Which form of government is the best?
#31
How about a parliamentary commonwealth?

The government exists to guarantee an unchanging set of social standards and values, and the parliament produces statesmen who democratically decide what is the best way those standards and values are enforced and protected and who is most suited for doing that.  Naturally the standards would be Catholic.
Reply
#32
Magister Musicae Wrote:I wasn't presuming to quote Rousseau, but paraphrase ... Payne is the logical outcome of Rousseau, Hobbes, etc. so that he actually used those words is no surprise.

A society is traditionally (for the scholastics) defined as a permanent group of men working together for a under a common authority for common goal.

A family is a society, but is not a perfect society (Not in the sense of "deficient", but because it depends on other units to fulfill its ends). It cannot provide for all of the temporal needs of its members.

For example, the State (a perfect society) provides such things as laws to regulate commerce between people, the ability to punish criminals, a common defense against enemies. A family cannot do that. A family, for instance, cannot inflict the death penalty for a crime, and cannot provide a common defense against enemies. Further, if we had many families all living independently of each other on the civil level, there would be no society.

A hermit is not a society because he is alone, there is no authority and no common goal.

A monastery in itself is not a perfect society, because it is a kind of family, like a family, it lacks certain qualities that a State possesses.

The qualities the State possesses are arbitrary and unnecessary.  Defence, law enforcement, and courts are things that can be privatized, and often were throughout history. The most dangerous enemy in fact is the State itself, since it uses organized violence against innocent people to achieve its ends.

For example, what possible reason would there be for a Bavarian Catholic farmer minding his business to go kill a French Catholic farmer minding his business?  None whatsoever. They could become great friends and benefit from trade. Yet the State through its magical authority has managed to pit them against each other in several wars. 
Reply
#33
(09-07-2013, 11:00 PM)PeterII Wrote:
Magister Musicae Wrote:I wasn't presuming to quote Rousseau, but paraphrase ... Payne is the logical outcome of Rousseau, Hobbes, etc. so that he actually used those words is no surprise.

A society is traditionally (for the scholastics) defined as a permanent group of men working together for a under a common authority for common goal.

A family is a society, but is not a perfect society (Not in the sense of "deficient", but because it depends on other units to fulfill its ends). It cannot provide for all of the temporal needs of its members.

For example, the State (a perfect society) provides such things as laws to regulate commerce between people, the ability to punish criminals, a common defense against enemies. A family cannot do that. A family, for instance, cannot inflict the death penalty for a crime, and cannot provide a common defense against enemies. Further, if we had many families all living independently of each other on the civil level, there would be no society.

A hermit is not a society because he is alone, there is no authority and no common goal.

A monastery in itself is not a perfect society, because it is a kind of family, like a family, it lacks certain qualities that a State possesses.

The qualities the State possesses are arbitrary and unnecessary.  Defence, law enforcement, and courts are things that can be privatized, and often were throughout history. The most dangerous enemy in fact is the State itself, since it uses organized violence against innocent people to achieve its ends.

For example, what possible reason would there be for a Bavarian Catholic farmer minding his business to go kill a French Catholic farmer minding his business?  None whatsoever. They could become great friends and benefit from trade. Yet the State through its magical authority has managed to pit them against each other in several wars. 

If a private court tried to seize my money in a judgment, I would use lethal force in self defense, which is why the court system must be public.
Reply
#34
devoutchristian Wrote:If a private court tried to seize my money in a judgment, I would use lethal force in self defense, which is why the court system must be public.

Nothing prevents you from doing that against a public court.  Crazy is as crazy does. 
Reply
#35
(09-08-2013, 05:06 AM)PeterII Wrote:
devoutchristian Wrote:If a private court tried to seize my money in a judgment, I would use lethal force in self defense, which is why the court system must be public.

Nothing prevents you from doing that against a public court.  Crazy is as crazy does. 

The difference is that a private court has no authority to seize money, and as such any money it tried to seize would amount to theft.
Reply
#36
(09-08-2013, 09:38 AM)devoutchristian Wrote:
(09-08-2013, 05:06 AM)PeterII Wrote:
devoutchristian Wrote:If a private court tried to seize my money in a judgment, I would use lethal force in self defense, which is why the court system must be public.

Nothing prevents you from doing that against a public court.  Crazy is as crazy does. 

The difference is that a private court has no authority to seize money, and as such any money it tried to seize would amount to theft.

Anybody has authority from God to seize back that which you stole to give it to the rightful owner.  It's natural law. 
Reply
#37
(09-08-2013, 10:27 AM)PeterII Wrote:
(09-08-2013, 09:38 AM)devoutchristian Wrote:
(09-08-2013, 05:06 AM)PeterII Wrote:
devoutchristian Wrote:If a private court tried to seize my money in a judgment, I would use lethal force in self defense, which is why the court system must be public.

Nothing prevents you from doing that against a public court.  Crazy is as crazy does. 

The difference is that a private court has no authority to seize money, and as such any money it tried to seize would amount to theft.

Anybody has authority from God to seize back that which you stole to give it to the rightful owner.  It's natural law. 

I don't steal.
Reply
#38
(09-08-2013, 11:18 AM)devoutchristian Wrote:
(09-08-2013, 10:27 AM)PeterII Wrote:
(09-08-2013, 09:38 AM)devoutchristian Wrote:
(09-08-2013, 05:06 AM)PeterII Wrote:
devoutchristian Wrote:If a private court tried to seize my money in a judgment, I would use lethal force in self defense, which is why the court system must be public.

Nothing prevents you from doing that against a public court.  Crazy is as crazy does. 

The difference is that a private court has no authority to seize money, and as such any money it tried to seize would amount to theft.

Anybody has authority from God to seize back that which you stole to give it to the rightful owner.  It's natural law. 

I don't steal.

So?
Reply
#39
I think a democratic republic, when it actually functions as such, is best.  Every form of government should be at the smallest level necessary.  If something can be handled by a town or township, it stops there.  Anything that can't be handled by that goes to the county government.  Anything that can't be handled there goes to the state (if in the US), and only those issues that can't be handled at any of those levels goes to the federal government.  Let various senates be appointed by lower governments (US senators appointed by state governors, state senators appointed by county executives, etc.) and representative houses appointed by a general election.  No one will ever agree on everything, so no Catholic government that has the power to suppress the rights of non-Catholics.  Pluralist society, where the individual rights of each group are protected and cannot be revoked if any one group or collective of groups becomes majority.  No monarchy what.so.ever.
Reply
#40
(09-08-2013, 12:05 PM)Melkite Wrote: I think a democratic republic, when it actually functions as such, is best.  Every form of government should be at the smallest level necessary.  If something can be handled by a town or township, it stops there.  Anything that can't be handled by that goes to the county government.  Anything that can't be handled there goes to the state (if in the US), and only those issues that can't be handled at any of those levels goes to the federal government.  Let various senates be appointed by lower governments (US senators appointed by state governors, state senators appointed by county executives, etc.) and representative houses appointed by a general election.  No one will ever agree on everything, so no Catholic government that has the power to suppress the rights of non-Catholics.  Pluralist society, where the individual rights of each group are protected and cannot be revoked if any one group or collective of groups becomes majority.  No monarchy what.so.ever.

In a democratic republic, social values can and are changed at the whims of the voters.  This is why America allows abortion and there's so much support for same-sex "marriage."

In a free country where social values are guaranteed to be unchangeable, this wouldn't happen.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)