Republic or Monarchy?

[Perun]

Originally Posted by Johannes de León

Well, looks like the hardcore Catholics voted all for monarchy.

Of course. Its the form of government the Church always preferred.

[Valon]

Perhaps it is easier to corrupt one man than an entire people?

[Perun]

Originally Posted by Valon

Perhaps it is easier to corrupt one man than an entire people?

No St. Thomas Aquinas noted that tyranny is more likely to occur with rule by the many than rule by one man. Hans-Hermann Hoppe goes further and explained how while a Monarchy could only oppress individuals or at most small groups, only Democracies/Republics could oppress large groups.

[Valon]

I was refering to the ability of the Church to do that.


--------------

Are you familiar with Plato and his philoshpher kings?

[Perun]

Actually the Church held the corruption of monarchs in check. Yet there was the Holy Roman Emperor who could hold the corruption of the Papacy in check, as he did during the early Medieval period. Plus monarchs had checks on their power by the aristocracy. The notion of an all-powerful ruler is completely alien to Catholic social doctrine. That notion only began to arrive with the secularism of the Renaisance and the influence of men like Machiavelli.

[Prinz Eugen]

I vote for other!Today royal families are part of this corrupt system.Kings and nobles are not any more soldiers and warriors just playboys who care only for the lifestyle and not for their countries!
Kings in antiquity and middle age was the first knight !Now just a part of the democratic capitalistic system!

[Faísca]

Originally Posted by Prinz Eugen

Kings and nobles are not any more soldiers and warriors just playboys who care only for the lifestyle and not for their countries!

I think you are referring more to wannabes than real nobility.

Of course there are exceptions.

[Theobald]

I support a Fascist and Dictatorial Republic.

[Arjuna Durden]

As I believe in an aristocracy of pious, god-obeying warrior-philosophers, I can only vote for monarchy. But for me, the King is a primus inter pares, the Emperor being a first Knight among Kings and the high noblesse. Thus the King is not named as such by his lineage, but by peers of sublime nobility. A King or Emperor needs therefore fueros, Tradition and Sacred Scriptures, not constitutions (Rousseaunian social contracts). At the most, a Charta adhering himself to the principles of folkish Nationalism/National-Socialism and to means of social justice could be desirable in some circumstances.

[Perun]

So you believe in a system similar to what the Holy Roman Empire had when concerning who would be the next Emperor?

[NatVox]

An elected aristocratic system should follow a hierarchy in the election system. Democratic popular elections should only exist at the level of the community (i.e. town, village, ..), to elect their local representatives. These local elected representatives, in turn, would elect the following political class in the scale. And so forth.

The high posts of this pyramid should only be elected among people with a high status in society. Such status should only be achieved through a meritocracy.

[Arjuna Durden]

Originally Posted by Perun

So you believe in a system similar to what the Holy Roman Empire had when concerning who would be the next Emperor?

@Perun: righty-right! but there's more to decide as to how the system works below the level of Emperor/King. The crucial point is: who is to form part of the aristocracy? I don't believe in birth rights, but in a meritocracy implemented through early and strong education, 'equal oportunities' and a selection process. The problem here is that you have to depart from classes or chastes to later allow interclassist upgrade of valuable individuals. (classes are normally funcional, which does not means workers or shopkeepers should be oppressed, well I'm sure you know this ...)

Originally Posted by Mynydd

An elected aristocratic system should follow a hierarchy in the election system. Democratic popular elections should only exist at the level of the community (i.e. town, village, ..), to elect their local representatives. These local elected representatives, in turn, would elect the following political class in the scale. And so forth.

@Mynydd: umm, sounds like the kind of corporatism proposed by early Falangism or Carlism. I believe in this but not in universal suffrage. I think corporatist selection of the best can work best within their class or social function: factories or agricultural guilds/cooperatives, guilds of industrials, artisans and traders, other guilds of professions ... Thus the way for the people to participate in decision-making is to work for it to happen, no universal elections, no masses and demagogy, no snake charmers ...

[Perun]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

An elected aristocratic system should follow a hierarchy in the election system. Democratic popular elections should only exist at the level of the community (i.e. town, village, ..), to elect their local representatives. These local elected representatives, in turn, would elect the following political class in the scale. And so forth.

Thats very similar to the system proposed by Solzhenitsyn of democracy at the local levels but authoritarianism at the national. This is in large based on the system that governed Kieven Rus and also Muscovy.

[Perun]

Originally Posted by Arjuna Durden

@Perun: righty-right! but there's more to decide as to how the system works below the level of Emperor/King. The crucial point is: who is to form part of the aristocracy?

I've always been in favor of what is called a service aristocracy. That is one earns their titles through service to the state and the monarch rather than purely through birth.

@Mynydd: umm, sounds like the kind of corporatism proposed by early Falangism or Carlism.

Whats wrong with corporatism?

I believe in this but not in universal suffrage.

Universal suffrage can only work at local levels. Trying to decide important issues at the national level(especially foreign policy) through universal suffrage is a big mistake. Besides I believe monarchies are actually more prone to popular pressure than democracies anyways, since the illusion is that whatever a democratic government does is the will of the people(even though that's hardly ever the case these days). Hilaire Belloc had an interesting theory concerning the relationship between monarchy and democracy, that rather than being opposed they really complement each other and a balance was needed. For monarchy provided the effective leadership at the national level so to make it possible for democracy to take root at the local levels and that monarchy provided the greatest bulwark for the defense of the common man(who represents true democracy) from oligarchs who abuse their powers. Its explained better here:

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/enpeters/a_bellocian.htm

[NatVox]

Arjuna, right. Only a bit more elitist as you get to the higher layers of the pyramid.

One thing to take much into account at all levels is that of Quis custodiet ipsos custodies, i.e. who will watch the watchers. Thus absolutism in the top of the pyramid has to be limited and easily and quickly dealt with if necessary.

For it, I would say that some sort of a Supreme Council of people elected through and by institutions of prestige like are the royal academies and institutes.


Perun, it would be interesting to see how they implemented that system in Kieven Rus and Muscovy, and how it worked.

[Arjuna Durden]

Originally Posted by Perun

I've always been in favor of what is called a service aristocracy. That is one earns their titles through service to the state and the monarch rather than purely through birth.

Agree. Also it does not exclude what I said. To excel in service to God and the Nation (not just the state) there's need of education, selection processes and ways to acknowledge/encourage merits.

Originally Posted by Perun

Whats wrong with corporatism?

Nothing at all. I wasn't criticising coporatism, but commenting the way I see it happen. I think the problem was my "umm" commencing my sentence, right? it meant *thinking* (there was some ambivalence, acknowledged).

The link on H. Belloc is interesting, like many of yours

[Perun]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Perun, it would be interesting to see how they implemented that system in Kieven Rus and Muscovy, and how it worked.

Well heres the basic outline of that system:

“Kieven political institutions were of three kinds, autocratic, aristocratic and democratic, existing side by side in a curious and varying mixture. The autocratic element was of course represented by the office of the local prince, whose prime responsibilities were in the administration of justice and defense of the frontiers. The aristocratic element consisted of a council of advisors to the prince called the duma. The chief military retainers of the prince were the original members of the duma, but eventually it came to include wealthy merchants and important landholders, who were known collectively by as boyars…The boyar council was almost invariably consulted on important matters during the Kieven period, and it could occasionally veto the prince’s suggestions. The democratic element was respresented by the veche, or town assembly, which all free men could attend. In principle, any free man could convene the veche simply by ringing the municipal bell.”
--Robert Wallace Rise of Russia pg.35

And the concept of the veche was later expanded to the whole nation with the Zemsky Sobor; which were first convened by Ivan III and Ivan IV. They were like a parliament, although not exactly in the way familiar to the British or other West Europeans. It sought to increase the bond between the autocratic Prince/Tsar and the common people. There were times (especially after the Time of Troubles) the Zemsky Sobor even voted on the successor to the throne and could veto candidates. Reiving this pratice was a top issue for the Russian nationalist Black Hundreds in the early 20th century.

The autocratic/democratic balance differed from city to city. Moscow for example leaned more towards autocracy while Novgorod leaned more towards direct democracy. The balance between autocracy and democracy worked pretty well during the reign of Yaraslov the Wise.