Why a Catholic Monarchy?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-04-2015, 09:47 AM
RE: Why a Catholic Monarchy?
(15-04-2015 12:32 PM)LaramieHirsch Wrote:  I read about someone supporting direct democracy today, and I thought of an interesting question.

Which form of government of these three choices would be held most accountable and would be the most DIFFICULT to corrupt?

Representative democracy
Direct democracy
Constitutional monarchy

In what order would you put them in terms of government accountability?

Why do you think this?

It's a silly question in a vacuum. Any system that allows people to better themselves at the expense of others is going to be prone to corruption and a lack of accountability. But, a monarchy is the most likely to result in corruption and lack of accountability because a monarch is born to his position and, therefore, is not beholden to his or her people.

As for the idea of a Catholic Monarchy, I give to you the modern Catholic Church. There is no greater example of a lack of morality and accountability than the current Catholic Monarchy that sits in Vatican City. The fact that, for decades, they ignored local laws and the needs of their parishioners and protected and hid pedophiles is proof of that. There is no entity on this planet, including Isis and Al Queda, that I find more morally corrupt and bankrupt than the Catholic Church.

And, you fantasize about these people having more power? I'm a pretty passive and easy going guy, the very idea of that would get me to take up arms and engage in active rebellion.

As for the idea that Europe is worse off if the nation states disappear, I disagree. European nations have caused more bloodshed and suffering than any other groups in history. The wars and carnage step back over 1,000 years. And, let's not forget the role the Catholic Church played in a whole lot of that. The idea that the world is worse off is Europeans are less focused on the accident of birth location is laughable.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like BnW's post
18-04-2015, 01:54 PM
RE: Why a Catholic Monarchy?
(17-04-2015 08:45 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(17-04-2015 08:39 AM)Chas Wrote:  It's been done. It didn't work out well. Drinking Beverage

Next time will be better Dodgy Inquisitor will be a regular job just like any other. No more dungeons. Just big airy rooms with gym-like equipment where you can torture people over your morning coffee.

Yeah, good point - what could possibly go wrong? Angel

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-04-2015, 04:47 PM
RE: Why a Catholic Monarchy?
When this question first came to me, I could see the conclusion that Res Publica came to. In a representative democracy, you can have seemingly endless factions fighting for their own independent causes and creating trouble within the realm. Just look at the United States. We have two houses of government, each filled with different lobbying groups who fight for their own interests. Different groups and cliques within Congress have their own plans and schemes. The courts are the same way. You have the different circut courts and different justices with their own different agendas. And then, of course, you have the president. Every 4-8 years, we tend to switch parties to a new guy with his own plans and agendas. There's a TON of space to create your own little corrupt bubble.

In a direct democracy, you cut through all of that. The citizenry just votes for what they want, and there's less of a chance for the masses to be betrayed by their so-called representatives. I think that what Hafnof says is true; it could be best to have two parties to keep one group of people in a nation from dominating the other. But you can still have that in a direct democracy. I don't see any reason you couldn't have different political parties in direct democracy.

Of course, though I think a direct democracy would have less chance for corruption than representative democracy. As morondog was getting at, there is less separation of powers in a direct democracy, as opposed to a representative. However, at this point, I really don't like the idea of New York City and Los Angeles choosing what my country will look like. So at present, I'm glad we don't have direct democracy. Even if it'd be more accountable for whatever corruption it had.

Of course, in thinking about accountability in government, I started thinking how that would work out in a Monarchy, since I toss the idea around in my mind more often than most. Res Publica is right in making the distinctions of different monarchical systems. I should have just stated true monarchy instead of constitutional monarchy. True monarchy is what I had in mind.

For now, I have a completely different conclusion from what morondog stated in post #72. Since there would be no separation of powers at all in a true monarchy, and a king was ruling over everything, all accountability would fall upon him. Sure, there would be men in court who would connive to influence the king. However, I think there would be far less "armies of influence" in a true monarchy. Far less than all of the special interest lobbyists that we have in the United States. For this reason, if people didn't like the king, they'd gather en masse, take him out of his chamber, and then behead him.

Don't you think?

-

Excl On the ignore list: Taqiyya Mockingbird, Minimalist, DemonicLemon, GirlyMan, WhiskeyDebates, and EvolutionKills.
-
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-04-2015, 05:07 PM
RE: Why a Catholic Monarchy?
No, I don't think that's what would happen. I think the far more likely outcome is what usually has - the monarch keeps power through force and shuts down any dissent or opposition quickly and violently, the way dictators and monarchs have always put down dissent an opposition.

Reading your posts is like reading all the 20th century dictators of the 20th century before they seized power. They all made the same argument about he inefficiency of representation, the special interests, the different factions jockeying for power, and how focusing power in a single individual would cut through all that, for the good of the people. It never seems to work out for the people, though and always seems to work out for the dictator/monarch. Just because you refuse to acknowledge history doesn't make it go away for the rest of us.

I have zero interest in living under a monarchy and start to shake with disgust and anger at the mere thought of the Catholic Church having any influence or power over my life.

Btw, what do I have to say to get on the ignore list?

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-04-2015, 05:34 PM
RE: Why a Catholic Monarchy?
(18-04-2015 04:47 PM)LaramieHirsch Wrote:  When this question first came to me, I could see the conclusion that Res Publica came to. In a representative democracy, you can have seemingly endless factions fighting for their own independent causes and creating trouble within the realm. Just look at the United States. We have two houses of government, each filled with different lobbying groups who fight for their own interests. Different groups and cliques within Congress have their own plans and schemes. The courts are the same way. You have the different circut courts and different justices with their own different agendas. And then, of course, you have the president. Every 4-8 years, we tend to switch parties to a new guy with his own plans and agendas. There's a TON of space to create your own little corrupt bubble.

In a direct democracy, you cut through all of that. The citizenry just votes for what they want, and there's less of a chance for the masses to be betrayed by their so-called representatives. I think that what Hafnof says is true; it could be best to have two parties to keep one group of people in a nation from dominating the other. But you can still have that in a direct democracy. I don't see any reason you couldn't have different political parties in direct democracy.

Of course, though I think a direct democracy would have less chance for corruption than representative democracy. As morondog was getting at, there is less separation of powers in a direct democracy, as opposed to a representative. However, at this point, I really don't like the idea of New York City and Los Angeles choosing what my country will look like. So at present, I'm glad we don't have direct democracy. Even if it'd be more accountable for whatever corruption it had.

Of course, in thinking about accountability in government, I started thinking how that would work out in a Monarchy, since I toss the idea around in my mind more often than most. Res Publica is right in making the distinctions of different monarchical systems. I should have just stated true monarchy instead of constitutional monarchy. True monarchy is what I had in mind.

For now, I have a completely different conclusion from what morondog stated in post #72. Since there would be no separation of powers at all in a true monarchy, and a king was ruling over everything, all accountability would fall upon him. Sure, there would be men in court who would connive to influence the king. However, I think there would be far less "armies of influence" in a true monarchy. Far less than all of the special interest lobbyists that we have in the United States. For this reason, if people didn't like the king, they'd gather en masse, take him out of his chamber, and then behead him.

Don't you think?

I suggest you read European history. If you did, you would see that your idea is idiotic. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
18-04-2015, 05:37 PM
RE: Why a Catholic Monarchy?
Maybe this has been said already, I'm being lazy.
If there were going to be a theocratic monarchy, it would most likely be Catholic.
They have the money, influence, and infrastructure to pull it off.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-04-2015, 06:22 PM
RE: Why a Catholic Monarchy?
(18-04-2015 05:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(18-04-2015 04:47 PM)LaramieHirsch Wrote:  When this question first came to me, I could see the conclusion that Res Publica came to. In a representative democracy, you can have seemingly endless factions fighting for their own independent causes and creating trouble within the realm. Just look at the United States. We have two houses of government, each filled with different lobbying groups who fight for their own interests. Different groups and cliques within Congress have their own plans and schemes. The courts are the same way. You have the different circut courts and different justices with their own different agendas. And then, of course, you have the president. Every 4-8 years, we tend to switch parties to a new guy with his own plans and agendas. There's a TON of space to create your own little corrupt bubble.

In a direct democracy, you cut through all of that. The citizenry just votes for what they want, and there's less of a chance for the masses to be betrayed by their so-called representatives. I think that what Hafnof says is true; it could be best to have two parties to keep one group of people in a nation from dominating the other. But you can still have that in a direct democracy. I don't see any reason you couldn't have different political parties in direct democracy.

Of course, though I think a direct democracy would have less chance for corruption than representative democracy. As morondog was getting at, there is less separation of powers in a direct democracy, as opposed to a representative. However, at this point, I really don't like the idea of New York City and Los Angeles choosing what my country will look like. So at present, I'm glad we don't have direct democracy. Even if it'd be more accountable for whatever corruption it had.

Of course, in thinking about accountability in government, I started thinking how that would work out in a Monarchy, since I toss the idea around in my mind more often than most. Res Publica is right in making the distinctions of different monarchical systems. I should have just stated true monarchy instead of constitutional monarchy. True monarchy is what I had in mind.

For now, I have a completely different conclusion from what morondog stated in post #72. Since there would be no separation of powers at all in a true monarchy, and a king was ruling over everything, all accountability would fall upon him. Sure, there would be men in court who would connive to influence the king. However, I think there would be far less "armies of influence" in a true monarchy. Far less than all of the special interest lobbyists that we have in the United States. For this reason, if people didn't like the king, they'd gather en masse, take him out of his chamber, and then behead him.

Don't you think?

I suggest you read European history. If you did, you would see that your idea is idiotic. Drinking Beverage

I think what he is suggests is a violent and bizarre form of democracy where you have an autocracy, but everyone is armed. The autocracy will be overthrown and killed if they don't do what the people want.

I prefer voting to killing myself.

Paleoliberal • English Nationalist • Zionist • Rightist • Anti-Islam • Neoconservative • Republican • Linguistic Revivalist and Purist

Happily Divorced from the Left!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-04-2015, 07:55 PM
RE: Why a Catholic Monarchy?
(18-04-2015 04:47 PM)LaramieHirsch Wrote:  When this question first came to me, I could see the conclusion that Res Publica came to. In a representative democracy, you can have seemingly endless factions fighting for their own independent causes and creating trouble within the realm. Just look at the United States. We have two houses of government, each filled with different lobbying groups who fight for their own interests. Different groups and cliques within Congress have their own plans and schemes. The courts are the same way. You have the different circut courts and different justices with their own different agendas. And then, of course, you have the president. Every 4-8 years, we tend to switch parties to a new guy with his own plans and agendas. There's a TON of space to create your own little corrupt bubble.

In a direct democracy, you cut through all of that. The citizenry just votes for what they want, and there's less of a chance for the masses to be betrayed by their so-called representatives. I think that what Hafnof says is true; it could be best to have two parties to keep one group of people in a nation from dominating the other. But you can still have that in a direct democracy. I don't see any reason you couldn't have different political parties in direct democracy.

Of course, though I think a direct democracy would have less chance for corruption than representative democracy. As morondog was getting at, there is less separation of powers in a direct democracy, as opposed to a representative. However, at this point, I really don't like the idea of New York City and Los Angeles choosing what my country will look like. So at present, I'm glad we don't have direct democracy. Even if it'd be more accountable for whatever corruption it had.

Of course, in thinking about accountability in government, I started thinking how that would work out in a Monarchy, since I toss the idea around in my mind more often than most. Res Publica is right in making the distinctions of different monarchical systems. I should have just stated true monarchy instead of constitutional monarchy. True monarchy is what I had in mind.

For now, I have a completely different conclusion from what morondog stated in post #72. Since there would be no separation of powers at all in a true monarchy, and a king was ruling over everything, all accountability would fall upon him. Sure, there would be men in court who would connive to influence the king. However, I think there would be far less "armies of influence" in a true monarchy. Far less than all of the special interest lobbyists that we have in the United States. For this reason, if people didn't like the king, they'd gather en masse, take him out of his chamber, and then behead him.

Don't you think?

No. It's very clear YOU don't think. The houses of government are not "filled with different lobbying groups". You seem to be unaware of what a lobbyist actually is. Diversity is a boon to democracy, (something which I'm sure a retro-Catholic does not get). Why the comments about the courts ? Are you suggesting that in your monarchy the your holy Jebus king would be the judge too ? Facepalm

"For this reason, if people didn't like the king, they'd gather en masse, take him out of his chamber, and then behead him."

You really are a fucking idiot. And THEN what happens ? You actually think everyone would agree to behead him/her ? Your idiot idea is a recipe for total anarchy.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
18-04-2015, 08:31 PM
RE: Why a Catholic Monarchy?
(18-04-2015 05:07 PM)BnW Wrote:  I think the far more likely outcome is what usually has - the monarch keeps power through force and shuts down any dissent or opposition quickly and violently, the way dictators and monarchs have always put down dissent an opposition.

Yes. But even if the monarch were to do such a thing, he would be the one performing the evil. He would be the one retaining power. He would be the one using force and shutting down dissent. There would be no questions as to who all is to blame for the realm's problems. The blame for such a scenario would lie squarely on the king. Don't you agree?

-

Excl On the ignore list: Taqiyya Mockingbird, Minimalist, DemonicLemon, GirlyMan, WhiskeyDebates, and EvolutionKills.
-
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-04-2015, 08:41 PM
RE: Why a Catholic Monarchy?
(18-04-2015 08:31 PM)LaramieHirsch Wrote:  
(18-04-2015 05:07 PM)BnW Wrote:  I think the far more likely outcome is what usually has - the monarch keeps power through force and shuts down any dissent or opposition quickly and violently, the way dictators and monarchs have always put down dissent an opposition.

Yes. But even if the monarch were to do such a thing, he would be the one performing the evil. He would be the one retaining power. He would be the one using force and shutting down dissent. There would be no questions as to who all is to blame for the realm's problems. The blame for such a scenario would lie squarely on the king. Don't you agree?

"We're fucked, but it's all this one guy's fault, so that's OK, at least we know who to blame" ? Rolleyes I think you're trolling at this point.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: