If you could form a new country....

[starshiptrooper]

That’s definitely the conventional wisdom of Founderolatry. Too bad it’s wrong:

"Every human community needs an authority to govern it. The foundation of such authority lies in human nature. It is necessary for the unity of the state. Its role is to ensure as far as possible the common good of the society. "

–CCC 1898​

In most cases, it isn’t possible to ensure this dagerous idea of a “common good”. How the heck can you even define something like that?

See also:

*“In political affairs, and all matters civil, **the laws aim at securing the common good . . . ***”

–Pope Leo XIII, “Immortale Dei” § 18​

You can try to secure the “common good” but that doesn’t mean you will succeed.

 

[sw85]

Yes! Sign me up…as long as taxes are simple and few.

If I were king, I couldn’t guarantee your taxes would be lower. I could guarantee they’d be supporting worthier things, namely, no more sodomy lessons for seventh graders and more churches that look like this.

If you currently make $10 million+ I would instantly impoverish you. Otherwise you might get away with paying less.

Problem is, the US is not a monarchy, but we have complex and fairly high taxes since we have an elected family that seeks to have standards above that of royalty. So perhaps monarchies aren’t so bad.

Ehh. White House expenses are a drop in the bucket. The main reason for the bloated budget and such is the fact that the government has to prop up the people impoverished by the economy they ruined by running like a chain-letter scam.

In most cases, it isn’t possible to ensure this dagerous idea of a “common good”. How the heck can you even define something like that?

Is that a serious question? There’s lots of books on the topic, man. And these are formal exercises in the Magisterium of the Church, i.e., non-negotiable. You’re obligated to believe them.

You can try to secure the “common good” but that doesn’t mean you will succeed.

What is this supposed to mean? You can literally fail at anything. That doesn’t mean the “anything” so attempted is unjust, unreasonable, undefined or undefinable, etc.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Is that a serious question?

Yes, it is, how do you define the “common good” so that you can use it for political purposes without leaving the door open for people like Hitler to claim that their deeds were done for the “common good”. The definition in paragraph 1906 of the CCC does not meet this defintion.

There’s lots of books on the topic, man. And these are formal exercises in the Magisterium of the Church, i.e., non-negotiable. You’re obligated to believe them.

Pargraphs 1907-1909 of the CCC state the main things that are fall under the term “common good”. However, it agrees in every respect with the system the Founding Fathers built. 1907 states that the common good includes respect for the person. Note the use of the singular, this indicates respect for the rights of the individual, just like the Founding fathers wanted.

1908 states that authorities should make the necessities available to everyone. The Founding Fathers realized that a free market would be the best system for this, and history proves that they were right.

1909 states that authorities have the duty to defend the country, but the reason people establish just governments is to protect the rights of the individual therefore, defense of the country is defense of the individual’s rights.

 

[sw85]

Yes, it is, how do you define the “common good” so that you can use it for political purposes without leaving the door open for people like Hitler to claim that their deeds were done for the “common good”.

Are you suggesting Hitler actually thought he was acting for the “common good”? Or are you saying that the remote possibility of someone abusing a Church teaching by deliberately misreading it somehow proves that the teaching is meritless and can be safely discarded?

If we’re talking about the possibility of abuse, why is it that the fact that monstrous abuses are committed in the name of “individual rights” (namely the mass slaughter of 50 million infants in 40 or so years) doesn’t prove that *your *conception of government is badly flawed?

The Church defines the common good in numerous places. It is, literally, the good which is common to everyone, not particular to anyone. They include basic considerations like peace, justice, public order, public morality, and provision for the poor.

The definition in paragraph 1906 of the CCC does not meet this defintion.Pargraphs 1907-1909 of the CCC state the main things that are fall under the term “common good”. However, it agrees in every respect with the system the Founding Fathers built.

That the Founders accidentally succeeded in building a society ordered toward the common good and not just “protection of rights” does not prove that government is therefore ordered toward the protection of rights. It isn’t. It’s ordered toward the common good.

1907 states that the common good includes respect for the person. Note the use of the singular, this indicates respect for the rights of the individual, just like the Founding fathers wanted.

It does not “include” it. Read it carefully. It “presupposes” it. In other words, the “common good” cannot be used as an excuse to harass or intimidate groups unjustly.

Saying that it presupposes respect for the person is not the same thing as saying that it’s primarily geared toward protecting his rights. It also does not follow that the Church is using “rights” the way you are or the Founders did. “Rights” under natural law theology are quite limited. See Dignitatis Humanae for a good example of this – the right to religious liberty outlined there apparently does not preclude religious establishment or aggressively punishing agitators against the natural law (e.g., Lutherans demanding gay “marriage”).

 

[sw85]

1908 states that authorities should make the necessities available to everyone. The Founding Fathers realized that a free market would be the best system for this, and history proves that they were right.

Therefore how best to organize economic life is a purely prudential question and not a matter of “rights.”

1909 states that authorities have the duty to defend the country, but the reason people establish just governments is to protect the rights of the individual therefore, defense of the country is defense of the individual’s rights.

This would come as a surprise to virtually everyone in history.

 

[Matilda_Bennett]

General Reminder:

This discussion has strayed from its original topic. Please return to the original topic under discussion. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.

 

[youngoldguy]

I apologize as I haven’t taken the time to read all the posts. Maybe this proposal was already visited but wouldn’t the best form of government be a monarchy with our dear Lord and his mother as King and queen. We don’t need to worry as it will become reality some day …maybe soon

yougoldguy

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

I would prefer to take over a country with plentiful natural resources, but if not, then an island somewhere.

The USA has a great Constitution but I would need to make sure there was no progressive income tax and I would clarify the 1st amendment so that there would be no question of a false separation of church and state. The 2nd amendment would stay, and in fact, I might require everyone to have a gun, be able to use it, and keep it in good condition (like Switzerland). No income tax and no general election of the Senate. Divided government is good but the President might have to be more limited.

Obviously we could not fund a large army, but we wouldn’t need to. There would have to be a strong immigration policy and the first generation founders would be the only unlimited citizens. Others coming after that would have to be vetted.

I guess we could take over parts of Canada…

The Establishment Clause is perfectly clear. Certain factions choose to distort It.

 

[Bill_7154]

…what form of government would you want and where would you want it to be?

I ask this in the SJ forum because it is a social issue and to ask if it would be justified?

Please, no discussions about any current country’s failings/benefits. And let’s not get overly worked up, either. Let’s keep this a straight up discussion of options. Thank you. :tiphat:

Any country I formed would be an Anarcho-Capitalistic Country. The benefits are that it’s a sort of pay as you go country, paying fee’s for use of certain services. It would be based on contracts and if someone didn’t live up to their end of the contract there wouldn’t be anywhere for them to hide. And I suppose someone who willfully and knowingly hid a cheat, their future would take a financial burden as others would refuse to trade/sell to them. Such a country would be based on voluntariasm. Police would be done by private agnecies, where the recipient’s of their services could outline what laws would be and what laws would be enforced and what the fines would be or penalties.

The poor would survive via charity where there would likely be stipulations upon them for recieving things for free from charities, and the stipulations would be work transferrrable I presume.

Few laws, strictly enforced. Laws around crimes of theft and violence supported and enforced.Someone could try to run and hide, but with the internet and people’s photo’s it would be hard to do that. People would still receive ‘chances’ as we are not heartless human beings, but expectations on them would be higher than at present. There could be work crews/camps supervised by police for those who did wrong and are trying to get into the good graces of society again.

And even the rich, if under such a society, people doing business wiht them, if they cheat, would be subject to the same laws and penalties. For the rich who repeatedly abuse the system I immagine that individuals would stop doing business with them to keep society safe.

And people would know who to trust based on what private police force they are signed up under where they live. If they don’t folllow the law all their family, friends, neighbors, businesses in the area, businesses could be made aware…then they would all be associates of a known criminal who doesn’t corrrect his wrongs…making others less likely to associate with or do business with.

And if a police agency refused to renew someone’s contact this info would be published, as to why their trust should be questioned, so everyone would be leery of them and not likely to do any business wiht them So I don’t think being a warren buffet and having othersdo evefy thing t o dr leadum…

That’s a sum up for a start.

Peace,
Bill

 

[Della]

Are you in law enforcement, Bill? It seems you see the world through that sensibility.

I’m proposing a family based society in which people are answerable to their family head and the family heads are answerable to all the other family heads with an elder family head overseeing all the families. There would be no need for police or contracts or for anyone to be poor, in the sense that anyone would lack the necessities of life. Any real crimes would be handled by a council of family judges, appointed at random, so there’d be no favortism. Does that sound doable?

 

[Hamlet123]

…what form of government would you want and where would you want it to be?

I ask this in the SJ forum because it is a social issue and to ask if it would be justified?

Please, no discussions about any current country’s failings/benefits. And let’s not get overly worked up, either. Let’s keep this a straight up discussion of options. Thank you. :tiphat:

Briefly: exactly like Frederic Bastiat would have. Later on this.

 

[Ndehi]

Subsidiarity - Starting from the family the higher level of government should not do what the lower can do. The head of the lower level of government will be an assembly member in the higher level of government. Above the family will be a level of government where all families know each other and the parent sits in the assembly. Higher levels of government should charge a tribute to the lower levels for helping them do what they cannot do for efficiently for themselves. Higher level of government should never tax the people directly e.g The federal government should level a tribute on the states and not individual citizens

Land Value Tax to be the primary source of government income. No one made land so those who sit on land should pay “rent” to those excluded by financing public services in the local community. Tax would therefore be on value extracted and not value added.

Increasing the choices of the poor instead of limiting them to Government provided services. for example - a bursary or school voucher system instead of government provided schools.

The crown (who may be a monarch or a president) will have his roles limited to 1. Defence, 2. Foreign Affairs 3. Internal security 4. Justice 5. Treasury

I disagree with other posters who suggest bringing in the clergy and the religious into the running of government. The laity can run things pretty well. Government would be an costly distraction for the clergy and the religious. Many people would find it difficult to separate between highly fallible temporal decisions with the infallibility of the Church. In the long run this would result in the rebellion to religion that Europe is experiencing.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Are you suggesting Hitler actually thought he was acting for the “common good”?

Yes.

If we’re talking about the possibility of abuse, why is it that the fact that monstrous abuses are committed in the name of “individual rights” (namely the mass slaughter of 50 million infants in 40 or so years) doesn’t prove that *your *conception of government is badly flawed?

It is a clear disregard of individual rights that allows abortion. Just because the pro-choicers call a tail a leg does not mean that is actually the case.

The Church defines the common good in numerous places. It is, literally, the good which is common to everyone, not particular to anyone.

That is way too vague to be safely used in politics.

They include basic considerations like peace, justice, public order, public morality, and provision for the poor.

If your government protects the rights of the individual, these things will be the natural result. However, this is still not a good defintion. This is like saying that some examples of mammals are whales, gorillas, and squirrels.

That the Founders accidentally succeeded in building a society ordered toward the common good and not just “protection of rights” does not prove that government is therefore ordered toward the protection of rights. It isn’t. It’s ordered toward the common good.

Whatever the “common good” is, it comes from the protection of individual rights.

It does not “include” it. Read it carefully. It “presupposes” it. In other words, the “common good” cannot be used as an excuse to harass or intimidate groups unjustly.

So, you have to protect individual rights as a first step towards the nebulous concept of a “common good”, I can live with that.

Saying that it presupposes respect for the person is not the same thing as saying that it’s primarily geared toward protecting his rights. It also does not follow that the Church is using “rights” the way you are or the Founders did. “Rights” under natural law theology are quite limited. See Dignitatis Humanae for a good example of this – the right to religious liberty outlined there apparently does not preclude religious establishment or aggressively punishing agitators against the natural law (e.g., Lutherans demanding gay “marriage”).

Then the Church has changed its position on religious liberty then. The fact that you think it is ok to punish a group of people for demanding something you disagree with frightens me, suppression of free speech is an ugly and immoral thing.

Therefore how best to organize economic life is a purely prudential question and not a matter of “rights.”

Wrong, if your welfare state or socialist system infringes on my right to private property, your government is ipso facto illegitimate.

This would come as a surprise to virtually everyone in history.

Everyone besides John Locke and the men who founded the greatest country ever.

 

[luckydogh]

Please, no discussions about any current country’s failings/benefits. And let’s not get overly worked up, either. Let’s keep this a straight up discussion of options. Thank you

---

---

Flytouch 7
Google Android 4.0

 

[epan]

One thing for sure, in my country, there would be free ice cream.

 

[Della]

One thing for sure, in my country, there would be free ice cream.

to that!

 

[Bill_7154]

…what form of government would you want and where would you want it to be?

I ask this in the SJ forum because it is a social issue and to ask if it would be justified?

Please, no discussions about any current country’s failings/benefits. And let’s not get overly worked up, either. Let’s keep this a straight up discussion of options. Thank you. :tiphat:

Choice 1: Be King (i would be a good one so everyone should vote for me as king)
Choice 2: Anarcho-Capitalism
Choice 3: Model a country after Switzerland making some changes.

 

[epan]

Choice 1: Be King (i would be a good one so everyone should vote for me as king)
Choice 2: Anarcho-Capitalism
Choice 3: Model a country after Switzerland making some changes.

My country is better. We have free ice cream.

 

[Bill_7154]

My country is better. We have free ice cream.

No mine is better, we have free ponies.

 

[epan]

No mine is better, we have free ponies.

Yay! Ponies AND Ice Cream!