What is the best type of government?

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CapIV

Guest
I am not sure if this thread is in the right place, but I wanted to start a discussion on what your thoughts are on the best type of government?

I am not going to dance around it, but I think that American republican democracy in its present state is not the best form of government. An obvious example of its failure would be the current state of abortion rights. Even if a majority of Americans wanted to make abortion legal, our system would make it very very difficult to do so. We have ridiculous bureaucracies arguing semantics and wasting time while people are dying and suffering. Our system is also too easily influenced by whatever political correctness is in fashion at the time. The evidence is that our government under the guise of not promoting any one theory of morality is continually refusing to fund any religious organizations but is given the latitude to fund more politically correct forms of morality like organizations that promote abortion, birth control, and homosexuality.

Strictly in the theoretical terms, I think that an unconstitutional monarchy led by a just ruler would be the best form of government. If a competent ruler were put in charge, he would have the power to act instantly, eliminating bureaucracy altogether and act in the best interest of the people. Now this is of course just in theory. We could argue all day bout whether this would ever work and if a dictator could truly be altruistic, and how he would be chosen.

The other form of government that I think would be most effective is anarchy. Not anarchy in the sense of no government at all run around do whatever you want anarchy, but as in no governmental power outside of defense type anarchy. If we can’t have a just ruler, than I don’t want any incompetent officials attempting to dictate morality to me (as we seem to have now in America I think).

Anyway, what do you think?
 
The problem with your line of thought is the presumption of just rulers. Republican Democracy is the best form because people can make changes.
 
There’s a great deal to be said for enlightened despotism, but unfortunately one of those things to be said is where’s anyone who’d fit the bill?
 
Why do we have to start with the assumptions that any for of government is right?

some anarchists state the principle that the only just power structures are those that can justify themselves, now they seem reluctant to get specific with what that means, but I think that is a good premis.
 
“The Church recognizes that while democracy is the best expression of the direct participation of citizens in political choices, it succeeds only to the extent that it is based on a correct understanding of the human person.[17] Catholic involvement in political life cannot compromise on this principle, for otherwise the witness of the Christian faith in the world, as well as the unity and interior coherence of the faithful, would be non-existent. The democratic structures on which the modern state is based would be quite fragile were its foundation not the centrality of the human person. It is respect for the person that makes democratic participation possible. As the Second Vatican Council teaches, the protection of «the rights of the person is, indeed, a necessary condition for citizens, individually and collectively, to play an active part in public life and administration».[18]”
vatican.va/roman_curia//congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

It is easy to forget that the consititutional mechanisms that make it hard to impose ones will on others (ex. absolute ban on abortions) also protect others from imposing their will on us (ex. forced abortions for indentured servants).
 
I’m a big fan of unconstitutional monarchy myself, but I think it is unworkable in what is basically a balkanized society. As imperfect as it is, republican government is probably the most prudent form for America.
 
Without respect for the Dignity of the Person, without a regard for the common good, without solidarity with the populace, and without a high regard for doing things with respect for subsidiarity, a government will be no good, regardless of type.

On the other hand, with the above, any form of government can be perfectly OK.
 
It is easy to forget that the consititutional mechanisms that make it hard to impose ones will on others (ex. absolute ban on abortions) also protect others from imposing their will on us (ex. forced abortions for indentured servants).
See, that sounds nice at all, but the fact of the matter is that the republican democracy of America that so many Americans swear by has overseen and often payed for the murder of 50 million children. I would gladly give up my rights to a just ruler if it meant saving lives.

Also, in my first post I said the republican democracy that America currently has I would condemn. The original government of the founders was very different than the government of America today.

Similarly, the rule of the people is only legitimate so long as it is based in Natural Law. Otherwise, rule of the people is unjust.
 
Similarly, the rule of the people is only legitimate so long as it is based in Natural Law. Otherwise, rule of the people is unjust.
What of those of us who think a ‘natural moral law’ is complete balderdash? Do we get a say in your ideal government or not?
 
See, that sounds nice at all, but the fact of the matter is that the republican democracy of America that so many Americans swear by has overseen and often payed for the murder of 50 million children. I would gladly give up my rights to a just ruler if it meant saving lives.

Also, in my first post I said the republican democracy that America currently has I would condemn. The original government of the founders was very different than the government of America today.

Similarly, the rule of the people is only legitimate so long as it is based in Natural Law. Otherwise, rule of the people is unjust.
You’re forgetting genocide that terrorism to, but nirvana seems to have never existed in known human history (ignoring the book of Genesis). The problem with, say, a theocracy, is that the people in charge can still (and often are) evil, self serving, and stupid…
 
What of those of us who think a ‘natural moral law’ is complete balderdash? Do we get a say in your ideal government or not?
why should you?

That’s not to deride you however it is an interesting question to be asked of people who object to the idea of a natural moral law, that I don’t think get’s answered.
 
See, that sounds nice at all, but the fact of the matter is that the republican democracy of America that so many Americans swear by has overseen and often payed for the murder of 50 million children. I would gladly give up my rights to a just ruler if it meant saving lives.
If he were just, why would he need to end your rights to end abortion?
Also, in my first post I said the republican democracy that America currently has I would condemn. The original government of the founders was very different than the government of America today.
That one oversaw the genocide of the Native americans and the Slave Trade.

To get to public office you have to want to get there, even Washington got where he was because he wanted to lead the armies. I am hesitant to hand over my rights to someone who wants and actively seeks power, that’s not to condemn all politicians, but you must admit that is a dangerous predisposition. As said, the advantage of our system is that it makes it difficult for the current structure to be disrupted much, unfortunatly this allows a great deal of injustice, however most of the injustice is the result of ignorance.
Similarly, the rule of the people is only legitimate so long as it is based in Natural Law. Otherwise, rule of the people is unjust.
I think your putting the horse before the wagon
 
What of those of us who think a ‘natural moral law’ is complete balderdash? Do we get a say in your ideal government or not?
In an unconstitutional monarchy, no you wouldn’t. The whole idea of a monarchy which is (theoretically) run by a just ruler is that he would not need listen to unjust demands even if they were from a majority of people.
 
If he were just, why would he need to end your rights to end abortion?

That one oversaw the genocide of the Native americans and the Slave Trade.

To get to public office you have to want to get there, even Washington got where he was because he wanted to lead the armies. I am hesitant to hand over my rights to someone who wants and actively seeks power, that’s not to condemn all politicians, but you must admit that is a dangerous predisposition. As said, the advantage of our system is that it makes it difficult for the current structure to be disrupted much, unfortunatly this allows a great deal of injustice, however most of the injustice is the result of ignorance.

I think your putting the horse before the wagon
Firstly, it was the original idea of the founders to outlaw slavery. However it was allowed in order to convince slave states to join the Union (and defeat the Britons.)

And in a unconstitutional monarchy, the ruler would not be chosen by the “people”.

I don’t understand the first part of your post. A just ruler would outlaw abortion for all. Thus making the right to end the right to abortion irrelevant.
 
I’m not sure who originally said this, but “Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried.”

One complaint against our government is that it isn’t going anywhere, and it’s taking our society with it. It’s halfway between Republicans and Democrats, and neither has sufficient manpower in their core group to work for a change in society that would make their envisioned America come about. A revolution must be from the ground up, not the top down. As it is, we’re going nowhere, fast.

One other factor is that Americans only have two choices- Republican and Democrat, who, on national elections, enforce the “party line.” In my district, the imcumbent is being attacked by a member of his own party, enforcing the party line. We get one or the other, and most peopole are not satisfied with this choice. We have no “middle way” available, and that is my complaint.

[/rant]
 
In the histories in the OT, many kings were good – but their heirs were terrible rulers. That’s an argument against monarchy. Even a just monarch can have an unjust successor.
I prefer a constitutional democracy, wherein nearly every law is subject to a vote of all under its jurisdiction past the age of reason. I would want constitutional amendments equivalent to our (USA) First, Second, Fourth and Fifth at the very least, and one outlawing genocide and slavery. I would want an amendment forbidding any govermental segregation by sex, race, national origin, religion or ancestry, and one to ban the use of human beings or intelligent animals in research or experimentation without their informed consent. I know animals can’t communicate informed consent. I don’t think any creature with a brain should be subject to cruel experimentation.
Other than that, every city should be able to make its own laws. No one should be allowed to restrict the movements of any person except in punishment for a crime under a law that doesn’t violatethe constitution. Therefore, people would end up living where they want to live, under laws they can live with, among neighbors who agree on most things with them. Cities would compete naturally, causing most of the worst laws to die out and good ones to become more and more common. If twenty people in a town of thirty make a law that does some harm to part of the population, those it hurts would leave, since no one could stop them, and they might need to go only a few miles away. The town shrinks…businesses leave…services are unfunded…tourism dies out quickly…more people leave…the town eventually has only three or four people in it. They may make all the laws they want but there will be no one for them to exploit.
That’s all I can come up with right now.
 
Allow me to preface my statements by saying that I realize that in today’s environment, this kind of thing would never work–at least not without a lot of Catholics moving to an island and setting up a whole new government. Not that everyone would have to be Catholic; but you’d need citizens reconciled with the idea of a thoroughly Catholic style of rule–which would include, I suspect, many sensible Religious people turned off by what our American culture has become.

Protectionist Catholic Monarchy with a limited and unchangeable Constitution. Protected rights would include (1) Right to free and peaceful religion and (2) Right to appeal directly to the Monarch. And (3) The Monarch shall swear allegiance to the Holy Catholic Church. (4) Inviolable right to life for all citizens–including the unborn, handicapped, and elderly.
(5) Except in times of national emergency, taxes shall be levied on purchases only, and shall never exceed 10%. --and a few other rights, naturally

Also in the Constitution: Total compensation for the King, as well as for Elders, shall not exceed the average yearly earnings of the citizens. In this way you ensure that there are many richer than the Monarch, and that being Monarch or Elder is not seen as a way to wealth. That all but eliminates material greed as a motivation for perseuing the Monarchy.

Declarations of national emergency and war, and treaties, would have to be approved by the Council of Elders.

Here’s how it works: succession to the throne is not hereditary, but new monarchs are elected by a Council of Elders (The Monarch appoints members of the said Council, with the approval of the Catholic Prelate [honorary head Bishop]).

The Holy See and the Local Prelate combined would have veto power over the choice of a Monarch.

The Monarch shall be supreme executive, judge, legislator, and diplomat.

The Council shall have the authority to limit the citizens production and use of all media, including movies, internet sites, books, and music. (I suspect you’d be able to rent Lord of the Rings, but not Striptease at the downtown video stores.) In this way the citizens would be shielded from major sources of corruption.

The Monarch shall have power to deny any or all imports, to deny entry to any visitor, and with the approval of the Elders, to set immigration policy. The Monarch and the Elders shall never be allowed to accept compensation from any source, foreign or domestic, other than their salaries.

The Council and the Monarch shall both have the right to outlaw any chemical substances, including pharmaceuticals.

And of course thousands of other details to be worked out.

That’s my two cents, anyway. 😃
 
I wanted to start a discussion on what your thoughts are on the best type of government?
.
.
.
Anyway, what do you think?
The best form of government is one which benchmarks itself on Catholic morality and its principles.
 
why should you?

That’s not to deride you however it is an interesting question to be asked of people who object to the idea of a natural moral law, that I don’t think get’s answered.
If you prick me, do I not bleed? I am just as human as you, just as much a citizen as you. If we are debating which form of government will serve the both of us best and most justly, do I not have an interest in the eventual decision? The question should not be ‘why should I have I say?’, but ‘why shouldn’t I?’.
 
If you prick me, do I not bleed? I am just as human as you, just as much a citizen as you.
alright(by the way, please don’t take personal offense, I would never dream of saying someone shoulden’t have the right to vote, I’m just interested to see how you think)
If we are debating which form of government will serve the both of us best and most justly, do I not have an interest in the eventual decision?
no natural law kind of makes the idea of a “Just” government a bit incoherent dosen’t it?
The question should not be ‘why should I have I say?’, but ‘why shouldn’t I?’.
because we have the power(in this scinario) and we say so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top