What is the best type of government?

[consumedconvert]

To see where enlightened despotism leads, even if the despot is hand picked by God, just look to the OT. This is not viable in the long term as absolute power corrupts absolutely.

That being said, our republican form of government is viable but its been corrupted. I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who warned against the danger of the tyranny of the minority and many seem to have forgotten this. This has become possible due to the degredation of constitutional rights that has been slowly accelerating for over a century. Most of this is due to the influence of corrupt activist judges. The first step to reform is the reformation of our judicial system. These are the ones imposing “gay marriage”. These are the ones who imposed abortion on America. These are the ones that continually seek ways to usurp the influence of the family unit in society. These are the ones who continually deny the rights of the majority to determine our course in the republic while hiding behind the smokescreen of political correctness and protecting minority interests. Take back the courts and the country will follow, because with true and just justices, the congress will be put under control again. Just my thoughts and opinions.

Along that line, we do thankfully have some good SC justices. Anyone else see the EWTN interview w/ Clarence Thomas?

 

[CapIV]

Monarchy is not necessarily absolutist, but a ‘natural moral law’ sure is.

The moral thing to do is not always the wisest thing to do. Catholic moral teaching invokes the idea of ‘mental reservation’ in this case, which is nothing more than a cheap utilitarian cop-out in an otherwise generally absolute framework.

No. Natural Moral law is not absolutist. For example, lying is wrong because it destroys social relationships. Therefore lying is contrary to Natural Law. However if a situation arose where lying might save a life, it is the duty of that person to lie in order to save the life. In that situation, Natural Law dictates that you MUST lie. Natural Law is not absolutist.

Natural Law is not utilitarian. Hitler was a utilitarian. What is the easiest and most efficient way to end antisemitism in Germany? Eliminate them. It serves the larger number of people best and it eliminates a debilitating issue. However, extermination in order to prevent racism is contrary to Natural Law. Natural Law is not utilitarian.

Please read St. Thomas Aquinas before you make any other claims about Natural Law.

 

[CapIV]

To see where enlightened despotism leads, even if the despot is hand picked by God, just look to the OT. This is not viable in the long term as absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Well I would hardly cite the OT as historical evidence. And remember I am speaking in a purely theoretical sense here. But imagine if we had a dictatorship lead by someone who could indeed reject personal corruption. Like say Socrates, or Thomas Aquinas, or Thomas More.

 

[Dtmccameron]

No. Natural Moral law is not absolutist. For example, lying is wrong because it destroys social relationships. Therefore lying is contrary to Natural Law. However if a situation arose where lying might save a life, it is the duty of that person to lie in order to save the life. In that situation, Natural Law dictates that you MUST lie. Natural Law is not absolutist.

Natural Law is not utilitarian. Hitler was a utilitarian. What is the easiest and most efficient way to end antisemitism in Germany? Eliminate them. It serves the larger number of people best and it eliminates a debilitating issue. However, extermination in order to prevent racism is contrary to Natural Law. Natural Law is not utilitarian.

Please read St. Thomas Aquinas before you make any other claims about Natural Law.

No, I was reading in the Catechism, and it said that even with good intentions and results (such as saving a life) immoral actions corrupt the entire act (or something like that) Therefore, it is never, EVER, EVER permissible to sin. The Lord said somewhere in the Old Testament, that He wouldn’t let evil come from our doing good (or something like that)

Or, more recenltly, remember when our Saviour said something to the effect of “And all things work for the good of those who serve Him”? God would never make us do something contrary to His commands. So His law is absolute. You either obey it, or disobey it.

 

[Genesis315]

Per the OP:

Any kind of government can potentially govern justly. However, some do this better than others. St. Thomas Aquinas explained it well:

A monarchy has the the potential to do the best, but it also has the most potential to do the worst (tyrrany). A democracy/polity only has the potential to be somewhat good, but it also has the least potential to be really bad. And an aristocracy/oligarchy is between a monarchy and democracy.

 

[agmoose02]

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.

If you think this is a good idea, do some research into the old Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. It was similar to what you are describing, but it devolved into a mess where the king had little real power and the nobles (elders) had all power and used it to their own selfish ends which destroyed the viability of the nation. It was crippled during the deluge and soon after was partitions between Russia, Prussia and Austria. Though at one time it was a shining example of Western civilization. Kievan Rus is another example of this type of government going awry. Sounds good in an ideal world but it doesnt last long. Decentralized monarchies tend to lead their subjects to disaster quicker than centralized ones. Other examples are Hungary and Croatia.

 

[Mirdath]

Oh, so by your nature as a member of society then.

Not at all: by my continued membership in it.

Or are your rights granted solely by fiat? A state that grants may take away, if it is the final authority.

That’s the beauty of it: we are the state.

CapIV:

No. Natural Moral law is not absolutist. For example, lying is wrong because it destroys social relationships. Therefore lying is contrary to Natural Law. However if a situation arose where lying might save a life, it is the duty of that person to lie in order to save the life. In that situation, Natural Law dictates that you MUST lie. Natural Law is not absolutist.

Like I said, cheap cop-out: suddenly it’s just fine to commit a moral evil for the sake of the greater good. Natural law holds that everybody has rights – including the right not to be deceived. Mental reservation violates that right, with the excuse that it will prevent a greater evil; but the Catechism itself states that ‘One may not do evil so that good may result from it.’ (1756) And in 1753, in regard to your specific example, ‘A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just.’

Please read St. Thomas Aquinas before you make any other claims about Natural Law.

I have indeed read Aquinas, and find myself regularly rereading portions of the Summa in debates here. He cites Gregory IX, I believe (unfortunately my Latin is not good enough to be certain), in saying ‘The natural law dates from the creation of the rational creature. It does not vary according to time, but remains unchangeable.’ – and thus giving the lie to your assertion that the ‘natural moral law’ is anything less than absolute.

 

[CapIV]

It does not vary according to time, but remains unchangeable.’ – and thus giving the lie to your assertion that the ‘natural moral law’ is anything less than absolute.

I am sorry but you seem to be misunderstanding Natural Law. The Law itself is indeed unchangeable since it is set by nature. It is not however, absolutist. Take killing for example. I am sure we do not have to get into a debate to explain why killing is wrong. So let us say that killing is wrong. However, killing in certain circumstances can be justified. For example, in the case of a just war, killing may very well be the most reasonable answer to the problem. Similarly in the case of the death penalty. As Aquinas theorized, if a situation arose in which putting one man to death would deter the death of the society, than it is in correspondence with Natural Law. If a limb is infected with gangrene, the doctor must amputate in order to prevent it from destroying the rest of the body.

So as is shown, Natural Law does not change, but is not absolute. An absolutist argument would state that killing is wrong in every circumstance. (pacifism) But pure pacifism is contrary to Natural Law. So as I am sure you can see, it is not in any way an absolutist moral code.

The law itself cannot change however. Killing (outside the previously stated exceptions) will always be contrary to Natural Law because man cannot by nature function in a society in which killing is accepted as a societal norm.

 

[Dtmccameron]

You say a lot, Master CapIV, without saying much. Have you considered a career in politics?

The end doens’t justify the means. Evil means lead to evil ends, no matter what. If your hypothetical society collapses because of the living of that one man, then it most assuredly was destined to collapse, and his execution would not have stopped it. That a man must be executed is a failure on your part and the part of society.

 

[Mirdath]

However, killing in certain circumstances can be justified. For example, in the case of a just war, killing may very well be the most reasonable answer to the problem.

Most reasonable? Certainly. Morally right? Not so much.

So as is shown, Natural Law does not change, but is not absolute. An absolutist argument would state that killing is wrong in every circumstance. (pacifism) But pure pacifism is contrary to Natural Law. So as I am sure you can see, it is not in any way an absolutist moral code.

No, it says murder – that is, killing outside the bounds wherein it is deemed justifiable – is absolutely wrong. Absolutist.

The law itself cannot change however. Killing (outside the previously stated exceptions) will always be contrary to Natural Law because man cannot by nature function in a society in which killing is accepted as a societal norm.

Exactly. The law is immutable and absolute, and riddled with loopholes.

 

[CapIV]

The end doens’t justify the means. .

I never said it did. A few posts back I rejected Utilitarianism completely. (at least I think it was in this thread). For example, part of Hitler’s rationale for exterminating Jews was that racism was very rampant. Exterminating the Jews would have effectively exterminated anti-Jewish racism.

Similarly, the elderly are a drain on society. Killing our elderly would make us much more prosperous.

So as you can see. Utilitarianism is not valid.

But if one man had latched onto society and was actively poisoning it, this is where things become more complex as to what course of action would correspond with Natural Law. For example, say the Manson family became powerful again. For the sake of argument, let us also say that in this case, they did care for their own lives. Now lets say this family is prosperous, and is actively going around killing large groups of people. In this case, it may be justified to kill the head of the Manson family in order to deter other people from joining this family of hate.

It is worth mentioning that this is purely theoretical. In modern American society, I don’t think the death penalty is justifiable at all.

But just war is another case. It would have been morally wrong for America to leave Europe to its fate in WWII. (although we were pretty well entangled in there anyway, but that is another story).

It can be simpler than that too. If you are a well built man and you see someone unjustly beating up a smaller person, you have a duty to intervene. So violence in general is indeed wrong, but Natural Law calls for some situations where violence is necessary.

 

[CapIV]

Most reasonable? Certainly. Morally right? Not so much.

Try reading up on the Just War theory. Killing sometimes is indeed the moral option. (as a last resort)

No, it says murder – that is, killing outside the bounds wherein it is deemed justifiable – is absolutely wrong. Absolutist.

The law is immutable and absolute, and riddled with loopholes.

I am sorry but you seem to have an idea of Natural Law that is confused with some sort of Kantian absolutism. Natural Law by definition cannot have loopholes, since Natural Law is by definition simply observation of the way things occur naturally. Natural Law can be situational, but not relative. And since it is situational, it cannot by definition be absolute.

Stealing is another example of how Natural Law is situational. Stealing is morally wrong and opposed to Natural Law because it breaks down social order and since man is a social being by nature stealing must be wrong. But as Aquinas points out, in times of necessity, goods of necessity are common property, since claiming to own goods of necessity in times of necessity is an unjust human law not based in Natural Law. Therefore, in times of extreme necessity, claiming to own for instance water is an illegitimate man made law not based in Natural Law. Since the man made law of ownership of water in times of necessity is unjust, the stealing of said water in a time of necessity would be justified since the perceived ownership of the water is illegitimate. So as you can see, stealing in this case is situational. Natural Law has not changed, but the situation has.

And the Catholic version of the Decalogue says Though shalt not kill. Which is more broad than murder.

 

[Dtmccameron]

If the supposed ownership is illegitamate, would stealing even be the accurate term? As the man does not own the water(But I suppose it is possible to, say, if you bottle it)

But we must remember that the injustice around us that oppresses us does not justify our actions no matter how “neccesary” we percieve them to be.

You seem to be an admirer, at least in therory, of strategic liquidations.

Would the conversion of Manson not lead to the conversion of his family, and be therefore, the best choice?

I admit I’m more of an idealist than a realist. But there’s more to reality than what we percieve. (My, that was rather cryptic sounding, eh?)

 

[Hastrman]

That’s the beauty of it: we are the state.

Nonsense. You honestly think there’s such a thing as democracy? And exactly what will you do if the democracy ever turns against you?

You appeal to your civil rights?

Sorry, the state has decided to classify you as a non-citizen.

Oh, but that’s wrong.

Really? You have the right to judge society? By what standard?

“Everyone should be a citizen,” maybe?

Why? Because of what they are…their nature?

Any discussion of rights and wrongs that does not begin in natural law is asinine. Even the claim that you have your rights as a member of society, is a natural law argument, if you could express it in actual logic.

Namely, “A member of society has, qua member of society, these rights.” BY NATURE!:banghead:

Natural law morality means, “A is in class X; class X ought to be treated in Y manner; therefore A must be treated in Y manner.”

 

[drafdog]

The only form of government invented and approved by the Catholic church is a form of communism in which the means of production are owned by the state, all things are held in common, and which is governed on democratic principles including universal sufferage. We have been engaged in this form of government for some 1500 years. That should suffice for evidence of Catholic endorsement.
It may not be the best form of government, but its longevity argues to its excellence.

Matthew