Is the American form of government inherently wrong?

[RobbyS]

I am not part of this consensus. In a theocracy, the leaders have authority because of their religious beliefs. A hereditary monarch receives his power from his family. Both governments disregard the truth that political power is given only by consent of the people.

An elective monarchy might be a good form of government, but concentrating power in the hands of one man is dangerous. To avoid this, we have to divide the powers of government among different leaders who are all chosen by the people in some way.

Wait a second that sounds like the American form of government.

Every form of government rests on the “consent” of the governed. That by itself does not make it a just government. Stalin had the “consent” of his people ever much as Barack Obama has. There is nothing magical about an election, which is ipso facto, a division of the electorate. In the end, it depends on deference to the leader of the majority, or at least of the power powerful faction.

 

[tafan]

Would a general consensus be:

Theocracy or church-supervised monarchy is the best form of government in principle. There will always be faults even in this kind of government, but secular government in itself is always a least of evils kind of thing. And people will still break laws and murder their babies and whatever else, but it would no doubt be done at a much lower occurrence, and it would be extremely taboo.

??

It would be a consensus that I would strongly disagree with. This being a Catholic forum, I hope that is not the consensus.

As demonstrated already, the Church forbids anything approaching a theocracy. It is hard to believe that the Church would steer so clear of “the ideal”.

As for a “church-supervised monarchy”: I am not even for sure what this means. “Church-superviced”, I would certainly say no, how would this be differentiated from a theocracy (which is decidedly un-Catholic). As for a Catholic monarchy: not the ideal, but at the right time and place can work quite well (think Spain in late 15th to early 16th century). At other places (same time frame) has worked extremely poorly (think of France, the same time frame).
The other thing about the idea of monarchy, is even before modern times of cconstitutional monarchy, the mechanics of various monarchies’ functions has varied greatly. For example, in Spain, the monarch had to always have consent of the Cortes for any financial disbursements, a great check on the monarchs power. In France the monarchs became autocrats. They were two VERY different forms of government. So which is your ideal?

The best form of government would be manned by well-formed Catholic lay people, that I will give you. Beyond that: all of this searching for an ideal form of government is misplaced. There are some which will never work (eg communism); there are others which misdirect the Church’s important role in society (eg theocracy); but beyond that different forms work well in some times and some places and most forms work poorly in most times and places. That is life. Get used to it and find a better use of your intellectual energy than dreaming of the Pope ruling the world.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Is it inherently wrong to have a representative government, since it always, always leads to immoral law?

Is the best form of government from a moral perspective to rather have a theocracy/Papal monarchy with the Church ruling the world? I know it is not likely to happen, with few chronological and geographical exceptions, but entertain the idea. I also know that even if this were to happen, the system would still not be perfect, but I am almost certain that the following would be illegal:

baby murder
euthanasia
nasty groups trying to force public money to fund immoral acts
homosexual “marriage”
etc.

I can think of few worse (remotely plausible) things than a theocratic world government.

The leaders of any such institution would almost certainly quickly become drunk on their own ideology and power.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Yes, but part of me says that it is utterly impossible to have a moral system of democratic government. And Catholicism isn’t Islam or some pagan religion.

What part?

The part that bristles at the idea of sharing power with those who disagree with you perhaps?

Keep in mind, that unless they happened to be high ranking Church officials, most Catholics would probably have far far less power and/or influence under a Catholic world wide theocracy.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I never said the Pope would be king, just that the Church states that it’s the duty of secular rulers to uphold Catholic truth. Which runs counter to the American way of doing things.

Good.

I appreciate the fact that my nation (the United States) can honestly boast that it respected things like freedom of religion and speech from the beginning.

A claim that no Catholic nation can honestly made.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

OK I skipped a lot, so I’m sorry if this has already been said, but in the Aristotelian political philosophy governments are divided both by the number of rulers and by the morality of the government. You are right that a Democracy is an evil form of government because technically it is the ruler-ship of the many for evil aims. The good form of the rule of many is a polity. (Translated into latin as Respublica from which we get republic.)

There are three numbers of government. The rule of many is the least stable and can be either a democracy if it is ruled as by a mob for evil or selfish purposes or as a polity or republic if ruled for the true good. The rule of the few is more stable, and is expressed as an aristocracy if ruled for the good and as an oligarchy if ruled for evil. Contrary to popular belief America is an oligarchy with elements of democracy present in selecting our oligarchs. Then after rule of the few, there is there is the most stable rule of the one, which is a kingdom when ruled for the good and a tyranny when ruled for evil.

The fewer the number of governors the greater the effect of its moral value. The best form of Government is a kingdom because a good man is given power to act with authority, but the worst is a tyranny where an evil man reigns unobstructed. A rulership of many is impractical for anything larger than a city or county, and will soon breakdown if the people are not mostly virtuous.

Plenty more political philosophy where that came from;
In Christ,
Iggy.

Aristotle also taught that women are inherently inferior to men.
If we assume that he was wrong about that (as I do) then why should we assume that he was right about the nature of government?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Posted this in another thread:

One thing I admire about Muslims is that they do not have a separation of public and private life. They glorify Allah in totality and put him above human laws when forced to choose between state and God.
When I hear about people supporting things like abortion for the sake of “not imposing beliefs” on others I just feel like pulling out my hair. What do you think that Jesus would say about that? Does not help that courts rule in favor of legalism rather than what is bloody obviously just so that even a child knows that it is wrong. A homeless man going to jail for years for stealing hundred dollars and a billionaire stealing billions but getting only months because of a slick lawyer is injustice to me!

For the sake of “rationality” many people ignore their conscience. I wish there were a Catholic state. The west is becoming purely secular and I do not agree with the alternatives available to the west.

I wish for a state where laws are based on Catholic principles. Other people have freedom of religion but the laws should be consistent with moral teachings. I really think God will punish the western world for it’s sins and all those who support such sins for the sake of freedom. Freedom of religion does not mean that law can be without a moral basis or that the government should support evils like homosexual marriage for the sake of making people comfortable.

I think that the fundamental error that America makes is that the state is not founded on religious principles so upholding a view on Christian morality as basis for law is unconstitutional

Personally that’s the reason I find it hard to trust Muslims as a group.
And I think it is a big part of why they have a tendency to so badly mistreat women and non-Muslims.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by bmonk
Actually, you might want to check out Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Liberty (Dignitatis Humanae). It says that human dignity includes the right to follow our own beliefs, and that religious groups have the right to freedom to teach and follow their own beliefs. The right to be wrong is more important and basic than the chance that the government will try to force us to follow a false religion.

Humans, nevertheless, do not have the right to follow a false religion. They have freedom to be ignorant.

So you think humans have the right to be Catholics like you (that being their only option) then.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Wouldn’t a catholic monarchy that followed all church teachings be the best government ?

The best government for what?
Certainly not for non-Catholics, free thinkers, Feminists, etc.

 

[mitex]

We’re already a Christian nation, but Catholics must realize that Evangelicals make up the most Christians in this country and as such Catholics must submit themselves to the desired form of government wanted by most Americans.

An America which is limited Federalist government through free markets within the framework of our Constitution, any monarchy is tyranny, and I would resist with every fiber of my being. If I recall American was founded to give Catholics and Quakers freedom of belief.

But you people want a monarchy? Not gonna happen.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I disagree with a hereditary monarchy. I think that a man known for his virtue should be proposed by the provincial aristocracies, approved by the church and then elected by two thirds majority of the national aristocracy, or the last kings college of counselors. If no man is acceptable by these standards then in its stead I would have an aristocracy by lottery from the educated, veteran, clerical, religious, and senatorial (wise elders not senate in the american sense.) classes for civil matters and a consul for martial leadership. This would serve until such time as a kingly man arose. Elections would be held every decade, but a king once found would serve for life excepting impeachment or voluntary retirement having been approved by the college of counselors.

There would be subsidiarity, so everything would be done on the lowest level that can effectively do it.

But sadly I don’t rule the world so…

Anyhow, this like any other human government would be corrupted by sin and vice and eventually collapse or reform.

There are so many areas where your proposed system could (and most likely would) go wrong.

For instance, how would you decide who was an aristocratic eligible for voting?
I suspect neither women nor non-Catholics could vote in such a system if it resembled old Catholic (regime) models.

Could a queen ever be selected, or would ruling be a male only affair?

What would happen when a king inevitably tried to ensure that a friend or family member succeeded him?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Would a general consensus be:

Theocracy or church-supervised monarchy is the best form of government in principle. There will always be faults even in this kind of government, but secular government in itself is always a least of evils kind of thing. And people will still break laws and murder their babies and whatever else, but it would no doubt be done at a much lower occurrence, and it would be extremely taboo.

??

No.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

There are so many areas where your proposed system could (and most likely would) go wrong.

It most emphatically would eventually break down, just like every civilization before it. NO system is perfect enough to survive the imperfection of men.

For instance, how would you decide who was an aristocratic eligible for voting?
I suspect neither women nor non-Catholics could vote in such a system if it resembled old Catholic (regime) models.

By lottery. Whether or not non-Catholics would be eligible would depend on if their publicly professed beliefs are inherently abhorrent to the beliefs of the civilization; in other words: most Jews yes, but most Muslims no.

Could a queen ever be selected, or would ruling be a male only affair?

Do you see any reason to prohibit a ruling queen?

What would happen when a king inevitably tried to ensure that a friend or family member succeeded him?

That depends on the reaction of lower governments, but if it were as I have it written on napkins right now they would have grounds to impeach him for it.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

We’re already a Christian nation, but Catholics must realize that Evangelicals make up the most Christians in this country and as such Catholics must submit themselves to the desired form of government wanted by most Americans.

We are not a christian nation; we are a secular state. I’m in favor of remedying the evils in our society rather than establishing a new one, but that does not mean that we have the best form of government; only rather, that it is not practical to obtain a better one. I do not see how more people favoring something makes it better or worse, only more popular or less.

An America which is limited Federalist government through free markets within the framework of our Constitution, any monarchy is tyranny, and I would resist with every fiber of my being. If I recall American was founded to give Catholics and Quakers freedom of belief.

I’m an anti-federalist anyway. y’know, those people who insisted on the addition of a bill of rights against the wishes of the federalists who couldn’t care less about Catholics and Quakers.

I must take exception to the ludicrous statement that ANY monarchy is tyranny. If you are evangelical then I assume you must believe in at least one monarch capable of ruling in a kingly fashion, or is Jesus a tyrant?

But you people want a monarchy? Not gonna happen.

I think everyone here is talking about which is hypothetically superior; rather than what we ought to strive for in the upcoming election. Even if you are referring to the OP, he is asking if the american system of government is wrong and ought to be replaced by a papal monarchy. The answer most of us gave is no.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

Aristotle also taught that women are inherently inferior to men.
If we assume that he was wrong about that (as I do) then why should we assume that he was right about the nature of government?

Why don’t you study and make your own judgments instead of issuing a blanket dismissal for one of the most respected philosophers in the history of the world, because he was wrong about some things? I never said he was right about everything, but his political philosophy and teachings on logic are fundamental to an understanding of western civilization.

 

[bmonk]

Every form of government rests on the “consent” of the governed. That by itself does not make it a just government. Stalin had the “consent” of his people ever much as Barack Obama has. There is nothing magical about an election, which is ipso facto, a division of the electorate. In the end, it depends on deference to the leader of the majority, or at least of the power powerful faction.

In America, we also have the general consensus of those who lose an election, and their supporters, that they will accept and support the government. Consider 2000–in the end, after trying several options to win, Al Gore conceded and allowed George Bush to take office. Some Democrats are still upset about the result–but most went along with it. So, although an election is a division of the people, there is also a re-uniting afterwards.

 

[bmonk]

We’re already a Christian nation, but Catholics must realize that Evangelicals make up the most Christians in this country and as such Catholics must submit themselves to the desired form of government wanted by most Americans.

An America which is limited Federalist government through free markets within the framework of our Constitution, any monarchy is tyranny, and I would resist with every fiber of my being. If I recall American was founded to give Catholics and Quakers freedom of belief.

But you people want a monarchy? Not gonna happen.

Don’t be so quick to say it’s never going to happen.

The Roman republic and the vast majority of its citizens were fervently opposed to the idea of a king ruling over them. This persisted even after centuries of the Empire–even in the 400s, no Emperor wanted to be seen as “king” (rex). And yet, the Emperor was king in all but name. At first, under the “Principate” (31 B.C. to about A.D. 250) the Emperor’s power was justified by his accumulation of offices and especially his control of the Legions and the treasury. Later, under the “Dominate” (about 285-476 in the West and 610 in the East), there was a more religious tone to the Emperor’s rule–but when Odovacar became “King of Italy” in 476, he was still in name ruling in the Emperor’s name, and the locals saw him as a barbarian who didn’t know any better than to be king.

 

[jc4751]

There are argument to be made in favor of monarchy:

1. Realistically, most people will not become the supreme ruler of the nation (president).
2. A king/queen would in theory be less concerned with the need to serve their own faction/party and instead focus on the long-term stability of the country.

However, a quick study of history will also show that this point of view relies on some excessive idealism about human nature. After all, for every “enlightened monarch,” there are many despots who sought to enrich themselves through their rule.

Government on the whole is just another lesson as to why people who look toward a secular humanist utopia on earth are simply deluding themselves. It is like a prime cut of beef left out on a plate. If it’s fresh, it’s great. Once it’s been around a while, it smells bad and a lot of maggots are crawling all over it.

 

[ReapReason]

We’re already a Christian nation

No you are not.

 

[lynnvinc]

Is it inherently wrong to have a representative government, since it always, always leads to immoral law?

Is the best form of government from a moral perspective to rather have a theocracy/Papal monarchy with the Church ruling the world? I know it is not likely to happen, with few chronological and geographical exceptions, but entertain the idea. I also know that even if this were to happen, the system would still not be perfect, but I am almost certain that the following would be illegal:

baby murder
euthanasia
nasty groups trying to force public money to fund immoral acts
homosexual “marriage”
etc.

And to add to your list, we’d have great policies and regs to help us reduce our greenhouse gases and other pollution that kill people (as JPII and BXVI have been saying we should have).

Of course, there will be plenty of people violating the laws and regs you listed above and the environmental ones. I knew of several cases of women having abortions when they were illegal (including my grandfather making my grandmother abort my father’s sibling).

But what I’m thinking it this. Forcing people to do the right things and avoid the wrong things does not really help their souls, since their intent to do bad things is itself a sin (tho such forcing compliance would reduce harm to others). I think it is important in God’s eyes that people willingly, eagerly, and out of love for God and others do the right things, do God’s will. They say God gave us free will (what was He thinking ).

It is extremely frustrating that people all around are doing the wrong things, but I’m thinking it puts the burden on us regular people to inspire them to do the right things, by our own lives of holy sanctity and sacrifice. And that’s very hard work – including making acts of contrition and going to confession whenever we slip (which for me is often), admitting our mistakes openly, being humble (which is a real toughy for me ).

The Secular Carmelite (OCDS) way is to be little and be good in the world, and draw people to us and our ways. I don’t even know if I’m having any impact at all. Sometimes I think I’m having a negative impact.

I think of Jesus at the end of his ministry during the crucifixion, even his disciples fleeing him. “Oh God, oh God, why have You foresaken me?!” (It’s bad enough to suffer, but to suffer what seems to be pointlessly, that is a terrible anguish.)

I think if we live with Jesus in that moment, not foresaking him but with him there suffering a similar existential suffering (on top of our daily trials and tribulations, joys and blessings) that may be a good thing – offering that suffering up to God for the greater glory of His kingdom.

We might not have much impact on changing the government and its laws and regs to the holy, virtuous way of life, and we might not be able to influence others around us much, but we can keep striving to change our own lives to that way, seeking forgiveness and mercy when we slip.