French monarchy and Catholic Traditionalism
Well, another monarchy thread...

It's clear to me that monarchy is the "best of all governments", like Pius VI said, abuses notwithstanding. History proves it.

These discussions add up to nothing because everyone has already made up their minds. Republicans will point out to the deficiencies of the monarchical system, monarchists will point out to the deficiencies of the republican (and sometimes the democratic) system ad nauseam. In the end, it's all a matter of the will: you'll have to make up your mind on it.

My advice for those interested is to read abundantly on political philosophy and history. Interesting stuff.

Here's a short FAQ on monarchy: http://www.angelfire.com/in3/theodore/op...onfaq.html
Reply
(06-13-2011, 11:30 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: Well, another monarchy thread...

It's clear to me that monarchy is the "best of all governments", like Pius VI said, abuses notwithstanding. History proves it.

These discussions add up to nothing because everyone has already made up their minds. Republicans will point out to the deficiencies of the monarchical system, monarchists will point out to the deficiencies of the republican (and sometimes the democratic) system ad nauseam. In the end, it's all a matter of the will: you'll have to make up your mind on it.

My advice for those interested is to read abundantly on political philosophy and history. Interesting stuff.

Here's a short FAQ on monarchy: http://www.angelfire.com/in3/theodore/op...onfaq.html

This is a good section:

Quote:8. The notion that people can simply inherit power over me bothers me. Isn't voting an effective tool for checks and balances? Doesn't it ensure competence?

I am sorry that you are bothered! After all, you have no control over the selection of your IRS auditor, and innumerable other folk who have more power over you than any Medieval King could have hoped to. But there are two answers to this first question.

The primary one is that, well, not to sound odd, but God gives the Kings a people deserve. The hereditary principle leaves the choice of paramount power to the Almighty; it has been claimed that an attempt to elect him is a denial of providence.

On a more mundane level, the truth is, it works better, and for longer periods. In the words of the saintly Spanish priest, Fr. Jaime Balmes, in his European Civilisation (p. 143):

    Regarding things in the abstract, there is nothing more strikingly absurd than hereditary monarchy, the succession secured to a family which may at any time place on the throne a fool, a child, or a wretch: and yet in practise there is nothing more wise, prudent, and provident. This has been taught by the long experience of ages, it has been shown by reason, and proved by the sad warnings of those nations who have tried elective monarchy. Now what is the cause of this? It is what we are endeavouring to explain. Hereditary Monarchy precludes all hopes of irregular ambition; without that, society always contains a germ of trouble, a principle of revolt, which is nourished by those who conceive a hope of one day obtaining the command. In quiet times, and under an hereditary Monarchy, a subject, however rich, however distinguished he may be for his talent or his valour, cannot, without madness, hope to be King; and such a thought never enters his head. But change the circumstances---admit, I will not say the probability, but the possibility of such an event, and you will see that there will immediately be ardent candidates.

Of course, the strife that conflicting parties cause is endemic to the modern state; the welfare of the people is always the first thing to be sacrificed in preparation for the next coup, election, or however the particular republic customarily changes its head of state. It is almost a maxim that those who strive for high office are the least worthy of it.

Elections, long experience shows, do not really provide checks and balances---reflect on the abortion question, as an example. Such a key issue, which goes to the very heart of the power of the State and the meaning of humanity, has never, in the United States, been referred to the ballot box. And even if it were, is the definition of human life something one wants decided by vote? Could it not be altered just as easily? In any case, important questions are rarely decided by the people.

One of the problems with the Presidency, and most of the other high offices in the Republic, is that by the very nature of elections, you probably have to be a megalomaniac to pursue it with a chance of winning.  In hereditary government, you have the possibility that someone who doesn't want it will gain power.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)