What is the best type of government?

[consumedconvert]

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?’.

I would argue for Catholic Monarchy precisely because the people do not rule in that scenario. The authority would come from above, not below. So I wouldn’t have a say either (unless the Elders, as in my above post, elected me, and the Bishop approved)

 

[Mirdath]

no natural law kind of makes the idea of a “Just” government a bit incoherent dosen’t it?

Not in the slightest. Many Catholics don’t like to admit it, but one can derive absolute moral codes from sources other than a natural moral law.

because we have the power(in this scinario) and we say so.

And if disenfranchised, why shouldn’t I take my ball and go home? Do you want to model your society after the Eloi in Wells’ The Time Machine? What good is stagnation in a morass of complete agreement?

consumedconvert:

I would argue for Catholic Monarchy precisely because the people do not rule in that scenario. The authority would come from above, not below. So I wouldn’t have a say either (unless the Elders, as in my above post, elected me, and the Bishop approved)

I would argue against it precisely because it takes rule away from the people and makes government their master, not their servant. The good shepherd is a model for religion, not for government: the biblical allegory there is Jesus washing the feet of the apostles.

 

[IvanKaramozov]

Not in the slightest. Many Catholics don’t like to admit it, but one can derive absolute moral codes from sources other than a natural moral law.

Pleas be specific

And if disenfranchised, why shouldn’t I take my ball and go home? Do you want to model your society after the Eloi in Wells’ The Time Machine? What good is stagnation in a morass of complete agreement?

You can take your ball and do whatever you want with it.

 

[Mirdath]

Pleas be specific

I’d rather not beat the little bits of pulp that used to be this particular horse any more. For a specific example, check out Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals. There are plenty of others, though: moral absolutism need not depend on God, only on something – anything – held to be absolute. It does not make just any absolutist ethic right, but one cannot deny that it is absolute. And so it is perfectly plausible to speak of a ‘just government’ without having to drag God and the people who claim to speak for God into the picture.

You can take your ball and do whatever you want with it.

Except, apparently, have a right to participate in the process of serving my society through contributing to its governance.

 

[krimshas]

I would argue against it precisely because it takes rule away from the people and makes government their master, not their servant. The good shepherd is a model for religion, not for government: the biblical allegory there is Jesus washing the feet of the apostles.

More precisely, it makes government the master-servant. Christ is the King as well as the Suffering Servant; the Pope is the head of the earthly Church in the temporal sense, but he is also the chief servant of Catholics, in the temporal sense.

Similarly, a true Catholic Monarch is both a servant and a master; and hopefully quite a strong master.

I would argue that precisely what we need right now is a strong moral master–“Thou shalt not” is precisely what we need. If 90% of a democracy’s population is for abortion, then abortion reigns; but in a Catholic monarchy it wouldn’t matter what the masses think about it, it would be illegal. Can this power lend itself to abuse? Absolutely, but see my first post above for ways to curtail the potential for abuse.

I might misquote Chesterton a bit by saying that contemporary Catholic monarchy has not been tried and found impossible, it has been foreseen difficult and left untried.

In any case, I don’t know if we can say that a particular governmental system which allows multiple millions of its weakest citizens has been successful in the long run; in any case, I think all Catholics can at least agree that our governmental system is failing, if it has not failed.

 

[consumedconvert]

I would argue against it precisely because it takes rule away from the people and makes government their master, not their servant. The good shepherd is a model for religion, not for government: the biblical allegory there is Jesus washing the feet of the apostles.

More precisely, it makes government the master-servant. Christ is the King as well as the Suffering Servant; the Pope is the head of the earthly Church in the temporal sense, but he is also the chief servant of Catholics, in the temporal sense.

Similarly, a true Catholic Monarch is both a servant and a master; and hopefully quite a strong master.

I would argue that precisely what we need right now is a strong moral master–“Thou shalt not” is precisely what we need. If 90% of a democracy’s population is for abortion, then abortion reigns; but in a Catholic monarchy it wouldn’t matter what the masses think about it, it would be illegal. Can this power lend itself to abuse? Absolutely, but see my first post above for ways to curtail the potential for abuse.

I might misquote Chesterton a bit by saying that contemporary Catholic monarchy has not been tried and found impossible, it has been foreseen difficult and left untried.

In any case, I don’t know if we can say that a particular governmental system which allows multiple millions of its weakest citizens to be slaughtered for profit has been successful in the long run; in any case, I think all Catholics can at least agree that our governmental system is failing, if it has not failed.

 

[Mirdath]

More precisely, it makes government the master-servant. Christ is the King as well as the Suffering Servant; the Pope is the head of the earthly Church in the temporal sense, but he is also the chief servant of Catholics, in the temporal sense.

Similarly, a true Catholic Monarch is both a servant and a master; and hopefully quite a strong master.

Even priests and popes act in persona Christi for just an hour at a time and for one specific purpose only. You would have a human being take that mantle for years on end, to govern and oversee not one simple ceremony but the entire functioning of a nation? And here I thought I was a shameless idealist!

Solomon himself couldn’t hack it, and he is supposed to have had divine wisdom to back him up. How can you expect anyone else to do better?

I would argue that precisely what we need right now is a strong moral master–“Thou shalt not” is precisely what we need. If 90% of a democracy’s population is for abortion, then abortion reigns; but in a Catholic monarchy it wouldn’t matter what the masses think about it, it would be illegal. Can this power lend itself to abuse? Absolutely, but see my first post above for ways to curtail the potential for abuse.

I appreciate your intentions, but what you described there sounds like hell on earth. I’d sooner take my chances on the existence of a real hell and a merciful God than live in such a place.

I might misquote Chesterton a bit by saying that contemporary Catholic monarchy has not been tried and found impossible, it has been foreseen difficult and left untried.

Chesterton, great man that he was, was wrong on that when quoted correctly.

 

[drafdog]

We haven’t invented it yet.

Matthew

 

[IvanKaramozov]

I’d rather not beat the little bits of pulp that used to be this particular horse any more. For a specific example, check out Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals.

I know it, and the other systems. I don’t know if those are rightly called absolute.

1-they are contingent
1(a)As contingent they are only absolute so long as we say they are absolute

Silly Sally Went To the Happy Store to Buy a Kitty, But they were all gone

That sequence of marks has an absolute meaning in the same sense Kants Categorical Imperitives do

There are plenty of others, though: moral absolutism need not depend on God, only on something – anything – held to be absolute.

I think you’re way off.

Would Peter Singer say he was a moral absolutist?

It does not make just any absolutist ethic right, but one cannot deny that it is absolute.

Well what do you mean by “absolute”, I think most people here speaking of the natural law refer to a transcendent morality indipendent of human existence with a true reality, clearly that is not what a utilitarian means for his system of ethics.

And so it is perfectly plausible to speak of a ‘just government’ without having to drag God and the people who claim to speak for God into the picture

Alright, a just government is one in which atheists and agnostics are excluded from the political process.

Now we are back to me asking why you should be included?

The only response I have seen is why shoulden’t you be included, to which I would respond because we have the power and don’t want you to.

I just don’t see how you can rationally complain about that, other than you simply dislike it.

 

[Mirdath]

I know it, and the other systems. I don’t know if those are rightly called absolute.

And why not exactly? Mere fiat on your part doesn’t make them behave as you say.

I think you’re way off.

I assure you, the feeling’s mutual.

Would Peter Singer say he was a moral absolutist?

No, he’s a utilitarian.

Well what do you mean by “absolute”, I think most people here speaking of the natural law refer to a transcendent morality indipendent of human existence with a true reality, clearly that is not what a utilitarian means for his system of ethics.

As soon as we start talking about absolutism, utilitarianism is off the table. It’s a relative or situational ethic, not what we’re talking about at all. My definition of absolutism is the same as yours: actions are universally right or wrong.

Alright, a just government is one in which atheists and agnostics are excluded from the political process.

Now we are back to me asking why you should be included?

The only response I have seen is why shoulden’t you be included, to which I would respond because we have the power and don’t want you to.

I just don’t see how you can rationally complain about that, other than you simply dislike it.

Right after you ‘rationally complain’ about other absolute ethics for no better reason than that you attribute to my complaint? Please, you can do better than that.

I say and have said that I should be included in the political process because I am a citizen. Not because I don’t like feeling left out, or because I enjoy politicking (I don’t), but because I have a stake in what happens.

 

[IvanKaramozov]

And why not exactly? Mere fiat on your part doesn’t make them behave as you say.

I gave an instance above, which you have not adressed.

I assure you, the feeling’s mutual.

Common Ground!:tiphat:

As soon as we start talking about absolutism, utilitarianism is off the table. It’s a relative or situational ethic, not what we’re talking about at all. My definition of absolutism is the same as yours: actions are universally right or wrong.

It’s not the same as your instances are contingent, I am talking about necessary.

Right after you ‘rationally complain’ about other absolute ethics for no better reason than that you attribute to my complaint? Please, you can do better than that.

I never critisised the systems, I have attempted to clear up for myself what you mean by “absolute” morals

I say and have said that I should be included in the political process because I am a citizen. Not because I don’t like feeling left out, or because I enjoy politicking (I don’t), but because I have a stake in what happens.

I think we are going in circles.

 

[Mirdath]

I gave an instance above, which you have not adressed.

All you said is ‘they are contingent’, which is no shock to me – I do not hold that anything is ‘necessary’.

I think we are going in circles.

Quite possible.

 

[CapIV]

In the ideal government, the monarch would not have to bend to the will of relativists. You see, this is the problem that I have with the American system at present. At present time, “because I think so” seems to be a good enough reason for anything. This is what would be suppressed assuming the dominance of a just ruler.

But don’t somehow equate monarchy with absolutism. It seems that a just ruler in order to stay just could not be an absolutist, since absolutism is contrary to Natural Law.

For example, Kant identified lying as always wrong in every circumstance. While no one will doubt that lying is not a good thing, surely lying in order to save the life of an innocent is justified. Of course it is.

So if you are a citizen, and have an absolutist opinion, a just monarch would disregard it since absolutism is contrary to Natural Law. Similarly, if a citizen proposed relativism, the monarch again would have a duty to disregard the will of the citizen since relativism is contrary to Natural Law. (and breaks the first commandment)

 

[Mirdath]

But don’t somehow equate monarchy with absolutism. It seems that a just ruler in order to stay just could not be an absolutist, since absolutism is contrary to Natural Law.

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

For example, Kant identified lying as always wrong in every circumstance. While no one will doubt that lying is not a good thing, surely lying in order to save the life of an innocent is justified. Of course it 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.

 

[roanoker]

Tim, it was Churchill who said that. It was, and is, a marvelous statement.
I think the ideal would be a monarchy with some kind of saint as monarch. But where are you going to find him? That’s the rub.

 

[Hastrman]

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

Right, so…denying natural law, why do you think you have human rights? Are not rights those things that inhere in something by its nature?

If you deny natural law, you throw us back on the only other thing there is: power. And there is no logic to any protest about “rights” once we are in that realm. You have moved beyond the “absolutist” good and evil of natural law–but you have just found yourself in the land of the Master Morality: good and bad. Or in other words, all things only for the advantage of the strong.

 

[Mirdath]

Right, so…denying natural law, why do you think you have human rights? Are not rights those things that inhere in something by its nature?

Strictly speaking, I don’t have ‘human rights’. I have civil rights that come not by virtue of being a carbon-based biped but by being a member of society.

If you deny natural law, you throw us back on the only other thing there is: power. And there is no logic to any protest about “rights” once we are in that realm. You have moved beyond the “absolutist” good and evil of natural law–but you have just found yourself in the land of the Master Morality: good and bad. Or in other words, all things only for the advantage of the strong.

False dichotomy.

 

[Hastrman]

Strictly speaking, I don’t have ‘human rights’. I have civil rights that come not by virtue of being a carbon-based biped but by being a member of society.

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

Nope, no natural law here.

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

 

[agmoose02]

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.

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.

 

[Dtmccameron]

“I heartily accept the motto that 'the government is best that governs the least” from Resistance to Civil Government by Henry David Thoreau.

“Oh, judge, your damn laws: the good people don’t need them and the bad people don’t follow them, so what good are they?” Ammon Hennacy

The best society is one that doesn’t need a higher power to force it into submission, but rather, has the law written in its heart and soul, so that goodness and justice come naturally to it.

As we have seen, the use of force achieves no good result, and it is therefore not only immoral to give man power over another, but thouroughly pointless.