Which form of government is the best?
#1
From a philosophical perspective (i.e. based on rational considerations that are universal among civilized societies, and not considering the particular situation of any specific country) which form of government is the best?
Reply
#2
It seems to me that a society will function best if the people with political power are virtuous and competent, so it seems that a society should restrict political power to those who meet certain standards of virtuousity (acceptance of the Catholic faith and explicit acknowledgement of certain Catholic teachings and adherence to certain moral rules, the exact specification of which should be determined based on the particular circumstances of the nation) and who are sane. Furthermore it seems that needless further restrictions on political power would be useless, since they likely would not in any way increase the virtuousity or competence of the holders of political power. Now since it is in general better to have leaders who are less concerned with their own power, so that they might be more concerned with the common good, it seems that power should not be restricted to those who seek it, but that the person's desires for or against power be irrelevant. So it seems that the exercise of power ought to be compulsory. Now, since human nature is inclined to selfishness, it seems that power should be spread among these competent and virtuous people to the greatest extent possible, so that the leaders be not self serving. So it seems that power should be divided amongst multiple different officials, chosen from among the politically empowered. Now the question arises of how to choose the leaders. As has been demonstrated above, it would not be good for the leaders to volunteer for their positions, so it seems that either they should be chosen randomly, or candidates for their offices should be chosen randomly (from among the virtuous and compotent). Now the first solution would evidently produce problems, since the very fringe of acceptability could be chosen, so it seems that the second choice is better. Now arises the question of how to choose between the candidates. It seems that this must either be done by a general election or by a decision of a special committee. Now the general public is more susceptible to fallacies and the like, and it would be harder to compel voting among the general public, so it seems that special committees should choose. Now the question arises of how to choose the members of the committees. Since the committees would only have the task of conducting elections and since they would be composed of multiple different members, it would seem safe to choose the committees' members randomly (from among the virtuous and competent). Thus it seems that a mix of meritocracy and lottery as described above would be the best form of government.
Reply
#3
a catholic monarchy with a distributist economic system would be best.
Reply
#4
A Republican city state for all large cities and a Monarchy for the farmlands only. Both are corrupt but by limiting them in size we can right injustices provided they are that very small. The monarchies should be about the size of Rhode Island. They both kinds of government should be under a very loose federation for times of war.

tim
Reply
#5
(09-05-2013, 10:20 AM)guacamole Wrote: a catholic monarchy with a distributist economic system would be best.

(09-05-2013, 10:48 AM)Tim Wrote: A Republican city state for all large cities and a Monarchy for the farmlands only. Both are corrupt but by limiting them in size we can right injustices provided they are that very small. The monarchies should be about the size of Rhode Island. They both kinds of government should be under a very loose federation for times of war.

tim

Why do you think that these forms of government are the best?
Reply
#6
(09-05-2013, 11:15 AM)devoutchristian Wrote: Why do you think that these forms of government are the best?

i don't believe in the wisdom of majorities.  also, our republic has been captured by political parties ('factions,' which the federalist papers falsely predicted would not happen), lobbies and by the military-industrial complex (as Eisenhower warned).  a catholic monarchy would more reliably govern according to the natural law.  it could be truly wise in its decisions.

Federalist Papers #10 on factions (political parties).

Reply
#7
(09-05-2013, 11:27 AM)guacamole Wrote:
(09-05-2013, 11:15 AM)devoutchristian Wrote: Why do you think that these forms of government are the best?

i don't believe in the wisdom of majorities.  also, our republic has been captured by political parties ('factions,' which the federalist papers falsely predicted would not happen), lobbies and by the military-industrial complex (as Eisenhower warned).  a catholic monarchy would more reliably govern according to the natural law.  it could be truly wise in its decisions.

I don't believe in the wisdom of majorities either, that's why I said that power should be restricted to the virtuous. The problem with a monarchy is that an evil monarch could ascend to the throne. Also, the system I proposed would eliminate the power of parties and lobbies.
Reply
#8
(09-05-2013, 11:36 AM)devoutchristian Wrote: I don't believe in the wisdom of majorities either, that's why I said that power should be restricted to the virtuous. The problem with a monarchy is that an evil monarch could ascend to the throne. Also, the system I proposed would eliminate the power of parties and lobbies.

yes, that is always a danger with a monarchy.

but who decides who 'the virtuous' are?  'the virtuous,' right?  we already have that.  it's called the obama administration.
Reply
#9
Because we all suffer from Original Sin, all forms of government are corrupt. We should be suspicious of all of them especially Monarchies which God Almighty warned against. Gotta go my char ladies want me to move.

tim
Reply
#10
(09-05-2013, 11:41 AM)guacamole Wrote:
(09-05-2013, 11:36 AM)devoutchristian Wrote: I don't believe in the wisdom of majorities either, that's why I said that power should be restricted to the virtuous. The problem with a monarchy is that an evil monarch could ascend to the throne. Also, the system I proposed would eliminate the power of parties and lobbies.

but who decides who 'the virtuous' are?

We have that problem in our present society as well, deciding which criminals have forfeited their right to vote.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)