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.
Republics can be okay, and usually they have a really great first hundred years or so; but they subsequently decline and die, predictably lasting about 250 years. If there was some solid system for a smooth transition of power from one into the next, it’d be great, but it hasn’t ever worked out because any coherent republic can’t plan for its own demise ... that would be admitting weakness, which would result in the ascent of a rival faction, pushing bolstered jingo-sloganeering with a coherent central message.
And anyway, regardless, the scope and span of history leaves me with the impression that there isn’t really a choice whether a republic or an autocrat emerges; it’s rather a function of the relative strengths of the Chiefs of Clans, vs. the One Who Rules Them All, and I suspect God and God Alone makes that call.
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.
I obviously haven't spent a great deal of time on this because it's unlikely to ever happen
It's still good fun to exercise the mind with hypotheticals. The debate between a dictatorship, democratic and oligarchical system has been one that has raged throughout the history of man. It really is an interesting conundrum, one that may not have a right or wrong answer considering they have all succeeded many times and for many reasons, yet have all failed.
If I understand there were three central banks, two of which were abolished. One by Jackson, which is probably why he is slandered in the mainstream media. His successor has actually the one who committed the infamous "trail of tears" of the cherokee that they tout out constantly. Every time these banks were abolished, the nation entered a golden age. The fed absolutely needs to go.
Interesting system, there would definitely be deadlock and issues between the two paradigms though, to the point that there would likely be civil war and the suppression of one of these branches, as what happened in the war between federalists and anti-federalists in 1861. Unfortunately, I think the theocratic side would lose and the system would be eventually ruled over by the secularists unless money is absolutely uninvolved in the politics. Secularists are always driven by money.
Regardless, term limits are a must in any sort of democratic order.
(post is archived)