in priority of importance instead of what makes them look and feel good.

I suppose this comment insinuates that some Catholics who do not vote according to a particular set of values are not really “Catholic”. Another implication is that there is only one set of values that one should consider in order for one to be consider a “Catholic”.

In reality, perhaps the votes of informed Catholics cancel out because one group of Catholics sincerely regard a set of particular issues to be more important than the issues the other set values. Thus, Catholics principles are not necessarily univocal (as it does not call for explicit partisanism) and would not be a unified chorus in the electorate.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

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.

Greece is a prime example of what happens when the lawful taxes are not collected. Nothing more.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Greece is a prime example of what happens when the lawful taxes are not collected. Nothing more.

:dts: :nope:

Greece is an example of what happens when you borrow and spend too much like the American left wants to do.

The fact “it’s the law” doesn’t mean it works or that it is right. Slavery used to be “the law” as well.

 

[SuperLuigi]

=Latias;13042797]I suppose this comment insinuates that some Catholics who do not vote according to a particular set of values are not really “Catholic”.

I am suggesting that Catholics are not voting their values.

Another implication is that there is only one set of values that one should consider in order for one to be consider a “Catholic”.

That sounds like moral relativism.

In reality, perhaps the votes of informed Catholics cancel out because one group of Catholics sincerely regard a set of particular issues to be more important than the issues the other set values. Thus, Catholics principles are not necessarily univocal (as it does not call for explicit partisanism) and would not be a unified chorus in the electorate.

1. The Church has made it very clear over and over and over again that some issues like the right to life, marriage and now religious freedom are much more important than others, and certainly more important than self-centered feel-good nonsense that is crippling the First World.
2. Don’t kid yourself. God gave us brains to figure out what goes on in life, especially with things like scandal.

It’s obvious that a lot of Catholics sell out their principles at the voting booth for worldly gains, in some cases gains they would get EVEN IF they voted for their core principles. And really, for those who do this, if you can’t fool us, how on Earth do you expect to fool God on Judgement Day? It’s not even possible.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Greece is a prime example of what happens when the lawful taxes are not collected. Nothing more.

You can’t bet blood from a turnip and you can’t collect taxes from a welfare state…

Socialist Greece simply ran out of other people’s money and went broke.

 

[bjryman]

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.

You’ll also note that these countriea are more homogenous in race. They infact are encountering serious stress as ever more immigrants, especially Mulslim come to their coutnries. These folks partake of the entiltlements that contribute greatly to “happy people”, but stay isolated in their own communities.

The kettle is boiling and staring to steam during the past year. Japan remains unique as its immigration process has been negligible.

 

[bjryman]

You can’t bet blood from a turnip and you can’t collect taxes from a welfare state…

Socialist Greece simply ran out of other people’s money and went broke.

Correct, when the entitlement payments exceed any consideration for TAXES revenue, the end is near. The TAXES revenue for a socialistic State must come in part, from solid and growing export shipments. In that way, other societies are paying for the entitlements.

Once the country in question has no export market, and no significant internal growth due to some special market considerations, it is doomed to the “Greek” condition.

 

[bjryman]

I am suggesting that Catholics are not voting their values.

That sounds like moral relativism.

In reality, perhaps the votes of informed Catholics cancel out because one group of Catholics sincerely regard a set of particular issues to be more important than the issues the other set values. Thus, Catholics principles are not necessarily univocal (as it does not call for explicit partisanism) and would not be a unified chorus in the electorate.

1. The Church has made it very clear over and over and over again that some issues like the right to life, marriage and now religious freedom are much more important than others, and certainly more important than self-centered feel-good nonsense that is crippling the First World.
2. Don’t kid yourself. God gave us brains to figure out what goes on in life, especially with things like scandal.

It’s obvious that a lot of Catholics sell out their principles at the voting booth for worldly gains, in some cases gains they would get EVEN IF they voted for their core principles. And really, for those who do this, if you can’t fool us, how on Earth do you expect to fool God on Judgement Day? It’s not even possible.

FROM BJRYMAN:
Let me add a bit of different perspective here. While the topic of life and relationship to abortion is certainly at the top of the social list of priorities, there are others that we inform Catholics firmly believe are misapplied.

You see, there is the TRUTH of salvation the the Church has taught faithfully since the time of the apostles. The path to being “saved” is clear as it the “call to holiness” that we each have to live a life that mimics the life of Christ as described in the Gospels.

Once the early Church became Romanized since the time of Constantine, the teachings via Tradition became ever more important. Even to the point where some of those teachings claim legitimacy in the Magisterium itself, without Scripture corroboration.

Along the way, the Church Magisterium devised policies and procedures for just about every question the faithful voiced about how to live their faith. Many of these teachings left little room for interpretation and were developed in the vacuum of mostly Medieval life…and Italian viewpoints.

Vatican II has attempted to “correct” some of these over reaching uniquely focused issues.

Vatican II called for “the people of God”…that is all the Church members to return to their roots of the early church while maintaining the historical updates taught by Magisterium with papal primacy.

Only now, is it being truly noted that there are some topics that should be revisited even if it means that some of the earlier teachings are deemed now to be in need of “updating”

 

[minkymurph]

The best form of government is the one that implements policies that facilitates meeting the requirements of society at a collective and individual level above the bare minimum for survival out of integrity to the electorate and devoid of self-interest.

Can such a government ever exist?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

The best form of government is the one that implements policies that facilitates meeting the requirements of society at a collective and individual level above the bare minimum for survival out of integrity to the electorate and devoid of self-interest.

Can such a government ever exist?

IF integrity to the electorate can be guaranteed and

IF human nature can be modified to exclude the natural goal of self interest

 

[minkymurph]

IF integrity to the electorate can be guaranteed and

IF human nature can be modified to exclude the natural goal of self interest

 

[bjryman]

Which of course in any system is going to be a challenge.

So, as you note, it’s all in the “IFs”. That leads one to consider the odds of living in this type of utopian world of perfect selflessness in our leaders? Not Likely?

Then the final consideration is what model is most likely to benefit and care for the most people in terms of providing freedom, opportunity, charity to its population?

Personally, I opt for any government style where the bulk of the population has reputation in the development of the systerm…not just window dressing, and not anarchy.

To date, it seems that the US Democratic Republic model meets the objective more closely than others.

 

[Della]

Of course, we are discussing what is the best governmental system not the least bad.

The best governmental system is, of course, the family. It’s the beginnings of monarchy, but monarchy takes it a bit too far.

In ancient Israel people were governed within their tribes/their families with God as their ultimate head, with one tribe being the priestly tribe. Indeed, God was saddened when Israel demanded an earthly king for God was their king.

In our times when the family has been pushed aside for every other model, I think it’s more important than ever that we get back to the family as the best form of government we fallen people can have. I know it would seem an impossiblity, but not if we truly wanted it.

I wrote all this in another post in this thread, so I apologize for repeating myself, but since all but one or two posters responded and then the discussion reverted to “what is the least bad form of government” I thought it needed to be restated for the record.