Why is democracy special

[Lost_Wanderer]

Ecclesiastes 10 disagrees with you on monarchy. The tyranny of the majority can be always present because the majority always wins. Any system can work

I see your Bible and raise you a simple textbook example from actual history:

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/uploads/pics/H8i.jpg

And just for laughs, I’ll throw in a not-so-subtle reference from fiction:



I don’t know about you but I wouldn’t vote for either.

Speaking of which though, isn’t Biblical/medieval monarchy a pretty dead deal already? Do we have to mull about the definition of democracy to see that any 21st century political system where citizens vote a candidate can at least exercise the same freedom to vote against them should they fail? I can’t see a royal tyrant being removed just as easily.

 

[Auntie_A]

All of this talk on political leadership is empty to me if we don’t discuss the forces behind the thrones and offices. Henry the 8th did not exist in a vacuum; in many ways, even leaders are pawns.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

All of this talk on political leadership is empty to me if we don’t discuss the forces behind the thrones and offices. Henry the 8th did not exist in a vacuum; in many ways, even leaders are pawns.

Even so, don’t you think the number of people who are controlling/voting the pawns is significant?

If a majority voted for a leader, the minority who didn’t vote for him might suffer. But if a leader appointed himself/herself through something as obscure as the divine right of kings, there’s a chance that everyone suffers (or at least, anyone not loyal to the king… which in turn could just be his mother for all we know).

I see it more of an issue of power concentration. The more power is concentrated in one entity (such as the crown), the more we’ll have at stake if that power is in the hands of a corrupt, inept individual. Worse still if the position isn’t so easily passed to another (as with the case of monarchy).

 

[Auntie_A]

Even so, don’t you think the number of people who are controlling/voting the pawns is significant?

If a majority voted for a leader, the minority who didn’t vote for him might suffer. But if a leader appointed himself/herself through something as obscure as the divine right of kings, there’s a chance that everyone suffers (or at least, anyone not loyal to the king… which in turn could just be his mother for all we know).

I see it more of an issue of power concentration. The more power is concentrated in one entity (such as the crown), the more we’ll have at stake if that power is in the hands of a corrupt, inept individual. Worse still if the position isn’t so easily passed to another (as with the case of monarchy).

I feel a bit ornery saying this but is the premise here that monarchies are worse because of inept heirs, and elected officials, mediocre as they are, are less likely to be corrupt? Does a lack of a blood line protect us from nepotism and outright despots? Is a democratic voting process truly an improvement?

Maybe I’m not ornery, just a cynic. Save me.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Does a lack of a blood line protect us from nepotism and outright despots? Is a democratic voting process truly an improvement?

In a way, yes because a lacking emphasis on bloodline means I have an easier time voting you out of office! Ideally or not, monarchy just doesn’t give me that right. Instead, it makes me gamble those rights purely on the chance that the next in line for the throne is either a saint or my next executioner!

Putting in another way, I’ll quote Disney’s Alladin:

Princess Jasmine: [to Jafar] At least some good will come of my being forced to marry. When I am Queen, I will have the power to get rid of you.

Sultan: Well, now. That’s nice. All settled then. Now, Jasmine, getting back to this suitor business. Jasmine? Jasmine!

[the Sultan notices that Jasmine is running out of the room, and runs after her]

Jafar: [scowls in their direction] If only I had gotten that lamp!

Iago: [mocking Jasmine] “I will have the power to get rid of you.” Dahhh! To think we gotta keep kissing up to that chump, and his chump daughter, for the rest of our lives.

Jafar: No, Iago. Only until she finds a chump husband. Then she’ll have us banished. Or…beheaded.

Jafar, Iago: Eeeeeeww.

Is it all the more tragic that not all royalty were like Jasmine and average journeymen like me wouldn’t have a magic lamp to get rid of them?

 

[decatholic]

I see it more of an issue of power concentration. The more power is concentrated in one entity (such as the crown), the more we’ll have at stake if that power is in the hands of a corrupt, inept individual. Worse still if the position isn’t so easily passed to another (as with the case of monarchy).

Entity is the government and in socialist and fascist states where the concentration of power hurts individuals. The “crown” is guided by values and morals. The other forms of governance do not assure this foundation.

Do you then agree that socialism and fascism are then bad things? They concentrate power. The current trajectory is to concentrate power in government and away from the individual. The quality of the individual- inept or efficient- isn’t as important as the structure that provides access to freedom.

Democracy is not impacted by morals or Truth. The Church is not a democracy and is foundational in Truth and morality as her guiding principle in Doctrine.

Democracy is majority decides.
Socialism is you work, I eat.
Fascism is government tells men what and how to produce.

Concentration of power to control “Pawns” are best illustrated by tax code, and regulatory departments such as EPA.
At one time the KING did not allow hunting in the his woods assuming he owned the deer. The government now decides what to do on public lands so requires the purchase (through a tax stamp in the form of a hunting license) the right to shoot a deer to feed your family. Not much difference; however the environment of restrictive regulations(without the moral framework and guidance that man as the created by God) hurts freedom AND is not democratic.

Look at the water restriction by the government in California. It protects creatures that God gave us dominion over at the cost of hurting Men through decreased food production. Is that just? Is that moral? No.

 

[LoganBice]

I see people post about this quite often and I find myself looking it up quite often. I think many of us Americans are looking for a way to justify our form of government over others. I think, like any other political system, that democracy only works when the morality of the people are in line with Christian principles.

Also I would like to point out the America is not a Direct Democracy, we are a Democratic Republic which is desigened to protect the
Minority and prevent majority or mob rule… That seems to be something no one in America understands.

 

[freeRadical]

I see people post about this quite often and I find myself looking it up quite often. I think many of us Americans are looking for a way to justify our form of government over others. I think, like any other political system, that democracy only works when the morality of the people are in line with Christian principles.

Also I would like to point out the America is not a Direct Democracy, we are a Democratic Republic which is desigened to protect the
Minority and prevent majority or mob rule… That seems to be something no one in America understands.

Actually, the US is a constitutional republic.

 

[freeRadical]

There is certainly nothing morally obligatory about democracy and I would go so far as to say those that think so (e.g., G.W.Bush-style neocons) are going against Church teaching by doing so.

Couldn’t you have made your point without throwing an attack in there? Bush-style neocons? Please.

 

[sw85]

Couldn’t you have made your point without throwing an attack in there? Bush-style neocons? Please.

That’s not an attack, it’s an abbreviation. Bush-style neocons = neoconservatives in the vein of G. W. Bush.

 

[freeRadical]

That’s not an attack, it’s an abbreviation. Bush-style neocons = neoconservatives in the vein of G. W. Bush.

If you think Bush was a neocon, well, I don’t know what to tell you.

 

[LoganBice]

Actually, the US is a constitutional republic.

Lol now I’m mad at myself. I had that typed and deleted it and wrote democratic for some reason.

 

[LoganBice]

If you think Bush was a neocon, well, I don’t know what to tell you.

Bush is a neo-con. So is Romney, Christi, Santorum, and most big names. Libritarian-conservstives would be Rand Paul, and tea party conservstives are people like Ted Cruise.

 

[freeRadical]

Bush is a neo-con. So is Romney, Christi, Santorum, and most big names. Libritarian-conservstives would be Rand Paul, and tea party conservstives are people like Ted Cruise.

okay, if you say so.

 

[freeRadical]

Lol now I’m mad at myself. I had that typed and deleted it and wrote democratic for some reason.

It’s okay, a lot of people call the US a democratic republic. Which, in my opinion, doesn’t even make sense.

 

[LoganBice]

okay, if you say so.

It’s not nessecary a bad thing. Just a different brand of conservstism.

 

[LoganBice]

It’s okay, a lot of people call the US a democratic republic. Which, in my opinion, doesn’t even make sense.

Yeah. A democratic republic is a country with a mix of both systems. Example would be Democratic Republic of Congo… According to Wikipedia so you never know.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

The “crown” is guided by values and morals. The other forms of governance do not assure this foundation.

Does this look “guided by values and morals” to you?

http://static.tvgcdn.net/MediaBin/Galleries/Editorial/111121/Top_Moments_ofthe_Year/2/ned-stark1.jpg

The Church is not a democracy and is foundational in Truth and morality as her guiding principle in Doctrine.

But it doesn’t make laws. It doesn’t give death sentences. It hardly has its own military. That’s what makes it a religion, not a form of government. (Unless of course somebody wants to derail this thread further by advocating a theocracy.)

At one time the KING did not allow hunting in the his woods assuming he owned the deer. The government now decides what to do on public lands so requires the purchase (through a tax stamp in the form of a hunting license) the right to shoot a deer to feed your family. Not much difference;

Huge difference. Virtually anyone can get a license. Hunt something in the king’s forest on the other hand:

Sheriff of Rottingham: King illegal forest to pig wild kill in it a is!

Robin Hood, Maid Marian: What?

Sheriff of Rottingham: I mean, don’t you know it’s illegal to kill a wild pig in the king’s forest!?

Look at the water restriction by the government in California. It protects creatures that God gave us dominion over at the cost of hurting Men through decreased food production. Is that just? Is that moral? No.

I’d defend this but monarchy/royalty is the subject of the thread, not environmentalism (and I don’t say this because I’m a fan of Captain Planet).

 

[freeRadical]

The other forms of governance do not assure this foundation.
​

I really don’t know what to say to this other than pick up a history book.

How is monarchy different from dictatorship?​

 

[LoganBice]

Let’s be clear here, governmental systems in themselves arnt nessecarily evil. The fallen human nature of man is what causes them to become corrupted and evil.