www.byzcath.org
Posted By: ZAROVE RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 04/21/11 09:36 PM
THIS is a Political Topic, but also a part of my Faith as a Christian. It has to do with the fact that I am an Englishman, an American, and live in the 21st Century, but have studied History.

So, what is this topic?

The topic is Democracy. Rather, the Topic is, why I am not a Democrat.

Today’s world is aflood with the never ending praise of Democracy as self evidently good and the only Truly legitimate Governmental Form. Democracy is a Human Right, and by it we have Prosperity, Advancement, and Freedom.

Or so we are Told.

We are also told that Democracy is the Societal system that is designed to foster Morality, and will lead to grater cooperation and more fair treatment to all. The past system, Monarchy, had High taxes to pay for the Aristocracy and King, who lived lives of Luxury on the backs of hard pressed serfs who were only Slaves to them. No freedom existed and man lived in misery and oppression till Revolutionaries overthrew the Kings and established Governance for, of, and by the People.

Taxes were high, and we could not do as we liked, and owned nothing, for it all went to he Crown.

Or, so we are Told.

Today I am also confronted by Americans who claim to be Conservative saying that God himself hates Monarchy, and Favours a Self Governing republic, that this is his Will, for all to be Free, not Ruled by a single man. Americas Founders are even said to have based the Constitution on the Bible, and on Israel before the Time of the Kings.

I, however, reject al of the Above. I am a Monarchist.


To many on the American Right, this makes me a Left Wing Progressive Liberal, which is odd as the Right Wing was created to support Monarchy, and the Left always sought its abolition. The Left sees me as a NAZI, a radical Right Winger trying to impose draconian Laws on the Unwilling people who yearn to be Free.

Both discuss how stupid it is to have a Leader who lead sonly because his father did, and how this system may lead to an Incompetent Leader, or a Tyrannical one. Democracy, they argue, avoids this.

I find this silly. We’ve seen Democratically Elected Tyrants, like Hitler, and if people bashed Bush for 8 years because he was an idiot, how can I take them seriously when they say that Democracy avoids this possibility? The Right also routinely blasts some Left Wing Politicians as idiots, such as Harry Reid, or Joe Biden.

But then, they also note that Taxation would go to support the Monarchy. I say, so what? Taxes now go to support the Government, and Historically Taxes were Lowest in Absolute Monarchies. France before the evolution had way Lower taxation than after. The Argument from taxation proves to support Monarchy it the End.

Plus, I have a hard time accepting that because we Vote we are Free. What is so Magical about it? Why do we assume that because someone is Democratically Elected he will not remove from us our Rights? We’ve seen Democratic Governments do just this, while Historically Monarchies ten to not concern themselves with our lives unless we pose a Direct Threat to them or society, Democracies endlessly try to reengineer society. While Monarchs have done this occasionally, it’s a constant Theme in a Democracy.

Plus, in a Democracy we are lead by the Ambitious who sought power, who get in based on a partisan Election. It isn’t really We, the People who select who holds office, but 51% of us, who then impose our will upon the remaining 49%. Whoever is president is president for all, regardless of if they Voted for him or not and those who didn’t Vote for him are still ultimately under his Leadership.

The Election Process itself is divisive, renting asunder society, and forcing us to pick sides, and to create Identities around political ideals that are in the end pre-packaged for us and handed to us by Political parties that come into being to promote a Sectarian ideological View.

This leads to Civil Strife as people argue absent each other over Politics and Society divides into two.

It is also based upon a Short Sightedness and a Selfishness I find distasteful. Democracy breeds a Culture of Immediate gratification and of Hedonistic self Interest, in which you try to ally yourself with a large enough crowd to win society over to your view, and in which every Whim or desire you have becomes a Human Right, with personal Responsibility for your Actions now disperses into the Community.

People want to live however hey please but never pay any sort of price for it, differing that to the Community at Large.

The whole Philosophy is based upon Short Sighted self interest.

I prefer tradition. I prefer the ideal that one has power over what one owns, that traditional morality should be that which guises Society and no Vote will be held upon it. I prefer a Government run by Gods Ideals and not one that is based on Man’s Desires, and that recognises a Central Authority that is shared and in Common.

I prefer a Society that is based around Family. That sees a King as the Head of the Nations Family, as its Father if you will.

I prefer Natural and Organic relationships over the stifling divided Individualism combined with the incompatible collectivism democracy fosters in a Schizophrenic fashion.


I prefer Natural Law and God to Humanity’s attempt at Collectivist control by Numeretic Superiority.

I believe this model also is closest to what God himself is, and what he has made us Like.


Yet I am attacked on all ends for it.

Sorry, this is more to vent I suppose.

Still, are any others here understanding of a Monarchist?

Posted By: Converted Viking Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 04/21/11 09:57 PM
Originally Posted by ZAROVE
THIS is a Political Topic, but also a part of my Faith as a Christian. It has to do with the fact that I am an Englishman, an American, and live in the 21st Century, but have studied History.

So, what is this topic?

The topic is Democracy. Rather, the Topic is, why I am not a Democrat.

Today’s world is aflood with the never ending praise of Democracy as self evidently good and the only Truly legitimate Governmental Form. Democracy is a Human Right, and by it we have Prosperity, Advancement, and Freedom.

Or so we are Told.

We are also told that Democracy is the Societal system that is designed to foster Morality, and will lead to grater cooperation and more fair treatment to all. The past system, Monarchy, had High taxes to pay for the Aristocracy and King, who lived lives of Luxury on the backs of hard pressed serfs who were only Slaves to them. No freedom existed and man lived in misery and oppression till Revolutionaries overthrew the Kings and established Governance for, of, and by the People.

Taxes were high, and we could not do as we liked, and owned nothing, for it all went to he Crown.

Or, so we are Told.

Today I am also confronted by Americans who claim to be Conservative saying that God himself hates Monarchy, and Favours a Self Governing republic, that this is his Will, for all to be Free, not Ruled by a single man. Americas Founders are even said to have based the Constitution on the Bible, and on Israel before the Time of the Kings.

I, however, reject al of the Above. I am a Monarchist.


To many on the American Right, this makes me a Left Wing Progressive Liberal, which is odd as the Right Wing was created to support Monarchy, and the Left always sought its abolition. The Left sees me as a NAZI, a radical Right Winger trying to impose draconian Laws on the Unwilling people who yearn to be Free.

Both discuss how stupid it is to have a Leader who lead sonly because his father did, and how this system may lead to an Incompetent Leader, or a Tyrannical one. Democracy, they argue, avoids this.

I find this silly. We’ve seen Democratically Elected Tyrants, like Hitler, and if people bashed Bush for 8 years because he was an idiot, how can I take them seriously when they say that Democracy avoids this possibility? The Right also routinely blasts some Left Wing Politicians as idiots, such as Harry Reid, or Joe Biden.

But then, they also note that Taxation would go to support the Monarchy. I say, so what? Taxes now go to support the Government, and Historically Taxes were Lowest in Absolute Monarchies. France before the evolution had way Lower taxation than after. The Argument from taxation proves to support Monarchy it the End.

Plus, I have a hard time accepting that because we Vote we are Free. What is so Magical about it? Why do we assume that because someone is Democratically Elected he will not remove from us our Rights? We’ve seen Democratic Governments do just this, while Historically Monarchies ten to not concern themselves with our lives unless we pose a Direct Threat to them or society, Democracies endlessly try to reengineer society. While Monarchs have done this occasionally, it’s a constant Theme in a Democracy.

Plus, in a Democracy we are lead by the Ambitious who sought power, who get in based on a partisan Election. It isn’t really We, the People who select who holds office, but 51% of us, who then impose our will upon the remaining 49%. Whoever is president is president for all, regardless of if they Voted for him or not and those who didn’t Vote for him are still ultimately under his Leadership.

The Election Process itself is divisive, renting asunder society, and forcing us to pick sides, and to create Identities around political ideals that are in the end pre-packaged for us and handed to us by Political parties that come into being to promote a Sectarian ideological View.

This leads to Civil Strife as people argue absent each other over Politics and Society divides into two.

It is also based upon a Short Sightedness and a Selfishness I find distasteful. Democracy breeds a Culture of Immediate gratification and of Hedonistic self Interest, in which you try to ally yourself with a large enough crowd to win society over to your view, and in which every Whim or desire you have becomes a Human Right, with personal Responsibility for your Actions now disperses into the Community.

People want to live however hey please but never pay any sort of price for it, differing that to the Community at Large.

The whole Philosophy is based upon Short Sighted self interest.

I prefer tradition. I prefer the ideal that one has power over what one owns, that traditional morality should be that which guises Society and no Vote will be held upon it. I prefer a Government run by Gods Ideals and not one that is based on Man’s Desires, and that recognises a Central Authority that is shared and in Common.

I prefer a Society that is based around Family. That sees a King as the Head of the Nations Family, as its Father if you will.

I prefer Natural and Organic relationships over the stifling divided Individualism combined with the incompatible collectivism democracy fosters in a Schizophrenic fashion.


I prefer Natural Law and God to Humanity’s attempt at Collectivist control by Numeretic Superiority.

I believe this model also is closest to what God himself is, and what he has made us Like.


Yet I am attacked on all ends for it.

Sorry, this is more to vent I suppose.

Still, are any others here understanding of a Monarchist?


Yup. It is the big corporations that run the country anyway regardless of what anyone tells you.

Seraphim
Posted By: Scotty Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 04/22/11 01:59 AM
I understand Monarchy, I think that a constitutional form of Monarchy CAN work, but I disagree with your rant about America's republic form of government. Look didn't we have this argument a couple hundred years ago, 1776?
Posted By: sielos ilgesys Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 04/22/11 02:57 AM
check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Citizenship_(Canada)

taking that oath and day-today transactions involving coins & the 20$ bill are about as close as any Canadian ever gets to the Monarch (God keep and preserve her).
Posted By: ZAROVE Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 04/22/11 03:06 AM
Yeah but in 1776 the crown taxes were actually lower than in 1790, and Americas Tax Burden has significantly increased since then to around 25%-40%. Under Parliament it had been around 5%.

I’d also like to point out that in 1776 King George the Third was not an Absolute Monarch and had little real Power. Most of the things in the Declaration of Independence were aimed at actions Parliament took, and simply blamed on the King. Worse still, many of the thing sin the Declaration of Independence that are called Tyrannies I agree with. Why should I find it wrong that the King allowed French Catholics to retain their Laws and Customs? Why should I find it Tyranny that he refused to let the Colonies steal Indian land past the Appalachians?

Plus, America saw a Civil War in 1861, just 87 Years later, which ended with a massive increase it he Power of the Federal Government, and an increase in Taxation.

Plus, The Morality of Society did begin to decline during the Enlightenments relentless push towards Libertine Social Values.

So what are you disagreeing with, exactly?
Posted By: ZAROVE Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 04/22/11 03:09 AM


Perhaps, but my point is that I want the Monarchy to increase in power and to return to a practice of focusing on Monarichal Rule as opposed to Democratic Rule. Democracy is nothing that it promises.
Posted By: StuartK Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 04/22/11 12:08 PM
J.R.R. Tolkien once observed that the best form of government is a very inefficient absolute monarchy.

Ponder.
Posted By: theophilus Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 04/22/11 01:01 PM
What IS a Caucus-race? said Alice; not that she wanted much to know...
Posted By: Polish American Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 04/22/11 01:10 PM
“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”

Winston Churchill

Also:

“The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.”

Winston Churchill
Posted By: Fr Serge Keleher Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 04/22/11 01:11 PM
God save the Emperor, and restore the House of Hapsburg to Austria-Hungary. Blessed Emperor Charles, pray for us!
Posted By: StuartK Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 04/22/11 02:32 PM
Now, the Hapsburgs were a good example of an extremely inefficient absolute monarchy. But remember, it was only because of inefficiency that monarchy is tolerable at all. Monarchic absolutism allied to the efficiency of the modern nation state is simply another name for totalitarianism. Because the nation state exists, because it has access to modern technology, absolute monarchy would no longer be inefficient, therefore would be utterly intolerable.

Ponder more.
Posted By: Scotty Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 04/22/11 03:04 PM
In regards to an absolute monarchy, with a good wise ruler it can be one of the best systems of government, at its worse it can be cruel. Be honest, Hitler, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussien, etc . didn't call themselves King but he had all the powers of an absolute King. I allude to Stuarts point.

A constitutional monarchy would be ok but makes little sense unless he or she is actually part of the governance process, unlike the UKs current system. They spend alot of money for the Queen and all she does is "wave at the crowds".

As for America, and our unique system of government. She certainly had her problems and they are getting worse, unless we work to correct them. That being said she has provided and secured for her citizens unprecedented freedom of speech and free markets which has contributed to innovation, and creation which history will one day put into proper perspective.

Taxation was a motivator of our forefathers but it was the issue of no representation, that was intolerable! IF you are going to tax me at least let me have some voice in the matter!- Are the tea partiers having an impact on policy making- I would argue they have. Have progressive liberal grass roots organizations having an impact on politics- they have! Look,... democratic politics can be ugly, this was understood from the beginning. In balance take the ugliest side of absolute monarchy and balance it with the ugliest side of Democratic governments and pick which one tends to respect the individual's God given rights the most and proceed from there!
Posted By: Litvin Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 04/22/11 03:25 PM
Originally Posted by StuartK
Now, the Hapsburgs were a good example of an extremely inefficient absolute monarchy.
!?!!?!?!
i assume you're being sarcastic
Posted By: DMD Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 04/22/11 04:39 PM
Originally Posted by StuartK
Now, the Hapsburgs were a good example of an extremely inefficient absolute monarchy. But remember, it was only because of inefficiency that monarchy is tolerable at all. Monarchic absolutism allied to the efficiency of the modern nation state is simply another name for totalitarianism. Because the nation state exists, because it has access to modern technology, absolute monarchy would no longer be inefficient, therefore would be utterly intolerable.

Ponder more.

e.g. the Third Reich, Stalin's USSR.... Their technology was ancient by our standards, just imagine how more 'efficient' they would have been today. It is too difficult to even ponder.
Posted By: Nelson Chase Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 04/22/11 05:16 PM
I personally disagree with the idea of an absolute Monarchy. An absolute monarchy fits into big government

Quote
"A govt big enough to supply you with everything you need, is a govt big enough to take away everything you have...." - Thomas Jefferson

Also, I don't think Democracy is the answer. Pure Democracy is a scary proposition in my opinion. This is why our founders did not found a democracy but a Republic.

I find a small, libertarian minded Republic to be the best form of government. This is what I think a majority of our founders believed in as well. This is the genius of our Republic envisioned by the founders (especially Thomas Jefferson)and is what we should strive to return to here in this country, IMHO.

Quote
My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government. - Thomas Jefferson

If we look at the history of modern dictatorships, absolute monarchies, and out of control big government democracies then Thomas Jefferson's words holds true- bad government results from too much government.

The government the governs the best governs the least.
Posted By: StuartK Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 04/22/11 07:48 PM
Quote
i assume you're being sarcastic

Can you think of a more inefficient empire than the ramshackle, polyglot realm of the Hapsburgs?
Posted By: ZAROVE Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 04/22/11 08:02 PM
Nelson-


Originally Posted by Nelson Chase
I personally disagree with the idea of an absolute Monarchy. An absolute monarchy fits into big government

I am advocating a Constitutional Monarchy, but take exception at this.

Absolute Monarchy is not Big Government. Unless you’ve read “The 5000 Year Leap” or works derived from it, its really difficult to even see why you’d think it would be.

France before the Revolution was an Absolute Monarchy, and was far from a Big Government.

Under the Feudal System, the actual Size of the Government, as reflected in its leucocratic Machinations and its Tax Policy, was actually far smaller than in any Republic.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Feudal


The idea that Absolute Monarchy would be Big Government makes no sense anyway. Ultimately in an Absolute Monarchy you have only one Ruler and no other Government other than his directly appointed Ministers who run local regions in a direct Fashion.

That’s actually a lot smaller than the various boards, counsels, and Senates that exist in a Republic.



Quote
"A govt big enough to supply you with everything you need, is a govt big enough to take away everything you have...." - Thomas Jefferson


The Feudal System was not Big Enough to supply you with what you need. The feudal System was the smallest possible Government that ever existed in the History of Humanity.

http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Economics-Politics-Monarchy-Natural/dp/0765808684

Hoppe argues that the transition from Monarchy to Democracy both reduced our Morality, and cases us to loose our Freedom. Monarchy is superior to Democracy because it is base don private Contract and Private ownership as opposed to collectivism.

Hoppe is an anarchist, who favours No Government, and see’s Monarchy as a step up from Democracy.

I don’t get how some thing that Absolute Monarchy=Big Government when Absolute Monarchy would mean either no Parliament, or small and weak Parliament. Absolute Monarchy has been far, far, far smaller than even Constitutional Monarchy.

For Heavens Sake, they weren’t Communists!


Quote
Also, I don't think Democracy is the answer. Pure Democracy is a scary proposition in my opinion. This is why our founders did not found a democracy but a Republic.

Which increase the Tax Burden 3 fold and which was founded in an ungodly Rebellion against Just and lawful Government. Also, the British Government was not as Tyrannical as its depicted in Revolutionary War propaganda. The complaints in the Declaration of Independence are exaggerated and really not Valid. The King didn’t do most of them, Parliament did, and even then most weren’t that bad. EG, the King didn’t let them steal more Indian land, or harass them. Or should I call them Savages like the DOI did? He let the French Catholics keep their Laws an Customs in Quebec. Come on, these complaints are silly.

Quote
I find a small, libertarian minded Republic to be the best form of government. This is what I think a majority of our founders believed in as well. This is the genius of our Republic envisioned by the founders (especially Thomas Jefferson)and is what we should strive to return to here in this country, IMHO.

Jefferson was an Immoral, Hypocritical Opportunist.

That said, I am a Libertarian, and want Small Government.

Please visit this Blog I frequent.

http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2010/09/libertarianism-and-medieval-monarchy.html

Its not like I want a large State that cares for all our needs and tells everyone what to do. I just think privately owned government based around Contractual Agreement is better than a duly elected peoples government, because in the end that’s just Public ownership.


Quote
Quote
My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government. - Thomas Jefferson

If we look at the history of modern dictatorships, absolute monarchies, and out of control big government democracies then Thomas Jefferson's words holds true- bad government results from too much government.


Actually this is not True.

While it is true that Totalitarianism is bad, all Totalitarian States have been Republics, not Monarchies.

Also, I will repeat, Absolute Monarchies have never been Big Governments. I don’t see why people think an Absolute Monarchy would be a Big Government when Historically they have been small and operated on the Catholic Principle of Subsidy.


http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2010/06/monarchy-is-not-tyranny.html

And


http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2009/08/absolute-vs-arbitrary-monarchy.html

Please read the Links.


Quote
The government the governs the best governs the least.

This is why I am a Monarchist.

Lets not forget, Jesus Christ is our King, not our Duly Elected President. God is a Monarch, and never once established a Republic.
Posted By: ZAROVE Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 04/22/11 08:24 PM
Scotty-

Originally Posted by Scotty
In regards to an absolute monarchy, with a good wise ruler it can be one of the best systems of government, at its worse it can be cruel. Be honest, Hitler, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussien, etc . didn't call themselves King but he had all the powers of an absolute King. I allude to Stuarts point.


But Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot were not Kings. And be honest yourself, the US President has all the same Powers the King of Great Britain use to have in 1776.

It always bothers me that people seem to think all Monarchs were all Powerful. The United States President has only one Limitation that King George lacked, and that was the power to dissolve Parliament was denied the President, while retained by the King.

Otherwise, the Constitutionally Limited King George the Third had all the same Powers as did the King.

As to Hitler, he was a National Socialist whose desire was to create a Maser Race and for German Superiority. However, if you read his writings he was not overly fond of the Church, and wanted to supplant it.

He also Focused on Social Justice and Democracy by means of the State, representing the Pure Aryan People, would regulate Wealth and had a Powerful Central State.

I am a Feudalist who wants a Decentralised State and absolute rights over Property to be Protected.

By the way, that brings s to Stalin and Pol Pot. Both were Communists. Both Government in accordance to Marxist Theory. Both therefore wanted to Abolish all Titles of Nobly and create a Government rooted in absolute Equality of all and a Pure Democratic Structure.

Pol Pot succeeded. He created total Equality.

So no, Pol Pot was not ruling like an Absolute King, he ruled like a Communist. So did Stalin.

Both wanted to end Private Property ownership, Family Units, and any sort of Private Enterprise, which Monarchs did not do. They also wanted to create a Government in which all goods and services are distributed evenly, and to end all Social Hierarchy. That is the opposite of Monarchy. So saying they were like Absolute monarchs is misleading and dishonest. The Doctrines of Communism are Antithetical to Monarchism. I can discuss this in detail if you’d like.


Quote
A constitutional monarchy would be ok but makes little sense unless he or she is actually part of the governance process, unlike the UKs current system. They spend alot of money for the Queen and all she does is "wave at the crowds".

Actually the Queen does more than this, and does have Theoretical Powers. Her signature is needed to make Laws into Binding Laws. While she never refuses ascent, she theoretically could. She can also dissolve Parliament, and intervene in Political Disputes.

But I agree, the Queen needs to be allowed to use her Powers without threat of being Removed.


I didn’t advocate Absolute monarchy, but I do want a Powerful Monarch.

By the way, the Tax Burden for upkeep of the Queen is smaller than the US Governments Tax Burden for the president. Most of the Queens money comes from the Crown Estates, not the Tax Payer.



Quote
As for America, and our unique system of government.

Its not a Unique system…

Quote
She certainly had her problems and they are getting worse, unless we work to correct them. That being said she has provided and secured for her citizens unprecedented freedom of speech and free markets which has contributed to innovation, and creation which history will one day put into proper perspective.

Actually this is Relative. There was freedom of Speech in many Medieval Kingdoms, and Freedom of Speech, Pres, and Assembly existed in Security in Great Britain and Canada for longer than the US has existed. A lo of the US Bill of Rights that secures these things was taken from the 1688 Bill of Rights in England.

Britain today ignores the Rights given because Britain today has become a Socialist Republic in Practise. The more Democratic things become, the less power the Queen Has and the more they make the Lords impotent, an stuff the House with dreadful life Peers, the worse things get. Democracy is thus a Poison.


As for America, keep in mind that n the Civil War the same American Government arrested people for opposing the Civil War, shut down Newspapers critical of Lincoln, and ultimately engaged in tactics to suppress Free Association.

Granted, this was a Union problem and not a Confeerate one…






Quote
Taxation was a motivator of our forefathers but it was the issue of no representation, that was intolerable! IF you are going to tax me at least let me have some voice in the matter!-

Actually its more complex than this. When Benjamin Franklin was sent before the King, he was given orders by the Colonies to not agree to any arrangement that would give the Colonies Representation. This is because they knew that the Taxation was actually Fair. The Taxes were being collected to pay off a Debt the Colonies owed, and ot secure defence for said Colonies in the Future.

The Taxes were Low, and precisely the sort of Taxes the Colonists said they’d not Mind.

All other taxes ad been Repealed due to Colonial protests.

Had the Colonies won Representation they knew they would loose the Vote in Parliament, and they’d also loose their powerful Slogan.

It was a Politically designed Slogan that helped Rally popular Support that didn’t really represent the dynamics of the situation.

Quote
Are the tea partiers having an impact on policy making- I would argue they have. Have progressive liberal grass roots organizations having an impact on politics- they have! Look,... democratic politics can be ugly, this was understood from the beginning. In balance take the ugliest side of absolute monarchy and balance it with the ugliest side of Democratic governments and pick which one tends to respect the individual's God given rights the most and proceed from there!

Lets see, Monarchy allied with the Church and listened to the Bishops more often than not. Democracy wants Secularism to the point that we cant even Pray on Public Property.


Monarchy had made it a point to acknowledge God in the Coronation of the King. Democracy has fought tooth and nail to ensure we focus on “We, the People” and forget God.

Monarchy Rules by Divine Right, Democracy by peoples Mandate.

Freedom of Speech has been suppressed in most of Europe and in the Soviet Union, China, and elsewhere, and the more those Nations Democratise the more Freedom is Lost. The only place this has not been True in is the United States and even here its not always been so True, just see the current Hate Speech Laws in some States.

Monarchy fostered Private Ownership as a Principle of Law. Democracy Favours collectivism and collective Responsibility.

Monarchy Favours Traditional Family, Democracy favours Hedonism and Libertine Sexuality.

Need I go on?
Posted By: StuartK Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 04/22/11 10:22 PM
Quote
I am a Feudalist who wants a Decentralised State and absolute rights over Property to be Protected.

Then you want to have your cake and eat it, too. Because, under a feudal system, all property belongs to the king, who then parcels it out as fiefs to his retainers in exchange for feudal service (usually military). Vassals of the king can become feudal lords in their own right by parceling out lands they hold from the king to their own retainers, in exchange for their feudal service, and so on, and so on, down to the minor gentry.

In a feudal system, there is no such thing as private property, or property rights, except those which the king chooses honor, or which his vassals can extract from him by means of charters. However, medieval charters were ignored or revoked with remarkable frequency, so don't look for too much protection there.
Posted By: ZAROVE Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 04/23/11 07:26 AM
Stuart-

Quote
Then you want to have your cake and eat it, too. Because, under a feudal system, all property belongs to the king, who then parcels it out as fiefs to his retainers in exchange for feudal service (usually military). Vassals of the king can become feudal lords in their own right by parceling out lands they hold from the king to their own retainers, in exchange for their feudal service, and so on, and so on, down to the minor gentry.

I should have said Neo-Feudalist. Still, one can say the same for America’s Founding Fathers or the French revolutionaries. Prior to the 18th century, the model of a Republic was Rome. Rome had a Senate but that was hardly the Two House Legislature we see in America and had nothing equivalent to a President.

I’d modify the system somewhat, but retain certain things. I’d allow small Property Owners, with an understanding of Sovereignty Rights being distinct from Property Rights, in the same Fashion that Mineral Rights are distinct, and can be sold without property Rights being sold.

I’d allow the King to have Sovereignty Rights over the Nation, but he’d not have the Property Rights or all lots.

Quote
In a feudal system, there is no such thing as private property, or property rights, except those which the king chooses honor, or which his vassals can extract from him by means of charters. However, medieval charters were ignored or revoked with remarkable frequency, so don't look for too much protection there.

Actually the Medieval Period feudal System was never consistent. The term wasn’t even coined till the 1600’s to describe a past system. The Truth is, the Feudal System is more of an Umbrella description of various arrangements based around Land Allocation, and was never uniform in practise.


I personally loved how Sark’s feudal System worked till the Barclays forced them in court to convert to a Democracy.



I’d retain the Human Rights provisions we have today, but safeguard them against collectivism by making the landholders Rulers.
Posted By: StuartK Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 04/23/11 03:06 PM
Quote
Rome had a Senate but that was hardly the Two House Legislature we see in America and had nothing equivalent to a President.

The Roman constitution was incredibly elaborate in its division of powers. The Senate, for instance, had no real legislative power at all, but could only issue "recommendations" (senatus consulti), which would then be ratified by the various assemblies (popular, tribal, etc.). The Consuls presided over the Senate and had subsumed the war-leader responsibilities of deposed kings (whose religious duties were maintained by the Rex Sacrorum). The Praetors (originally two) carried out the administrative duties of the king and the king's council. The ancient priesthood of the Roman kingdom, the Flaminate, was continued but relegated to an inferior position by the new Republican priesthood, the Pontifices.

New offices emerged over time, such as the Tribunes of the Plebs, whose original power (tribunicia potestas) was limited to intercession on the part of accused plebs being prosecuted by (originally patrician) magistrates. Later, Tribunes got the right to bring proposed legislation directly to the Popular Assembly, bypassing the Senate. The last years of the Republic were dominated by the struggle for power between those two groups.

So, you are right to the extent that the detailed structure of the U.S. Constitution is different from the organic Roman constitution--but the governing principles were the same: a strong executive checked by divided government and reliance on countervailing powers.

Quote
I’d modify the system somewhat, but retain certain things. I’d allow small Property Owners, with an understanding of Sovereignty Rights being distinct from Property Rights, in the same Fashion that Mineral Rights are distinct, and can be sold without property Rights being sold.

I’d allow the King to have Sovereignty Rights over the Nation, but he’d not have the Property Rights or all lots.

So, basically, we're dealing with a political theory, and nothing that ever actually existed, so there's really no way of telling whether it would work or not.

Quote
Actually the Medieval Period feudal System was never consistent. The term wasn’t even coined till the 1600’s to describe a past system. The Truth is, the Feudal System is more of an Umbrella description of various arrangements based around Land Allocation, and was never uniform in practise.

True, but the broad outlines of feudalism are pretty consistent, and you can select details from different times and places; e.g., English feudalism in the Norman period is different both from contemporary French or German feudalism, as well as later feudalism during the heyday of the Plantagenets, which in turn differed from French and German feudalism in the 13th and 14th centuries.

But in all situations, feudalism worked only because the ability of the central government to impose its will was distinctly limited by medieval technology. That is to say, military power was expensive enough to be the purview of the aristocracy, but no so expensive that only the central state could afford it (as later occurred with the rise of artillery). Also, the ability of the king to keep track of what was going on in his kingdom was hampered by primitive transportation, communications and record keeping.

The modern nation-state exists because of revolutions in warfare, communications and record-keeping, which potentially has the power to enslave huge numbers of people. Whenever a single individual has been able to harness the power of the nation state (beginning with Napoleon), that has been the usual result. You may quibble that modern dictators are not kings, but that's a distinction without a difference. Take, for example, Beloved and Respected Leader Comrade Kim Il Sung, who passed down his office to his selected son and heir, Dear Leader Comrade Kim Jung-Il, who now appears to be preparing his selected son and heir "Brilliant Comrade" Kim Jong-Un. Now, the hereditary principle is usually (though not necessarily) associated with monarchy, so does this not in effect make Kim Jong Il the "king" of North Korea?

Conversely, in many societies, kings and emperors were elected (even in ancient Rome, on rare occasion, the Senate got to vote on an Emperor), so does this not make such a king, in effect, merely "President for Life"?

Quote
I personally loved how Sark’s feudal System worked till the Barclays forced them in court to convert to a Democracy.

Of course, Sark is about the size of a small U.S. town, so as a model for national governance, not much of an example for others.
Posted By: byzanTN Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 04/23/11 03:35 PM
Oh, my goodness! The medication cart has been through the forum again, hasn't it? LOL.
Posted By: Penthaetria Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 04/23/11 03:56 PM
Originally Posted by byzanTN
Oh, my goodness! The medication cart has been through the forum again, hasn't it? LOL.
Apparently NOT! crazy
Posted By: byzanTN Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 04/23/11 05:53 PM
Too funny! grin
Posted By: Scotty Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 04/23/11 06:09 PM
Zarove-
Now that I understand where you are coming from, I have to say that even a neo feudalism is unlikely aside from world wide disaster! My guess, is that most people in the world simply don't want it. Furthermore, I don't believe that this time in history I personally want to live in a feudalistic society.Do not forget history tells of the good parts of feudal society and also the very ugly side as well. A permanent class system which condemned people to a certain legal statues without any hope of advancement! And do tell me, what makes a noble person? His birth family? Where he was born? Or how about the merits of his conduct and work?



"Oh, my goodness! The medication cart has been through the forum again, hasn't it? LOL." Hey,..he speaking his mind! Whats wrong with that? I applaud a person willing to politically speak his or her piece despite what "people think"
Posted By: byzanTN Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 04/23/11 10:41 PM
"Oh, my goodness! The medication cart has been through the forum again, hasn't it? LOL." Hey,..he speaking his mind! Whats wrong with that? I applaud a person willing to politically speak his or her piece despite what "people think"

The Flat Earth Society meeting will immediately follow in the crypt. All are welcome. wink

It amazes me the number of people who romanticize the past, without any clue as to the harshness and brutality that existed then. It wasn't all glorious buildings, great music, and splendid art. Life for the average person could be terrible - and generally was. It's easy to be anachronistic when you don't have to endure the reality.
Posted By: StuartK Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 04/23/11 11:19 PM
You are wise indeed, byzanTN. One of the finest expositions of how people view history can be found in the Prologue of John Keegan's Six Armies in Normandy (all citations from the Penguin Paperback edition), which is a brilliant little essay on historiography and the dangers of anachronistic romanticization.

Quote
Time, teaching and reading would show me that it was all the most perfect nonsense [his youthful fantasies of the past]; that the world of the past was not a potpourri of its quainter elements but as getting-and-spending a one as that of the present, the getting harder, and the spending stingier; that its prevailing mood was not one of harmony but of conflict, which man's nastier qualities were more often deployed to resolve than charity or reason; that the lyircal emotions it aroused in me, dissolving all differences of class, interest, period and place in a poetic haze, were a positive obstacle to grasping its passions, hopes and needs. I struggled against the death of romance and the dissolution of my peaceable kingdom. How could the age that built Glastonbury Abbey not be kinder than that which had built the cotton mills? How could a world of hand tools not be more satisfying to work in than a world of machines? How could travel by horse not be more fun than by steam or oil? Who would not choose to live under thatch instead of slate, eat stone milled instead of of shop-bought bread, wear broadcloth instead of rayon? Disease, I accepted, was a hazard which afflicted the inhabitants of my imagined and vanished England with a frequency and severity which we were spared. But that they were afflicted also in the vast majority with seasonal hunger, winter cold, constant poverty, backbreaking labor for little return, legal inequity, illiteracy, ignorance and frequent disorder was a view to which I retreated reluctantly, step by step, with a lingering conviction that the sun-warmed stones of cloister and market cross could not really lie. (p.17)
Posted By: Scotty Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 04/23/11 11:21 PM
Point well taken! But I suppose none of us can learn anything from the age of chivalry! Right?
Posted By: Scotty Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 04/23/11 11:23 PM
Anything good, that is.
Posted By: PeterPeter Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 04/24/11 07:15 AM
The criticism of different forms of government hasn't changed much since the time of Plato and Aristotle. Each form has its advantages and disadvantages. Democracies naturally tend to erode into tyrannies, monarchies naturally tend to erode into oligarchies. Anyway, the more real (that can't be solved by fighting parties sunken in particularisms) problems there are to solve, the faster we are heading towards more monarchical forms of government, at least in Europe. The Romans weren't shy to choose a dictator when they were in trouble.

By the way, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that the Habsburgs are constitutionally forbidden from taking power back in Ausria.
Posted By: ZAROVE Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 04/24/11 07:46 AM
Peter- They are but, then agauin, once upon a Tiem they were its COnstitutional RUlers.

To the test who think I am insane, keep in mind that in the 18uth Cneutry before the Revolutions, proposing Republicanism was seen as Insane.

I am a Monarhcist simply because I e it as mroe Natural, and mro ein line wiht both Human Nature and the Laws of God.

Ill explain in more etial later, but it is odd hwo Im seen as in need of medication because of soemthign the CHruch Fathers themslves endorsed.

Did God ever establish a Republic?
Posted By: StuartK Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 04/25/11 01:57 AM
Quote
Did God ever establish a Republic?

The Church is sometimes called a res publica (republic), meaning literally, "a commonwealth".
Posted By: ZAROVE Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 04/25/11 02:07 AM
Stuart- is Christ our King? or our President? Would it be blasphemy to say we have issues with Jesus and he should stand for election to see who we, the people choose?
Posted By: Nelson Chase Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 04/25/11 02:46 AM
Christ is our King! But His Perfect Kingdom of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is not of this world, so comparing him to an earthly King or President, IMHO, is waste of time. All forms of government fail in comparison and are run by sinful men/women.

We can idealize all we want but only Christ and His Kingdom will fulfill us perfectly. Living our lives in peace and repentance before the All Holy Trinity is all that is important. Hopefully those in power will live by this but we can't force people, only pray for them.

Christ is Risen!!
Posted By: Stephanos I Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 04/25/11 04:42 AM
I am a dyed in the wool Monarchist! Bring back the King, not of England of course would much rather have the King of Norway! wink
Stephanos I
Posted By: Scotty Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 04/25/11 11:59 AM
Indeed He Has Risen!

I agree 100% God's kingdom is not of this world and mankind will pervert every good form of government! People are not the solution, God is! We CAN make things better, but I've got this feeling that what you want is unrealistic.
Posted By: Litvin Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 04/25/11 06:49 PM
Originally Posted by StuartK
Quote
i assume you're being sarcastic

Can you think of a more inefficient empire than the ramshackle, polyglot realm of the Hapsburgs?

ottoman empire, and it lasted a lot longer

Austrian Empire's entire existence since Catherine the Great was a joke, have you ever read history of the Austrian Empire or Austrian-Hungarian Empire? nor can i think of any empire that had to ask its archenemy to help it put down internal rebellions nor of any empire that had to keep its armories days sometimes weeks march from it's reserve units to prevent them from nationalistic uprising

the austrian-hungarian empire and the austrian empire itself during napoleonic times was a joke, still cant believe you think the hapsburgs ran if efficiently - only time when it was efficient was during the counter reformation and still they had hard time against prussia and turkey, after acquiring hungary, poland, and balkans it was a sicker man than the ottoman empire

after the first world war the ex-emperor tried to claim hungary as his kingdom, the hungarians refused

to topic, monarchy dosent bother me, though "thanks" to the American presdient woodrow wilson its age is over

as to the feudalism, i think people here are too euro-centric
Posted By: ZAROVE Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 04/25/11 10:42 PM
Litvin- I wouldn't say the Age of Monarchy is over. One thing I've learned from history is, it tends to repeat itself, and that which was seen once as dead and gone for good often makes a surprising comeback.
Posted By: StuartK Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 04/26/11 12:55 AM
True--if there is a total societal, economic and technological collapse, monarchy will again become the default system of government, because, inevitably, the strongest military leaders will acquire followers, power will coalesce around them, and the weak will seek shelter under their protection. Invariable, kings will either seek religious sanction for their power, or will subsume the function of priest (or even god) into their royal mantle.
Posted By: ZAROVE Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 04/27/11 03:35 AM



Actually Monarchy doesn’t require a total collapse of society to make a comeback. It could be the result of a Religious Revival. Don’t laugh, only in America is Republicanism linked to strong Christianity, in Europe Republicanism is mainly linked to Atheism.

Conversely, society may just get tired of the politicians telling hem what to do and want a much smaller Government. Say what you will, Monarchies tended to be smaller Governments and cost way less.

A Conservative movement in Europe could easily increase the power of existing Monarchies, or restore lost ones.

EG, the Russians may easily decide to restore the Tzar, and there is some talk of such already, without Social collapse.

Bare in mind, while I like the idea of private land owners running things, I also prefer Constitutional Monarchy to a pure Republic. I’d love to see the Romanov’s back on their Throne. I can also imagine the Russian Federation reinstating the Monarchy without total collapse of their society. It’d not take a whole lot, really.


I can even see France restoring their Monarchy if a Revival of Catholicism happens, and people begin to question the Dogmas of the Revolutionaries they now so Lionise.

Really only in America do people say Conservatism demands Republican sentiments.

Given that Royal Restorations have happened before without a total collapse of all society, EG, Spain, Cambodia, and England being prominent examples, its possible to see a restoration of Monarchism without the doom and gloom.

By the way, there was once a republic of England under Cromwell.

Then, a Glorious Restoration of the House Stuart to the Throne!
Posted By: Nelson Chase Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 04/27/11 03:48 AM
Quote
EG, the Russians may easily decide to restore the Tzar, and there is some talk of such already, without Social collapse.

Bare in mind, while I like the idea of private land owners running things, I also prefer Constitutional Monarchy to a pure Republic. I’d love to see the Romanov’s back on their Throne. I can also imagine the Russian Federation reinstating the Monarchy without total collapse of their society. It’d not take a whole lot, really.

Some how I think Vladimir Putin would have something to say about giving up his near dictatorial power.
Posted By: Two Lungs Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 04/27/11 07:02 AM
What's the problem?

No need to give up power.

Originally Posted by Nelson Chase
Some how I think Vladimir Putin would have something to say about giving up his near dictatorial power.

"Vladimir, Tsar of all the Russias" has a nice ring to it. eek

And given the Royal tendency to hold multiple titles, I'm sure our Ukrainian monarchists would have no problem with restoring the monarchy of "Vladimir, Grand Prince of Kiev" eek eek

We can bridge the gap between democracy and monarchy by electing him King, as was the Polish practice.

"Vladimir, King of Poland,
Grand Duke of Lithuania,
Poobah of Points South" biggrin

I'm sure a convenient Patriarch can be found to do the coronations. laugh
Posted By: Scotty Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 04/27/11 01:54 PM
Zarove, I think you starting to back peddle on you neo feudalism and support a constitutional monarchy. Glad to see we now think more alike now!

Posted By: Scotty Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 04/27/11 01:55 PM
Although, let me make this clear no monarchy for America! Unless its ME! I just can't trust anyone else.
Posted By: Two Lungs Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 04/28/11 03:00 AM
Originally Posted by Scotty
Although, let me make this clear no monarchy for America! Unless its ME! I just can't trust anyone else.

You sound like Mr. Trump.

America, or part of it, did have one royal family, but I don't think there are any living descendants of King Kamehameha.
Posted By: Scotty Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 04/28/11 10:19 AM
Hey now! I feel insulted! lol Where is the Christian charity?
Posted By: Epiphanius Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 04/28/11 06:35 PM
Originally Posted by ZAROVE
... while I like the idea of private land owners running things, I also prefer Constitutional Monarchy to a pure Republic.
For starters, I would contend that prior to the Industrial Revolution, land was the only real form of capital (that is, wealth capable of generating more wealth). Thus, your "private land owners" were the real power brokers, whom the king would always have to keep an eye on, for fear he would lose their allegiance. In today's world, they would be the industrialists and financiers, and the government still needs to try and get their cooperation without ceding too much power to them.

In other words, although many things have changed externally, an awful lot has remained the same underneath. Human governments will always be just that--human governments, subject to the same sins and failings that humanity itself is subject to. This is equally true for the various kinds of monarchy as it is for the various kinds of democracy.

Some of the thinkgs I like about the American system are:
  • Constitutional establishment of balance of power among governmental branches
  • Constitutional direction to ensure a smooth transition of power
  • The principle that--at least in theory--those who exercise power have to answer to the people

This last is especially important to me, because I see it as reflecting--or at least attempting to reflect--Our Lord's own mandate that "whoever wishes to be great among you shall be your servant; whoever wishes to be first among you shall be the slave of all." (Mk.10:43-44)


Peace,
Deacon Richard
Posted By: Nelson Chase Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 04/28/11 11:58 PM
Quote
Some of the thinkgs I like about the American system are:
Constitutional establishment of balance of power among governmental branches
Constitutional direction to ensure a smooth transition of power
The principle that--at least in theory--those who exercise power have to answer to the people

These principles are what make/made our Republic unique. Sadly, I think since the American Civil War [and the Presidency of Abraham Lincoln the first big government president, IMHO] these ideas have gradually been pushed to the side, while the executive branch has gained untold amounts of power never envisioned by the founders of our Republic. Thank the Lord we have a vibrant grassroots Liberty movement in this country seeking to return to these principles.

Then again I dream for a return to antebellum American government: a small-decentralized Constitutional Republic (minus the immorality of slavery of course!!!) but then again I may be a dreamer. (Or some may say delusional
grin )
Posted By: Lawrence Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 04/29/11 01:49 AM

You're not delusional Nelson. Those are my sentiments exactly.
Posted By: ZAROVE Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 04/29/11 05:23 AM
I would argue thouh that Governments of the People are not of God. it is the Republicanism and Liberalism of the 18th century, that continues today, that defies God.

Monarchy can in the end declare God as Supreme, a Republic as we practice it today recognises man as supreme.

it also assumes a Majority Vote is somehow always Right or that it always reflects thee true Will of the People.

I find the instability of Republicanism terrible.

By the way, you can have checks and balances in a Monarchy, and Constitutional Transitions.

This thread was s Rant not mean tot convey deeper thoughts. For the modern world I would choose a constitutionals Monarchy that allows the King substantial, but not unlimited Power.

I'd also make him answerable for his actions, but I don't think man should be the final judge in terms of National law.

Plus, lets face it, politicians are greedy and ambitious, and we are lead by them.

Posted By: Nelson Chase Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 04/29/11 05:50 AM
Quote
I would argue thouh that Governments of the People are not of God. it is the Republicanism and Liberalism of the 18th century, that continues today, that defies God.

Monarchs are people to, aren't they? And the have oppressed people and claimed they are doing it in the name of God. That to defies God.

Quote
Monarchy can in the end declare God as Supreme, a Republic as we practice it today recognises man as supreme.

You are assuming much, are you not? Yes a Monarchy can...but that doesn't mean they do. Monarchs place themselves above other men (God ordained me to rule you!) and can claim to serve God but are really dictators who have no regard for God and his Church. Republicanism today, which isn't true Republicanism envisioned by our Founders- which allowed man to live freely and worship freely but not infringe on others who may think differently (I know it didn't work out that way- way to idealized but worthy to try to live out)- is more about power- i.e the Executive branch.

Quote
I find the instability of Republicanism terrible.

You are allowed to hold such views, thats the great thing about Liberty envisioned by our Founders, but I would say that we aren't living in a true Republic anymore more a neo-Democracy controlled by an over reaching executive branch. In a monarchy would I be allowed to hold dissenting views about the King/Queen or Royal Family? And be vocal about it?

Quote
This thread was s Rant not mean tot convey deeper thoughts.

But it is good to have free exchanges of ideas.

Quote
For the modern world I would choose a constitutionals Monarchy that allows the King substantial, but not unlimited Power

Power Corrupts...sadly even in a Republic and the most idealized well meaning Monarchy. Even the idealized Byzantine Monarchs had their faults (and some promoted heresy with absolute force!)

Quote
Plus, lets face it, politicians are greedy and ambitious, and we are lead by them.

What makes you think it would go away if we had a King? Look at England and the Royal Wedding. Is spending all that money not greedy? Why should English tax $ go to another person's wedding? What makes someone better than another man? Is it because he has "royal" blood? All men are equal before God- be it Bishop, Priest, laymen, or King.

We are all equal. This is the ideal of the Founding Fathers of our small Limited Constitutional Republic. (yes they had their faults- especially in regards to slavery) While they may not have all been perfect and orthodox Christians they believed that if you where an orthodox Christian you have the right to be one just don't tell someone else they have to be.

Quote
"I called to mind the Prophet, as he cried: I am earth and ashes; and I looked again into the graves and beheld the bones laid bare, and I said: Who then is the king or the warrior, the rich man or the needy, the upright or the sinner?"

Good discussion and have a Blessed Paschal season. smile

Posted By: Slavophile Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 04/29/11 01:40 PM
In a magisterial appropriation and summation of the entire post-Constantinian debate concerning the right relationship between Crown and Mitre, Richard Hooker, the architect of the Elizabethan Settlement, in his Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, posited the crown as the image of Christ's Humanity and the mitre as Christ's Divinity.

In this respect at the very least, an annointed king is an icon; something an elected official - especially a partisan one - requires some serious casuistical reform to be.

Two images come to mind in this regard: that of Queen Elizabeth's coronation and her annointing by the Archbishop of Canterbury of the time, and a painting of Tsar Nicholas II receiving communion in the Altar at his own coronation. Both manifest the sybolism of the Two Natures of the Incarnation.

And one final word: from a Canadian-in-Britain's point of view, the Crown is much more present in daily life that some of you assume. Above all, the fact that the Crown represents no one particular political vision, means that one can espouse almost any political opinion shy of revolution without fear of being disloyal. It is why the opposition in Parliament is called 'Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition'. Practically, this means that nothing like the McCarthy Hearings could ever really gain ground, as it is not really possible to be disloyal to the State based on belief, either real or perceived.
Posted By: Scotty Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 04/29/11 10:33 PM
One question to ponder is can republican governments dedicate themselves to God? And can this relationship bear fruit? I have only this to say about that, of all the "Christian Monarchies" in the last 30 years who among them have defended the Christian religion as well as we commoners here in the US? SO for Zaroves ideals to work he must have feudalism as he stated from the beginning.
Posted By: StuartK Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 04/30/11 02:30 PM
Quote
One question to ponder is can republican governments dedicate themselves to God?

The English Republic of Oliver Cromwell certainly saw itself as devoted to God, as did the Puritans who established the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Bay. Geneva was also a republic during the time of John Calvin, and one would be hard pressed to find a polity that more visibly dedicated itself to God.
Posted By: Polish American Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 04/30/11 02:51 PM
And yet each of these republics did not grant full rights to Catholics. Even today, our American republic does not recognize or respect the rights of a fetus.
Posted By: StuartK Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 04/30/11 06:49 PM
Well, you could hardly expect them to extend full rights to Catholics, considering that the Catholic Church of their time did not consider a republic to be a legitimate form of government.
Posted By: Polish American Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 04/30/11 09:46 PM
You are partly correct. The Protestant republics mentioned did not extend full rights to Catholics only because the Church did not consider republics to be legitimate. They also did not believe heresy had any rights, so they refused full rights to Catholics, Anabaptists like Mennonites, and early Unitarians like Michael Servetus (whom Calvin approved for burning at the stake while saying "Jesus, Son of the Eternal God, have mercy on me" instead of "Jesus, ETERNAL Son of God, have mercy on me" which would have saved him). Calvin wrote:

Whoever shall maintain that wrong is done to heretics and blasphemers in punishing them makes himself an accomplice in their crime and guilty as they are. There is no question here of man's authority; it is God who speaks, and clear it is what law he will have kept in the church, even to the end of the world. Wherefore does he demand of us a so extreme severity, if not to show us that due honor is not paid him, so long as we set not his service above every human consideration, so that we spare not kin, nor blood of any, and forget all humanity when the matter is to combat for His glory....

So, Protestants hated and sometimes persecuted and even executed Catholics as heretics and Papists; but then some Catholic countries also persecuted and executed Protestants as heretics. The ruling powers believed and practiced "Cuius regio, eius religio" translated as "Whose realm, his religion", meaning the religion of the ruler dictated the religion of the ruled. Those were not peaceful times regardless of the type of government or the religious faith - except for Poland which alleges that it never burned heretics at the stake, and I do not know if that historical claim can be proven. However, that is another separate topic.
Posted By: ZAROVE Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 05/03/11 12:49 AM
Scotty-

Originally Posted by Scotty
Zarove, I think you starting to back peddle on you neo feudalism and support a constitutional monarchy. Glad to see we now think more alike now!

This thread is a Rant. I never gave a full and well thought out Argument in it at the Start. My actual position is that any Monarch is better than a republic in form. I’ve always been an advocate of Constitutional Monarchy, though I do prefer a Constitutional Monarch who has real ,but not Absolute, Political Power. (For some reason we assume if a Monarch has any power at all tis not Constitutional…)

Neo-Feudalism is more of a dream, that would make the world run on the Model of Subsidiary as the Church teaches, and which would enable smaller Government. I still recommend Hoppe’s “Democracy: The God That Failed” to see what I mean.

Still, in our present world this model won’t be accepted, as we are entitlement and democracy Junkies who can’t sand the idea that we can’t band together and bully the Governing forces to change to suit our Whims, and prefer not to have personal responsibility for our actions but to allow society to absorb our blame.

To this end I’d for our culture and world advocate basically an American or British style Government, and replace the Head of State with a Monarch who not only possesses the Political Power in Theory but is allowed to use it.

For a Federal Alliance of Nations like America, I’d repeal the 17th Amendment an have the Senate selected by the States, and replace the President with the Monarchy. I’d prefer the British Monarch, who could select a Governor-General to execute those Functions as she does in her Dominion of Canada.

I’d then leave everything else alone.

As for the States, I’d let them have a Proper House of Lords, who are either Hereditary, appointed, or mixed, but not Elected, allow them to have State Churches with Guaranteed religious Liberty do those not in the Official Church, and allow Clergy to sit in the Lords, an elected House, and a Duke to replace the Governor.

You may thus even potentially have a perfectly balanced system in which three separate Franchises regulate the Government, thus securing a System of Checks and Balances in a much more sensible way.

That’s what I’d push for in the modern World.

Neo-Feudalism is more of a Dream for a far off time.

But I still like the idea of a Radical Libertarian Society of Private Contract and Regulation by land Ownership.



Posted By: ZAROVE Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 05/03/11 12:58 AM

Slavophile-

Originally Posted by Slavophile
In a magisterial appropriation and summation of the entire post-Constantinian debate concerning the right relationship between Crown and Mitre, Richard Hooker, the architect of the Elizabethan Settlement, in his Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, posited the crown as the image of Christ's Humanity and the mitre as Christ's Divinity.

In this respect at the very least, an annointed king is an icon; something an elected official - especially a partisan one - requires some serious casuistical reform to be.

Two images come to mind in this regard: that of Queen Elizabeth's coronation and her annointing by the Archbishop of Canterbury of the time, and a painting of Tsar Nicholas II receiving communion in the Altar at his own coronation. Both manifest the sybolism of the Two Natures of the Incarnation.

And one final word: from a Canadian-in-Britain's point of view, the Crown is much more present in daily life that some of you assume. Above all, the fact that the Crown represents no one particular political vision, means that one can espouse almost any political opinion shy of revolution without fear of being disloyal. It is why the opposition in Parliament is called 'Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition'. Practically, this means that nothing like the McCarthy Hearings could ever really gain ground, as it is not really possible to be disloyal to the State based on belief, either real or perceived.

I agree. I'd also like to point out that Republics tend to only involve a continual social struggle between partisan groups who neverendingly assail each other.

This is one Reason tfor a Non-Political Unelected crown.
Posted By: ZAROVE Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 05/03/11 01:23 AM
Scotty-

Originally Posted by Scotty
One question to ponder is can republican governments dedicate themselves to God? And can this relationship bear fruit? I have only this to say about that, of all the "Christian Monarchies" in the last 30 years who among them have defended the Christian religion as well as we commoners here in the US? SO for Zaroves ideals to work he must have feudalism as he stated from the beginning.


Most of those Christian Monarchies pride themselves on being Democracies, and are also very proud of the fact that the Monarchs do not engage in any Political debates, but just carry out the Will of the Elected Legislature. The Monarchs thus have no real ability to defend the Christian Faith, lest they loose heir Thrones.

That said, America is an odd exception in terms of Modern Republics. If you really want to pit America against the Christian Monarchs, you should be honest and look also at the other Republics, such as once upon a Time how France was strongly Catholic and It was the Jacobins who went on a DeChristianisation campaign in the name of Liberty, Fraternity, and Equality. The French Revolutionaries also inspired most European Republicanism, especially Karl Marx, and in Europe Republicanism is mostly linked to Atheistic Philosophical beliefs.

That said, America is not truly a defender of Christianity. American Christianity drapes Nationalism and Political Ideology in the Cloak of Christianity to give it greater Authority by usurping Christ, but most often what is advocated by the Right ( and even the Left when they do this) is not what Historical Christianity Taught.

Do you really think O’Reilly or Glenn Beck represent Christian teachings over American Neo-Conservative Ideology?

Glenn Beck praised an even that happened in Tennessee, where a mans house burned down and the Fire Department did nothing as this man lost Three Dogs and a Cat and his Home, mocked the Mans Southern Accent, and said we should ignore all talks of Compassion.

Beck Cleary puts the pursuit of Wealth above the Pursuit of Compassion, and even mocked those of us who would bring up Compassion.

We see other examples of this on the So-Called Religious Right as well, with most of its Chief Actors like Joseph Farah, Sarah Palin, or Rush Limbaugh do nothing but stir up Hatred and Division, while frightening people into sending them boatloads of money to continue to fight “The Enemies of America”.

lets not forget that to them, Liberals aren’t Real Americans.

Do you really think the Message of Christ is Free Market Capitalism? While I reject the same arguments that Jesus was a Socialist, I should note that Pope Leo the 13th condemned both Capitalism and Socialism, and those are not the Only Economic methods.

Speaking of Liberals, they promote Same Sex Marriage, Abortion on Demand, and the taking of peoples wealth to give to those who do not work. They promote Promiscuous Sexuality, Moral Relativism, and Demonise those with any wealth thus promoting Greed. Class Warfare is nothing more than Greed and Envy.

Still, they swill find some useful quote form Jesus they can use to say he Endorsed them and their beliefs.


I’m sorry but, American Christians may show more zeal and may insert Christ and God into the discussion by name, but neon of them care really what the Christian faith demands of them and ultimately have created their own versions of Christianity that is nothing more than a vehicle for their own opinions.


A lot of why Christianity is hated in some parts of the world has to do with this sort of thing too.
Posted By: ZAROVE Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 05/03/11 01:55 AM
nelson Chase-

Originally Posted by Nelson Chase
Quote
I would argue thouh that Governments of the People are not of God. it is the Republicanism and Liberalism of the 18th century, that continues today, that defies God.

Monarchs are people to, aren't they? And the have oppressed people and claimed they are doing it in the name of God. That to defies God.

Quote
Monarchy can in the end declare God as Supreme, a Republic as we practice it today recognises man as supreme.

You are assuming much, are you not? Yes a Monarchy can...but that doesn't mean they do. Monarchs place themselves above other men (God ordained me to rule you!) and can claim to serve God but are really dictators who have no regard for God and his Church. Republicanism today, which isn't true Republicanism envisioned by our Founders- which allowed man to live freely and worship freely but not infringe on others who may think differently (I know it didn't work out that way- way to idealized but worthy to try to live out)- is more about power- i.e the Executive branch.

Quote
I find the instability of Republicanism terrible.

You are allowed to hold such views, thats the great thing about Liberty envisioned by our Founders, but I would say that we aren't living in a true Republic anymore more a neo-Democracy controlled by an over reaching executive branch. In a monarchy would I be allowed to hold dissenting views about the King/Queen or Royal Family? And be vocal about it?

Quote
This thread was s Rant not mean tot convey deeper thoughts.

But it is good to have free exchanges of ideas.

Quote
For the modern world I would choose a constitutionals Monarchy that allows the King substantial, but not unlimited Power

Power Corrupts...sadly even in a Republic and the most idealized well meaning Monarchy. Even the idealized Byzantine Monarchs had their faults (and some promoted heresy with absolute force!)

Quote
Plus, lets face it, politicians are greedy and ambitious, and we are lead by them.

What makes you think it would go away if we had a King? Look at England and the Royal Wedding. Is spending all that money not greedy? Why should English tax $ go to another person's wedding? What makes someone better than another man? Is it because he has "royal" blood? All men are equal before God- be it Bishop, Priest, laymen, or King.

We are all equal. This is the ideal of the Founding Fathers of our small Limited Constitutional Republic. (yes they had their faults- especially in regards to slavery) While they may not have all been perfect and orthodox Christians they believed that if you where an orthodox Christian you have the right to be one just don't tell someone else they have to be.

Quote
"I called to mind the Prophet, as he cried: I am earth and ashes; and I looked again into the graves and beheld the bones laid bare, and I said: Who then is the king or the warrior, the rich man or the needy, the upright or the sinner?"

Good discussion and have a Blessed Paschal season. smile


Mr. Chase, I never believed the old Adage that Power Corrupts. I don’t’ think a good and honest man, who has no vices or sin in his life, will upon gaining power also acquire vice and sin. There is nothing Inherent in having power that corrupts us, rather, those who are in Power are simply in a position to exercise their corruption and, by excursive, strengthen it. Power gives them the ability, and often either the ability to cover it up, or to simply escape responsibility for any bad conduct.

However, all the same sins and vices we see in the Powerful we see also in the Poor. Casual and hedonistic Sex is as frequent in the Trailer Park in Rural Arkansas as it is in the Powerhouses in Washington DC, Drug use is as frequent, and so is Theft, cheating the system, nepotism, lying, berating others, and plays for power and control.

These things are tempered only in the Middle Class. The Reason is, accountability. People in the Middle Class can’t afford a host of minions to cover up indiscretions or to strong-arm others to do things their way as the rich and powerful have, and lack the Close knit Survival instinct based buddy system the Trailer park has. Further, those in the Trailer Parks or Slums aren’t expected to be much in society, so don’t need to cover up anything. You will find many who freely admit to having Fathered Numerous Children by many women, none of whom they married. Some will tell you thy smoke pot, do Cocaine, or smoke Meth. How will this impact them? They are seen as Scum, the Dregs of Society. No one bats an eye to them. The Politician or Celebrity or powerful Businessman can loose his Reputation, and thus the support of his Clientele. However, he’s also in a position to buy off people, or to make them disappear. Also, being such a Visible Face and often the central aspect of a Business or Political Movement, the politician or Powerful Celebrity knows he is indispensable, and others will find it in their own best interest to help him avoid Scandal.

Only the Middle Class can’t get away with this. If a man works hard, has insurance on his Car, House, and Health, has to report to work from 9-5, and must make a life for himself has such Responsibility that he can’t risk being caught in a Scandal, and must do a reasonably good job else he has no more Employment.

If a man in a run down Trailer Park, who has been arrested for Petty Theft all the time, and whose known to smoke Pot, and who collects Welfare and only does a minimal amount of menial Labour to get by, is caught Cheating on his Wife, he may get a Divorce but it doesn’t effect his Reputation. If he Smokes pot all day and doesn’t show up to work, it doesn’t effect anything.

If a Middle Class man cheats and is Caught, his Divorce may cause him a large sum of his money, his House, and perhaps even his Job. This is True especially of those who want to promote a certain Corporate image, but even where Divorce is not considered as bad, his emotional State may cause his work to slip and thus his Employment to be harmed.

But a Celebrity Star of a Big TV show? His face is so identified with a Certain character he plays they can’t fire him without damaging the show which relies on Viewers loving this man, so they just don’t do anything about it unless the Divorce hit’s the Papers, becomes a Scandal, and effects Ratings. Even then, his Name Recognition will get him a job elsewhere soon enough after the Heat dies down.


Politicians are like Celebrities in that way, and their Campaigns are associated with them as Personalities. Its in the interest of their party, and their backers, to make sure the Candidate is protected form Scandal.

Far from scaring these people off, they think that their money and position allows them to do what they please.


It isn’t Power that Corrupts, it is Humanity that is Corrupt already, and Power simply acts as a means to exercise that Corruption.


By the way, it’s not “England” and the Royal Wedding, but the United Kingdom. Why do people think England is its own separate Nation? Did you all stop reading History before 1701?

As to your point about Greed and the Royal Wedding, I don’t see how spending money is the same as Greed. Yes the Wedding was Opulent, but Opulence is not synonymous with an unhealthy desire for accumulating Greater Wealth is it?

The Wedding was the Wedding of a Prince, and as such a Regal Event. But Regal is befitting a Pretence, and as St. ****** Said, it is not True Humility to pretend to be Lower than your Station, but Humility is in exercising the Station and pretending to no Higher.

The Wedding gave us something Beautiful and Hopeful.

Another has answered your objection about Monarchy. Provided you don’t advocate the removal of the King from the Throne, most Monarchies have been far more Liberal in allowing dissenting opinion than have Republics. The Romantic Image of Monarchy being oppressive and Republics allowing Freedom was created to justify the Revolutions, but in Practice, the more Democratic a Nation becomes, the less Free it becomes. Republics are, by nature, a halfway house between Monarchy and Democracy, and the tendency in the beliefs of the Enlightenment lend towards Democracy and Collectivism. It is from them that came Communism, for example.

Republics do not guarantee Free Speech, and Monarchies do not guarantee a lack of Free Speech.

I also don’t think Monarchies are Dictatorships, and see no reason why a Rightful Heir to the Throne can’t inherit it? Or why this makes them bad somehow, when this is who most other things tend to be given in society. The idea of Inheritance as Evil in Private mattes was challenged by the rise of Republicanism by the way. Look at the Jacobins, then Marx. Also, the Jacobins went out of their way to abolish Christianity from Society, even killing those who continued to attend Mass or renounce Sacred Vows. Priests where murdered in the Streets, all in the name of Republicanism. Spare me the claim that this wasn’t True Republicanism.



I also don’t think Monarchy inevitably leads to the removal our Right to Free Worship or free Assembly or right to own a Gun automatically just because they are Monarchies. Some Monarchies even made it against the Law not to own a Gun, for example, whole most Republics these days remove that right to greatly restrict it. It seems you think Monarchy inevitably leads to one set of Laws and a republic another, and yet you evade this by claiming those Republics which don’t live up to what as Envisioned by Americas Founders is not “True Republicanism”. That just comes of as a no True Scotsman Fallacy.

Republics have oppressed people, both in the name of God, like Cromwell, or in the name of The People, like Mao or Stalin.

Even George Washington brutally suppressed revolutionaries against the New United States.

So lets not pretend Monarchies have been more abusive or remove more Rights than Republicanism.

Pound for Pound republics remove more Rights and Freedoms.

America Alone has made it work and even then its because of the near Divine Status of the Constitution, and how it contains the Bill of Rights. Still, even America has its problems.


Posted By: Nelson Chase Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 05/03/11 02:14 AM
Quote
I don’t’ think a good and honest man, who has no vices or sin in his life, will upon gaining power also acquire vice and sin.

Then you have a much higher ideal of human nature than anyone I know. No man has lived and not sinned.

You are living in a far more idealized world than I, who believes very much in a Constitutional Republic governed by laws. Show me an example of a monarch that you speak of?

What of the Roman Republic? The Roman Republic is a wonderful example of a Republic. Sadly they feel victim to someone thinking he should be King for life and the world's first lasting Republic became an Empire.
Posted By: Scotty Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 05/03/11 02:33 AM
Zarove,
I will say this, politically is a Monarchy of the style you advocate possible? Not in the near term. What you are advocating really is radical to most Americans! And you will have to convince people to willingly give up representative government.
I still say that America has done up till now a decent job defending the faith!

I do agree for some countries Monarchy can work and I think your plan for America would actually be a great reform for the UK! But not the US!

Posted By: Scotty Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 05/03/11 02:55 AM
Quote
[/quote]should be honest and look also at the other Republics, such as once upon a Time how France was strongly Catholic and It was the Jacobins who went on a DeChristianisation campaign in the name of Liberty, Fraternity, and Equality. The French Revolutionaries also inspired most European Republicanism, especially Karl Marx, and in Europe Republicanism is mostly linked to Atheistic Philosophical beliefs.
Quote
It is because of the deliberate nature of our political system that prevents DeChristianisation campaigns from succeeding as they did in Europe. The genius of our system.

Quote
American Christianity drapes Nationalism and Political Ideology in the Cloak of Christianity to give it greater Authority by usurping Christ, but most often what is advocated by the Right ( and even the Left when they do this) is not what Historical Christianity Taught.[quote]
Be careful of not judging the hearts of everyone in America! I would challenge you on the sincerity of many Americana's Christian beliefs. Yes there are media types who make money off of God, and the Almighty will deal with them!! Check out how much Americans privately give to charity annually verse European Countries. Understand how the government responds to other countries and peoples after a man made or natural catastrophe! Does it demonstrate a Christian understanding of charity?

Now is society getting more and more vulgar? YES! Is it becoming more pagan? YES! Is the answer to use government to force people into believing? NO! The answer is to put God back into the lives of our families! Then using a Christian model rebuild our families!
Posted By: ZAROVE Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 05/03/11 03:48 AM
Scotty-

Originally Posted by Scotty
Quote
should be honest and look also at the other Republics, such as once upon a Time how France was strongly Catholic and It was the Jacobins who went on a DeChristianisation campaign in the name of Liberty, Fraternity, and Equality. The French Revolutionaries also inspired most European Republicanism, especially Karl Marx, and in Europe Republicanism is mostly linked to Atheistic Philosophical beliefs.
Quote


It is because of the deliberate nature of our political system that prevents DeChristianisation campaigns from succeeding as they did in Europe. The genius of our system.


But its not the Genius of the Republican form of Government. If it were then the form itself would porevent the DeChristianisation proccess, but it dint in France or Russia.

America faced no DeChristianisation because the Revolt was not a True Total Social Revolution. Basically the American Revolution was promoted by Wealthy Land owners who saw it as an Opportunity to expand into the forbidden Western Territories and to end the Import Fee's on goods so they could personally be Enriched. They had no intention of removing all Social structures and Institutions and focused their energies solely on Independance. Origionally they didn't even know it'd be a Republic at the end.

America's Funding Fathers didn't really push for the abolition of Christianity, and thats why there was no such Movement. However, one can easily imagine a very different America had they decided to attack Christianity, but that different America would not be a Monarchy, it'd still be a Republic.

Americas Unique Cultural and Historical Development is much more responsible for America's Christianity not being so eroded than is its Governmental Form.



Quote
[/quote]American Christianity drapes Nationalism and Political Ideology in the Cloak of Christianity to give it greater Authority by usurping Christ, but most often what is advocated by the Right ( and even the Left when they do this) is not what Historical Christianity Taught.
Quote


Be careful of not judging the hearts of everyone in America! I would challenge you on the sincerity of many Americana's Christian beliefs.


I didn't say the beliefs weren't sincerely Held, I said that there is a tendency in America to tie Christianity to the American Founding Fathers and American Ideology and then to infuse it further with ones own partisan political Ideology.


While I am also not saying all are Sincere, I do believe a good many are both Sincere in their Love of America and Sincere in their profession of Christian Faith. However, they are also not Truly studying it with an open Mind and letting Christianity form them, they are molding Christianity to fit their own personal visions of what its suppose to mean, just as they mold America's Founding Vision into what they want it to be.


Quote
Yes there are media types who make money off of God, and the Almighty will deal with them!! Check out how much Americans privately give to charity annually verse European Countries. Understand how the government responds to other countries and peoples after a man made or natural catastrophe! Does it demonstrate a Christian understanding of charity?


You conflate, with regret, American Foreign Policy with American citizenry's. This is regrettable as it mixes the two and acts as if both are motivated in the same way.

American Foreign Policy changes with each new Administration, and the Aid they bring often comes with certain strings attacked and is just as often used as a mean to manipulate other Nations into doing things the way America wants them done, or to boost International good will.

But thats way too complex a subject as too many are invovled with too many Factors.

As to Private Citesens and Charity, as I said I don't doubt many are Sincere in their Faith, but I've run into one too many who think I am a raving Liberal progressive because I am a Monarchist and then quote W. Cleon Skousen to prove it to think they are anywhere near aware of what either Christianity or America's Founders really said.


American Christians often think Israel prior to King Saul was a Constitutional Republic just like America, for example, or that America's Founding Fathers based their Governmental Form on the Bible, esp, the book of Deuteronomy.

Its in "The 5000 Year Leap", a Book Mr. beck describes as Divinely Inspired, just like the Constitution itself is described as Divinely Inspired.

The point is, they Love to identify themselves as American and Christian, but really read into those things their one biased view of what they mean with no True Understanding of Real History or actual Scriptural Teachings.

This doesn't make them insincere or evil or uncharitable, it means they aren't Historically what Christianity has been, and aren't really aware of what America's Founders believed in.

Once you say Monarchism and Communism share the same system of oppression and Monarchists and communist's are essentially the Same, you really can't claim any sort of Rational Ground for your beliefs, but this is exactly what many say these days.

Quote
Now is society getting more and more vulgar? YES! Is it becoming more pagan? YES! Is the answer to use government to force people into believing? NO! The answer is to put God back into the lives of our families! Then using a Christian model rebuild our families!

Thats nice. But I never advocated forcing people to believe. I advocated the Government encouraging proper morals and Christianity, but Promotion is not compulsion.

I'd also say you missed my real point.
Posted By: ZAROVE Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 05/03/11 03:59 AM
Scotty-

Originally Posted by Scotty
Zarove,
I will say this, politically is a Monarchy of the style you advocate possible? Not in the near term. What you are advocating really is radical to most Americans!

Republicanism was Radical to most Americans in 1770...

No one predicted America would become a Republic, and few if any really were agitating for one. Even the Sons of Liberty saw themselves as Loyal to the King, and merely opposed the Parliament. They had hoped the King would side with them, in fact. They turned on him when he sided with Parliament.

Even then many were Monarchists.

Quote
And you will have to convince people to willingly give up representative government.

No you wouldn’t.

In case you had forgotten to read your History books, King George the Third was not an Absolute Monarch who ruled alone and by decree. Britain has had representative Government for Centuries longer than America has existed.

While the Neo-Feudalism would require giving up Representative Government, Constitutional Monarchy doesn’t.


Quote
I still say that America has done up till now a decent job defending the faith!

History proves you wrong.
You do know that up till recently More Canadians attended Church percentage wise than Americans, Right?

In fact, in the American Colonies Christianity nearly died out, and everyone knew the whole of the Faith would be extinguished on these Shored. This Changed in 1734 with Jonathan Edwards preaching “Sinners In The Hands Of An Angry God’, which lead to the Great Awakening. Even so, Christianity began to die again in the early 19th Century, only to be revived again in **** by the Second great Awakening. The Civil War and Second World War also saw Revivals, but often in American History you see steep decline, such as the Late 19th Century, around the 1870’s-1930’s.

In that period, Socialism and even Communism were common in the US and people simply knew that Christianity would whither and die.

The Modern trend in America with Christianity began in the 1970’s with the Jesus People, and was eventually codified into Political Culture by Pat Robertson and the Moral Majority.


Quote
I do agree for some countries Monarchy can work and I think your plan for America would actually be a great reform for the UK! But not the US!

I’d agree that the UK needs this reform. The current Constitutional Butchery carried out by all parties is appalling and the Life Peerages horrendous. But I say what’s good for the Mother is good for the Son.


Posted By: ZAROVE Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 05/03/11 04:38 AM
At any event, a Monarchy provides Unity and can act independently of special interests, and is a model after Heaven itself, and more accords itself with our own Human Nature of desiring Familial relationships.

As someone on this Thread, I think you Scotty, said, the Catholic Church condemned Republicanism. Do you really think this was done lightly?

Nationalism, Republicanism, and Modernism are all facets of the same thing and really aren’t beneficial to either Human Liberty or our Salvation. I see no reason to pretend they are.
Posted By: StuartK Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 05/03/11 01:38 PM
Quote
At any event, a Monarchy provides Unity and can act independently of special interests, and is a model after Heaven itself, and more accords itself with our own Human Nature of desiring Familial relationships.

Except that, throughout history, monarchy has only rarely lived up to that ideal. Monarchy can be extremely divisive, due to the hereditary principle of succession, which means power often falls into the hands of a minor or a mental incompetent, frequently leading to disputed succession and civil war (I suppose if I limited myself just to France and England, I would have a very long list of succession crises indeed).

The period during which monarchy perhaps operated closest to the ideal was the period from AD 97 (the accession of the Emperor Nerva) to AD 180 (the death of Marcus Aurelius), because, during this period the Empire was blessed with a line of childless Emperors who chose their successors by adoption from among the most able and worthy men available--Trajan, Hadrian, Antonius Pius, and Marcus Aurelius). But what happened then? Marcus had a biological son, Commodus, and the hereditary principle being too powerful to overcome, Commodus succeeded his father at the age of eighteen. In the subsequent twelve years he proved himself utterly incapable of ruling, and ended the way of so many failed Emperors--with a sword in his guts.

There then followed a period of more than a century in which no Emperor reigned longer than fifteen years, most less than two, almost all dying at the hands of assassins, during which time the Empire was invaded, impoverished and brought to the edge of ruin. The Emperor Diocletian attempted to circumvent the principle of hereditary succession by establishing the Tetrarchy, in which the senior emperor, the Augustus, selected a colleague to serve with him as Augustus. Each Augustus then selected a junior colleague to serve as Caesar, there being then four Emperors--two Augusti and two Caesari. But the entire system broke down within a year of Diocletian's retirement, because hereditary succession could not be avoided. There then followed about twenty years of civil war, after which Constantine was last man standing and sole emperor. He attempted to have his three surviving sons rule jointly, but within a couple of years, Constantine II and Constans were toast, and Constantius was last man standing. Needless to say, neither the Roman Empire nor its Byzantine successor ever found a solution to the problem of succession.

As for monarchies being immune from special interests, please, don't be naive. In addition to favoring one economic or geographic interest over another, monarchs are notorious for having personal favorites (look up "Piers Gaveston", for instance), on whom the shower all sorts of offices and perquisites, usually to the detriment of the kingdom. Kings are just as influenced by special interests as any other politician--they just aren't as accountable.
Posted By: Rusyn Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 05/03/11 03:59 PM


Abolish ALL MONARCHY including Czars and Emperors, yes even Byzantine, Jesus Christ is the only King! Overthrow them all!

Posted By: Rusyn Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 05/03/11 04:31 PM
Originally Posted by byzanTN
"

It amazes me the number of people who romanticize the past, without any clue as to the harshness and brutality that existed then. It wasn't all glorious buildings, great music, and splendid art. Life for the average person could be terrible - and generally was. It's easy to be anachronistic when you don't have to endure the reality.

Exactly right! Boy, do I long for the "good old days" when the Papal police could abduct a Jewish child from his father http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgardo_Mortara or even better yet burn you at the stake for the great crime of publishing a bible in the vernacular!

I also do not pretend that Orthodox Governments or countries have never abused power.

It is interesting that the Roman Church since Vatican II has just about dismantled all of the Catholic governments that it had worked for centuries to gain control over.

Compare Vatican II's Dignitatis Humanae with the writings of previous popes, and you will find an amazing change of attitude.

This is what Pope Leo XIII wrote about the Church in America in his encyclical Longinqua (Jan 6, 1895):


"For the Church amongst you, unopposed by the Constitution and government of your nation, fettered by no hostile legislation, protected against violence by the common laws and the impartiality of the tribunals, is free to live and act without hindrance. Yet, though all this is true, it would be very erroneous to draw the conclusion that in America is to be sought the type of the most desirable status of the Church, or that it would be universally lawful or expedient for State and Church to be, as in America, dissevered and divorced. The fact that Catholicity with you is in good condition, nay, is even enjoying a prosperous growth, is by all means to be attributed to the fecundity with which God has endowed His Church, in virtue of which unless men or circumstances interfere, she spontaneously expands and propagates herself; but she would bring forth more abundant fruits if, in addition to liberty, she enjoyed the favor of the laws and the patronage of the public authority."

Posted By: ZAROVE Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 05/03/11 05:36 PM
Mr. Chase-

Originally Posted by Nelson Chase
Quote
I don’t’ think a good and honest man, who has no vices or sin in his life, will upon gaining power also acquire vice and sin.

Then you have a much higher ideal of human nature than anyone I know. No man has lived and not sinned.

You are living in a far more idealized world than I, who believes very much in a Constitutional Republic governed by laws. Show me an example of a monarch that you speak of?

What of the Roman Republic? The Roman Republic is a wonderful example of a Republic. Sadly they feel victim to someone thinking he should be King for life and the world's first lasting Republic became an Empire.


There was one Sinless man.

That said, I never meant to convey that I thought a Monarhc would be Sinless or that many men are Sinless, I know all men will sin. My point is that power does not intrinsically make one a Sinner where one was previosuly a Saint.

In other words, I don't think Power is in itself corruptive.

Posted By: ZAROVE Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 05/03/11 06:10 PM
Stuart-

Quote
Except that, throughout history, monarchy has only rarely lived up to that ideal.

Actually Monarchy has typically been closer to its Ideal than Republicanism has. Again, if we are honest with ourselves we’d also admit that Republicanism as we practice it has not lead to the Idealised Vision that was held of it by its original Advocates in the Modern Era. John Locke believed that it’d lead to Universal peace, has it? Has it really lead to Greater Individual Freedom? I see Liberty stripped form people in most Republics, even in America to a great degree these days, and not because we somehow are no longer a True Republic.

It was also suppose to ensure an end to corruption, for Aristocrats, not answerable to the People, were decadent and selfish and given to all manner of Vices, but the people, if given a choice, would only choose the best and never elect an Immoral Man. If they did, because he managed to fool them, he’d soon be out of office the next Election. This was an argument at least, but one the Kennedy’s alone disprove. Or Bill Clinton.

Republicanism also see’s great moral declines in society, as a result of its inherent fostering of a selfish attitude.

Republicanism has not lead to peace amongst men and Brotherhood either. Its not lead to that perfected utopia that many have imagined it would lead to.


Quote
Monarchy can be extremely divisive, due to the hereditary principle of succession, which means power often falls into the hands of a minor or a mental incompetent, frequently leading to disputed succession and civil war (I suppose if I limited myself just to France and England, I would have a very long list of succession crises indeed).

There are three main problems with this Argument.

1: You can always simply create better succession Laws that prevent the Throne from falling into the Hands of a Minor. EG, at present the UK’s throne cannot be occupied by someone under the age of 18. If the heir is below the age of 18, then a regent is appointed who Reigns in his or her stead. The Regency act also allows the Crown powers to be given to a caretaker in the event of the Kings mental disability.

While this may have been a Historical problem, it’s not insurmountable.

2: The situations you mentioned are not Socially divisive, really. A Disputed Throne usually only effects the Noble Houses involved in the Dispute, and while Civil Wars can happen, and the people can take sides, those sorts of Dynastic Wars simply aren’t all that common.

Likewise, there is no social division in a generalised sense of how the Nation should be directed, only by whom is the Lawful Successor. All agree to what is Lawful and all Agree that everyone should be Subject to the same Crown. The dispute is simply on who is the Proper inheritor of the Crown, not in the Principle of the Crown itself, and people don’t choose who should sit on the Throne based solely on Partisan political Agendas and a desire to force through their own goals.

Yes that happens too, but there has to be some tenable argument for taking the Throne besides mere Popularity.


3: Republics also have Civil Wars in disputed Elections. The Ivory Coast just got over one where an Incumbent refused to vacate his office and the incoming President had to fight a literal shooting war over who was the Rightful President of the Ivory Coast.

Even in America, the Election of Abraham Lincoln lead to the Secession of 13 American States to form the Confederate States of America, and a Civil War ensues.


If you really think Monarchy has the Drawback of Succession Crises that Republicanism avoids by its supposed peaceful transition of power, then you haven’t studied History too closely. The same sorts of Civil Wars over who should lead have broken out in Republics and tend to be more common in Republics.

Quote
The period during which monarchy perhaps operated closest to the ideal was the period from AD 97 (the accession of the Emperor Nerva) to AD 180 (the death of Marcus Aurelius), because, during this period the Empire was blessed with a line of childless Emperors who chose their successors by adoption from among the most able and worthy men available--Trajan, Hadrian, Antonius Pius, and Marcus Aurelius). But what happened then? Marcus had a biological son, Commodus, and the hereditary principle being too powerful to overcome, Commodus succeeded his father at the age of eighteen. In the subsequent twelve years he proved himself utterly incapable of ruling, and ended the way of so many failed Emperors--with a sword in his guts.

There then followed a period of more than a century in which no Emperor reigned longer than fifteen years, most less than two, almost all dying at the hands of assassins, during which time the Empire was invaded, impoverished and brought to the edge of ruin. The Emperor Diocletian attempted to circumvent the principle of hereditary succession by establishing the Tetrarchy, in which the senior emperor, the Augustus, selected a colleague to serve with him as Augustus. Each Augustus then selected a junior colleague to serve as Caesar, there being then four Emperors--two Augusti and two Caesari. But the entire system broke down within a year of Diocletian's retirement, because hereditary succession could not be avoided. There then followed about twenty years of civil war, after which Constantine was last man standing and sole emperor. He attempted to have his three surviving sons rule jointly, but within a couple of years, Constantine II and Constans were toast, and Constantius was last man standing. Needless to say, neither the Roman Empire nor its Byzantine successor ever found a solution to the problem of succession.

But in the Medieval period, when Monarchies had been established for Centuries, this didn’t happen and the Transition between the Old King to his Heir was usually far more Peaceful.

Your argument that only a short period from 97 AD to 180 AD lived up to the Ideal expectation is thus wrong.

We can also point to the success of the Chinese Emperors, or the Japanese Emperor who only lost his Powers after WW2 and still sits on his Throne as a Limited Cultural Monarch.

One can say the Japanese Emperors alone proved the success of the System, if not overwhelmed by a greater invading Power.

In England most Monarchs ascended the Tine without any Civil War breaking out or killing being Rampant, too. While we can look at the Tudor Dynasty or the English Civil War, those don’t represent the whole of the History of the English Monarchy.

I can’t recall the United Kingdom after 1701 having any succession Crises that lead to war.

The French Monarchy really didn’t have that many Problems either. Yes there were occasional Succession Crisis but most of the time there as peaceful Transition, and the Throne descended from Charlemagne.


The Roman Empire also had a drawback of not being a fully developed Monarchy at the time. Keep in mind they had formerly been a Republic, and even the elevation of Caesar was not to the Throne of Emperor, but o the position of Dictator for Life. The term Dictator had no Negative Connotations to them.

The Troubles in the Roman System were developed precisely because there was no succession Law and no clear understanding of how the Emperors should be selected, and because it was a Tie of Transition between an Ill defined Republic to an Ill Defined Empire.

Republicanism wouldn’t work as we practice it today if no Written constitution existed. If we just had a Vague notion of elected officials with two Houses being set up and a President, but no clear, defined powers for any of them, then the President may grow in power massively, or the Senate oppose him, and kill him if he tries too hard.

Had America never written the Constitution of the United States, and left it like Rome, with an Organic Government that was Malleable and changeable by mere Statute, then America would likely have collapsed into bloody Civil War with Presidents Routinely assassinated within a century of its Founding.

The example from the Roman Empire is thus actually an argument for Monarchy, as the UK has no Written Constitution and until people began to demand greater Democracy, the System worked well on precedent, Tradition, and Veneration of the Crown.

It can also be seen as an Argument for clear Laws and defined practices, and perhaps even Constitutionalism.

But it is not a good argument against Monarchy or for Republicanism, as the Republic of Rome was in disarray and blatantly corrupt prior to the Emperors, and the Assassination of Senators wasn’t exactly uncommon.


Quote
As for monarchies being immune from special interests, please, don't be naive. In addition to favoring one economic or geographic interest over another, monarchs are notorious for having personal favorites (look up "Piers Gaveston", for instance), on whom the shower all sorts of offices and perquisites, usually to the detriment of the kingdom. Kings are just as influenced by special interests as any other politician--they just aren't as accountable.




The “Usually to the Detriment of the Kingdom” line is not True. Most of the Time, a Kings Favourites did not really harm the Nation long term. In fact, they seldom did any harm to the Nation really.

I said Usually, so don’t show examples of where they did. It’d have to be shown that they usually did.

That said, this is still not the same as Special Interest as seen today. A Modern Special Interest group has power precisely because they command a Voting Block or large sums of Money that a Political Party or Individual Politician can then use to secure his position, but must do so in exchange for helping Said interest. This make shim beholden to them, and thus is corruptive.


A King who owes his position to Heredity can’t be plied by such promises and can’t be compromised by them.

As for him being unaccountable, again read your History. Kings often are answerable to their Lords and to Parliaments.

Monarchy need not be seen as unaccountable Government, just as a Republic like the Soviet Union proves a Republic can exist that is not accountable. And spare me the usual drivel of how the USSR was not a Real Republic, it was. It just wasn’t a nice one.

Posted By: Epiphanius Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 05/03/11 08:16 PM
Originally Posted by ZAROVE
... I never meant to convey that I thought a Monarch would be Sinless or that many men are Sinless, I know all men will sin. My point is that power does not intrinsically make one a Sinner where one was previosuly a Saint.

In other words, I don't think Power is in itself corruptive.
Zarove,

The key to this dilemma can be answered in one word--temptation. The person with more power will necessarily have more opportunities to abuse their power than the person with less, and increased opportunity brings an increased likelihood that one or more of those choices will look attractive.

David, King of Israel was a good example of this--a godly man who was often overcome by the temptations that his position afforded him.


Peace,
Deacon Richard
Posted By: ZAROVE Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 05/03/11 08:45 PM
Epiphanius, I concur. I just think that the adage of Power Corrupting is misguided in that there is nothing intrinsic to Power alone that causes us to Sin. We sin anyway. Power just supplies a mean to sin and since of both availability and means to cover it up or bulldoze over complications.

Posted By: Latin Catholic Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 05/03/11 09:39 PM
I don't care for either democracy or monarchy. Rule by "the people" or rule by one man can equally go wrong. The only solution is the separation of powers within a constitutional monarchy/republic. As such, both the United States and the United Kingdom are working as well as can be expected (no human institutions are perfect anyway).
Posted By: Scotty Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 05/04/11 12:44 AM
Quote
[/quote]But its not the Genius of the Republican form of Government. If it were then the form itself would porevent the DeChristianisation proccess, but it dint in France or Russia.
Quote
Not all republics are built the same! Don't clump all republics into one nice mold.
Quote
However, they are also not Truly studying it with an open Mind and letting Christianity form them, they are molding Christianity to fit their own personal visions of what its suppose to mean, just as they mold America's Founding Vision into what they want it to be.
Quote
You can make that argument about all nations for all time! That problem is not germane to the US only! Didn't Medieval Kingdoms mold or interpret the Gospels to view Serfdom as morally acceptable and a good and positive development? The fact is people read and view the world through a cultural context. And a good part of culture is formed from our physical environment.
Quote
You conflate, with regret, American Foreign Policy with American citizenry's.
Quote
This is debatable, but for arguments sake, I will withdraw this statement from my argument.
Quote
But I never advocated forcing people to believe. I advocated the Government encouraging proper morals and Christianity, but Promotion is not compulsion.[quote]
So you wouldn't have a state run religion? IF not thats a positive.
Posted By: Scotty Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 05/04/11 01:14 AM
Quote
[/quote]You do know that up till recently More Canadians attended Church percentage wise than Americans, Right?
At this time who is attending church more percentage? U.S.!
[quote]
n case you had forgotten to read your History books, King George the Third was not an Absolute Monarch who ruled alone and by decree. Britain has had representative Government for Centuries longer than America has existed.

While the Neo-Feudalism would require giving up Representative Government, Constitutional Monarchy doesn’t.

Under your system the Senate and governors would be replaced by appointments, that's called losing representation. Not all representation but more than half of what we have now!

Zarove, this has been a good discussion but I think it has run its course of usefulness. I am no closer to changing my mind than I think you are, so I will agree to disagree! I will say that Constitutional Monarchies can form good governments! But do not forget the history of strong Monarchs, Edward I (Longshanks), Henry VIII, Charles I, Napoleon B.,King Philip of France, Vlad III the Impaler, and this is to name JUST a FEW. Also remember the 80 Years War! None of these were shining examples of what good Christian Kings and Queens should be!
Good Day Sir!
Posted By: ZAROVE Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 05/04/11 01:16 AM
Scotty, isn’t it a bit disingenuous to say that not all Republics are the same when a lot of your Historical complaints on Monarchy would naturally assume all Monarchies are the same?

Why lump all Monarchies together?


That said, I’d allow the Churches Autonomy. They’d sit in Government, but not be subject to Parliamentary Rule over their own affairs. They’d serve as the Conscience of Society with power in the Lords. They’d have real power and a Vote, and not be interfered with internally by the King or Parliament.

Posted By: ZAROVE Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 05/05/11 12:20 AM
Scotty, one last then.


Emphasis added by me.


Quote
Zarove, this has been a good discussion but I think it has run its course of usefulness. I am no closer to changing my mind than I think you are, so I will agree to disagree! I will say that Constitutional Monarchies can form good governments! But do not forget the history of strong Monarchs, Edward I (Longshanks), Henry VIII, Charles I, Napoleon B.,King Philip of France, Vlad III the Impaler, and this is to name JUST a FEW. Also remember the 80 Years War! None of these were shining examples of what good Christian Kings and Queens should be!
Good Day Sir!

Those two are bolded as they don't belong on this list.

While napoleon was for the most part an Atheist, and certainly a terror to rival Nations. he is to France a hero. He overturned the Violent excesses of the Jacobins and restored law and Orer to France, and despite his own rejection of Christianity he still allowed far greater Freedom to practice it than did the Republic.

His Napoleonic Law Code was also brilliant.

I realise Americans also would interpret any Story in which a struggle existed between Republican Revolutionaries and a Monarchy in a manner that made the Republicans Heroes and the Monarch the Villain, but King Charles the First is regarded as a Saint in the Anglican Church and his 14 years of personal Rule were seen in retrospect as a sort of Golden Era in which all was Well in the Kingdom. He was actually a good King and Good Christian who was interested in the liberty of his People. The fact that he was overthrown and executed is not evidence that the was a Tyrant and the New Model Army fought for Liberty.

Why they are included as examples of bad Monarchs I don't know.

Edward the First shouldn’t really be on this list either. Yes he's the Villain in the movie Braveheart, but he really was one of England’s better Kings, and didn't really behave in a manner that was inconsistent with the Times he lived in. Scotland saw him as an interloper but it should be remembered that he had been initially invited to intervene to settle a Succession dispute, and was really caught in the middle of a war. He was not just a vile tyrant and conqueror.

Back in England he was also known as a Just Ruler.

He also really shouldn’t be on this list. He didn’t fight Mel Gibson and the movie version is historically Rubbish.


That said, one can also list bad Republican rules, some of which Ironically are called "Monarchs" now to show how bad Monarchy is. EG, in a recent discussion with a new Friend one listed Mubarack as a bad King to show why Monarchy is easily made into a Tyranny. Never mind that he was a President.

But lets look at Republicanism. What about Joseph Stalin? Or Chairman Mao? Or Pol Pot? What about Hugo Chavez? Roppispierre? Hitler? Saddam Hussein? Benito Mussolini? Oliver Cromwell? (Fitting as St. King Charles the First was listed.)

Even some we call "Heroes" were really Tyrants, EG. Abraham Lincoln and Benito Juarez.

Listing bad Kings is not the same as showing Monarchy as evil, even Strong Monarchy. One can list ,any Strong Monarchs who were good, EG, Edward the Confessor, King Alfred, Charlemagne, King Louis the First, of France, Tzar Nicolas the first of the Russias, Queen Elizabeth he First, of Happy Memory, and many, many more.


Listing good Republican Rulers is also not the same as proving Republics are good, as just as many Villains can be named.

The real questions are, how low are the Taxes, how secure are people in their land and belongings, and how well are they Treated? How moral are they? How just is their society?



Even the most wanton and decadent of Kings, living The most Hedonistic and Degenerate of lives, surrounding by women he beds frequently and constantly drunk on the best Wins, who spends his day in the Sinful delights of the Flesh, if he costs the Taxpayer little and if he secures for his people a continuation of Just law and their personal Liberty, is far better than a Devoutly Pious President who nevertheless Taxes his People heavily and removes form them the security in their own property, and who administers a Government of injustice and inequity.



Posted By: ZAROVE Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 05/05/11 03:24 AM
Oh one last addendum.

Vlad the Impailer wasn't that bad either. His fearsome reputation was mainly the product of his treatment of his Enemies, the Turks. His brutality was however necessary to secure his own Kingdom, and in Romania he is remembered as a Hero.

Often, it seems, we make Villains out of other peoples Heroes then use them to prove some sort of point, forgetting how they will be seen by others.

Posted By: Systratiotes Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 05/05/11 03:25 PM
It surely seems to me that were it not for Vlad III's stubborn resistance, the invading Ottomans would have made deeper inroads into medieval Europe than they did. After the fall of Constantinople in 1453, Vlad Tepes stood between the advancing Ottoman Turks and the Hungarian Empire. I do not defend Vlad's capricious excess. But even considering his limited resources, Vlad certainly protected eastern Europe from Islam for a time. Thus he gave the Hungarian Holy Emperor opportunity to prepare his own forces to withstand the Turks.

Those were uncertain times.

Μεθ ημων ο Θεος, γνωτε εθνη και ηττασθε

μιχαηλ
Posted By: Epiphanius Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 05/05/11 03:31 PM
Originally Posted by ZAROVE
Even the most wanton and decadent of Kings, living The most Hedonistic and Degenerate of lives, surrounding by women he beds frequently and constantly drunk on the best Wins, who spends his day in the Sinful delights of the Flesh, if he costs the Taxpayer little and if he secures for his people a continuation of Just law and their personal Liberty, is far better than a Devoutly Pious President who nevertheless Taxes his People heavily and removes form them the security in their own property, and who administers a Government of injustice and inequity.
Zarove,

Would it not be true to state it this way?
Quote
A notoriously wanton and decadent King or President who executes his authority with justice (assuming this is possible) is preferable to a Devoutly Pious King or President who administers a Government of injustice and inequity.
No one would deny the hypothetical truth of this statement, although many would challenge its probability.

Still, you seem to be implying that a King is more likely to rule fairly, even if he is personally lacking in moral character, than a President, even if he has moral character. I really don't think you can make a case for such an assertion.


Peace,
Deacon Richard
Posted By: ZAROVE Re: RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy. - 05/05/11 06:33 PM
My point was only threefold.

1: Monarchies have not really been more oppressive or dictatorial than have Republics. While we today are told they were, and thus one of the main reasons Republicanism is better, History shows otherwise. it should also be noted that all Republics have jumped onto the Revolutionary cry for Liberty, and even the Soviet Union depicted itself as Freedom, and the Oktober Revolution as break from a corrupt and Tyrannical Tzar. Simply saying “Monarchy is Tyranny, WE WANT THE LIBERTY OF A REPUBLIC!” is not sufficient to prove that Monarchy is in fact more Tyrannical.


I have simply not seen from my reading of History evidence that a Monarchy would be more likely to restrict Freedom, and usually the opposite is True.

Look at the examples Scotty has given. Most of them really weren’t that bad at all, and even King Philip of France had his pluses to consider. However, if you are sold on the Republican ideal its easy to then buy into the Propagandistic version of History that would shore up that view, by believing all the negative press one can throw at any given Monarch, whilst ignoring the same complaints can exist even against the most revered of Elected Leaders. EG, one can easily complain in the same fashion about Thomas Jefferson.

The assumption that these Kings were bad is easy to make when you assume the Automatic Superiority of a Republic, just as its easy to assume that some Heroes pushing for a Republic were just and moral.

History really is not so easy though.






2: While I am not saying that a President would necessarily be bad or a Tyrant, or that its more likely that a Pius President would be a Tyrant than a Hedonistic Monarch, the opposite is also true. a Pious and Devour King would be much less likely to be a Tyrant than would a Hedonistic and self serving Politician who is elected president of a Nation.

I simply see no reason to assume that by mere Virtue of being a Monarch, a man would be much more likely to be a Tyrant. I actually think that this makes him much less Likely to be a Tyrant.


3: Actually, a case can be made for the idea that a Morally Corrupt King being less likely to be a Tyrant than a president even if said President was Morally upright personally.

Look at the contrasts between Morally Pious Oliver Cromwell, and Morally hedonistic Charles the Second. Charles may not have been the most moral of men, but he granted far, far greater Liberty than did Cromwell in his Zeal to eradicate what he saw as impure Christianity or Pagan practices, and his Treatment of the Irish Alone for their stalwart refusal to abandon Catholicism is nothing less than atrocious.


Monarchies function by nature on Tradition. Republics function by Nature on a constant struggle and shifts in balances of Power. A Monarch is not elected by the People but either inherits the Throne or is chosen in a conclave by a limited number of Electors from the ranks of those with proven service. There is no competition for the Throne on average, and while contested Thrones have lead to struggles, even wars, the Truth is that these events are much less likely to occur in a Functional and established Monarchy than sometimes its Imagined, and in general Ambition, Greed, and political compromise to win support are simply not as often employed. That’s not to say they are fully absent, but they aren’t the business of the Day as they are in Republics.



This is also true: A Monarch may find it in his own best interest to promote the old Order and thus to secure existing precedents in Law than would an Elected President who is under constant demand for reform or Change of some Kind. At the very least, a King not uninterested in actual Governance and who is more interested in his own pleasures will simply fall back on Precedence to make things run more smoothly, while its highly unlikely a President could be lax and achieve the position he is in as running for office demands Ambition. You will thus not find Lazy Presidents who simply le the Machines run as hey always have with Minimal Effort, he is compelled both by the forces that placed him in power, and his own Ideological Desires, to enact a constant series of Reforms in order to both Justify his Position and to secure the Goals that he had established for himself in order to run for President.

I’d actually argue that its more likely for a Democratically Elected leader to be a Tyrant than a Monarch for this reason. This is true even for those who are Morally Just and run, as opposed to an Immoral Monarch. Rather than being less likely because he’s a common man elected by the people to represent them, he’s more likely as by definition he’s in power because of a special interest he represents, a Numerical superiority to a rival at voting day, and his own desire to hold the office.

While a King has power Automatically bestowed upon him, and is thus not beholden to said groups and is less likely to be swayed by offers from them as they can give him nothing, in general. A King is also not inherently an ideologue who came to office on the Promises of some Social Change or to favour some partisan Agenda, and thus has no real need to secure his position by catering to that interest.

While it is certainly preferable to have a Morally Just man lead us whether this man is elected, appointed, or Hereditarily placed, and while it is also True that morally corrupt men will sometimes occupy the offices, I simply don’t see the great advantage of a republic in minimising the impact in Immoral Conduct, especially as I see the actual partisan nature of republican politics as itself morally corrosive on society, as well as this underpinned Logic which leads to nothing more than the Randian Rational Self Interest conclusion.

© The Byzantine Forum