by a divided...population
Ah, and therein lies the crux of the problem. When we talk about a single demographic, assuming we mean an ethnic one, have we actually eliminated the possibility for division? This issue of how we cut the joints between the categories in a population is everything, because even within a racially homogenous population, there is still categorical division by success outcomes (roughly, class distinction). The only means of eliminating this division is the so-called equity solution that has us chasing our tails today.
So the problem, at the outset, is how philosophically to state our prescriptions for what joints are necessary and tolerable within a population, where they should be, and further, how to manage the apparently natural tension that exists between those who have more than others. The vast utility of religion to this end cannot be underscored, and so anything which would trivialize the central role and impact of religion in a society will make the class problem more salient. It's interesting that something like Jordan Peterson's pseudo-religious approach to describing a hierarchy in society, though it doesn't strictly appeal to God but to vague metaphysical reasons for such a hierarchy, is attempting to explain the predicament of class.
Every single issue should be held to vote by "land owning men of good character" who hold no debt
Just to highlight some of the contingencies that arise, the class of people that corresponds in this country with what you've described above would primarily be Boomers. Of course, there are diligent upstarts in the younger crowd who have bought land and homes outright, but the general predicament today sees that the majority of debt-free landowners are probably people of 50 years and older. Perhaps this doesn't sound like such a bad thing, but let me offer another consideration.
Consider your own situation (financially and economically). I'm not here to qualify it. It doesn't matter what it actually is because this question is a relative one. The problem is this: there are far more landowners in the country today than there were in the middle 18th century, largely because our system for a time sustained the growth of a large middle class, but with time the total number of people who would qualify to vote (according to your criteria) ought to grow in a society that is prospering, right? So whatever your situation is today, which we take to qualify you as a voter, the value of that position ought to be diluted with time if things are improving per capita. This is also tied up with technological progress. With sufficient time, we'd find that the voting base of the country would have become more diverse in terms of intelligence, with less intelligent people gaining the ability to vote on account of being land owners.
So at that point someone says, "We need to become more strict." So perhaps from among the landowners they select even more elitist groups corresponding with higher and higher economic status (higher income, higher net worth, higher status, whatever) until the point that you find yourself becoming disenfranchised as population grows and overall wellbeing in your nation increases. In turn, someone then says, "After a time, the game has to be 'leveled' or 'normalized' so as to always maintain the relative distribution of class," - now you've got a situation where in order not to dilute the voting base, you basically tell everyone that no matter how hard they try, and how far they climb, they'll be running something like the Red Queen's race, i.e. running in place.
In other words, their absolute wellbeing might be increasing with time, but their relative status in society will remain the same. And here we encounter the trouble: people judge their lives not in absolute terms, but in relative terms.
As far as a dictatorship goes, who would be selected to lead and how would the people know if he, or God forbid she (see the risks we take here?), isn't a crypto his self?
This reminds of me Mel Gibson's The Patriot. I really enjoyed his character, Ben Martin, in this film because he is one of the few representatives in South Carolina who resists fighting the war against the British. He says,
"Would you tell me please, Mr. Howard, why should I trade one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away?
This is a legitimate question. In a representative democracy, those who serve as representatives are thrown into a kind of game where they are incentivized to patronize the values of as many people as possible. It's this very competition for the vote of one's constituency that corrupts the politicians before they've set foot in office. Although the situation is helped greatly by an ethnically homogenous society, there are still joints that we can cut between groups in an all-white society, between economic and job classes, each of whom have their own conflicting interests.
As I see it, the corruption of one man is easier to track, to notice and to quell than corruption that is diffused across a few hundred people, where blame can be passed on and where partisan politics can bury it. Any politician today has an appeal to his political opposition as to the reason for his failures.
Media should be completely decentralized, non profit, open, transparent and regulated by threat of extreme punishment. Lies and misinformation should be punishable.
Given what I said above, who is in charge of regulating this, who decides who gets to own and operate what? Who decides what constitutes true media? Even a political system comprised of the most intelligent men in a society will have reason to dispute this, namely because of the democratic principles that gave them their office.
I'm not saying I've got a perfect solution. I don't know that there is one.
What do you Catholic boys have to say? Democracy or dictator?
It's simple as this...
How long did the monarchies of Europe, good or bad as they were, reign?
How long has our precious system of "democracy" reigned genuinely, without being propped up by those who reap the suffering of those under said system?
Better to be able to blame one and replace him than have to blame 50% of a nation and cull millions.
Well I’m of the opinion that St. John of Kronstadt has this figured out; in hell there is democracy; and in Heaven, a Kingdom.
I promote Absolute Theocratic Monarchy, wherein the king is anointed as such by the Church, and ideally promotes the Symphonia of Church and Crown.
This has been the historic norm for European people groups since the Incarnation of Christ. It’s the default, and I see all else as deviation from that ideal form.
So in either case - democracy or dictator - we’re seeing errors. But I think the error of democracy is the more severe.
The kingdom of Heaven is presided over by the perfect God, His Son and His Holy Spirit. No connection can be made between His kingdom and the kingdom of man. As is written, the wisest of men are but a fool to God.
The monarchies were corrupted too. The church anointed the Kings on the terms of man's succession law. Is there any instance of a bishop declining a succession?
No connection can be made between His kingdom and the kingdom of man. As is written, the wisest of men but are a fool to God.
I disagree; the connection between the Kingdom in Heaven, and an earthly kingdom, is iconological.
You’re basically arguing that wood and paint must not be used for Icons because there’s no connection between physical materials, and the Kingdom of Heaven.
That belief is called Iconoclasm, and it’s been declared heretical by the Seventh Ecumenical Council. And how much less the argument applies against living people, who are themselves Icons of the Living God!
A National Socialist state with man at the helm and God as the wind that guides us is the way forward.
The head of state will answer to not only the people, but to God himself.
The Reich was the reincarnated fire of the Teutonic Order, with the SS being the elite troops.
Did none of you think the knight imagery was a coincidence? Do you think for a moment that Hitler believing Providence had guided him to do preparatory work was mere babblings of an insane man hell-bent on world domination?
No. Not for a moment. Hitler's work was the preparatory work, though not in the way Hitler believed. God has a habit of doing this. He guides those to be used but not necessarily in the way they may think, on occasion.
The preparations were completed. Now the world knows what will happen if we fail. The fate of Germany in 1945 is the fate of us all if we lose.
But none of you care. Not a single one of you.
But none of you care. Not a single one of you.
Of course I care; why would I be on POAL otherwise?
I’m more in the neoreactionary side of things, being an Orthodox Monarchist and all. But unlike many of my contemporaries in that camp, I’m also a Race Realist. I argue Traditional Monarchists and National Socialists are as natural of allies as could be, and what benefits one benefits the other right up to the point where we decide who wears what hats. But we’ve got thousands of steps before we need to begin worrying about that.
But none of you care. Not a single one of you.
I don't think that is the case. One can care deeply while still being resigned to the fact that such a Reich is not coming for the United States. A new order is coming, whether we like that or not. Consider the world during the time of Christ. Christ did not end the Jewish war with Rome, a reason that so many of the existing Jews rejected Him. We are today living under the Rome/Babylon which never died, but which now ascends.
We will not have power in this neo-Babylon but we will be called soon to defend our Faith as opposed to reject it. I personally believe that powers and principalities beyond man are currently at work, and the redemption of Christians in this age will not come as the result of our militaristic overthrow of the many heads of the beast. I firmly believe this new world order will have its reckoning, but not before things become tragically difficult for the believers of the world.
I wonder, if while you consider the history of Hitler's Reich, you also consider that he lost, even when the allied Babylon emanating out of London/Great Britain had solidified its control of the world to a lesser degree than what it has today. Are you of the belief that our current mission/duty is to revive Hitler's project here in the States? I ask this question legitimately.
I've heard this called the 'initiated monarchy', as in initiated by the Church, and I agree completely.
Yeah, Initiated Monarchy is the Traditional Form. The Japanese had it clear up to the end of WWII; and arguably still do, though practically limited of course by having been defeated by the Allied Powers.
So I typically call it “Traditional Monarchy” when I’m referring specifically to Christian kingdoms. The forms are basically the same, but a Traditional Monarch subjects himself to Christ, by being himself constrained by the necessity of remaining in Communion with the Church. This has a moderating effect on behavior - though it requires a bold Bishop to actually excommunicate an erring monarch.
In a way, this is a prudential matter. Yes, both heaven and the Church use the monarchist model (although I find it ironic that affirms the supremacy of this model for Heaven and the State, but as an Eastern Orthodox rejects this model in its temporal-hierarchical manifestation where the Church Herself is concerned, since he rejects the Papacy), but there are others who cite Aquinas' argument that just law and just government require the consent of the governed to argue that the republic is the ideal model.
For my own part, I consider any model, be it political or economic, to be totally unworkable outside the moral order, and so I treat "the state must adhere to the moral law" as a given before making comparisons. Which of course means "the state, as body, must be animated and informed by the Church, as soul"; i.e. there can be no true separation of Church and state. But by doing this I'm basically saying "only the ideal forms are worth conparing", which is obviously more of an idealist attitude than a realist one. Nevertheless, if adherence to the moral order is given, I'd prefer a monarchy - more efficient, appeals more to our natural sense of things, and its simpler. Give me a moral king over a moral congress aby day.
The corollary of this, of course, is that an immoral king, as tyrant, and an immoral congress, as oligarchy, or an immoral demos, as anarchy, are all terrible and, as I've said, unworkable. If we are taking into consideration the probability of moral failure, or the consequences of moral failure if it happens, then I think we've already missed the mark. We simply cannot pretend that we can make a system, political or economic, function unless it is wedded to the moral order. And so I compare the systems given that they are grounded in Truth, and as such, prefer monarchy.
Consider the story in Herodotus's book three, where the Persians found themselves without a ruler. Perhaps this is where we find ourselves today. Everybody is seeking structure, stability and strength. These few conspirators debated between themselves where power would lie; whether it be with a small group, a king or the "whole of the persian people," which in this case, I would assume all of persia to mean literally just the persians, instead of their conquered constituents.
It seems like most today would suffice to give up their powers, voice, liberties and freedoms, and subject themselves to their idea of a perfect ruler. The conspirators obviously chose the name Darius as king, while the seven themselves, along with their bloodline, being allowed absolute autonomy from the authority of the crown.
Why would they who chose their perfect king demand autonomy from his authority? It is because they knew that there is a chance of tyranny. Those seven, the most poweful men in the world at that moment. who chose their own destiny, and that of their entire people and those ruled by them, did not even trust their own choice when they chose monarchy. Why should we weak and poor men trust what they did not?
If you push me to intellectually defend a system of government, I would probably side with the republic over the monarchy, for human systems (rather than Divine systems, like heaven or the Church). So I would side with Timothy Gordon's Catholic Republic thesis, since I think he effectively demonstrates how what has called the "pre-Fed old model of the United States union" was in fact "crypto-Catholic" to the core, even though the documents were drafted by Protestants, those Protestants were drawing on Catholic intellectuals (even Aquinas, albeit indirectly).
However, my romantic attachment to the Middle Ages is what leads me to prefer a monarchy, especially if we are treating "adheres to the moral order" as a given, which of course, in reality, this is not given.
The type of government I have often thought could be ideal would be based on the old model of the United States union. However, eliminate the fed. For matters concerning international economics and national security, a pair of governors from each state participates as part of a parliament, without the current powers to tax and administrate over all states collectively which is possessed by the federal government. Here is where I diverge. Each state should have one ecclesiastical hierarchy and one secular hierarchy. Each of the main offices is occupied by two members, one from each hierarchy respectively. Therefore, high level members of the Church in each state are necessarily also a government office. It is up to the secular and ecclesiastic offices to negotiate and arrive at conclusions discursively. Whether or not the Church as a unified body has a papacy is a matter for the Church - I'm speaking only of a kind of isomorphic structure formed by the Church to serve as the mirror image of government in all states, so that a representative of the moral order is involved at each level of political office.
So a pyramidal hierarchy still exists in each state of the union, but you could imagine two heads at each level for each state, one from the Church and one elected as per traditional methods.
Of course, there are problems here as well, such as how to negotiate appointments on the ecclesiastic side as well as loss of office and transition of power. We get into trouble possibly if there aren't 'term limits', right? Additionally, a 'democratic' style of vote wouldn't seem to suffice for appointing members to the Church hierarchy so we'd face the tension arising from voters potentially feeling unrepresented by the 'Church-half' of each political office.
I obviously haven't spent a great deal of time on this because it's unlikely to ever happen.
Yes. I take the threat for corruption seriously in all forms, and therefore I tend to look at things on the basis of 'janitorial efficiency'. As I see it, between a corrupt monarch and a corrupt congress, it's a simpler matter to not only identify the corruption in one man, but also to depose one man, than to 'clean up' corruption in a bureaucracy. I mentioned in my first comment that once corruption ferments in a congress (especially in a multi-party system), it can be obfuscated by partisanship. Hands are always tied by the opposition of the other party.
Of course, the drawback to this is that monarchies can result in more unstable governments over time and problems with nepotism. It may be the case that a republic is superior, so let me say only in the most general way: smaller government is better than larger government. I'd take a union of states with governors initiated by the church in each state who participated within a larger parliamentary system to discuss national concerns, but I'd be strongly in support of the elimination of the fed.
End the fed, absolutely. And there are many who are more familiar with these matters than me who would say that "smallness of size" is a prerequisite to qualify as a republic to begin with.
but as an Eastern Orthodox rejects this model in its temporal-hierarchical manifestation where the Church Herself is concerned, since he rejects the Papacy
Yeah, this is correct; my belief is that the throne occupied by the Pope is only rightly occupied by Christ Himself. Obviously we differ on this particular issue, and I doubt it’s going to get resolved by a couple dudes on POAL. So I’d just as soon point to it and say, “there it is”, and then move on.
For all practical purposes, we’re saying about 99.9% percent the same thing, and I argue there’s more political benefit in this context to form a more unified front. We’ve got the first 999 steps shared before parting ways at the thousandth. I trust that uncompromising adherence to our respective Traditions are what’s called for. No need to lie about or cover it up, just no need to divide over it yet.
We both have much bigger problems in Christendom, than each other.
Christendom is being made a mockery of. I'd argue that the most important debate would be in the arguments to revitalize the "fear of God" and to spread His word to those who are welcoming to hear it. In many cases, people are curious and seek faith, but are bombarded by "feel good" liturgy and loose translations. This Judeo-christianity thing is a deception to pacify Christians and lead them away from the literal word. The "New Translation" is a weapon as well.
Politics is still interesting to debate though and the debate between the three systems is always fun. It's much more interesting than trump vs biden bullshit. It should be clear at this point left foot or right foot, we're walking down the same path regardless.
I have been thinking about Catholicism a great deal lately, and I am currently hung up a great deal on this pivotal point.
I'm not looking to start a "brother war", nor do I mean to apply undue emphasis to our differences. The demonic hold on this world, and its consequences, like widespread child sacrifice a la abortion, the rise of wiccans and other pagan occultisms, are obviously, in their own ways, more serious and pressing matters. But I cannot underemphasize the significance of these differences either; I can't pretend that the filioque or the principle of the papacy itself is dismissable as a kind of Scholastic reductio ad absurdem. As 's reply to your comment here shows, these issues are pivotal, because having a clear position on them is the difference between the very faith one comes to accept, the very understanding one has of the Church, and therefore the ability to comprehend the world and history itself. And I don't presume to settle with finality the dispute between the Eastern orthodox and the Catholics (although I am of the view that an end to this schism will be involved in the final chapters of the end times), but I present my argument for consideration because these issues are nonetheless important.
The Catholic Church does not claim that the Pope is the true head of the Church; if it did, you would be entirely correct to reject such a claim. The Pope is the vicar of Christ; the Pope stands, temporally in Christ's place as head, because it is Christ's will that this be how His Church be managed and protected.
We have spent months discussing God and Creation; dualism and non-dualism; being and nothingness; cause and effect; existence and relation; transcendence and immanence; contingency and necessity. Creation, as such, is contingent on God, not necessary. Nevertheless, God willed to create. God alone possesses aseity; He alone is entirely self-sufficient, self-sustaining, self-justifying. He did not need to create; but create He did. It is an indisputable consequence of rational consideration and the teachings of both of our traditions (which, I'll remind you, are united for most of their history, and particularly at the most crucial point of their history, namely, the beginning) that God wills to accomplish His will through His creatures. He could have just Incarnated Himself as an adult man, but He willed to be born through Mary. He could have started with the Incarnation and skipped the whole Old Law, but He willed to prepare man for His coming, because it was His intention not to use His power to directly reveal Himself to each soul throughout time, but rather He wanted man to come to Him through the beauty of nature, and the cohesion of history, and the insights of prophecy, and the charity of our neighbours. Why create at all if these things cannot be accomplished through the creation?
So why, then, should we expect God to work through His creatures in all these ways, but fail to do so with respect to the temporal aspect of His very own Church, specifically its Militant dimension - its section still warring for salvation within time against the spirit of the world. Christ is always and at all times the true and eternal head of the Church, and no Pope replaces Christ in this role. But there are certain, very important responsibilities that only the head can reasonably accomplish - and rather than burden Himself with the responsibility of intervening in history each time such a responsibility needed to be acted on, Christ willed, in His wisdom, to establish His Church on a rock in time, and that rock is Peter. That's what Peter (petros) means!. Simon became Peter because Christ founded His Church on this temporal man and gave the keys to heaven itself to this man in history. And insofar as these keys were given to a man within time, they must be passed on in time, until time comes to an end.
The Bible was canonized in the late fourth century, and this could only be done by the authority of the Church. The ecumenical councils anathematized heresies that would otherwise have led poor souls astray, even to damnation, and clarified the Church's doctrines; this could only be done with the authority of the Church. But these decisions, these councils, all of these important actions were done under the authority or ratification of the reigning Pope, the temporal head of the Church at any given time.
I already spent the time back on Voat trying to convince that the Eastern Church fathers (within our shared tradition) are as unambiguous as the Western Church fathers in their affirmation of the supremacy of Peter. This cannot be dismissed as a "first among equals" situation, however true semantically it might be that they are equal insofar as they are all bishops, the point remains that it is Peter that has final say, it is Peter that declares with ultimate authority and finality what is or isn't doctrine, and without this Papal seal there can be no certainty among the faithful.
St. John Chrysostom:
And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with Peter on these things? (John 21:15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. On this account, Paul also went up on a time to see him rather than the others (Galatians 1:18). And withal, to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as the denial was done away with, He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproches him with what had past, but says, 'If you love me, preside over the brethren ...and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing what a price He sets the presidency over His own sheep. And if one should say, 'How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,' this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world. (Chrysostom, In Joan. Hom. 1xxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii)
St. Cyril of Jerusalem:
Our Lord Jesus Christ then became a man, but by the many He was not known. But wishing to teach that which was not known, having assembled the disciples, He asked, 'Whom do men say that the Son of man is?' ...And all being silent (for it was beyond man to learn) Peter, the Foremost of the Apostles, the Chief Herald of the Church, not using the language of his own finding, nor persuaded by human reasoning, but having his mind enlightened by the Father, says to Him, 'Thou art the Christ,' not simply that, but 'the Son of the living God.' (Cyril, Catech. xi. n. 3)
Citing Macedonius, Patriarch of Constantinople:
Macedonius declared, when desired by the Emperor Anastasius to condemn the Council of Chalcedon, that 'such a step without an Ecumenical Synod presided over by the Pope of Rome is impossible.' (Macedonius, Patr. Graec. 108: 360a (Theophan. Chronogr. pp. 234-346 seq.)
Emperor Justinian:
Writing to the Pope: Yielding honor to the Apostolic See and to Your Holiness, and honoring your Holiness, as one ought to honor a father, we have hastened to subject all the priests of the whole Eastern district, and to unite them to the See of your Holiness, for we do not allow of any point, however manifest and indisputable it be, which relates to the state of the Churches, not being brought to the cognizance of your Holiness, since you are the Head of all the holy Churches. (Justinian Epist. ad. Pap. Joan. ii. Cod. Justin. lib. I. tit. 1).
St. Maximus the Confessor:
The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High. (Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90)
If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God ...Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to pursuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, accodring to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world. (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692).
St. Cyril of Alexandria:
He suffers him no longer to be called Simon, exercising authority and rule over him already having become His own. By a title suitable to the thing, He changed his name into Peter, from the word 'petra' (rock); for on him He was afterwards to found His Church. (Cyril, T. iv. Comm. in Joan., p. 131)
The list of examples if far too extensive to fully provide. Just do some research yourself; that the See of Peter (Rome) was recognized universally in the Church, East and West, as supreme, and that all declarations required the consent of that See to "count", is inescapable - it just is the tradition. The Eastern Orthodox Church calls itself the Church of the Seven Councils. What differentiates those seven councils from other early councils in the Church? Those seven are the ones the Pope ratified.
The Eastern fathers and saints even have a tendency to refer to Peter endearingly as Coryphaeus - leader, spokesperson. They understood that Peter was merely temporal head; they would never speak a single word against the Highest See in the Church, Rome.
.
Christ founds the Church on the rock of Peter and gives to him the keys to heaven - :
18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
Peter denies Christ thrice, as Christ predicted - :
69 But Peter sat without in the court: and there came to him a servant maid, saying: Thou also wast with Jesus the Galilean.
70 But he denied before them all, saying: I know not what thou sayest.
71 And as he went out of the gate, another maid saw him, and she saith to them that were there: This man also was with Jesus of Nazareth.
72 And again he denied with an oath, I know not the man.
73 And after a little while they came that stood by, and said to Peter: Surely thou also art one of them; for even thy speech doth discover thee.
74 Then he began to curse and to swear that he knew not the man. And immediately the cock crew.
75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus which he had said: Before the cock crow, thou wilt deny me thrice. And going forth, he wept bitterly.
Christ has Peter affirm His love for Him thrice, undoing the denial, and then Christ asks Peter, specifically, to feed His sheep - :
15 When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.
16 He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.
17 He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.
These Scriptures cannot be read without recognizing a more than superficial supremacy to Peter's Apostleship. As one of the Eastern saints above noted, Paul went to Peter for a reason. The Western fathers recognized this, the Eastern fathers recognized this; it is God's will - to not recognize this, I am sorry to say, is to be in schism with God's Church, and it is because that this is not an insignificant thing that I aim to fraternally correct those lovers of Christ who have ceased to recognize this truth.
It's this very competition for the vote of one's constituency that corrupts the politicians before they've set foot in office.
Very good analysis but I wonder how you would see it if you were able to abandon this belief that democracy is a thing at all, in the first place. It would seem to me much more likely that the oligarchy that supported, fomented and financed the overthrow of the reigning european monarchs didn't then turn around and relinquish that power to some sort of utopic representative government of the people. Wouldn't it be more likely that they never did relinquish this power and that the "democracy" we have come to know is nothing but a charade to manufacture consent and to throw the unsuspecitng public's support behind a representative that has already been chosen for his allegiance to the real power structure? I have a hard time believing that any popular/populist movement could ever gain enough momentum, and clout, to actually storm the royal palaces and guillotine the regents and then form an effective government. I'ts much more likely that these regents posed the only effective counter balance to forces that were always there scheming for total power and that that these powers are gradually revealed in the slow corruption of intermediary political structures betwen monarchy and tyranny. Even if a good democratic government could temporarily serve as a counterpoise to the hidden forces of evil and chaos, it would still prove ineffective in the long term, as a system that has to pander to both the real power strucures and the proletariat would essentially be filtering the rulers for hypocracy and even worse, psychopathy. In short, it seems we have a much better chance of getting a good ruler via succession than we do through voting, because the latter selects for psychopathy and leaves us with elected officials that have no power to actually effect any positive change.
I think what you are saying is very likely. It seems to be the case that democracy has always been a philosophical object of interest, but as an idea, the outlay of democracy has always coincided with active revolutionary movements with financing and clear intent behind them. In the section of mine that you've quoted, I'd claim I'm being charitable to the idea of democracy as given, or as though it were an authentic reality. So, in effect, it's a priori reasoning about the idea of democracy, where the a posteriori reasoning about democracy probably reveals that such a thing has not developed organically in any meaningful way at any time in history. The notion itself that monarchical governments and existing power structures gave themselves over, or were forced (in a word) to relinquish to democracy appears to be a part of the justifying narrative of democracy itself.
Democracy, like pure libertarianism, is the stuff of philosophy.
On a related note, I did a post recently pertaining to the fact that slavery never ended, but has simply grown in the sophistication of its methods with time. I think this coincides tightly with the popularization of democratic ideals. A slave class which believes in democracy ceases to see the world in terms of slavery, save for the most brutish kind, lubricating their slide into more subtle sorts.
I did not especially mean racially homogeneous (although it's a start) but more in terms of homogeneous expectation of outcome, ideology and national destiny. The division we see in the US today is less of one of race at this point, but of these differing ideologies and expectations. People seem to vote based on how they expect things to be. This is why the "free" healthcare and "erasing" college debt platform is so popular. It's completely infeasible, but that doesnt matter to the average voter. There is a large portion of people who believe that they can vote to just remove any obstacle or "injustice" that they perceive, and in doing so cast their vote for the most incidious creature that smiles on the tv and says, "if you vote for me, I'll make everything free and safe." Humanists vs realists is one of the oldest ideological splits in peak civilization, a good reference being the humanist woman who opened the gates of Rome to Alaric's plunderers. This circumstance only seems to come around when a civilization has reached a point where several generations have passed without hardship and luxury is common.
natural tension that exists between those who have more than others
This is a hard thing to combat, but under no system will you have all people having the materialistic equality unless everybody has nothing, or very little. There will always be an upper class and lower class, the good thing being that the population of the lower class always outweighs that of the upperclass.
Every single issue should be held to vote by "land owning men of good character" who hold no debt
As far as this statement goes, I believe it would be almost impossible to implement in today's society. The men that match this criteria are mostly college graduates who have never turned a wrench. The division we see now would be close to the same. Fancy well off humanists vs poor realists. I think you'll find that the middle class doesnt own much of any land, it all belongs to the banks. Those who own land in this country are poor rural folk who inherited their land and the upper class who could afford to buy land outright without a bank loan.
So perhaps from among the landowners they select even more elitist groups corresponding with higher and higher economic status
There would have to be some sort of gauge. Obviously restricting voting due specifically to economic status would just end with an oligarchy, "Good character" is something to work with, although the issue with this is who would define it? This question is why I do think civilization is past the point of no return. There is no longer anybody to trust. I think the articles of confederation and the anti federalists were correct in their convictions that a decentralized system and a focus on community level politics are the way towards protecting the liberties of free men. The power of many is great and the voice of a dozen can be drowned out by the voice of a million but a dozen voices out of a hundred can still be heard.
those who serve as representatives are thrown into a kind of game where they are incentivized to patronize the values of as many people as possible
The issue which arises here is it is enough that these representatives are fairly attractive and say things that a majority of their voters want to hear. Nobody of good character, land owning and working has time to keep tabs over what Rep. Jim Sheckleswest is doing when he has a massive team of lawyers writing 20,000 page bills every day to hide his agenda in, but they do have time to quickly skim over "Proposed 2% tax on beer for county road maintenance, expires May 2024." The good thing with this system is that if tax on beer becomes outrageous, the county can just vote to end the tax, and if the roads become to bad, they can vote to raise it.
Given what I said above, who is in charge of regulating this, who decides who gets to own and operate what?
I dont have a good answer for this and like you said I dont know that there is a solution either. Everything that has been discussed would have to be watched over, but who is there to trust? Maybe the news should just be regulated down to hobbyists with a printing press in their shed talking about the latest rumors and issues. All I know is that mega media corporations with slinky agendas and foreign investment should not be influencing voters at all.
This question is why I do think civilization is past the point of no return.
Your whole post was filled with good points. The one above in particular sticks out to me because I am in full agreement. Things will get far worse before they get better, and we are more or less along for the ride at this point.
Collect any historical literature you can, whether it be digital or physical. Be self reliant, eat natural and stay in shape. Know and love your people's past, become a role model for those who are lost and strive to better yourself every day. This is how our people weather the storm. The 51 words.
(post is archived)